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 non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on November 4, 2024.
Currently claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1 and 9 are independent.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 17/127,185 filed on 12/18/2020 (“Parent Application”), and a provisional application 62/889966 filed on 08/21/2019. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because the following informalities. Claim 4 recites “storing stores action items executable” which appears to be a typography error. Examiner interpreted the claim to read “storing action items executable” for the purpose of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-17 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the claim refers to “the system” at the end of step 1 is insufficient antecedent basis, where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of “a system” and where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “The computer-readable storage medium of claim 16”. However, claim 16 is a method claim rather than a computer-readable storage medium. Applicant is required to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention.
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 for providing decision support engine for a user in medical equipment maintenance WITHOUT tied to a particular machine in the body for performing the steps, which falls outside of the four statutory categories. Claims 9-17 are directed to a method for forming and operating a decision support engine regarding medical equipment WITHOUT tied to a particular machine in the body for performing the steps, which falls outside of the four statutory categories. However, claims 1-17 will be included in Step 2 Analysis for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With respect to claims 1-17, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims are directed to a method without tied to a particular machine in the body of the claims for performing the steps. One factor to consider when determining whether a claim recites a §101 patent eligible process is to determine if the claimed process (1) is tied to a particular machine or; (2) transforms a particular article to a different state or thing. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) aff’d, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (U.S. 2010). (Machine-or-Transformation Test).
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 : “form a medical equipment database storing parameters data relating to medical equipment registered to the system, form an appraisal module returning an appraised value of a selected medical equipment, form a 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; 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, forms an internal marketplace assessable solely to users within selected organization and an external marketplace, assembles the ad by establishing 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. The mere nominal recitation of a computer monitor, as recited in claim 1, and a medical equipment database, as recited in claim 9, 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 no additional element for performing the steps, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a machine is not required in the claim. Even if claim 9 recites the additional elements of “a processors” and “a memory” 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. 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 proceed 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 no additional element for performing the steps, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a machine is not required in the claim. Even if claim 9 recites the additional elements of “a processors” and “a memory” as recited in claim 1 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: storing parameters data in a medical equipment database, and receiving/fetching parameter data and appraised value, 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).
(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 the a computerized method for providing decision support engine for a user in medical equipment maintenance, comprising:
forming 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, ¶ 1201-1203);
forming an integration layer enabling data exchange between the decision support engine and the registered medical equipment (see ¶ 4, ¶ 12, ¶ 22, ¶ 43, ¶ 412);
using the dashboard to enter operational data corresponding to the registered medical equipment and using the operational data to generate the individualized market value for registered medical equipment by the appraisal module (see 430, ¶ 703, ¶ 718, ¶ 835, ¶ 1018);
fetching by a decision support engine the parameter data and the appraised value of selected medical equipment, and fetching via a network billing information and expense information attributable to the selected medical equipment, 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 ¶ 44, ¶ 56, ¶ 94-97, ¶ 217, ¶ 228, ¶ 367-369, ¶ 728, ¶ 1118).
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 medical equipment database 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). 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 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.
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 module to calculate gross income attributable to the selected medical equipment (see ¶ 604-608, ¶ 727).
Regarding claim 4, Herz discloses the computerized method of claim 3, further comprising
wherein the action items include refurbish, 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 stores action items executable on the selected medical equipment, each of the action items includes an investment associated therewith (see pg. 19, ¶ 6, pg. 23, ¶ 1, 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 module 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:
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, ¶ 1077).
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 for forming and operating a decision support engine regarding medical equipment, the method comprising the steps of:
form an appraisal module, the 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);
form a 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 and fetching via a network connection billing data and cost data 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 billing data, and entry of operating cost attributable to the selected medical equipment calculated from the cost data (see ¶ 44, ¶ 56, ¶ 94-97, ¶ 217, ¶ 228, ¶ 367-369, ¶ 728, ¶ 1118).
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
form a medical equipment database storing parameters data relating to medical equipment registered to the system (see Fig. 17-18, pg. 5, ¶ 6-8; pg. 7, ¶ 4-5; pg. 10, ¶ 1, pg. 11, ¶ 6, 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.
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 includes 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 recalculate 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, wherein the method further forms 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 wherein upon selection by the user the decision support module assembles and publishes an ad in at least one of the internal marketplace and external marketplace (see ¶ 13, ¶ 321, ¶ 525, ¶ 726, ¶ 1077).
Regarding claim 17, Herz discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the decision support module assembles the ad 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, ¶ 257, ¶ 260, ¶ 1095).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vyas et al., (US 2007/0078791) discloses an asset management system for predicting a cost to maintain a work machine in the future based on the received data and one or more operating conditions.
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.
Hammer, III (US 2015/0127430) discloses a method for determining valuation of a collection of items for a requesting user and updating its data set to include the crowdsourced data.
“Estimating Medical Costs for Regulatory Benefit-Cost Analysis”, by Jessup et al., Office of Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, June 2017.
“Estimates of Medical Device Spending in the United States”, by Gerald Donahoe, Advanced Technology Association, 701 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Suite 800, Washington, D.C 20004, November 2018.
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