DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. This communication is in response to the communication filed 7/18/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Notice to Applicant
3. This communication is in response to the communication filed 7/18/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
4.1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because while the claims (1) are to a statutory category (i.e., process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, the claims (2A1) recite an abstract idea (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon); (2A2) do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and (2B) are not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In regards to (1), the claims are to a statutory category (i.e., statutory categories including a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). In particular, independent claims 1, 13 and 19, and their respective dependent claims are directed, in part, to a system, method and product for troubleshooting medical devices.
In regards to (2A1), the claims, as a whole, recite and are directed to an abstract idea because the claims include one or more limitations that correspond to an abstract idea including mental processes. For example, independent claims 1, 13 and 19, as a whole, are directed to troubleshooting a medical device by, inter alia, collecting troubleshooting data based on a time range or an error type of the system failure; generating a system state digest of the troubleshooting data; and generating an encryption of the system state digest which are considered abstract under the category of mental concepts. The dependent claims include all of the limitations of their respective independent claims and thus are directed to the same abstract idea identified for the independent claims but further describe the elements and/or recite field of use limitations.
More specifically, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims can be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. That is, other than reciting certain additional elements, nothing in the claims precludes the limitations from being practically performed in the mind and/or with pen and paper. For example, a person can reasonably and practically can collect data using pen and paper or in the human mind; a person can generate a digest of troubleshooting data using pen and paper or in the human mind; a person can encrypt data by using encoding text using pen and paper or in the human mind; a person can create a QR code using pen and paper, etc.
The additional elements are identified in bold in the claims as follows:
CLAIM 1
A system, comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components; and
a processor that executes at least one of the computer executable components that:
collect, in response to a service request in connection with a system failure of a medical device and via an artificial intelligence model, troubleshooting data based on a time range or an error type of the system failure;
generate a system state digest of the troubleshooting data; and
dynamically generate an encryption of the system state digest.
CLAIM 2
The system of claim 1, wherein dynamically generating the encryption of the system state digest comprises:
generating one or more quick response (QR) codes that encapsulates the system state digest in response to the system state digest comprising at most 3000 characters; or
generating encoded text of the system state digest in response to the system state digest comprising at least 3000 characters.
CLAIM 3
The system of claim 2, wherein generating the one or more QR codes or the encoded text comprises:
compressing the system state digest; and
encrypting the system state digest.
CLAIM 4
The system of claim 2, wherein how many of the one or more QR codes are generated is based on a size of the system state digest.
CLAIM 5
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further: receive input about the time range or the error type of the system failure in the service request, wherein the input comprises natural language text or audio data.
CLAIM 6
The system of claim 2, wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further:
transmit the encryption of the system state digest to a cloud backend, wherein transmitting the encryption comprises:
automatically transmitting the encryption of the system state digest to the cloud backend in response to the medical device being online; or
visually rendering, on a graphical user interface of the medical device, the one or more QR codes or the encoded text in response to the medical device being offline; and
transmitting, via scanning the one or more QR codes or the encoded text via a mobile device, the encryption of the system state digest to the cloud backend.
CLAIM 7
The system of claim 1, wherein the troubleshooting data comprises error logs, error codes, system configuration data, or statuses of system resources.
CLAIM 8
The system of claim 6, wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further:
decrypt the encryption of the system state digest; and
decompress the system state digest.
CLAIM 9
The system of claim 8, wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further:
generate, in response to decrypting the system state digest and via a second artificial intelligence model, a remedial procedure plan for the system failure in the service request based on the system state digest.
CLAIM 10
The system of claim 9, wherein the remedial procedure plan comprises text data, video data, image data, augmented reality data, or virtual reality data.
CLAIM 11
The system of claim 9, wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further:
transmit the remedial procedure plan to the mobile device or the medical device; and
visually render, on the graphical user interface of the medical device or a graphical user interface of the mobile device, the remedial procedure plan.
CLAIM 12
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further:
train the artificial intelligence model on knowledge graphs to identify which troubleshooting data to collect, wherein the knowledge graphs comprise mappings between error codes and one or more attributes, and wherein the one or more attributes comprise files, corresponding subsystem components, or topics of the error codes.
CLAIM 13
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
collecting, by a system operatively coupled to a processor and in response to a service request in connection with a system failure of a medical device, troubleshooting data based on a time range or an error type of the system failure via an artificial intelligence model;
generating, by the system, a system state digest of the troubleshooting data; and
dynamically generating, by the system, an encryption of the system state digest.
CLAIM 14
The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein dynamically generating the encryption of the system state digest comprises:
generating one or more quick response (QR) codes that encapsulates the system state digest in response to the system state digest comprising at most 3000 characters; or
generating encoded text of the system state digest in response to the system state digest comprising at least 3000 characters.
CLAIM 15
The computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein generating the one or more QR codes or the encoded text comprises:
compressing the system state digest; and
encrypting the system state digest.
CLAIM 16
The computer-implemented method of claim 14, further comprising:
visually rendering, by the system and on a graphical user interface, the one or more QR codes or the encoded text; and
transmits, by the system and via scanning the one or more QR codes or the encoded text
via a mobile device, the encryption of the system state digest to a cloud backend.
CLAIM 17
The computer-implemented method of claim 13, further comprising:
decrypting, by the system, the encryption of the system state digest; and
decompressing, by the system, the system state digest.
CLAIM 18
The computer-implemented method of claim 13, further comprising: generating, by the system and in response to decrypting the system state digest, a remedial procedure plan for the system failure in the service request based on the system state digest via a second artificial intelligence model.
CLAIM 19
A computer program product for precision diagnostics and troubleshooting of medical devices, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to
cause the processor to:
collect, by the processor and in response to a service request in connection with a system failure of a medical device, troubleshooting data based on a time range or an error type of the system failure via an artificial intelligence model;
generate, by the processor, a system state digest of the troubleshooting data; and
dynamically generate, by the processor, an encryption of the system state digest.
CLAIM 20
The computer program product of claim 19, wherein dynamically generating the encryption of the system state digest comprises:
generating one or more quick response (QR) codes that encapsulates the system state digest in response to the system state digest comprising at most 3000 characters; or
generating encoded text of the system state digest in response to the system state digest comprising at least 3000 characters.
* The limitations that are in bold are considered “additional elements” that are further analyzed below in subsequent steps of the 101 analysis. The limitations that are not in bold are abstract and/or can be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen paper.
In regards to (2A2), the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements in the claims (i.e., * identified above in bold) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea; merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; and/or simply append technologies and functions, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (i.e., the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer).
Here, the additional elements (e.g., memory, processor, AI model, etc.) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer technologies. Moreover, the claims recite “via an artificial intelligence model”, “by the system”, “by the processor”, etc. devoid of any meaningful technological improvement details and thus, further evidence the additional elements are merely being used to leverage generic technologies to automate what otherwise could be done manually. Accordingly, 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.
Furthermore, the additional elements do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field—the additional elements merely recite general purpose computer technology; the additional elements do not recite applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition—there is no actual administration of a particular treatment; the additional elements do not recite applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine—the additional elements merely recite general purpose computer technology; the additional elements do not recite limitations effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing—the additional elements do not recite transformation such as a rubber mold process; the additional elements do not recite applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment—the additional elements merely leverage general purpose computer technology to link the abstract idea to a technological environment.
In regards to (2B), the claims, individually, as a whole and in combination with one another, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of (A) a generic computer structure(s) that serves to perform computer functions that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., computers); and/or (B) functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Here, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer technologies. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer technologies cannot provide an inventive concept.
Moreover, paragraph [0058] of applicant's specification (US 2026/0024656) recites that the system/method can be implemented using a processor such as a computer processing unit, microprocessor, which is merely a well-known general purpose or generic-type computer and/or technology. The use of generic computer components recited at a high level of generality to process information through an unspecified processor/computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Furthermore, the additional elements are merely well-known general purpose computers, components and/or technologies that receive, transmit, store, display, generate and otherwise process information which are akin to functions that courts consider well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, such as, performing repetitive calculations; receiving or transmitting data over a network; electronic recordkeeping; retrieving and storing information in memory; and sorting information (See, for example, MPEP § 2106).
Therefore, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tomaszewski whose telephone number is (313)446-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Peter H Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/MICHAEL TOMASZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights