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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action on the merits. Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Priority
This application claims priority from Provisional Application Nos. 63190841 dated 05/20/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/02/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(I) because the following figure(s) is/are unreadable and/or are unsatisfactory for reproduction:
Fig. 1-6 and 17
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-18 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.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a computer implemented method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium for managing medical devices and medical device consumables, which are within a statutory category.
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 13, the limitation of (claim 1 being representative) determine whether a consumable has been properly installed; determine whether the consumable is recommended for use; determine whether the consumable is operating correctly; determine whether the consumable needs to be replaced due to a time of usage; determine whether the consumable needs to be re- ordered, wherein determining whether the consumable needs to be re-ordered further comprises instructions that, when executed: determine whether the consumable has been replaced through the use of a first RFID tag attached to the consumable to scan the first RFID tag and transmit information on the scanned first RFID tag image, and configured to use the information from the scanned first RFID tag image and interact to determine if the consumable has been replaced; upon determining that the consumable has been replaced, determine an amount of the consumable that is remaining in a consumable inventory; reduce the amount of consumable that is remaining in the consumable inventory by an amount of the consumable that has been replaced; upon reducing the amount of consumable that is remaining in the consumable inventory, determine the difference between the amount of consumable that is remaining in the reduced consumable inventory and a threshold amount of consumable that is desired to be stored in the consumable inventory; place an order for an additional amount of the consumable, wherein the additional amount of the consumable is equal to the difference between the amount of consumable that is remaining in the reduced consumable inventory and a threshold amount of consumable that is desired to be stored in the consumable inventory; generate an electronic message that includes an order for the additional amount of the consumable, wherein the order includes instructions; transmit the electronic message and the order wherein the instructions are configured to; receive the electronic message and the order at an order fulfillment center, to locate the additional amount of the consumable in a consumable storage location, initially locates a consumable in the consumable storage location that may be identical to the additional amount of the consumable; cause to scan an indicia on the consumable in the consumable storage location that may be identical to the additional amount of the consumable; cause to transmit an image of the scanned indicia; cause to determine if information in the scanned image matches information in the instructions related to the additional amount of the consumable in the order; upon determining that the information in the scanned image matches information in the instructions related to the additional amount of the consumable in the order, cause to retrieve the additional amount of the consumable from the consumable in the consumable storage location that may be identical to the additional amount of the consumable; cause a packaging and a transportation of the retrieved additional amount of the consumable; upon receiving the retrieved additional amount of consumable at a physical consumable storage area, cause a placement of the retrieved additional amount of the consumable in the physical consumable storage area for subsequent use by a user; and determine whether the user of the consumable needs to be billed for the use of the consumable as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting (in claim 1) a non-transitory computer-readable medium, at least a processor, a computer, at least one processor, a first image capturing device, a processor, a data storage, network communications, a remote computing system, an automated robotic machine, a second image capturing device and a first transceiver, (in claim 7) a computing system, at least one processor, at least one memory, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a logic module, memory, a first image capturing device, a processor, a data storage, network communications, a remote computing system, an automated robotic machine, a second image capturing device, a first transceiver and at least the processor, and (in claim 13) at least a processor, a computer, at least one processor a first image capturing device, a processor, a data storage, network communications, a remote computing system, an automated robotic machine, a second image capturing device and a first transceiver, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people (i.e., rules or instructions). For example, but for the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the at least a processor, the computer, the logic module, the memory, the at least one processor, the first image capturing device, the processor, the data storage, the network communications, the remote computing system, the automated robotic machine, the second image capturing device and the first transceiver, the claims encompass managing medical devices and medical device consumables in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, following rules or instructions)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, at least a processor, a computer, at least one processor, a first image capturing device, a processor, a data storage, network communications, a remote computing system, an automated robotic machine, a second image capturing device and a first transceiver. Claim 7 recites the additional elements of a computing system, at least one processor, at least one memory, a non-transitory computer readable medium, at least the processor, a logic module, memory, a first image capturing device, a processor, a data storage, network communications, a remote computing system, an automated robotic machine, a second image capturing device and a first transceiver. Claim 13 recites the additional elements of at least a processor, a computer, at least one processor a first image capturing device, a processor, a data storage, network communications, a remote computing system, an automated robotic machine, a second image capturing device and a first transceiver. These additional elements are not exclusively defined by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic server and/or computer components for enabling access to medical information or for performing generic computer functions. See Spec. at para. [00046]-[00050], [00054]-[00061], [000103]-[000113], [00134]-[00139], [00148]-[00152]) such that they amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 further recite the additional element of scanning RFID tag. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means to scan data) and amounts to extra solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the at least a processor, the logic module, the memory, the computer, the at least one processor, the first image capturing device, the processor, the data storage, the network communications, the remote computing system, the automated robotic machine, the second image capturing device and the first transceiver to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Moreover, using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Also as discussed with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element scanning an RFID tag was considered extra-solution activity (or alternatively generally linking the abstract idea to a practical technological environment). This has been re-evaluated under “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of healthcare (Major US 2023/0123735 at [0011], [0085], [0086], and [0143] and see Vik US 2021/0375417 at [0003], [0004], [0015] and [0022] teach scanning RFID tag). Well-understood, routine and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such the claim is not patent eligible.
