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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This communication is in response to the communication filed January 17, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 16. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite systems, apparatuses, or methods for recommending diagnostic actions for medical device diagnostic tools, which are statutory categories of inventions.
Specifically, the independent claims recite receiving a request for assistance, identifying a context of the current service case, generating a candidate filter value combinations for a plurality of filters for use in searching, simulating the candidate filter value combinations by filtering, identifying a recommended combination of filter values or a recommended service action based on the simulating, and outputting the recommended combination of filter values or recommended service action.
The dependent claims further recite limitations directed to analyzing log data, identifying the context based on analyzed log data, receiving request comprising error codes, generating at least one candidate search term, generating a matrix of filter values, deriving the candidate filter value combinations, malfunction area filter, displaying the recommended combinations of filter values, applying the recommended combination of filter values, analyzing the historical service cases, and determining the recommended service action.
The limitations are interpreted as being grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because in this case, the claims involve a series of steps for collecting data, analyzing it, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims are interpreted to recite concepts relating to tracking or organizing medical information. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Here, the additional elements of the claims include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, database, electronic processor, display device, electronic processing device, and medical device.
The claims merely use the additional elements as tools to perform abstract ideas, recited at a high level of generality, and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of the additional elements as tools to implement the abstract idea and generally to link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not render the claim patent eligible, because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, the a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, database, electronic processor, and display device may all be part of an electronic processing device, such as a computer, functioning to receive, store, process, and output data (specification par. 29. The medical device may be any other suitable medical device, such as a patient monitor, a radiation therapy device, a mechanical ventilator, and so forth (par. 28).
The additional elements do not show an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology, rather the additional elements perform general computing functions and do not indicate how the particular combination improves any technology or provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See Apple v. Ameranth, 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The additional elements do not use the exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease, do not apply the exception using particular machines, and do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, rather the computer elements are generally stated as to their structure and function and are only used to recommend actions instead of directly providing specific treatment or prophylaxis. Therefore, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the additional limitations are not indicative of materializing into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Generic computer elements recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, or conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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 and performing repetitive calculations); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); See MPEP 2106.05(d) and July 2015 Update: Section IV). Here, the claim limitations directed to generating filter values and simulations are similar to a computer performing repetitive calculations and the limitations directed to receiving a request and outputting the recommended combination filter are similar to a computer receiving and sending information over a network.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the steps of the claims amount to no more than using computer related devices to automate or implement the abstract idea of recommending diagnostic actions for medical device diagnostic tools.
The use of a computer or processor to merely automate or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) where mere instructions to apply an exception does not render an abstract idea patent eligible). There is no indication that the additional limitations alone or in combination improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, improves another technology or technical field, or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
In conclusion, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of recommending diagnostic actions for medical device diagnostic tools. The claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rudorfer (IDS reference).
As per claim 1, Rudorfer teaches
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing: a database storing summaries of historical service cases; and instructions executable by at least one electronic processor to perform a method for assisting in resolving a current service case for a medical device, the method including: (Rudorfer fig. 1 and associated paragraphs, par. 6, 46, 102)
receiving a request for assistance for the current service case for the medical device; (Rudorfer par. 53)
identifying a context of the current service case based at least on the received request; (Rudorfer fig. 5, par. 56)
generating candidate filter value combinations for a plurality of filters for use in searching the summaries of historical service cases, the candidate filter combinations being generated based on the identified context of the current service case; (Rudorfer fig. 4-5, par. 56)
simulating the candidate filter value combinations by filtering the database using the candidate filter combinations; (Rudorfer fig. 5, par. 56-57)
identifying a recommended combination of filter values or a recommended service action based on the simulating; and (Rudorfer fig. 5, par. 56-57)
outputting, on a display device of an electronic processing device operable by a service engineer (SE), the recommended combination of filter values or recommended service action (Rudorfer fig. 5, par. 56-57).
As per claim 2, Rudorfer teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach wherein identifying a context of the current service case further includes: analyzing log data received from the medical device; and identifying the context further based on the analyzed log data (Rudorfer par. 73-74).
As per claim 3, Rudorfer teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach wherein the received request comprises error codes generated by the medical device, user-provided problem descriptions, historical search results, or a summary from the SE (Rudorfer par. 56).
As per claim 6, teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach wherein the generating of the candidate filter value combinations includes: deriving the candidate filter value combinations based on the identified context using a lookup table (Rudorfer fig. 4-5, par. 56).
As per claim 7, Rudorfer teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and further teach wherein the candidate filter value combinations include filter values for filters including a malfunction area filter, a product group filter, a search terms filter, and filters from different remote diagnosis tools (Rudorfer fig. 5, par. 56).
As per claim 8, Rudorfer teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach wherein the identifying of the recommended combination of filter values or recommended service action from the candidate filter value combinations is based at least in part on values of a performance indicator for assessing a quality of historical service cases applied to historical service cases returned by the simulating (Rudorfer fig. 7, par. 64).
As per claim 11, Rudorfer teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach wherein the recommended combination of filter values or recommended service action is a recommended combination of filter values, and the outputting, on the display device, of the recommended combination of filter values includes: displaying the recommended combination of filter values; and receiving, via at least one user input device, an input from the SE indicative of an acceptance or rejection of the recommended combination of filter values (Rudorfer fig. 4-5, par. 56).
As per claim 12, Rudorfer teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach wherein the recommended combination of filter values or recommended service action is a recommended combination of filter values, and the method further comprises: applying the recommended combination of filter values to retrieve historical service cases from the database (Rudorfer fig. 5, par. 56).
As per claim 13, Rudorfer teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach wherein the recommended combination of filter values or recommended service action is a recommended service action, and the method further includes: analyzing the historical service cases related to the current service case; and determining the recommended service action to resolve the current service case based on the analysis (Rudorfer fig. 7, par. 64).
As per claims 14 and 17-20 see claim rejection above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 4-5, 10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudorfer in view of Zhang (IDS Reference).
As per claim 4, Rudorfer teaches all the limitations of claim 2, but does not teach the following limitations met by Zhang, wherein the generating of the candidate filter value combinations includes: generating at least one candidate problem-specific search term from the identified context of the current service case, the at least one problem-specific search term forming at least one candidate free-form text filter value for the candidate filter value combinations (Zhang par. 169).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the systems and methods as taught by Rudorfer to generate at least one candidate problem-specific search term as taught by Zhang with the motivation to improve processing efficiently to save manpower (Zhang abstract).
As per claim 5, Rudorfer teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the following limitations met by Zhang, wherein the generating of the candidate filter value combinations includes: generating a matrix of candidate filter value combinations (Zhang par. 163).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the systems and methods as taught by Rudorfer to generating a matrix as taught by Zhang with the motivation to improve processing efficiently to save manpower (Zhang abstract).
As per claim 10, teach all the limitations of claim 8, but does not teach the following limitations met by Zhang, wherein the performance indicator comprises at least one of a cost indicator and/or a service time indicator (Zhang par. 178).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the systems and methods as taught by Rudorfer to use least one of a cost indicator and/or a service time indicator as taught by Zhang with the motivation to improve processing efficiently to save manpower (Zhang abstract).
As per claim 15-16, teach all the limitations, see claim rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY M. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6793 and email is jay.patel2@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM.
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, Peter H. Choi can be reached on (469)295-9171. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAY M. PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights