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 .
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-6 are drawn to a system for updating a medical facility, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 7-12 are drawn to a method for updating a medical facility, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 13-17 are drawn to a computer for updating a medical facility which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A | Prong One
Claims 1-6 (Group I) recite a system for updating a medical facility, comprising:
a computer comprising a computer memory that stores instructions and a processor that executes the instructions (apply it, MPEP § 2106.05(f));
an interface to a communications network, and a system memory that receives and stores information obtained from the medical facility via the interface, wherein, based on the processor executing the instructions, the computer is configured to (apply it, MPEP § 2106.05(f) and insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)):
retrieve, from the system memory, the information obtained from the medical facility (insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
apply an artificial intelligence model to the information obtained from the medical facility to determine whether to update the medical facility; and
initiate at least one of maintenance or upgrading for the medical facility based on determining to update the medical facility.
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are underlined and are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 7-12 and 13-17 is identical as the abstract idea for Claims 1-6 (Group I), because the only difference is they are directed towards different statutory categories.
Dependent Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-17 include other limitations, for example Claims 2, 8 and 14 recite wherein the system is a centralized system that is configured to determine whether to update a plurality of medical facilities including the medical facility and to initiate at least one of maintenance or upgrading for each of the plurality of medical facilities, Claims 3, 9 and 15 recite wherein the artificial intelligence model is configured to: determine whether to update the medical facility, and determine whether to initiate maintenance for equipment in the medical facility, Claims 4, 10 and 15 recite wherein the artificial intelligence model is configured to: determine whether to update the medical facility, and determine whether to initiate upgrading for the medical facility, Claims 5, 11 and 16 recite wherein: the system memory receives and stores usage information for a plurality of items of equipment at the medical facility, and the computer is configured to initiate at least one of maintenance or upgrading for each of the plurality of items of equipment at the medical facility, and Claims 6, 12 and 17 recite wherein the computer is configured to intermittently retrieve, from the system memory, the information obtained from the medical facility; and intermittently apply the artificial intelligence model to the information obtained from the medical facility to determine whether to update the medical facility, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1,7 and 13.
Step 2A | Prong Two
Furthermore, Claims 1-17 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of a computer memory, computer, interface to a communications network, and a processor, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0021], [0033] and [0073] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of receiving data, which amounts to mere data gathering, and/or the recitation of storing and retrieving data, which amounts to an insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0021], [0033] and [0073] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. a computer memory, computer, interface to a communications network, processor) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receiving, retrieving and storing data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives information obtained from a medical facility data, and which is transmitting over a communications network;
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the current invention merely recites the storing of instructions and health data on a database and/or electronic memory; and
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the current invention recites storing instructions and healthcare data in a database and/or electronic memory, and retrieving the healthcare data from storage in order to determine if an update is needed.
Dependent Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-17 include other limitations, but none of these functions are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly represent no more than receiving or transmitting data over a network (e.g. the receiving feature of dependent Claims 5, 11 and 16), (e.g. the storing feature of dependent Claims 5, 11 and 16), and storing and retrieving information in memory (e.g. the receiving and storing feature of dependent Claims 6, 12 and 17).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-17 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.
(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.
Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0320349 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a system for updating a medical facility, comprising:
a computer comprising a computer memory that stores instructions and a processor that executes the instructions (Paragraph [0052] discusses a computer that includes a memory that stores instructions to be executed by a processor.);
an interface to a communications network, and a system memory that receives and stores information obtained from the medical facility via the interface, wherein, based on the processor executing the instructions, the computer is configured to (Paragraphs [0052] and [0089] discuss computer readable instructions stored on a memory that are executed by the computing/processing devices with a network interface that include client input data.):
retrieve, from the system memory, the information obtained from the medical facility (Paragraphs [0064-0065] discuss retrieving input data.);
apply an artificial intelligence model to the information obtained from the medical facility to determine whether to update the medical facility (Paragraphs [0064-0065] discusses using a machine learning model and the obtained information to determine if an update is needed.); and
initiate at least one of maintenance or upgrading for the medical facility based on determining to update the medical facility (Paragraph [0065] discusses the model update transaction management component facilitating the distributed an updated version of the machine learning model, construed as initiating maintenance or upgrade for the medical facility.).
Regarding claim 2, Yu discloses wherein the system is a centralized system that is configured to determine whether to update a plurality of medical facilities including the medical facility and to initiate at least one of maintenance or upgrading for each of the plurality of medical facilities (Paragraph [0037] discusses that multiple healthcare institutes can each have access to the model update transaction component.).
Regarding claim 3, Yu discloses wherein the artificial intelligence model is configured to: determine whether to update the medical facility, and determine whether to initiate maintenance for equipment in the medical facility (Paragraphs [0038-0039] discuss using a machine learning model to determine if updates are needed and whether to initiate maintenance.).
Regarding claim 4, Yu discloses wherein the artificial intelligence model is configured to: determine whether to update the medical facility, and determine whether to initiate upgrading for the medical facility (Paragraphs [0038-0039] discuss using a machine learning model to determine if updates are needed and whether to initiate maintenance.).
Regarding claim 5, Yu discloses wherein: the system memory receives and stores usage information for a plurality of items of equipment at the medical facility (Paragraphs [0038-0039] and [0062] discusses receiving and storing data regarding devices and equipment at the healthcare institute, such as ECG equipment), and the computer is configured to initiate at least one of maintenance or upgrading for each of the plurality of items of equipment at the medical facility (Paragraphs [0035], [0038-0039] and [0064-0065] discuss using a machine learning model to determine if updates are needed and whether to initiate maintenance or upgrades.).
2025Attorney Docket No. 317EP.001US01
Claim 7 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 2, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 9 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 3, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 10 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 4, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 5, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 2, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 3 and 4, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 5, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 6, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Benz (U.S. Pub. No. 2026/0074060 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yu discloses
applying the artificial intelligence model to the information obtained from the medical facility to determine whether to update the medical facility (Paragraphs [0035], [0038-0039] and [0064-0065] discuss using a machine learning model to determine if updates are needed and whether to initiate maintenance or upgrades.);
however, Yu does not appear to
does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the computer is configured to intermittently retrieve, from the system memory, the information obtained from the medical facility; and
intermittently apply the information obtained from the medical facility to determine whether to update the medical facility.
Benz teaches wherein the computer is configured to intermittently retrieve, from the system memory, the information obtained from the medical facility; and intermittently apply the information obtained from the medical facility to determine whether to update the medical facility (Paragraphs [0049-0050] discuss periodically obtaining data to determine if an update it required.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu to include intermittently retrieving data and intermittently apply the artificial intelligence model to determine whether to update the medical facility, as taught by Benz, in order to “facilitate optimizing investment in assets for usage, preventive maintenance and uptime and minimize clinical disruptions in patient care areas (Benz, Paragraph [0064]).”
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 6, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 6, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed towards a certain method of organizing human activity and that the action’s “characterization abstracts the claims beyond their actual language (Remarks, 6). The eligibility rejection and characterization of the limitations uses the exact claim language, therefore this is not a persuasive argument.
Applicant states that the claims “recite a computer-implemented medical-facility updating process that uses an artificial intelligence model to determine whether a medical facility should be maintained or upgraded and then initiates that maintenance or upgrading” and that the “Specification continues this technical focus (Remarks, page 4).” Examiner maintains that the claims merely require the use of computers to implement the abstract idea and do not improve the computer or interface itself. The inventive concept is automating what maintenance and hospital staff normally do to maintain hospital equipment using a variety of factors, including “budget considerations, availability of maintenance staff, etc. (Paragraph [0040]).” This is a business problem as opposed to a technical problem as alleged by Applicant.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant asserts that “the claimed operations use medical-facility information to cause a concrete maintenance or upgrading action for the medical facility (Remarks, page 7)” and therefore result in a practical application. Examiner maintains that the data collection is simply insignificant extra-solution/pre-solution activity that does not result in a practical application. The claims do not result in a practical application as identified in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I), which states limitations that the courts have found indicative of an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed
in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The identified additional elements fail to result in a practical application according to the standards found in the MPEP. The additional elements are either recited at an “apply it” level or they recite insignificant extra-solution activity. The other limitations that Applicant asserts result in a practical application (i.e. using a model to classify operational condition and underperforming medical devices, generating actionable insights) are considered part of the abstract idea, and therefore cannot be used to determine if the claim results in a practical application.
Therefore, the claims remain rejected as being directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application.
With respect to the prior art rejection, Applicant asserts that the “claims require determining whether to update the medical facility and, based on that determination, initiating maintenance or upgrading for the medical facility” and that “Yu, by contrast, is directed to "managing transactions of machine learning algorithm updates (Remarks, page 8)." The instant specification [0019] states that “a medical facility may be updated based on applying an artificial intelligence model to information obtained from the medical facility” and [0082] states “the system for updating a medical facility enables updating of a medical facility based on applying an artificial intelligence model to information obtained from the medical facility.” Equipment is not explicitly defined in the claims or specification (Examiner notes that the specification in at least [0001] and [0043] discuss what may be included as equipment, but the claims are not limited by a specific type of equipment.), and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes computers used by a healthcare facility. Therefore, a software update to a computer reads on an upgrade for the medical facility as claimed.
Regarding the § 103 rejection, Applicant asserts that Benz does not teach “a periodic device software-update process, not intermittent application of an artificial intelligence model to medical-facility information to determine whether the medical facility should be updated (Remarks, page 9).” The rejection does not rely on Benz for applying an artificial intelligence model. Rather Yu is used for the artificial intelligence aspects and Benz is used for the timing. Therefore, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached at (571)272-8109. 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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights