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 .
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Specifically, Examiner examined the parent application for this application, 17/844,753 (now abandoned). The parent application did not have prior art rejections. There is significant subject-matter overlap between the current application and the parent application, although there are also differences between the claimed subject matter between the two applications. Examiner has updated the prior art search with respect to the parent application, and Examiner has also extended the parent’s prior art search to cover the current application’s claims’ differences from those of the parent application, to make a complete prior art search for the current application. As a result of that search, Examiner was not able to combine prior art references in such a way as to cover the full combination and configuration of limitations in the current claims, without the use of impermissible hindsight. A listing of relevant prior art references can be found near the conclusion of this Office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/844,753, filed on June 22, 2021.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In the fifteenth line of claim 1, please replace “ofthe” with --of the-- to correct an apparent typographical error.
b. In the fifth line from the end of claim 1, please delete one of the occurrences of “in” to correct an apparent typographical error.
c. In the fifth line from the end of claim 2, please delete one of the occurrences of “in” to correct an apparent typographical error.
d. In the fifth line from the end of claim 11, please delete one of the occurrences of “in” to correct an apparent typographical error.
e. In the fifth line from the end of claim 12, please delete one of the occurrences of “in” to correct an apparent typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “user device(s)” in claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 11, 13-14, and 17-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1 and 11, Claim(s) 1 and 11 recite(s):
- maximizing continuous utilizations of a plurality of medical equipment in a medical facility;
- receive a user data of a user from each of the users, the user data comprises a serial number representing the user;
- receive a medical service station data of a medical service station apparatus of a medical service station;
- continuous monitoring and receiving usage data of each of the medical equipment in the medical service station, the usage data including usage time segments and idle time segments of the medical equipment within a predefined time period;
- wherein the medical service station data comprises a current serial number of a user being serviced at the medical service station, a quantity of queued people at the medical service station, and the usage data of each of the medical equipment in the medical service station;
- receive a first stop service station data of a first stop service station apparatus of a first stop service station;
- continuous monitoring and receiving usage data of each of the medical equipment in the first stop service station, the usage data including usage time segments and idle time segments of the medical equipment within a predefined time period;
- wherein the first stop service station data comprises quantity of waiting people at the first stop service station and the usage data of each of the medical equipment in the first stop service station;
- classifying, by employing a supervised learning classifier, whether or not to first service the user represented by the serial number of the user data, received with respect to the first stop service station, using the quantity of queued people at the medical service station, the usage data of each of the medical equipment in the medical service station, the quantity of waiting people at the first stop service station, and the usage data of each of the medical equipment in the first stop service station as unlabeled input data to the supervised learning classifier, so to maximize the probability of continuous utilizations of all medical equipment in the medical service station and the first stop service station and to minimize a sum of a queuing time of the user represented by the serial number of the user data, received with respect to the medical service station, and a first waiting time of the user represented by the serial number of the user data received with respect to the first stop service station;
- in response to the classification of first servicing the user represented by the serial number of the user data received with respect to the first stop service station: queuing the user in a queue of the medical service station apparatus and a queue of the first stop service station apparatus;
- outputting the serial number of the user data received;
- outputting a first signal of going to the first stop service station to the user represented by the serial number of the user data received;
- receive one or more serial numbers;
- queue the received serial numbers with respect to the queue of the medical service station apparatus;
- compute the quantity of queued people of the medical service station based on the serial numbers in the queue of the medical service station apparatus;
- receive one or more serial numbers;
- queue the received serial numbers with respect to the queue of the first stop service station apparatus;
- compute the quantity of waiting people of the first stop based on the serial numbers in the queue of the first stop service station apparatus.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): organizes the use of medical equipment by people at a medical facility.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a system; a server computing device, configured to be communicatively coupled to one or more user devices, each of the user devices being carried by and configured to interface with a user; wherein the server computing device is configured; user devices; communicatively coupled; outputting via transmitting; signals; data storage: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
- medical facility, a medical service station apparatus, a medical service station, medical equipment, a first stop service station apparatus, and a first stop service station: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained in that section of the MPEP, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use. Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
As further explained in that section of the MPEP, the courts often cite to Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978), as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons. Processes for the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons were used in the petrochemical and oil-refining fields. Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed and found that this limitation did not amount to an inventive concept. The Court reasoned that to hold otherwise would exalt form over substance, because a competent claim drafter could attach a similar type of limitation to almost any mathematical formula.
These particular element(s)/limitation(s) do not meaningfully limit the claim because they merely describe, at a high and general level, that the claimed queueing is being done in a medical device/facility environment. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor add significantly more for at least this reason.
Examiner presents the following examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, as relevant to these particular Applicant element(s)/limitation(s):
Additional elements limiting the wireless delivery of regional broadcast content to cellular telephones (as opposed to any and all electronic devices such as televisions, cable boxes, computers, or the like) merely confined the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cellular telephones) and thus failed to add an inventive concept to the claims. Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258-59, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Identifying the participants in a process for hedging risk as commodity providers and commodity consumers, because limiting the use of the process to these participants did no more than describe how the abstract idea of hedging risk could be used in the commodities and energy markets, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010).
Limiting the use of the formula C = 2 (pi) r to determining the circumference of a wheel as opposed to other circular objects, because this limitation represents a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978).
Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Language specifying that the process steps of virus screening were used within a telephone network or the Internet, because limiting the use of the process to these technological environments did not provide meaningful limits on the claim, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319-20, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (2016).
Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Language specifying that the abstract idea of budgeting was to be implemented using a "communication medium" that broadly included the Internet and telephone networks, because this limitation merely limited the use of the exception to a particular technological environment, Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1640 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Specifying that the abstract idea of using advertising as currency is used on the Internet, because this narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Requiring that the abstract idea of creating a contractual relationship that guarantees performance of a transaction (a) be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, or (b) be limited to guaranteeing online transactions, because these limitations simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments, buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. As also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the medical facility, stations, equipment, stops, and apparatuses amount to mere field of use limitations; thus, those limitations do not add significantly more.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- preserving data (claims 5 and 15).
(NOTE: The structure relating to the second stop service station in claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 is mere field of use. See the field of use discussion with respect to the 101 rejections of the independent claims.)
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 10 merely adds detail to the supervised learning classifier.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Schwartz, US 20160055429 A1 (virtual queuing system and method);
b. Moller, US 20220014626 A1 (system and method for intent-based active callback management);
c. Moller, US 20210120127 A1 (system and method for mobile device active callback integration);
d. McCarthy-Howe, US 20190356624 A1 (intermediary device for data message network routing);
e. Knas, US 11704711 B1 (beacon-based management of queues);
f. Hanley, US 11640626 B2 (queue monitoring techniques);
g. Katz, US 11620158 B2 (multi-objective scheduling system and method);
h. Chan, US 10929790 B2 (dynamic agent management for multiple queues);
i. Elliot, US 20200151636 A1 (system of real-time multi factor queue management);
j. Koohmarey, US 20190246240 A1 (application and user interfaces for information technology services);
k. Backer, US 20170011311 A1 (queue and reservation management system);
l. Hutchins, US 20160292374 A1 (adverse event prioritization and handling);
m. Lert, US 20150286967 A1 (system for queue and service management);
n. Zou, US 20100317377 A1 (queue management system allows queue number to be remotely obtained by patients or customers);
o. Walsh, US 20200394584 A1 (queue management system);
p. Kichak, US 10310896 B1 (techniques for job flow processing).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NATHAN UBER can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628