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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on June 24, 2026. Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11,16 and 17 have been amended.
Currently claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1 and 9 are independent.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendments to Fig. 17 are NOT sufficient to overcome the Drawings objection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the Drawings objection has been maintained.
The Claim Objection as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8 and 15 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-20 has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 8, Applicant’s arguments regarding the Drawings Objection that the original drawing file submitted was of high, publication-grade resolution. The perceived blurriness or less of definition in the viewing portal could be an artifact of the Office’s internal document rendering and compression process.
The applicant's comments may be true, but to address the issue, the Examiner respectfully suggested removing any background colors from the drawings.
In the Remarks on page 11, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the amended claim 1, like the patent eligible claims in Enfish, is directed to a specific improvement of computational processing of structured and unstructured data.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. In Enfish, the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in users to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique (a self-referential data structure)—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; See Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at 5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The instant claims present no such data structure design (e.g., self-referential) to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, but instead, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a processor in a cloud-based exchange environment”, “, “a computer monitor”, “a staging database, “a medical equipment database”, and “an analytics database”, which is merely adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the Remarks on page 12, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that even if an abstract idea were identified, the claim integrates that concept into a practical application and recites significantly more through the record combination of equipment-specific database access, analytics-database retrieval, extraction of equipment-relevant data, assignment of attributable data portions, and generation of the decision table from those equipment-specific data structures.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance. Here again, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a processor in a cloud-based exchange environment”, “, “a computer monitor”, “a staging database, “a medical equipment database”, and “an analytics database”. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and only invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions include receiving, displaying, storing and transmitting information over a network. Beyond the abstract idea, the processor, at best, may perform the steps of: presenting the dashboard on a computer monitor that enables the user to activate and interact and data exchange, receiving structured data via a structured data channel as web-service, routing the structured data, receiving unstructured data via an unstructured data channel, storing the unstructured data in a staging database, routing the unstructured data from the staging database into the exchange environment, storing parameters data (e.g., purchase data, purchase date) corresponding to the registered medical equipment in a medical equipment database and an analytics database. Thus, adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); Conventional computer components operating to collect, manipulate, and display data are well understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan. See Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and [a] ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that receiving a request to execute a database search and delivering records are routine computer functions that can only be described as generic or conventional); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”). Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and more instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In the Remarks on page 13, Applicant argues that Herz, Norio, or Nida, alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest at least “receiving structured data via a structured data channel as web-service or representational state transfer (REST)-formatted data and routing the structured data, via the ESB, through an aggregation processing into the exchange environment;” “receiving unstructured data via an unstructured data channel…..” as recited in the amended claim 1. However, Applicant’s argument are directed to the amended claims, and therefore, the amended claims will be fully addressed in this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawing on Fig. 17 is objected to because image is unclear and blurry. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheet in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) is required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-8 are directed to a method of data processing for a user in medical equipment maintenance, which falls within the statutory category of a process. Claims 9-17 are directed to a method for data processing, which falls within the statutory category of a process.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking claims 9-17 as representative, the claims recite the limitations of : “forming a medical equipment database and an analytics database storing parameters data relating to medical equipment registered to the system, forming an appraisal for module returning an appraised value of a selected medical equipment, forming an integration management console and a master data management console that cooperate with an enterprise service bus to enable data exchange, receiving structured data, receiving unstructured data, storing the unstructured data in a staging database, routing the unstructured data from the staging databased into the exchange environment, distributing at least a portion of the structured data and the unstructured data from the exchange environment to the analytics applications and user exchange applications, forming the decision support module receiving parameters data corresponding to the selected medical equipment from the medical equipment database and receiving the appraised value from the appraisal module; extracting from billing information and expense information received via a network, assigning to the selected medical equipment a portion of the billing information and the expense information attributable to the selected medical equipment, and generating a decision table corresponding to the selected medical equipment, calculates gross income attributable to the selected medical equipment, stores price of new medical equipment, calculates estimation of utilization, billing and operating costs, calculates estimation utilization, billing and operating cost, calculates residual value of the new medical equipment, calculates estimation of monthly lease payment based upon the price and the residual value, forming an internal marketplace assessable solely to users within selected organization and an external marketplace, assembling the ad comprises establishing an asking price using the appraised value from the appraisal module and parameters data.” None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are methods of fundamental economic practices, managing commercial interactions including marketing or sales activities, which fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere nominal recitation of a processor and databases do not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. See 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 9 recites the additional elements including “a processor”, “databases” for performing the steps, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. The Specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality and is merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, storing, and transmitting data over a network. For example, “the system comprising a processor and a memory storing executable instructions that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the system to: storing parameters data, receives actual operating data...” See Spec. ¶ 87. Thus, the additional elements, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, nothing reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology; or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Claim 9 recites the additional elements of “a processors” and “databases” for performing the steps, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. The Specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, storing, and transmitting data over a network. For example, “the system comprising a processor and a memory storing executable instructions that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the system to: storing parameters data, receives actual operating data...” See Spec. ¶ 87. At best, the processor may perform the steps of: receiving structured and unstructured data, storing parameters data in a medical equipment database, and routing/transmitting data over a network, which are no more than generic computer components for performing generic computer functions. However, generic computer functions including receiving, storing and transmitting information over a network have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at a1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 9-17 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims 1-8 parallel claims 9-17—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz et al., (US 2009/0254971, hereinafter: Herz), and in view of Norio (JP 2005309702 A), and further in view of Nida et al., (US 2020/0279641, hereinafter: Nida), and Brown et al., (US 2019/0042988, hereinafter: Brown).
(Non-US patent references are cited by page number on the documents unless they don’t have page numbers, then cited by PDF page number)
Regarding claim 1, Herz discloses a computerized method of data processing for a user in medical equipment maintenance, comprising:
forming, by a processor in a cloud-based exchange environment (see ¶ 219, ¶ 274), a decision support engine with a plurality of modules including an appraisal module generating individualized market value for registered medical equipment, an impact analysis module determining profitability of each of the registered medical equipment, and a marketplace module enabling listing of the registered medical equipment (see ¶ 43, ¶ 91, ¶ 365, ¶ 369, ¶ 690, ¶ 818, ¶ 1189, ¶ 1201-1203);
forming, by the processor in a cloud-based exchange environment, an integration management console and a master data management console that cooperate with an enterprise service bus (ESB) to enable data exchange between the decision support engine and the registered medical equipment (see ¶ 4, ¶ 12, ¶ 22, ¶ 43, ¶ 412, ¶ 719, ¶ 974);
using the routed structured data and routed unstructured data to generate, by the appraisal module, the individualized market value for registered medical equipment (see 430, ¶ 703, ¶ 718, ¶ 835, ¶ 1018);
and to fetch, by the decision support engine, parameter data and appraised value of selected medical equipment with billing information and expense information attributable to the selected medical equipment (see ¶ 44, ¶ 56, ¶ 94-97, ¶ 217, ¶ 228, ¶ 367-369, ¶ 728, ¶ 1118);
extracting, by the decision support engine, from billing information and expense information received via a network, data relevant to the selected medical equipment (see ¶ 126-132, ¶ 1118);
assigning to the selected medical equipment a portion of the billing information and the expense information attributable to the selected medical equipment (see ¶ 619, ¶ 746¶ 1092); and
generating a decision table including operating results for a past period and estimated operating results predicted in view of upgrading the selected medical equipment and replacing the selected medical equipment with a new purchase or a lease (see ¶ 19, ¶ 217, ¶ 228, ¶ 367-369, ¶ 502, ¶ 649, ¶ 728, ¶ 861).
Herz discloses a general-purpose database that stores information include price rules, revenue, benefit information and market information (see ¶ 99, ¶ 202-203, ¶ 225).
Herz does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Norio in an analogous art of medical equipment management system discloses
storing, in a medical equipment database and an analytics database coupled to the exchange environment, parameters data corresponding to the registered medical equipment, the parameters data including at least purchase price and purchase date (see Fig. 17-18, pg. 5, ¶ 6-8; pg. 7, ¶ 4-5; pg. 10, ¶ 1, pg. 11, ¶ 6, pg. 16, ¶ 6-7), and distributing at least a portion of the structured data and the unstructured data from the exchange environment to analytics applications and user exchange applications vis the ESB (see pg. 12, ¶ 6; pg. 14, ¶ 4; pg. 21, ¶ 6 to pg. 22, ¶ 1; pg. 16, ¶ 6-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Herz to include the teaching of Norio in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for valuating equipment, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Norio discloses the medical device management apparatus includes a user interface processing unit, a component interface processing unit, a data processing unit, and a component data storage unit stores information for each component (see pg. 13, ¶ 4-6).
Herz and Norio do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Nida in an analogous art for healthcare management discloses
Generating, by the processor in the cloud-based exchange environment, a dashboard and presenting the dashboard on a computer monitor, the dashboard enabling the user to activate and interact with the various modules of the decision support engine (see ¶ 19, ¶ 65-66, ¶ 73, ¶ 78, ¶ 95-97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Herz and in view of Norio to include the teaching of Nida in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing visualization of user interface, in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Herz, Norio and Nida do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Brown in an analogous art for enterprise knowledge management discloses
receiving structured data via a structured data channel as web-service or representational state transfer (REST)-formatted data and routing the structured data, via the ESB, through an aggregation processing into the exchange environment (see ¶ 4, ¶ 43, ¶ 58, ¶ 78-79, ¶ 167);
receiving unstructured data via an unstructured data channel using secure file transfer protocol (SFTP) transfers and service calls, storing the unstructured data in a staging database, and routing the unstructured data from the staging database into the exchange environment for analytics processing (see ¶ 4, ¶ 43, ¶ 59, ¶ 79, ¶ 82, ¶ 167, claim 589).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Herz and in view of Norio and Nida to include the teaching of Brown in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of information analysis, in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Herz discloses the computerized method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining payroll data and calculating labor costs attributable to the selected medical equipment (see ¶ 43, ¶ 81, ¶ 94, ¶ 156).
Regarding claim 3, Herz discloses the computerized method of claim 1, further comprising operating the decision support engine to calculate gross income attributable to the selected medical equipment based on billing information assigned to the selected medical equipment (see ¶ 604-608, ¶ 727, ¶ 906, ¶ 1118).
Regarding claim 4, Herz discloses the computerized method of claim 3, further comprising:
wherein the action items include refurbishing, hardware upgrade, software upgrade, and capability expansion (see ¶ 105-106, ¶ 860);
upon selection by the user of one of the action items, operating the appraisal module to recalculate the appraised value of the selected equipment based on execution of the action item (see ¶ 365, ¶ 617, ¶ 690, ¶ 706, ¶ 818, ¶ 1201).
Herz does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Norio discloses
storing, in the medical equipment database or analytics database, action items executable on the selected medical equipment, each of the action items includes an investment associated therewith (see pg. 5, ¶ 8; pg. 7, ¶ 8; pg. 19, ¶ 6, pg. 23, ¶ 1, ¶ 5-6; pg. 27, ¶ 1);
operating the decision support engine to calculate estimation of utilization, billing and operating costs resulting from execution of the action item (see pg. 6, ¶ 3-5, pg. 12, ¶ 4, pg. 17, ¶ 1, pg. 18, ¶ 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Herz to include the teaching of Norio in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for valuating equipment, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Herz does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Norio discloses the computerized method of claim 3, further comprising upon selection by the user of a new medical equipment, operating the decision support engine to calculate estimation of utilization, billing and operating costs resulting from purchase of the new medical equipment (see pg. 6, ¶ 3, pg. 17, ¶ 1, pg. 18, ¶ 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Herz to include the teaching of Norio in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for valuating equipment, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Herz discloses the computerized method of claim 5, wherein upon selection by the user of the new medical equipment, further comprising:
operating the appraisal module to calculate residual value of the new medical equipment based on a term of a lease agreement (see ¶ 167, ¶ 185-186); and,
operating the decision support engine to calculate estimation of monthly lease payments based upon the price and the residual value (see ¶ 29, ¶ 60, ¶ 91, ¶ 553, ¶ 568).
Regarding claim 7, Herz discloses the computerized method of claim 6, wherein the marketplace module forms an internal marketplace accessible solely to users within selected organization and an external marketplace accessible to all users (see ¶ 49, ¶ 87, ¶ 392, ¶ 668); and wherein upon selection by the user of a specified medical equipment, operating the marketplace module to assemble and publish an advertisement in at least one of the internal marketplace and external marketplace (see ¶ 13, ¶ 321, ¶ 525, ¶ 726-729, ¶ 1077, ¶ 1433).
Regarding claim 8, Herz discloses the computerized method of claim 7, further comprising assembling the advertisement by establishing asking price using the appraised value from the appraisal module and parameters data obtained from the medical equipment database (see ¶ 118, ¶ 132, ¶ 147).
Regarding claim 9, Herz discloses a method of data processing, the method comprising:
forming, by a processor in a cloud-based exchange environment (see ¶ 219, ¶ 274), a decision support engine with a plurality of modules including an appraisal module generating individualized market value for registered medical equipment, an impact analysis module determining profitability of each of the registered medical equipment, and a marketplace module enabling listing of the registered medical equipment (see ¶ 43, ¶ 91, ¶ 365, ¶ 369, ¶ 690, ¶ 818, ¶ 1189, ¶ 1201-1203);
forming, by the processor in the cloud-based exchange environment, an appraisal module returning an appraised value of a selected medical equipment from the medical equipment database in response to data input of the medical equipment (see ¶ 690, ¶ 818, ¶ 1189, ¶ 1201);
forming, by the processor in the cloud-based exchange environment, an integration management console and a master data management console that cooperate with an enterprise service bus (ESB) to enable data exchange between a decision support module and the registered medical equipment (see ¶ 4, ¶ 12, ¶ 22, ¶ 43, ¶ 412, ¶ 719, ¶ 974);
forming, by the processor in the cloud-based exchange environment, the decision support module receiving parameters data corresponding to the selected medical equipment from the medical equipment database and receiving the appraised value from the appraisal module together with billing information and expense information attributable to the selected medical equipment (see ¶ 44, ¶ 56, ¶ 94-97, ¶ 217, ¶ 228, ¶ 367-369, ¶ 728, ¶ 1118);
extracting, by the decision support engine, from billing information and expense information received via a network, data relevant to the selected medical equipment (see ¶ 126-132, ¶ 1118);
assigning to the selected medical equipment a portion of the billing information and the expense information attributable to the selected medical equipment (see ¶ 619, ¶ 746¶ 1092); and
generating a decision table corresponding to the selected equipment, the decision table comprising entry of the appraised value, entry of utilization calculated based on operating time of the selected medical equipment, entry of billing attributable to the selected medical equipment calculated from the assigned billing information, and entry of operating cost attributable to the selected medical equipment calculated from the expense information (see ¶ 19, ¶ 217, ¶ 228, ¶ 367-369, ¶ 502, ¶ 649, ¶ 728, ¶ 861).
Herz discloses a general-purpose database that stores information include price rules, revenue, benefit information and market information (see ¶ 99, ¶ 202-203, ¶ 225).
Herz does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Norio in an analogous art of medical equipment management system discloses
forming, by a processor in a cloud-based exchange environment, a medical equipment database and an analytics database coupled to the exchange environment, the medical equipment database and the analytics database storing parameters data relating to medical equipment registered to the cloud-based exchange environment the parameters data including at least purchase price and purchase data (see Fig. 17-18, pg. 5, ¶ 6-8; pg. 7, ¶ 4-5; pg. 10, ¶ 1, pg. 11, ¶ 6, pg. 16, ¶ 6-7);
distributing at least a portion of the structured data and the unstructured data from the exchange environment to analytics applications and user exchange applications vis the ESB (see pg. 12, ¶ 6; pg. 14, ¶ 4; pg. 21, ¶ 6 to pg. 22, ¶ 1; pg. 16, ¶ 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Herz to include the teaching of Norio in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for valuating equipment, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Herz and Norio do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Brown in an analogous art for enterprise knowledge management discloses
receiving structured data via a structured data channel as web-service or representational state transfer (REST)-formatted data and routing the structured data, via the ESB, through an aggregation processing into the exchange environment (see ¶ 4, ¶ 43, ¶ 58, ¶ 78-79, ¶ 167);
receiving unstructured data via an unstructured data channel using secure file transfer protocol (SFTP) transfers and service calls, storing the unstructured data in a staging database, and routing the unstructured data from the staging database into the exchange environment for analytics processing (see ¶ 4, ¶ 43, ¶ 59, ¶ 79, ¶ 82, ¶ 167, claim 589).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Herz and in view of Norio to include the teaching of Brown in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of information analysis, in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Herz discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the decision support module further calculates gross income attributable to the selected medical equipment (see ¶ 677, ¶ 1088).
Regarding claim 11, Herz discloses the method of claim 10, wherein:
the medical equipment database further stores action items executable on the selected medical equipment, each of the action items including an investment associated therewith (see ¶ 787, ¶ 966, ¶ 982, ¶ 1096-1098); and,
upon selection by a user of one of the action items, the appraisal module recalculates the appraised value of the selected equipment based on execution of the action item (see ¶ 617, ¶ 690, ¶ 818, ¶ 1201).
Herz does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Norio discloses
upon the selection by the user of one of the action items, the decision support module calculates estimation of utilization, billing and operating costs resulting from execution of the action item (see pg. 6, ¶ 3, pg. 17, ¶ 1, pg. 18, ¶ 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Herz to include the teaching of Norio in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for valuating equipment, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Herz discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the action items include refurbish, hardware upgrade, software upgrade, and capability expansion (see ¶ 105-106, ¶ 860).
Regarding claim 13, Herz does not explicitly the following limitations; however, Norio discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the medical equipment database further stores price of new medical equipment and, upon selection by a user of one of the new medical equipment, the decision support module calculates estimation of utilization, billing and operating costs resulting from purchase of the new medical equipment (see pg. 6, ¶ 3-5; pg. 12, ¶ 3, pg. 17, last ¶ to pg. 18, ¶ 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Herz to include the teaching of Norio in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for valuating equipment, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Herz does not explicitly the following limitations; however, Norio discloses the method of claim 13, wherein upon selection by a user of one of the new medical equipment, the decision support module calculates estimation of utilization, billing and operating costs resulting from lease of the new medical equipment (see pg. 6, ¶ 3, pg. 12, ¶ 3-4 pg. 17, ¶ 1, pg. 18, ¶ 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Herz to include the teaching of Norio in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for valuating equipment, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 15, Herz does not explicitly the following limitations; however, Norio discloses the method of claim 14, wherein upon selection by a user of one of the new medical equipment:
the appraisal module calculate residual value of the new medical equipment based on a term of a lease agreement (see pg. 8, ¶ 3 to pg. 9, ¶ 6); and,
the decision support module calculates estimation of monthly lease payments based upon the price and the residual value (see pg. 17, ¶ 1, and ¶ 5 to pg. 18, ¶ 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Herz to include the teaching of Norio in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for valuating equipment, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 16, Herz discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising:
forming an internal marketplace accessible solely to users within selected organization and an external marketplace accessible to all users (see ¶ 49, ¶ 87, ¶ 392, ¶ 527, ¶ 668); and
assembling and publishing, by the decision support module, an ad in at least one of the internal marketplace and external marketplace (see ¶ 446, ¶ 525, ¶ 726-729, ¶ 1077, ¶ 1433).
Regarding claim 17, Herz discloses the method of claim 16, wherein assembling the ad comprises establishing an asking price using the appraised value from the appraisal module and parameters data obtained from the medical equipment database (see ¶ 118, ¶ 132, ¶ 147, ¶ 257, ¶ 260, ¶ 1095).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Elghazzawi et al., (US 10933249 B2) discloses a medical equipment management system includes a database including software information and medical equipment status information.
Holte (US 2004/0122710) discloses a method, for managing acquisition of medical equipment, comprises steps of determining a price per unit, recording the amount of time the medical equipment is used and computing the usage billing amount from the usage time and the price per unit of use time.
Kobayashi (JP 2005309702) discloses a method for managing the reuse processing of medical equipment used in the medical institutes.
Singer et al., (US 2010/0169206) discloses a method for displaying market information corresponding to a tradable object includes a chart region for displaying historical market data in relation to a first value axis, and a market grid region in alignment with the chart region.
Kirisits et al., “The Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices”, Institute of Health Policy and Management, University Rotterdam, Netherlands, Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013.
Huot et al., “Medical device assessment: scientific evidence examined by the French national agency for health – a descriptive study”, by BMC Public Health, 2012.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN G CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached on 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights