DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 2/2/26. Claim 1 was cancelled. Claims 2-21 are pending.
The IDS filed on 2/19/26 has been considered.
Double Patenting
The rejection of claims 2-21 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,483,403 has been withdrawn based on the terminal disclaimer filed on 2/2/2026.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e, a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
35 USC 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these “four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of Section 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Applicant’s claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 2-12 are drawn to a method; claims 13-17 are drawn to a system; claims 18-21 are drawn to a product (article of manufacture).
Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not complete the eligibility analysis. Claims drawn only to an abstract idea, a natural phenomenon, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection. As described in MPEP 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l,134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
In 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) prepared revised guidance (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility. The framework for this revised guidance, which sets forth the procedures for determining whether a patent claim or patent application claim is directed to a judicial exception (laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas), is described in MPEP sections 2106.03 and 2106.04.
As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance explains that abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. Moreover, this guidance explains that a patent claim or patent application claim that recites a judicial exception is not ‘‘directed to’’ the judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception. A claim that recites a judicial exception, but is not integrated into a practical application, is directed to the judicial exception under Step 2A and must then be evaluated under Step 2B (inventive concept) to determine the subject matter eligibility of the claim.
Step 2A asks: Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? If so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception? A claim recites a judicial exception when a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms “set forth” and “describe” are thus both equated with “recite”, their different language is intended to indicate that there are different ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr set forth a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, while the claims in Mayo set forth laws of nature in the wherein clause, meaning that the claims in those cases contained discrete claim language that was identifiable as a judicial exception. The claims in Alice Corp., however, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.” A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
In the instant case, claims 2-21 recite(s) mental processes, which is subject matter that falls within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas described in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (See MPEP 2106.04) The recited method and system are drawn to controlling transmission of messages based on age.
In particular, Claims 2, 13 and 18 recite a method and system for:
detecting a network outage associated with the remote server that prevents the plurality of messages in the message queue from being transmitted to the remote server;
subsequent to detecting the network outage, determining whether any of the plurality of messages …has become stale by satisfying one or more time-based conditions for being removed from the message queue without being transmitted to the remote server,…
detecting a resolution of the network outage that allows transmission of one or more messages in the message queue to the remote server to be resumed;
In claims 2, 13, and 18 the limitation of determining that the first message is not stale, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a remote server,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “detecting” encompasses the user mentally noting an issue with a computer system and; “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating the age of a message/ or messages in a queue.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim amendments to claims 2, 13, and 18 are noted but are not sufficient to render the claims patent eligible.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language does not: recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)); apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); or apply or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment see MPEP 2106.05(e).
While abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patenting by themselves, claims that integrate these exceptions into an inventive concept are thereby transformed into patent-eligible inventions. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)). Thus, the second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Id. An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute Sections 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under Section 101”). As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the Section 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp.,838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).
As described in MPEP 2106.05, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)). Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional steps amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Exemplary claim 2 recites additional limitation(s), including the steps of “storing a plurality of messages in a message queue for transmission, wherein the plurality of messages contain information about one or more medical devices residing in the clinical environment, the plurality of messages stored in the message queue including at least a first message,” “removing the first message without transmitting the first message to the remote server,” “subsequent to a resolution of the network issue that allows one or more messages in the message queue to be transmitted to the remote server, subsequently transmitting the second message to the remote server. ” The storage, deletion, and transmission of information are generic functions well-understood, routine and conventional activities that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Similarly, claims 13 and 18 recite “cause a plurality of messages to be stored in a message queue for transmission to a remote server, wherein the plurality of messages contains information about one or more medical devices residing in the clinical environment, the plurality of messages stored in the message queue including at least a first message,” “subsequent to a resolution of the network issue that allows one or more messages in the message queue to be transmitted to the remote server, subsequently transmitting the first message to the remote server. ” Again, the storage, deletion, and transmission of information are generic functions well-understood, routine and conventional activities that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Claim 2 further recites: a “remote server.” The added claim language recites a computer/network structure and database features that is and were routine and conventional at the time of Applicant’s invention was filed.
Similarly, claim 13 recites “one or more processors” and “one or more memories in communication with the one or more processors.” Claim 18 recites “one or more computing devices.” The added claim language recites a computer/network structure features that is and were routine and conventional at the time of Applicant’s invention was filed.
The generic nature of the computer system used to carryout steps of the recited method is underscored by the system description in the instant application, which discloses: “[t]he various illustrative logical blocks and modules described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented or performed by a machine, such as a general purpose processor, a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or other programmable logic device, discrete gate or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or any combination thereof designed to perform the functions described herein. A general-purpose processor can be a microprocessor, but in the alternative, the processor can be a controller, microcontroller, or state machine, combinations of the same, or the like... A processor can also be implemented as a combination of computing devices, e.g., a combination of a DSP and a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in conjunction with a DSP core, or any other such configuration. Although described herein primarily with respect to digital technology, a processor may also include primarily analog components.” (par. 274)
The disclosure also states: “A computing environment can include any type of computer system, including, but not limited to, a computer system based on a microprocessor, a mainframe computer, a digital signal processor, a portable computing device, a device controller, or a computational engine within an appliance, to name a few.” (par. 274)
Also, the courts have recognized certain computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)).
Among these are the following features, which are recited in claims 2-21 :
- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); (analogous to the transmitting the first message to the remote server in claims 2, 13, and 18);
- Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; (analogous to “storing a plurality of messages in a message queue for transmission to a remote server…” or “causing to store” in claims 2, 13, and 18)
Because Applicant’s claimed invention recites a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, the claimed invention is not patent eligible.
Claims 3-12 are dependent from Claim 2 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 2. However, the additional limitations of the claims 3-12 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 3-12 recite additional limitations which further define the abstract idea (i.e. additional limitations which further define how the determination of staleness is made), which can also be performed in the mind of a user. Therefore, claim(s) 3-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 14-17 are dependent from Claim 13 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 13. However, the additional limitations of the claims 14-17 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 14-17 recite additional limitations which further define the abstract idea (i.e. additional limitations which further define how the determination of staleness is made), which can also be performed in the mind of a user. Therefore, claim(s) 14-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 19-21 are dependent from Claim 18 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 18. However, the additional limitations of the claims 14-17 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 19-21 recite additional limitations which further define the abstract idea (i.e. additional limitations which further define how the determination of staleness is made), which can also be performed in the mind of a user. Therefore, claim(s) 19-21 are also 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) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasti et al ( US 20100008377 A1) in view of in view of Shupp et al (US 20140197950 A1)
Claim 2. Hasti teaches a method for providing messaging in a clinical environment, the method comprising:
storing a plurality of messages in a message queue for transmission to a remote server, the plurality of messages stored in the message queue including at least a first message (fig. 1; par. 22-23-the server 112 may also include a message queue 114. The message queue 114 may be part of the server 112 as shown or may be a standalone unit);
determining whether the first message is stale; (par. 27- assess age of message; Fig.2A (212) or 2B (223); par. 29-31)
Hasti does not expressly teach the specific type of data in the messages (i.e. wherein the plurality of messages contain information about one or more medical devices residing in the clinical environment)
However, these differences are only found in the non-functional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in any manipulative steps of the invention nor do they alter any recited structural elements; therefore, such differences do not effectively serve to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. Any manipulative steps of the invention would be performed the same regardless of the specific data. Further, any structural elements remain the same regardless of the specific data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability as the claimed invention fails to present a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1863-64 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Another indication of the existence of non-functional descriptive material is that the content of the material is merely “directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.” Please see MPEP § 2111.05(I)(B).
Claim 2 further recites:
detecting a network outage associated with the remote server that prevents the plurality of messages in the message queue from being transmitted to the remote server;
subsequent to detecting the network outage, determining whether any of the plurality of messages has become stale by satisfying one or more time-based conditions for being removed from the message queue without being transmitted to the remote server, wherein the first message does not satisfy the one or more time-based conditions in a manner that would cause it to be removed from the message queue without being transmitted to the remote server;
detecting a resolution of the network outage that allows transmission of one or more messages in the message queue to the remote server to be resumed; and
subsequent to the resolution of the network outage, transmitting the first message, which was previously determined to not satisfy the one or more time-based conditions, to the remote server.
Hasti does not expressly disclose, but Shupp teaches
detecting a network outage associated with the remote server that prevents the plurality of messages in the message queue from being transmitted to the remote server; (par. 2)
subsequent to detecting the network outage, determining whether any of the plurality of messages has become stale by satisfying one or more time-based conditions for being removed from the message queue without being transmitted to the remote server, the first message does not satisfy the one or more time-based conditions in a manner that would cause it to be removed from the message queue without being transmitted to the remote server; (Fig. 2; par. 43-46; par. 61-66)
detecting a resolution of the network outage that allows transmission of one or more messages in the message queue to the remote server to be resumed; and (par. 114-116)
subsequent to the resolution of the network outage, transmitting the first message, which was previously determined to not satisfy the one or more time-based conditions, to the remote server. (par. 32-33; par. 47; par. 56-61)
At the time of the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hasti with the teachings of Shupp to evaluate the need to delete outdated messages from the message queue when there is a network issue. One would have been motivated to include this feature to conserve network resources by only transmitting messages with are still relevant/ useful, and to promote network device security.
Claim 3. Hasti teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising attempting, prior to determining that the first message is stale, to transmit the first message to the remote server, and determining that the first message was not received by the remote server. (par. 27- message producers are explicitly requesting (and therefore are expecting) that messages can expire. In the second embodiment, the producers are not explicitly requesting expired messages but can retry or abandon an operation and therefore are not troubled by a system-initiated expiration of a message; par. 34)
Claim 4. Hasti teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising, prior to determining that the first message is stale, determining that an acknowledgement from the remote server has not been received within a time period. (par. 36- Examples include applications exhibiting timing out of the request within the application that issued it. This works trivially for notification style (unidirectional) messages, in which the application uses a fire-and-forget pattern.)
Claim 5. Hasti teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising, prior to detecting a network issue, receiving a message from the remote server that a connection to the remote server is terminated. (par. 36-unexpected interruptions and timing out)
Claim 6. Hasti teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining that the first message is stale further comprises determining that a message other than the first message is the oldest message in the message queue. (par. 34-35: in general it is the older messages that expire. It should be noted that in some embodiments, the producer may have set a short expiration time on a recent message and the message may therefore expire before an older message with a longer expiration time. Therefore, it is not always true that the older messages expire first.)
Claim 7 Hasti teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining that the first message is stale further comprises determining that the message queue is not full. (par. 24- The message queue 114 may be of predetermined length. That is, the message queue 114 may be able store messages until the length is met. After this point, old messages may be rejected. As discussed above, to be able to handle burst traffic, the length of the message queue 114 must be relatively long and when the queue is full a significant amount of memory may be consumed by the messages)
Claim 8. Hasti teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining that the first message is stale further comprises determining that an amount of time has not yet passed since an event associated with the first message. (par.31-32: the system selects a lesser (or greater) of the two expiration times. In a third stage 223, the system 100 checks a clock and compares the age to the expiration time)
Claim 9. Hasti teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining that the first message is not stale further comprises determining that the first message has not yet been in the message queue for an amount of time. (par. 32-checking the clock; the system 100 checks a clock and compares the age to the expiration time.)
Claim 10. Hasti teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising determining that the first message is stale based on an amount of time associated with a medical device associated with the first message. (par. 34- it is not always true that the older messages expire first. In that regard, it may be understood that a message that has been queued for too long expires, wherein the standard for what is "too long" may be determined by external standards, and are not necessarily dependent upon expiration times assigned to other messages)
Claim 11. Hasti teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising determining that the first message is stale based on an amount of time specific to a type of event associated with the first message. (par. 34- it may be understood that a message that has been queued for too long expires, wherein the standard for what is "too long" may be determined by external standards, and are not necessarily dependent upon expiration times assigned to other messages; par. 36)
Claim 12 Hasti teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising determining that the first message is not stale based on a type of event associated with the first message not being time sensitive. (par. 30-32)
Claim 13 Hasti teaches an apparatus configured to provide messaging in a clinical environment, the apparatus comprising: one or more processors (par. 19-20); and one or more memories in communication with the one or more processors (par. 21) and storing computer-executable instructions that, (par. 21) when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to:
cause a plurality of messages to be stored in a message queue for transmission to a remote server, the plurality of messages stored in the message queue including at least a first message; (fig. 1; par. 22-23-the server 112 may also include a message queue 114. The message queue 114 may be part of the server 112 as shown or may be a standalone unit)
determining whether the first message is stale; (par. 27- assess age of message; Fig.2A (212) or 2B (223); par. 29-31)
Hasti does not expressly teach the specific type of data in the messages (i.e. wherein the plurality of messages contain information about one or more medical devices residing in the clinical environment) However, these differences are only found in the non-functional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in any manipulative steps of the invention nor do they alter any recited structural elements; therefore, such differences do not effectively serve to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. Any manipulative steps of the invention would be performed the same regardless of the specific data. Further, any structural elements remain the same regardless of the specific data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability as the claimed invention fails to present a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1863-64 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Another indication of the existence of non-functional descriptive material is that the content of the material is merely “directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.” Please see MPEP § 2111.05(I)(B).
Claim 13 further recites:
detecting a network outage associated with the remote server that prevents the plurality of messages in the message queue from being transmitted to the remote server;
subsequent to detecting the network outage, determining whether any of the plurality of messages has become stale by satisfying one or more time-based conditions for being removed from the message queue without being transmitted to the remote server, wherein the first message does not satisfy the one or more time-based conditions in a manner that would cause it to be removed from the message queue without being transmitted to the remote server;
detecting a resolution of the network outage that allows transmission of one or more messages in the message queue to the remote server to be resumed; and
subsequent to the resolution of the network outage, transmitting the first message, which was previously determined to not satisfy the one or more time-based conditions, to the remote server.
Hasti does not expressly disclose, but Shupp teaches
detecting a network outage associated with the remote server that prevents the plurality of messages in the message queue from being transmitted to the remote server; (par. 2)
subsequent to detecting the network outage, determining whether any of the plurality of messages has become stale by satisfying one or more time-based conditions for being removed from the message queue without being transmitted to the remote server, the first message does not satisfy the one or more time-based conditions in a manner that would cause it to be removed from the message queue without being transmitted to the remote server; (Fig. 2; par. 43-46; par. 61-66)
detecting a resolution of the network outage that allows transmission of one or more messages in the message queue to the remote server to be resumed; and (par. 114-116)
subsequent to the resolution of the network outage, transmitting the first message, which was previously determined to not satisfy the one or more time-based conditions, to the remote server. (par. 32-33; par. 47; par. 56-61)
At the time of the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hasti with the teachings of Shupp to evaluate the need to delete outdated messages from the message queue when there is a network issue. One would have been motivated to include this feature to conserve network resources by only transmitting messages with are still relevant/ useful, and to promote network device security.
At the time of the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hasti with the teachings of Shupp to delete outdated messages from the message queue when there is a network issue. One would have been motivated to include this feature to conserve network resources by only transmitting messages with are still relevant/ useful, and to promote network device security.
Claim 14 Hasti teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the one or more processors to attempt, prior to determining that the first message is not stale, to transmit the first message to the remote server, and determining that the first message was not received by the remote server. (par. 27- message producers are explicitly requesting (and therefore are expecting) that messages can expire. In the second embodiment, the producers are not explicitly requesting expired messages but can retry or abandon an operation and therefore are not troubled by a system-initiated expiration of a message; par. 34)
Claim 15. Hasti teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the one or more processors to, prior to detecting a network issue perform one of (1) determining that an acknowledgement from the remote server has not been received within a time period, (par. 36- Examples include applications exhibiting timing out of the request within the application that issued it. This works trivially for notification style (unidirectional) messages, in which the application uses a fire-and-forget pattern) or (2) receiving a message from the remote server that a connection to the remote server is terminated. (par. 36-unexpected interruptions and timing out)
claim 16. Hasti teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein determining that the first message is not stale further comprises one of (1) determining that the first message is not the oldest message in the message queue, (See rejections under 35 USC 112(b)-par. 34-35: in general it is the older messages that expire. It should be noted that in some embodiments, the producer may have set a short expiration time on a recent message and the message may therefore expire before an older message with a longer expiration time. Therefore, it is not always true that the older messages expire first.) or (2) determining that the message queue is not full. (par. 24- The message queue 114 may be of predetermined length. That is, the message queue 114 may be able store messages until the length is met. After this point, old messages may be rejected. As discussed above, to be able to handle burst traffic, the length of the message queue 114 must be relatively long and when the queue is full a significant amount of memory may be consumed by the messages)
Claim 17 Hasti teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein determining that the first message is not stale further comprises one of (1) determining that an amount of time has not yet passed since an event associated with the first message, or (2) determining that the first message has not yet been in the message queue for an amount of time. (See rejections under 35 USC 112(b)-par. 31-32: the system selects a lesser (or greater) of the two expiration times. In a third stage 223, the system 100 checks a clock and compares the age to the expiration time)
Claim 18 Hasti teaches the non-transitory physical computer storage storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more computing devices, (par. 19-21) configure the one or more computing devices to:
cause a plurality of messages to be stored in a message queue for transmission to a remote server, the plurality of messages stored in the message queue including at least a first message; (fig. 1; par. 22-23-the server 112 may also include a message queue 114. The message queue 114 may be part of the server 112 as shown or may be a standalone unit)
determine whether first message is stale; (par. 27- assess age of message; Fig.2A (212) or 2B (223); par. 29-31)
Hasti does not expressly teach the specific type of data in the messages (i.e. wherein the plurality of messages contain information about one or more medical devices residing in the clinical environment) However, these differences are only found in the non-functional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in any manipulative steps of the invention nor do they alter any recited structural elements; therefore, such differences do not effectively serve to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. Any manipulative steps of the invention would be performed the same regardless of the specific data. Further, any structural elements remain the same regardless of the specific data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability as the claimed invention fails to present a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1863-64 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Another indication of the existence of non-functional descriptive material is that the content of the material is merely “directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.” Please see MPEP § 2111.05(I)(B).
Claim 18 further recites:
detecting a network outage associated with the remote server that prevents the plurality of messages in the message queue from being transmitted to the remote server;
subsequent to detecting the network outage, determining whether any of the plurality of messages has become stale by satisfying one or more time-based conditions for being removed from the message queue without being transmitted to the remote server, wherein the first message does not satisfy the one or more time-based conditions in a manner that would cause it to be removed from the message queue without being transmitted to the remote server;
detecting a resolution of the network outage that allows transmission of one or more messages in the message queue to the remote server to be resumed; and
subsequent to the resolution of the network outage, transmitting the first message, which was previously determined to not satisfy the one or more time-based conditions, to the remote server.
Hasti does not expressly disclose, but Shupp teaches
detecting a network outage associated with the remote server that prevents the plurality of messages in the message queue from being transmitted to the remote server; (par. 2)
subsequent to detecting the network outage, determining whether any of the plurality of messages has become stale by satisfying one or more time-based conditions for being removed from the message queue without being transmitted to the remote server, the first message does not satisfy the one or more time-based conditions in a manner that would cause it to be removed from the message queue without being transmitted to the remote server; (Fig. 2; par. 43-46; par. 61-66)
detecting a resolution of the network outage that allows transmission of one or more messages in the message queue to the remote server to be resumed; and (par. 114-116)
subsequent to the resolution of the network outage, transmitting the first message, which was previously determined to not satisfy the one or more time-based conditions, to the remote server. (par. 32-33; par. 47; par. 56-61)
At the time of the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hasti with the teachings of Shupp to evaluate the need to delete outdated messages from the message queue when there is a network issue. One would have been motivated to include this feature to conserve network resources by only transmitting messages with are still relevant/ useful, and to promote network device security.
Claim 19. Hasti teaches the non-transitory physical computer storage of claim 18, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more computing devices, further configure the one or more computing devices to, prior to prior to detecting a network issue, perform one of (1) determining that an acknowledgement from the remote server has not been received within a time period, (par. 36- Examples include applications exhibiting timing out of the request within the application that issued it. This works trivially for notification style (unidirectional) messages, in which the application uses a fire-and-forget pattern.) or (2) receiving a message from the remote server that a connection to the remote server is terminated. . (par. 36-unexpected interruptions and timing out)
Claim 20 Hasti teaches the non-transitory physical computer storage of claim 18, wherein determining that the first message is not stale further comprises one of (1) determining that the first message is not the oldest message in the message queue, (par. 34-35: in general it is the older messages that expire. It should be noted that in some embodiments, the producer may have set a short expiration time on a recent message and the message may therefore expire before an older message with a longer expiration time. Therefore, it is not always true that the older messages expire first.) or (2) determining that the message queue is not full. (par. 24- The message queue 114 may be of predetermined length. That is, the message queue 114 may be able store messages until the length is met. After this point, old messages may be rejected. As discussed above, to be able to handle burst traffic, the length of the message queue 114 must be relatively long and when the queue is full a significant amount of memory may be consumed by the messages)
Claim 21 Hasti teaches non-transitory physical computer storage of claim 18, wherein determining that the first message is stale further comprises one of (1) determining that an amount of time has not yet passed since an event associated with the first message, or (2) determining that the first message has not yet been in the message queue for an amount of time. (par.31-32: the system selects a lesser (or greater) of the two expiration times. In a third stage 223, the system 100 checks a clock and compares the age to the expiration time)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues the claim rejections under 35 USC 101.
In response, the Applicant’s claim amendments are noted but are not sufficient to render the claims patent eligible.
The additional features recite additional limitations (i.e. detecting, and determining steps) which , under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Moreover, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language does not: recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)); apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); or apply or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment see MPEP 2106.05(e).
As such, claims 2-21 remain rejected under 35 USC 101, and are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Smith et al (US 20070291647 A1) discloses a system and a method for quality of service in data communications, wherein a newer message supersedes and replaces an older stale message. (par. 55)
Bennett et al (US 20070073822 A1) teaches a system and method in which transmitting system stores messages to be transmitted in a pending message queue and applies a dynamic window to the pending message queue to define a message bundle to be sent through the slow communication link. The transmitting system requests an acknowledgment for at least one message within the bundle, but does not require an acknowledgment for every message within the bundle. Transmitted messages are temporarily stored as outstanding messages in a retransmission queue until the transmitted messages are acknowledged or until a time-out period associated with the messages has lapsed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Rachel L Porter whose telephone number is (571)272-6775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10-6:30.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Rachel L. Porter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights