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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this case and has been examined and addressed below. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed on 01/20/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “major” in claims 7-9 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “major” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of major to describe the service does not specify what type of service is required to be a major service. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret a major service to be any particular type of service performed on the medical device and a major service age threshold to be any threshold related to the age of the device.
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 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-11 fall within the statutory category of a process. Claims 12-20 fall within the statutory category of an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong One
As per Claims 1 and 12, the limitations of obtaining first usage history data describing a number of procedures performed using the first medical device; obtaining first service history data describing at least one service for the first medical device; obtaining first age data describing an age of the first medical device; using the first usage data, first age data, and first service history data to determine first status data describing a suitability of the first medical device for continued use; and initiating a service activity for the first medical device, based in part on the first status data, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as well as commercial interactions such as business relations. The steps of obtaining medical device data including usage history, history data, and age data to be used to determine a suitability of the medical device for continued use and initiating a service activity depending on the suitability are concepts performed in the normal activity of managing medical devices to be used in a medical environment to treat patients. This is a management of personal behavior as well as activity performed by staff of a medical facility in the operation of medical devices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of managing personal behaviors or commercial/business interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
As per Claim 17, the limitations of obtaining first usage history data describing a number of procedures performed using the first medical device; obtaining first service history data describing at least one service for the first medical device; obtaining first age data describing an age of the first medical device; using the first usage data, first age data, and first service history data to determine first status data describing a suitability of the first medical device for continued use; and updating a database record associated with the first medical device to indicate the first status data, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as well as commercial interactions such as business relations. The steps of obtaining medical device data including usage history, history data, and age data to be used to determine a suitability of the medical device for continued use and updating a database record to indicate status data are concepts performed in the normal activity of managing medical devices to be used in a medical environment to treat patients. This is a management of personal behavior as well as activity performed by staff of a medical facility in the operation of medical devices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of managing personal behaviors or commercial/business interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements and combination of additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element – first medical device and an interface computing device. The first medical device and the interface computing device in these 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 claims also recites the additional elements of establishing a first communication link between the first medical device and the interface computing device which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception because each computing component performing communication with the other device is the use of the computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as receiving and transmitting data which, as per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) has been found to be mere instructions to apply the exception. The claim recites that the first communication link is a direct wireless communication link between the first medical device and the interface computing device, which is similar to wireless delivery of out-of-region broadcasting content that has been found by the courts to be an additional element which recites no more than an idea of a solution our outcome that is mere instructions to apply the exception, as per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). The claim also recites a medical device servicer system which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. The use of the system to carry out the step of the abstract idea of initiating a service activity applies the abstract idea to the general purpose computing component and thus amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception, as per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with the respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of first medical device, interface computing device, and medical device servicer system to perform the method of the invention amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. The first medical device is only described by example as an endoscope but not limited to an endoscope, as it could be any medical device which is recited at a high level of generality. The interface computing component is recited as a reader device or user computing device (specification [0066]) and the medical device servicer system is described as computing devices executing software programs (specification [0031]), which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea beyond mere instructions to apply an exception. The claims also include the additional elements of establishing communication link between the devices and the first communication link is a direct wireless communication link between the first medical device and the interface computing device, which is shown above to be mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. 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 the computer or improves another technology. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent Claims
Claims 2 and 13 include similar elements to Claim 1 and are therefore directed to an abstract idea for the same reasoning. Claims 3 and 14 include accessing service request data and sending a no service request message, which are interactions between people that describe management of interactions between people and are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. Claims 4 and 15 include generating fleet audit data and sending the fleet audit data to a consumer which are also management of interactions between people and business or commercial activities which fall into the abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. Claims 5 and 16 include a description of the fleet audit data and is therefore directed to the same abstract idea as Claims 4 and 15. Claim 6 includes determining the age of a device is less than a threshold which is part of managing the maintenance of the medical device and therefore falls into the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. Claim 7 includes determining the medical device is greater than an age threshold, service is a major service, and the service was performed while device was below an age threshold which, similar to Claim 6, are part of managing the maintenance of the medical device and therefore falls into the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. Claim 8 further specifies determining the service age threshold and therefore the claim is directed to the same abstract idea as claim 7. Claim 9 is similar to Claim 7 and directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 10 includes prompting a computing device which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. Claim 11 includes providing a graphical user interface for detecting an actuation of a button and in response, determining first status data and providing an indication the device is suitable for continued use. The determining of device status and providing an indication that the device is suitable for use is directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because it involves managing personal interactions or personal behaviors. The use of the graphical user interface for its routine activity of presenting data and receiving input amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. Claim 18 includes similar elements to claim 1 and is directed to the same abstract idea for the same reasonings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al. (US 2019/0244707 A1), hereinafter Becker, in view of Duckert et al. (US 2005/0080596 A1), hereinafter Duckert.
As per Claims 1 and 12, Becker discloses a method and system for servicing a first medical device comprising an onboard memory device, comprising:
an interface computing device, programmed to perform operations ([0005] system with network appliance, user interface, and cloud base service) comprising:
establishing, by an interface computing device, a first communication link between the first medical device and the interface computing device ([0008] local network appliance receives data from local medical device, [0010-0011] medical device includes transmitter to communicate with local network appliance, [0049] plurality of medical devices in communication with LAN via network appliance), the first communication link being a direct wireless communication link between the first medical device and the interface computing device ([0123] medical devices communicate with LAN using ZigBee, Bluetooth protocols, which are wireless communication between devices, [0125] communication protocols used for medical device to communicate with wireless access point of LAN includes WiFi );
obtaining first usage history data, by the interface computing device via the first communication link ([0013] device data sent by the medical device includes usage data of the medical device, [0017] device data is sent by the medical device and received by the server, [0075] device data sent with data from memory via transceiver, also see [0059]), the first usage history data describing a number of procedures performed using the first medical device ([0175] usage of the medical device measured based on number of time device used in surgery or other medical procedure);
obtaining, by the interface computing device via the first communication link, first service history data describing at least one repair for the first medical device ([0153]obtaining servicing records for a medical device which includes data of maintenance work, location of maintenance, type of maintenance work performed, data work completed for a particular medical device, also see [0059]);
obtaining, by the interface computing device via the first communication link, first age data describing an age of the first medical device ([0012] data for medical device includes age of the device, [0177] medical information for each medical device includes age, [0183] age is the age of the medical device since manufacture or purchase, see Fig. 9 which lists age for each medical device);
using the first usage history data, the first age data, and the first service history data to determine first status data describing a suitability of the first medical device for continued use ([0173-0175] service schedule for each medical device is generated, servicing schedule, i.e. next servicing determined based on time elapsed since purchase, time elapsed since last service, usage of device, examiner interprets the need for servicing to be the status which describes suitability for continued use, [0044] providing medical device status for a selected medical device based on the information about the device including usage, maintenance history); and
initiating, using a medical device servicer system, a service activity for the first medical device, the initiating being based at least in part on the first status data ([0212] service indicator provides indication of the service status such as indicating that the device needs service now, [0186] when service request icon is activated, send a message indicating service has been requested for the particular medical device and a service message is forwarded to individuals/groups for service such as technicians).
However, Becker may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Duckert: obtaining the usage history, service history, and age data, by the interface computing device and from the onboard memory device of the first medical device ([0041-0042] data collected from the medical device such as age/repair history is collected from a database which can be a database stored within the device itself).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of obtaining medical device data from the memory of the device from Duckert with the system of determining status of a medical device for service from Becker in order to provide a high degree of reliability and operability in device operation by providing proper service and repair (Duckert [0002]).
As per Claim 17, Becker discloses a system for servicing a first medical device comprising an onboard memory device, the system comprising:
an interface computing device, the interface computing device programmed to perform operations ([0005] system with network appliance, user interface, and cloud base service) comprising:
establishing a first communication link between the first medical device and the interface computing device ([0008] local network appliance receives data from local medical device, [0010-0011] medical device includes transmitter to communicate with local network appliance, [0049] plurality of medical devices in communication with LAN via network appliance), the first communication link being a direct wireless communication link between the first medical device and the interface computing device ([0123] medical devices communicate with LAN using ZigBee, Bluetooth protocols, which are wireless communication between devices, [0125] communication protocols used for medical device to communicate with wireless access point of LAN includes WiFi); and
obtaining first usage history data, by the interface computing device and from the onboard memory device of the first medical device via the first communication link ([0013] device data sent by the medical device includes usage data of the medical device, [0017] device data is sent by the medical device and received by the server, [0075] device data sent with data from memory via transceiver, also see [0059]), the first usage history data describing a number of procedures performed using the first medical device ([0175] usage of the medical device measured based on number of time device used in surgery or other medical procedure); and
a medical device servicer system, the medical device servicer system programmed to perform operations (Abstract medical device management system) comprising:
obtaining, via the first communication link, first service history data describing at least one service for the first medical device ([0153]obtaining servicing records for a medical device which includes data of maintenance work, location of maintenance, type of maintenance work performed, data work completed for a particular medical device, also see [0059]);
obtaining, by the interface computing device via the first communication link, first age data describing an age of the first medical device ([0012] data for medical device includes age of the device, [0177] medical information for each medical device includes age, [0183] age is the age of the medical device since manufacture or purchase, see Fig. 9 which lists age for each medical device);
using the first usage history data, the first age data, and the first service history data to determine first status data describing a suitability of the first medical device for continued use ([0173-0175] service schedule for each medical device is generated, servicing schedule, i.e. next servicing determined based on time elapsed since purchase, time elapsed since last service, usage of device, examiner interprets the need for servicing to be the status which describes suitability for continued use, [0044] providing medical device status for a selected medical device based on the information about the device including usage, maintenance history); and
updating a database record associated with the first medical device to indicate the first status data, the database record being stored at a computing device remote from the interface computing device ([0051] management service updates device records for each medical device; [0153] receive new data regarding the status of the medical device and update a data repository of the server including the service status records).
However, Becker may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Duckert: obtaining the usage history, service history, and age data, by the interface computing device and from the onboard memory device of the first medical device ([0041-0042] data collected from the medical device such as age/repair history is collected from a database which can be a database stored within the device itself).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of obtaining medical device data from the memory of the device from Duckert with the system of determining status of a medical device for service from Becker in order to provide a high degree of reliability and operability in device operation by providing proper service and repair (Duckert [0002]).
As per Claims 2 and 13, Becker and Duckert discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 12. Becker also teaches the first status data indicating that the first medical device is suitable for continued use ([0184] service status identifies whether each device is in need of service or no servicing needed, Examiner interprets no service needed to be suitable for continued use, [0212] service indicator provides indication of the service status), the method further comprising:
establishing, by the interface computing device, a second communication link between the interface computing device and a second medical device ([0008] local network appliance receives data from local medical device, [0010-0011] medical device includes transmitter to communicate with local network appliance, [0049] plurality of medical devices in communication with LAN via network appliance, [0017] device data is received from plurality of medical devices, i.e. a second medical device; [0048-0049] communication between management service and plurality of medical devices using LAN);
obtaining second usage history data, by the interface computing device via the second communication link ([0013] device data sent by the medical device includes usage data of the medical device, [0017] device data is sent by the medical device and received by the server, [0075] device data sent with data from memory via transceiver, also see [0059]; [0017] device data is received from plurality of medical devices, i.e. a second medical device; [0048-0049] communication between management service and plurality of medical devices using LAN);
obtaining second service history data describing the second medical device, the second service history data describing at least one service of the second medical device and, for each service, a type of service performed ([0173-0175] service schedule for each medical device is generated, servicing schedule, i.e. next servicing determined based on time elapsed since purchase, time elapsed since last service, usage of device, examiner interprets the need for servicing to be the status which describes suitability for continued use, [0044] providing medical device status for a selected medical device based on the information about the device including usage, maintenance history, [0017] device data is received from plurality of medical devices, i.e. a second medical device, [0059] data collected includes types of servicing of the medical devices);
obtaining second age data describing an age of the second medical device ([0012] data for medical device includes age of the device, [0177] medical information for each medical device includes age, [0183] age is the age of each medical device (includes a second device) since manufacture or purchase, see Fig. 9 which lists age for each medical device, [0017] device data is received from plurality of medical devices, i.e. a second medical device);
using the second usage history data, the second age data, and the second service history data to determine second status data indicating that the second medical device is not suitable for additional service ([0173-0175] service schedule for each medical device is generated, servicing schedule, i.e. next servicing determined based on time elapsed since purchase, time elapsed since last service, usage of device, [0044] providing medical device status for a selected medical device based on the information about the device including usage, maintenance history, [0184] service status identifies whether each device, i.e. second device, is in need of service or no servicing needed, Examiner interprets no service needed to be not suitable for additional service, also see [0212]); and
using a medical device servicer system, updating a database record associated with the second medical device to indicate the second status data ([0051] management service updates device records for each medical device; [0153] receive new data regarding the status of the medical device and update a data repository of the server including the service status records).
However, Becker may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Duckert: a second medical device comprising an onboard memory device ([0019-0020] data stored in memory resident on the equipment of the system, where the equipment is the medical devices such as imaging system or monitoring devices);
obtaining the usage history, service history, and age data, by the interface computing device and from the onboard memory device of the second medical device ([0041-0042] data collected from the medical device such as age/repair history is collected from a database which can be a database stored within the device itself).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of obtaining medical device data from the memory of the device from Duckert with the system of determining status of a medical device for service from Becker in order to provide a high degree of reliability and operability in device operation by providing proper service and repair (Duckert [0002]).
As per Claims 3 and 14, Becker and Duckert discloses the limitations of Claims 2 and 13. Becker also teaches accessing, by the medical device servicer system, service request data describing a requested service of the second medical device ([0177] service status and service request data are obtained from a data repository); and
sending, by the medical device servicer system, a no service recommendation message, the no service recommendation message indicating that the second medical device is not to be serviced ([0177] provide information on a display including a service status column, Examiner interprets a display viewed by a user to be a message sent to the user; [0184] service status identification of no servicing which indicates that the identified medical devices don’t need servicing).
As per Claims 4 and 15, Becker and Duckert discloses the limitations of Claims 2 and 13. Becker also teaches generating, by the medical device servicer system, fleet audit data describing suitability of a plurality of medical devices for continued use, the plurality of medical devices comprising the first medical device and the second medical device (see Fig. 9 and Fig. 13 which show a list of all the devices and their service status, [0167] in response to a user request, generate summary of data for all devices, i.e. fleet, [0177] generated data includes use, age, service status for each device, [0184] service status identifies whether device needs servicing/replacement or does not need servicing, Examiner interprets this to describe suitability for continued use); and
sending, by the medical device servicer system, the fleet audit data to a consumer system associated with an operator of the first medical device and the second medical device ([0052] management service analyzes and processes the device data and forwards the information to computer devices, [0053-0054] computer devices include a user interface for display of data accessible by users of the computer devices).
As per Claims 5 and 16, Becker and Duckert discloses the limitations of Claims 4 and 15. Becker also teaches the fleet audit data comprising the first status data, the second status data, and third status data describing a third medical device, the third status data indicating that the third medical device is not suitable for continued use (see Fig. 9 and Fig. 13 which show a list of all the devices and their service status (display includes at least three separate devices), [0167] in response to a user request, generate summary of data for all devices, i.e. fleet, [0177] generated data includes use, age, service status for each device, [0184] service status identifies whether device needs servicing/replacement or does not need servicing, Examiner interprets this to describe suitability/not suitable for continued use, as needing a replacement indicates a device is not suitable for continued use).
As per Claims 6 and 19, Becker and Duckert discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 17. Duckert also teaches determining, based on the first age data, that the first medical device is less than an age threshold ([0044] based on the age of the device, compare the age to the age level which is considered high reliability or, i.e. a threshold level, see Fig. 7 where the usage data of the device is compared to the usage/age curve and determine if above or below the threshold levels which make the 110 range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of determining a medical device is below an age threshold from Duckert with the system of determining status of a medical device for service from Becker in order to provide a high degree of reliability and operability in device operation by providing proper service and repair (Duckert [0002]).
As per Claims 7 and 20, Becker and Duckert discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 17. Becker also teaches determining, by the medical device servicer system, that a first service of the at least one service of the first medical device is a major service ([0059] data from the device includes time/date/type of service performed on a medical device); and
determining, by the medical device servicer system, that the first service was performed while the first medical device was less than a major service age threshold ([0183] age of each of the medical devices is determined for display, [0020] determine when a medical device needs repair based on usage of the device, [0171] determine medical device service due soon which means device will need servicing within a predefined time window but not yet due, [0174] the service date threshold is set based on time or usage of the medical device such as time since purchase, i.e. age), the first status data indicating that the first medical device is suitable for continued use ([0184] service status of the device indicates whether the device needs no servicing now or soon).
Duckert also teaches determining, by the medical device servicer system and based on the first age data, that the first medical device is greater than an age threshold ([0044] based on the age of the device, compare the age to the age level which is considered high reliability, i.e. a threshold level, see Fig. 7 where the usage data of the device is compared to the usage/age curve and determine if above or below the threshold levels which make the 110 range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of determining a medical device is above an age threshold from Duckert with the system of determining status of a medical device for service from Becker in order to provide a high degree of reliability and operability in device operation by providing proper service and repair (Duckert [0002]).
As per Claim 8, Becker and Duckert discloses the limitations of Claim 7. Duckert also teaches determining the major service age threshold based at least in part on the first usage history data ([0044] based on the usage level of the device, compare the usage to the level which is considered high reliability or, i.e. a threshold level, see Fig. 7 where the usage data of the device is compared to the usage/age curve and determine if above or below the threshold levels which make the 110 range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of determining a medical device is above an age threshold based on device usage data from Duckert with the system of determining status of a medical device for service from Becker in order to provide a high degree of reliability and operability in device operation by providing proper service and repair (Duckert [0002]).
As per Claim 9, Becker and Duckert discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Becker also teaches determining, by the medical device servicer system, that the first medical device is of a first medical device type ([0106] determine the type/model of a medical device based on the unique identifier for the particular medical device);
determining, by the medical device servicer system, that a first service of the at least one service of the first medical device is a major service ([0059] data from the device includes time/date/type of service performed on a medical device); and
determining, by the medical device servicer system, that the first service was performed while the first medical device was greater than a major service age threshold ([0183] age of each of the medical devices is determined for display, [0020] determine when a medical device needs repair based on usage of the device, [0172] devices determined to be past servicing date threshold are determined to be due now for service, [0174] the service date threshold is set based on time or usage of the medical device such as time since purchase, i.e. age), the first status data indicating that the first medical device is not to be further serviced ([0184] service status of the device indicates whether the device needs no servicing now or soon).
As per Claim 10, Becker and Duckert discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Becker also teaches prompting, by the medical device servicer system, the interface computing device to interrogate the first medical device ([0005-0007] user interface receives a data request for a medical device from the user which is forwarded to a service and in response, the medical device transmits device to the service and forwarded to the user interface), the establishing of the first communication link being in response to the prompting ([0083] communication is initiated based on a device making initial contact/prompt).
As per Claim 11, Becker and Duckert discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Becker also teaches providing, by the medical device servicer system, a graphical user interface to a user computing device, the graphical user interface comprising a medical device status button (see Fig. 9 and 13; [0134] local user interfaces displayed on computer devices, [0177] selection of a category results in display of the category on the user interface where the category includes medical device status);
detecting, by the medical device servicer system, an actuation of the medical device status button, the determining of the first status data being responsive to the actuation of the medical device status button ([0137] display detects a user touching the screen to manipulate and control the data displayed, where touching indications on the screen actuates what is shown on the screen, [0177] selection of a category results in display of the category on the user interface where the category includes medical device status); and
providing, by the medical device servicer system and at the graphical user interface, an indication that the first medical device is suitable for continued use ([0184] where the status which is displayed can include no servicing or replacement needed indication on the interface which indicates the device is suitable for continued use).
As per Claim 18, Becker and Duckert discloses the limitations of Claim 17. Becker also teaches initiating a service activity for the first medical device, the initiating being based at least in part on the first status data ([0212] service indicator provides indication of the service status such as indicating that the device needs service now, [0186] when service request icon is activated, send a message indicating service has been requested for the particular medical device and a service message is forwarded to individuals/groups for service such as technicians).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-12, “The Rejection of Claims Under §101”, filed 01/20/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the present application provides an improvement as explained in the specification. Applicant further argues that claims provide technical solutions to problems described in the specification including storing of usage history data and service history data at the medical device, retrieving the usage and service history data via a direct communications link, and using the usage and storage history data to determine whether to perform a service activity to the medical device. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The problems described in the specification such as determining when a medical device has reached the end of its suggested usage device (specification para. 24) and the usage and repair information being distributed among different parties (specification para. 25) are not problems that are technical in nature. These issues are directed to tracking the usage and maintenance of the devices. Although computers are used to retrieve information from different sources, this is merely the use of computers to execute the abstract idea of tracking and determining usage and service of medical devices. The improvement to tracking and determining usage and service of medical devices is an improvement to the abstract idea itself. There is no actual improvement to the communication with different parties, as the claims recite a communication link being a direct wireless communication link between a medical device and the interface computing device. The medical device and interface computing device are general purpose computing components, as shown in the rejection above, and a wireless communication link for transmitting data is mere instructions to apply the exception similar to remotely accessing information through a mobile interface and wireless delivery of out-of-region broadcasting content, as per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Applicant argues that the improvements to technology described in the specification are incorporated into the claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasons explained above with regard to the specification describing a technical improvement, the claims do not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. The problem described is not a technical problem and any improvement based on tracking and determining usage and service of medical devices is an improvement to the abstract idea itself.
Applicant argues that the claims provide a particular solution to a problem in a particular way, such as a particular way of storing data, accessing the stored data, and a particular action performed in the medical device. Examiner notes that the claims do not recite storing data in an onboard memory device. The claims include accessing data from an onboard memory device, but storing of data is not recited in the claims. The accessing of stored data and use of that data to determine status data describing a suitability of the medical device for continued use is part of the abstract idea itself and is not analyzed as an additional element. Therefore, obtaining the data and using the data to determine suitability of the medical device for continued usage is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, as per MPEP 2106.05(a), as it is part of the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the improvements of increasing the usage life of medical devices does not result from managing personal behaviors or commercial/business interactions, but rather are a result of specific technical components and operations of the claims. However, Applicant does not argue any specific technical components or operations of the claims, but rather argues at a high level that the improvement provided in the claims is not due to the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described above, the claims recite computer components which are general purpose components that are used to execute the abstract idea. The improvements to the tracking and determining usage and service of medical devices is due to the obtaining of usage, age, and service history data which is used to determine status of medical devices, which is the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 13-14, “The Rejection of Claims Under §102”, filed 01/20/2026 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 102 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Duckert over 35 U.S.C. §103.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evangeline Barr whose telephone number is (571)272-0369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
/EVANGELINE BARR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights