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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 05/17/2024 The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 4, 12, and 12 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, Claims 4, 12, and 21 recite: (emphasis added): “inputting the retrieved device log data into question templates stored in a database; and ranking the list of questions based on the input of the retrieved data into the question templates.” The term “retrieved data” appears initially in this instance without explained meaning, rendering the claim indefinite. Additionally, if the term “retrieved data” is intentionally differentiated from the term “retrieved device log data”, which appears previously in Claim 1, to which Claim 4 carries indirect dependency, and also in Claim 4, then the term “the retrieved data” lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, Examiner applies broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) such that the term indicates that any retrieved data input into question templates can be used as basis for ranking a list of questions.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as explained below.
Specifically, Claim 1 limitations recite abstract idea(s) (bold emphasis added):
“A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by at least one electronic processor to perform a call intake method, the method comprising:
receiving caller-provided information describing an issue related to a functioning of a medical device from the caller;
retrieving device log data automatically generated by the medical device;
determining scores for diagnostic tests of a set of diagnostic tests for diagnosing the issue with the medical device wherein the scores are determined based on the retrieved device log data and the caller-provided information; and
outputting, on a display device of a service engineer (SE) electronic device operable by the SE, a ranked list of one or more recommended diagnostic tests of the set of diagnostic tests based on the scores.”
STEP 1 – Determination of statutory category: Claim 1 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101, namely: method/process.
STEP 2A-PRONG ONE – Determination regarding whether claim recites a judicial exception: Applying broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), Claim limitations noted above with bold emphasis, recite a judicial exception. These limitations include: “storing instructions executable…to perform a call intake method”, “receiving caller-provided information”, “retrieving device log data automatically generated by the medical device”, “determining scores for diagnostic tests of a set of diagnostic tests for diagnosing the issue with the medical device”, “scores are determined based on the retrieved device log data and the caller-provided information”, and “ranked list of one or more recommended diagnostic tests of the set of diagnostic tests based on the scores”. Such limitations constitute a judicial exception of Abstract Idea because under BRI and using 2024 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the limitations fall into the grouping of subject matter that covers performing mathematics or mental steps. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), I.A,C, III.B,C)
Examiner notes execution of the claimed limitations involve performing mathematics using at least some generic computer components, as noted by limitation “non-transitory computer readable medium”, and “at least one electronic processor”, examples of using generic computational components to perform input of data, data evaluations or calculations, directed to data analysis and resulting in a ranked list based on data analysis. Limitations are directed to analysis of acquired data, e.g., “information” received from “a caller”. Examiner notes that performing the mathematical abstract idea involves using at least some generic computer components to carry out instructions for execution of computationally based mathematical analysis of acquired data values, with this interpretation supported in specification in at least Pg.10, Line28, describing a scoring function (Equations 1, 2, and 3) and further, Pg. 12, Line 24, describing further analysis for scoring data, with Equation 4. However, Examiner allows for the possibility that some processes may involve mental steps involving pen and paper depending on the complexity of the analysis.
In consideration of independent Claim 9, directed to a system, and Claim 18, directed to a method/process, Examiner finds limitations parallel to those found in Claim 1. Examiner notes Claim 18 recites a limitation not found in Claims 1 or 9, namely: “to perform the one or more performed diagnostic tests”. However, using the same reasoning and rationale as above, Examiner finds this limitation recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts, as carried out by computational components, as discussed above.
Analysis under STEP 2A-PRONG ONE reveals Claims 1, 9, and 18 recite a judicial exception of Abstract Idea with limitations falling into the grouping of subject matter that covers performing mathematical concepts or mental steps.
STEP 2A-PRONG TWO: Evaluation of additional elements to determine whether
the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception:
Claim 1 does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claim 1 does recite limitations which are considered additional elements, including: “non-transitory computer readable medium”, “at least one electronic processor”. Applying BRI, such limitations are interpreted as generic computer elements. As such, these elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.)
The additional element reciting: “(information) describing an issue related to a functioning of a medical device from the caller”, is interpreted as reciting necessary data gathering required to provide data for performing the judicial exception as defined in analysis above. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Further, the limitation of : “outputting, on a display device of a service engineer (SE) electronic device operable by the SE” are interpreted as extra solution activity based on guidance from MPEP section 2106.05(g). Limitations claiming displaying analysis or results, as recited, is considered extra solution activity in light of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Involvement of a user (e.g., “service engineer”) may be considered as
language generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use but does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Using the above reasoning and rationale, the identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception, as recited in Claim 1, into a practical application. As above, in consideration of Claims 9 and 18, Examiner identifies additional elements parallel to those of Claim 1. Using the same reasoning and rationale as discussed above regarding Claim 1, additional elements identified in Claim 9 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As noted above, in evaluation of additional elements identified in Claims 1 and 9, there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Examiner notes that Claim 18 recites an additional element not recited in Claims 1 or 9, specifically: “remotely controlling the medical device”. Using guidance from Kim Memorandum (USPTO August 2025), Examiner finds this limitation recites mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using an electronic/computational device and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(d), subsection III, MPEP 2106.05(a)) Further, the clam limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed.
STEP 2B – Consideration of whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea: Claims 1, 9, and 18 do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. As noted above, limitations do not recite improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Further evaluation of additional elements, as discussed above, do not amount significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, limitations reciting necessary data gathering, even when linked to a particular data source or a type of data, are considered to be insignificant extra solution activity. Identified additional elements, as discussed above, are recited in generality and/or represent insignificant field of use limitations that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application. And, as above, other identified additional elements are considered as necessary data gathering required to perform the abstract idea, which is considered further extra solution activity, as noted above, in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP section 2106.05(g))
Thus, Claims 1, 9, and 18 are directed to the judicial exception of Abstract Idea.
Further eligibility consideration includes evaluation of Claims 2-8 with direct or
indirect dependency to Claim 1, Claims 10-17 with direct or indirect dependency to Claim 9, and Claims 19-22 with direct or indirect dependency to Claim 18, recite limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical idea or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitations found in dependent claims further limit performing judicial exception directed to limiting mathematical processes or calculations to determine quantitative or qualitative results (See Claims 2-6, 10-14, 17, and 19-22); and/or are considered as necessary data gathering required to perform the abstract idea /field of use limitations (See Claims 2-3, 5-6,10,12-14,16,19, and 22); and/or displaying analysis or results (See Claims 3, 6-7, 11, 14, 17, 20); and/or “apply it”, as described above in discussion of Claim 18 (See Claims 7, 15). Based on the same reasoning and rational, and in consideration of Claims individually and as a whole, dependent Claims 2-8, 10-17, and 19-22 are held to be patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 14-16, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HAHN (US 20020042717 A1) in view of BORGERT (US 20230005575 A1)
With regard to Claims 1 and 9, HAHN teaches:
(Claim 1) A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by at least one electronic processor to perform a call intake method,
(Claim 9) A system, comprising: a medical device; and at least one electronic processor (HAHN is in same technical field, Abstract: “relates to dealing with problems affecting a medical apparatus…problem occurs, a service center is notified of the problem by telecommunication” (i.e., “call intake method”); and see [0035]: “connected to the electronic computing device 13 are telecommunication means, which in the case of the exemplary embodiment described take the form of a modem 27 connected by a data line leading to the service center 37, for example a telephone line 28”; also, Claim 1 and [0014]: “according to the invention by a medical apparatus which contains a data memory in which information serving to assist in the performance of at least one of the method steps according to claim 1 is stored” and [0033]: “connected to the electronic computing device 13 is a data memory 20, in which there is stored, inter alia, a diagnostic program (i.e., “storing instructions”)…enables the electronic computing device 13 to identify certain problems”; Examiner interprets “electronic processor” using broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to be analogous to reference “electronic computing device” as generally known by one of ordinary skill in the art. )
the method comprising: receiving caller-provided information describing an issue related to a functioning of a medical device from the caller; (HAHN, as above, Abstract , and [0006] “when a problem affecting the medical apparatus (i.e., “medical device”) occurs, a service center is notified of the problem by telecommunication” (i.e., “ receiving caller-provided information”))
retrieving device log data automatically generated by the medical device; (HAHN, [0008]: “data on the medical apparatus corresponding to the instructions issued are obtained and notified to the service center by telecommunication”, and [0014]: “object concerning a medical apparatus is achieved according to the invention by a medical apparatus which contains a data memory in which information serving to assist in the performance of at least one of the method steps according to claim 1 is stored and, depending on the problem, is fed by the data memory”, and [0017]: “telecommunication with the service center becomes particularly simple if the medical apparatus has telecommunication means which connect it to the service center…avoids the necessity in the case of separate telecommunication means for data and information to be transmitted over external lines and the like between the medical apparatus and the telecommunication means”, and [0063]: “data traffic between the modem 27 and the manufacturer of the CT apparatus takes place in a wire-bound manner over the telephone network.” )
outputting, on a display device of a service engineer (SE) electronic device operable by the SE, one or more recommended diagnostic tests of the set of diagnostic tests. (HAHN, [0013]: “success of the measures taken for dealing with problems is checked by performing a test (i.e., “diagnostic test”) on the medical apparatus”; and see FIG. 3 with [0034]: “service assistant…enables the apparatus user to make contact with a service center” [0038]: “analyzes the problem and sends instructions specifying one or more tests to be carried out to the service assistant…four in the case of the exemplary embodiment described (i.e., “set of diagnostic tests”)”; Examiner interprets “service engineer”, applying BRI as analogous to reference “service assistant”, with knowledge and in the service center receiving the call, and responsible suggested diagnostic testing”; HAHN teaches display, [0016]: “components are provided with a visible code, which is displayed as information serving to assist in the performance of at least one of the method steps according to claim 1”; and [0027]: “display device…operated on the basis of graphic operator-control menus which can be presented on the display device”; FIG. 7 with [0059]: “service assistant…displays the tests to be carried out” )
determining diagnostic tests, a set of diagnostic tests for diagnosing the issue with the medical device based on the retrieved device log data and the caller-provided information; (HAHN, as above, medical device, see [0008], diagnostic tests, see [0013] and [0038]; and data/information retrieval, see [0008], [0014], and [0017])
HAHN does not explicitly teach:
determining scores for diagnostic tests of a set of diagnostic tests wherein the scores are determined based on device data;
outputting, on a display device, a ranked list of one or more recommended diagnostic tests of the set of diagnostic tests based on the scores.
BORGERT teaches:
determining scores for diagnostic tests of a set of diagnostic tests wherein the scores are determined based on device data (BORGERT is in related and pertinent technical area, see [0001]: “relates generally to the health management arts, patient screening arts, patient medical testing arts, patient medical testing recommendation arts, and related arts”, and see Abstract: “apparatus (10) for recommending medical tests…electronic processor (20) programmed to retrieve patient data stored in a database (32)…guidelines (34) for a plurality of medical tests and identify at least one recommended medical test of the plurality of medical tests”; BORGERT teaches scoring and ranking method, see [0006]: “method includes: retrieving patient data stored in a database; comparing the patient data with guidelines for a plurality of medical tests; identifying multiple recommended medical tests of the plurality of medical tests based on the comparison”, and [0018]: “recommender engine scores each potential screening test”, and [0038]: “when multiple tests are recommended based on the comparing operation 104, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to rank the multiple recommended medical tests 38 based on one or more ranking criteria.”)
outputting, on a display device, a ranked list of one or more recommended diagnostic tests of the set of diagnostic tests based on the scores. (BORGERT, as above, teaches scoring and ranking, and teaches display of results; and teaches output/display, see [0006]: “outputting, on at least one display device, a list of multiple recommendations for the patient to undergo the multiple recommended medical tests according to the one or more ranking criteria” )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HAHN to include the steps of determining scores for diagnostic tests of a set of diagnostic tests wherein the scores are determined, and outputting, on a display device, a ranked list of one or more recommended diagnostic tests of the set of diagnostic tests based on the scores, as taught by BORGERT because incorporating the scoring and ranking process with the determination of multiple diagnostic tests, as taught by HAHN, would allow a user/caller to efficiently select the most important diagnostic test based on the analysis performed at a service center, and based on information provided by caller and data logs from a medical device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to consult disclosure of BORGERT, teaching scoring and ranking of medical diagnostic tests and to combine with the system and method disclosed by HAHN, since both involve a method of investigating an issue or problem remotely, and both involve performing diagnostic testing at locations outside a service center.
With regard to Claim 18, HAHN teaches:
A call intake method comprising: receiving a request from a caller (HAHN, as above, Claim 1, [0006]: “service center is notified of the problem by telecommunication” (i.e., “request from caller”)) for assistance from a service engineer (SE) in resolving an issue with a medical device; (HAHN, [0038]: “message concerning a problem which has occurred reaches the service center 37, it analyzes the problem and sends instructions specifying one or more tests to be carried out to the service assistant via the telephone line 28 and the modem 27”; Examiner interprets “service engineer” as above.)
receiving caller-provided information describing an issue related to a functioning of a medical device from the caller; (HAHN, as above, Claim 1, Abstract , and [0006] “a service center is notified of the problem by telecommunication” (i.e., “ receiving caller-provided information”))”)
retrieving device log data automatically generated by the medical device; (HAHN, as above, Claim 1, see [0014], [0017], and [0063])
determining a set of diagnostic tests for diagnosing the issue with the medical device based on the retrieved device log data and the caller-provided information; (HAHN, as above, Claim 1, medical device, see [0008]; diagnostic tests, see [0013] and [0038]; and data/information retrieval, see [0008], [0014], and [0017]))
outputting, on a display device of a SE electronic device operable by the SE, one or more recommended diagnostic tests of the set of diagnostic tests; (HAHN, as above, Claim 1, see [0013]: “success of the measures taken for dealing with problems is checked by performing a test (i.e., “diagnostic test”) on the medical apparatus”; and see FIG. 3 with [0034]: “service assistant…enables the apparatus user to make contact with a service center” [0038]: “analyzes the problem and sends instructions specifying one or more tests to be carried out to the service assistant…four in the case of the exemplary embodiment described (i.e., “set of diagnostic tests”)”; Examiner interprets “service engineer” as discussed above; HAHN teaches display as above [0016], [0027], and FIG. 7 with [0059])
remotely controlling the medical device to perform the one or more performed diagnostic tests whereby the results are received from the medical device. (HAHN, see [0002]: “To carry out these methods, the apparatuses have comprehensive self-test programs, which in some circumstances can be activated or interrogated by telecommunication or remote access means.” )
HAHN, as noted above, does not explicitly teach:
determining scores for diagnostic tests of a set of diagnostic tests wherein the scores are determined based on device data;
outputting, on a display device, a ranked list of one or more recommended diagnostic tests of the set of diagnostic tests based on the scores;
BORGERT teaches as above, see discussion for Claims 1 and 9:
determining scores for diagnostic tests of a set of diagnostic tests wherein the scores are determined based on device data (BORGERT, as above, Abstract, [0006], [0018], [0038])
outputting, on a display device, a ranked list of one or more recommended diagnostic tests of the set of diagnostic tests based on the scores. (BORGERT, as above, and output/display in [0006])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HAHN to include the steps of determining scores for diagnostic tests of a set of diagnostic tests wherein the scores are determined, and outputting, on a display device, a ranked list of one or more recommended diagnostic tests of the set of diagnostic tests based on the scores, as taught by BORGERT because, as discussed above, incorporating the scoring and ranking process with the determination of multiple diagnostic tests, as taught by HAHN, would allow a user/caller to efficiently select the most important diagnostic test based on the analysis performed at a service center, and based on information provided by caller and data logs from a medical device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to consult disclosure of BORGERT, teaching scoring and ranking of medical diagnostic tests and to combine with the system and method disclosed by HAHN, since both involve a method of investigating an issue or problem remotely, and both involve performing diagnostic testing at locations outside a service center.
With regard to Claims 6 and 14, HAHN, in view of BORGERT, teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 9, as above.
HAHN further teaches:
wherein the instructions further include: receiving results for one or more performed diagnostic tests of the one or more recommended diagnostic tests; (HAHN, [0013]: “success of the measures taken for dealing with problems is checked by performing a test on the medical apparatus after a measure for dealing with a problem has been taken, the service center being notified of the test result by telecommunication”)
outputting, on a display device of a SE electronic device operable by the SE, one or more recommended diagnostic tests of the set of diagnostic tests; (HAHN, as above, Claim 1, see [0013], and FIG. 3 with [0034], [0038]; Examiner interprets “service engineer” as discussed above; HAHN teaches display as above [0016], [0027], and FIG. 7 with [0059])
HAHN, as modified by BORGERT and taught above, does not explicitly teach:
removing the performed diagnostic tests from the set of diagnostic tests to generate a set of remaining diagnostic tests;
updating scores for the diagnostic tests of a set of remaining diagnostic tests, the updated scores being determined based on the retrieved device log data and the caller-provided information and further based on the results for one or more performed diagnostic tests;
outputting, an updated ranked list of one or more recommended diagnostic tests of the set of remaining diagnostic tests based on the updated scores.
BORGERT further teaches:
removing the performed diagnostic tests from the set of diagnostic tests to generate a set of remaining diagnostic tests; (BORGERT, [0023]: “results of any screening test that is automatically performed by the recommender system by processing already-available patient data are also presented to the physician”… “recommender system dynamically updates its recommendations, so that for example if it detects that a recommended screening test has now been performed and the results added to the patient's electronic record then that screening test recommendation is removed.”)
updating scores for the diagnostic tests of a set of remaining diagnostic tests, the updated scores being determined based on the retrieved device log data and the caller-provided information and further based on the results for one or more performed diagnostic tests; (BORGERT, as above, teaches scoring of tests, Abstract, [0006], [0018], [0038]; and teaches updating ranked list, [0040]: “ranked list 38 of tests can be updated automatically on the physician's user device, or an updated UI can be sent to the user device”, and see Claim 12.)
outputting, an updated ranked list of one or more recommended diagnostic tests of the set of remaining diagnostic tests based on the updated scores. (BORGERT teaches display output, Abstract: “output, on at least one display device (24), a recommendation (40) for the patient to undergo the at least one recommended medical test.”; and [0006]: “outputting, on at least one display device, a list of multiple recommendations for the patient to undergo the multiple recommended medical tests according to the one or more ranking criteria.”; and see [0040]: “updated ranked list 38 of tests can be updated automatically on the physician's user device, or an updated UI can be sent to the user device.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify HAHN, as modified by BORGERT and taught above, to include the steps of removing the performed diagnostic tests from the set of diagnostic tests to generate a set of remaining diagnostic tests; updating scores for the diagnostic tests of a set of remaining diagnostic tests, the updated scores being determined based on the retrieved device log data and the caller-provided information and further based on the results for one or more performed diagnostic tests; and outputting, an updated ranked list of one or more recommended diagnostic tests of the set of remaining diagnostic tests based on the updated scores, as further taught by BORGERT because these steps would result in a more streamlined and customized response to selection of prioritized diagnostic tests. One of ordinary skill would find benefit in using the method of BORGERT to optimize ranking and selection of diagnostic test to maximize efficiency and decrease analysis time.
With regard to Claims 7 and 15, HAHN in view of BORGERT teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 9, as above.
HAHN further teaches:
wherein the instructions further include: remotely controlling the medical device to perform the one or more performed diagnostic tests whereby the results are received from the medical device.(HAHN teaches performing diagnostic tests, as above, see [0013], and FIG. 4 with [0038]; HAHN further teaches remote operations, see [0002]: “To carry out these methods, the apparatuses have comprehensive self-test programs, which in some circumstances can be activated or interrogated by telecommunication or remote access means”; and [0063]: “data exchange between the CT apparatus and the manufacturer of the CT apparatus, the possibilities of remote data transmission…can be utilized”)
With regard to Claim 16, HAHN in view of BORGERT teaches the limitations of claim 9.
HANH further teaches:
the medical device comprises one of an imaging device, an image-guided therapy device, or a radiation therapy device. (HAHN, FIG. 1, with [0019]: “CT apparatus according to the invention”)
Claims 2, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HAHN in view of BORGERT, as applied to Claims 1, 9, and 18, and further in view of BJORSNE (US 20060085689 A1).
With regard to Claims 2 , 10, and 19, HAHN, in view of BORGERT, teaches the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 18, as above.
HAHN teaches, as above:
receiving of the caller-provided information (HAHN, as above Abstract and [0006])
HAHN, as modified by BORGERT and taught above, does not explicitly teach:
providing a list of questions on the SE electronic device or a caller electronic device operable by the caller;
receiving, at the SE electronic device, inputs indicative of answers to the provided questions from the caller
BJORSNE teaches:
providing a list of questions on the SE electronic device or a caller electronic device operable by the caller; (BJORSNE is in same technical area, see [0017]: “aim of the invention is the isolation of a hardware or user error in a software controlled apparatus e.g., an NMR-apparatus”; teaches questioning, see [0015]: “user is guided through a series of dialogs that serves to collect information” [0019]: “invention adds the capability of questioning the user” )
receiving, at the SE electronic device, inputs indicative of answers to the provided questions from the caller. (BJORSNE teaches answer/response, see Table I, with [0030]: “ "answer question1: component1 does not respond"…"questions" can be asked that the user can answer (correct plugged plug, etc.)”; and see FIG. 5 with [0027]: “illustrating the use of the event filter and diagnosis software, with a possible user display and query mechanism” )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify HAHN, as modified by BORGERT and taught above, to include the method of providing a list of questions on the SE electronic device or a caller electronic device operable by the caller, and receiving, at the SE electronic device, inputs indicative of answers to the provided questions from the caller, as taught by BORGERT, because including a question based dialogue with interaction of a user has the advantage of allowing for easy updating, application to a wide variety of equipment, and is well-suited for medical device application where there is a remote user, as suggested clearly by BORGERT (see [0020]). One of ordinary skill would see the benefit of this method to improve the system/method disclosed by HAHN, where a remote user is in communication with a service center, as modified by BORGERT to incorporate a ranked list of suggested diagnostic test could be made more efficient based on a question-based dialogue for determination of a set of potential diagnostic tests.
Claims 3, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HAHN in view of BORGERT and BJORSNE, as applied to Claims 2, 10, and 19, and further in view of STROM (US 20210398662 A1).
With regard to Claims 3, 11, and 20, HAHN in view of BORGERT and BJORSNE teaches the limitations of claims 2 ,10, and 19, as above.
HAHN, as modified by BORGERT and BJORNSE and taught above, does not explicitly teach:
ranking the list of questions;
presenting the ranked list of questions on the SE electronic device or the caller electronic device.
STROM teaches:
ranking the list of questions; (STROM is in same technical field, see [0002]: “relates generally to automated or semi-automated technical support of medical device systems.”; and teaches question-based query, see [0021]: “processor is further configured to receive one or more answers to one or more questions presented to a user”; teaches ranking process, see [0202]: “troubleshooting algorithms may contain rankings or scores based on their applicability and prior favorable performance…tech support server 422 can utilize such rankings to identify a best-match troubleshooting algorithm”; and [0251]: “processor 335 may be further configured to receive one or more answers to one or more questions presented to a user, thus, determining one or more root causes may be further based on the answers”; and see Claim 13. )
presenting the ranked list of questions on the SE electronic device or the caller electronic device. (STROM teaches selection of questions, [0021]: “configured to receive one or more answers to one or more questions presented to a user, and wherein the determining of the one or more root causes is further based on the one or more answers”; STROM teaches question selection based on specific device/patient condition, analogous to a “ranking” process for questions, see [0075],[0098],[0182] )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify HAHN, as modified by BORGERT and BJORSNE and taught above, to include ranking questions and presenting ranked questions to the caller, as taught by STROM, because this would further focus on a specific problem communicated by caller/user and maintaining the advantage of broad applicability.
Claims 4-5, 12-13 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HAHN in view of BORGERT and BJORSNE, and STROM as applied to Claims 3, 11, and 20 above, and further in view of PATTERSON (US 20220005083 A1)
With regard to Claims 4, 12, and 21, HAHN in view of BORGERT and BJORSNE and further in view of STROM, teaches the limitations of claims 3, 11, and 20, as above.
Specifically, HAHN teaches, as above: retrieved device log data (HAHN teaches data retrieved by a medical device, [0008], [0014], [0017], and [0063]:); BJORSNE teaches as above (discussed in Claim 2): list of questions (BJORSNE, [0017]); and STROM teaches as above (Claim 3): ranking the list of questions based on the input of the retrieved data (STROM, [0021], [0202], and [0251]; and see Claim 3)
HAHN, as modified by BORGERT, BJORSNE, and STROM, and taught above, does not explicitly teach:
inputting retrieved data into question templates stored in a database;
PATTERSON teaches:
inputting retrieved data into question templates stored in a database; (PATTERSON is in related technical field, see [0001]: “relates to systems and methods that provide remote assistance to homeowners and other users”; teaches data retrieved from device, see FIG. 5, element 504 “Diagnostics system collect data from multiple data sources”; and FIG. 7 with [0012]: “embodiment of a method for generating questions to ask a customer”; teaches use of question template, [0049]: “questions to ask the customer are generated using a combination of template questions and machine learning models…template questions may be stored in knowledge graph 208, or any other storage system, along with the related issues or symptoms”; Examiner considers PATTERSON to be analogous prior art, pertinent to the claimed invention, and in a related technical field that would be reasonably consulted by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the problem addressed by the claimed invention ( see MPEP 2141.01(a)))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify HAHN, as modified by BORGERT, BJORSNE and STROM and taught above, to inputting retrieved data into question templates stored in a database, as taught by PATTERSON because the method of developing and storing templates facilitates efficient identification of both reported problem and appropriate service response/solutions, particularly for issues which may be recurrent. One of ordinary skill in the art would see the advantage of relying on stored question templates to enable informed selection of questions, particularly in view of the combination of HAHN with BORGERT, BORSNE and STROM, wherein questions are ranked, to provide a way to reduce average time needed to appropriately address an identified problem. .
With regard to Claims 5, 13, and 22, HAHN in view of BORGERT and BJORSNE, and further in view of STROM teaches the limitations of claims 3, 11, and 20, as above.
Specifically, HAHN teaches as above (see Claim1): receiving information from a caller (HAHN, Abstract , and [0006]); BJORSNE teaches as above (see Claim 1): list of questions (BJORSNE, [0017])
HAHN, as modified by BORGERT, BJORSNE, and STROM, and taught above, does not explicitly teach:
receiving information regarding a level of expertise of the caller;
filtering out questions based on the level of expertise of the caller.
PATTERSON teaches:
receiving information regarding a level of expertise of the caller; (PATTERSON teaches consideration of user skillset, see Abstract: “determines a level of support based on the user's ability to perform activities to resolve the issue”; and FIG.2 with [0032]: “database 212 includes multiple categories of data: customer profile data 214, quality, confidence, and complexity of the knowledge 216, suitability to solving remotely 218…ability of a customer to perform the particular repair or activity…Suitability to solving remotely 218 may include information about the difficulty of helping a customer perform a specific repair or activity (e.g., can a customer be expected to perform the repair or does it require a skilled technician)”, and see FIG. 6 with [0047]: “system also determines a level of support for the customer that is appropriate for the particular issue and the customer's abilities”; Examiner interprets “caller” as analogous to reference “customer” to mean generally a user who provides information to determine service response.)
filtering out questions based on the level of expertise of the caller.(PATTERSON teaches selection of specific question, FIG. 7, element 706, 708 with [0048]: “illustrating an embodiment of a method 700 for generating questions to ask a customer…system determines 702 a need for additional information from the customer to classify the issue or obtain more details regarding the issue…dialog controller…receives 704 a request to obtain additional information…identifies 706 one or more questions to ask the customer to classify the issue or obtain more details regarding the issue. The dialog controller then generates 708 a specific question to ask the customer”; Examiner interprets “filtering” as analogous to process described in reference and illustrated in FIG. 7 to mean generally narrowing questions based on specific responses from user/customer.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify HAHN, as modified by BORGERT, BJORSNE and STROM and taught above, to include the steps of receiving information regarding a level of expertise of the caller and filtering out questions based on the level of expertise of the caller, as taught by PATTERSON because this allows for targeted response based on the knowledge and abilities of customer (i.e., “caller”). One of ordinary skill would see the method as detailed in PATTERSON as an obvious improvement to the concept of streamlining questions posed to a customer to better ascertain the level or required support, and have good reason to consult the PATTERSON reference for such an improvement to the medical device diagnostic test system/ method taught by HAHN in combination with modifications from the teachings of BORGERT, BJORSNE and STROM to better provide efficient and accurate service response to address a problem with a remote device which may be operated by users with a range of knowledge and skills levels.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HAHN in view of BORGERT as applied to Claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of STROM and NATARAJAN (US 20130036062 A1)
With regard to Claims 8 and 17, HAHN in view of BORGERT teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 9, as above.
Specifically, BORGERT teaches, as above (Claim 1): ranked list of tests (BORGERT, [0038], Claims 5-10).
HAHN, as modified by BORGERT and taught above, does not explicitly teach:
adding a required experience level to each test in list of tests; and
transmitting the list of tests to a plurality of SEs having an experience
level to perform the tests in the list of tests.
STROM teaches:
transmitting the list of tests to a plurality of SEs having an experience level to perform the tests.(STROM, [0166]: “tech support server 422 may work in conjunction with the tech support personnel 434 in real time…tech support personnel 434 troubleshoots a patient's technical issue, the tech support server 422 can search the tech issues & solutions database 432 for other tech support personnel who may have recent experiences with a similar issue…tech support server 422 can connect the two tech support personnel…to provide for an ability of the tech support personnel 434 to query and use other tech support personnel's (i.e., “plurality of SEs”) knowledge and skill in resolving patients' technical issues” (i.e., “having an experience level to perform the tests); Examiner interprets “perform the tests” to be analogous to reference “troubleshoot”, consistent with disclosure of STROM, see for example [0189]: “tech support personnel 434 can accomplish tasks associated with diagnosis and resolving of patient's technical issues…can include algorithms, software instructions or scripts for running one or more tests”; Examiner interprets “SE” as above to mean any skilled individual capable of carrying out diagnostic test.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify HAHN, as modified by BORGERT, and taught above, to include transmitting the list of tests to a plurality of SEs having an experience level to perform the tests, as further taught by STROM because this step would ensure that a service engineer assigned to a specific caller would be capable and prepared to address a given problem. One of ordinary skill would see including the step taught by STROM of transmitting a list of tests to personnel qualified to perform the listed test as an obvious way to improve the method/system taught by HAHN as modified by BORGERT, using a ranked list of tests.
HAHN, as modified by BOGERT and STROM and taught above, does not explicitly teach:
adding a required experience level to each test;
NATAJARAN teaches:
adding a required experience level to each test; (NATAJARAN is in related technical field, see [0006]: “relates to a method for improving customer service efficiency…receiving information from a customer, identifying an issue based on the information received from the customer…one or more diagnostic techniques”; and see FIG3, element 305/306, “perform tests”; and see [0015]: “[0015]: “diagnosing and optimizing the entire issue resolve process in a customer service (i.e. call center)…systematic and sequential approach to resolving customer problems utilizing a set of models which encodes the knowledge required to solve problems (i.e., “required experience level”)”; and see [0034]: “system has two modes including an expert mode and a novice mode.” (i.e., “experience level”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify HAHN, as modified by BORGERT and STROM and taught above, to include adding a required experience level to each test, as taught by NATAJARAN because classifying diagnostic tests by including a necessary experience level would be an improvement to increase the quality of the caller experience, as suggested by NATAJARAN, with a further suggestion that labeling tests to be performed for troubleshooting would facilitate the job service personnel who has been tasked with resolving the problem based on the customer and system generated inputs (See NATAJARAN, [0015]). One of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine the teaching of NATAJARAN with the disclosure of HAHN as modified by BORGERT and STROM to develop a ranked list of diagnostic tests and establish experience levels of serve personnel, to provide, as taught by NATAJARAN a “systematic and sequential approach to resolving customer problems utilizing a set of models which encodes the knowledge required to solve problems” (see NATAJARAN [0015])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CALDWELL (US 20190050239 A1) – teaches troubleshooting and diagnostics tools with machine learning-based algorithms to automatically filter and select subsequent probing questions for display based on a customer's answers to preceding probing questions, i.e., filtering method to display only the most relevant probing questions while reducing the overall number of unnecessary or irrelevant questions.
DAMODARAN (US 20210264253 A1) – teaches method for addressing requests for support related to service for addressing general issues or problems; prioritization of diagnosing problem and provided necessary action.
DEMEWEZ (US 12176098 B2) – teaches method for device servicing and identification of anomaly by analysis of device log data and user input for analysis of root cause.
FRIEDLANDER (US 20130304494 A1) – teaches computer implemented method for sorting/selecting diagnostic test for diagnosis of medical condition based on a test database and selection criteria; list of tests is presented for selection by a user.
GINSBURG (WO 2021183347 A1) – teaches computer implemented method of analysis and selection of medical orders with visible feedback based data analysis.
KEHR (US 20030036683 A1) – teaches methods and apparatus useful in remotely modifying medical protocols by subgroups that are defined by specific database characteristics with updating based on analysis of input data.
SHOGAN (US 20080221923 A1) – teaches methods for analysis and selection of diagnostic and treatment in a medical setting based on data and user input.
THOMPSON (US 8200527 B1) – teaches a customer care method for organizing trouble shooting based on diagnostic testing and customer expertise level.
ZENISEK (US 20220230742 A1) – teaches a prioritization method for assessing a plurality of medical devices in a plurality of patient treatments, and analysis of medical device function.
MCLAUGHLIN, et al., “Evaluating Medical Devices Remotely: Current Methods and Potential Innovations” HUMAN FACTORS Vol. 62 No. , November 2020, pp. 1041-1060. – teaches general methods and techniques for assessment and evaluation of medical devices including current technology and expected advancements; discloses a range of methods for remote testing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONI D SAUNCY whose telephone number is (703)756-4589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/TONI D SAUNCY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights