DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing filed on February 17, 2025. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are currently pending.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Dependent claim 7 recites the term “if” which implies the claim limitation is optional. Replace the term “if” with “when”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “the second actual operation data” in lines 7-8 lacks antecedent basis. 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 non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1 is directed to a method, independent claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, and independent claim 20 is directed to a device.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Mental Processes
Independent claim 1, 19, and 20 recite the limitations, “obtaining first historical operation data for the medical device of a user; obtaining first predicted operation data by predicting, based on the first historical operation data, a user operation of the medical device, wherein the first predicted operation data includes a first predicted operation and a first predicted operation time corresponding to the first predicted operation; determining, based on the first predicted operation data and current operation data, an energy-saving strategy for controlling the medical device, wherein the current operation data includes a current operation and a current time; and controlling the medical device to implement the energy-saving strategy.” are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. Specifically, the claim is directed to concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, and judgment). In the currently pending claims, a person can evaluate first historical operational data of a medical device, determine first predicted operation data based on the first historical operational data and develop an energy saving strategy for the medical device through observation, evaluation and judgment of data.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The applicant has not shown or demonstrated any of the requirements described above under "integration into a practical application" under step 2A. The applicant’s claimed limitations do not demonstrate an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, effecting a transformation or reduction of particular article to a different state or thing, applying or using the judicial exception in some meaningful way. The current application does not amount to 'significantly more' than the abstract idea as described above. The claim does not include additional elements or limitations individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the individual elements of a medical device amount to no more than implementing an idea with a computerized system and they are adding words "apply it" with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements taken in combination add nothing more than what is present when the elements are considered individually. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the exception (i.e., abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
The obtaining steps are a data gathering directed to insignificant extra solution activity.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., claim does not include additional elements or limitations individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-18 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. The following dependent claims: dependent claims 2-3, 5-11, and 16-17 recite a medical device. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-11, and 16-17 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weyland US Publication 20100332043 A1.
Claims 1, 19, and 20:
As per claim 1, Weyland teaches a method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and device comprising:
obtaining first historical operation data for the medical device of a user (paragraph 0018 “The detection logic 110 may send the historical usage pattern 120 to the prediction logic 112.”);
obtaining first predicted operation data by predicting, based on the first historical operation data, a user operation of the medical device, wherein the first predicted operation data includes a first predicted operation and a first predicted operation time corresponding to the first predicted operation (paragraphs 0018 and 0021 “The detection logic 110 may send the historical usage pattern 120 to the prediction logic 112. In a particular embodiment, the prediction logic 112 is configured to create the prediction rule 122 that predicts a future usage of the energy consuming module 106 based on the historical usage pattern 120 and the sensed data 108.” and “The prediction engine 104 may receive sensed data 108 from the sensor 102. Although FIG. 1 illustrates the prediction engine 104 as receiving sensed data 108 from the sensor 102, the prediction engine 104 may receive data from a connection to a bus.”);
determining, based on the first predicted operation data and current operation data, an energy-saving strategy for controlling the medical device, wherein the current operation data includes a current operation and a current time (paragraphs 0017-0019 “The prediction engine 104 may control energy usage of the individual modules of the mobile device based on predictions. The predictions may be updated based on actual usage of the individual modules. By updating the predictions, future predictions may be improved, allowing the mobile device to more accurately control energy consumption of the individual modules, such as the display adapter.”, “The detection logic 110 may send the historical usage pattern 120 to the prediction logic 112. In a particular embodiment, the prediction logic 112 is configured to create the prediction rule 122 that predicts a future usage of the energy consuming module 106 based on the historical usage pattern 120 and the sensed data 108.”, and “Further, the control logic 114 may be configured to selectively control an energy level of the at least one controllable energy consuming module (e.g., the energy consuming module 106) based on the prediction rule 122 received from the prediction logic 112. For example, the control logic 114 may be configured to control the energy level of the energy consuming module 106 by varying the control signal 150 based on the prediction rule 122.”);
and controlling the medical device to implement the energy-saving strategy (paragraphs 0019, 0022-0023, and 0025 “Further, the control logic 114 may be configured to selectively control an energy level of the at least one controllable energy consuming module (e.g., the energy consuming module 106) based on the prediction rule 122 received from the prediction logic 112. For example, the control logic 114 may be configured to control the energy level of the energy consuming module 106 by varying the control signal 150 based on the prediction rule 122.” and “After the prediction logic 112 receives the historical usage pattern 120, the prediction logic 112 may transmit a matched prediction rule (e.g., the prediction rule 122) that is based on the matched historical usage pattern (e.g., the historical usage pattern 120) to the control logic 114. The control logic 114 may control the energy consuming module 106 based on the matched prediction rule (e.g., the prediction rule 122). For example, the control logic 114 may cause the energy consuming module 106 to enter into a low power consuming "sleep mode" based on the matched prediction rule.”).
Claim 2:
As per claim 2, Weyland teaches the method of claim 1 as described above and further teaches wherein the determining, based on the first predicted operation data and current operation data, an energy-saving strategy for controlling the medical device includes:
determining target predicted operation data of the user based on the first predicted operation data and the current operation data (paragraph 0022);
and determining the energy-saving strategy based on the target predicted operation data (paragraph 0022).
Claim 3:
As per claim 3, Weyland teaches the method of claim 2 as described above and further teaches wherein the determining, based on the first predicted operation data and current operation data, an energy-saving strategy for controlling the medical device includes:
obtaining a predicted comparison result by comparing, according to a predetermined time threshold, the first predicted operation data and the current operation data (paragraph 0030);
and determining the target predicted operation data of the user and/or a target energy-saving strategy based on the predicted comparison result (paragraph 0030).
Claim 4:
As per claim 4, Weyland teach the method of claim 3 as described above and further teaches wherein the obtaining a predicted comparison result by comparing, according to a predetermined time threshold, the first predicted operation data and the current operation data includes:
obtaining the predicted comparison result by comparing a difference between the current time and the first predicted operation time with the predetermined time threshold (paragraph 0030).
Claim 5:
As per claim 5, Weyland teach the method of claim 4 as described above and further teaches wherein the predetermined time threshold includes a first predetermined value, and the determining, based on the first predicted operation data and current operation data, an energy-saving strategy for controlling the medical device includes:
in response to determining that the predicted comparison result is that the difference between the current time and the first predicted operation time is greater than the first predetermined value (paragraph 0047),
determining the first predicted operation time as a first target predicted operation time (paragraph 0047);
determining a first target predicted operation corresponding to the first target predicted operation time based on the first target predicted operation time (paragraph 0047);
and in response to determining that a first target component corresponding to the first target predicted operation is operating and the first target component is not a component corresponding to a target operation (paragraph 0047),
determining the energy-saving strategy as controlling the first target component to stop operating (paragraph 0047),
wherein the target operation includes the current operation and the first predicted operation, the first predicted operation corresponding to the first predicted operation time having a difference with the current time less than or equal to the first predetermined value (paragraph 0047).
Claim 6:
As per claim 6, Weyland teach the method of claim 4 as described above and further teaches wherein the predetermined time threshold includes a second predetermined value, and the determining, based on the first predicted operation data and current operation data, an energy-saving strategy for controlling the medical device includes:
in response to determining that the predicted comparison result is that the difference between the current time and the first predicted operation time is less than the second predetermined value (paragraph 0047),
determining the first predicted operation time as a second target predicted operation time (paragraph 0047);
determining a second target predicted operation corresponding to the second target predicted operation time based on the second target predicted operation time (paragraph 0047);
and in response to determining that neither a component corresponding to the second target predicted operation nor a component corresponding to the current operation includes a second target component that is currently operating (paragraph 0047),
determining the energy-saving strategy as controlling the second target component to stop operating (paragraph 0047).
Claim 7:
As per claim 7, Weyland teach the method of claim 4 as described above and further teaches wherein the predetermined time threshold includes a third predetermined value, and the determining, based on the first predicted operation data and current operation data, an energy-saving strategy for controlling the medical device includes:
in response to determining that the predicted comparison result is that the difference between the current time and the first predicted operation time is greater than the third predetermined value (paragraph 0022 and 0047),
determining the energy-saving strategy as controlling the medical device to enter a sleep mode if the current operation includes no operation (paragraph 0022).
Claim 8:
As per claim 8, Weyland teaches the method of claim 1 as described above and further teaches wherein the obtaining a first predicted operation data by predicting, based on the first historical operation data, a user operation of the medical device includes:
obtaining the first predicted operation data by inputting the first historical operation data into a prediction model to predict a user operation of the medical device (paragraph 0018).
Claim 9:
As per claim 9, Weyland teaches the method of claim 8 as described above and further teaches further comprising:
obtaining category information of the medical device (paragraph 0017);
and determining the prediction model corresponding to the category information based on the category information of the medical device (paragraph 0017).
Claim 10:
As per claim 10, Weyland teaches the method of claim 9 as described above and further teaches wherein the category information of the medical device includes type information of the medical device, and the determining the prediction model corresponding to the category information based on the category information of the medical device includes:
determining the prediction model corresponding to the type information based on the type information of the medical device (paragraphs 0017-0018).
Claim 11:
As per claim 11, Weyland teaches the method of claim 9 as described above and further teaches wherein the category information of the medical device includes log-in information of the user of the medical device, and the determining the prediction model corresponding to the category information based on the category information of the medical device includes:
determining the prediction model corresponding to the user based on the log-in information of the user (paragraph 0080).
Claim 12:
As per claim 12, Weyland teaches the method of claim 8 as described above and further teaches further comprising:
obtaining first actual operation data corresponding to the first predicted operation data, wherein the first actual operation data includes a first actual operation and a first actual operation time corresponding to the first actual operation (paragraph 0017);
and determining whether to update the prediction model based on the first predicted operation data and the first actual operation data (paragraph 0017).
Claim 13:
As per claim 13, Weyland teaches the method of claim 12 as described above and further teaches wherein the determining whether to update the prediction model based on the first predicted operation data and the first actual operation data includes:
determining reference predicted operation data and reference actual operation data, wherein the reference predicted operation data includes a reference predicted operation and a reference predicted operation time corresponding to the reference predicted operation, the reference actual operation data includes a reference actual operation and a reference actual operation time corresponding to the reference actual operation, the reference predicted operation includes any first predicted operation, and the reference actual operation is an operation that is in the first actual operation and the same as the reference predicted operation (paragraph 0022);
and determining whether to update the prediction model based on a difference between the reference predicted operation time and the reference actual operation time (paragraph 0022).
Claim 14:
As per claim 14, Weyland teaches the method of claim 13 as described above and further teaches wherein the determining whether to update the prediction model based on a difference between the reference predicted operation time and the reference actual operation time includes:
comparing whether the difference between the reference predicted operating time and the reference actual operation time is greater than a fourth predetermined value (paragraph 0022);
updating the prediction model in response to determining that the difference between the reference predicted operation time and the reference actual operation time is greater than the fourth predetermined value (paragraph 0022);
and maintaining the prediction model unchanged in response to determining that the difference between the reference predicted operation time and the reference actual operation time is not greater than the fourth predetermined value (paragraph 0022).
Claim 15:
As per claim 15, Weyland teaches the method of claim 13 as described above and further teaches wherein the determining whether to update the prediction model based on a difference between the reference predicted operation time and the reference actual operation time includes:
determining, for at least two reference predicted operations, whether differences between at least two reference predicted operation times and at least two reference actual operation times are greater than a fourth predetermined value (paragraph 0022);
in response to determining that the differences between the at least two reference predicted operation times and the at least two reference actual operation times are greater than the fourth predetermined value, updating the prediction model (paragraph 0022);
in response to determining that the differences between the at least two reference predicted operation times and the at least two reference actual operation times are not greater than the fourth predetermined value, maintaining the prediction model unchanged (paragraph 0022).
Claim 16:
As per claim 16, Weyland teaches the method of claim 8 as described above and further teaches wherein the prediction model is obtained by training based on second historical operation data of the medical device of the user, wherein the second historical operation data includes a historical operation and a historical operation time corresponding to the historical operation (paragraphs 0017-0018).
Claim 17:
As per claim 17, Weyland teaches the method of claim 16 as described above and further teaches wherein training the prediction model includes:
obtaining second predicted operation data by inputting sample data from the second historical operation data into the prediction model for predicting the user operation of the medical device, wherein the second predicted operation data includes a second predicted operation and a second predicted operation time corresponding to the second predicted operation (paragraphs 0017-0018);
determining a loss based on the second predicted operation data and the second actual operation data corresponding to the second predicted operation data in the second historical operation data, wherein the second actual operation data includes a second actual operation and a second actual operation time corresponding to the second actual operation, and the second actual operation time is later than the historical operation time in the sample data (paragraph 0022);
and obtaining a trained prediction model by adjusting a parameter of the prediction model according to the loss until a convergence condition is satisfied (paragraph 0022).
Claim 18:
As per claim 18, Weyland teaches the method of claim 17 as described above and further teaches wherein the determining a loss based on the second predicted operation data and the second actual operation data corresponding to the second predicted operation data in the second historical operation data includes:
determining an operation error based on the second predicted operation and the second actual operation (paragraph 0022);
determining a time error based on the second predicted operation time and the second actual operation time (paragraph 0022);
and determining the loss based on the operation error and the time error (paragraph 0022).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Volpe et al. US Publication 20160325108 A1 System and Method for Conserving Power in a Medical Device
Volpe teaches a system and method for conservation of battery power in a portable medical device is provided. In one example, a processor arrangement includes a dual core processor having an ARM core and a DSP core. The portable medical device includes a monitor having the dual core processor, in communication with a belt node processor. The DSP core receives physiological data from the physiological sensor and sends the physiological data to the ARM core. The ARM core analyzes the physiological data to determine if a treatment sequence is necessary. The DSP core receives physiological data from the at least one physiological sensor and sends the physiological data to the ARM core, and also analyzes the physiological data to determine proper timing of the treatment sequence by the at least one therapy delivery device to synchronize at least one pulse of the treatment sequence with the physiological data.
Zhang et al. US Publication 20230239784 A1 Energy-Saving Method, Base Station, Control Unit and Storage Medium
Zhang discloses an energy-saving method, a base station, a control unit, and a storage medium. The method includes: collecting energy-consumption influencing factor data of a target cell; predicting a load trend of the target cell according to the energy-consumption influencing factor data; and determining, according to the load trend, an energy-saving strategy of the target cell and effective time corresponding to the energy-saving strategy and executing the energy-saving strategy according to the effective time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30-5:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long can be reached at (571)270-5096. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW L HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights