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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 08, 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because there are several listed Non-Patent Literature documents without a publication date and therefore cannot be determined if they are prior art. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
Claims 8 and 15 are 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.
Claim 8 is indefinite because the claim recites “parameters selected from a group comprising” and it is not clear if the parameters have to selected from the disclosed list or just selected from a listed comprising the disclosed parameters. It is suggested that this limitation be amended to recite “a group consisting of”.
Claim 15 is indefinite because the claim recites “parameters selected from a group comprising” and it is not clear if the parameters have to selected from the disclosed list or just selected from a listed comprising the disclosed parameters. It is suggested that this limitation be amended to recite “a group consisting of”.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a method for identifying and analyzing data to determine a color mapping for a replacement tooth. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the method is performed by a generic application which can be performed by a generic system comprising a non-specific processor and using a generic artificial intelligence model. See MPEP section 2106.05(b). Furthermore, the claims require steps of identifying and analyzing which are analogous to data gathering and are not a particular practical application because they are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP section 2106.05(g). Though the claims require performing a printing operation the printing operation the printing operation is generic and does not use any specific equipment or steps to print on the replacement tooth. See MPEP section 2106.05(f).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as was discussed previously, the abstract idea performed using a generic application and processor which is the same as requiring the use of a generic computer component. In addition, though the claims require a step of executing a printing operation based on the color mapping on the replacement tooth mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic printing operation cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dang (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0168079).
In the case of claim 1, Dang teaches a method for providing a natural color and optical depth to a dental object/replacement tooth (Abstract and Page 3 Paragraph 0044). The method of Dang comprised identifying and analyzing data in the form of an 3d color object scan associated with a patient’s existing teeth and a replacement tooth in the form of a framework wherein the data included color of the existing teeth and orientation/impressions of the patient’s mouth (Pages 3-4 Paragraphs 0044-0046 and Page 6 Claim 1). After identifying and analyzing a color and rotation profile in the form of a target object color picture was determined/defined based on the analysis of the data/3d color object scan (Pages 4-5 Paragraphs 0055-0557 and Page 6 Claim 1). After determining the target object color picture, the target object color picture was compiled/corrected along with specification for layering of material combination in the form of predetermined thickness profiles for an enamel material to be applied to produce a coloration mapping in the form of a print color picture (Page 5 Paragraphs 0059-0063 and Page 6 Claim 1). Dang further teaches having executed a printer operation based on the print color picture to print on the replacement tooth/framework (Abstract and Page 6 Claim 1). Furthermore, Dang teaches that the entire process was conducted by an application in the form of a computing device (Abstract and Page 6 Claim 1).
As of claims 2 and 3, as was discussed previously, the color and rotation profile in the form of the target object color picture comprised/derived from the color mapping and orientation of the patients existing teeth.
As for claim 4, as was discussed previously, the color and rotation profile in the form of the target object color picture was analyzed/corrected using the application/computing device.
As for claims 5 and 6, Dang teaches an embodiment wherein the print color picture/coloration mapping is related/based off the stain/glaze of a remaining natural tooth and the translucency of the framework/replacement tooth (Page 5 Paragraphs 0068-0070).
As for claim 7, Dang teaches that the final appearance of the dental object/replacement tooth was simulated in situ to provide a preview of the end result for the patient’s mouth (Page 3 Paragraph 0042).
As for claim 8, Dang teaches that the coloration mapping/print color picture comprised parameters related to layer thickness and deposition patterns/application position (Page 2 Paragraph 0020).
As for claim 9, Dang teaches that the computing device comprised an artificial intelligence (Page 5 Paragraphs 0059-0061).
In the case of claims 10-15, they are rejected for the same reasons discussed previously in the rejection of claims 1-4, 6 and 8, respectively. Furthermore, as was discussed previously the method of Dang was performed by a computing device/computer and therefore Dang taught a system comprising a processor configured to perform the taught method.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dang in view of Derzapf et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0165666).
In the case of claims 16-20, they are rejected for substantially the same reasons discussed previously in the rejection of claims 1-4, 6 and 8, respectively.
Dang does not teach that the taught method was stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. However, as was discussed previously, the method of Dang was performed by a computing device.
Derzapf teaches a method for producing parameter recommendation for dental restoration including the final tooth color (Abstract) wherein the method used a computer program/computer-executable instructions comprising the method which was stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium so that the method could be performed by a computer (Page 1 Paragraphs 0001 and 0007).
Based on the teachings of Derzapf, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the method of Dang as a computer-executable instruction/program on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium so that the method could be performed by a computing device.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 20 have been rejected. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights