DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/30/2025.
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 .
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 without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-16 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); Claims 17-18 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); and Claim 19 is directed to a CRM (i.e., a manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-19 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. An integrated management system for a dental chart, comprising:
a memory that stores one or more instructions; and
a processor,
wherein the memory includes a speech-to-text (STT) model that, when sounds containing noises and speeches are obtained and a noise cancelling process is performed on the obtained sounds, executes a process of extracting and processing features from the sound with the noise cancelling process and the sound without the noise cancelling process and a process of obtaining scripts for the speeches,
wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations including:
providing, by the processor, sounds containing noises and speeches, which are generated during measurement of a periodontal status of a patient, to the STT model, obtaining, by the processor, a first script for the speeches and generating, by the processor, a periodontal chart based on the first script,
providing, by the processor, features extracted from the periodontal chart to a pre-trained failure rate inference model for each implant type to infer a failure rate for each of a plurality of different implant types,
providing, by the processor, sounds containing noises and speeches generated during discussions regarding an implant type of the patient, which is determined based on the inferred failure rate, to the STT model, obtaining, by the processor, a second script for the speeches, and generating, by the processor, in an implant chart based on at least a portion of the first script and second script, and
providing by the processor, sounds containing noises and speeches, which are generated during discussions regarding an implant product including a prosthesis to be used for the determined implant type of the patient, to the STT model, obtaining, by the processor, a third script for the speeches, and generating, by a processor, a laboratory chart based on at least a portion of the first script, the second script, and the third script,
displaying, through a display device, at least one of the periodontal chart, the implant chart, and the laboratory chart, and
wherein in a fine-tuning process included in training of the STT model, multiple sounds containing noises and speeches that are generated during a dental treatment, and a script for each of the multiple sounds are used as training data.
The Examiner submits that the underlined limitations regarding a process of extracting and processing features from the sound with the noise cancelling process and the sound without the noise cancelling process constitute mathematical calculations because they amount to an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, such as voice signal feature extraction, conversion, and matching via a mathematical algorithm. The underlined limitations of establishing an implant plan for a patient based on extracting and processing features from sound, predicting implant failure rates, and generating a laboratory chart using multiple scripts amount to “methods of organizing human activity” because they are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. As explained in the MPEP, when a claim recites multiple abstract ideas that fall in the same or different groupings, examiners should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea, rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. As the steps (b) and (c) fall within the same grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts), these limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES). Accordingly, independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 17 & 19 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-16 & 18 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claim 3 recites converting sound data into a spectrogram which is considered mathematical calculations; Claims 4 recites assigning weights to sound noises; Claims 5-7 recite encoding data, obtaining an encoding vector, and minimizing the difference between output data and training data which is considered mathematical calculations; Claim 8 recites a word correction model replacing missing words; Claim 11 recites issuing a warning regarding a recommended implant type based on a inferred failure rate exceeding a threshold; Claim 12 recites generating an order for an implant product; Claim 13 recites generating statistics for implants and failure rates which is considered mathematical calculations; Claim 14 recites generating different charts containing specific patient data; Claim 15 recites select an item based on a voice input. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 17 & 19, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
1. An integrated management system for a dental chart, comprising:
a memory that stores one or more instructions; and
a processor,
wherein the memory includes a speech-to-text (STT) model that, when sounds containing noises and speeches are obtained and a noise cancelling process is performed on the obtained sounds, executes a process of extracting and processing features from the sound with the noise cancelling process and the sound without the noise cancelling process and a process of obtaining scripts for the speeches,
wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations including:
providing, by the processor, sounds containing noises and speeches, which are generated during measurement of a periodontal status of a patient, to the STT model, obtaining, by the processor, a first script for the speeches and generating, by the processor, a periodontal chart based on the first script,
providing, by the processor, features extracted from the periodontal chart to a pre-trained failure rate inference model for each implant type to infer a failure rate for each of a plurality of different implant types,
providing, by the processor, sounds containing noises and speeches generated during discussions regarding an implant type of the patient, which is determined based on the inferred failure rate, to the STT model, obtaining, by the processor, a second script for the speeches, and generating, by the processor, in an implant chart based on at least a portion of the first script and second script, and
providing by the processor, sounds containing noises and speeches, which are generated during discussions regarding an implant product including a prosthesis to be used for the determined implant type of the patient, to the STT model, obtaining, by the processor, a third script for the speeches, and generating, by a processor, a laboratory chart based on at least a portion of the first script, the second script, and the third script,
displaying, through a display device, at least one of the periodontal chart, the implant chart, and the laboratory chart, and
wherein in a fine-tuning process included in training of the STT model, multiple sounds containing noises and speeches that are generated during a dental treatment, and a script for each of the multiple sounds are used as training data.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the server, memory, processor, display device, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of training the STT model using sound and script data; the Examiner asserts these limitations amount to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of displaying chart data, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 17 & 19 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 2 & 18: These claims recite using a model that performs speech enhancement which amount to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 3: These claims recite using a convolutional neural network to extract features from a spectrogram which amount to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 6, 7, & 16: These claims recite training the STT model to minimize a difference between result and training outputs which amount to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 9-11: These claims recite training a failure rate inference model and implant type recommendation model and using the trained failure rate inference model which amount to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the server, memory, processor, display device, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Regarding the additional limitations of the speech-to-text model, pre-trained failure rate inference model, and training the STT model using sound and script data; the Examiner asserts these limitations amount to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Regarding the additional limitation of displaying chart data, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Prior Art Rejection
All of the cited references fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of:
wherein the memory includes a speech-to-text (STT) model that, when sounds containing noises and speeches are obtained and a noise cancelling process is performed on the obtained sounds, executes a process of extracting and processing features from the sound with the noise cancelling process and the sound without the noise cancelling process and a process of obtaining scripts for the speeches,
wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations including:
providing sounds containing noises and speeches, which are generated during measurement of a periodontal status of a patient, to the STT model, and obtaining a first script for the speeches to reflect the first script in a periodontal chart,
providing features extracted from the periodontal chart to a pre-trained failure rate inference model for each implant type to infer a failure rate for each of a plurality of different implant types,
providing sounds containing noises and speeches generated during discussions regarding an implant type of the patient, which is determined based on the inferred failure rate, to the STT model, and obtaining a second script for the speeches to reflect at least a portion of the first script and the second script in an implant chart, and
providing sounds containing noises and speeches, which are generated during discussions regarding an implant product including a prosthesis to be used for the determined implant type of the patient, to the STT model, and obtaining a third script for the speeches to reflect at least a portion of the first script, the second script, and the third script in a laboratory chart, and
wherein in a fine-tuning process included in training of the STT model, multiple sounds containing noises and speeches that are generated during a dental treatment, and a script for each of the multiple sounds are used as training data.
The most relevant prior art of record includes:
Ng (US20250037834) teaches to a computer-implemented method for generating a dental treatment plan of a patient that can comprise the steps of: analysing patient data comprising a dental image of the patient using an AI model to generate AI predictions on tooth detection, numbering and dental issues of the patient; populating a dental chart based on the AI predictions and input received from one or more users; generating a completed dental questionnaire using a clinical decision support system (CDSS) based upon the populated dental chart and input received from the one or more users; generating a final treatment plan based on the completed dental questionnaire; and displaying the final treatment plan to the one or more users.
Ganmukhi (US20240257807) teaches to an electronic record voice assistant system can include one or more processors that receive audio data, apply a machine learning model to the audio data to generate speech data including at least one value, determine a state of an electronic record, and update one or more fields of the electronic record using the state and the at least one value.
Ezhov (US20240029901) teaches to a method to generate a personalized medical summary (PMS) from a practitioner-patient conversation capturing a conversation between a practitioner and a patient, transcribing the conversation between the practitioner and the patient and generating the PMS based on the transcribed conversation.
Lee (US20230039451) teaches to a dental medical record device and a dental medical record method, in which: an image, such as a panoramic photo, a scan image, and a camera image of a patient's oral cavity, is received via artificial intelligence, and charting is performed using the artificial intelligence; and medical records for a treatment area can be read in association with a chart by clicking the treatment area in the image.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-14 regarding claims 1-19 being rejected under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant claims that:
The claims recite an improvement to the way dental charts are generated, managed, and displaying using AI.
The Examiner, however, asserts that that there is no indication here that the claimed invention addresses a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer technology; the Applicant does not provide adequate evidence or technical reasoning how the process improves the efficiency of the computer, as opposed to the efficiency of the process, or of any other technological aspect of the computer. Further, the problems the invention is attempting to solve are “determining the most suitable implant type for the patient”. (citing Spec. pg 2). These are not technological problems, but dental-related problems. The solution provided here has not been described or claimed as anything more than a generic use of existing technology performing based, purely conventional functions of a computer. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that the claims as a whole fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practice application and are not directed significantly more than an abstract idea.
The Office Action evaluates claims are such a high level of generality
The Examiner, however, asserts that each limitation has been addressed in the above 101 rejection as either being directed to an abstract idea or an additional element.
The claims provide a technological solution to the problem with which how existing STT models are used.
The Examiner, however, asserts that the claims fail to provide limitations regarding a technical improvement to the STT model itself and merely use the STT model to perform the abstract idea identified above. The claims describe how data is input into the STT model. However, the claims fail to describe how the STT model actually generates the scripts themselves. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. Furthermore, the limitations of the fine-tuning process of training the model are considered “apply it” as well because they are recited a high level of generality and provide no description of the training process of the STT model.
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 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 Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619