Part III DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. This application has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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.
2. Claims 1-20 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.
Independent claim 1 recited the limitation “input data to be at least substantially the same as training target data”, The language “at least substantially the same as training target data” is vague and indefinite. Clarification or correction is/are required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,138,132. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they
are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are
anticipated recited or covered by the limitations of claims 1-18 of ‘132, such as the method (claim 1
of the instant application) having the steps of generating a dental model based on an objective
function output (reads on pre-ample of claim 1 of ‘132), by creating an objective function
comprising at least one quality estimation function and at least one constraint, wherein each of the at
least one quality estimation functions trains at least one machine learning method that generates
quality estimation output based on training input data to be at least substantially the same as training
target data, and an objective function output is the output of the objective function, and comprises the
quality estimation output of the at least one quality estimation function, a portion thereof, a function
thereof, and/or or combinations thereof (reads on the creating an object function of claim 1 of
‘132, and description within the creating step); providing a model as input data to the objective
function and generating model-related objective function output; and modifying the model based on
the model-related objective function output to transform the model to a generated model, wherein the
generated model is the generated dental model (reads on the providing a model of claim 1 of
‘132, and description within the providing step); wherein the generated dental model is a dental
crown and the at least one constraint is a minimum material thickness of the dental crown (reads on
the wherein a model of claim 1 of ‘132, and description within the providing step). Clearly, the
broad limitations of the independent claim(s) of the current application are cover by the limitations of
claims ‘132. Claim 1 of the instant application is broader than the limitations of claim 1 of ‘132, and all
the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application are covered by within the limitations of claim 1 of
‘132 . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of the
invention to combine the features of claim 1 of ‘132 to create the broader system as recited in claim 1
of the instant application. Clearly, all the limitations of claim 1 are recited in the limitations of claim 1
of ‘132. Claims 2-19 of the instant application are clearly obvious over claims 1-18 of ‘132.
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shen et al. (11,684,463) teaches a method and system of repairing oral defect model.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should
be directed to Gabriel I. Garcia whose telephone number is (571) 272-7434. The examiner can
normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 7:30 AM-6:00 PM.. The fax phone number for this group
is (571) 273-8600.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Benny Tieu can be reached on (571) 272-7490. The fax phone
number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-
273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status
information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO
Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call
800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be
directed to the Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Gabriel I Garcia/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
June 08, 2026
Prosecution Insights