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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18 and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 18 have been amended.
Claims 4, 13, 19 and 21-38 have been canceled with claims 4, 13, 19 and 21 having been newly canceled in the claims filed 7/01/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18 and 20 have been rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 3/31/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, 5-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18 and 20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Independent Claim 1 discloses a method comprising: determining, by a processing device, a plurality of treatment providers for providing a dental treatment for treating a target dental disorder of a user to the user; providing to a first user device identification of the plurality of treatment providers; receiving, from the first user device: image data of dentition of the user, a first user selection of a first treatment provider of the plurality of treatment providers, and a second user selection of a second treatment provider of the plurality of treatment providers; providing the image data to a second device associated with the first treatment provider and a third device associated with the second treatment provider; obtaining, in parallel from the second device and the third device, first information of a first recommended treatment for the dentition, second information of a second recommended treatment for the dentition, wherein the first information and the second information comprise different treatment plans for treating the target dental disorder, and wherein the first information and the second information differ in at least one of estimated cost of treatment or estimated duration of treatment providing the first information of the first recommended treatment and the second information of the second recommended treatment to the first user device; and providing a scheduling prompt to the first user device for scheduling an appointment associated with treating the target dental disorder with either the first treatment provider or the second treatment provider.
Independent Claim 11 discloses a method comprising: obtaining, by a processing device, identification of a plurality of treatment providers; obtaining user input indicative of: a first disorder, first selection of a first treatment provider of the plurality of treatment providers, and second selection of a second treatment provider of the plurality of treatment providers; providing the user input to a server device; receiving, in parallel from the server device: first information of a first recommended treatment in association with the first disorder and the first treatment provider, comprising a first treatment plan for treating the first disorder, and second information of a second recommended treatment in association with the first disorder and the second treatment provider, comprising a second treatment plan for treating the first disorder, different than the first treatment plan, wherein the first treatment plan differs from the second treatment plan in at least one of estimated cost of treatment or estimated duration of treatment; obtaining a third selection of the first recommended treatment; and providing an indication of the first recommended treatment based on the third selection of the first recommended treatment to the server device; and providing an appointment scheduling prompt associated with the first treatment provider responsive to the third selection.
Independent Claim 18 discloses a comprising: obtaining, by a processing device, from a first user device, a first user request for identification of a first treatment provider for treatment of a target dental disorder; determining, by the processing device, a treatment provider; providing identification of the treatment provider to the first user device; receiving, from the first user device, first user data comprising: data indicative of dentition of the user, and a second user request for a first treatment plan associated with the dentition and the treatment provider; providing the first user data to a second device associated with the treatment provider; obtaining, from the second device, information of a first recommended treatment for treatment of the target dental disorder in association with the first user data and the treatment provider; and providing to the first user device the information of the first recommended treatment, obtaining second user data comprising a user rejection of the first recommended treatment, providing the user rejection to the second device, obtaining a second recommended treatment for treatment of the target dental disorder, different than the first recommended treatment for treatment of the target dental disorder, from the second device, wherein the second recommended treatment differs from the first recommended treatment in at least one of estimated cost of treatment or estimated duration of treatment, providing data indicative of the second recommended treatment to the first user device; and causing the first user device to display an appointment scheduling prompt in view of the second recommended treatment.
The examiner is interpreting the above bolded limitations as additional elements as further discussed below. The remaining un-bolded limitations are merely directed to identifying providers and providing treatment recommendations to a patient from the providers. The series of steps recited above describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and thus are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity which is an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Claim 1 discloses the following additional elements:
A processing device
A first, second, and third user device
Providing a scheduling prompt to the first user device
Claim 11 discloses the following additional elements:
A processing device
A server device
providing an appointment scheduling prompt associated with the first treatment provider responsive to the third selection
Claim 18 discloses the following additional elements:
A processing device
A first and second user device
causing the first user device to display an appointment scheduling prompt in view of the second recommended treatment
In particular, the processing device, first user device, second user device, third user device, and server device are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception.
Additionally, “providing a scheduling prompt to the first user device,” “providing an appointment scheduling prompt associated with the first treatment provider responsive to the third selection,” and “causing the first user device to display an appointment scheduling prompt in view of the second recommended treatment” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim(s) 1, 11, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea(s) without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processing device, first user device, second user device, third user device, and server device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more’). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying "apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Further, “providing a scheduling prompt to the first user device,” “providing an appointment scheduling prompt associated with the first treatment provider responsive to the third selection,” and “causing the first user device to display an appointment scheduling prompt in view of the second recommended treatment” were considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in step 2B, these are also determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2106.05(g) discloses that the courts have recognized the receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, `10 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc.; and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.).
Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the independent claims 1, 11, and 18 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 5-10, 12, 14-17, and 20 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-21 do not further disclose any additional elements.
No further additional hardware components other than those found in the respective independent claims are recited, thus it is presumed that the claims are further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18 and 20 are 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-12, 14-15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan (US PG Pub 2023/0282341 A1) in view of Johnson (US PG Pub 2020/0402649 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Srinivasan discloses:
A method comprising:
determining, by a processing device, a plurality of treatment providers for providing a dental treatment for treating a target dental disorder of a user to [[a]] the user; providing to a first user device identification of the plurality of treatment providers; (Para 5 discloses an embodiment of the method further includes prior to sending, identifying at least one health condition in the subject from the initial exploratory result. An embodiment of the method further includes after identifying, classifying the subject by severity of the at least one health condition. An embodiment of the method further includes after displaying, the subject selecting at least one treatment plan from the at least one health care provider. Paras 9-10 disclose an embodiment of the method further includes prior to sending, selecting a category of the health care providers based on the initial exploratory results. An embodiment of the method further includes prior to sending, uploading the initial exploratory results to a data storage resource… An aspect of the invention described herein provides a system to connect a subject to at least one health care provider, the system including: at least one digital computing machine, and an exploratory device.)
receiving, from the first user device: image data of dentition of the user, (Paras 14-17 disclose the exploratory exam is performed by the subject themselves as described in FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B. [wherein Fig. 1A discloses the scan of the mouth as images]… For example, an intra-oral scanner simultaneously records 3D, intraoral color and near Infra-Red (NIRI) images and provides an oral health snapshot for the subject. The snapshot includes presence of caries, missing teeth, teeth alignment, gum disease, etc. Based on the snapshot the subject is classified as green, yellow, and red.)
a first user selection of a first treatment provider of the plurality of treatment providers, and a second user selection of a second treatment provider of the plurality of treatment providers; providing the image data to a second device associated with the first treatment provider and a third device associated with the second treatment provider; (Paras 14-16 disclose the exploratory exam is performed by the subject themselves as described in FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B. [wherein Fig. 1A discloses the scan of the mouth as images] The subject, or the authorized representative consents to release the exploratory exam results to at least one of: the subject, insurance provider records, a preferred provider, a non-preferred provider, a secondary provider, a telemedicine service provider, and provider referral service [thus the user selects providers who can access the exploratory exam results which reads on the user selecting a first and second treatment provider]. In some embodiments, the exploratory exam results are saved for health data usage, public health related applications or for data mining service organizations… The exploratory exam is an initial exam to perform an initial diagnosis or an initial assessment for example, the exploratory exam is a radiation or a non-radiation exam. Examples of non-radiation exam are an intra-oral scan, a photographic device, a cell phone, a handheld intra-oral photographic device, an intra-oral photographic tray, a saliva analytic device, etc. Para 18 discloses the exploratory results are classified based on the specialty of the health care provider, or acceptance of insurance plans, or geographical location or provider rating, or provider availability. For example, provider availability may be based on hours of operation, availability in appointment schedules, or urgency of treatment required. Para 19 discloses the exploratory results and/or the classified subject categories are uploaded to a secure server. The health care providers access the secure server and assess the exploratory results. In alternative embodiments, upon uploading the exploratory results the health care providers or their clinics receive an alert regarding a potential new subject or an existing subject of record. Further, para 24 discloses the subject may choose to receive the results, send the results to one or more preferred providers or to telemedicine services or to provider referral service. If the subject chooses one or more preferred providers the results are sent to the preferred providers or telemedicine services via electronic email, paper copies, electronic storage devices, or cloud services.)
obtaining, in parallel from the second device and the third device, wherein the first information and the second information comprise different treatment plans for treating the target dental disorder, and wherein the first information and the second information differ in at least one of estimated cost of treatment or estimated duration of treatmentand (Para 19 discloses the exploratory results and/or the classified subject categories are uploaded to a secure server. The health care providers access the secure server and assess the exploratory results. In alternative embodiments, upon uploading the exploratory results the health care providers or their clinics receive an alert regarding a potential new subject or an existing subject of record. Para 20 discloses the health care providers analyze the results and assemble at least one treatment plan for the subject. For example, a dentist prepares a first treatment plan including procedures such as periodontal treatment, restorations and extractions. The dentist may prepare a second treatment plan including procedures such as periodontal treatment, restorations, root-canal treatment and crowns. The dentist may prepare a third treatment plan including procedures such as periodontal treatment, restorations, root-canal treatment and crowns, extractions, and implants, or dentures. The dentist may prepare a fourth treatment plan including procedures such as periodontal treatment, restorations, root-canal treatment and crowns, extractions, implants, or dentures, and orthodontic aligners [thus disclosing that each treatment is different]. The treatment plans are uploaded to the secure server and are accessible by the subject. In alternative embodiments, the subject receives a notification on their phone, the application, or an email alerting them to review the treatment plan. In alternative embodiments, the treatment plan includes cost for each treatment option [wherein the cost is unique to each treatment plan, and each treatment plan is identified as different above, thus this reads on the treatment plans differing in at least one of estimated cost]. The cost may include cost covered by the health insurance and the out-of-pocket costs. In alternative embodiments, the health care providers may also include available financing options in the treatment plan. Further, para 24 discloses the subject may choose to receive the results, send the results to one or more preferred providers or to telemedicine services or to provider referral service. If the subject chooses one or more preferred providers the results are sent to the preferred providers or telemedicine services via electronic email, paper copies, electronic storage devices, or cloud services. Wherein Figures 1A and 1B disclose that whether the patient chooses preferred providers, secondary providers, telemedicine providers, or rever to a service agent, the system “moves ahead” which leads to 1B which discloses that the patent “receives treatment plans with costs & insurance coverage,” “makes appointment” and “receives treatment.”)
While Srinivasan discloses the above limitations and Para 25 discloses “the subject then chooses an appropriate provider, makes appointment and receives treatment,” it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Johnson discloses:
providing a scheduling prompt to the first user device for scheduling an appointment associated with treating the target dental disorder with either the first treatment provider or the second treatment provider. (Claim 1 discloses prompting the service provider and the patient to schedule a clinical appointment. Claim 9 discloses a user interface configured to receive patient information from the computing device, wherein the patient information comprises at least one patient image; ii. a digital preview module configured to generate a digital preview of the recommended dental services; iii. a scheduling interface configured to (a) display a list of a number of the service providers, (b) display scheduling information associated with each of the displayed service providers, and (c) receive selective input from the patient indicating the patient's selection of at least one of the number of service providers for the recommended dental services).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods and systems for connecting subjects to healthcare providers as taught by Srinivasan with the prompt to schedule a clinical appointment as taught by Johnson in order to facilitate transactions between the patient and the provider and allow patients to request appointments with the provider (Para 24).
Regarding Claim 2, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Srinivasan and Johnson discloses the following limitation that Johnson further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, from the first user device, a request for identification of one or more treatment providers, wherein determining the plurality of treatment providers is performed responsive to the request. (Para 33 discloses The search module provides a patient interface and processing logic for searching the database for providers responsive to a search query [a request for identification of one or more treatment providers], and is one means for doing so. The patient interface of the search module is configured to receive a search query specifying various attributes of the provider, such as gender, location, price, and so forth. The search module matches the attributes of the search query to provider in the database, ranks the providers using the ranking module, and provides the ranked set of providers to a patient device, so that the user of the patient device can access the providers in a convenient manner [determining the plurality of treatment providers responsive to the request]. The patient interface of the search module is capable of displaying the ranked set of listings by rank order.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods and systems for connecting subjects to healthcare providers as taught by Srinivasan with the prompt to schedule a clinical appointment as taught by Johnson in order to facilitate transactions between the patient and the provider and allow patients to request appointments with the provider (Para 24).
Regarding Claim 3, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 2 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. While Srinivasan Para 18 discloses, “in some embodiments, the exploratory results are classified based on the specialty of the health care provider, or acceptance of insurance plans, or geographical location or provider rating, or provider availability,” Srinivasan is further strengthened by the combination with Johnson as Johnson discloses the following limitation that Johnson further discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein determining the plurality of treatment providers is based on one or more of: a location associated with the first user device; a treatment history of the first treatment provider; or a user rating of the first treatment provider. (Para 33 discloses the search module provides a patient interface and processing logic for searching the database for providers responsive to a search query, and is one means for doing so. The patient interface of the search module is configured to receive a search query specifying various attributes of the provider, such as gender, location [location in comparison to a location associated with the first user device as the patient ranks based on location], price, and so forth. The search module matches the attributes of the search query to provider in the database, ranks the providers using the ranking module, and provides the ranked set of providers to a patient device, so that the user of the patient device can access the providers in a convenient manner. The patient interface of the search module is capable of displaying the ranked set of listings by rank order [thus the broadest reasonable interpretation of a user rating as the ranking based on the user priorities (see claim 5 for example)].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods and systems for connecting subjects to healthcare providers as taught by Srinivasan with the prompt to schedule a clinical appointment as taught by Johnson in order to facilitate transactions between the patient and the provider and allow patients to request appointments with the provider (Para 24) based on the patient’s filtered preferences of the attributes of the provider.
Regarding Claim 5, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Srinivasan and Johnson discloses the following limitation that Srinivasan further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first recommended treatment comprises one or more of prosthodontic treatment or orthodontic treatment. (Para 20 discloses the dentist may prepare a fourth treatment plan including procedures such as periodontal treatment, restorations, root-canal treatment and crowns, extractions, implants, or dentures, and orthodontic aligners [wherein the exact number of the treatment does not affect the actual treatment it is providing, the doctor could output the treatments in any order and each provider of the one or more providers (Para 20 discloses further the health care providers analyze the results and assemble at least one treatment plan for the subject) could each output these four treatment plan options with varying costs]. Para 21 discloses the subject chooses a health care provider based on their preference and claim 4 discloses the method according to claim 1 further comprising after displaying, the subject selecting at least one treatment plan from the at least one health care provider [thus, the patient can choose any specific treatment they want from any specific provider based on their preference].)
Regarding Claim 8, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Srinivasan and Johnson discloses the following limitation that Srinivasan further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining, from the first user device, a third user selection of first recommended treatment. (Para 21 discloses the subject chooses a health care provider based on their preference and claim 4 discloses the method according to claim 1 further comprising after displaying, the subject selecting at least one treatment plan from the at least one health care provider [thus, the patient can choose any specific treatment they want from any specific provider based on their preference].)
Regarding Claim 9, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 8 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Srinivasan and Johnson discloses the following limitation that Johnson further discloses:
The method of claim 8, further comprising prompting provider to schedule treatment. (Claim 1 discloses prompting the service provider and the patient to schedule a clinical appointment)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods and systems for connecting subjects to healthcare providers as taught by Srinivasan with the prompt to schedule a clinical appointment as taught by Johnson in order to facilitate transactions between the patient and the provider (Para 24).
Regarding Claim 10, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Srinivasan and Johnson discloses the following limitation that Johnson further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, via the first user device, a message for the first treatment provider, and providing the message to the second device associated with the first treatment provider. (Claim 9 discloses i. a user interface configured to receive patient information from the computing device, wherein the patient information comprises at least one patient image… v. a provider interface configured to (a) display the patient information, the digital preview, and the selective patient input at a provider computing device [thus under the broadest reasonable interpretation of message, the provider is receiving a message from the user comprising patient information comprising at least one patient image].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods and systems for connecting subjects to healthcare providers as taught by Srinivasan with the prompt to schedule a clinical appointment as taught by Johnson in order to facilitate transactions between the patient and the provider (Para 24).