The examiner notes that: A well-known, general-purpose computer has been determined by the courts to be a well-understood, routine and conventional element (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank; see also MPEP 2106.05(d)); Receiving and/or transmitting data over a network (“a communications network”) has also been recognized by the courts as a well - understood, routine and conventional function (see, e.g., buySAFE v. Google; MPEP 2016(d)(II)); and Performing repetitive calculations is/are also well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see, e.g., Parker v. Flook; MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 2, 8 and 14 further merely describe(s) obtain information and forward the information. Claim(s) 3, 9 and 15 further merely describe(s) determine whether consumable is properly installed and transmit/display a first/second notification. Claim(s) 4, 10 and 16 further merely describe(s) determine whether consumable is installed and recommended and transmit/display first/second notification. Claim(s) 5, 6, 11, 12, 17 and 18 further merely describe(s) determine is consumable is operating correctly and transmit/display first/second notification. Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 further define the abstract idea, fall within certain methods of organizing human activity and are rejected for the same reason presented above with respect to claims 1, 7 and 13.
Claim(s) 2, 8 and 14 also include the additional element of “a second transceiver” which is interpreted the same as the first transceiver and does not provide practical application nor significantly more for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 11, 12, 17 and 18 also include the additional element of “a sensor” which is
recited at high level generality and amount to extra solution activity. This does not provide practical application or significantly more. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that extra-solution data gathering activity cannot provide a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that extra-solution data gathering activity cannot provide significantly more.
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 1-12 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "…determine , by the at least one processor, whether the consumable has been replaced through the use of a first RFID tag…" on page 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A at least one processor was never previously recited.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "… to scan the first RFID tag and transmit information on the scanned first RFID tag image to the processor…" on page 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A processor was never previously recited.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "… a logic module stored on the memory…" on page 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A memory was never previously recited.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "… determine, by the at least one processor, whether the consumable has been replaced …" on page 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. An at least one processor was never previously recited.
Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within claims 1 and 13 and their dependent claims. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of: each of the following conditions, using the corresponding method: determine, by at least the processor, whether a consumable has been properly installed; determine, by at least the processor, whether the consumable is recommended for use; determine, by at least the processor, whether the consumable is operating correctly; determine, by at least the processor, whether the consumable needs to be replaced due to a time of usage; determine, by at least the processor, whether the consumable needs to be re- ordered, wherein determining whether the consumable needs to be re-ordered further comprises instructions that, when executed by at least the processor, cause the computer to: determine, by the at least one processor, whether the consumable has been replaced through the use of a first RFID tag attached to the consumable by causing a first image capturing device that is located adjacent to the consumable to scan the first RFID tag and transmit information on the scanned first RFID tag image to the processor, and wherein the processor is configured to use the information from the scanned first RFID tag image and interact with a data storage to determine if the consumable has been replaced; upon determining by the processor that the consumable has been replaced, determine, by the at least one processor, an amount of the consumable that is remaining in a consumable inventory; reduce, by the at least one processor, the amount of consumable that is remaining in the consumable inventory by an amount of the consumable that has been replaced; upon reducing the amount of consumable that is remaining in the consumable inventory, determine, by the at least one processor, the difference between the amount of consumable that is remaining in the reduced consumable inventory and a threshold amount of consumable that is desired to be stored in the consumable inventory; place, by the at least one processor, an order for an additional amount of the consumable, wherein the additional amount of the consumable is equal to the difference between the amount of consumable that is remaining in the reduced consumable inventory and a threshold amount of consumable that is desired to be stored in the consumable inventory; generate, by the at least one processor, an electronic message that includes an order for the additional amount of the consumable, wherein the order includes instructions; transmit, by the at least one processor, via network communications, the electronic message and the order to a remote computing system, wherein the instructions are configured to; receive the electronic message and the order at an order fulfillment center, cause an automated robotic machine, having a second image capturing device and a first transceiver, to locate the additional amount of the consumable in a consumable storage location, wherein the automated robotic machine initially locates a consumable in the consumable storage location that may be identical to the additional amount of the consumable; cause the automated robotic machine to use the second image capturing device to scan an indicia on the consumable in the consumable storage location that may be identical to the additional amount of the consumable; cause the automated robotic machine to transmit an image of the scanned indicia to the processor through the first transceiver; cause the processor to determine if information in the scanned image matches information in the instructions related to the additional amount of the consumable in the order; upon determining that the information in the scanned image matches information in the instructions related to the additional amount of the consumable in the order, cause the automated robotic machine to retrieve the additional amount of the consumable from the consumable in the consumable storage location that may be identical to the additional amount of the consumable; cause a packaging and a transportation of the retrieved additional amount of the consumable; upon receiving the retrieved additional amount of consumable at a physical consumable storage area, cause a placement of the retrieved additional amount of the consumable in the physical consumable storage area for subsequent use by a user; and determine, by at least the processor, whether the user of the consumable needs to be billed for the use of the consumable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Vik (US 2021/0375417) teaches medical device with information reader. Barnes (US 2023/0334423) teaches system and method for inventory sharing in laboratory management system. Major (US 2023/0123735) teaches system and methods for device inventory management and tracking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIZA TONY KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4664. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 9:00am-6:00pm ET.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. 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 the 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/docs 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.
/L.T.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683