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
In the preliminary amendment filed June 17, 2024, Applicant canceled claims 1-52 and claims 53-72 were added. Claims 53-72 are pending in the current application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) received on June 17, 2024 has been considered by examiner.
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 53-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 53-72 do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a machine (i.e., device and control arrangement) and process (i.e., a method).
Although claims 53-72 fall under at least one of the four statutory categories, it should be determined whether the claim wholly embraces a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106 I and II).
Claims 53-72 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
PART I: STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: IDENTIFY THE ABSTRACT IDEA
Under step 2A, Prong One of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). The determination consists of a) identifying the specific limitations in the claim that recite an abstract idea; and b) determining whether the identified limitations fall within at least one of the three subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity).
The identified limitations of independent claim 53 recite (in bold and italics):
receive a query message from a clinician device to identify possible other medical devices of the plurality of medical devices that are associated with a same patient or located in a same area as a first medical device, the first medical device configured to use medical device data from the other medical devices,
perform a filter routine using the network map to identify which of the other medical devices of the plurality of medical devices are proximally close to each other or connected to a common router or access point,
cause the identified other medical devices to be displayed via a user interface of the clinician device,
receive a selection of one of the displayed other medical devices, the selection corresponding to a second medical device, and
enable the second medical device to transmit the medical device data to the first medical device by transmitting at least one of the network address or the MAC address of the first medical device to the second medical device.
The identified limitations of independent claim 68 recite (in bold and italics):
a display screen;
a processor in communication with the display screen; and
a memory in communication with the processor, the memory storing instructions that define or specify an application, that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
transmit a query message to a server connected to a memory device storing a network map of a network that is indicative of connectivity between access points, network switches, routers, bridges, and a plurality of medical devices that are located within a medical facility, each of the medical devices including at least one of a network address or a MAC address, the query message:
including a request to identify possible other medical devices of the plurality of medical devices that are located in a same area as a first medical device, the first medical device configured to use medical device data from other medical devices, and
causing the server to perform a filter routine using the network map to identify which other medical devices of the plurality of medical devices are proximally close to each other,
receive a message from the server that is indicative of the identified other medical devices,
cause the identified other medical devices to be displayed via a user interface on the display screen,
receive a selection of one of the displayed other medical devices, the selection corresponding to a second medical device, and
transmit a message to the server indicative of the selection, causing the server to enable the second medical device to transmit the medical device data to the first medical device by at least transmitting the at least one of the network address or the MAC address of the first medical device to the second medical device.
The identified limitations of independent claim 72 recite (in bold and italics):
storing in a memory device a network map of a network that is indicative of connectivity between access points, network switches, routers, bridges, and a plurality of medical devices that are located within a medical facility, each of the medical devices including at least one of a network address or a MAC address;
receiving, in a server that is connected to each of the plurality of medical devices via the network, a query message from a clinician device to identify possible other medical devices of the plurality of medical devices that are located in a same area as a first medical device, the first medical device configured to use medical device data from other medical devices;
performing, via the server, a filter routine using the network map to identify which other medical devices of the plurality of medical devices are within a close proximity of each other;
causing, via the server, the identified other medical devices to be displayed via a user interface of the clinician device;
receiving, in the server, a selection of one of the displayed other medical devices, the selection corresponding to a second medical device; and
enabling, via the server, the second medical device to transmit the medical device data to the first medical device by at least transmitting the at least one of the network address or the MAC address of the first medical device to the second medical device
The identified limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting medical and clinician device, server, display, processor, and memory, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps form practically being performed in the mind. For example, the identified limitations encompass clinicians identifying and observing medical devices within the same area (e.g., patient room), and selecting the medical devices for communication. The claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes groupings of abstract ideas. Thus, the claimed invention recites a judicial exception.
PART I: STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS THAT INTEGRATE THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Under step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claims are evaluated to determine if there are additional elements or a combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. As a whole, the medical and clinician device, server, display, processor, and memory, in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 54-67 and 69-71, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
PART II. DETERMINE WHETHER ANY ELEMENT, OR COMBINATION, AMOUNTS TO
“SIGNIFICANTLY MORE” THAN THE ABSTRACT IDEA ITSELF
Under Part II, the steps of claim 1 when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not improve another technology or technical field, do not improve the functioning of the computer itself, and are not enough to qualify as "significantly more". For example, the steps require no more than a conventional computer to perform generic computer functions. As stated in Prong Two, the medical and clinician device, server, display, processor, and memory, in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, based on the two-part Mayo analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. Claims 53-72, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 54-67 and 69-71 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional claims do no recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eaton et al. (US 2011/0148624 A1)
Handler (US 2017/0043089 A1)
Kamath et al. (US 2019/0132801 A1)
The aforementioned prior art references describe medical device interoperability (or inter-connectivity), and Eaton discloses a mapping subsystem that displays a location of one particular device in a healthcare facility to help locate the desired device (Paragraph [0034]). However, the prior art references do not teach or suggest: transmit a query message to a server connected to a memory device storing a network map of a network that is indicative of connectivity between access points, network switches, routers, bridges, and a plurality of medical devices that are located within a medical facility, each of the medical devices including at least one of a network address or a MAC address, the query message: including a request to identify possible other medical devices of the plurality of medical devices that are located in a same area as a first medical device, the first medical device configured to use medical device data from other medical devices, and causing the server to perform a filter routine using the network map to identify which other medical devices of the plurality of medical devices are proximally close to each other, receive a message from the server that is indicative of the identified other medical devices, cause the identified other medical devices to be displayed via a user interface on the display screen, receive a selection of one of the displayed other medical devices, the selection corresponding to a second medical device, and transmit a message to the server indicative of the selection, causing the server to enable the second medical device to transmit the medical device data to the first medical device by at least transmitting the at least one of the network address or the MAC address of the first medical device to the second medical device as recited in the independent claims because the prior art references do not or suggest performing a filter routine on a plurality of medical devices to identify those medical devices that are located close to each other, and display only the identified (proximately close) medical devices to be selected for communication (a first identified medical device and a second identified medical device).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINYERE MPAMUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8853. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/CHINYERE MPAMUGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685