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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
2. Claims 1-20 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 1-20 are directed to managing service providers to service a medical device, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims are also directed to determining if a service provider is qualified to perform the servicing of the device, which amounts to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work. Organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Mental Processes). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-17 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claims 19-20 recite a system comprising a user interface. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (apparatus and manufacture).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a non-transitory computer readable medium in which a determination is made if a service engineer is qualified to perform the servicing session of the medical device, in the following limitations:
storing credentials for performing respective service actions;
storing credentials of respective SE's; and
perform a method of authorizing a servicing session, the method comprising:
receiving a service ticket to perform the servicing session;
retrieving credentials of a candidate SE to perform the servicing session;
determining one or more service actions for resolving the service ticket;
retrieving credentials required to perform the servicing session based on the determined one or more service actions;
determining whether the credentials of the candidate SE satisfy the credentials required to perform the servicing session; and
outputting an indication that the candidate SE is unqualified to perform the servicing session when the credentials of the candidate SE do not satisfy the credentials required to perform the servicing session.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to determine if the service engineer is qualified to perform the serving session on the medical device. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations, as a determination is made as to whether the service engineer is qualified to provide a service to a consumer/business. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
The above-recited limitations determine if a service provider is qualified to perform the servicing of the device. This arrangement amounts to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work. Such concepts have been considered ineligible Mental Processes by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
a service actions database;
a service engineer (SE) database;
instructions executable by at least one electronic processor;
of a medical device.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“a service actions database”; “a service engineer (SE) database”; “instructions executable by at least one electronic processor”; “of a medical device”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving, retrieving, determining, and outputting). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 29, 30, 31, 33-35, and 262-302 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 11 and 19 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Dependent claims
Dependent Claims 2-10, 12-18 and 20 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea.
For example, claim 5 sets forth:
wherein the receiving of the service ticket includes:
automatically generating the service ticket for proactive maintenance based on output operating on machine log data.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of determining a service engineer to perform the servicing of a medical device, including facilitating interaction between consumers and businesses. Additionally, this recitation is directed to determining if a service provider is qualified to perform the servicing of the device, including organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work. While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “of a machine learning (ML) failure prediction model” and “generated by the medical device”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Claim 1 recites a specific computer-implemented authorization technique that uses particular data structures (two distinct credential databases keyed to service actions and to SEs) and a defined ordered set of operations to control access to a medical device servicing session. This is a technological solution to a technological problem-ensuring compliant and safe servicing access and reducing downtime in complex computerized medical devices.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not recite specifically, “a specific computer-implemented authorization technique that uses particular data structures (two distinct credential databases keyed to service actions and to SEs) and a defined ordered set of operations to control access to a medical device servicing session”. As written, claim 1 is directed to managing service providers to service a medical device, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Applicant further argues that the claimed design and use of two credential databases and the computer-executed authorization method improve computer-based access control for medical device servicing, akin to the computer security improvements recognized in Ancora and Finjan.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regard to Ancora, the Federal Circuit reversed a lower court’s invalidity ruling under 35 USC §101 by concluding that Ancora’s claimed subject matter was concrete—not abstract—because it assigned specific functions to specific parts of a computer to improve computer security. The claims at issue were directed toward selectively limiting use of a software application on a computer. To do so, the computer stores certain license data in a specified part of its BIOS memory, and verifies against that stored license data to permit or prevent use of that software on the computer. The Ancora decision that found the technology at issue was not abstract, distinguishing it from cases where software is just a "tool". The claims in the present application are merely outputting an indication, indicating if a service engineer is qualified or unqualified to perform the servicing session. The claims are not storing certain license data in a specified part of its BIOS memory, and verifies against that stored license data to permit or prevent use of that software on the computer. Thus, claims in Ancora are not analogous to the claims in the present application.
With regard to Finjan, the Court determined that the virus scanning technique claimed in this instance represented an enhancement in computer functionality, thus incorporating an inventive step. The Court emphasized that the claims in question didn't merely center on a desired outcome but detailed specific steps leading to that outcome. Claim 1 of Finjan is directed towards receiving a downloadable, identifying suspicious or malicious code and generating a security profile, and associating the downloadable with the security profile. These steps do not describe an abstract concept as they are directed towards performing steps leading to identifying malicious code to create a new data file containing a security profile, according to the court. Claim 1 of Finjan is also rooted in computer technology as it covers the identification of suspicious code which do not have significance outside the realm of computer technology. The claims in the present application are merely outputting an indication, indicating if a service engineer is qualified or unqualified to perform the servicing session. The claims are not identifying malicious code to create a new data file containing a security profile. Thus, claims in Finjan are not analogous to the claims in the present application.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as written are directed toward verifying a service engineer’s credentials to determine if they are qualified to perform the servicing session. The claim limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to determine if the service engineer is qualified to perform the serving session on the medical device. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations, as a determination is made as to whether the service engineer is qualified to provide a service to a consumer/business. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Additionally, the above-recited limitations receive a service ticket, retrieve credentials, and determine if a service provider is qualified to perform the servicing of the device. This arrangement amounts to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work. Such concepts have been considered ineligible Mental Processes by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
The additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment. Accordingly, the claims do not recite additional limitations that integrate the exception into a Practical Application, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites an inventive concept in the non- conventional arrangement and use of two credential databases-one keyed to service actions with device/model specificity, and another keyed to individual SE credentials-and in the processor- executed mapping of service ticket context to required credentials and enforcement of access control via an authorization indication and that this distributed arrangement and the credential-driven gating of servicing access is analogous to the inventive distribution and placement recognized in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not recite these limitations specifically “use of two credential databases--one keyed to service actions with device/model specificity, and another keyed to individual SE credentials--and in the processor- executed mapping of service ticket context to required credentials and enforcement of access control via an authorization indication”. No claim amendments were filed in the reply dated December 17, 2025. Claim 1 specifically recites, “a service actions database storing credentials for performing respective service actions; a service engineer (SE) database storing credentials of respective SE's; and instructions executable by at least one electronic processor to perform a method of authorizing a servicing session of a medical device, the method comprising: receiving a service ticket to perform the servicing session of the medical device; retrieving credentials of a candidate SE to perform the servicing session from the SE database; determining one or more service actions for resolving the service ticket; retrieving credentials required to perform the servicing session from the service actions database based on the determined one or more service actions; determining whether the credentials of the candidate SE satisfy the credentials required to perform the servicing session; and outputting an indication that the candidate SE is unqualified to perform the servicing session when the credentials of the candidate SE do not satisfy the credentials required to perform the servicing session”.
With regard to BASCOM, BASCOM was found eligible based on considerations relevant to Part 2B (does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea) of the two-part framework outlined in MPEP §2106; where claim 1 "carve[s] out a specific location for the filtering system (a remote ISP server) and require the filtering system to give users the ability to customize filtering for their individual network accounts". In contrast, Applicant’s invention aims to receive a service ticket, retrieve credentials of a service engineer, and determine if a service provider is qualified to perform the servicing of the device and output an indication that the service engineer is unqualified and does not aim to solve a technological problem. The specification is silent in regards to improving the additional elements recited in the claims. Examiner finds, Applicants have not identified anything in the claimed invention that shows or submits the technology is being improved or there was a problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves.
The consideration under Step 2B is if the additional elements, alone or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field — the novelty of the abstract idea is not considered relevant under the Step 2B analysis. Here, the additional elements, alone or in combination, amount to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’|, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014). Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ESTABLISHING A BUYER/SERVICE PROVIDER RELATIONSHIP ELECTRONICALLY (US 20100017337 A1) teaches receiving a request for services from a buyer, creating a service order based on the requested services, determining which of a plurality of service providers are qualified to provide the requested services, and selecting from the qualified service providers one or more particular service providers to perform the services.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber Misiaszek whose telephone number is 571-270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30, First Friday Off.
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, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682