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 communication dated 11/8/2024 in which claims 1-19 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of generating a treatment prescription for display without significantly more.
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., receive, by a database, STL data that includes stored STL files; receiving, by a server or processor, user input that includes an STL file from a device, wherein the server or the processor includes fetch logic, STL logic for autonomously identifying patterns and performing comparative analysis on stored STL files, selection logic, and prescription logic; responsive to receiving an STL file, the server or the processor initiates the fetch logic to request the STL data from the database; responsive to receiving STL data from the database, the server or the processor initiates the STL logic to analyze the STL data and compare the stored STL files with the STL files; identifying and selecting, by the STL logic, stored STL files from the STL data that are similar to the STL files thereby generating an STL file set based on recognized dental structure patterns; responsive to receiving the STL file set, the server or processor initiates the selection logic to analyze the STL file set and select at least one treatment STL files from the STL file set; and responsive to receive the at least one treatment STL file, the server or the processor initiates the prescription logic to generate at least one treatment prescription for display on the device. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitation) describe the abstract idea of generating a treatment prescription for display, which correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The additional elements of a database, a server or processor, a device, logic, and autonomously do not necessarily 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 elements of a database, a server or processor, a device, logic, and autonomously result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a database, a server or processor, a device, logic, and autonomously are 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 elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do 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 elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of a database, a server or processor, a device, logic, and autonomously are 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 elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations 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.
For 101 analysis, Examiner has identified claim 16 as the claim that represents the claimed invention described in independent claims 9 and 16.
Claim 16 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 16 recites a cloud-based platform configured to receive a Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file from a user device, the STL file representing a 3D model of a patient's dental structure; a storage system including an STL database with at least 1,000 STL files, wherein the platform employs STL logic to analyze and compare the received STL file against files in the STL database via an STL API; orthodontic Appliance APIs, and Graphical 3D Logic APIs, each incorporating machine learning algorithms to enhance prescription generation and design recommendations; orthodontic appliance logic configured to produce one or more orthodontic appliance prescriptions based on the analysis, utilizing Natural Language Processing algorithms to interpret textual data provided by a user; graphical 3D logic configured to generate a 3D visual representation of a selected orthodontic appliance prescription, employing generative models and 3D Convolutional Neural Networks to create both 2D and 3D visual representations; and a translation module to convert approved 3D visual representations into 3D-printable STL files optimized for medical-grade materials. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitation) describe the abstract idea of generating a treatment prescription for display, which correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The additional elements of a Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file, a user device, the STL file, a storage system, an STL database, STL logic, STL API, APIs, machine learning algorithms, natural language processing algorithms, graphical 3D logic, convolutional neural networks, and a translation module do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 16 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file, a user device, the STL file, a storage system, an STL database, STL logic, STL API, APIs, machine learning algorithms, natural language processing algorithms, graphical 3D logic, convolutional neural networks, and a translation module result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file, a user device, the STL file, a storage system, an STL database, STL logic, STL API, APIs, machine learning algorithms, natural language processing algorithms, graphical 3D logic, convolutional neural networks, and a translation module are 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 elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of a Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file, a user device, the STL file, a storage system, an STL database, STL logic, STL API, APIs, machine learning algorithms, natural language processing algorithms, graphical 3D logic, convolutional neural networks, and a translation module are 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 elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claim 9 and hence the claim 9 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 16.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 9, and 16, thus correspond to a Certain Methods 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 1-19 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corey et al., US Patent Application No. 2023/0088051.
Regarding claim 1, Corey discloses a computer generated method comprising the steps of:
a. receiving, by a database, STL data that includes stored STL files (abstract, [0029], CAD, such as, .stl files);
b. receiving, by a server or processor, user input that includes an STL file from a device, wherein the server or the processor includes fetch logic, STL logic for autonomously identifying patterns and performing comparative analysis on stored STL files, selection logic, and prescription logic ([0027] from the user device, an indication of a selected orthodontic device; [0029], CAD, such as, .stl files; [0032], Fig. 5-7, [0064], MBT serves as file, [0065]-[0066]);
C. responsive to receiving an STL file, the server or the processor initiates the fetch logic to request the STL data from the database ([0027], [0029], [0064]-[0067]);
d. responsive to receiving STL data from the database, the server or the processor initiates the STL logic to analyze the STL data and compare the stored STL files with the STL file ([0027], [0029], [0064]-[0067]);
e. identifying and selecting, by the the STL logic, stored STL files from the STL data that are similar to the STL file thereby generating an STL file set based on recognized dental structure patterns ([0027], [0029], [0064]-[0067]);
f. responsive to receiving the STL file set, the server or processor initiates the selection logic to analyze the STL file set and select at least one treatment STL file from the STL file set ([0027], [0029], [0064]-[0067]); and
g. responsive to receiving the at least one treatment STL file, the server or the processor initiates the prescription logic to generate at least one treatment prescription for display on the device ([0027], [0029], [0064]-[0067]).
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 combine different disclosure of Corey. The motivation for combining these disclosures would have been to provide dental treatment to a patient.
Regarding claim 2, Corey discloses responsive to receiving, from the device, user input including a selected treatment prescription, the server or the processor initiates graphical 3D logic thereby generating a final work order for an orthodontic appliance ([0029], 3D, [0067]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 3, Corey discloses responsive to receiving a final work order, the server or the processor initiates 3D printing logic thereby generating a 3D printed model ([0029], [0070]).
Regarding claim 4, Corey discloses the server or the processor initiates STL logic to generate a new STL file of the 3D printed model and sends the new STL file to the STL database ([0067]-[0069], Fig. 8-9, modify the slot width).
Regarding claim 5, Corey discloses responsive to receiving the new STL file, the STL database stores the new STL file (abstract, [0067]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 8, Corey discloses wherein the steps of responsive to receiving an STL file, the server or the processor initiates the fetch logic to request the STL data from the database; responsive to receiving STL data from the database, the server or the processor initiates the STL logic to analyze the STL data and compare the stored STL files with the STL file; identifying and selecting, by the the STL logic, stored STL files from the STL data that are similar to the STL file thereby creating an STL file set; and responsive to receiving the STL file set, the server or processor initiates the selection logic to analyze the STL file set and select at least one treatment STL file from the STL file set, are iterative and may be performed at least twice (abstract, [0027], [0029], [0064]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 9, Corey discloses a computer generated method comprising the steps of:
a. receiving, by a cloud storage system, user input that includes an STL file from a device, wherein the cloud storage system includes fetch logic, STL logic for analyzing and comparing STL files and prescription logic for generating a treatment prescription (abstract, [0027], [0029], [0032], [0044], [0064]-[0066]);
b. responsive to receiving the STL file from the device, the cloud storage system initiates the fetch logic to request stored STL files from an STL database ([0027], [0029], [0044], [0064]-[0066]);
c. responsive to receiving the stored STL files from the STL database, the cloud storage system initiates the STL logic to request analysis and comparison of the STL file against the stored STL files ([0027], [0029], [0044], [0064]-[0066]);
d. the cloud storage system server initiates the prescription logic to generate at least one treatment prescription based on the results of the analysis and comparison performed by the STL logic ([0027], [0029], [0044], [0064]-[0066]); and
e. presenting, by the cloud storage system, for display on the device the at least one treatment prescription ([0027], [0029], [0044], [0064]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 10, Corey discloses responsive to receiving, from the device, user input including a selected treatment prescription, the cloud storage system server initiates 3D printing logic thereby generating a 3D printed model, wherein the 3D printed model includes a custom lingual holding arch as a result of the 3D printing logic identifying relevant anatomical patterns from STL files, calculating precise wire placement and fit, and wherein the 3D-printed model is optimized for medical-grade materials ([0027], [0029], [0044], [0064]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 11, Corey discloses the cloud storage system initiates the STL logic to generate a new STL file of the 3D printed model and sends the new STL file to the STL database ([0027], [0029], 3D, [0044], [0067]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 12, Corey discloses responsive to receiving the new STL file, the STL database stores the new STL file, and wherein the cloud storage system is capable of system integrating automated quality assurance checkpoints throughout the design process and is capable of ensuring compliance with medical-grade 3D printing standards and healthcare regulations ([0029], 3D, [0044]).
Regarding claim 15, Corey discloses wherein the step of the cloud storage system initiates prescription logic to generate at least one treatment prescription based on the results of the analysis and comparison performed by the STL logic may be iterative and may be performed at least two times, wherein the cloud storage system is capable of autonomously selecting the appropriate orthodontic appliance based solely on STL files ([0027]-[0029], [0044], [0067]-[0070]).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corey et al., US Patent Application No. 2023/0088051 in view of Negi, US Patent Application No. 2024/0176771.
Regarding claim 6, Negi discloses wherein the STL logic, selection logic, and prescription logic comprise a machine learning platform, wherein the machine learning platform incorporates iterative feedback loops, allowing it to refine pattern recognition and prescription accuracy with each use, based on historical STL data and newly acquired new STL files ([0045]).
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 Corey with the above-noted disclosure of Negi. The motivation for combining these disclosures would have been to provide dental treatment to a patient.
Regarding claim 13, Negi discloses wherein the STL logic and prescription logic comprise a machine learning platform and wherein the process includes predictive algorithms to recommend optimal appliances based on the STL data, providing orthodontists with suggestions without requiring manual selection ([0045]).
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 Corey with the above-noted disclosure of Negi. The motivation for combining these disclosures would have been to provide dental treatment to a patient.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corey et al., US Patent Application No. 2023/0088051 in view of Negi, US Patent Application No. 2024/0176771 in view of Bucur et al., US Patent Application No. 2016/0239621.
Regarding claim 7, Bucur discloses wherein the machine learning platform comprises natural language processing ([0014]).
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 Corey and Negi with the above-noted disclosure of Bucur. The motivation for combining these disclosures would have been to provide dental treatment to a patient.
Regarding claim 14, Bucur discloses wherein the machine learning platform comprises natural language processing ([0014]).
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 Corey and Negi with the above-noted disclosure of Bucur. The motivation for combining these disclosures would have been to provide dental treatment to a patient.
Conclusion
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