Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed on 05/20/2026 are entered. Claims 1-25 are pending in this application of which claims 1, 9, 10, and 18 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view of amendments, filed on 05/20/2026 have been fully considered and the examiners response is as follows:
Applicant’s arguments, Page 09-12, regarding 35 U.S.C 101 rejections are considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by applicant’s amendments as shown below.
Applicant’s arguments, Page 12-15, regarding 35 U.S.C 103 rejections are considered and found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites a “method” which is a process.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE:
The claim recites multiple abstract ideas. The claim specifically recites multiple mental processes.
detecting, from a digital model of a patient's dentition, one or more attachments on the patient's dentition;This describes a mental process which entails an observation of attachments.copying at least a first portion of the digital model of the patient's dentition to create a first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition;This describes a mental process which entails the action of copying a model which can be done with the aid of pen and paper.
performing a user-input process and receiving user input regarding one or more features of the digital model of the patient's dentition;This describes a mental process which entails the actions of observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion of reviewing and/or changing aspects of the model or attachments.
performing, concurrently with the performance of the user-input process, the steps of:modifying the first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition, and segmenting the modified first copy of the digital model; and
This describes a mental process which entails modifying and segmenting a first copy of the model which can be done in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. “…concurrently with the performance of the user-input process…” is a timing condition on the performance of these steps.segmenting the digital model of the patient's dentition based on the segmentation of the modified first copy of the digital model.
This describes a mental process which entails comparing both dentition models for further segmentation. This is something that can be done in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the exception.
MPEP 2106.05(g) – The receiving user input limitation is data gathering.
MPEP 2106.05(b) – No particular machine.
Conclusion: Claim 1 is directed to a mental process, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the first portion of the digital model of the patient's dentition comprises an upper jaw of the patient.
Claim 2 just defines what is included in the dentition model which falls under data gathering activity and is also rejected for the same reasons from the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claim 3
The method of claim 1, further comprising copying a second portion of the digital model of the patient's dentition to create a second copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition, wherein modifying the first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition also includes modifying the second copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition, further wherein segmenting the digital model of the patient's dentition is based on the segmentation of the modified first copy of the digital model and the modified second copy of the digital model.
Claim 3 further describes modification and copying parts of the models. Which is a mental process that can be done in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Regarding Claim 4
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the user-input process on the digital model of the patient's dentition comprises reviewing and/or changing the detected one or more or attachments.
Claim 4 further describes performing reviews which fall under a mental process of an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Regarding Claim 5
The method of claim 1, wherein modifying the first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition comprises modifying the first copy to remove the detected one or more attachments.
Claim 5 further describes performing more mental process of modifying and copying that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Regarding Claim 6
The method of claim 1, further comprising repeating the steps of modifying the first copy and segmenting the modified first copy if the user-input process changes the detected one or more or attachments.
Claim 6 further describes repeating previous processes which are mental processes which can be done with the aid of pen and paper.
Regarding Claim 7
The method of claim 1, further comprising outputting the segmented digital model of a patient's dentition.
Claim 7 further the method of output which is just post solution activity and does not remedy the abstract ideas from the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claim 8
The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a treatment plan from the segmented digital model of a patient's dentition.
Claim 8 further describes a mental process of generating a treatment plan from observation and opinion of the digital model.
Regarding Claim 9
A method comprising: detecting, from a digital model of a patient's dentition, one or more attachments on the patient's dentition; copying a first portion of the digital model of the patient's dentition to create a first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition; copying a second portion of the digital model of the patient's dentition to create a second copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition; performing a user-input process on the digital model of the patient's dentition, comprising reviewing and/or changing the detected one or more or attachments; performing, concurrently with the performance of the user-input process, the steps of: modifying either or both the first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition and the second copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition to remove the detected one or more attachments, and segmenting the modified first copy of the digital model and the modified second copy of the digital model; repeating the steps of modifying the first copy and the second copy and segmenting the modified first copy and the modified second copy if the user-input process changes the detected one or more or attachments; and segmenting the digital model of a patient's dentition based on the segmentation of the modified first copy of the digital model and the modified second copy of the digital model.
Regarding Claim 9
Claim 9 is a combination of claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 except that uses slightly different language of requiring both copies. This does not resolve the abstract mental processes expressed above.
Regarding Claims 10-18
These claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons as claims 1-8. These claims are very similar to claims 1-8 except that they are directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” instead of a “method”.
Regarding Claims 19-25
These claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons as claims 1-8. These claims are very similar to claims 1-8 except that they are directed to a “system” instead of a “method”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In light of KUO CA 2881620, in view of CUNLIFFE US 2019/0008446m in view of JONES US 7063532, in view of CHEN US 2015/0335299, and in view of CHEN SHOUPU WO 2018/101923, instant independent claims 1, 9, 10, and 18, would not have been anticipated or obvious by one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention.
KUO CA 2881620 teaches automatically detecting dental appliances / attachments on a digital dentition model and creating a new appliance free model, with human assisted segmentation where the user highlights features (cusps, margins, brackets, etc.) and selects among computer proposed segmentation.
CUNLIFFE US 2019/0008446 teaches receiving a digital 3D model of teeth and gingiva and segmenting it to identify teeth from gingiva, generating a gingiva segmented digital 3D model with a software interface allowing manual user alignment.
JONES US 7063532 teaches subdividing a digital dentition model into models of individual components, where the computer creates segmentation proposals from the data set and the user selects and modifies them, for use in orthodontic treatment planning.
CHEN US 2015/0335299 teaches separating a digital dentition model into upper and lower jaw portions (sub models) and segmenting individual teeth within each jaw.
CHEN SHOUPU WO 2018/101923 teaches automatically detecting and removing bracket/wire data from a 3D dentition mesh with reconstruction of the tooth surface beneath, including an iterative repeat loop where viewer interaction refines the automated segmentation results.
For claim 1, none of the prior art on record, either alone or in combination, teaches the limitations “performing a user-input process and receiving user input regarding one or more features of the digital model of the patient's dentition; performing, concurrently with the performance of the user-input process, the steps of: modifying the first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition, and segmenting the modified first copy of the digital model; and segmenting the digital model of the patient's dentition based on the segmentation of the modified first copy of the digital model.”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependents 2-8 would be allowable for depending from claim 1 if the independent claim was rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
For claim 9, none of the prior art on record, either alone or in combination, teaches the limitations “performing a user-input process on the digital model of the patient's dentition, comprising reviewing and/or changing the detected one or more or attachments; performing, concurrently with the performance of the user-input process, the steps of: modifying either or both the first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition and the second copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition to remove the detected one or more attachments, and segmenting the modified first copy of the digital model and the modified second copy of the digital model;”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
For claim 10, none of the prior art on record, either alone or in combination, teaches the limitations “performing a user-input process and receiving user input regarding one or more features of the digital model of the patient's dentition; performing, concurrently with the performance of the user-input process, the steps of: modifying the first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition, and segmenting the modified first copy of the digital model; and segmenting the digital model of the patient's dentition based on the segmentation of the modified first copy of the digital model.”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependents 11-17 would be allowable for depending from claim 10 if the independent claim was rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
For claim 18, none of the prior art on record, either alone or in combination, teaches the limitations “performing a user-input process and receiving user input regarding one or more features of the digital model of the patient's dentition; performing, concurrently with the performance of the user-input process, the steps of: modifying the first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition, and segmenting the modified first copy of the digital model; and segmenting the digital model of the patient's dentition based on the segmentation of the modified first copy of the digital model.”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependents 19-25 would be allowable for depending from claim 18 if the independent claim was rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0175303 teaches methods of generating a plurality of potential treatment plan variations for the concurrent and interactive review of the treatment plan variations.
US11648096 B2 teaches a method for the computer-aided editing of a digital 3D model of a dental object using digital tools.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NARCISO EDUARDO MONTES whose telephone number is (571)272-5773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, REHANA PERVEEN can be reached at (571) 272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.E.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights