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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response application filed 8/22/2024. It is noted that application is a continuation of 16/758,073 filed 04/22/2020 (now US Patent No. 12,073,940) which is a 371 of PCT/EP2018/078837 filed 10/22/2018 and PCT/EP2018/078837 which claims priority to Provisional Application No. 62/576,727 filed 10/25/2017. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statement dated 8/22/2024 has been acknowledged and considered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 073,940. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims of the previously patented claims anticipate and/or are an obvious variant of the currently pending claims. The currently pending claims and reference claims teach a servicing support method including receiving logs from a plurality of installed medical imaging devices, hosting at least one database storing the logs of the plurality of installed medical imaging devices, and providing access to the logs stored in the at least one database by a servicing department for use in preventative and remedial servicing of the medical imaging devices; and an upgrade recommender method for presenting medical imaging device upgrade recommendations, the upgrade recommender method comprising: retrieving utilization data quantifying medical imaging device utilization from the logs of a plurality of installed medical imaging devices stored in the at least one database; and applying a set of rules to the utilization data and the installed base data and the available medical imaging device data to identify one or more upgrade recommendations wherein each upgrade recommendation comprises: an identification of one or more of the installed medical imaging devices or components of the installed medical imaging devices recommended to be upgraded or replaced; an identification of at least one of a replacement medical imaging device or component or a new medical imaging device or component for each of the installed medical imaging devices or components recommended to be upgraded or replaced; and a basis for the upgrade recommendation; and displaying, on a display device, the one or more upgrade recommendations including displaying, for each upgrade recommendation, the at least one identified replacement or new medical imaging device or component and the basis for the upgrade recommendation.
The currently pending claims fail to teach generating a natural language expression. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims of the previously patented claims anticipate and/or are an obvious variant of the currently pending claims. Therefore, because the patented claims are an obvious variant of the currently pending claims, claims 1-20 are rejected for non-statutory double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-9 are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for generating medical imaging device upgrade recommendations from utilization data, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. article of manufacture). Claims 10-17 are drawn to a system configured to generate medical imaging device upgrade recommendations from utilization data, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 18-20 generating medical imaging device upgrade recommendations from utilization data, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process)
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions readable and executable by at least one computer to perform:
a servicing support method including hosting at least one database storing logs of a plurality of installed medical imaging devices and providing access to the logs stored in the at least one database by a servicing department for use in preventative and remedial servicing of the medical imaging devices; and
an upgrade recommender method for presenting medical imaging device upgrade recommendations, the method comprising:
retrieving, utilization data quantifying medical imaging device utilization from the logs of the plurality of installed medical imaging devices stored in the at least one database;
retrieving, for each installed medical imaging device, stored installed base data including at least a device type, components of the installed medical imaging device, available components for the installed medical imaging device, and an in-service date of the installed medical imaging device; and
retrieving, for each available medical imaging device, stored available medical imaging device data including at least a device type and components available for the available medical imaging device;
applying a set of rules to the utilization data to identify one or more upgrade recommendations wherein each upgrade recommendation comprises:
an identification of one or more of the installed medical imaging devices or components of the installed medical imaging devices recommended to be upgraded or replaced;
an identification of at least one of a replacement medical imaging device or component or a new medical imaging device or component for each of the installed medical imaging devices or components recommended to be upgraded or replaced; and
a basis for the upgrade recommendation; and
displaying, on a display device, the one or more upgrade recommendations including displaying, for each upgrade recommendation, the at least one identified replacement or new medical imaging device or component and the basis for the upgrade recommendation.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “a mental process” because generating imaging device upgrade recommendations by applying rules to utilization data is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. A mental process that could practically be performed in the human mind or by pen and paper falls into one category of abstract idea. (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance issued January 7, 2019). Identifying upgrade recommendations by identifying medical imaging device or components associated with increased imaging processing speed or upgraded image quality is process that could be practically done by pen and paper or in one’s mind. That is other than reciting “computer-readable medium” and “electronic processor” language, nothing precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally in one’s head or by pen and paper. For instance, a user could in his or her head review the utilization data and apply a set of rules to the date to recommend installed imaging devices or components of the devices to be upgraded or replaced. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions readable and executable by at least one computer to perform:
a servicing support method including hosting at least one database storing logs of a plurality of installed medical imaging devices and providing access to the logs stored in the at least one database by a servicing department for use in preventative and remedial servicing of the medical imaging devices; and
an upgrade recommender method for presenting medical imaging device upgrade recommendations, the method comprising:
retrieving, utilization data quantifying medical imaging device utilization from the logs of the plurality of installed medical imaging devices stored in the at least one database;
retrieving, for each installed medical imaging device, stored installed base data including at least a device type, components of the installed medical imaging device, available components for the installed medical imaging device, and an in-service date of the installed medical imaging device; and
retrieving, for each available medical imaging device, stored available medical imaging device data including at least a device type and components available for the available medical imaging device;
applying a set of rules to the utilization data to identify one or more upgrade recommendations wherein each upgrade recommendation comprises:
an identification of one or more of the installed medical imaging devices or components of the installed medical imaging devices recommended to be upgraded or replaced;
an identification of at least one of a replacement medical imaging device or component or a new medical imaging device or component for each of the installed medical imaging devices or components recommended to be upgraded or replaced; and
a basis for the upgrade recommendation; and
displaying, on a display device, the one or more upgrade recommendations including displaying, for each upgrade recommendation, the at least one identified replacement or new medical imaging device or component and the basis for the upgrade recommendation.
For the following reasons, as per independent claims 1 and 10, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
· add insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
o hosting a database storing logs of data; providing access to the database; and retrieving utilization data from a database amounts to mere data gathering and/or
o the recitation of displaying a list amounts to an insignificant application.
· amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
the recitation of displaying particular data in response to user input to the GUI recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (i.e. claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished).
in order to transform a judicial exception into a patent-eligible application, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’".
o the recitations performing the functions by the electronic processor amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see pg. 15, para. 1 of the present Specification.
· generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)– for example, the recitation of computer-readable medium; electronic processor; graphical user interface and a mobile device including a display device merely limits the abstract idea the environment of a computer.
Thus, taken alone, these additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and the same analysis applies with regards to whether they amount to “significantly more.” Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
· Specifically, for the storing and providing access to the logs; retrieving utilization data and displaying data steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
o The background does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component and there is no indication that the combination of steps collect the data in an unconventional way to provide an inventive concept.
§ The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature: pg. 15 para. 1 of the Specification discloses that the current invention embodiments may include “typical” components (electronic processor; input device; and display device), none of which, even when programmed to perform the limitations of the current invention, may properly be deemed a “particular machine” for the purposes of subject matter eligibility) performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. retrieving and displaying data) and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. medical imaging).
o Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II),
§ Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention retrieves utilization data, and transmits the data to devices over a network;
§ Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the current invention recites storing logs of data and providing access to the data related to the replacement of a device in a database and/or electronic memory, and retrieving the utilization and rules data to make a recommendation;
Therefore, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the at least one abstract idea.
Independent claim 10 repeats substantially similar limitations as claim 1 but in system form. Claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Independent claim 18 also includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea but in method form. Specifically, independent claim 18 recites:
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 10 and 18 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following dependent claims further the define the abstract idea or are also directed to an abstract idea itself:
Dependent claims 2-4, 11-14, and 19-20 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract).
In relation to claims 5, 8, 9, and 16, these claims specify assigning a score and removing personal identifying information which are directed to tracking and filtering content can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be considered as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 6, 7, 15 : These claims recite filling in fields and storing data, which therefore merely represent insignificant extra-solution (data output and insignificant application) activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 17: These claims specify a mobile device which thus does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
10-12, 15-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weiner (2006/0149808).
As per claim 10, Weiner teaches an upgrade opportunity recommendation system operating in conjunction with a server that receives logs from a plurality of installed medical imaging devices, hosts at least one database storing the logs of the plurality of installed medical imaging devices, and provides access to the logs stored in the at least one database by a servicing department for use in preventative and remedial servicing of the medical imaging devices, the system comprising:
at least one electronic processor (Weiner; (para. [0024] the ISKB creation system 16 will typically include one or more programmed computers capable of receiving or accessing the needed data and processing the data to establish correlations, links, and relationships between the data used for providing the service described below) programmed to:
retrieve utilization data from the logs of the plurality of installed medical imaging devices stored at the at least one database hosted by the server (Weiner; para. [0044] the request may include actual log data and file data that may aid in identifying the serviceable condition or event, and the root cause of the malfunction, and in recommending a service response. Such information may include, for example, log files, image files, audio files, video files, text files, and files otherwise indicating monitored parameters that could serve as indicators useful in addressing the service request.); and
apply a set of rules to the utilization data and information on available replacement or new medical imaging devices and components to identify an upgrade recommendation including (Weiner; para. [0035] These analysis routines permit the service request and any accompanying data, such as a system snapshot as described below, to be processed, structured, analyzed, and so forth. The analysis routines also allow the service request and any accompanying data to be compared to the information in ISKB to establish possible responses to the service request, and prioritization for responses; para. [0041] the data is mapped and classified, for example, to associate the data with individual systems and system types, individual indicators, groups of indicators, possible root causes and problems, and responses and service recommendations. Similarly, as indicated at step 58, correlations are made between the indicators, causes and recommendations. These correlations will typically be made through a relational database, forming a data structure that will make up the ISKB.):
an identification of an upgradable installed medical imaging device of the plurality of installed medical imaging devices (Weiner; para. [0038] a practical service recommendation may include replacement of several components as a field replaceable unit, or reloading or reconfiguring of a block of software) ;
an identification of a replacement medical imaging device or component recommended to upgrade or replace the upgradable installed medical imaging device (Weiner; para. [0038] a practical service recommendation may include replacement of several components as a field replaceable unit, or reloading or reconfiguring of a block of software); and
a basis for the upgrade recommendation (Weiner; para. [0041] the data is mapped and classified, for example, to associate the data with individual systems and system types, individual indicators, groups of indicators, possible root causes and problems, and responses and service recommendations. Similarly, as indicated at step 58, correlations are made between the indicators, causes and recommendations. These correlations will typically be made through a relational database, forming a data structure that will make up the ISKB.); and
a display device configured to display the upgrade recommendation including displaying the replacement or new medical imaging device or component and the basis for the upgrade recommendation (Weiner; (para. [0035] one or more service recommendations are made by the service response system as indicated by reference numeral 38. These may take the form of messages, lists and more detailed information displayed at a service workstation, reports generated at the service provider, notifications sent to serviced systems, and so forth).
As per claim 11, Weiner teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the basis for the upgrade recommendation includes at least one of:
an increased revenue basis compared with the upgradable installed medical imaging device; an additional services basis compared with the upgradable installed medical imaging device; an improved resolution basis compared with the upgradable installed medical imaging device (Weiner; para. [0042] Such prioritization may be based upon the severity of root causes of malfunction, the ultimate cost of the malfunction or the repair, the downtime consequent from the malfunction, and so forth.).
As per claim 12, Weiner teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the basis for the upgrade recommendation comprises at least one of increased revenue, increased service, and/or improved image resolution of the replacement or new medical imaging device or component compared with the upgradable installed medical imaging device (Weiner; para. [0042] Such prioritization may be based upon the severity of root causes of malfunction, the ultimate cost of the malfunction or the repair, the downtime consequent from the malfunction, and so forth.).
As per claim 15, Weiner teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the at least one database is further configured to store:
an installed base spreadsheet that includes, for each installed medical imaging device, data including at least a device type, purchased components of the installed medical imaging device, available components for the installed medical imaging device, and an in-service date of the device (Weiner; para. [0025] the system data 18 may identify various types of systems, their known manufacturing information (e.g., manufacturing location, manufacturing date, series numbers, serial numbers, component breakdowns, etc.);; and
an available devices spreadsheet that includes, for each available medical imaging device, data including at least a device type and components available for the available medical imaging device (Weiner; para. [0026] The resolution data may include hardware configuration resolutions, software configuration resolutions, recommended component and field replaceable unit replacements, and so forth.);
wherein the at least one electronic processor is programmed to apply the set of rules to data retrieved from the installed base and available devices spreadsheets (Weiner; para. [0030] The analysis routines may also permit correlation of data within and between the various records accessed by the ISKB creation system 16, particularly between the system data, the resolution data, the maintenance data and the indicator data.).
AS per claim 16, Weiner teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the at least one electronic processor is programmed to apply the set of rules to the utilization data to identify a plurality of upgrade recommendations, and is further programmed to:
assign a score to each identified upgrade recommendation, the score being indicative of a likelihood that the upgrade recommendation is implemented (Weiner; para. [0031] Based upon such indicators, and known histories of the issues posed by such problems, prioritization scores may be established for the various indicators, serviceable conditions and events, recommended responses, and so forth).
Claim 18 repeats substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and the reasons for rejection are incorporated herein.
As per claim 19, Weiner teaches the upgrade recommendation method of claim 18, wherein the basis for the upgrade recommendation comprises at least one of increased revenue, increased service, and/or improved image resolution of the replacement or new medical imaging device or component compared with the upgradable installed medical imaging device (Weiner; para. [0042] Such prioritization may be based upon the severity of root causes of malfunction, the ultimate cost of the malfunction or the repair, the downtime consequent from the malfunction, and so forth.).
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiner (2006/0149808) in view of Jensen (2013/0268890)
As per claim 17, Weiner does not expressly teach the system of claim 10, further comprising: a mobile device including the display device. However this is old and well-known in the art as evidenced by Jensen. IN particular Jensen para. [00230 teaches an electronic communication network that facilitates communication between the medical devices. The devices include mobile telephones. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the mobile devices as taught by Jensen to the upgrade recommendation system as taught by Weiner as the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Subject Matter free from Prior Art
Weiner (2006/0149808) teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions readable and executable by a workstation (20) including at least one electronic processor (22) to perform a method (100) (para. [0024] the ISKB creation system 16 will typically include one or more programmed computers capable of receiving or accessing the needed data and processing the data to establish correlations, links, and relationships between the data used for providing the service described below) for generating medical imaging device upgrade recommendations from utilization data (para. [0038] That is, a practical service recommendation may include replacement of several components as a field replaceable unit, or reloading or reconfiguring of a block of software). Weiner teaches applying a set of rules (29) to the utilization data to identify one or more upgrade recommendations wherein each upgrade recommendation comprises (para. [0035] These analysis routines permit the service request and any accompanying data, such as a system snapshot as described below, to be processed, structured, analyzed, and so forth. The analysis routines also allow the service request and any accompanying data to be compared to the information in ISKB to establish possible responses to the service request, and prioritization for responses; para. [0041] the data is mapped and classified, for example, to associate the data with individual systems and system types, individual indicators, groups of indicators, possible root causes and problems, and responses and service recommendations. Similarly, as indicated at step 58, correlations are made between the indicators, causes and recommendations. These correlations will typically be made through a relational database, forming a data structure that will make up the ISKB.) and an identification of one or more of the installed medical imaging devices or components of the installed medical imaging devices recommended to be upgraded or replaced (para. [0038] a practical service recommendation may include replacement of several components as a field replaceable unit, or reloading or reconfiguring of a block of software) and at least one of a replacement medical imaging device or component or a new medical imaging device or component for each of the installed medical imaging devices or components recommended to be upgraded or replaced (para. [0038] a practical service recommendation may include replacement of several components as a field replaceable unit, or reloading or reconfiguring of a block of software).
Jensen (2013/0268890) para. [0004] teaches a summary of utilization data on which the upgrade recommendation is based (providing a summary of the maintenance information, the summary including: a summary of a maintenance status of the medical devices; a summary of a location of the medical devices; a list of the medical devices needing maintenance, the list including a type of maintenance needed for each of the medical devices in the list; a summary of a state of connection of the medical devices; and a summary of firmware and software updates for the medical devices).
The closest foreign prior art of record Nakamura (JP-4333084-B2) teaches an image forming system with an input/output section to display via a report section a message indicating a version upgrade being performed.
The closest non-patent literature of record Minassian (Minassian, Veronik. Essentially smart contracts. 24x714.2: 28(3). Allied Media LLC. (Feb 2009)) teaches negotiating service contracts for medical equipment. Minassian teaches a hospital must have a thorough and detailed equipment inventory with individual device-performance histories and service records in order to navigate toward the best decision.
As per claims 1-9, the closest prior arts of record, alone or in combination with other relevant prior art do not expressly teach, a method and/or system comprising:
a servicing support method including receiving logs from a plurality of installed medical imaging devices, hosting at least one database storing the logs of the plurality of installed medical imaging devices, and providing access to the logs stored in the at least one database by a servicing department for use in preventative and remedial servicing of the medical imaging devices; and
an upgrade recommender method for presenting medical imaging device upgrade recommendations, the upgrade recommender method comprising:
retrieving utilization data quantifying medical imaging device utilization from the logs of a plurality of installed medical imaging devices stored in the at least one database;
retrieving, for each installed medical imaging device, stored installed base data including at least a device type, components of the installed medical imaging device, available components for the installed medical imaging device, and an in-service date of the installed medical imaging device; and
retrieving, for each available medical imaging device, stored available medical imaging device data including at least a device type and components available for the available medical imaging device;
applying a set of rules to the utilization data and the installed base data and the available medical imaging device data to identify one or more upgrade recommendations wherein each upgrade recommendation comprises:
an identification of one or more of the installed medical imaging devices or components of the installed medical imaging devices recommended to be upgraded or replaced;
an identification of at least one of a replacement medical imaging device or component or a new medical imaging device or component for each of the installed medical imaging devices or components recommended to be upgraded or replaced;
and a basis for the upgrade recommendation; and
displaying, on a display device, the one or more upgrade recommendations including displaying, for each upgrade recommendation, the at least one identified replacement or new medical imaging device or component and the basis for the upgrade recommendation.
As per claims 13-14 and 20, the closest prior arts of record, alone or in combination with other relevant prior art do not expressly teach, a method and/or system comprising:
wherein the rules include: a rule for identifying the upgrade recommendation if the monetary cost of the upgrade is less than a forecast monetary revenue increase obtainable by the upgrade over a defined time horizon.
wherein the rules include: a rule for identifying the upgrade recommendation if the monetary cost of the upgrade is less than a forecast monetary-equivalent value of increased medical diagnostic capability achieved by the upgrade.
wherein the summary of utilization data on which the upgrade recommendation is based includes at least one of: an increased revenue case indicating a cost of upgrade compared with a higher throughput compared with the installed medical imaging device; an additional services case indicating that the upgrade enables additional procedures not currently available with the installed medical imaging device or component; a medical case indicated images showing an improved resolution attainable with the upgrade compared with the installed medical imaging device or component.
No final decision on patentability has been made in light of pending rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH GIANG MICHELLE LE whose telephone number is (571)272-8207. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8:30am - 5:30pm PST.
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, JASON DUNHAM can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
LINH GIANG "MICHELLE" LE
PRIMARY EXAMINER
Art Unit 3686
/LINH GIANG LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686 9/20/2025