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
This action is in reply to the application filed on 11/26/2024.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-21 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 1-21 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 to a 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, by the processing device: first information of a first recommended treatment for the dentition from the second device of the first treatment provider, and second information of a second recommended treatment for the dentition from the third device of the second treatment provider; and providing the first information of the first recommended treatment and the second information of the second recommended treatment to the first user device.
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, from the server device: first information of a first recommended treatment in association with the first disorder and the first treatment provider, and second information of a second recommended treatment in association with the first disorder and the second treatment provider; 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.
Independent Claim 18 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; 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 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.
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
Claim 11 discloses the following additional elements:
A processing device
A server device
Claim 18 discloses the following additional elements:
A processing device
A first and second user device
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. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the 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").
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) 2-10, 12-17, and 19-21 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 1-21 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) 1-5, 8-15, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US PG Pub 2020/0402649 A1) in view of Van Lierde (US PG Pub 2011/0251851 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
A method comprising:
determining, by a processing device, a plurality of treatment providers for providing a dental treatment to a user; providing to a first user device identification of the plurality of treatment providers; (More generally, 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.)
receiving, from the first user device: image data of dentition of the user, (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.)
While Johnson discloses the above limitations and Para 6 discloses, “with the digital images already available, the provider can then have a digital image of the prospective change to Patient B's smile for presentation to Patient B in the first meeting as well as a preemptive opportunity to offer rough cost estimates, procedural complexity and treatment timelines,” it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Van Lierde discloses:
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; (Para 30 discloses the system provides GP's (General Practitioners) with the means to select one or more preferred service providers. This can for example be done by allowing the GP to indicate providers from a drop down menu. Such a drop down menu is generated by the system via queries run on its database(s), based on search criteria entered by the GP on the webpage. Alternatively, the system stores default providers as entered by the GP or based on a “most frequently used” criterion).
providing the image data to a second device associated with the first treatment provider and a third device associated with the second treatment provider; (Para 52 discloses As soon as the image data has been converted and is in the appropriate file format and stored on the system, the status of the case is changed which acts as a trigger to notify the GP as well as the clinical expert(s) involved. The latter can start with the determination of the most optimal positions for the implants and abutments, in function of biomechanical (e.g. quality of the bone) and aesthetic (e.g. smile line of the patient) considerations. The system incorporates online implant simulation software and instant online communication tools (e.g. online meeting, chat-room, internet-telephony) and integrates the required hardware (e.g. webcams). As an example, web-links are created by the system that automatically contact the appropriate person via existing services such as Skype and like [via a user device associated with an expert]. Several people (for example an expert and the GP or a number of experts) can work on the simulation simultaneously while discussing the case. Alternatively they work on the case one after another until all agree on the final simulation of implant and abutment positions, orientations and the like. The system keeps track of the history (i.e. intermediate versions of the simulation) at least until the GP has accepted the final simulation.)
obtaining, by the processing device: first information of a first recommended treatment for the dentition from the second device of the first treatment provider, and second information of a second recommended treatment for the dentition from the third device of the second treatment provider; and providing the first information of the first recommended treatment and the second information of the second recommended treatment to the first user device. (Para 35-37 discloses the system updates the status of the treatment simulation by synchronizing the treatment simulation stored on its storage unit, with the one being created in the separate environment. The system monitors the differences between the two simulations and does not require the entire digital information to be exchanged, therefore drastically reducing the amount of data exchange required… The system can store treatment simulation of different service providers separately (i.e. versioning) [thus obtaining a first and second recommended treatment from each user device of each provider]. The system can also allow multiple experts to work on a single simulation as a team. In such cases, it may store incremental versions until the final simulation has been obtained. Experts can thus easily revert back to previous versions of the simulation. Claim 10 discloses selecting at least one dental specialist (201, 202) by a dentist (101, 102); communicating with said at least one dental specialist (201, 202) by the dentist (101, 102) over a communications network (40); generating a planning for the dental treatment; providing patient-specific information for simulating the dental treatment; creating a simulation of the dental treatment; accepting the simulation by the dentist (101, 102) [wherein the “system can store treatment simulations of different service providers separately,” thus disclosing the dentist accepts one of the simulations].)
