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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 9/9/2025 in which claims 1 and 17 have been amended, claims 18-19 and 23-32 have been canceled. Thus, the claims 1-17 and 20-22 are pending in the application.
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 1-17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of dental treatment planning without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1 and 17.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites a series of steps, e.g., receiving, by a computing system, patient data associated with a patient; determining by the computing system, at least one determined arc, the determined arc resulting from determining specific anatomical points of teeth of a tooth library including at least one of teeth ridges, cusps, pits, and edges; determining, by the computing system based on the at least one arc, a double helix corresponding to a surface delimited at least by the at least one arc, the double helix to be used to fitting the tooth library; determining, by the computing system, positions of the teeth of the tooth library on the double helix; optimizing, by the computing system, the teeth of the tooth library; and planning the dental treatment based at least on the optimized teeth. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) describe the abstract idea of dental treatment planning, which correspond to a certain methods of organizing human activity. The additional limitation of a computing system does not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of a computing system result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional element of a computing system is recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention by applying the exception using a generic computer element (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional element does not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional element of a computing system is recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional element when considered separately and as an ordered combination does not amount to add significantly more as the element provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be presented for other independent claim 17 and hence the claim 17 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 20-22 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 17, thus correspond to a certain method of organizing human activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 1-17 and 20-22 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sporbert et al., US Patent Application No. 2011/0269097 in view of Gaudreault, US Patent Application No. 2013/0099039.
Regarding claim 1, Sporbert discloses a computer-implemented method for dental treatment planning comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, patient data associated with a patient ([0005], dental history, [0016], [0110], [0129], [0149], Fig. 1);
determining, by the computing system, at least one determined arc, the determined arc resulting from determining specific anatomical points of teeth of a tooth library including at least one of teeth ridges, cusps, pits, and edges ([0014], [0016], [0041], [0274], Fig. 1, 52);
determining, by the computing system based on the at least one arc, a double helix corresponding to a surface delimited at least by the at least one arc, the double helix to be used for fitting the tooth library ([0016], [0041], [0113], [0274], Fig. 1, 21 and 52);
determining, by the computing system, positions of the teeth of the tooth library on the double helix (Fig. 1, [0016], [0103], [0113], [0125]);
optimizing, by the computing system, the teeth of the tooth library (Fig. 1, [0016], [0231], making further adjustments in the proposed arrangement); and
planning the dental treatment based at least on the optimized teeth (abstract, [0003]).
Sporbert does not specifically disclose
a double helix.
However, Gaudreault discloses
a double helix ([0005], [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Sporbert to include the above-noted disclosure of Gaudreault. The motivation for combining these references would have been to plan a treatment for a patient.
Regarding claim 2, Sporbert discloses wherein the patient data comprises tooth data ([0005], dental history, [0110], [0129], [0149]).
Regarding claim 3, Sporbert discloses wherein the patient data comprises morphometric data ([0005], [0110], [0129], [0149]).
Regarding claim 4, Sporbert discloses wherein determining the at least one arc comprises:
providing the patient data to an AI model, the AI model trained to identify the anatomical points of the teeth of the tooth library ([0005], [0039], [0110], virtual patient model, [0129], [0149]).
Regarding claim 5, Sporbert discloses wherein determining the double helix comprises providing the at least one arc to an AI model configured to determine the double helix based at least in part on the at least one arc ([0016], [0041], [0113], [0274], Fig. 1, 21 and 52).
However, Gaudreault discloses
a double helix ([0005], [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Sporbert to include the above-noted disclosure of Gaudreault. The motivation for combining these references would have been to plan a treatment for a patient.
Regarding claim 6, Sporbert discloses wherein optimizing the teeth of the tooth library comprises determining, using an AI model, a position, a rotation, or both of each tooth of the tooth library, the AI model configured to optimize functional and aesthetic positioning of the teeth ([0125], [0156], [0159], [0172]).
Regarding claim 7, Sporbert discloses performing, by the computing system, dynamic evaluation of the positions of the teeth of the tooth library ([0014], [0112], [0163]).
Regarding claim 8, Sporbert discloses wherein determining the at least one arc comprises determining an aesthetic arc, and wherein determining the aesthetic arc comprises:
projecting, by the computing system, one or more control points onto an image of the patient;
defining, by the computing system, based at least in part on the one or more control points, an initial curve;
determining a final curve by modifying, by the computing system, at least one control point ([0155]-[0158]); and
determining, by the computing system, locations of one or more anatomical points based at least in part on the final curve, the locations of the one or more anatomical points defining at least in part the aesthetic arc ([0155]-[0158]).
Regarding claim 9, Sporbert discloses wherein determining the at least one arc comprises determining an aesthetic arc, a centering arc, and a fitting arc ([0041], [0156]).
Regarding claim 10, Sporbert discloses wherein determining the at least one arc further comprises determining a guiding arc associated with mandibular teeth ([0014], [0041], [0047], teeth on the lower jaw serves as mandibular teeth; [0155]).
Regarding claim 11, Sporbert discloses wherein optimizing the teeth of the tooth library comprises adjusting a relative positioning of one or more teeth in the tooth library ([0182]).
Regarding claim 12, Sporbert discloses wherein adjusting the relative positioning comprises adjusting an overbite value and an overjet value ([0172], [0182]).
Regarding claim 13, Sporbert discloses wherein optimizing the teeth of the tooth library comprises adjusting any combination of one or more of a size, shape, or rotation of at least one tooth of the tooth library ([0103]).
Regarding claim 14, Sporbert discloses wherein the tooth library comprises a library of the patient's teeth, and wherein the method further comprises:
identifying, by the computing system, one or more teeth of the tooth library; and annotating, by the computing system, one or more anatomical points of each tooth of the one or more teeth of the tooth library ([0105], [0108], [0227]).
Regarding claim 15, Sporbert discloses wherein the tooth library comprises a library of artificial teeth, and wherein the method further comprises:
selecting, by the computing system based at least in part on the patient data, the tooth library from a plurality of prosthetic tooth libraries ([0105], [0108], [0227]).
Regarding claim 16, Sporbert discloses wherein optimizing the teeth of the tooth library comprises determining contact points between maxillary teeth of the patient and mandibular teeth of the patient, wherein performing the dynamic evaluation comprises determining contact relations between the maxillary teeth of the patient and the mandibular teeth of the patient during movement of a jaw of the patient ([0014]).
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 1 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claims 20-22 are substantially similar to claims 4, 8-9, and 5-6 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 9/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-17 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the claims do not recite an abstract idea in any of the enumerated abstract idea categories. Applicant also states that the claims recite additional elements that integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claim recites an abstract idea of planning a dental treatment which is an abstract concept and correspond to a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities and following rules or instructions). The additional elements do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to simply applying the abstract idea. The additional elements do not provide any technical solution to a technical problem or offer any technical improvements that may integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not present an inventive concept as the claim limitations (in the absence of additional elements) are abstract in nature. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684