DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to an application filed 15 May 2025, which is a national stage entry of an application with an international filing date of 15 November 2022.
Claims 3-5, 7-10, 13-14 and 17-20 have been amended by preliminary amendment.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 May 2025 and 3 November 2025 have been considered by the Office to the extent indicated.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-10 are drawn to a medical information system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 11-19 are drawn to a machine-implemented method for an automated asset identification system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 15-20 are drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1 recites: A medical information system, comprising:
one or more computing devices configured to:
receive a request to create an identification template for a medical device based on a first identifier currently assigned to the medical device and provisioning information obtained from an identification server;
receive the provisioning information based on the request;
generate the identification template based on the first identifier and the provisioning information; and
provide to the medical device, responsive to generating the identification template, a visualization of the identification template for display on a display screen of the medical device.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract ides of a mental process and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions – in this case, keeping track of devices and corresponding network connection information) or using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. the structural components of the devices), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case keeping track of devices and corresponding network connection information), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claims 11 and 20 are identical as the abstract idea for claim 1, because the only difference between claims 1, 11 and 20 is that claim 1 recites a system, whereas claim 8 recites a method and claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable media.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 include other limitations, for example claims 2-10 and 11-19 generate and communicate data, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 11 and 20.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1-20 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are 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 training the server, the medical device and the structural components of the computer, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs 50, 52 and 74 of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the types of data utilized, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data utilized in claims 2-10 and 12-19), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1, 11 and 20, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the server, the medical device and the structural components of the computer), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity comprises 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 50, 52 and 74 of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the structural components of the computers and devices) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process 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):
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); and
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1, 11 and 20, and/or the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data utilized in claims 2-10 and 12-19), and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. 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 1-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Borges et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2012/0241525 A1), hereinafter Borges, further in view of Weiler et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2020/0287937 A1), hereinafter Weiler.
As per claims 1, 11 and 20, Borges discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a computing system, a machine-implemented method for an automated asset identification system and a medical information system (See Borges, Figs. 1 and 4.), comprising:
one or more computing devices configured to (See Borges, Figs. 1 and 4, and paragraph 40.):
receive a request to create an identification template for a medical device based on a first identifier currently assigned to the medical device … (System receives input, aka request to create template for the infusion pump, input can indicate which configuration, aka template to be used, with what pump identifier, see Borges paragraphs 15 and 19-23.);
…
generate the identification template based on the first identifier … (System generates identification template based on input, see paragraphs 15 and 19-23.); and
provide to the medical device, responsive to generating the identification template, a visualization of the identification template for display on a display screen of the medical device (See display of Fig. 1 #130 and paragraphs 25-28.).
Borges fails to explicitly disclose provisioning information obtained from an identification server, receiving provisioning information based on a request and utilizing the provisioning information.
Weiler teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose provisioning information obtained from an identification server, receiving provisioning information based on a request and utilizing the provisioning information (Weiler discloses requesting, receiving and utilizing provisioning information obtained from an identification server, see paragraphs 46-54 and Figs. 2 and 3.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the barcode generation method of Borges to include utilizing requesting, receiving and utilizing provisioning information obtained from an identification server, as taught by Weiler, in order to arrive at a barcode generation method that provides needed access to a healthcare network in a secure and reliable way. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Both Borges and Weiler are directed to the computerized operation and configuration of medical devices.
A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform, see MPEP 2114 (II) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation”, see MPEP 2111.04.
The following limitation is interpreted as an intended use of the claimed invention:
1,11. … for display on a display screen of the medical device.
The prior art is capable of performing the intended use recitation, therefore the prior art meets the limitations.
As per claims 4, 9, 10, 14 and 19, Borges/Weiler disclose claims 1 and 11, discussed above. Borges also discloses:
4,14. non-transitory computer readable storage medium having identification scanning software stored thereon that, when executed by the identification server, cause the identification server to (System is operative to receive data indicating what configuration, aka template, to use, see paragraph 22. Weiler discloses the identification server, as shown above, see Fig. 2.):
receive, from the medical device, the request to create the identification template for the medical device, the request including the first identifier of the medical device (System is operative to receive data indicating what configuration, aka template, to use, see paragraph 22, which can include a unique identifier, see paragraph 20.); and
associating a second identifier with the medical device and scanning software associated with the identification server, the second identifier being different than the first identifier, wherein the provisioning information includes the second identifier and the identification template is generated based on the second identifier, and wherein generating the identification template further comprises generating the identification template based on the second identifier (Borges discloses generating a plurality of barcodes responsive to channel selection, see paragraphs 16 and 47.);
9. wherein the visualization is a graphic image displayed on the display screen (Borges, paragraphs 12-15.); and
10,19. wherein the identification template comprises an arrangement of a three or more codes, and wherein generating the identification template comprises (See potential encoded data available to be displayed in configuration, aka template, Borges paragraphs 15 and 19-23.);
identifying a vendor account designated to scan the visualization (User selects a particular Bar Code Medical Administration “BCMA” system from a plurality available, see paragraphs 1, 21 and 22.);
determining the arrangement and values of the three or more codes based on predetermined settings associated with the vendor account (See Borges paragraphs 15 and 19-23.).
As per claims 5-7 and 15-17, Borges/Weiler disclose claims 1 and 11, discussed above. Borges also discloses:
5,15. receive, from the medical device, data of the medical device, wherein the provisioning information from the identification server comprises a second identifier associated with the medical device (Borges discloses generating a plurality of barcodes responsive to channel selection, see paragraphs 16 and 47.); and
generate the identification template based on the first identifier, the second identifier, and the received data of the medical device (Borges discloses generating a plurality of barcodes responsive to channel selection, see paragraphs 16 and 47.).
6,16. receive an indication that the medical device … (Borges discloses generating a plurality of barcodes responsive to channel selection, see paragraphs 16 and 47.);
generate, responsive to receiving the indication that the medical device …, an updated identification template based on the second data of the medical device (Borges discloses generating a plurality of barcodes responsive to channel selection, see paragraphs 16 and 47.); and
cause the medical device to update the visualization with the updated identification template (System is operative to create dynamic, changing barcodes based on state of infusion pump, see paragraph 16, 18, 23 and 24.).
7,17. receive … an indication that the medical device has been powered on for the first time (Borges, system generates barcode in response to device being turned on, see paragraph 45.).
Borges fails to explicitly disclose:
5,15. receiving a first location of the medical device,
6,16. determine that the medical device moved to a second location and updating information correspondingly;
7,17. receiving a location of the medical device; and
receive the provisioning information for the medical device based on querying a data system based on the received location of the medical device.
Weiler teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose receiving location data of the medical device, updating information corresponding to the location and receive the provisioning information for the medical device based on querying a data system based on the received location of the medical device (See Weiler, paragraph 57.) in order to provide a device management system that tracks device location data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the barcode generation method of Borges to include location aware contextualization, as taught by Weiler, in order to arrive at a barcode generation method that included a device management system that tracks device location data. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Borges/Weiler further in view of Workman et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2022/0262476 A1), hereinafter Workman.
As per claims 2, 3, 12 and 13, Borges/Weiler disclose claims 1 and 11, discussed above. Borges also discloses:
2,12. receive, before receiving the request to create the identification template, a message indicating that the medical device is ready to receive the identification template (Borges, system generates barcode in response to device being turned on, which would comprise an indication that device is ready to receive the barcode, see paragraph 45.);
3,13. … the default visualization does not include a second identifier required by the client device (Borges discloses generating a plurality of barcodes responsive to channel selection, see paragraphs 16 and 47.);
generate the identification template responsive to the indication, wherein the provisioning information includes the second identifier and the identification template is generated based on data of the medical device and the second identifier (Borges discloses generating a plurality of barcodes responsive to channel selection, see paragraphs 16 and 47.).
Borges fails to explicitly disclose, but Workman teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose:
2,12. provide, to the medical device, responsive to the message, an indication that the identification template is not available for the medical device (If device is not in prepared state, an error message is shown indicating user should reconnect, see Fig. 2B and paragraph 58.); and
receive the request to create the identification template from the medical device after providing the indication that the identification template is not available (System retries once error is corrected, see Workman, paragraph 58.);
3,13. receive an indication that a default visualization of an identifier was scanned by a client device … (Workman receives an indication that the barcode was scanned, see paragraphs 9, 46, 62, 63 and 65.);
consideration of a location of the medical device … (Workman, paragraphs 30 and 33); and
receive an indication that the visualization was scanned by the client device (Workman receives an indication that the barcode was scanned, see paragraphs 9, 46, 62, 63 and 65.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the barcode generation method of Borges to include retrying supplying an identification template and receipt of an indication that a barcode was scanned, as shown by Workman, in order to arrive at a barcode generation method that includes retrying supplying an identification template and receipt of an indication that a barcode was scanned so as to provide a system that reattempts to connect after an initial failed attempt. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Both Borges and Workman are directed to the computerized operation and configuration of medical devices.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Borges/Weiler further in view of Fryman et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2022/0037011 A1), hereinafter Fryman.
As per claims 8 and 18, Borges/Weiler disclose claims 1 and 11, discussed above. Borges also discloses a list of medical devices associated with a care area (See Borges paragraph 22.) and receipt of asset identifiers and corresponding barcode for medical devices (See Borges paragraphs 25-28.).
Borges fails to disclose a request for and providing of a device list with corresponding provisioning information.
Fryman teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose a request for and providing of a device list with corresponding provisioning information (See Fryman, request and providing of information of Fig. 6, corresponding provisioning information of Fig. 5 and corresponding text.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the barcode generation method of Borges to include a request for and providing of a device list with corresponding provisioning information, as taught by Fryman, in order to arrive at a barcode generation method that provides needed access to a healthcare network in a secure and reliable way. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Both Borges and Fryman are directed to the computerized operation and configuration of medical devices.
Conclusion
Unused but cited relevant prior art includes:
Sobie (U.S. PG-Pub 2019/0132200 A1), which discloses an apparatus and method for
Automatically integrating a medical device into a medical facility network.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
18 June 2026
Prosecution Insights