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 .
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.
Step 1
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-2, 4-12, 15-23 are directed towards an apparatus; thus, each of the pending claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1, representative of the claimed invention, recites the steps of obtaining, from a database, examination records of the medical facility; extracting inefficiencies or errors from the acquired data and the obtained examination records wherein the inefficiencies or errors from the acquired data and obtained examination records is based on a method upon which the data and/or records were acquired; wherein the inefficiencies or errors include information extracted from one or more examination records of the one or more of the medical devices; receiving context information related to the medical facility; identifying information related to one or more other medical facilities with similar matching context information to the medical facility; selecting one or more educational content units to be delivered to a medical professional of the medical facility based on the inefficiencies or errors, the context information of the medical facility, and the information related to the one or more other medical facilities with similar matching context information; and delivering the selected one or more content units to a mobile device or workstation operable by the medical professional, wherein the delivering includes determining whether the delivered one or more content units were completed or accessed and, in response to the one or more content units not being completed or accessed, sending a notification to a workstation operable by a user different from the medical professional.
The limitations above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mental processes and also certain methods of organizing human activity. The claimed steps recite several steps that include observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions, and “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” which have been considered by the courts to be a mental process. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). The claimed steps also are directed towards managing personal behavior (e.g., identifying training needs and providing training)
Apart from the use of generic technology (discussed further below), each of the limitations recited above describes activities that would encompass actions performed in identifying training needs from an analysis of a work product and providing training.
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, these activities describe concepts relating to managing personal behavior and mental processes in that the activities relate to identifying training needs from an analysis of a work product and providing training. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, commercial interactions, or fundamental economic practices, then it falls within the “Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The recited steps also are considered to be a mental process as methods that can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a secure data connection to medical devices, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and a database. Claim 17 recites the additional elements of a secure data connection, video camera, remote workstation, communication link, database, electronic processor, mobile device, and workstation. The data connection, medium, database, workstation, mobile device, and video camera are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving information, performing calculations, and providing/transmitting information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. 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 using a processor to perform the steps of “obtaining, from a database, examination records of the medical facility; extracting inefficiencies or errors from the acquired data and the obtained examination records wherein the inefficiencies or errors from the acquired data and obtained examination records is based on a method upon which the data and/or records were acquired; wherein the inefficiencies or errors include information extracted from one or more examination records of the one or more of the medical devices; receiving context information related to the medical facility; identifying information related to one or more other medical facilities with similar matching context information to the medical facility; selecting one or more educational content units to be delivered to a medical professional of the medical facility based on the inefficiencies or errors, the context information of the medical facility, and the information related to the one or more other medical facilities with similar matching context information; and delivering the selected one or more content units to a mobile device or workstation operable by the medical professional, wherein the delivering includes determining whether the delivered one or more content units were completed or accessed and, in response to the one or more content units not being completed or accessed, sending a notification to a workstation operable by a user different from the medical professional” 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.
Step 2B
Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Claims 1 and 13 are not similar to any of these limitations.
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1 and 17 recite additional elements that are regarded as “apply it” as seen in the Step 2A Prong 2 discussion above. The claims do not set forth a solution to a problem rooted in technology (e.g., technical solution), as identifying training needs through work product review and providing appropriate training predate the use of computers or machine learning models.
Looking at the limitations of claims 1 and 17 as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, effects a transformation of subject matter to a different state or thing, applies the use of a particular machine, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, claims 1 and 17 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea and do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. None of dependent claims 2, 4-12, 15-16 or 18-23 recite any further additional elements.
Dependent claims 5-12, 15-16, 19, and 21-23 further narrow the scope of the abstract idea in claims 1 and 17 by providing additional information or considerations used in the analysis. Dependent claims 2, 4, 18, and 20 also further narrow the scope of the abstract idea in independent claims 1 and 17 by reciting allowing for user input via a GUI (which is are routine computing functions that do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea or a practical application of the abstract idea).
Thus, claims 1-2, 4-12, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1. 2. 4-12, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8,957,955 to Reiner in view of U.S. Patent 11,364,389 to Hresko et al.
As to claim 1, Reiner discloses a healthcare provider educational platform comprising:
A secure data connection to one or more medical devices (Reiner column 7 lines 1-15 and column 8 lines 12-18);
non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by at least one electronic processor to perform a method of providing education content to medical professionals, the method comprising:
Obtaining, from a database, examination records of the medical facility (Reiner column 12 lines 1-67)
extracting inefficiencies or errors from the acquired data and the obtained examination records, wherein the inefficiencies or errors include information extracted from one or more examination records of the one or more medical devices and the inefficiencies or errors from the acquired data and obtained examination records is based on a method upon which the data and/or the records were acquired (Reiner column 12 lines 53-67 and column 8 lines 19-30 see “QA for the radiographic process is directed to correcting for technical deficiencies occurring in the image acquisition portion of the imaging study. These technical deficiencies can be the result of patient non-compliance (e.g., motion), technologist oversight (e.g., position” or technology malfunction (e.g., artifacts).);
receiving context information related to the medical facility (Reiner column 12 lines 53-67 and column 21 lines 1-11);
identifying information related to one or more other medical facilities with similar matching context information to the medical facility (Reiner figure 2B and column 21 lines 1-11);
identifying educational needs based on the context information of the medical facility, and the information related to the one or more other medical facilities with similar matching context information (Reiner figure 2B and column 21 lines 1-11).
However, Reiner does not explicitly teach:
selecting one or more content units to be delivered to a medical professional of the medical facility based on the inefficiencies or errors and the context information; and
delivering the selected one or more content units to a mobile device or workstation operable by the medical professional.
Hresko discloses
selecting one or more content units to be delivered to a medical professional of the medical facility based on the inefficiencies or errors and the context information (Hresko column 25); and
delivering the selected one or more content units to a mobile device or workstation operable by the medical professional (Hresko column 25). Wherein the delivering includes determining whether the delivered one or more delivered content units were completed or accessed and, in response to the one or more content units not being completed or accessed, sending a notification to a workstation operable by a user different from the medical professional (Hresko column 8 lines 45-62 see user (patient) and caregiver)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention by applicant to select training modules as in Hresko in the system of Reiner to improve the knowledge of the user.
As to claim 2, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Hresko discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the method further includes:
providing, on a display device of a workstation, a user interface (UI) with one or more dialogs to allow a user to provide one or more user inputs indicating user preferences or constraints on modality of the delivery and/or location of the delivery and/or time of delivery (Hresko Figure 10C); and
selecting a manner for the delivery of the selected one or more content units based on the user preferences or constraints (Hresko Figure 10C).
As to claim 4, see the discussion of claim 2, additionally, Reiner discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the one or more dialogs include one or more of:
a dialog to request a content unit (Hresko column 25 lines 39-43).
As to claim 5, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Hresko discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the delivering includes:
determining whether the delivered one or more content units were completed (Hresko column 8 lines 45-62); and
in response to the one or more content units not being completed sending the notification to a workstation operable by a user different from the medical professional (Hresko column 8 lines 45-62).
As to claim 6, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Hresko discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the method further includes:
selecting a manner for delivery of the selected one or more content units (Hresko Figure 10C)
As to claim 7, see the discussion of claim 6, additionally, Hresko discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the selected manner includes one or more of a time, a place, and a modality to deliver the selected content units (Hresko Figure 10C)
As to claim 8, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Reiner discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the extracting includes detecting outliers in a usage pattern that differs between users or differs from an expected usage pattern (Reiner column 12 lines 53-67 and column 21 lines 1-11)
As to claim 9, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Hresko discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the selecting includes:
determining a granularity level of the user; and wherein the selecting of the one or more content units is further based on the determined granularity level (Hresko column 17 lines 16-62).
As to claim 10, see the discussion of claim 9, additionally, Hresko discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the granularity level is determined from a set of granularity levels, the set of granularity levels including: a hospital level, a department level, a role-based level, an expertise level, and an individual level (Hresko column 17 lines 16-62).
As to claim 11, see the discussion of claim 10, additionally, Hresko discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the selecting includes:
determining a granularity level of the user (Hresko column 17 lines 16-62).; and
wherein the selecting of the one or more content units further includes selecting one or more content units for a plurality of determined granularity levels (Hresko column 17 lines 16-62)..
As to claim 12, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Hresko discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the content units are stored in a database, the content units being selected from a group consisting of audio content, video content, multimedia content (Hresko column 18 lines 7-19)
As to claim 15, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Hresko discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein selecting of one or more content units includes:
selecting one or more content units based on combinations of inefficiencies or error types (Hresko column 4 lines 55-65).
As to claim 16, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Hresko discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein selecting of one or more content units includes:
selecting one or more content units based on a frequency and/or a severity of the extracted inefficiencies or error types (Hresko column 4 lines 55-65).
Claim(s) 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8,957,955 to Reiner in view of U.S. Patent 11,364,389 to Hresko et al. in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
As to claim 17, Reiner discloses an apparatus for providing education content to medical professionals, the apparatus comprising:
A secure data connection to one or more medical devices (Reiner column 7 lines 1-15 and column 8 lines 12-18);
at least one electronic processor programmed to:
extract inefficiencies or errors from medical examination records of a medical facility (Reiner column 12 lines 53-67) wherein the inefficiencies or errors include information extracted from one or more examination records of the one or more medical devices (Reiner column 12 lines 53-67 wherein the inefficiencies or errors from the acquired data and obtained examination records is based on a method upon which the data and/or the records were acquired (Reiner column 12 lines 53-67 and column 8 lines 19-30 see “QA for the radiographic process is directed to correcting for technical deficiencies occurring in the image acquisition portion of the imaging study. These technical deficiencies can be the result of patient non-compliance (e.g., motion), technologist oversight (e.g., position” or technology malfunction (e.g., artifacts).););
receive context information related to the medical facility (Reiner column 12 lines 53-67 and column 21 lines 1-11);
identifying information related to one or more other medical facilities with similar matching context information to the medical facility (Reiner figure 2B and column 21 lines 1-11);
identifying educational needs based on the context information of the medical facility, and the information related to the one or more other medical facilities with similar matching context information (Reiner figure 2B and column 21 lines 1-11).
However, Reiner does not explicitly teach:
select one or more of the content units to be delivered to a medical professional of the medical facility based on the inefficiencies or errors and the context information; and
deliver the selected one or more content units to a mobile device or workstation operable by the medical professional.
a database storing content units, the content units being selected from a group consisting of audio content, video content, multimedia content, recorded simulator sessions, recorded imaging sessions, virtual reality content, interactive content; and
Hresko discloses
select one or more of the content units to be delivered to a medical professional of the medical facility based on the identified educational needs (Hresko column 25); and
deliver the selected one or more content units to a mobile device or workstation operable by the medical professional (Hresko column 25).
a database storing content units, the content units being selected from a group consisting of video content, multimedia content (Hresko column 18 lines 7-19)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention by applicant to select training modules as in Hresko in the system of Reiner to improve the knowledge of the user.
However Reiner and Hresko do not explicitly teach a video camera positioned to provide video of the medical device of the medical facility and displaying a video feed from the camera. Examiner notes that the video feed data only is displayed and does not affect the processing steps of the claim. Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that providing a security camera and a live feed are exceedingly well known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to use such system for the well known benefit of improving security or improving communications.
As to claim 18, see the discussion of claim 17, additionally, Hresko discloses the apparatus wherein the at least one electronic processor is further programmed to:
provide, on a display device of the workstation, a user interface (UI) with one or more dialogs to allow a user to provide one or more user inputs indicating user preferences or constraints on modality of the delivery and/or location of the delivery and/or time of delivery (Hresko Figure 10C); and
select a manner for the delivery of the selected one or more content units based on the user preferences or constraints (Hresko Figure 10C).
As to claim 19, see the discussion of claim 17, additionally, Reiner discloses the apparatus wherein the at least one electronic processor is further programmed to:
identify information related to one or more other medical facilities with similar matching context information to the medical facility (Reiner column 12 lines 53-67 and column 21 lines 1-11).
As to claim 20, see the discussion of claim 18, additionally, Hresko discloses the apparatus wherein the one or more dialogs include one or more of:
a dialog to request a content unit (Hresko column 25 lines 39-43).
As to claim 21, see the discussion of claim 17, additionally, Hresko discloses the apparatus wherein the at least one electronic processor is further programmed to:
select a manner for delivery of the selected one or more content units (Hresko Figure 10C).
As to claim 22, see the discussion of claim 17, additionally, Hresko discloses the apparatus wherein the at least one electronic processor is further
programmed to:
determine a granularity level of the user, the granularity level being determined from a set of granularity levels, the set of granularity levels including: a hospital level, a department level, a role-based level, an expertise level, and an individual level (Hresko column 17 lines 16-62). and
wherein the selecting of the one or more content units is further based on the determined granularity level (Hresko column 17 lines 16-62).
As to claim 23, see the discussion of claim 17, additionally, Reiner discloses the apparatus wherein the at least one electronic processor is further programmed to:
extract the inefficiencies or errors from one or more examination records of one or more of the medical imaging devices (Reiner column 12 lines 53-67); and
select one or more content units pertaining to operation of at least one of the medical devices (Reiner column 12 lines 53-67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claimed extraction depends on device acquisition techniques/metadata and cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Applicant appears to be referring to claim limitation “wherein the inefficiencies or errors include information extracted from one or more examination records of the one or more of the medical devices and the inefficiencies or errors from the acquired data and obtained examination records is based on a method upon which the data and/or records were acquired”. Data describing a method upon which the data and/or records were acquired and comparing this data to rules are capabilities of the human mind. Applicant argues that the claim does not recite certain methods of organizing human activities. The claims “perform a method of providing educational content to medical professionals” determining an educational need of a human and providing and tracking their delivery to a human is managing personal behavior.
Applicant argues that the claim uses a particular machine/environment that is integral to the recited operations. Applicant points to a secure connection to medical devices. This is a conventional computing arrangement. Applicant additionally points to operating on medical-device examination records and extracting inefficiencies/errors based on the method of acquisition this merely describes the data types that are analyzed. This merely links the abstract idea to the field of use.
Applicant argues that the ordered combination provides an inventive concept. The claims merely recite a secure data connection to one to more medical devices, a non-transitory computer readable medium executable by a processor, a database and workstation. These are all conventional computing elements performing data analysis and security/receiving/transmitting functions. It therefore amounts to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using conventional computing elements and does not provide an inventive concept.
Applicant argues with respect to the 103 rejection that the references do not teach suggesting educational content based on all three claimed inputs including peer facility context matching. Reiner is relied upon for the disclosure of identifying information related to one or more other medical facilities with similar matching context information to the medical facility. See column 21 lines 1-11 where data is pooled to provide comparison data with other imaging departments with similar technology, patient and clinical profiles and Figure 2B where this is used to provide recommendations for education. Reiner and Hresco in combination therefore teach the limitations.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that Hresko does not teach if a module is not completed/accessed, a notification is sent to a workstation operable by a user different from the medical professional. Hresko gives examples of multiple people including caregivers and users able to receive electronic notifications if a training module is not accessed (Hresko column 8 lines 45-62). The rejection is therefore maintained.
Applicant argues that Reiner does not disclose that the subsequent education recommendations are based on the acquisition method. Figure 2B teaches displaying recommendations for education based on QA data (which includes technical variables from Fig 2A). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “acquisition method” encompasses the technical variables of Reiner as they describe a method by which patient data is acquired.
Applicant argues that there is no reason to combine the references. Both Hresko and Reiner are directed to educating users in the operation of medical devices. Reiner is relied upon primarily for identifying educational needs and Hresko primarily for content delivery the combination of references results in the identified educational needs being met which would improve the knowledge of a user. The combination is therefore obvious.
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 Eliza Lam whose telephone number is (571)270-7052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30PST.
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 Choi can be reached on 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.
/ELIZA A LAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686