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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on March 12, 2024.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are independent.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 17/000,267 filed on 08/21/2020 (“Parent Application”), and a provisional application no. 62/889,966 filed on 08/21/2019. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1-10 recite a system comprising “a marketplace module” providing sales data…, “a utilization module” providing actual utilization data…, “a revenue module” providing revenue and operating cost data…, “a medical equipment appraisal module, including:”, “input port” receiving at least the sales data…, “a staging database” for storing the data…, and “a user interface” presenting a plurality of factors…, which are directed the means (or step) plus function limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, (f), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, see MPEP 2181 (I)(A).
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Here, even though “means for” has not been explicitly recited, claim limitations “a marketplace module”, “a utilization module”, “a revenue module”, “a medical equipment appraisal module”, “input port”, “a staging database”, and “a user interface” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder with functional language “a marketplace module” providing sales data…, “a utilization module” providing actual utilization data…, “a revenue module” providing revenue and operating cost data…, “a medical equipment appraisal module, including:”, “input port” receiving at least the sales data…, “a staging database” for storing the data…, and “a user interface”. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-10, as discussed above, the claims include language that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f), or sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to (1) disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function and/or (2) clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. Here, the claim recites the following limitations: 1) “a marketplace module” providing sales data…, is directed to specialized function for providing sales data, and thus the function is indefinite. 2) “a utilization module” providing actual utilization data…, is directed to specialized function for providing actual utilization data, and thus the function is indefinite. 3) “a revenue module” providing revenue and operating cost data…, is directed to specialized function for providing revenue and operating cost data, and thus the function is indefinite. 4) “a medical equipment appraisal module” including… is directed to specialized function for including , and thus the function is indefinite. 5) “input port” receiving at least the sales data, the utilization data…, is directed to specialized function for receiving at least the sales data, and thus the function is indefinite. 6) “a staging database” for storing the data received by the input port, is directed to specialized function for storing the data, and thus the function is indefinite. and 7) “a user interface” presenting a plurality of factors…, is directed to specialized function for presenting a plurality of factors, and thus the function is indefinite.
For each of the indefinite function as described above, Applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant is required to clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Further, claim 3 recites “the data processor” is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 2-10 are also reject for the same reasons as each depends on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-10 are directed to a system comprising a processor, which falls within the statutory category of a machine; claims 11-12 and 14-16 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which falls within the statutory category of a product; and claims 13 and 17-20 are directed to a method for determining market value of medical equipment, which falls within the statutory category of a process.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative. Claim 13 recites limitations of : “receiving a plurality of selections of discrete values, receiving a sample of historical sales prices, determining a weight to apply to the historical sales price, applying the weight to the historical sales price to generate a weighted historical price, calculating an individual variable weight to be applied to each of the discrete values, applying the individual variable weight to each of the discrete values of the plurality of selections of discrete value to generate weighted discrete values, using the weighted historical price and the weighted discrete value to generate an estimated market price, and projecting the estimated market price for the medical equipment on the monitor“. Dependent claims 17-20 further narrowing the limitations of claim 13 by: determining maintenance cost of each individual equipment, determining an intersection of the estimated market price and maintenance cost, determining profitability of each individual equipment and potential profitability of replacement requirement, determining an interaction of the profitability and potential profitability, calculating a spread between equipment book value and the estimated market price, and extracting attributable amounts relating to the individual equipment to calculate the profitability of each of the individual equipment”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are methods of fundamental economic practices, managing commercial interactions including marketing or sales activities, which fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere nominal recitation of a processor and a monitor for performing the operations do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. See 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 13 recites the additional element “a processor” and “a monitor” for performing the steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to implement the recited abstract idea. Thus, using generic computer components to implement an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24; see also Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (explaining that courts have identified merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as an example of when a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because none of the limitations reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or another technology or technical field, nor do they impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 13 recites the additional element “a processor” and “a monitor” for performing the steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to implement the recited abstract idea. At best, the processor may perform the steps of: displaying a plurality of discrete values on a monitor a user interface, receiving a plurality of discrete value selected by a user, and displaying the estimated market price on the monitor, which are no more than generic computer components for performing generic computer functions. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at a1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing a intermediary computer to forward information); 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); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 13 and 17-20 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other product claims 1-10 and method claims 11-12 and 14-16 parallel claims 13 and 17-20—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-5, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vacante et al., (US 2007/0250362, hereinafter: Vacante), and in view of Riggs et al., (US 2019/0370308, hereinafter: Riggs), and further in view of Garcia et al., (US 2016/0147952, hereinafter: Garcia).
Regarding claim 1, Vacante discloses an interconnected system for medical facilities, comprising:
a marketplace module providing sales data of used medical equipment (see ¶ 57, ¶ 82, ¶ 96, ¶ 113);
a utilization module providing actual utilization data for listed medical equipment (see ¶ 30, ¶ 53, ¶ 99, ¶ 141);
a revenue module providing revenue and operating cost data of each of the listed medical equipment (see ¶ 3, ¶ 12, ¶ 53-54, ¶ 82-83);
a medical equipment appraisal module, including:
input port receiving at least the sales data, the utilization data, the revenue and operating costs data, in structed form via Representational State Transfer (REST) or unstructured for via Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) (see Fig. 12-13; ¶ 36, ¶ 39-40, ¶ 63, ¶ 115-118);
a database for gathering historical medical equipment sales data on a plurality of medical equipment (see ¶ 51, ¶ 82, ¶ 85-86, ¶ 95-96); and
a staging database for storing the data received by the input port (see ¶ 51-52, ¶ 65):
a user interface presenting a plurality of factors, each factor having discrete selection for factors data associated with an individual medical equipment of the listed medical equipment, and receiving the discrete selections from the user, factors data (see Fig. 15; ¶ 114-116, ¶ 123);
a processor preprogrammed to generate a market value for the individual medical equipment (see Fig. 22E; ¶ 16, ¶ 64, ¶ 142) by performing the actions comprising:
receiving the factors data selected by the user from the user interface (see Fig. 12-13; ¶ 63, ¶ 82, ¶ 86, ¶ 109, ¶ 114, claim 10);
displaying on the user interface the estimated market price for the individual medical equipment (see Fig. 12; Fig. 22E; ¶ 118-119).
Vacante discloses a recorded (book value) price for each medical equipment item, and provided a selectable growth rate (weight) for the medical equipment price increases (see Fig. 22E).
Vacante does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Riggs in an analogous art for assigning relative weights to components discloses
determining variable weights for each of the factors (see Fig. 6, # 1310; ¶ 30, ¶ 45 ¶ 53, ¶ 310, claim 3);
apply by the processor the weights to each of the factors data as selected by the user to generate weighted factors (see ¶ 139, ¶ 202);
add by the processor all of the weighted factors to thereby generate by the processor an estimated market price (see ¶ 45-46, ¶ 198, ¶ 310, claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vacante to include the teaching of Riggs in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of analysis, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Vacante and Riggs do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Garcia in an analogous art for content distribution discloses
Representational State Transfer (REST) (see ¶ 150) and
Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) (see ¶ 144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vacante and in view of Riggs to include the teaching of Garcia in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhanced security and flexibility data transfer, and in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Vacante discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine an intersection of the estimated market price and maintenance cost and present on the interface module the intersection as optimal sale point (see ¶ 109, ¶ 114).
Regarding claim 3, Vacante discloses the system of claim 1, the data processor determining profitability of each individual equipment and potential profitability of replacementU.S. Application No. 17/000,267 Attorney Docket No. E108342 1010US. 1equipment, and wherein the market value estimator is further configured to determine an intersection of the profitability and potential profitability and present on the interface module the intersection as optimal sale point (see ¶ 3, ¶ 11-13, ¶ 54-56, ¶ 82-83).
Regarding claim 4, Vacante discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to determine an intersection of timeline at the optimal sale point and the estimated market price to provide estimated market price at the optimal sale point (see Fig. 22E; ¶ 114-118, ¶ 126).
Regarding claim 5, Vacante does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however Riggs discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to calculate a spread between equipment book value and the estimated market price and provide the results as potential arbitrage (see ¶ 26, ¶ 46, ¶ 62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vacante to include the teaching of Riggs in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of analysis, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Vacante discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to increase a weight applied to the historical medical equipment sales data of the equipment according to sample size of the historical medical equipment sales data for the equipment (see ¶ 12, ¶ 82-83, ¶ 91).
Regarding claim 11, Vacante discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein (see Claim 17), which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to estimate market value of a medical equipment by performing operations comprising:
project on a monitor a user interface enabling a user to select discrete values for a plurality of pricing factors (see Fig. 15; ¶ 114-116, ¶ 123);
receive from the user a plurality of selections of discrete values (see Fig. 12-13; ¶ 99, ¶ 114-116, claim 10);
receive by the processor a sample of historical sales prices for similar medical equipment (see ¶ 37, ¶ 85-88, ¶ 109, ¶ 114, ¶ 126).
Vacante discloses a recorded (book value) price for each medical equipment item, and provided a selectable growth rate (weight) for the medical equipment price increases (see Fig. 22E).
Vacante does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however Riggs in an analogous art for assigning relative weights to components discloses
determining by the processor a weight to apply to the historical sales price, wherein the value of the weight increases the size of the sample (see Fig. 6, # 1310; ¶ 30, ¶ 42, ¶ 62, ¶ 144, ¶ 283, ¶ 310, claim 3);
apply by the processor the weight to the historical sales price to generate a weighted historical price (see ¶ 139, ¶ 202);
calculate an individual variable weight to be applied to each of the discrete values (see Fig. 6, # 1310; ¶ 30, ¶ 45 ¶ 53, ¶ 310, claim 3);
apply by the processor the individual variable weight to each of the discrete values to generate weighted discrete values (see ¶ 45, ¶ 53, ¶ 69, ¶ 139, ¶ 202);
using the weighted historical price and the weighted discrete values to generate by the processor an estimated market price for the medical equipment (see ¶ 34, ¶ 46, ¶ 138).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vacante to include the teaching of Riggs in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of analysis, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Vacant does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Riggs discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim I1, wherein the processor further performs the operations comprising: generating an estimated market range by applying a positive and negative percentage to the estimated market price (see Abstract; ¶ 50, ¶ 66, ¶ 94-96). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vacante to include the teaching of Riggs in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of analysis, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 13, Vacante discloses a computer-implemented method for determining market value of medical equipment, the method causing a processor to perform the operations comprising the steps:
projecting by the processor on a monitor a user interface enabling a user to select discrete values for a plurality of pricing factors (see Fig. 15; ¶ 114-116, ¶ 123);
receiving from the user interface by the processor a plurality of selections of discrete values selected by the user (see Fig. 12-13; ¶ 99, ¶ 114-116, claim 10);
receiving by the processor a sample of historical sales prices for the similar medical equipment (see ¶ 37, ¶ 85-88, ¶ 108-109, ¶ 114, ¶ 126).
projecting by the processor on the monitor the estimated marked price for the medical equipment (see Fig. 15; ¶ 109, ¶ 114-117, ¶ 123).
Vacante discloses a recorded (book value) price for each medical equipment item, and provided a selectable growth rate (weight) for the medical equipment price increases (see Fig. 22E).
Vacante does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however Riggs in an analogous art for assessing vulnerability of water controls discloses
determining by the processor a weight to apply to the historical sales price, wherein the value of the weight increases with size of the sample (see Abstract; ¶ 9, ¶ 18, ¶ 26);
applying by the processor the weight to the historical sales price to generate a weighted historical price (see ¶ 34, ¶ 138);
calculating by the processor an individual variable weight to be applied to each of the discrete values of the plurality of selections of discrete values (see Abstract; ¶ 19, ¶ 27, ¶ 127);
applying by the processor the individual variable weight to each of the discrete values of the plurality of selections of discrete value to generate weighted discrete values (see ¶ 93-94, ¶ 102-107, ¶ 329);
using the weighted historical price and the weighted discrete values to generate by the processor an estimated market price for the medical equipment (see ¶ 11, ¶ 206, ¶ 213, ¶ 238).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vacante to include the teaching of Riggs in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of analysis, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Vacante discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the processor further performs the operations comprising: determining maintenance cost of each individual equipment, and determining an intersection of the estimated market price and maintenance cost and presenting on an interface the intersection as optimal sale point (see ¶ 109, ¶ 114).
Regarding claim 15, Vacante discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the processor further performs the operations comprising: determining profitability of each individual equipment and potential profitability of replacement equipment, and determining an intersection of the profitability and potential profitability and presenting on the interface the intersection as optimal sale point (see ¶ 3, ¶ 11-13, ¶ 54-56, ¶ 82-83).
Regarding claim 16, Vacante does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however Riggs discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the processor further performs the operations comprising: calculating a spread between equipment book value and the estimated market price and providing the results as potential arbitrage (see ¶ 26, ¶ 46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vacante to include the teaching of Riggs in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of analysis, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 17, Vacante discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 13, further comprising the steps: determining maintenance cost of each individual equipment, and determining an intersection of the estimated market price and maintenance cost and presenting on an interface the intersection as optimal sale point (see Fig. 22E; ¶ 114-118, ¶ 126).
Regarding claim 18, Vacante discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 13, further comprising the steps: determining profitability of each individual equipment and potential profitability of replacement equipment, and determining an intersection of the profitability and potential profitability and present on the interface the intersection as optimal sale point (see ¶ 3, ¶ 11-13, ¶ 54-56, ¶ 82-83).
Regarding claim 19, Vacante does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however Riggs discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 18, further comprising the steps: calculating a spread between equipment book value and the estimated market price and providing the results as potential arbitrage (see ¶ 26, ¶ 46, ¶ 62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vacante to include the teaching of Riggs in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of analysis, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vacante and in view of Riggs as applied to claims 1-5 and 10-19 above, and further in view of Boglaev (US 2008/0077518).
Regarding claim 6, Vacant and Riggs do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Boglaev discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to display on the user interface a circular speedometer and having a speedometer dial indicating the estimated market price (see Fig. 11; ¶ 11, ¶ 68, ¶ 84, ¶ 100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vacante and in view of Riggs to include the teaching of Boglaev in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for presenting information, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, displaying a circular speedometer and having a speedometer dial indicating the estimated market price is obvious matter of design choice because the way of presenting information will not modify the operation of the system. (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
Regarding claim 7, Vacant and Riggs do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Boglaev discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the processor further displays a second dial indicating book value of the medical equipment (see ¶ 168, ¶ 70, ¶ 74). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vacante and in view of Riggs to include the teaching of Boglaev in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for presenting information, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Vacante discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the market value estimator is further configured to display on the user interface a plurality of selectors, each assuming a plurality of discrete position, each selector corresponding to one of the factors (see Fig. 15; ¶ 33, ¶ 116).
Regarding claim 9, Vacant and Riggs do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Boglaev discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to change positioning of the speedometer dial according to each selector position change (see ¶ 46-48 ¶ 61-62, ¶ 68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vacante and in view of Riggs to include the teaching of Boglaev in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for presenting information, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vacante and in view of Riggs as applied to claims 1-5 and 10-19 above, and further in view of Saito (US 2013/0066663).
Regarding claim 20, Vacante and Riggs do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Saito in an analogous art for profitability management discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 18, further comprising the steps:
receiving billing information and extracting attributable amounts relating to the individual equipment to calculate the profitability of each of the individual equipment (see ¶ 74, ¶ 103, ¶ 115, ¶ 122, ¶ 166, ¶ 240-243, and claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vacante and in view of Riggs to include the teaching of Saito in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, and in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abhyanker (US 20020133416) discloses a method for recapturing value of used goods and marketing the used goods over the portal under direction of the virtual seller.
Masuyama et al., (KR 20060097116) discloses an enterprise evaluation device for calculating the intellectual asset profit by subtracting a value obtained by multiplying the financial asset by profitability of the financial asset.
Vyas et al., (US 2007/0078791) discloses an asset management system for predicting a cost to maintain a work machine in the future based on the received data and one or more operating conditions.
Singer et al., (US 2010/0169206) discloses a method for displaying market information corresponding to a tradable object includes a chart region for displaying historical market data in relation to a first value axis, and a market grid region in alignment with the chart region.
“Estimating Medical Costs for Regulatory Benefit-Cost Analysis”, by Jessup et al., Office of Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, June 2017.
“Estimates of Medical Device Spending in the United States”, by Gerald Donahoe, Advanced Technology Association, 701 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Suite 800, Washington, D.C 20004, November 2018.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN G CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached on 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624