DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 9/16/2025.
Claims 1-6 and 15-21 are withdrawn.
Claims 7-14 are elected and presented for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the preamble in claim 10 recites “The method of claim 7, wherein virtually nesting comprises:”. Independent claim 7 does not recite the term “virtually nesting.” Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the claim to recite “The method of claim 7, further comprising virtually nesting, wherein virtually nesting comprises:” will overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 10, the second limitation in claim 10 recites “virtual screw receiving axis”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected due to inheriting the deficiencies of claim 10.
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 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 7:
Step 1 – YES: The claim recites a process (method), which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One – YES: Limitation (a) in the claim recites “receiving a virtual restoration model” and limitation (b) in the claim recites “generating one or more virtual spiral toolpaths corresponding to a virtual restoration shape of the virtual restoration model.” The background of the application was referenced due to the limitations being stated so generically, and the background states that the toolpaths can be generated using CAD/CAM software in some embodiments. The recitation of “some embodiments” in the specification cannot limit the scope of the claim. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, “receiving a virtual restoration model” and “generating one or more virtual spiral toolpaths corresponding to a virtual restoration shape of the virtual restoration model” are thought exercises that could practically be performed in the human mind, and thus falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas.
Thus, the claim does recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two – NO: The preamble of the claim recites a “computer-implemented method” which represents no more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a computer.
Thus, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – NO: The additional element to consider is the preamble which amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception generically on a computer. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents mere instruction to apply an exception, which does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept or significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not eligible.
Dependent claims 8-14 fail to integrate the claimed invention into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more, and are also rejected due to inheriting the deficiencies of claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GARRUBBA (US20230248480A1) in view of LUNDAHL (US20100143867A1).
Regarding claim 7, GARRUBBA teaches a method of providing a screw retained dental restoration (Abstract, claim 1: “computer-implemented method for configuring a fastening channel through a dental restoration”), comprising:
receiving a virtual restoration model (Abstract, claim 1: “method comprises receiving a 3D digital restoration model”); and
generating one or more virtual toolpaths corresponding to a virtual restoration shape of the virtual restoration model (Abstract, claim 1: “determining a position of the fastening channel extending from the implant through the artificial tooth […] automatically adjusting the position of the fastening channel within the artificial tooth by angulating the fastening channel”).
GARRUBBA is note relied on for a spiral toolpath.
However, LUNDAHL in an analogous art does teach generating a spiral toolpath ([0016]: “When forming a cavity in a dental material using the method according to the invention, movements of the tool in a direction having a component parallel to the rotation axis”; [0021]: “Preferably, in the step of providing an initial cavity, the tool path, as projected in a plane perpendicular to the rotational axis of the tool, forms a closed loop”; FIG. 2 below shows tool 2 and spiral toolpath P).
PNG
media_image1.png
264
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
GARRUBBA teaches a method of receiving a virtual model of a dental restoration and generating a toolpath corresponding to the virtual model to form a hole for the screw which retains the dental restoration. LUNDAHL teaches a method of receiving virtual model of a dental restoration and generating a spiral toolpath corresponding to the virtual model to form the surface of the dental restoration device. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine GARRUBBA with LUNDAHL according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, GARRUBBA in view of LUNDAHL teaches the elements of claim 7 as outlined above. GARRUBBA also teaches shaping a physical sintered preform having an attached insert using the one or more spiral toolpaths to provide a physical dental restoration ([0088]: restoration comprises sintering; FIG.1 & [0128]: insert/abutment 106).
Regarding claim 12, GARRUBBA in view of LUNDAHL teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. GARRUBBA is not relied on for wherein the one or more spiral toolpaths begin from outside the preform and move toward the center. However, GARRUBBA teaches a hole for receiving a screw to retain the restoration near the middle of the restoration (FIG.1). LUNDAHL teaches that the tool “follow a track shaped as a spiral, at which the tool is gradually moved outwards from the starting point” ([0059]). LUNDAHL also teaches “Of course, regarding the movements of the tool there are a number of alternatives” ([0059]).
LUNDAHL is not directed towards a screw retained dental restoration and teaches spiral toolpaths starting from the center and moving outwards. LUNDAHL also teaches a tool center boundary curve ([0067]). GARRUBBA is directed towards a screw retained dental restoration with a hole in the center. Using the hole of GARRUBBA and the tool center boundary curve of LUNDAHL, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary to place a tool center boundary curve of LUNDAHL around the hole of GARRUBBA. Furthermore, while LUNDAHL teaches moving outwards from the center, LUNDAHL does provide the suggestion for moving inwards from the outside of the preform towards the center. (“regarding the movements of the tool there are a number of alternatives”, [0059]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention as suggested by the prior art.
Regarding claim 13, GARRUBBA in view of LUNDAHL teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. LUNDAHL also teaches wherein the one or more spiral toolpaths avoid the attached insert ([0069]: tool center boundary curve).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GARRUBBA (US20230248480A1) in view of LUNDAHL (US20100143867A1), in further view of Glidewell_NPL (“Introducing the fastdesign.io – SW 8.1 System”, published 8/14/2018. Retrieved from https://resources.glidewelldental.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/PK-97712-081418-fastdesign-SW-8.1-IFU.pdf. Accessed 11/4/2025.).
Regarding claim 8, GARRUBBA in view of LUNDAHL teaches the elements of claim 7 as outlined above. GARRUBBA in view of LUNDAHL is not relied on for generating a virtual sprue reduction milling/grinding toolpath of the preform.
However, Glidewell_NPL in an analogous art does teach this claim limitation (Pg. 11, NOTE: “sprue reduction feature”, see image below).
PNG
media_image2.png
568
1136
media_image2.png
Greyscale
GARRUBBA and LUNDAHL are both directed to computer-implemented methods of generating toolpaths corresponding to a virtual restoration model. Glidewell_NPL is directed towards a computer-implemented method of reducing a sprue corresponding to a virtual restoration model. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Glidwell_NPL with GARRUBBA in view of LUNDAHL according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, GARRUBBA in view of LUNDAHL teaches the elements of claim 7 as outlined. The remaining limitations of claim 9 are substantially the same as claim 8 and are rejected due to the reasons outlined above.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GARRUBBA (US20230248480A1) in view of LUNDAHL (US20100143867A1), in further view of JOKADA (US20210128272A1).
Regarding claim 10, GARRUBBA in view of LUNDAHL teaches the elements of claim 7 as outlined above. GARRUBBA in view of LUNDAHL are not relied on for virtually nesting.
However, JOKADA in an analogous art does teach virtually nesting, comprising: aligning the virtual restoration model within the virtual preform; rotating the virtual restoration model into one or more rotational positions around the virtual screw receiving axis; and determining a virtual sprue location on the virtual restoration model ([0054]: “Nesting information, comprising positional data of the restoration relative to the preform body, and the stem relative to the dental restoration, may be used for computing tools path sequences.”).
GARRUBBA and LUNDAHL are both directed to computer-implemented methods of generating toolpaths corresponding to a virtual restoration model. JOKADA is directed towards a computer-implemented method of making a dental restoration from a preform comprising a stem (i.e., sprue). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine JOKADA with GARRUBBA in view of LUNDAHL according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, GARRUBBA in view of LUNDAHL in further view of JOKADA teaches the elements of claim 10 as outlined above. JOKADA also teaches wherein a virtual sprue connects at an angle to the virtual restoration model at the virtual sprue location ([0061]: “stem attaches to the restoration on an angled surface of the restoration”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Leeson et al. (US20170065380A1) discloses reducing sprue dimensions of a sintered preform.
Grimm et al. (US20220000593A1) discloses trochoidal milling of preforms.
Kato (US20230082176A1) discloses shaping a preform into a dental restoration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 EST.
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, Thomas Lee can be reached at (571) 272-3667. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/THOMAS C LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115