DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is issued in reply to a response filed 12 February 2026, on an application filed 5 September 2023, which is a national stage entry of an application with an international filing date of 9 March 2021, which claims foreign priority to a provisional application filed 8 March 2021.
This action is issued as the previous response issued 18 March 2020 was mistakenly indicated as a non-final action, instead of a final action.
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 10-13 have been added.
Claims 1-5 and 8-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: speech recognition unit, blood pressure measuring unit, and vital sign measuring unit in claims 1, 3, 9, 10 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitations speech recognition unit, blood pressure measuring unit, and vital sign measuring unit has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder unit coupled with functional language speech recognition, blood pressure measuring, and vital sign measuring without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1, 3, 9, 10 and 11has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The Office notes that the indication that of the speech recognition unit executed by a processor clearly indicates that the speech recognition unit is composed of software, see paragraphs 28-29;
Paragraph 77 indicates that the blood pressure measuring unit is held in a patient’s hand, and is therefore composed of hardware; and
Paragraph 79 indicates that the vital sign measuring unit may be attached to the body of a customer, and is therefore composed of hardware.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation showing a showing a in the final limitation. It is unclear what the applicant intends with this recitation.
To the extent that other claims rely on claims that are rejected under 35 USC 112 and fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims they rely on, those other claims are rejected for the same reasons as the claims they rely on. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-5 and 8-13 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-5, 8, 12 and 13 are drawn to a method for managing a dental chart using speech recognition, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 9-11 are drawn to a device for managing a dental chart using speech recognition, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1 recites: A method for managing a dental chart using speech recognition, the method comprising:
(a) recognizing a user's speech and acquiring speech data using a microphone;
(b) converting the speech data into text data using a speech recognition unit executed by a processor;
(c) extracting at least one of a system command and a data command from the text data using the processor;
(d) performing at least one of starting a dental chart, ending the dental chart, and moving to at least one of a plurality of dental diagnostic items included in the dental chart based on the system command by using the processor;
(e) parsing the data command using the processor to extract a diagnosis name command corresponding to a specific dental condition and a status command corresponding to a measured value or assessment result for the specific dental condition;
(f) determining if the extracted diagnosis name command and the extracted status command correspond to each other by cross-referencing against predefined dental diagnosis-status pairs stored in a database, and transmitting a visual or audible confirmation request message to the user when it is determined that the extracted diagnosis name command and the extracted status command do not correspond to each other;
(g) determining if the extracted diagnosis command corresponding to the extracted status command is less than or equal to a preset frequency by querying historical dental examination data stored in the database that stores information on a plurality of commands, and transmitting a visual or audible confirmation request message to the user when it is determined that the extracted diagnosis command corresponding to the extracted status command is less than or equal to the preset frequency;
(h) generating a protocol by mapping the diagnosis name command to the status command using the processor based on temporal proximity and logistical association between the diagnosis name command and the status command;
(i) changing a status of at least one of the plurality of dental diagnostic items in the dental chart based on the protocol using the processor;
(j) providing the user with the status of at least one of the plurality of dental diagnostic items in the dental chart and the plurality of changed items in real time using a display screen;
(k) assigning a grade among a plurality of grades to each of the plurality of dental diagnostic items in the dental chart, based on the status of the plurality of dental diagnostic items in the dental chart, wherein the status of the plurality of dental diagnostic items includes a period remaining until dental treatment is to begin for each item, and the shorter the period remaining until dental treatment is to begin, the higher the grade is assigned;
(l) assigning, to a dental patient of the dental chart, a grade corresponding to a highest grade among grades assigned to the plurality of dental diagnostic items in step (k);
(m) updating the grade assigned in step (k) when the period remaining until dental treatment is to begin is changed due to completed treatment; and
(n) changing the grade assigned to the dental patient into a second highest grade after the dental diagnostic item to which the highest grade was assigned is treated;
(o) delivering a notification message to the dental patient based on the grade assigned in step (k); and
(p) storing the dental chart data, diagnosis commands, status commands, and grade assignments in the database for subsequent retrieval and analysis;
during steps (a) – (p), measuring at least one of the dental patient’s hand grip pressure and vital sign; and
in the case of the measurement of at least one of the dental patient’s hand grip pressure and vital sign showing a showing a preset difference from a reference value, transmitting a notification message to the user indicating the difference exceeding the reference value.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, the steps of conferring between two providers a patient’s dental information, recognizing the verbal information and processing it to input a patient chart), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claim 9 is identical as the abstract idea for claim 1, because the only difference between claims 1 and 9 is that claim 1 recites a method, whereas claim 9 recites a device.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8 and 10-13 include other limitations, for example claims 2-4 recites various information related to the name of the extracted information and protocol mapping thereof and claim 12 receives patient input, but a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in dependent claims 2-5, 8 and 10-13 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent claims 2-5, 8 and 10-13 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 9.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1 and 9 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the structural components of the computer, such as the speech recognition unit, the controller and the display unit, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see paragraphs 28, 30 and 43 of the published Specification and MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language directed to converting the speech data into text data, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of voice recognition, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-5, 8 and 10-13 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the patient measuring systems recited in claims 8, 10 and 11), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1 and 9, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1 and 9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the structural components of the computer), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The published Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs 28, 30 and 43 of the published Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the speech recognition unit, the processor and the display), comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); and
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8 and 10-13 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1 and 9, and/or the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the patient measuring systems recited in claims 8, 10 and 11), and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-5 and 8-13 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kaminski et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2018/0130558 A1), hereinafter Kaminski, in view of Ganmukhi et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2022/0028382 A1), hereinafter Ganmukhi, in view of Malcolm J. Slakter, et al. (Validity of an orthodontic treatment priority index to measure need for treatment, American Journal of Orthodontics, Volume 78, Issue 4, 1998, pages 189-193), hereinafter TPI, further in view of Morguelan (U.S. PG-Pub 2006/0055544 A1), hereinafter Morguelan.
As per claims 1 and 9, Kaminski discloses a device and a method for managing a dental chart using speech recognition (Kaminski, Fig. 1 and paragraph 4.), the method comprising:
(a) recognizing a user's speech and acquiring speech data using a microphone (Kaminski discloses a system that uses software units to recognize a patient’s speech acquired with a microphone, see paragraphs 21 and 32.);
(c) extracting at least one of a system command and a data command from the text data using the processor (Kaminski discloses extracting system [“Tooth two” or the “Auto advance ON/Off”] and data [“delayed bleeding”] commands from the speech data, see paragraph 32.);
(d) performing at least one of starting a dental chart, ending the dental chart, and moving to at least one of a plurality of dental diagnostic items included in the dental chart based on the system command by using the processor (Kaminski discloses extracting system [“Tooth two” or the “Auto advance ON/Off”] commands from the speech data, see paragraph 32.);
(e) parsing the data command using the processor to extract a diagnosis name command corresponding to a specific dental condition and a status command corresponding to a measured value or assessment result for the specific dental condition (Kaminski discloses extracting data [“delayed bleeding”] commands from the speech data, see paragraph 32, herein the diagnosis would be “bleeding” and the status would be “delayed”.);
(f) determining if the extracted diagnosis name command and the extracted status command correspond to each other … (Kaminski discloses extracting data [“delayed bleeding”] commands from the speech data, see paragraph 32, herein the diagnosis would be “bleeding” and the status would be “delayed”. Only known statuses with known diagnosis are processed by the system.),
(g) … by querying historical dental examination data stored in the database … (Fig. 4 and corresponding text discloses querying patient data stored in a database.);
(h) generating a protocol by mapping the diagnosis name command to the status command using the processor based on temporal proximity and logistical association between the diagnosis name command and the status command (Kaminski discloses extracting data [“delayed bleeding”] commands from the speech data, see paragraph 32, herein the diagnosis would be “bleeding” and the status would be “delayed”’; the protocol would be comprised of the combined command to input data to patient’s chart related to “delayed bleeding”. It is the Office’s position that a voice activated system that determines commands from speech data of two plus words expressly or inherently utilizes temporal proximity and logistical association in order to determine association between the two words, as the present system utilizes words that are spoken in sequence.);
(i) changing a status of at least one of the plurality of dental diagnostic items in the dental chart based on the protocol using the processor (Status of “tooth two” would be changed to “delayed” for diagnosis “bleeding”, see Kaminski, paragraph 32.);
(j) providing the user with the status of at least one of the plurality of dental diagnostic items in the dental chart and the plurality of changed items in real time using a display screen (System displays vocal input data via at least visual numeric feedback display, see paragraphs 59-60 and Fig. 3.)
(k) assigning a grade among a plurality of grades to each of the plurality of dental diagnostic items in the dental chart, based on the status of the plurality of dental diagnostic items in the dental … (Treatment plan view is used to show a patient various treatment plans, see Figs. 7 and 9 and paragraphs 79-81. Grades would comprise treatment needed or not needed.);
(l) assigning, to a customer of the dental patient of the dental chart, a grade corresponding to a highest grade among grades assigned to the plurality of dental diagnostic items in step (k) (Treatment plan view is used to show a patient various treatment plans, see Figs. 7 and 9 and paragraphs 79-81. Grades would comprise treatment needed or not needed. Customer is assigned multiple grades, including Defective and Accepted.);
(o) delivering a notification message to the dental patient based on the grade assigned in step (k) (Treatment plan view is used to show a patient various treatment plans, see Figs. 7 and 9 and paragraphs 79-81. Grades would comprise treatment needed or not needed.).
As shown above, Kaminski discloses extracting information from speech data. However, Kaminski fails to explicitly disclose:
(b) converting the speech data into text data using a speech recognition unit executed by a processor;
(f) cross-referencing against predefined dental diagnosis-status pairs stored in a database that stores information on a plurality of commands …, transmitting a visual or audible confirmation request message to the user when it is determined that the extracted diagnosis name command and the extracted status command do not correspond to each other;
(g) determining if the extracted diagnosis command corresponding to the extracted status command is less than or equal to a preset frequency …, and transmitting a visual or audible confirmation request message to the user when it is determined that the extracted diagnosis command corresponding to the extracted status command is less than or equal to a preset frequency;
(k) wherein the status of the plurality of dental diagnostic items includes a period remaining until dental treatment is to begin for each item, and the shorter the period remaining until dental treatment is to begin, the higher the grade is assigned;
(m) updating the grade assigned in step (k) when the period remaining until dental treatment is to begin is changed due to completed treatment;
(n) changing the grade assigned to the dental patient into a second highest grade after the dental diagnostic item to which the highest grade was assigned is treated;
(p) storing the dental chart data, diagnosis commands, status commands, and grade assignments in the database for subsequent retrieval and analysis;
during steps (a) – (p), measuring at least one of the dental patient’s hand grip pressure and vital sign; and
in the case of the measurement of at least one of the dental patient’s hand grip pressure and vital sign showing a showing a preset difference from a reference value, transmitting a notification message to the user indicating the difference exceeding the reference value.
Ganmukhi teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide:
(b) converting the speech data into text data using a speech recognition unit (Ganmukhi, paragraph 89);
(f) cross-referencing against predefined dental diagnosis-status pairs stored in a database …, transmitting a visual or audible confirmation request message to the user when it is determined that the extracted diagnosis name command and the extracted status command do not correspond to each other (Ganmukhi processes vocal inputs in order to determine if the input is an expected value by cross referencing vocal input with expected values, and outputs an errors if it is not, see paragraphs 17, 25 and 77, and can request the user repeat/confirm the inputs, see paragraph 80. System operative to provide audio feedback/error indications, see paragraph 80. Ganmukhi discloses a database at Fig. 4.);
(g) determining if the extracted diagnosis command corresponding to the extracted status command is less than or equal to a preset frequency, and transmitting a visual or audible confirmation request message to the user when it is determined that the extracted diagnosis command corresponding to the extracted status command is less than or equal to a preset frequency (Ganmukhi processes vocal inputs in order to determine if the input is an expected value and outputs errors if it is not, see paragraphs 17, 25 and 77, and can request the user repeat/confirm the inputs, see paragraph 80. System operative to provide audio feedback/error indications, see paragraph 80.);
(p) storing the dental chart data, diagnosis commands, status commands, and grade assignments in the database for subsequent retrieval and analysis (Ganmukhi discloses storing all relevant patient information in an electronic medical record, see Figs. 1 and 2, and paragraphs 55, 56, 59, 61 and 93.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the voice recognition chart generating method of Kaminski to include converting the speech data into text data using a speech recognition unit, transmitting confirmation requests, command frequency analysis and data storage, as taught by Ganmukhi, in order to arrive at a voice recognition chart generating method that provides data translation and error checking capabilities.
Neither Kaminski nor Ganmukhi disclose:
(k) wherein the status of the plurality of dental diagnostic items includes a period remaining until dental treatment is to begin for each item, and the shorter the period remaining until dental treatment is to begin, the higher the grade is assigned;
(m) updating the grade assigned in step (k) when the period remaining until dental treatment is to begin is changed due to completed treatment; and
(n) changing the grade assigned to the dental patient into a second highest grade after the dental diagnostic item to which the highest grade was assigned is treated;
during steps (a) – (p), measuring at least one of the dental patient’s hand grip pressure and vital sign; and
in the case of the measurement of at least one of the dental patient’s hand grip pressure and vital sign showing a showing a preset difference from a reference value, transmitting a notification message to the user indicating the difference exceeding the reference value.
TPI teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a treatment priority index wherein grades are assigned to a patient’s teeth based on the needed priority of treatment, grades would be updated based on treatment provided and the overall grade will rely on the assigned priority grades, see the grading system of TPI at page 190.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the voice recognition chart generating method of Kaminski/Ganmukhi to include the Treatment Priority Index, as taught by TPI, in order to arrive at a voice recognition chart generating method that priorities treatment based on need (TPI, page 190).
Neither Kaminski, Ganmukhi nor TPI disclose:
during steps (a) – (p), measuring at least one of the dental patient’s hand grip pressure and vital sign; and
in the case of the measurement of at least one of the dental patient’s hand grip pressure and vital sign showing a showing a preset difference from a reference value, transmitting a notification message to the user indicating the difference exceeding the reference value.
Morguelan teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide during steps (a) – (p), measuring at least one of the dental patient’s hand grip pressure and vital sign; and in the case of the measurement of at least one of the dental patient’s hand grip pressure and vital sign showing a showing a preset difference from a reference value, transmitting a notification message to the user indicating the difference exceeding the reference value (Morguelan discloses a device that measures a patient’s hand grip pressure and outputs a corresponding message based thereon, see paragraphs 39 and 40; predetermined threshold value of Morguelan can be considered to be zero, or lack of pressure.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the voice recognition chart generating method of Kaminski/Ganmukhi/TPI to include measuring at least one of the dental patient’s hand grip pressure and vital sign; and in the case of the measurement of at least one of the dental patient’s hand grip pressure and vital sign showing a showing a preset difference from a reference value, transmitting a notification message to the user indicating the difference exceeding the reference value, as taught by Morguelan, in order to arrive at a dental voice recognition chart generating method that monitors a patient for stress.
Kaminski, Ganmukhi and Morguelan are all directed to the electronic processing of patient healthcare data. Both Kaminski and TPI are directed to improving patient dental care. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
As per claims 2, 4, 5, 10 and 12, Kaminski/Ganmukhi/TPI/Morguelan discloses claim 1. Kaminski also discloses:
2. wherein the diagnosis name command among the data commands corresponds to at least one of the plurality of dental diagnostic items in the dental chart selected from periodontal conditions, restorative conditions, and orthodontic conditions, and the status command among the data commands corresponds to at least one status value among the plurality of dental diagnostic items comprising numerical measurements, categorical assessments, or binary presence/absence indicators (Kaminski, paragraph 32, item status of “Tooth Two” changed to “delayed” for diagnosis “bleeding”.);
4. wherein the system command includes at least one of a start session command, a session end command, a patient identification command, a dental chart identification command, a tooth selection command, a next tooth navigation command, a previous tooth navigation command, a tooth surface front command, a tooth surface back command, an input undo command, and a data reset command (Kaminski discloses extracting system [“Tooth two” or the “Auto advance ON/Off”] commands from the speech data, see paragraph 32.);
5. wherein the diagnosis name command includes at least one of a periodontal gum recession command, a gingival margin measurement command, a dental plaque assessment command, a gingival bleeding status command, a tooth root bifurcation evaluation command, a dental crown status command, a dental bridge status command, a dental implant status command, and a tooth mobility assessment command (Kaminski, paragraph 32, herein the diagnosis would be “bleeding” and the status would be “delayed”.);
10. a pressure measuring unit to provide the patient's hand grip pressure, wherein the patient can indicate a degree of pain or fear of pain, and a controller for the device delivers the notification message to the user the pressure gripped by the hand reaches a predetermined pressure (As shown above, Morguelan discloses a device that measures a patient’s hand grip pressure and outputs a corresponding message based thereon, see paragraphs 39 and 40; predetermined threshold value of Morguelan can be considered to be zero, or lack of pressure.); and
12. wherein the patient can indicate a degree of pain or fear of pain, and a controller delivers a notification message to the user the pressure gripped by the hand reaches a predetermined pressure (As shown above, Morguelan discloses a device that measures a patient’s hand grip pressure and outputs a corresponding message based thereon, see paragraphs 39 and 40; predetermined threshold value of Morguelan can be considered to be zero, or lack of pressure.).
As per claim 8, Kaminski/Ganmukhi/TPI/Morguelan discloses claim 1. Kaminski/Ganmukhi/ TPI fail to explicitly disclose measuring at least one of a dental patient’s hand grip pressure and vital sign using pressure sensor and a biometric sensor, and transmitting a real-time notification message to the user based on at least one of the pressure and the vital sign when predetermined threshold values are exceeded.
Morguelan teaches that it was old and well known in the electronic patient communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide measuring at least one of a dental patient’s hand grip pressure and vital sign using pressure sensor and a biometric sensor, and transmitting a real-time notification message to the user based on at least one of the pressure and the vital sign when predetermined threshold values are exceeded (Morguelan discloses a device that measures a patient’s hand grip pressure and outputs a corresponding message based thereon, see paragraphs 39 and 40; predetermined threshold value of Morguelan can be considered to be zero, or lack of pressure.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the voice recognition chart generating method of Kaminski/Ganmukhi/TPI/Morguelan to include measuring at least one of a dental patient’s hand grip pressure and vital sign using pressure sensor and a biometric sensor, and transmitting a real-time notification message to the user based on at least one of the pressure and the vital sign when predetermined threshold values are exceeded, as taught by Morguelan, in order to arrive at a dental voice recognition chart generating method that monitors a patient for stress.
Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kaminski/Ganmukhi/TPI/Morguelan, further in view of Ponceleon et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2003/0187642 A1), hereinafter Ponceleon.
As per claim 3, Kaminski/Ganmukhi/TPI/Morguelan discloses claim 1. Kaminski/Ganmukhi/TPI/Morguelan further discloses wherein the generating of the protocol includes mapping the diagnosis name command to the status command based on the temporal proximity and logical sequence (The system generates the protocol based on status command issued first, and then the diagnosis name issued second immediately afterwards, see paragraph 32: The user could say “Auto advance ON/OFF” (or another command to override the auto advance), say “Tooth two,” say “delayed bleeding,” and then say “resume.” It is the Office’s position that a voice activated system that determines commands from speech data of two plus words expressly or inherently utilizes temporal proximity and logistical association in order to determine association between the two words, as the present system utilizes words that are spoken in sequence.
Kaminski/Ganmukhi/TPI/Morguelan fail to explicitly disclose wherein the temporal proximity is determined by the speech recognition unit within a predetermined time window
Ponceleon teaches that it was old and well known in the electronic patient communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide use of temporal proximity window with speech recognition (Ponceleon, paragraphs 94-99 and claims 1 and 14.) to provide improved speech recognition information retrieval (Ponceleon, paragraph 94.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the voice recognition chart generating method of Kaminski/Ganmukhi/TPI/Morguelan to include use of temporal proximity window with speech recognition, as taught by Ponceleon, in order to arrive at a dental voice recognition chart generating method with improved speech recognition information retrieval.
Both Kaminski and Ponceleon are directed to the electronic processing and use of speech recognition systems. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kaminski/Ganmukhi/TPI/Morguelan, further in view of Al-Faraje (U.S. PG-Pub 2021/0074391 A1), hereinafter Al-Faraje.
As per claims 11 and 13, Kaminski/Ganmukhi/TPI/Morguelan discloses claims 1 and 9. Kaminski/Ganmukhi/TPI/Morguelan fail to explicitly disclose:
11. a vital sign measuring unit input, wherein the vital sign unit inputs indicates a status of the patient's heart rate; and
13. wherein the vital sign measurement indicates a status of the patient's heart rate.
Al-Faraje teaches that it was old and well known in the electronic patient communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vital sign measuring unit input, wherein the vital sign unit inputs indicates a status of the patient's heart rate (Al-Faraje discloses use of a monitoring device that monitors and outputs a patient’s heart rate, see paragraphs 71 and 73.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the voice recognition chart generating method of Kaminski/Ganmukhi/TPI/Morguelan to include a vital sign measuring unit input, wherein the vital sign unit inputs indicates a status of the patient's heart rate, as taught by Al-Faraje, in order to arrive at a dental voice recognition chart generating method that monitors a patient for stress.
Both Kaminski and Al-Faraje are all directed to the electronic processing of patient healthcare data.. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12 February 2026 concerning the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments filed 12 February 2026 concerning the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 103(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues on pages 11-15 that:
A. Step 2A – Prong Two: the claims are integrated into a practical application as they recite specific improvements to dental chart systems using voice recognition and integrate these improvements in to a practical application a technological area;
B. Step 2B – The claims recite significantly more than a judicial exception; and
C. The claims are eligible as there is no preemption of the abstract idea.
The Office respectfully disagrees. Please see the statutory rejection of the claims, issued above, wherein the claims are shown to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding A., Applicant’s claimed invention recites the additional element(s) of voice recognition. While these additional elements implement the results of the abstract idea, there is no indication that these additional elements operate in a manner different than they normally operate. Operating another device in the manner it normally operates is insufficient to improve that other technology. As such, these additional elements are not improved through implementation of the abstract idea and a practical application is not present.
the claims fail to recite another technology. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves another technology. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Applicant’s claim is confined to a general-purpose computer and does not recite “another technology.” Because no other technology is recited in the claim, the claim cannot improve another technology (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i) describing an example of an improvement to another technology where the abstract idea implemented on a computer improved the claimed additional element of a rubber molding machine).
Regarding B., the claims fail to recite significantly more than the identified judicial exception. Please see the statutory rejection of the claims, issued above, wherein the claims are shown to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding C., while it is acknowledged that preemption is the concern driving judicial exceptions to patent eligibility, preemption is not a stand-alone test for eligibility. Rather, the results of applying the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo answer the question of whether the claims are preemptive. Where the claims are deemed only to be directed to patent ineligible subject matter under the two-part framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. As shown above, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter for the reasons set forth above – See the July 2015 Update.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues on page 17 that the cited references fail to disclose the claims as amended, specifically:
A. “It is noted, however, that there is no suggestion in Kaminski, Ganmukhi and Slakter to apply a voice recognition system to predictively analyze the voice (matching the voice data to known data pairs) and transcribe the information by predictive matching. Further, there is no suggestion to combine this with monitoring of patient stress, thereby automating routine portions of the dental procedures.”
B. “The remaining references to Ponceleon and Morguelan are applied to specific features described in the dependent claims, but fail to show the above features relevant to the basic technique of Applicant's dental monitoring. It is respectfully submitted that these additional references do not present a showing of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 because they do not show an incentive to benefit from the change as required under KSR.”
The Office respectively disagrees. Please see the prior art rejection of the claims, issued above, wherein the claims are shown to met by a combination of Kaminski, Ganmukhi, TPI and Morguelan.
Regarding A., the Office has assigned the name TPI to the Slakter reference. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the motivation is found within the references themselves as shown above and reproduced here for simplicity: “Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the voice recognition chart generating method of Kaminski/Ganmukhi to include the Treatment Priority Index, as taught by TPI, in order to arrive at a voice recognition chart generating method that priorities treatment based on need (TPI, page 190).”
Regarding B, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Further, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the motivation is found within the references themselves as shown above and reproduced here for simplicity:
“Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the voice recognition chart generating method of Kaminski/Ganmukhi/TPI/Morguelan to include use of temporal proximity window with speech recognition, as taught by Ponceleon, in order to arrive at a dental voice recognition chart generating method with improved speech recognition information retrieval.”; and
“Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the voice recognition chart generating method of Kaminski/Ganmukhi/TPI to include measuring at least one of the dental patient’s hand grip pressure and vital sign; and in the case of the measurement of at least one of the dental patient’s hand grip pressure and vital sign showing a showing a preset difference from a reference value, transmitting a notification message to the user indicating the difference exceeding the reference value, as taught by Morguelan, in order to arrive at a dental voice recognition chart generating method that monitors a patient for stress.”
In conclusion, all of the limitations which Applicant disputes as missing in the applied references, including the features newly added by amendment, have been fully addressed by the Office as either being fully disclosed or obvious in view of the collective teachings of Kaminski, Ganmukhi, TPI, Ponceleon, Morguelan and Al-Faraje, based on the logic and sound scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, as detailed in the remarks and explanations given in the preceding sections of the present Office Action and in the prior Office Actions (18 November 2025, 24 September 2025 and 28 January 2025), and incorporated herein.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
20 March 2025