Regarding Claim 11, Srinivasan discloses:
A method comprising:
first selection of a first treatment provider of the plurality of treatment providers, and second selection of a second treatment provider of the plurality of treatment providers; (Paras 14-16 disclose the exploratory exam is performed by the subject themselves as described in FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B. [wherein Fig. 1A discloses the scan of the mouth as images] The subject, or the authorized representative consents to release the exploratory exam results to at least one of: the subject, insurance provider records, a preferred provider, a non-preferred provider, a secondary provider, a telemedicine service provider, and provider referral service [thus the user selects providers who can access the exploratory exam results which reads on the user selecting a first and second treatment provider]. In some embodiments, the exploratory exam results are saved for health data usage, public health related applications or for data mining service organizations… The exploratory exam is an initial exam to perform an initial diagnosis or an initial assessment for example, the exploratory exam is a radiation or a non-radiation exam. Examples of non-radiation exam are an intra-oral scan, a photographic device, a cell phone, a handheld intra-oral photographic device, an intra-oral photographic tray, a saliva analytic device, etc. Para 18 discloses the exploratory results are classified based on the specialty of the health care provider, or acceptance of insurance plans, or geographical location or provider rating, or provider availability. For example, provider availability may be based on hours of operation, availability in appointment schedules, or urgency of treatment required. Para 19 discloses the exploratory results and/or the classified subject categories are uploaded to a secure server. The health care providers access the secure server and assess the exploratory results. In alternative embodiments, upon uploading the exploratory results the health care providers or their clinics receive an alert regarding a potential new subject or an existing subject of record. Further, para 24 discloses the subject may choose to receive the results, send the results to one or more preferred providers or to telemedicine services or to provider referral service. If the subject chooses one or more preferred providers the results are sent to the preferred providers or telemedicine services via electronic email, paper copies, electronic storage devices, or cloud services.)
providing the user input to a server device; (Para 19 discloses the exploratory results and/or the classified subject categories are uploaded to a secure server.)
receiving, in parallel from the server device: first information of a first recommended treatment in association with the first disorder and the first treatment provider, comprising a first treatment plan for treating the first disorder, and second information of a second recommended treatment in association with the first disorder and the second treatment provider, comprising a second treatment plan for treating the first disorder, different than the first treatment plan, wherein the first treatment plan differs from the second treatment plan in at least one of estimated cost of treatment or estimated duration of treatment; (Para 19 discloses the exploratory results and/or the classified subject categories are uploaded to a secure server. The health care providers access the secure server and assess the exploratory results. In alternative embodiments, upon uploading the exploratory results the health care providers or their clinics receive an alert regarding a potential new subject or an existing subject of record. Para 20 discloses the health care providers analyze the results and assemble at least one treatment plan for the subject. For example, a dentist prepares a first treatment plan including procedures such as periodontal treatment, restorations and extractions. The dentist may prepare a second treatment plan including procedures such as periodontal treatment, restorations, root-canal treatment and crowns. The dentist may prepare a third treatment plan including procedures such as periodontal treatment, restorations, root-canal treatment and crowns, extractions, and implants, or dentures. The dentist may prepare a fourth treatment plan including procedures such as periodontal treatment, restorations, root-canal treatment and crowns, extractions, implants, or dentures, and orthodontic aligners [thus disclosing that each treatment is different]. The treatment plans are uploaded to the secure server and are accessible by the subject. In alternative embodiments, the subject receives a notification on their phone, the application, or an email alerting them to review the treatment plan. In alternative embodiments, the treatment plan includes cost for each treatment option [wherein the cost is unique to each treatment plan, and each treatment plan is identified as different above, thus this reads on the treatment plans differing in at least one of estimated cost]. The cost may include cost covered by the health insurance and the out-of-pocket costs. In alternative embodiments, the health care providers may also include available financing options in the treatment plan. Further, para 24 discloses the subject may choose to receive the results, send the results to one or more preferred providers or to telemedicine services or to provider referral service. If the subject chooses one or more preferred providers the results are sent to the preferred providers or telemedicine services via electronic email, paper copies, electronic storage devices, or cloud services. Wherein Figures 1A and 1B disclose that whether the patient chooses preferred providers, secondary providers, telemedicine providers, or refer to a service agent, the system “moves ahead” which leads to 1B which discloses that the patent “receives treatment plans with costs & insurance coverage,” “makes appointment” and “receives treatment.”)
obtaining a third selection of the first recommended treatment; (Para 21 discloses the subject chooses a health care provider based on their preference. Wherein Figures 1A and 1B disclose that whether the patient chooses preferred providers, secondary providers, telemedicine providers, or refer to a service agent, the system “moves ahead” which leads to 1B which discloses that the patent “receives treatment plans with costs & insurance coverage,” “makes appointment” and “receives treatment.” Claim 4 further discloses the method according to claim 1 further comprising after displaying, the subject selecting at least one treatment plan from the at least one health care provider [thus, the patient can choose any specific treatment they want from any specific provider based on their preference].)
While Srinivasan discloses the above limitations and Para 25 discloses “the subject then chooses an appropriate provider, makes appointment and receives treatment,” it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Johnson discloses:
obtaining, by a processing device, identification of a plurality of treatment providers; (Para 24 discloses the online platform provides patients with access to a list of providers within a specified area for review by the patient. In some embodiments, the online platform 8 facilitates transactions between the patient and the provider.)
obtaining user input indicative of: a first disorder, (Para 6 discloses the proposed invention is a platform accessible through a computing device by a patient that provides a directory of approved dental providers. Patient B, upon accessing the portal, can upload photographs of her mouth for review by both a dental laboratory and selected providers in her preferred area of service [images of a dentition and thus reads on the user input indicative of the first disorder as indicated by claim 14].)
providing an indication of the first recommended treatment based on the third selection of the first recommended treatment to the server device, and providing an appointment scheduling prompt associated with the first treatment provider responsive to the third selection. (Claim 1 discloses prompting the service provider and the patient to schedule a clinical appointment. Claim 9 discloses a user interface configured to receive patient information from the computing device, wherein the patient information comprises at least one patient image; ii. a digital preview module configured to generate a digital preview of the recommended dental services; iii. a scheduling interface configured to (a) display a list of a number of the service providers, (b) display scheduling information associated with each of the displayed service providers, and (c) receive selective input from the patient indicating the patient's selection of at least one of the number of service providers for the recommended dental services iv) a data transmit module configured to transmit the patient information, the digital preview, and the selective patient input to the server;).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods and systems for connecting subjects to healthcare providers as taught by Srinivasan with the prompt to schedule a clinical appointment as taught by Johnson in order to facilitate transactions between the patient and the provider and allow patients to request appointments with the provider (Para 24).
Regarding Claim 12, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 11 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Srinivasan and Johnson discloses the following limitation that Johnson further discloses:
The method of claim 11, further comprising: obtaining a user request for identification of one or more treatment providers; and providing an indication of the user request to a server device, wherein the identification of the plurality of treatment providers is based on the user request. (Para 33 discloses the search module provides a patient interface and processing logic for searching the database for providers responsive to a search query [a request for identification of one or more treatment providers], and is one means for doing so. The patient interface of the search module is configured to receive a search query specifying various attributes of the provider, such as gender, location, price, and so forth. The search module matches the attributes of the search query to provider in the database, ranks the providers using the ranking module, and provides the ranked set of providers to a patient device, so that the user of the patient device can access the providers in a convenient manner [determining the plurality of treatment providers responsive to the request]. The patient interface of the search module is capable of displaying the ranked set of listings by rank order.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods and systems for connecting subjects to healthcare providers as taught by Srinivasan with the prompt to schedule a clinical appointment as taught by Johnson in order to facilitate transactions between the patient and the provider and allow patients to request appointments with the provider (Para 24).
Regarding Claim 14, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 11 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Srinivasan and Johnson discloses the following limitation that Johnson further discloses:
The method of claim 11, further comprising prompting a user to generate one or more images of dentition of the user, wherein the user input indicative of the first disorder comprises the one or more images of the dentition. (Para 6 discloses the proposed invention is a platform accessible through a computing device by a patient that provides a directory of approved dental providers. Patient B, upon accessing the portal, can upload photographs of her mouth for review by both a dental laboratory and selected providers in her preferred area of service [images of a dentition and thus reads on the user input indicative of the first disorder].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods and systems for connecting subjects to healthcare providers as taught by Srinivasan with the prompt to schedule a clinical appointment as taught by Johnson in order to facilitate transactions between the patient and the provider (Para 24).
Regarding Claim 15, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 14 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Srinivasan and Johnson discloses the following limitation that Johnson further discloses:
The method of claim 14, further comprising: obtaining a first image of dentition of the user; providing the first image to an image assessment model as input; obtaining from the image assessment model an indication of a deficiency of the first image of the dentition; and providing an alert to the user based on the deficiency of the first image. (Para 27 discloses the system may contain an artificial intelligence engine to aid in determining and/or identifying if the uploaded digital image of the patient does not meet the requirements of the system [indication of a deficiency of the first image of the dentition], namely if the uploaded digital image does not capture the whole face or does not show the teeth of the patient. The artificial intelligence engine may prompt the patient immediately after upload [providing an alert to the user based on the deficiency of the first image] or at a later time to then request images to be uploaded to the system.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods and systems for connecting subjects to healthcare providers as taught by Srinivasan with the prompt to schedule a clinical appointment as taught by Johnson in order to facilitate transactions between the patient and the provider and allow patients to request appointments with the provider (Para 24).
Regarding Claim 18, Srinivasan discloses:
A method, comprising:
obtaining, by a processing device, from a first user device, a first user request for identification of a first treatment provider for treatment of a target dental disorder; (Para 5 discloses an embodiment of the method further includes prior to sending, identifying at least one health condition in the subject from the initial exploratory result. An embodiment of the method further includes after identifying, classifying the subject by severity of the at least one health condition. An embodiment of the method further includes after displaying, the subject selecting at least one treatment plan from the at least one health care provider. Paras 9-10 disclose an embodiment of the method further includes prior to sending, selecting a category of the health care providers based on the initial exploratory results. An embodiment of the method further includes prior to sending, uploading the initial exploratory results to a data storage resource… An aspect of the invention described herein provides a system to connect a subject to at least one health care provider, the system including: at least one digital computing machine, and an exploratory device. )
receiving, from the first user device, first user data comprising: data indicative of dentition of the user, and (Paras 14-17 disclose the exploratory exam is performed by the subject themselves as described in FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B. [wherein Fig. 1A discloses the scan of the mouth as images]… For example, an intra-oral scanner simultaneously records 3D, intraoral color and near Infra-Red (NIRI) images and provides an oral health snapshot for the subject. The snapshot includes presence of caries, missing teeth, teeth alignment, gum disease, etc. Based on the snapshot the subject is classified as green, yellow, and red.)
providing the first user data to a second device associated with the treatment provider; obtaining, from the second device, information of a first recommended treatment for treatment of the target dental disorder in association with the first user data and the treatment provider; (Para 5 discloses an embodiment of the method further includes prior to sending, identifying at least one health condition in the subject from the initial exploratory result. An embodiment of the method further includes after identifying, classifying the subject by severity of the at least one health condition. An embodiment of the method further includes after displaying, the subject selecting at least one treatment plan from the at least one health care provider. Paras 9-10 disclose an embodiment of the method further includes prior to sending, selecting a category of the health care providers based on the initial exploratory results. An embodiment of the method further includes prior to sending, uploading the initial exploratory results to a data storage resource… An aspect of the invention described herein provides a system to connect a subject to at least one health care provider, the system including: at least one digital computing machine, and an exploratory device. Para 19 discloses the exploratory results and/or the classified subject categories are uploaded to a secure server. The health care providers access the secure server and assess the exploratory results. In alternative embodiments, upon uploading the exploratory results the health care providers or their clinics receive an alert regarding a potential new subject or an existing subject of record. Para 20 discloses the health care providers analyze the results and assemble at least one treatment plan for the subject. For example, a dentist prepares a first treatment plan including procedures such as periodontal treatment, restorations and extractions.)
providing to the first user device the information of the first recommended treatment obtaining second user data comprising a user rejection of the first recommended treatment, providing the user rejection to the second device, obtaining a second recommended treatment for treatment of the target dental disorder, different than the first recommended treatment for treatment of the target dental disorder, from the second device, wherein the second recommended treatment differs from the first recommended treatment in at least one of estimated cost of treatment or estimated duration of treatment, providing data indicative of the second recommended treatment to the first user device; and (Para 20 discloses the health care providers analyze the results and assemble at least one treatment plan for the subject. For example, a dentist prepares a first treatment plan including procedures such as periodontal treatment, restorations and extractions. The dentist may prepare a second treatment plan including procedures such as periodontal treatment, restorations, root-canal treatment and crowns. The dentist may prepare a third treatment plan including procedures such as periodontal treatment, restorations, root-canal treatment and crowns, extractions, and implants, or dentures. The dentist may prepare a fourth treatment plan including procedures such as periodontal treatment, restorations, root-canal treatment and crowns, extractions, implants, or dentures, and orthodontic aligners [thus disclosing that each treatment is different]. The treatment plans are uploaded to the secure server and are accessible by the subject. In alternative embodiments, the subject receives a notification on their phone, the application, or an email alerting them to review the treatment plan. In alternative embodiments, the treatment plan includes cost for each treatment option [wherein the cost is unique to each treatment plan, and each treatment plan is identified as different above, thus this reads on the treatment plans differing in at least one of estimated cost]. The cost may include cost covered by the health insurance and the out-of-pocket costs. In alternative embodiments, the health care providers may also include available financing options in the treatment plan. Further, para 24 discloses the subject may choose to receive the results, send the results to one or more preferred providers or to telemedicine services or to provider referral service. If the subject chooses one or more preferred providers the results are sent to the preferred providers or telemedicine services via electronic email, paper copies, electronic storage devices, or cloud services. Wherein Figures 1A and 1B disclose that whether the patient chooses preferred providers, secondary providers, telemedicine providers, or rever to a service agent, the system “moves ahead” which leads to 1B which discloses that the patent “receives treatment plans with costs & insurance coverage,” “makes appointment” and “receives treatment.” Further, claim 4 discloses the method according to claim 1 further comprising after displaying, the subject selecting at least one treatment plan from the at least one health care provider [thus, the patient can choose any specific treatment they want from any specific provider based on their preference, wherein when a patient picks one treatment, the other treatments are thus rejected].)
While Srinivasan discloses the above limitations and discloses the plurality of treatment plans and para 25 discloses “the multiple referred providers formulate one or more treatment plans including cost and insurance coverage information and send the treatment plan to the subject. The subject then chooses an appropriate provider, makes appointment and receives treatment,” and thus discloses scheduling “in view of the second recommended treatment,” wherein the patient selects the second recommended treatment, it does not fully disclose the following limitations that Johnson discloses:
determining, by the processing device, a treatment provider; providing identification of the treatment provider to the first user device; (Para 24 discloses the online platform provides patients with access to a list of providers within a specified area for review by the patient. In some embodiments, the online platform 8 facilitates transactions between the patient and the provider.)
a second user request for a first treatment plan associated with the dentition and the treatment provider; (Para 32 discloses the review module provides a patient interface and processing logic to receive reviews of the providers available to users, providing evaluations, feedback, and other commentary about a provider, and is one means for doing so. Completed reviews can be included within and appear alongside listings, so that future patients interested in seeking treatment from the provider can evaluate and select the provider with the reviews in mind [thus indicating the patient selects the provider from the list]. Claim 9 discloses a scheduling interface configured to (a) display a list of a number of the service providers, (b) display scheduling information associated with each of the displayed service providers, and (c) receive selective input from the patient indicating the patient's selection of at least one of the number of service providers for the recommended dental services [a second request for a treatment plan].)
causing the first user device to display an appointment scheduling prompt... (Claim 1 discloses prompting the service provider and the patient to schedule a clinical appointment. Claim 9 discloses a user interface configured to receive patient information from the computing device, wherein the patient information comprises at least one patient image; ii. a digital preview module configured to generate a digital preview of the recommended dental services; iii. a scheduling interface configured to (a) display a list of a number of the service providers, (b) display scheduling information associated with each of the displayed service providers, and (c) receive selective input from the patient indicating the patient's selection of at least one of the number of service providers for the recommended dental services).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods and systems for connecting subjects to healthcare providers as taught by Srinivasan with the prompt to schedule a clinical appointment as taught by Johnson in order to facilitate transactions between the patient and the provider and allow patients to request appointments with the provider (Para 24).
Regarding Claim 20, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 18 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Srinivasan and Johnson discloses the following limitation that Johnson further discloses:
The method of claim 18, wherein determining the treatment provider is based on one or more of: a location associated with the user device; a treatment history of the treatment provider; or a user rating of the treatment provider. (Para 33 discloses the search module provides a patient interface and processing logic for searching the database for providers responsive to a search query, and is one means for doing so. The patient interface of the search module is configured to receive a search query specifying various attributes of the provider, such as gender, location [location in comparison to a location associated with the first user device as the patient ranks based on location], price, and so forth. The search module matches the attributes of the search query to provider in the database, ranks the providers using the ranking module, and provides the ranked set of providers to a patient device, so that the user of the patient device can access the providers in a convenient manner. The patient interface of the search module is capable of displaying the ranked set of listings by rank order [thus the broadest reasonable interpretation of a user rating as the ranking based on the user priorities (see claim 5 for example)].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods and systems for connecting subjects to healthcare providers as taught by Srinivasan with the prompt to schedule a clinical appointment as taught by Johnson in order to facilitate transactions between the patient and the provider and allow patients to request appointments with the provider (Para 24) based on the patient’s filtered preferences of the attributes of the provider.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan (US PG Pub 2023/0282341 A1) in view of Johnson (US PG Pub 2020/0402649 A1), further in view of Khan (The Human Genetics of Dental Anomalies).
Regarding Claim 6, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Srinivasan and Johnson does not fully disclose the following limitation that Khan discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the image data of dentition of the user comprises one or more images of a dental arch of a user comprising an indication of a first disorder associated with the first treatment provider and the second treatment provider. (Supernumerary Teeth section discloses Supernumerary teeth or hyperdontia (OMIM #187100) are characterized by an excess in the number of teeth from usual for any given region of the dental arch. They may occur unilaterally or bilaterally, single or in multiples in any region of dental arches. [thus indicating that a dental arch indicates a first disorder]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the methods and systems for connecting subjects to healthcare providers as taught by Srinivasan and the prompt to schedule a clinical appointment as taught by Johnson with the dental anomalies as taught by Khan in order to clearly identify a disorder through images of a dental arch of a user to facilitate treatment.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan (US PG Pub 2023/0282341 A1) in view of Johnson (US PG Pub 2020/0402649 A1) in view of Khan (The Human Genetics of Dental Anomalies), further in view of Vasalos (US PG Pub 20220359088 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 6 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Vasalos discloses:
The method of claim 6, further comprising: determining a third treatment provider associated with a second disorder, and providing to the first user device identification of the third treatment provider. (Abstract discloses the system can identify candidate providers that treated said clients for the condition based on relationships in the databases. The system can then generate an ordered list of the candidate providers based on corresponding treatment metrics and transmit the ordered list of the candidate providers as search results in response to the search query. Paras 13-14 disclose the system can filter the subset of other clients to determine which of the other clients are or were affected by the condition for which treatment is sought. Such clients can be referred to as affected clients. For example, the system can query the one or more databases to determine which, if any, of the other clients in the subset are marked as having been treated for the condition. In this way, the searching process can enable the system to determine which of the other similar clients have also been treated for the same condition… Having identified other similar clients that have been treated for the same condition, the system can identify one or more providers [thus reading on the third provider where there are one or more conditions of the user, thus if there are two conditions there would be “one or more providers” for each condition] that treated the other affected clients. Since such information can be stored in the one or more databases, the system can determine this information based on relationships between the affected clients and the providers in the one or more databases. These providers can serve as candidates for treating the target client, so they can be referred to as candidate providers. Paras 25-26 disclose the server 104 receives a search query 120 from a computing device, such as client device 102. The search query 120 includes one or more attributes of a target client and one or more conditions of the target client. The target client can be an individual or entity that wants certain services. The target client can be the same as, or different from, the user of the computing device. The conditions can correspond to a physical state of the target client and can be different from the attributes. In some examples, a user of the computing device can generate the search query 120 via a graphical user interface. The graphical user interface can have multiple fields for receiving input data (e.g., the one or more attributes and the one or more conditions) from the user. The graphical user interface can then generate and transmit the search query 120 based on the input data, for example in response to the selection of a submit button by the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the methods and systems for connecting subjects to healthcare providers as taught by Srinivasan and the prompt to schedule a clinical appointment as taught by Johnson with the advance searching of databases for relevant data values as taught by Vasalos in order to identify a plurality of providers to recommend to a user based on the users condition to facilitate proper and efficient scheduling of treatment.
While the combination of Srinivasan, Johnson and Valosas discloses the above limitations it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Khan discloses:
wherein the image data of dentition of the user further comprises an indication of the second disorder; (Dentinogenesis imperfect section discloses Dentinogenesis imperfecta (DI; OMIM # 125490) is a hereditary developmental defect of dentin formation that results in the appearance of opalescent teeth. The teeth usually appear blue-gray or yellow brown in color. 63 It is generally inherited in simple autosomal dominant mode with high penetrance and low mutation rates. Both the primary and permanent dentition is affected by DI [thus indicating that a second disorder can be identified in image data of dentition].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the methods and systems for connecting subjects to healthcare providers as taught by Srinivasan, the prompt to schedule a clinical appointment as taught by Johnson and the advance searching of databases for relevant data values as taught by Vasalos with the dental anomalies as taught by Khan in order to clearly identify a disorder through images of a dental arch of a user to facilitate treatment.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan (US PG Pub 2023/0282341 A1) in view of Johnson (US PG Pub 2020/0402649 A1), further in view of Lakshmikanth (IN 2277CH2013A).
Regarding Claim 16, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 11 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. While Johnson Claim 1 discloses, “a scheduling interface configured to (a) display a list of a number of the service providers, (b) display scheduling information associated with each of the displayed service providers,” the combination of Srinivasan and Johnson does not fully disclose the following limitation that Lakshmikanth discloses:
The method of claim 11, further comprising obtaining treatment scheduling data associated with the first recommended treatment, and providing an alert based on the treatment scheduling data to the user. (Figure 3 illustrates the appointment schedule module that is used to schedule the appointment to the users. The appointment schedule gets the information of the registered users and service providers from the centralized database. The user can search for the service provider and if the service provider is registered or enrolled, the user can schedule an appointment. Once the appointment is confirmed, the user gets details of the appointment through SMS/web feeds. The details of the appointment include token number, number of the other users already in the Queue as well as an Initial estimated time of appointment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the methods and systems for connecting subjects to healthcare providers as taught by Srinivasan and the prompt to schedule a clinical appointment as taught by Johnson with the system and method for an appointment with real time queue status indicator as taught by Lakshmikanth in order to provide an update on the status of an appointment to a patient to provide clarity of scheduling of appointments.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan (US PG Pub 2023/0282341 A1) in view of Johnson (US PG Pub 2020/0402649 A1), further in view of Vasalos (US PG Pub 20220359088 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 11 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Srinivasan and Johnson does not fully disclose the following limitation that Vasalos discloses:
The method of claim 11, further comprising: obtaining identification of a third treatment provider and a fourth treatment provider, wherein the third treatment provider and the fourth treatment provider are associated with a second disorder; obtaining user input indicative of the second disorder; providing to the server device the user input; and obtaining third information of a third recommended treatment associated with the second disorder and the third treatment provider, and fourth information of a fourth recommended treatment in association with the second disorder and the fourth treatment provider. (Abstract discloses the system can identify candidate providers that treated said clients for the condition based on relationships in the databases. The system can then generate an ordered list of the candidate providers based on corresponding treatment metrics and transmit the ordered list of the candidate providers as search results in response to the search query. Paras 13-14 disclose the system can filter the subset of other clients to determine which of the other clients are or were affected by the condition for which treatment is sought. Such clients can be referred to as affected clients. For example, the system can query the one or more databases to determine which, if any, of the other clients in the subset are marked as having been treated for the condition. In this way, the searching process can enable the system to determine which of the other similar clients have also been treated for the same condition… Having identified other similar clients that have been treated for the same condition, the system can identify one or more providers [thus reading on the third and fourth providers where there are one or more conditions of the user, thus if there are two conditions there would be “one or more providers” for each condition] that treated the other affected clients. Since such information can be stored in the one or more databases, the system can determine this information based on relationships between the affected clients and the providers in the one or more databases. These providers can serve as candidates for treating the target client, so they can be referred to as candidate providers. Paras 25-26 disclose the server 104 receives a search query 120 from a computing device, such as client device 102. The search query 120 includes one or more attributes of a target client and one or more conditions of the target client. The target client can be an individual or entity that wants certain services. The target client can be the same as, or different from, the user of the computing device. The conditions can correspond to a physical state of the target client and can be different from the attributes. In some examples, a user of the computing device can generate the search query 120 via a graphical user interface. The graphical user interface can have multiple fields for receiving input data (e.g., the one or more attributes and the one or more conditions) from the user. The graphical user interface can then generate and transmit the search query 120 based on the input data, for example in response to the selection of a submit button by the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the methods and systems for connecting subjects to healthcare providers as taught by Srinivasan and the prompt to schedule a clinical appointment as taught by Johnson with the advance searching of databases for relevant data values as taught by Vasalos in order to identify a plurality of providers to recommend to a user based on the users condition to facilitate proper and efficient scheduling of treatment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/01/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to identify providers and provide treatment recommendations to a patient from the providers. Applicant has not pointed to anything in the claims that fall outside of this characterization, the Applicant merely states that the claims allegedly are not directed to a judicial exception. Because the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow to identify providers and provide treatment recommendations to a patient from the providers, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
The Applicant then argues that the claim invention integrates any abstract idea into a practical application by extending a scheduling prompt to cause a scheduling action to occur. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). The problem of needing to provide provisional estimates through evaluation by multiple treatment providers is not a problem caused by the processing device that is involved in the process. At best, Applicant’s identified problem is a business problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application. Further, the Applicant argues that extending a scheduling prompt is the practical application. “Providing a scheduling prompt to the first user device,” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as further addressed above in light of the amendment to the claim. Further, scheduling an appointment associated with treating the target dental disorder with either the first treatment provider or the second treatment provider further narrows the abstract idea. The abstract idea cannot integrate itself into a practical application. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
Finally, the Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides significantly more than an abstract idea as it allows potential patients to initiate treatment. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification describes that “scheduling of an appointment in association with the treatment between a user and a treatment provider may be initiated” (Para 81). Scheduling a treatment, as previously presented under claim 9 in the previous office action, further narrows the abstract idea. The abstract idea cannot provide significantly more. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/01/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the ground for rejection does not rely on the combination of references previously applied in the prior rejection for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the updated application of prior art above as necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments.
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 SARA J MORICE DE VARGAS whose telephone number is (703)756-4608. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 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, Peter H. Choi can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/SARA JESSICA MORICE DE VARGAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights