DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the amendments/remarks filed on December 10, 2025. This action is made final
Claims 16 and 18-34 are pending. Claim 17 was previously canceled. Claim 16 has been amended. Claim 34 is newly added. Claims 16 and 34 are independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection has been fully considered but is moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to the previous 101 rejection, Applicant argues the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in that the claims recite a technological improvement to medical devices. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claimed invention is directed toward a method for determining an alarm. Though the method is utilized on a blood treatment device, the judicial exception cannot be made eligible simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the claims to a particular technological use. Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Furthermore, the “blood treatment device” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant further argues the claim recitations represent a technological improvement to medical devices. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves another technology. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). However, Applicant’s claim is confined to a general-purpose computer (see Spec. Page 10) and does not recite “another technology.” Because no other technology is recited in the claim, the claim cannot improve another technology.
Applicant’s argument that the field of medical treatment is a technology and the claimed invention improves this field is not reflected in the claimed invention. The claims are confined to a general-purpose computer. Moreover, the entire field of medical treatment is not reasonably understood to be a problem arising in technology, as it is instead a problem arising in health management. The claimed invention is using a computer as a tool and any improvement present is an improvement to the abstract idea of, to paraphrase, providing alerts that require intervention with respect to medical treatments.
Accordingly, for at least the above stated reasons, the previous 101 rejection is maintained.
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 16 and 18-34 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.
Claims 16 and 18-33 recite a method for determining an alarm, which is within the statutory category of a process. Claim 34 recite a method for determining an alarm, which is within the statutory category of a process.
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Claims 16 and 18-34, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The bolded limitations of:
Claim 1 and 34
receiving measurement data with a temporal indication from a set of sensors and/or data providers, wherein the measurement data comprises data of one or more vital signs (/blood pressure as per claim 34) of a patient; aggregating the received measurement data; and during a blood treatment of the patient using the blood device, processing the aggregated data by applying a temporal alarm significance algorithm to determine: (i) a set of alarm messages that each comprise a suggested countermeasure and (ii) a set of calculated execution times that defines when each alarm message of the determined set of alarm messages is to be output, wherein the temporal alarm significance algorithm comprises: based on the aggregated measurement data, predicting an occurrence of one or more problematic medical conditions (/critical value of the blood pressure of the patient as per claim 24) requiring an automatic, semi-automatic, or manual action; determining at least one countermeasure for the one or more problematic medical conditions (/critical value of the blood pressure of the patient as per claim 24) and an estimated availability and duration of the at least one countermeasure, wherein the at least one countermeasure comprises at least one intervention process to mitigate or prevent the occurrence of the one or more problematic medical conditions (/critical value as per claim 24); determining, based on the estimated availability and duration of the at least one countermeasure, which alarm messages of the set of alarm messages are available and temporally feasible to mitigate or prevent the predicted occurrence of the one or more problematic medical conditions (/critical value as per claim 24); monitoring, over a period of time, whether the data of a vital sign of the one or more vital signs (/blood pressure of the patient as per claim 24); returns to a predefined range without the determined at least one countermeasure; and determining to delay output the determined set of alarm messages of the determined set of alarm messages based on the monitoring of whether the data of the vital sign (/blood pressure of the patient as per claim 24) returns to the predefined range.
as presently drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the noted computer elements, the claim encompasses a person following rules or instructions to monitor patient vital signs and determining whether or not to alert someone upon determination of a problematic medical condition/critical value in the manner described in the abstract idea. For example, a healthcare practitioner can monitor patient data and trigger an alarm or alert other personnel when they predict the patient may be experiencing or will be experiencing an adverse event. The examiner further notes that “methods of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at Pg. 5). If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing persona behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The additional elements merely amount to instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (“sensors”, “interface”, “storage”, “processing unit”—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The “blood treatment device” is not a generic computer component; however it is recited at a high levels of generality and similarly amount to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application) and/or generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements as part of performing the abstract idea. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the limitations 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2. Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional generic computing elements (“sensors”, “interface”, “storage”, “processing unit”—see Specification 10:15-35, 11:19-30, 13:15-25, 14:10-15 describing the various components as general purpose, common, standard, known to one of ordinary skill, and at a high level of generality, and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements). Therefore, these additional elements amount 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 that amounts to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, translating, and displaying data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
Furthermore, as discussed above, the additional element of a “blood treatment device” is recited at high levels of generality and were determined to provide instructions to “apply it” or generally link the abstract idea into a particular technological environment or field of use. This additional element have been re-evaluated under step 2B and have also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(A) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more). Furthermore, the Background section of Applicant’s Specification (e.g., see 13:5-15) indicates that the claimed medical device is well-understood, routing, and conventional in the field. (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) indicating that well-understood, routine, and conventional activities cannot provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
The limitations of dependent but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Claims 18-29 merely recite the type of data analyzed and/or the type of alarm data output, which covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions). Claims 30-32 include the additional element of a “storage”, “processing unit”, “alarm handler” that is analyzed in the same manner as the generic computer components and medical device of the independent claims and which does not provide a practical application or amounts to significantly more for the same reasons detailed above.
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) 16 and 21-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (USPPN: 2020/0111568; hereinafter Bishop) and in further view of Koski et al. (USPPN: 2019/0130339; hereinafter Koski) and Selvaraj (USPPN: 2018/0078219; hereinafter Selvaraj).
As to claim 16, Bishop teaches A computer-implemented method for determining a set of alarm messages for operating a blood treatment device (e.g., see Abstract, notably the “blood treatment device” is interpreted as an intended use statement (See MPEP 2111.05. See also 2111.02)), the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving measurement data with a temporal indication from a set of sensors and/or data providers, wherein the measurement data comprises data of one or more vital signs of a patient (e.g., see Abstract, Fig. 2, [0018], [0052] teaching receiving real-time data from one or more devices including vital sign monitors);
aggregating the received measurement data (e.g., see Fig. 2, [0021], [0044]-[0046], [0052] wherein the data is aggregated); and
during a blood treatment of the patient using the blood device, processing the aggregated measurement data by applying a temporal alarm significance algorithm to determine: (i) a set of alarm messages that each comprises a suggested countermeasure is to be output (e.g., see Fig. 2, [0046], [0051]-[0053], [0056], [0058] wherein the aggregated data is analyzed to determine one or more alerts, including real-time alarm, time-to-empty notification, or notifying medical personal whether a patient requires immediate attention or may require attention that is not immediate. Notably, the type of treatment being a “blood” treatment is interpreted as non-functional descriptive language information as the type of treatment during which the processing step occurs is not functionally required in the claimed method. See MPEP 2111.05. The function described in the claimed method would be performed the same regardless of the type of treatment that is occurring. Therefore, Bishop teaching monitoring a user during an infusion treatment, reads upon the claimed limitation. It is further noted that an infusion treatment is generally an intravenous method of delivering fluids into a patient’s circulatory system, and reasonably reads upon a “blood” treatment);
wherein the temporal alarm significance algorithm comprises: based on the aggregated measurement data, predicting an occurrence of one or more problematic medical conditions requiring an automatic, semi-automatic, or manual action (e.g., see [0047], [0048], [0051], [0059] teaching predicting an adverse event that may require medical intervention such as treatment, immediate attention for adverse event, or the need to change an infusion pump);
determining at least one countermeasure for the one or more problematic medical conditions [and an estimated availability and duration of the at least one countermeasure], wherein the at least one countermeasure is an action taken to mitigate or prevent the occurrence of the at least one event (e.g., see Fig. 2, [0050]-[0053], [0058], [0059] wherein a particular process flow is triggered, including the need to provide medical assistance, such as remedying an empty infusion bag or immediate medical attention); and
determining which alarm messages of the set of alarm messages are available [and temporally feasible] to mitigate or prevent the predicted occurrence of the at least one event prior to the predicted occurrence of the one or more problematic medical conditions (e.g., see Fig. 2, [0050]-[0053], [0062] wherein the alarms/notifications are determined to be necessary to prevent an adverse event from occurring); and
monitoring, over a period of time, whether the data of a vital sign of the one or more vital signs returns to a predefined range without the determined at least one countermeasure (e.g., see [0051], [0052], [0061] teaching continuous monitoring of the patient vitals);
While Bishop teaching determining at least one countermeasure for a predicted event and an alarm message thereof, Bishop fails to teach determining an estimated availability and duration of the at least one countermeasure and determining the alarm by taking into account the estimated availability and duration of the countermeasure.
However, in the same field of endeavor of device maintenance, Koski teaches determining an estimated availability and duration of the at least one countermeasure and determining the alarm based on the estimated availability and duration of the at least one countermeasure (e.g., see [0064]-[0066], [0070], [0076], [0078] wherein determining various tasks (i.e., countermeasures) takes into consideration the availability of the device/personnel for the task and an estimated task duration).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bishop in view of Koski with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to simultaneously manage the function of devices for tasks including adjustments thereof, thereby optimizing scheduling and maintenance (e.g., see [0009] of Koski).
While Bishop teaches continuous monitoring of patient vitals to determine what type of alarm message to output, wherein a high priority alarm is delayed until necessary, Bishop fails to explicitly teach a set of calculated execution times that defines when each alarm message of the determined set of alarm messages; determining to delay output of the determined alarm message of the determined set of alarm messages based on the monitoring of whether the data of the vital sign returns to the predefined range.
However, in the same field of endeavor of patient monitoring, Selvaraj teaches a set of calculated execution times that defines when each alarm message of the determined set of alarm messages (e.g., see [0039]-[0040] wherein different alarms can be generated for different thresholds); determining to delay output of the determined alarm message of the determined set of alarm messages based on the monitoring of whether the data of the vital sign returns to the predefined range (e.g., see [0019], [0030], [0038]-[0039], [0041] wherein an alarm is delayed until the monitoring of the patient vitals exceeds a minimal duration). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bishop-Koski in view of Selvaraj before the effective date of present invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to reduce the false positive alarms that occur from measurement spikes (e.g., see [0039]-[0040] of Selvaraj).
As to claim 21, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Bishop further teaches further comprising: providing the determined set of alarm messages on an output interface at the determined execution time (e.g., see [0051], [0059] wherein the alerts/alarms are displayed).
As to claim 22, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Bishop further teaches wherein the measurement data are received from a medical treatment device, a patient's device and/or equipment, a data provider, and/or a prediction module (e.g., see Fig. 1 wherein the data is received from one or more medical instruments).
As to claim 23, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Bishop further teaches wherein the measurement data comprise original alarm signals, issued by a medical treatment device and wherein the determined set of alarm messages is a subset or a superset of the original alarm signals (e.g., see [0058], [0062] teaching the medical device having a plurality of different alarm signals).
As to claim 24, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. While Bishop teaching determining at least one countermeasure for a predicted event and an alarm message thereof, Bishop fails to explicitly teach wherein the execution time for the determined set of alarm messages is calculated by processing estimated process durations of countermeasures.
However, in the same field of endeavor of device maintenance, Koski teaches wherein the execution time for the determined set of alarm messages is calculated by processing estimated process durations of countermeasures (e.g., see [0064]-[0066], [0070], [0076], [0078] wherein determining various tasks and the notification thereof (i.e., alarm) takes into consideration the availability of the device/personnel for the task and an estimated time).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bishop in view of Koski with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to simultaneously manage the function of devices for tasks including adjustments thereof, thereby optimizing scheduling and maintenance (e.g., see [0009] of Koski).
As to claim 25, the rejection of claim 24 is incorporated. Bishops fails to teach wherein process durations for execution of the countermeasures are estimated by accessing a storage with a countermeasure data structure in which each countermeasure (cm) is assigned a unique identifier and corresponding characteristic properties, including process duration so that process durations may be determined for processes that have similar characteristic properties.
However, in the same field of endeavor of device maintenance, Koski teaches wherein process durations for execution of the countermeasures are estimated by accessing a storage with a countermeasure data structure in which each countermeasure is assigned a unique identifier and corresponding characteristic properties, including process duration so that process durations may be determined for processes that have similar characteristic properties (e.g., see [0039], [0042], [0056], [0058], [0064]-[0066], [0070], [0076], [0078] wherein determining various tasks and the notification thereof (i.e., alarm) takes into consideration the availability of the device/personnel for the task and an estimated time, each device, task, and/or personnel having an associated identifier accessible from a database).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bishop in view of Koski with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to simultaneously manage the function of devices for tasks including adjustments thereof, thereby optimizing scheduling and maintenance (e.g., see [0009] of Koski).
As to claim 26, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Bishop fails to teach wherein the determined set of alarm messages and/or the result dataset include meta data, comprising operating instructions on a step-by-step basis.
However, in the same field of endeavor of device maintenance, Koski teaches wherein the determined set of alarm messages and/or the result dataset include meta data, comprising operating instructions on a step-by-step basis (e.g., see [0092] teaching displaying execution messages for each task).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bishop in view of Koski with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to simultaneously manage the function of devices for tasks including adjustments thereof, thereby optimizing scheduling and maintenance (e.g., see [0009] of Koski).
As to claim 27, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Bishop further teaches wherein the determined set of alarm messages and/or the result dataset comprise/s a reliability indicator, defining the accuracy and/or reliability of predicted data (e.g., see [0018] teaching the data is analyzed to predict an adverse event with a confidence interval).
As to claim 28, the rejection of claim 27 is incorporated. Bishop further teaches wherein the predicted data is related to events and countermeasures (e.g., see [0013], [0018], [0044], [0050] wherein the predicted event is related to adverse events and actions to be performed).
As to claim 29, the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated. Bishop further teaches wherein the temporal alarm significance algorithm processes the reliability indicator (e.g., see [0018] wherein the alarms are generated in accordance with a confidence interval).
As to claim 30, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Bishop further teaches a measurement interface which is adapted for receiving the measurement data with the temporal indication from the set of sensors and/or data providers (e.g., see Fig. 1 teaching an interface for receiving measured data); a storage for aggregating the received measurement data (e.g., see [0042] teaching a storage device); and a processing unit for processing the aggregated data by applying the temporal alarm significance algorithm for providing the result dataset with the determined set of alarm messages and the calculated execution time (e.g., see Fig. 1 teaching a processing unit/algorithm for providing an alarm).
As to claim 31, the rejection of claim 30 is incorporated. Bishop further teaches A medical device with an output interface (e.g., see Fig. 1 teaching a medical device and output interface)
As to claim 32, the rejection of claim 30 is incorporated. Bishop further teaches A computer-implemented system for determining the set of alarm messages, comprising: the alarm handler; a medical device; and an output interface for providing the result dataset (e.g., see Abstract, Fig. 1 teaching the method can be implemented as a computer implemented system having a medical device and output interface).
As to claim 33, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Bishop further teaches A computer program comprising a computer program code, the computer program code when executed by a processor causing a medical device or an alarm handler or a processing unit to perform the method (e.g., see Abstract, [0042] teaching the method being implemented as a computer-implemented method having necessary hardware, software, firmware).
As to claim 34, the claim is directed to the computer-implemented method as recited in claim 16 and further recites the measurement data comprises blood pressure of the patient (e.g., see [0052] of Bishop wherein a measure vital sign of the patient includes blood pressure), and is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop and Koski, as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Page et al. (USPPN: 2020/0013501; hereinafter Page).
As to claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. While Bishop teaches an algorithm using historical problematic events, Bishop fails to explicitly teach the algorithm being based on a machine-learning algorithm which has been trained in a supervised or semi-supervised manner.
However, in the same field of endeavor of device maintenance, Page teaches a machine-learning algorithm which has been trained in a supervised or semi-supervised manner (e.g., see [0057] teaches the use of machine learning algorithms to predict outcomes and events for determining maintenance periods for medical devices).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bishop-Koski in view of Page with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order improve hospital system workflow and decision making (e.g., see [0003] of Page).
As to claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Bishop fails to teach wherein the availability of a countermeasure is based on device-external data.
However, in the same field of endeavor of device maintenance, Koski teaches wherein analyzing the availability of a countermeasure is based on device-external data (e.g., see [0070] wherein the availability further includes device-external data such as travel time).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bishop in view of Koski with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to simultaneously manage the function of devices for tasks including adjustments thereof, thereby optimizing scheduling and maintenance (e.g., see [0009] of Koski).
As to claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. Bishop further teaches wherein the availability of the countermeasure is further determined based on a clinical infrastructure parameter, a location- based parameter of patient and/or devices and/or staff for executing the countermeasure, a user- experience parameter, an allocation parameter, representing allocations of disposables and/or equipment for countermeasure execution.
However, in the same field of endeavor of device maintenance, Koski teaches wherein the availability of a countermeasure is further determined based on a clinical infrastructure parameter, a location- based parameter of patient and/or devices and/or staff for executing the countermeasure, a user- experience parameter, an allocation parameter, representing allocations of disposables and/or equipment for countermeasure execution (e.g., see [0050], [0070], [0076] wherein the availability further includes data such as travel time, location, available devices, personnel and their role/certification, etc.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bishop in view of Koski with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to simultaneously manage the function of devices for tasks including adjustments thereof, thereby optimizing scheduling and (e.g., see [0009] of Koski).
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
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 STELLA HIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-5891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9-5PM.
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.
/STELLA HIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686