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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the amendments filed on June 24, 2026.
• Claim 1 has been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 2, 11, 16, have been canceled.
• Claims 1, 3-10, 12-15, and 17-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner is withdrawing the claim objections due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on pages 9-13, that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the 35 USC § 101 rejection below, the claimed inventions allows for analyzing log data of a medical device and providing dialog for ordering parts for the medical device. The Specification at [0017]-[0018] states:
“In the medical imaging field, medical device vendors provide support to customers in part by receiving machine log data uploaded from the imaging devices in the field. In one support mode, various failure prediction models are automatically run on the machine log data. Alerts generated by these models are forwarded to a Remote Service Engineer (RSE) based at the vendor, who reviews the alert and contacts the customer if maintenance is needed. Additionally or alternatively, the alert may be sent directly to the customer. This provides a mechanism for initiating preventative service. In another support mode, an RSE receives calls from customers presently experiencing imaging device problems. In either support mode, a service case is opened at the vendor side when preventative or repair work is needed.”
The Specification and claims focus on an improvement to the process of reviewing log data of medical devices and providing a user of a medical device with customer service such as ordering parts and calling an expert engineer to repair the device, which is a concept performed in the mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, and a commercial and legal interaction including sales activities or behaviors and business relations which falls within the category of Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore is an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues on page 9 that the Office Action characterization of the claims overgeneralized and does not account for the actual limitations of the claims as a whole. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to this argument, the Examiner notes that each claim was given the full and proper analysis under the test set forth by the Supreme Court and the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106).
Applicant further argues, on pages 9-10, that the claims address a technical problem in a technical service environment. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to solving the problem of reviewing log data of medical devices and providing a user of a medical device with customer service such as ordering parts and calling an expert engineer to repair the device (see at least [0002]-[0004] and [0017]-[0018] of the Specification). The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., reviewing log data of medical devices and providing a user of a medical device with customer service such as ordering parts and calling an expert engineer to repair the device, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field.
Applicant further argues, on pages 10-11, that the claims require computer access to store log files and qualification data, computer-implemented retrieval and subset generation, and electronic presentation of case-specific information and that the claims are thus rooted in processing technical operational data from medical imaging devices. The argument has been considered and is not persuasive. In response to the argument, the Examiner notes that the limitations directed to a processor retrieving and storing data and displaying data on a user interface have been analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as is discussed in further detail in the 101 rejection below, the additional elements are such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Applicant further argues, on page 11, that the claims do not recite a commercial or legal interaction as claim 1 is not directed to ordering parts, payment, contracting, advertising, marketing, sales, or formation or management of a commercial relationship. The argument is not persuasive. In response to the argument, the Examiner notes that the claims not reciting ordering parts, payments, contracting, etc., does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In the instant application, the claimed invention allows for analyzing log data of a medical device and providing dialog for ordering parts for the medical device. The Specification at [0017]-[0018] states:
“In the medical imaging field, medical device vendors provide support to customers in part by receiving machine log data uploaded from the imaging devices in the field. In one support mode, various failure prediction models are automatically run on the machine log data. Alerts generated by these models are forwarded to a Remote Service Engineer (RSE) based at the vendor, who reviews the alert and contacts the customer if maintenance is needed. Additionally or alternatively, the alert may be sent directly to the customer. This provides a mechanism for initiating preventative service. In another support mode, an RSE receives calls from customers presently experiencing imaging device problems. In either support mode, a service case is opened at the vendor side when preventative or repair work is needed.”
The Specification and claims focus on an improvement to the process of reviewing log data of medical devices and providing a user of a medical device with customer service such as ordering parts and calling an expert engineer to repair the device, which is a commercial and legal interaction including sales activities or behaviors and business relations which falls within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore is an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-14, that the claims integrate a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, the claims recite a non-transitory computer readable medium storing: data; instructions readable and executable by at least one electronic processor to perform claim functions; and a display device of an electronic processing device operable by the selected maintenance provider, a user interface (UI) displaying information such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, and in response to Applicant’s arguments on page 14 where Applicant argues the claims improve technology, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor, memory and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0017]-[0018], describing,
"In the medical imaging field, medical device vendors provide support to customers in part by receiving machine log data uploaded from the imaging devices in the field. In one support mode, various failure prediction models are automatically run on the machine log data. Alerts generated by these models are forwarded to a Remote Service Engineer (RSE) based at the vendor, who reviews the alert and contacts the customer if maintenance is needed. Additionally or alternatively, the alert may be sent directly to the customer. This provides a mechanism for initiating preventative service. In another support mode, an RSE receives calls from customers presently experiencing imaging device problems. In either support mode, a service case is opened at the vendor side when preventative or repair work is needed.”
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 14, that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations are directed to an abstract idea and when determining if the claims are directed to significantly more, the additional limitations of the claims in addition to the abstract idea are analyzed. In the instant application, the additional elements of the claim include a non-transitory computer readable medium storing: data; instructions readable and executable by at least one electronic processor to perform claim functions; and a display device of an electronic processing device operable by the selected maintenance provider, a user interface (UI) displaying information. The additional limitations, when considered both individually and in combination, do not affect an improvement to another technology or technological field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer merely to carry out the abstract idea itself. The specifics about the abstract idea do not overcome the rejection.
Applicant further argues, on page 15, that the Office Action improperly analyzed claim limitation. In response to this argument, the Examiner notes, again, that each claim was given the full and proper analysis under the test set forth by the Supreme Court and the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 15-18, that the claims recite a combination more than routine computer implementation, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations are directed to an abstract idea and when determining if the claims are directed to significantly more, the additional limitations of the claims in addition to the abstract idea are analyzed. In the claims of the instant application, the computer device of claim 1 is recited as performing the steps of storing data, retrieving log data, storing data, retrieving the stored data, selecting a maintenance provider, generating a subset of the data, and providing information on a user interface. These are merely generic computer components performing customary and generic steps. The Examiner fails to see, and the Applicant fails to point out, how the steps are unconventional steps that confine the claims to a particular useful application.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 19-22, that the cited art of record does not teach the limitation “select a maintenance provider from the plurality of maintenance providers to perform the current service case based on the retrieved log data and the retrieved qualifications,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the 103 rejection below, Liu at page 6, para. 9-13 teaches searching for an engineer based on the medical equipment problem and urgency, and if the engineer cannot solve the problem then a search for other engineers who can repair the equipment is performed. The Examiner interprets searching for an engineer who can perform the repair as a maintenance provider selected based on retrieved qualifications. Applicant further argues, on page 20, that Liu does not disclose retrieving log data from log files of the medical imaging device. However, the Examiner notes that Unger, not Liu, is relied upon for teaching that limitation. And Unger teaches that limitation at least at [0013], describing examining an error log that is stored and preparing a formatted error log file. The cited art of record therefore teaches this limitation.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 21, that Liu’s disclosure of searching according to equipment brand, type, and specification is not a selection based on retrieved log data from the medical imaging device, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. In response to this argument, the Examiner notes that Liu’s disclosure of equipment brand, type, and specification does not preclude Liu from teaching the claimed limitations. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 21-22, that there is no motivation to combine the references, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, from the teaching of Liu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Unger with the teachings of Liu in order to improve maintenance of medical devices and prevent maintenance delay and disordered maintenance sequence and ensure orderly operation of the normal work of the hospital (see Liu at least at page 1, paragraph 1 (Abstract section)), and in order to improve management of hospital medical devices (see Liu at least at page 2, para. 6 (Background section)).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 23-25 has been considered and is not persuasive. The Examiner notes that claim 8 is narrower in scope than independent claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 not being rejected by a prior art rejection does not provide additional independent reasoning as to why the claimed subject matter would be patentable over the cited prior art. The argument is therefore unpersuasive.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, 3-10, 12-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 15, and 20 are directed to an apparatus. Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1, 15, and 20 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1, 15, and 20 recite, in part, a system, a method, and an apparatus of organizing human activity. Using the limitations in claim 20 to illustrate, the claim recites data related to qualifications of a plurality of maintenance providers; data related to medical imaging devices generated from log files from the medical imaging devices; retrieve, based on a query received for a current service case, log data from the log files of the medical imaging device for which the current service case is to be performed including at least operational data of the medical imaging device related to the current service case to be performed; generate, from the retrieved log data, at least a subset of the operational data for the current service case to be provided to a maintenance provider; retrieve the qualifications of maintenance providers of the plurality of maintenance providers; select a maintenance provider from the plurality of maintenance providers to perform the current service case based on the retrieved log data and the retrieved qualifications; and provide, information about the current service case and presenting a dialog for ordering parts for the medical imaging device for which the current service case is to be performed. The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for analyzing log data of a medical device and providing dialog for ordering parts for the medical device, which is a commercial and legal interaction including sales activities or behaviors and business relations. The mere nominal recitation of a non-transitory computer readable medium and user interface do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of A non-transitory computer readable medium storing: data; instructions readable and executable by at least one electronic processor to perform claim functions; and a display device of an electronic processing device operable by the selected maintenance provider, a user interface (UI) displaying information are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of retrieving data, providing information including information related to ordering of repair parts) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 3-10, 12-14, 17-19, and 21-22 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP-1065619-A2 (“Unger”) in view of CN111816290A (“Liu”).
Claim 1 has similar limitations found in claim 20 below, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Unger and Liu disclose the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Unger does not expressly disclose the data related to qualifications of the maintenance providers of the plurality of maintenance provider includes at least one of: data related to one or more of an experience level of each maintenance provider, a likelihood of success of each maintenance provider in resolving the current service case, an availability of each maintenance provider, and a cost estimate for each maintenance provider.
However, Liu discloses the data related to qualifications of the maintenance providers of the plurality of maintenance provider includes at least one of: data related to one or more of an experience level of each maintenance provider, a likelihood of success of each maintenance provider in resolving the current service case, an availability of each maintenance provider, and a cost estimate for each maintenance provider (the engineer recommending module searches the medical equipment sequenced by the emergency degree judging module for the matched engineers in the database; the engineer recommendation module further comprises a support engineer search module within the mobile terminal applet: when the engineer cannot independently solve the equipment fault, the method is used for firstly searching whether other engineers capable of repairing the equipment exist in the area according to the brand, the type and the specification of the equipment, secondly searching other engineers of the company, then searching the contact information of the supplier distributor engineer of the equipment, and finally searching all the engineers recorded in the system. See at least page 3, para. 14.).
From the teaching of Liu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the data of Unger to include the data related to qualifications of the maintenance providers of the plurality of maintenance provider includes at least one of: data related to one or more of an experience level of each maintenance provider, a likelihood of success of each maintenance provider in resolving the current service case, an availability of each maintenance provider, and a cost estimate for each maintenance provider, as taught by Liu, in order to improve maintenance of medical devices and prevent maintenance delay and disordered maintenance sequence and ensure orderly operation of the normal work of the hospital (see Liu at least at page 1, paragraph 1 (Abstract section)), and in order to improve management of hospital medical devices (see Liu at least at page 2, para. 6 (Background section)).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Unger and Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and the second embodiment of Unger further discloses presenting, on the GUI of the display device of the electronic processing device operable by the maintenance provider, a dialog for ordering parts for the medical imaging device for which the current service case is to be performed (During a replacement step, the system guides the service engineer through the procedures necessary to replace a part of the medial diagnostic system. If the replacement part is not readily available, then the system may provide the service engineer with the information necessary to order the part. A replacement step may also collect parts utilization information from the engineer. For example, the system may ask the service engineer if replacing a given part solved the problem. Parts utilization information may be used to help improve service part inventory control. See at least [0018]. See also [0029].).
From the teaching of the second embodiment of Unger, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first embodiment of Unger to present, on the GUI of the display device of the electronic processing device operable by the maintenance provider, a dialog for ordering parts for the medical imaging device for which the current service case is to be performed, as taught by the second embodiment of Unger, in order to improve the context sensitivity of the service system by providing historical data that the method may use to select one of multiple branches in a workflow when the need arises (see Unger at least at [0018]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Unger and Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and the first embodiment of Unger further discloses the retrieved operational data includes one or more of control parameters for the medical imaging device, error codes generated by the medical imaging device, and sensor data generated by the medical imaging device (The error log viewer may display the date and time an error occurred, a text description of the error, the subsystem that recorded the error, an internal error code, their severity of the error, and other useful information. See at least [0031]. The filter control to filter the error log by various parameters. For example, the user may apply a filter to display only those errors that occurred within a particular period. Alternatively, the user could apply a filter to display only those errors that are of the greatest severity. See at least [0030].).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Unger and Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and the first embodiment of Unger further discloses the retrieved log data includes one or more of alerts issued by one or more failure prediction models, log content generated proximate to a time of an alert, results of an automated root cause detect pattern run on the log data, a model of the medical imaging device, and configuration data of the medical imaging device (When formatting the error log, the processor may apply one or more filters in order to sort the errors by various characteristics. By way of example, these characteristics may include time of occurrence of an error, severity of the error and the like. See at least [0014].).
Claim 15 has similar limitations found in claim 20 below, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Regarding claim 20, Unger discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing: data related to qualifications of a plurality of maintenance providers; data related to medical imaging devices generated from log files from the medical imaging devices; instructions readable and executable by at least one electronic processor to (see at least [0009] and [0035]. The processor maintains a log of such system errors on storage medium. A user of the medical diagnostic system (which may include a service engineer) may view the display and enter commands and selections using the input device. The storage medium contains data that may represent service information and applications for use in the service process. The storage medium may be RAM, ROM, a hard drive, a CD-ROM drive, or any other medium capable of storing data. The processor may access the error log and the service information and applications from time to time. Typically, when a service engineer, either a field engineer or a remote service engineer, begins to service the medical diagnostic system, the service engineer first examines the error log. See at least [0012]-[0013]. Examples of medical diagnostic systems include x-ray, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and nuclear medicine systems. See at least [0001].):
retrieve, based on a query received for a current service case, log data from the log files of the medical imaging device for which the current service case is to be performed including at least operational data of the medical imaging device related to the current service case to be performed (Typically, when a service engineer, either a field engineer or a remote service engineer, begins to service the medical diagnostic system, the service engineer first examines the error log. In the preferred embodiment, the processor retrieves the error log from the storage medium and prepares a formatted error log containing hypertext links associated with each error. See at least [0013].);
generate, from the retrieved log data, at least a subset of the operational data for the current service case to be provided to a maintenance provider (When formatting the error log, the processor may apply one or more filters in order to sort the errors by various characteristics. By way of example, these characteristics may include time of occurrence of an error, severity of the error and the like. The filtered error log may be used by the service engineer to determine more quickly possible root causes for the errors contained in the error log. The system may apply a default filter to the log. See at least [0014].);
provide, on a display device of an electronic processing device operable by the selected maintenance provider, a user interface (UI) displaying information about the current service case (The formatted error log may be output to the display by way of a hypertext viewer application. See at least [0013].) and
presenting a dialog for ordering parts for the medical imaging device for which the current service case is to be performed (During a replacement step, the system guides the service engineer through the procedures necessary to replace a part of the medial diagnostic system. If the replacement part is not readily available, then the system may provide the service engineer with the information necessary to order the part. A replacement step may also collect parts utilization information from the engineer. For example, the system may ask the service engineer if replacing a given part solved the problem. Parts utilization information may be used to help improve service part inventory control. See at least [0018]. See also [0029].).
Unger does not expressly disclose retrieve the qualifications of maintenance providers of the plurality of maintenance providers; select a maintenance provider from the plurality of maintenance providers to perform the current service case based on the retrieved log data and the retrieved qualifications.
However, Liu discloses retrieve the qualifications of maintenance providers of the plurality of maintenance providers; select a maintenance provider from the plurality of maintenance providers to perform the current service case based on the retrieved log data and the retrieved qualifications (the specific steps of the engineer recommending and supporting communication are as follows: s301, the medical equipment after emergency degree judgment and sorting is searched for the matched engineers in the database, information is sent to the short messages and the mailboxes of the related engineers, and the emergency degree is prompted; s302, if the engineer in the step S301 cannot solve the problem on site, entering a supporting communication process, and searching whether other engineers capable of maintaining the equipment exist in the area and recommending the engineers to the site engineer according to the brand, type and specification of the equipment; s303, if the problem can not be solved in the step S302, searching other engineers of the company and recommending the engineers to a field engineer; s304, if the problem can not be solved in the step S303, searching the contact information of the supplier dealer engineer of the equipment and recommending the contact information to a field engineer; s305, if the problem can not be solved in the step S304, searching other engineers recorded in the system and recommending the other engineers to the field engineer. See at least page 6, para. 9-13. Storing data, see at least page 9, para. 13.).
From the teaching of Liu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Unger to retrieve the qualifications of maintenance providers of the plurality of maintenance providers, as taught by Liu, and to modify Unger to select a maintenance provider from the plurality of maintenance providers to perform the current service case based on the retrieved log data and the retrieved qualifications, as taught by Liu, in order to improve maintenance of medical devices and prevent maintenance delay and disordered maintenance sequence and ensure orderly operation of the normal work of the hospital (see Liu at least at page 1, paragraph 1 (Abstract section)), and in order to improve management of hospital medical devices (see Liu at least at page 2, para. 6 (Background section)).
Claims 5-6, 17-18, and 21-22 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unger in view of Liu, and in further view of US20190354717A1 (“Boon”).
Claim 5 has similar limitations found in claim 17 below, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 6 has similar limitations found in claim 18 below, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Unger and Liu discloses the limitations of claim 15, as discussed above, and Unger further discloses generate, from the retrieved log data, at least a subset of the operational data for the current service case to be provided to a maintenance provider by: processing the log data from the log files of the medical imaging device for which the current service case is to be performed; wherein the information about the current service case displayed on the UI includes the processed log data (Typically, when a service engineer, either a field engineer or a remote service engineer, begins to service the medical diagnostic system, the service engineer first examines the error log. In the preferred embodiment, the processor retrieves the error log from the storage medium and prepares a formatted error log containing hypertext links associated with each error. The formatted error log may be output to the display by way of a hypertext viewer application. When formatting the error log, the processor may apply one or more filters in order to sort the errors by various characteristics. By way of example, these characteristics may include time of occurrence of an error, severity of the error and the like. The filtered error log may be used by the service engineer to determine more quickly possible root causes for the errors contained in the error log. The system may apply a default filter to the log. Alternatively, the service engineer may decide which, if any, filter should be applied. See at least [0013]-[0014].).
While Unger discloses processing data, Unger does not expressly disclose anonymizing data; anonymized data.
However, Boon discloses anonymizing data; anonymized data (scrubbing sensitive data, such as confidential and personal data, see at least [0041] and [0048].).
From the teaching of Boon, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the processing of data of Unger to anonymize the data, as taught by Boon, and to modify the data of Unger to be anonymized data, as taught by Boon, in order to improve quality of a product (see Boon at least at [0021]) and protecting personal data of entities (see Boon at least at [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of the combination of Unger, Liu, and Boon disclose the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above, and Unger further discloses generate, from the retrieved log data, at least a subset of the operational data for the current service case to be provided to a maintenance provider by: filtering the log data from the log files of the medical imaging device for which the current service case is to be performed; and transferring the filtered data to the remote electronic processing device operable by the selected maintenance provider (Typically, when a service engineer, either a field engineer or a remote service engineer, begins to service the medical diagnostic system, the service engineer first examines the error log. In the preferred embodiment, the processor retrieves the error log from the storage medium and prepares a formatted error log containing hypertext links associated with each error. The formatted error log may be output to the display by way of a hypertext viewer application. When formatting the error log, the processor may apply one or more filters in order to sort the errors by various characteristics. By way of example, these characteristics may include time of occurrence of an error, severity of the error and the like. The filtered error log may be used by the service engineer to determine more quickly possible root causes for the errors contained in the error log. The system may apply a default filter to the log. Alternatively, the service engineer may decide which, if any, filter should be applied. See at least [0013]-[0014].).
While Unger discloses filtering, Under does not expressly disclose filtering to remove information designated as proprietary information related to the medical imaging device. Furthermore, while Unger discloses filtered data, Unger does not expressly disclose anonymized data.
However, Boon discloses filtering to remove information designated as proprietary information related to the medical imaging device; anonymized data (A rule-based attribution technique to identify the sensitive data in a document that may need to be filtered, eliminated or scrubbed so that the underlying telemetric data is preserved for downstream processing. See at least [0015]. scrubbing sensitive data, such as confidential and personal data, see at least [0041] and [0048].).
From the teaching of Boon, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the filtering of Unger to filter the proprietary information related to the medical imaging device of Unger, using the filtering technique as taught by Boon, and to modify the data of Unger to be anonymized data, as taught by Boon, in order to improve quality of a product (see Boon at least at [0021]) and protecting personal data of entities (see Boon at least at [0003]-[0005]). Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 21 has similar limitations found in claim 22 below, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of the combination of Unger, Liu, and Boon disclose the limitations of claim 18, as discussed above. While Unger discloses filtering the information provided to the selected maintenance worker (see Unger at least at [0013]-[0014]), Unger does not expressly disclose the information is filtered to remove proprietary information.
However, Boon discloses the information is filtered to remove proprietary information (A rule-based attribution technique to identify the sensitive data in a document that may need to be filtered, eliminated or scrubbed so that the underlying telemetric data is preserved for downstream processing. See at least [0015]. scrubbing sensitive data, such as confidential and personal data, see at least [0041] and [0048].).
From the teaching of Boon, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the filtering of Unger to filter the proprietary information related to the medical imaging device of Unger, using the filtering technique as taught by Boon, and to modify the data of Unger to be anonymized data, as taught by Boon, in order to improve quality of a product (see Boon at least at [0021]) and protecting personal data of entities (see Boon at least at [0003]-[0005]). Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 13-14 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unger in view of Liu, and in further view of US 20170148102 A1(“Franke”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Unger and Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Unger does not expressly disclose receive a notification from the remote electronic processing device operable by the selected maintenance provider that the current service case has been completed; perform one or more tests on the medical imaging device for which the current service case is to be performed to confirm that the current service case has been resolved.
However, Franke discloses receive a notification from the remote electronic processing device operable by the selected maintenance provider that the current service case has been completed; perform one or more tests on the medical imaging device for which the current service case is to be performed to confirm that the current service case has been resolved (Performing repair verification. See at least [0068]. See also [0156]-[0157].).
From the teaching of Franke, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Unger to receive a notification from the remote electronic processing device operable by the selected maintenance provider that the current service case has been completed, as taught by Franke, and to perform one or more tests on the medical imaging device for which the current service case is to be performed to confirm that the current service case has been resolved, as taught by Franke, in order to improve damage assessment and repair process and evaluating the adequacy of any physical repairs that have been performed (see Franke at least at Abstract), and in order to improve damage assessment and repair including address lengthiness, complexity, and expensive processing (see Franke at least at [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Unger, Liu, and Franke discloses the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Unger does not expressly disclose upon determining that the current service case has been resolved, initiate a payment to the selected maintenance provider
However, Franke discloses upon determining that the current service case has been resolved, initiate a payment to the selected maintenance provider (The processor may be configured to automatically process payment for the repair upon verification that the repair is complete. See at least [0009].)
From the teaching of Franke, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Unger to, upon determining that the current service case has been resolved, initiate a payment to the selected maintenance provider, as taught by Franke, in order to improve damage assessment and repair process and evaluating the adequacy of any physical repairs that have been performed (see Franke at least at Abstract), and in order to improve damage assessment and repair including address lengthiness, complexity, and expensive processing (see Franke at least at [0004]-[0005]).
No Prior Art Rejections
Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of claims 8, 10, 12, and 19. While some individual features of claims 8, 10, 12, and 19 may be shown in the prior art of record: no known reference, alone or in combination, would provide the invention of claims 8, 10, 12, and 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210117890 A1 (“Christopher”) discloses identifying a bad actor component needing repair or replacement are provided. The systems and methods can track unscheduled shopping events for maintenance or repair of equipment and identify a segment of the unscheduled shopping events. The segment represents a period of time during which the unscheduled shopping events occurred at a rate or frequency. A usage metric of parts in connection with the unscheduled shopping events occurring during the segment is determined. The usage metric indicates a cumulative amount of usage of the parts in connection with the unscheduled shopping events during the segment for the equipment relative to the cumulative amount of usage of the parts in connection with the unscheduled shopping events for other equipment during one or more other segments of equal length. The bad actor component in the equipment is identified based on the usage metric that is determined.
US 11935646 B1 (“Mohammed”) discloses predict medical device failure based on operational log data. Log data associated with a plurality of devices comprising a population of devices each having a same target part subject to failure. For each of at least a subset of the plurality of devices replacement dates on which the target part was replaced in that device are determined. A set of logged event data with prescribed severity is extracted from the log data for said plurality of devices. A subset of the logged event data is identified as being associated with impending failure of the target part. The subset of the logged event data is transformed into a normalized form. The normalized subset of the logged event data is used to generate a failure prediction model to predict failure of the target part in a device based on the current event logs from that device.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM EST.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights