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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Yes.
Claim 1 recites “non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions…retrieving information…outputting an alert estimated time remaining unitl EOL of the component”, which is a product.
Step 2, Prong One: Judicial exception? Yes.
The claim when viewed as a whole recites an abstract idea, e.g. mathematical calculation (see limitations “deriving a wear metric …” and “estimating a time remaining unitl end of life (EOL) of the component”). The claim does not recite a particular equation or algorithm for making the recited combining and performing steps, this just means that the abstract idea is being recited broadly enough to monopolize all possible equations or algorithms that might be used (Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), (B), (C), and (D).
Further, the claim when viewed as a whole recites a mental process. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations is that those limitations fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)1-3: A claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. Current claim 1 recites a mental process performed in a computer environment, e.g. an monitoring” in which the recited “electronic processor” is recited as a generic computer element and it is used as a tool to perform a mental process.
The limitations “retrieving…deriving…estimating…and outputting” encompasses observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
The processor is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that it is an electronic processor) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a processor. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014)
Step 2, Prong Two: Practical application? No.
The claim when viewed as a whole or in ordered combination does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The limitation “outputting an alert indicating estimated time remaining until EOL of the component” encompasses insignificant extra solution, e.g. outputting the result of the abstract idea.
The recited “electronic processor” is recited too broadly to limit the claim to particular practical application.
The recited limitations “retrieving...deriving…estimating…and outputting…” do not show in details how to accomplish each limitation.
Claim 1 when viewed as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a), the claim as a whole does not provide an improvement to other technology or technical field. The claim limitations as recited when viewed as a whole do not include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
The “outputting...” encompasses the insignificant extra solution and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2.
Dependent claims 2 and 4 add limitations which is a field of use devices that are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional limitations.
Dependent claim 3 adds a limitation which encompasses an insignificant extra solution. The “alert…” represents extra solution activity because it is a mere nomial or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). This limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Dependent claims 5 and 6 add limitations which is data merely extending the abstract idea without addition any additional limitations.
Dependent claims 7 and 8 add limitations which is data and mathematical calculation merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional limitations.
Dependent claims 9 and 10 add limitations encompass data gathering and insignificant extra solution.
Dependent claim 11 adds a limitation, “outputting an alert on a display device of a remote monitoring workstation” represents extra solution activity because it is a mere nomial or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). This limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Dependent claim 12 adds a limitation which represents extra solution activity because it is a mere nomial or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). This limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Dependent claim 13 adds a limitation which is data gathering merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional limitations.
Claim 14 is analogous to claim 1. Claim 1’s explanation is herein incorporated by reference. In addition, claim 14 recites, “selecting values…adjusting…” which encompass an data gathering and insignificant extra solution which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a), the claim as a whole does not provide an improvement to other technology or technical field. The claim limitations as recited when viewed as a whole do not include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
Dependent claim 15 adds a limitation which is a field of use device and data gathering which merely extend the abstract idea without adding any additional limitations.
Dependent claim 16 adds a limitation which is data gathering merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional limitations.
Dependent claim 17 adds a limitation which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional limitations.
Dependent claim 18 adds a limitation which is a field of use device used as a tool to perform the abstract idea merely extending the abstract Dependent claim 15 adds a limitation which is a field of use device.
Claim 19 is similar to claims 1 and 14. Explanation of claims 1 and 14 is herein incorporated by reference. Claim 19 add limitations which are data gathering and insignificant extra solution. “Outputting an alert….” Encompasses an insignificant extra solution without adding any additional limitations. Claim 19 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 20 adds a limitation which is data gathering merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (USPAP. 20190317144)(hereinafter “Xu”) (submitted by Applicants).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by at least one electronic processor to perform a method of monitoring a component of a medical device, the method comprising:
Retrieving information about a correction factor applied during operation of the component from the medical device (x-ray device) (Pars. 8 and 43-46: The routines, when executed, cause acts to be performed comprising: acquiring data points related to operation of an X-ray tube over time; processing the data points using a trained X-ray tube model to calculate an estimated emitter drive current or estimated X-ray tube current over time; calculating a trending indicator over time based on the estimated emitter drive current or estimated X-ray tube current; calculating a combined indicator based on the trending indicator; and providing an indication of X-ray tube health derived from the combined indicator);
Deriving a wear metric indicative of wear of a portion of the component from the retrieve information about the correction factor applied during the operation of the component (Pars. 47 and 65);
Estimating a time remaining until end-of-life (EOL) of the component (Pars. 65-67 and 73-75: predicting the fractional remaining life from the indicator value; estimating remaining useful life of an X-ray tube); and
Outputting an alert indicating estimated time until EOL of the component (Pars. 78, 81, and 89: one or more alarm criteria; an alarm or notification is generated).
Claim 14 is analogous to claim 1. Claim 1’s explanation is herein incorporated by reference. In addition, claim 14 recites “selecting values for one or more operating parameters of the component of the medical device based on the estimate of the time remaining until EOL of the component and the retrieved information about the current medical procedure (for example, at Par. 88 identify other xray tube issues such as unstable mA in addition to the other conditions discussed herein. Unstable mA may be caused by issues that are not related to the emitter itself, such as fluctuating pressure inside the X-ray tube, which in turn may be caused by outgassing or by vacuum leaks; Par. 84: data characterizing the electrical operating parameters of each exposure event are acquired, such as at depicted Step 200 at which log data is read from a log file); and adjusting (removing data points) the one or more parameters of the component of the medical device to the selected values (Par. 84: the acquired log data may be cleaned as discussed herein to remove data points deemed not representative or appropriate for the purposes of modeling or evaluation using a model).
Regarding claim 19, Xu discloses A method of monitoring an X-ray tube of a medical imaging device that is configured to operate the X-ray tube including adjusting a filament current of a filament (emitter) of the X-ray tube based on a correction factor, the method comprising:
retrieving the correction factor from a non-transitory storage medium (Pars. 8 and 43-46: The routines, when executed, cause acts to be performed comprising: acquiring data points related to operation of an X-ray tube over time; processing the data points using a trained X-ray tube model to calculate an estimated emitter drive current or estimated X-ray tube current over time; calculating a trending indicator over time based on the estimated emitter drive current or estimated X-ray tube current; calculating a combined indicator based on the trending indicator; and providing an indication of X-ray tube health derived from the combined indicator;
estimating a time remaining until end-of-life (EOL) of the X-ray tube based on the correction factor (Pars. 65-67 and 73-75: predicting the fractional remaining life from the indicator value; estimating remaining useful life of an X-ray tube);
and outputting an alert indicating the estimated time remaining until EOL of the component (Pars. 78, 81, and 89: one or more alarm criteria; an alarm or notification is generated.)
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Xu discloses wherein the medical device is a medical imaging device, the component is an X-ray tube of the medical imaging device, and the correction factor comprises a filament current correction factor for correcting a filament current of the X-ray tube (Par. 67).
Regarding claim 3, Xu discloses wherein: the alert indicating the estimated time remaining until EOL of the component is output in response to the estimated time remaining until EOL being less than a predetermined tube replacement alerting threshold time (Pars. 26 and 41).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Xu discloses wherein the medical imaging device comprises a computed tomography (CT) scanner, a C-arm scanner, or a fluoroscope imaging device (Pars. 3 and 24).
Regarding claim 5, Xu discloses wherein: the retrieved information about the filament current correction factor includes X-ray tube calibration data generated by manual calibration of the X-ray tube; and the wear metric is derived from the X-ray tube calibration data (Pars. 46 and 47).
Regarding claim 6, Xu discloses wherein: the wear metric comprises a time derivative of the filament current correction factor (Par. 50).
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses wherein the wear metric comprises…is a constant (Par. 50).
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses wherein the wear metric comprises…a constant (Par. 50).
Regarding claim 9, Xu discloses wherein estimating a time remaining until an end-of-life (EOL) of the X-ray tube includes: determining whether wear data or time data is missing from the retrieved information; and outputting the alert indicating the determined missing data (Pars. 61 and 69).
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses wherein estimating the time remaining until EOL of the component is performed in response to the wear metric satisfying a predetermined manual adjustment criterion (Par. 87).
Regarding claim 11, Xu discloses wherein outputting the alert includes: outputting the alert on a display device (50) of a remote monitoring workstation (48) (see Par. 41).
Regarding claim 12, Xu discloses wherein the remote monitoring workstation receives alerts from a medical device fleet that includes the medical device, and the method further comprises: presenting a representation of the alerts from the medical device fleet on a graphical user interface provided on the display device (display 50) (Pars. 34).
Regarding claim 13, Xu discloses wherein deriving a wear metric indicative of wear of a portion of the component from the retrieved information about the correction factor applied during the operation of the component includes: deriving the wear metric from a batch of cases of monitoring the component (Pars. 6-8 and 44).
Regarding claim 16, Xu discloses wherein the adjusting includes: setting entries for the one or more operating parameters in a configuration table (log file, log data) of the medical imaging device to the selected values (Pars. 38, 42, and 84).
Regarding claim 17, Xu discloses wherein the operating parameters include one or more of: a tube voltage of the X-ray tube (Par. 25); a current of a filament of the X-ray tube (Par. 44); an exposure time for the patient during the current medical procedure (Pars. 28 and 29), and a focal spot selection during the current medical procedure (Par. 32).
Regarding claim 20, Xu discloses adjusting an operating parameter of the medical imaging device based on the estimated time remaining until EOL (Par. 84: the acquired log data may be cleaned as discussed herein to remove data points deemed not representative or appropriate for the purposes of modeling or evaluation using a model).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 7797110 B2 discloses an X-ray diagnostic apparatus and a method for controlling an X-ray diagnostic apparatus. In the image generation function. A processing circuitry generates X-ray image data based on the output from the X-ray detector. Specifically, the processing circuitry 21 generates projection data based on the output from the X-ray detector. Next, the processing circuitry receives an input signal from the operation unit 9 or the input interface, and performs processes such as defective pixel correction, gain correction, and offset correction on the output signal from the X-ray detector to generate X-ray image data. The processing circuitry performs synthesis processing, subtraction processing, and the like using the X-ray image data. The processing circuitry 21 outputs the generated X-ray image data to the display control function or the memory circuitry. The processing circuitry may also generate image data for display using the generated X-ray image data, and output this display image to the display unit. For example, the processing circuitry performs a reconstruction process using X-ray image data, in which multiple X-ray images acquired during long-length imaging are stitched together according to their imaging positions to generate long-length imaging image (X-ray image) data. Furthermore, for example, the processing circuitry generates imaging guide information (image) for long-length imaging on the positioning X-ray image based on setting information for the actual imaging and the aperture opening for positioning imaging. In other words, the processing circuitry generates imaging guide information that indicates the long-length imaging range, such as the imaging start position and imaging end position, on the positioning X-ray image. In other words, the imaging guide information is information that indicates a predetermined position within the long-length imaging range. The processing circuitry may also generate a display image using the generated imaging guide information and output this display image to the display unit. In the display control function, the processing circuitry generates an X-ray image for display using the X-ray image data generated by the image generation function, and displays this display image on the display 251 of the display unit. For example, the processing circuitry generates imaging guide information (image) for display using imaging guide information generated by the image generation function, and displays the imaging guide information (image) superimposed on the X-ray image for display on the display of the display unit. The processing circuitry may generate the imaging guide information (image) based on setting information related to the actual imaging and the aperture opening for positioning imaging. The processing circuitry may also generate an image indicating the imaging guide information when imaging guide information that has not been visualized is supplied from the image generation function. The processing circuitry also changes the display position of the imaging guide information on the X-ray image based on an input operation received from the user via the operation unit or the input interface. In addition, the processing circuitry changes the positioning X-ray image on which the imaging guide information is superimposed in response to the acquisition of a new projection image by the operation control function (Pages 3-6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-2718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/PHUONG HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 September 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights