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 4/10/2026.
Claims 9 and 11 are canceled.
Claims 7 and 8 are amended.
Claims 7-8, 10, and 12-14 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Regarding claim objections
Applicant Argues
Claim 9 has been canceled.
Examiner Responds
The objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding rejections under §112
Applicant Argues
Claim 10 has been amended to overcome the §112(b) rejections.
Examiner Responds
The §112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding rejections under §101
Applicant Argues
Claim 7 has been amended to overcome the §101 rejections.
Examiner Responds
The §101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding rejections under §103
Applicant Argues
“GARRUBBA was not found to disclose at least shaping a physical sintered preform having an attached insert using the one or more spiral toolpaths to provide a physical dental restoration as recited in amended independent claim 7.”
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made and is outlined below.
Accordingly, this Office action is non-final.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble to claims 12 and 13 recites that the claims depend on claim 11, however claim 11 is canceled. The claim will be examined as being dependent upon claim 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARIM (US20120251979A1) in view of LUNDAHL1 (hereinafter – “KARIM-LUNDAHL”).
Regarding claim 7
KARIM teaches or at least suggests a computer-implemented method of providing a screw retained dental restoration (Abstract: methods of fabricating a dental restoration from dental mill blanks that further comprise a dental implant abutment integrated therein, [0050]: abutment fastened to implant anchor with a screw), comprising:
receiving a virtual restoration model ([0008], [0026]: “method comprises acquiring a digital surface representation of at least a portion of a patient's mouth comprising a dental implant” [0027]: “method comprises creating a three-dimensional digital model from the digital surface representation 110”); and
generating one or more [0081]: dental restorations may be fabricated from mill blanks, [0082]: “preferably the prosthetic is milled by machine, including the use of power machines, electrically powered machines, and computer controlled milling equipment. A preferred device to create a prosthetic is a CAD/CAM device capable of milling a blank […] machines produce dental prostheses by cutting, milling, and grinding the near-exact shape and morphology of a required restorative with greater speed and lower labor requirements than conventional hand-made procedures. By using a CAD/CAM milling device, the prosthesis can be fabricated efficiently and with precision” 0082 discloses computer-aided/numerical control milling machines used to produce dental restorations according to a desired shape by removing material from a blank, thereby implying or at least suggesting the generation of toolpaths of which a material removal tool would follow in order to realize the removal of blank material to produce the dental restoration with the desired shape); and
shaping a physical sintered preform having an attached insert using the one or more Figs. 2 and 3 show a physical preform having an attached insert [0025]: milling refers to shaping, [0024], [0027]: “the method comprises creating a three-dimensional digital model from the digital surface representation 110 and fabricating a restoration from the three-dimensional digital model 114 by milling a dental mill blank. The dental mill blank comprises a dental implant abutment integrated therein 130”, [0074]: “methods of making mill blocks can be adapted, as desired, to integrate the preformed dental implant abutment within the hardened mill blank material. In some embodiments, the dental mill block is hardened concurrently with permanently bonding the implant abutment. In this embodiment, the dental implant abutment is introduced into the method of fabricating the mill blank, before the mill blank material surrounding the abutment is hardened” [0082]: “After machine milling the mill blank, the net shape or near net shape article may be further hardened depending on the composition of the dental mill block material”).
KARIM is not relied on for generating spiral toolpaths according to a virtual preform, nor is KARIM relied on for shaping according to the spiral toolpaths.
However, LUNDAHL in analogous art teaches or at least suggests:
generating spiral toolpaths according to a virtual preform ([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 shows tool 2 and spiral toolpath P, [0031]: method maximizes the length of circular/spiral toolpaths; [0007]: “tools following paths according to a manufacturing program based on a digital model of the dental restoration. Usually, industrial ceramics, such as dense sintered high purity aluminium or yttrium stabilized zirconium, are used as material for the restoration. […] hardness result in a high rate of wear on the tools used, which, besides being costly, can result in vibrations in the manufacturing process, in turn causing deviations from tolerance requirements […] the nature of the ceramic materials used is such that they are relatively brittle, and therefore caution has to be taken when the tool paths are determined, in order not to avoid the risk of failure in the material” 0007 teaches that different materials can be used in manufacturing a dental restoration, 0007 also teaches that material hardness is a factor to be considered in the manufacturing process and that toolpaths are determined in order to avoid the risk of failure in the restoration material, implying a virtual preform/model of restoration from which toolpaths are determined, [0020]: discloses that the angle between tool movement direction and the rotation axis of the tool is greater for harder materials than for softer materials, implying a virtual model of the restoration material, i.e., damage depends on type of material [0061]: discloses the method reduces the risk of damage on materials by optimizing toolpaths [0070]: discloses toolpaths can be rejected based on predetermined requirements).
KARIM and LUNDAHL are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of computer-implemented methods of manufacturing dental restorations. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of LUNDAHL to the teachings of KARIM such that the computer-aided manufacturing method of generating spiral toolpaths to remove material from a dental restoration taught by LUNDAHL would have been used to shape the physical sintered preform having attached insert to provide a dental restoration according to known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that spiral toolpaths, as compared to linear toolpaths, provide more consistent tool-material engagement which yields benefits including reduced tool chipping and break, reduced cycle times and reduced machine wear, thereby providing the motivation to combine.
Regarding claim 13
KARIM-LUNDAHL teaches the elements of claim 7 as outlined above.
KARIM nor LUNDAHL explicitly teach to generate toolpaths to avoid the attached insert.
However, KARIM teaches a preform with an attached insert that undergoes a shaping process. LUNDAHL teaches “to check if the tool paths result in extraordinary movements that are undesired from a material processing point of view, e.g. due to a risk of damaging the material or the tool” ([0069]) and that “if a tool path is found to be undesired according to predetermined requirements, e.g. regarding the size of the contact surface of the material and the tool, the tool path is rejected” ([0070]).
Thus, KARIM teaches a milling blank/preform with an attached insert, and LUNDAHL teaches evaluating and rejecting toolpaths that would cause damage to the either the tool of the restoration being milled. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply LUNDAHL’s toolpath-validation subroutine when generating toolpaths for the milling blank with an attached insert of KARIM such that the generated toolpaths would avoid contact with the attached insert for the purposes of preventing damage to the tool or the insert.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARIM-LUNDAHL in view of Glidewell_NPL.2
Regarding claim 8
KARIM-LUNDAHL teaches the elements of claim 7 as outlined above.
KARIM-LUNDAHL are not relied on for generating a virtual sprue reduction milling/grinding toolpath of the virtual preform.
However, Glidewell_NPL in an analogous art teaches or at least suggests a computer implemented subroutine configured for virtual sprue reduction (Pg.11, NOTE: “sprue reduction feature”, see image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
1151
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Glidewell_NPL is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of computer-implemented methods of manufacturing dental restorations. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Glidewell_NPL to the teachings of KARIM-LUNDAHL such that Glidewell_NPL’s sprue reduction subroutine would have been implemented in KARIM-LUNDAHL’s computer-implemented method of manufacturing a dental restoration according to known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that reducing the sprue dimensions of the virtual model would produce a shaped model with a reduced size sprue which would minimize post-machining work, such as sanding and/or polishing the shaped model where the sprue was removed from, thereby providing the motivation to combine.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARIM-LUNDAHL in view of JOKADA3 (hereinafter “KARIM-LUNDAHL-JOKADA”).
Regarding claim 10
KARIM-LUNDAHL teaches the elements of claim 7 as outlined above.
KARIM-LUNDAHL are not relied on for virtually nesting.
However, JOKADA in an analogous art teaches or at least suggests virtually nesting (Abstract: method of generating nesting positions) such that the virtual restoration model fits inside of a preform model ([0042]-[0046]: “A computer-implemented method for nesting a computer model of the patient-specific restoration within a computer model of the preform geometry is provided. The computer model of a patient's dental restoration design may be selectively nested in one or more optional positions within a computer model of the preform to establish optimal machining conditions for a selected CNC machine, milling or grinding tool and/or machine coolant system, and preform materials […] the restoration design is nested within the geometry of the preform”) and to determine a sprue location ([0044]: during nesting, a position of the restoration is selected where the stem contacts the surface, Figs. 9A-9H).
JOKADA is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of computer-implemented methods of manufacturing dental restorations. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of JOKADA to the teachings of KARIM-LUNDAHL such that JOKADA’s computer-implemented nesting subroutine would have been implemented in KARIM-LUNDAHL’s computer-implemented method of manufacturing a dental restoration according to known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that virtually nesting the model with the preform would likely maximize material and minimize waste, thereby providing the motivation to combine. Additionally, JOKADA discloses that nesting software may be separate or may be implemented as a module of a restoration design software ([0054]).
Regarding claim 14
KARIM-LUNDAHL-JOKADA teaches the elements of claim 10 as outlined above.
JOKADA also teaches a sprue connects at an angle to the restoration model ([0036]: “FIGS. 3A and 3B, the preform stem (302) length (along C-axis) is orthogonal to the length of the cylindrical body (along A-axis)”, Fig. 3A below shows the angle
θ
).
PNG
media_image2.png
299
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
JOKADA, FIG.3A, examiner annotated
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARIM-LUNDAHL in view of NYC_CNC (screen captures from YouTube video posted by NYC CNC, titled “10 Ways to Face a Part! WW264”, published 8/21/2019, retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwMRuN7dJ1M, retrieved on 6/10/2026).
Regarding claim 12
KARIM-LUNDAHL teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
KARIM-LUNDAHL are not relied on for the one or more spiral toolpaths being from the outside and move towards the center.
However, NYC_CNC in an analogous art teaches or at least suggests a CAD/CAM program configured to generate spiral toolpaths from the outside towards the center (Captures 1, 2 and 3 below show a CAD/CAM user interface configured to generate spiral toolpaths wherein the toolpaths go from in the direction of outside towards the center, 16:23-16:30 of the video show milling according to spiral toolpaths from outside in).
NYC_CNC is analogous art as CAD/CAM parameterization is reasonable pertinent to the claimed invention (para. 0039 of Applicant’s disclosure: “dentist's office can also include a computer system
that can run CAD/CAM or other type of dental design software such as FastDesign or FastDesign.io”). NYC_CNC teaches that generating spiral toolpaths from outside-in or inside-out is a routine CAD/CAM parameter choice. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of NYC_CNC to the teachings of KARIM-LUNDAHL such that KARIM-LUNDAHL’s dental design software generated the toolpaths from the outside to the inside according to known method with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that forming the spiral toolpaths from the outside in would cleanly terminate the spirals at the hole in the preform, thereby providing the motivation to combine.
PNG
media_image3.png
652
1168
media_image3.png
Greyscale
NYC_CNC, Capture 1, 16:15 mark: CAD/CAM user interface, note the parameter manager on the right
PNG
media_image4.png
594
255
media_image4.png
Greyscale
NYC_CNC, Capture 2, 16:15 mark: parameter manager from Capture 1, note “Inside/Outside Direction” drop down menu
PNG
media_image5.png
627
1117
media_image5.png
Greyscale
NYC_CNC, Capture 3, 16:18 mark: parameter manager shows selection of outside-in such that spiral toolpaths are generated from outside-in
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stori, J.A., et al., (“Constant Engagement Tool Path Generation for Convex Geometries”, published 2000, available online 8/21/2028, retrieved on 6/10/2026, retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278612500800102) teaches a generative spiral-in toolpath generation algorithm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 LUNDAHL is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
2 Glidwell_NPL is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
3 JOKADA is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
Prosecution Insights