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 .
The following is a non-final, first office action on the merits, in response to application filed 12/13/2024. Claims 1-23 have been examined and are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for a provisional application filed on 6/16/2022. The Applicant claims benefit of continuation of PCT/US2023/068629, filed on 6/16/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2024 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the 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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, regardless of a system/apparatus, a method, or a product claim.
The claimed invention (Claims 1-23) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, “an idea “of itself”, which have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in new 101 memos of the subject matter eligibility in here (https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility) including 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
Independent claim 1 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to multiple abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and “Mental process”.
Claim 1, Steps of,
receiving, at a cloud computing platform, operational data of a medical device or an application of a client device, the application being associated with and utilized to at least partially to operate the medical device;
analyzing the operational data to identify one or more deviations from an intended operation of the medical device or the application;
responsive to identifying the one or more deviations, generating a notification indicating the one or more deviations; and
providing the notification to one or more of the medical devices or the client device.
fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, the instant steps “receiving data, analyzing data, generating notifications, providing/sending/displaying the notifications”, which are human activities and/or interactions between users/people/devices and therefore, certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer.
In addition, claim 1, steps mentioned above also falls within the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since these limitation covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, a human being can observe/receive/data, can observe/analyze data, can observe/generate notifications/alerts, can observe/provide/send/display the notifications/alerts.
Further, steps of (“receiving”, “providing”) are considered as “insignificant extra-solution activity” to the judicial exception since they are merely receiving/collecting/providing/sending data/information.
Independent claim 1, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element (“cloud computing platform”, “devices devices”) that are not significant more than the abstract ideas. In particular, there is no machine/hardware/computer to actually perform the abstract steps mentioned above. Other than reciting “at a cloud computing platform”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, and is simply organized information through human activity or merely mental tasks, and is part of, or a related, judicial exception and does not meaningfully limit the application of the identified judicial exception, and as such does not constitute significantly more.
There is no specificity regarding any technology, just broadly, execute the programming instructions to receive data, analyze data, generate data, send/display data. There are no additional elements, for example, hardware processor of a machine to actually perform all of the steps at all. The steps are mainly receiving data, analyzing data, generating data, providing/sending data. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 1, (step 2B):
The additional element “at a cloud computing platform”, “a client device”, is recited at a high level of generality, and add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. This component is merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic sensor/computer components recited as performing generic sensing/computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive/send/display information over communication network/internet does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 1).
Dependent claims 2-11, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1, without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 2-11, are also non-statutory subject matter.
Similarly, independent method claim 12 is also directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
(see analysis in claim 1).
Dependent claims 13-20, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 12, without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 13-20, are also non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 21: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent system/apparatus claim 21, is also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claim(s) 1.
Further, the components (i.e., a processor, a memory, a mobile device, a medical device, c computing platform) described in independent claims 21, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. Similarly, as it relates to the computer system claims, the limitations appear to be performed by a generic processor/computing system/device. These components are merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic sensing/computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic encoder/decoder/computer components to receive/analyze/generate/create /transmit/send/display information over communication network/internet does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 1).
According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward
information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (evidence required by Berkeimer memo). Further, according to Berkheimer memo 04/19/2018, section III.A.1, “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)”.
Applicant’s Specification, Fig. 5 indicate a general-purpose computer perform the instant steps and demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the information processing device (a processor/a memory/a computer) in any computing implementation. Thus, evidence has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to Berkheimer memo. Therefore, for the above-mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above steps do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 22-23, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 21, without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 22-23, are also non-statutory subject matter.
Viewed as a whole, the claims (1-23) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, the claims do NOT recite limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, the claimed invention, as a whole, does not provide 'significantly more' than the abstract idea, and is non-statutory subject matter.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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:
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.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grantcharov et al. (hereinafter, Grantcharov, US 2021/0076966).
As per claim 1, 12, 21, Grantcharov discloses a method, a method, and a cloud computing platform [0050], comprising:
a processor ([0018]); and
a memory ([0018]) storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the cloud computing platform to
receiving, at a cloud computing platform, operational data of a medical device or an application of a client device, the application being associated with and utilized to at least partially to operate the medical device ([0050, 0292]);
analyzing the operational data to identify one or more deviations from an intended operation of the medical device or the application ([0059, 0060, 0061, 0063, 0440, 0483]);
responsive to identifying the one or more deviations, generating a notification indicating the one or more deviations ([0018, 0019, 0056, 0440, 0483]); and
providing the notification to one or more of the medical devices or the client device ([0113]).
As per claim 2, 13, Grantcharov further discloses, further comprising
receiving, at the cloud computing platform, a response action responsive to the notification from the client device ([0143, 0361]).
As per claim 3, Grantcharov further discloses, further comprising:
determining that no response action has been made ([0440;
responsive to determining that no response action has been made according to selected criteria, generating another notification indicating the one or more deviations; and providing another notification to one or more of the medical devices or the client device ([0439, 0440]).
As per claim 4, Grantcharov further discloses,
wherein providing the notification comprises providing the notification having a first level of urgency, and wherein providing the another notification comprises providing the another notification having a second level of urgency ([0349]).
As per claim 5, Grantcharov further discloses, wherein providing the another notification comprises providing a more urgent notification than providing the notification ([0417]).
As per claim 6, Grantcharov further discloses,
wherein analyzing the operational data to determine one or more deviations comprises identifying historical trends of the operational data and predicting one or more future deviations from the intended operation of the medical device or the application based on the identified historical trends (Fig. 1, [0416]).
As per claim 7, Grantcharov further discloses,
wherein analyzing the operational data to determine one or more deviations comprises analyzing the operational data to determine one or more of a past or a current deviation from the intended operation of the medical device or the application ([0180, 0482, 0483]).
As per claim 8, Grantcharov further discloses,
wherein providing the notification to one or more of the medical devices or the client device comprises providing one or more of a push notification or an audible notification ([0022, 0113, 0137, 0140]).
As per claim 9, Grantcharov further discloses, wherein analyzing the operational data comprises identifying that the one or more deviations originate from one or more of improper settings of an operating system of the client device, an operating system of the medical device, or the application of the client device (Fig. 24, 25, [0169, 0096, 0097]).
As per claim 10, Grantcharov further discloses, further comprising
generating one or more instructions to adjust settings of the one or more of improper settings of an operating system of the client device, an operating system of the medical device, or the application of the client device ([0169, 0293, 0363]).
As per claim 11, Grantcharov further discloses,
wherein generating a notification comprises generating the notification to indicate a severity of the one or more deviations from the intended operation ([0004, 0483]).
As per claim 14, Grantcharov further discloses,
wherein identifying that one or more response actions to the one or more trigger conditions were not performed properly comprises identifying one or more response actions that were not performed at all or only partially performed ([0481, 0440.
As per claim 15, Grantcharov further discloses,
analyzing the operational data comprises analyzing operational logs (Fig. 16, 17, [0033, 0375]).
As per claim 16, 23, Grantcharov further discloses,
wherein analyzing the operational data comprises analyzing the operational data via one or more machine learning techniques ([0112, 0124, 0132, 0133, 0171]).
As per claim 17, Grantcharov further discloses,
wherein the operational data is received via a synchronizing event between the application of the client device and the cloud computing platform ([0173]).
As per claim 18, Grantcharov further discloses,
wherein analyzing the operational data further comprises identifying patterns of triggering conditions ([0029, 0063, 0064, 0273]).
As per claim 19, Grantcharov further discloses,
further comprising determining a frequency at which to provide notifications to the client device regarding incorrect operations ([0062, 0249, 0420]).
As per claim 20, Grantcharov further discloses,
wherein determining a frequency at which to provide notifications to the client device regarding incorrect operations comprises providing more frequent notifications in response to the client device being associated with a less experienced user, and providing less frequent notifications in response to the client device being associated with a more experienced user ([0169, 0417, 0445, 0499]).
As per claim 22, Grantcharov further discloses,
wherein the memory comprises additional instructions thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the cloud computing platform to provide more frequent notifications in response to the mobile device being associated with a less experienced user. and provide less frequent notifications in response to the mobile device being associated with a more experienced user ([0169, 0417, 0445, 0499]).
The prior art made of record and relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Krayer et al. (US Patent 10,665,348, teaches analyzing structured and unstructured data to determine whether a particular event has taken place. Once detection of occurrence of the event has taken place, a notification is generated that a correct recipient is identified).
Page (US 2021/0065888, teaches receiving an insight defined by a user, the insight dictating that a notification be output when a condition and a scope of the condition are met, the condition and the scope defined by the user; receive real-time medical device data determined from output from a plurality of medical devices monitoring a plurality of patients).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN M LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5489. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30am--5pm. Fax is 571-270-6489.
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 on 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.
/SUN M LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685