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 system and method for providing dental services to a patient as taught by Johnson with the system and method for multi-person and multi-site interactive treatment simulation as taught by Van Lierde in order to implement a multi-person and multi-site, interactive medical, especially dental treatment, simulation… output a plurality of simulations to identify the best treatment for the patient.
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 Johnson and Van Lierde 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.)
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. The combination of Johnson and Van Lierde 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)].)
Regarding Claim 4, 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 Johnson and Van Lierde discloses the following limitation that Van Lierde further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first information of the first recommended treatment comprises one or more of an estimated cost of treatment or estimated duration of treatment. (Claim 20 discloses said generating invoicing data for said dental treatment comprises generating a single invoice for the dentist detailing the costs associated with said at least one dental specialist.).
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 system and method for providing dental services to a patient as taught by Johnson with the system and method for multi-person and multi-site interactive treatment simulation as taught by Van Lierde in order to implement a multi-person and multi-site, interactive medical, especially dental treatment, simulation… and provide transparency in the cost of a service.
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 Johnson and Van Lierde discloses the following limitation that Johnson further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first recommended treatment comprises one or more of prosthodontic treatment or orthodontic treatment. (Para 14 discloses the present invention is directed to a system and method for directing an Internet user in need of smile-enhancing dentistry to find, evaluate and select a provider for dental services (namely dentures, crowns, veneers, dental implants, orthodontics, periodontics, and/or maxillofacial surgery).)
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 Johnson and Van Lierde discloses the following limitation that Van Lierde further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining, from the first user device, a third user selection of first recommended treatment. (Para 35-37 discloses the system updates the status of the treatment simulation by synchronizing the treatment simulation stored on its storage unit, with the one being created in the separate environment. The system monitors the differences between the two simulations and does not require the entire digital information to be exchanged, therefore drastically reducing the amount of data exchange required… The system can store treatment simulation of different service providers separately (i.e. versioning) [thus obtaining a first and second recommended treatment from each user device of each provider]. The system can also allow multiple experts to work on a single simulation as a team. In such cases, it may store incremental versions until the final simulation has been obtained. Experts can thus easily revert back to previous versions of the simulation. Claim 10 discloses selecting at least one dental specialist (201, 202) by a dentist (101, 102); communicating with said at least one dental specialist (201, 202) by the dentist (101, 102) over a communications network (40); generating a planning for the dental treatment; providing patient-specific information for simulating the dental treatment; creating a simulation of the dental treatment; accepting the simulation by the dentist (101, 102) [wherein the “system can store treatment simulations of different service providers separately,” thus disclosing the dentist accepts one of the simulations which broadly includes the ability to select the first recommended treatment].)
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 system and method for providing dental services to a patient as taught by Johnson with the system and method for multi-person and multi-site interactive treatment simulation as taught by Van Lierde in order to implement a multi-person and multi-site, interactive medical, especially dental treatment, simulation… output a plurality of simulations to identify the best treatment for the patient.
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 Johnson and Van Lierde discloses the following limitation that Johnson further discloses:
The method of claim 8, further comprising prompting one or more of the user associated with the first user device, or the first treatment provider, to schedule treatment. (Para 6 discloses Patient B can then agree to schedule an initial appointment with the accepting provider. Claim 1 discloses prompting the service provider and the patient to schedule a clinical appointment;)
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 Johnson and Van Lierde 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].)
Regarding Claim 11,
A method comprising:
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].)
While Johnson discloses the above limitations and Para 6 discloses, “with the digital images already available, the provider can then have a digital image of the prospective change to Patient B's smile for presentation to Patient B in the first meeting as well as a preemptive opportunity to offer rough cost estimates, procedural complexity and treatment timelines,” it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Van Lierde discloses:
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; (Para 30 discloses the system provides GP's (General Practitioners) with the means to select one or more preferred service providers. This can for example be done by allowing the GP to indicate providers from a drop down menu. Such a drop down menu is generated by the system via queries run on its database(s), based on search criteria entered by the GP on the webpage. Alternatively, the system stores default providers as entered by the GP or based on a “most frequently used” criterion.)
providing the user input to a server device; receiving, from the server device: first information of a first recommended treatment in association with the first disorder and the first treatment provider, and second information of a second recommended treatment in association with the first disorder and the second treatment provider; 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. (Para 32 discloses referring now to FIG. 1, the inventive system (100) includes a data storage unit (32) for storing digitized information of the patient anatomy (e.g. CT images), the created simulations and any other relevant information (e.g. library of artificial elements, patient history, etc). This storage unit (32) can for instance be a file storage server. Para 35-37 discloses the system updates the status of the treatment simulation by synchronizing the treatment simulation stored on its storage unit, with the one being created in the separate environment. The system monitors the differences between the two simulations and does not require the entire digital information to be exchanged, therefore drastically reducing the amount of data exchange required… The system can store treatment simulation of different service providers separately (i.e. versioning) [thus obtaining a first and second recommended treatment from each user device of each provider]. The system can also allow multiple experts to work on a single simulation as a team. In such cases, it may store incremental versions until the final simulation has been obtained. Experts can thus easily revert back to previous versions of the simulation. Claim 10 discloses selecting at least one dental specialist (201, 202) by a dentist (101, 102); communicating with said at least one dental specialist (201, 202) by the dentist (101, 102) over a communications network (40); generating a planning for the dental treatment; providing patient-specific information for simulating the dental treatment; creating a simulation of the dental treatment; accepting the simulation by the dentist (101, 102) [wherein the “system can store treatment simulations of different service providers separately,” thus disclosing the dentist accepts one of the simulations].)
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 system and method for providing dental services to a patient as taught by Johnson with the system and method for multi-person and multi-site interactive treatment simulation as taught by Van Lierde in order to implement a multi-person and multi-site, interactive medical, especially dental treatment, simulation… output a plurality of simulations to identify the best treatment for the patient.
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 Johnson and Van Lierde 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.)
Regarding Claim 13, 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 Johnson and Van Lierde discloses the following limitation that Van Lierde further discloses:
The method of claim 11, wherein the first information of the first recommended treatment comprises one or more of an estimated cost of treatment or estimated duration of treatment. (Claim 20 discloses said generating invoicing data for said dental treatment comprises generating a single invoice for the dentist detailing the costs associated with said at least one dental specialist.).
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 Johnson and Van Lierde 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].)
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 Johnson and Van Lierde 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 Additionally, 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.)
Regarding Claim 18,
A method, comprising:
obtaining, by a processing device, from a first user device, a first user request for identification of a first treatment provider; receiving, from the first user device, first user data comprising: data indicative of dentition of the user, and (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 [thus requesting identification of a first treatment provider] by both a dental laboratory and selected providers in her preferred area of service. Para 14 discloses the present invention is a platform that allows a user to evaluate and request services from network providers while streamlining the process for the dentist.)
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.)
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 in association with the first user data and the treatment provider; and (Claim 9 discloses a provider interface configured to (a) display the patient information, the digital preview, and the selective patient input at a provider computing device, (b) receive selective input from the provider scheduling a patient appointment for a selected date, and (c) provide instructions to prepare a physical sample of the recommended dental services based on the patient information and digital preview prior to the date of the patient appointment.)
While Johnson discloses the above limitations and Para 6 discloses, “with the digital images already available, the provider can then have a digital image of the prospective change to Patient B's smile for presentation to Patient B in the first meeting as well as a preemptive opportunity to offer rough cost estimates, procedural complexity and treatment timelines,” it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Van Lierde discloses:
providing to the first user device the information of the first recommended treatment. (Para 35-37 discloses the system updates the status of the treatment simulation by synchronizing the treatment simulation stored on its storage unit, with the one being created in the separate environment. The system monitors the differences between the two simulations and does not require the entire digital information to be exchanged, therefore drastically reducing the amount of data exchange required… The system can store treatment simulation of different service providers separately (i.e. versioning) [thus obtaining a first and second recommended treatment from each user device of each provider]. The system can also allow multiple experts to work on a single simulation as a team. In such cases, it may store incremental versions until the final simulation has been obtained. Experts can thus easily revert back to previous versions of the simulation. Claim 10 discloses selecting at least one dental specialist (201, 202) by a dentist (101, 102); communicating with said at least one dental specialist (201, 202) by the dentist (101, 102) over a communications network (40); generating a planning for the dental treatment; providing patient-specific information for simulating the dental treatment; creating a simulation of the dental treatment; accepting the simulation by the dentist (101, 102) [wherein the “system can store treatment simulations of different service providers separately,” thus disclosing the dentist accepts one of the simulations].)
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 system and method for providing dental services to a patient as taught by Johnson with the system and method for multi-person and multi-site interactive treatment simulation as taught by Van Lierde in order to implement a multi-person and multi-site, interactive medical, especially dental treatment, simulation… output the treatment simulation to the user device to facilitate treatment efficiently.
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 Johnson and Van Lierde 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)].)
Regarding Claim 21, 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 Johnson and Van Lierde discloses the following limitation that Van Lierde further discloses:
The method of claim 18, wherein the information of the first recommended treatment comprises one or more of an estimated cost or estimated duration of treatment. (Claim 20 discloses said generating invoicing data for said dental treatment comprises generating a single invoice for the dentist detailing the costs associated with said at least one dental specialist.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US PG Pub 2020/0402649 A1) in view of Van Lierde (US PG Pub 2011/0251851 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 Johnson and Van Lierde 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 system and method for providing dental services to a patient as taught by Johnson and the system and method for multi-person and multi-site interactive treatment simulation as taught by Van Lierde 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 Johnson (US PG Pub 2020/0402649 A1) in view of Van Lierde (US PG Pub 2011/0251851 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. Further, 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 system and method for providing dental services to a patient as taught by Johnson and the system and method for multi-person and multi-site interactive treatment simulation as taught by Van Lierde 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 Johnson, Van Lierde, 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 system and method for providing dental services to a patient as taught by Johnson and the system and method for multi-person and multi-site interactive treatment simulation as taught by Van Lierde 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 Johnson (US PG Pub 2020/0402649 A1) in view of Van Lierde (US PG Pub 2011/0251851 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,” it 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 system and method for providing dental services to a patient as taught by Johnson and the system and method for multi-person and multi-site interactive treatment simulation as taught by Van Lierde 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 Johnson (US PG Pub 2020/0402649 A1) in view of Van Lierde (US PG Pub 2011/0251851 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 Johnson and Van Lierde 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 system and method for providing dental services to a patient as taught by Johnson and the system and method for multi-person and multi-site interactive treatment simulation as taught by Van Lierde 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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US PG Pub 2020/0402649 A1) in view of Van Lierde (US PG Pub 2011/0251851 A1), further in view of Bauer (US PG Pub 2014/0316813 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, 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 Johnson and Van Lierde does not fully disclose the following limitation that Bauer discloses:
The method of claim 18, further comprising: 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 from the second device; and providing data indicative of the second recommended treatment to the first user device. (Para 194 discloses the treatment work table 600 may prioritize and display a relevant subset of possible treatment options 610 as shown in FIG. 14 and FIG. 15 depending on the information obtained during the patient interview and diagnosis. Also the encounter form 174 may allow for indicating that the patient refused treatment. In some situations, a physician may want to provide alternative treatments 612 shown in FIG. 15 other than those suggested by the HCT 100, such as a referral to a specialist.)
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 system and method for providing dental services to a patient as taught by Johnson and the system and method for multi-person and multi-site interactive treatment simulation as taught by Van Lierde with the healthcare toolkit as disclosed by Bauer in order to provide alternative treatments to a user to ensure proper treatment of a disease while still giving the patient the ability to refuse options to find the ideal treatment for the patient.
Conclusion
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