DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reference to the communication filed on 30 APRIL 2026. Amendments to claims 1-20 entered and considered.
Claims 1-20 are present and have been examined.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As explained below, the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One: Is the Claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1-20 the independent claim(s) 1, 8, 15 recite(s) a method, a system, and a computer readable medium, each of which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1-20 the independent claim(s) (claims 1, 8, 15) is/are directed, in part, to:
A method of providing a dental service to a patient comprising:
Obtaining one dental images including at least one of dental x-rays, intraoral images, or other images of a patient's mouth, teeth, and gums;
Processing the obtained dental images using one or more
identify one or more non-pathological dental features including restorative treatments and determine a location and size associated with each non-pathological dental feature; and
segment anatomical structures of the patient's mouth, including one or more of enamel, dentin, pulp, and surrounding bone;
based on the processing of the obtained dental images, determining one or more quantitative measurements of the identified features or segmented structures, including at least one of bone level measurements, lesion dimensions, or structural characteristics of the patient's teeth or surrounding bone;
generating one or more animations illustrating a predicted progression over time of one of the identified dental pathologies of the patient if that dental pathology is not treated by applying a disease progression model to the determined quantitative measurements, the disease progression model
generating one or more animations illustrating a predicted outcome of a proposed treatment plan for the one of the identified dental pathologies of the patient by modifying the disease progression model
presenting the generated animations to the patient
These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, which include concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. Obtaining data regarding a condition and a likely progression if treated or untreated, are all concepts which can be reasonably performed in the human mind. These involve observation of the images, judgement/evaluation of the conditions, and opinion regarding outcome of treating/not treating the condition. Examiner further notes that these claimed elements recite a relationship or interaction between people, including following rules or instructions through which the determinations about treatment/lack thereof are made. Examiner also notes that he use or application of the model itself is an example of a mathematical concept – i.e. mathematical relationships/formulas/equations/calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers following rules or instructions, it falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships/formulas/calculations, it falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) additional elements: Claim 1 has been amended to include a “trained” image processing and disease progression generative model(s), as well as a “display” to display the animations. Claims 8, 15 have been amended similarly to claim 1, and further recite a non-transitory computer readable medium, and one or more processors to perform the claimed steps. The recently amended “trained” models in claims 1, 8, 15, as well as the non-transitory computer readable medium and one or more processors in claims 8, 15, are recited at a high level of generality and as such amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer/using the model, or merely uses the computer/model as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f), or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use/computing environment in terms of the trained model(s) (see MPEP 2106.05h). Examiner finds no improvement to the functioning of the computer, the models themselves, or any other technology or technical field in the above identified elements as currently claimed (see MPEP 2106.05a), nor any other application or use of the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond a general like between the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05e). In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that the sending and receiving of data, i.e. the steps executed by the processors in claims 8, 15, as well as the use of the display as amended in claims 1, 8, 15 is generally found to be analogous to adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception(s) identified (see MPEP 2106.05g).
Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO.
The independent claim(s) is/are additionally directed to claim elements such as: Claim 1 has been amended to include a “trained” image processing and disease progression generative model(s), as well as a “display” to display the animations. Claims 8, 15 have been amended similarly to claim 1, and further recite a non-transitory computer readable medium, and one or more processors to perform the claimed steps. When considered individually, the non-transitory computer readable medium, and one or more processors claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in:
[0056] For example, in some embodiments, one or more of the operations, functions, processes, or methods disclosed and/or described herein may be implemented by a suitable processing element or elements (such as a processor, microprocessor, co-processor, CPU, GPU, TPU, QPU, state machine, or controller, as non-limiting examples) that are part of a client device, server, network element, remote platform (such as a SaaS platform), an “in the cloud” service, or other form of computing or data processing system, device, or platform.
[0140] As disclosed and/or described, embodiments may incorporate trained models that operate to identify or otherwise determine one or more features found in a patient's images (such as by operating as a classifier)… For example, as part of preprocessing, the images were resized to a specific size and the keypoints were translated accordingly. The images were fed into a YOLO pose estimation model, as implemented by Ultralytics. The model was trained using the extra-large (x) variant and used version 8 of the YOLO model architecture; [0151] The model was trained from scratch-without starting from the provided pretrained weights. The pose estimation model from YOLO detects keypoints.
[0208] The images were preprocessed, resized, and keypoints translated, then fed into a YOLO pose estimation model (version 8) for keypoint detection. The model was trained from scratch and used bounding boxes to enhance keypoint learning. Post-processing was applied to filter and discard duplicate keypoints, ensuring the correct reconstruction of the CEJ and BL pairs with their corresponding (x,y) coordinates. The workflow followed was similar to the one described for the Pathology and Non-Pathology detection. Post processing was used to optimize the results.
[0247] As shown in FIG. 2(a), system 200 may represent a server or other form of computing or data processing system, server, platform, or device. Modules 202 each contain a set of executable instructions, where when the set of instructions is executed by a suitable electronic processor or processors (such as that indicated in the figure by “Physical Processor(s) 230”), system (or server, platform, or device) 200 operates to perform a specific process, operation, function, or method. Modules 202 are stored in a non-transitory memory 220, which typically includes an Operating System module 204 that contains instructions used (among other functions) to access and control the execution of the instructions contained in other modules.
[0350] Any of the software components, processes or functions described in this application may be implemented as software code to be executed by a processor using any suitable computer language such as Python, Java, Javascript, C++, or Perl using procedural, functional, object-oriented, or other techniques. The software code may be stored as a series of instructions, or commands in (or on) a non-transitory computer-readable medium, such as a random-access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), a magnetic medium such as a hard-drive, or an optical medium such as a CD-ROM. In this context, a non-transitory computer-readable medium is almost any medium suitable for the storage of data or an instruction set aside from a transitory waveform. Any such computer readable medium may reside on or within a single computational apparatus and may be present on or within different computational apparatuses within a system or network.
[0346] In some embodiments, certain of the methods, models, processes, or functions disclosed herein may be embodied in the form of a trained neural network or other form of model derived from a machine learning algorithm. The neural network or model may be implemented by the execution of a set of computer-executable instructions and/or represented as a data structure.
These passages, as well as others, makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
As per dependent claims 2-7, 9-24, 16-20:
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-24 are not directed any additional abstract ideas and are also not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as the types of information identified in the modeling, the additional information used to make a determination about the condition, and the locations of the information collection/image generation. Exemplary claim 7 recites sending and receiving of information, as discussed above with respect to the independent claims. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks as filed on 30 APRIL 2026 are fully considered.
Applicant begins with a summary of the amendments, and a discussion of the previously held interview.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant’s remarks are noted. Applicant makes reference to the August 2025 memo, and concludes in paragraph 008 that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees – the development of pathology of a condition is certainly something that could be determined in the mind. The trained model mentioned in 009 is better addressed in the additional elements step(s) of the analysis. Examiner notes that Applicant appears focused on the improvements to the treatment plan for the patient, rather than any sort of technical improvement therein.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the prior art are noted, the substantial amendments as presented and remarks appear to overcome the rejection and as such it is withdrawn. In particular Applicant has expanded upon the determination and information fed into the progression model, and clarified the model itself drives the progression determination to reflect if treatment is pursued or not pursued.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at 571-270-1813. 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.
/KATHERINE . KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights