DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are within the four statutory categories. However, as will be shown below, claims 1-20 are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 13, and 18 are representative of the inventive concept and recite:
Claim 1
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing: data related to a plurality of medical devices; and instructions readable and executable by at least one processor to:
determine, from the data related to the plurality of medical devices, a compatibility status between multiple medical devices of the plurality of medical devices;
and output, on a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a display device, an indication of the compatibility status.
Claim 13
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing: data related to a plurality of medical devices and potential upgrades to the plurality of medical devices; and instructions readable and executable by at least one processor to:
receive or determine a plurality of different potential upgrades for the plurality of medical devices;
provide a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a display device via which a set of customer priorities and/or requirements are received;
assign a score to each potential upgrade based on the received set of customer priorities and/or requirements;
and output, on the GUI, an indication of at least the highest-scoring potential upgrade.
Claim 18
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing: data related to a plurality of medical devices; and instructions readable and executable by at least one processor to:
determine, from the data related to the plurality of medical devices, a compatibility status between multiple medical devices of the plurality of medical devices, the compatibility status between the multiple medical devices of the plurality of medical devices is a compatibility of an operative connection between a pair of medical devices of the plurality of medical devices; and output, on a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a display device, an indication of the compatibility status.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because the
highlighted components can practically be performed by the human mind (in this case, the process of
determining and assigning) or using pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer components/functions such as “non-transitory computer readable medium” , “medical device”, “processor”, and “display device”, nothing in the claims precludes the highlighted portions from practically being performed in the mind. . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components/functions, then it falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. The recitation of generic computer components/functions (assigning) also covers behavioral or interactions between people (i.e. a computer and user interface), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case a person is able to physically follow the steps to collect and process data), hence the claim falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-17, and 19-20 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or
defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the
following additional limitations:
Claim 1 recites: “non-transitory computer readable medium”, “storing data related to a plurality of medical devices”, “processor”, and “output, on a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a display device, an indication of the compatibility status”
Claim 13 recites: “non-transitory computer readable medium”, “storing data related to a plurality of medical devices and potential upgrades to the plurality of medical devices”. “processor”, “receive or determine a plurality of different potential upgrades for the plurality of medical devices”, “provide a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a display device via which a set of customer priorities and/or requirements are received”, and “and output, on the GUI, an indication of at least the highest-scoring potential upgrade”.
Claim 18 recites: “non-transitory computer readable medium”, “storing data related to a plurality of medical devices”, “processor”, and “and output, on a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a display device, an indication of the compatibility status.”
In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other
than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of are recited as being performed by a “non-transitory computer readable medium” , “processor”, “medical device”, “GUI”, and “display device”. A computer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of “output, on a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a display device, an indication of the compatibility status”, “storing data related to a plurality of medical devices”, “storing data related to a plurality of medical devices and potential upgrades to the plurality of medical devices”, “receive or determine a plurality of different potential upgrades for the plurality of medical devices”, “provide a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a display device via which a set of customer priorities and/or requirements are received”, and “and output, on the GUI, an indication of at least the highest-scoring potential upgrade”.
Dependent claim 3 recites “output”
Dependent claim 6 recites “hardware” and “software”
Dependent claim 12 recites “display”
Dependent claim 15 recites “receive” and “GUI”
Dependent claim 16 recites “receive” and “GUI”
In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other
than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of are recited as being performed by “hardware”, “software”, and “GUI”. A computer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of “receive”, “output”, and “display”.
Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7-11, 14, 17, and 19-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those
already recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 18, and dependent claims 3, 6, 12, and 15-16, and hence do not integrate the aforementioned 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, machine learning model, or any other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 13, and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: A system in claim 1; amount to no
more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional
limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, 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 recitation of :
Outputting, which refers to information generated by a computer (Para 0069, Moe(US 20210280634 A1) discloses: “As with the master computer 103, the optional input/output devices 125 for the computers 117 may include any conventional input or output devices, such as keyboards, pointing devices, microphones, display monitors, speakers, and printers.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Storing, which refers the process of preserving digital information (Para 0054, Browne(US 20220391250 A1) discloses: “Storage subsystem 780 includes storage device(s) 784, which can be or include any conventional medium for storing large amounts of data in a nonvolatile manner, such as one or more magnetic, solid state, or optical based disks, or a combination.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Receiving, which expressly means to accept delivery or transmission (in this case, data) (TLI
Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir.
2016) ) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Display, which refers to the visual presentation of data on a computer (Para 0002, Huang(US 20210192169 A1) discloses: “ A conventional display apparatus, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) apparatus or an active matrix organic light emitting display (AMOLED) apparatus, includes a plurality of thin-film transistors (TFTs) and a plurality of pixels that are arranged in an array.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7-11, 14, 17, and 19-20 do not include any additional elements beyond
those already recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 18 and dependent claims 3, 6, 12, and 15-16.
Therefore, they are not deemed to be significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated
above, the limitations of the aforementioned dependent claims amount to no more than generally
linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or do not recite
and additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 18, hence do not amount
to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-2, 5-7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pekarske(US10290371B1) in view of Jensen(US20150371198A1).
Claim 1
Pekarske discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing: data related to a plurality of medical devices(Col. 4, Line 14, Pekarske discloses a compatibility database); and instructions readable and executable by at least one processor to: determine, from the data related to the plurality of medical devices, a compatibility status between multiple medical devices of the plurality of medical devices(Figure 4, #88, Pekarske discloses the determination of compatibility between medical devices);
Pekarske does not explicitly disclose:
GUI
Jensen discloses:
GUI(Figure 5, Jensen discloses a GUI)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add GUI, as taught by Jensen. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to visualize and control the status of a plurality of medical devices for accurate management of health critical medical devices, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0001, Jensen discloses: “Medical devices collect, monitor, and display various aspects associated with a patient's physiology. These medical devices need to be serviced at periodic intervals such that quality of patient care is maintained”).
Claim 2
Pekarske discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the indication of the compatibility status comprises a compatible status or an incompatible status(Figure 4, Pekarske discloses a yes and no for compatibility status) or comprises a probability of compatibility between multiple medical devices.
Claim 5
Pekarske discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim1, wherein the determination of the compatibility status includes: (Figure 4, #88, Pekarske discloses the determination of compatibility between medical devices) based on the
Pekarske does not explicitly disclose:
analyzing potential updates for the plurality of medical devices
analyzed potential updates
Jensen discloses:
analyzing potential updates for the plurality of medical devices(Para 0062, Jensen discloses an update module that determine devices needing updates/upgrades)
analyzed potential updates(Para 0062, Jensen discloses update status of medical devices)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add analyzing potential updates for the plurality of medical devices, as taught by Jensen. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to understand if a medical device requires an update that might be critical to providing patient care, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0001, Jensen discloses: “Medical devices collect, monitor, and display various aspects associated with a patient's physiology. These medical devices need to be serviced at periodic intervals such that quality of patient care is maintained”).
Claim 6
Pekarske does not explicitly disclose:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 5, wherein the potential updates comprise one or more potential hardware updates or potential software updates.
Jensen discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 5, wherein the potential updates comprise one or more potential hardware updates or potential software updates(Para 0004, Jensen discloses software update).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add software update, as taught by Jensen. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to understand if a medical device requires an update that might be critical to providing patient care, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0001, Jensen discloses: “Medical devices collect, monitor, and display various aspects associated with a patient's physiology. These medical devices need to be serviced at periodic intervals such that quality of patient care is maintained”).
Claim 7
Pekarske does not explicitly disclose:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the compatibility status between the multiple medical devices of the plurality of medical devices is a compatibility of an operative connection between a pair of medical devices of the plurality of medical devices.
Jensen discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the compatibility status between the multiple medical devices of the plurality of medical devices is a compatibility of an operative connection between a pair of medical devices of the plurality of medical devices(Figure 1, Jensen discloses a network which acts as an operative connection between a pair of medical devices).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add an operative connection between medical devices, as taught by Jensen. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to understand if medical devices are connected to each other, affecting the delivery of critical patient care, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0001, Jensen discloses: “Medical devices collect, monitor, and display various aspects associated with a patient's physiology. These medical devices need to be serviced at periodic intervals such that quality of patient care is maintained”).
Claim 18
Pekarske discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing: data related to a plurality of medical devices(Col. 4, Line 14, Pekarske discloses a compatibility database); and instructions readable and executable by at least one processor to: determine, from the data related to the plurality of medical devices, a compatibility status between multiple medical devices of the plurality of medical devices(Figure 4, #88, Pekarske discloses the determination of compatibility between medical devices), the compatibility status between the multiple medical devices of the plurality of medical devices
Pekarske does not explicitly disclose:
compatibility of an operative connection between a pair of medical devices of the plurality of medical devices; and output, on a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a display device
Jensen discloses:
compatibility of an operative connection between a pair of medical devices of the plurality of medical devices(Figure 1, Jensen discloses a network which acts as an operative connection between a pair of medical devices); and output, on a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a display device(Figure 5, Jensen discloses a GUI), an indication of the compatibility status(Figure 5, Jensen discloses a display for compatibility status)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add an operative connection between medical devices, compatibility status, and GUI, as taught by Jensen. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to understand if medical devices are connected to each other and are compatible through a visual dashboard, to improve the delivery of critical patient care, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0001, Jensen discloses: “Medical devices collect, monitor, and display various aspects associated with a patient's physiology. These medical devices need to be serviced at periodic intervals such that quality of patient care is maintained”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pekarske(US10290371B1) in view of Jensen(US20150371198A1) and Declerck(US20200275896A1).
Claim 3
Pekarske does not explicitly disclose:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to: determine a compatibility status of a potential software upgrade of the plurality of medical device by performing the determine and output operations for the plurality of medical devices with the potential upgrade to output on the GUI, an upgrade compatibility status for the potential upgrade; and receive, via the GUI, an instruction to perform the upgrade and in response automatically push the software upgrade to the plurality of medical devices over an electronic network.
Jensen discloses:
determine a compatibility status of a potential software upgrade of the plurality of medical device by performing the determine and output operations for the plurality of medical devices with the potential upgrade to output(Para 0062, Jensen discloses an update module that determine devices needing upgrades), on the GUI, an upgrade compatibility status for the potential upgrade(Para 0062, Jensen discloses update status of medical devices); and receive, via the GUI, an instruction to perform the upgrade(Para 0091, Jensen discloses a notification to update firmware)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add an operative connection between medical devices, compatibility status, and GUI, as taught by Jensen. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to understand if medical devices are connected to each other and are compatible through a visual dashboard, to improve the delivery of critical patient care, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0001, Jensen discloses: “Medical devices collect, monitor, and display various aspects associated with a patient's physiology. These medical devices need to be serviced at periodic intervals such that quality of patient care is maintained”).
Jensen does not explicitly disclose:
automatically push the software upgrade to the plurality of medical devices over an electronic network
Declerck discloses:
automatically push the software upgrade to the plurality of medical devices over an electronic network(Para 0051, Declerck discloses applying updates to chosen medical devices)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add pushing a software upgrade, as taught by Declerck. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to quickly update a medical device required to provide efficient and accurate delivery of critical patient care, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0003, Declerck discloses: “Increasingly, medical devices are becoming electronic or involve an electronic or software component. Electronic devices, distributed facilities, and scattered patients make training, treatment, and troubleshooting difficult. Operators and administrators may also introduce inefficiencies in their operation and management of medical devices due to a lack of information and access.”).
Claims 4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pekarske(US10290371B1) in view of Jensen(US20150371198A1) and Mehta(WO2008097316A1).
Claim 4
Pekarske does not explicitly disclose:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the data related to a plurality of medical devices comprises a representation including (i) the medical devices, (ii) connections therebetween, and (iii) formulations for checking for incompatibilities between the medical devices.
Jensen discloses:
formulations for checking for incompatibilities between the medical devices(Figure 5, Jensen discloses a display for incompatibility formulation)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add checking for incompatibilities, as taught by Jensen. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to understand if medical devices are connected to each other and are compatible, to improve the delivery of critical patient care, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0001, Jensen discloses: “Medical devices collect, monitor, and display various aspects associated with a patient's physiology. These medical devices need to be serviced at periodic intervals such that quality of patient care is maintained”).
Jensen does not explicitly disclose:
representation including (i) the medical devices, (ii) connections therebetween
Mehta discloses:
representation including (i) the medical devices, (ii) connections therebetween(Figure 1, Mehta discloses a representation of medical devices and connections)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add graphical representation of medical devices and connections between, as taught by Mehta. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to visualize the plurality of medical devices and connection status, to quickly determine any issues that would impact delivery of healthcare to patients, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0003, Mehta discloses: “Portable medical devices having wireless data communication capabilities are becoming increasingly popular, especially for patients that have conditions that must be monitored on a continuous or frequent basis.”).
Claim 8
Pekarske does not explicitly disclose:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein: the determination of the compatibility status between the multiple medical devices of the plurality of medical devices comprises generating a connected graph comprising nodes representing the medical devices of the plurality of medical devices and edges between pairs of nodes wherein each edge represents an operative connection between the medical devices represented by the nodes connected by that edge, and the edges are labeled with compatibilities of the operative connections between the medical devices represented by the nodes connected by the respective edges.
Jensen discloses:
and the edges are labeled with compatibilities of the operative connections between the medical devices(Figure 5, Jensen discloses status of operative connections)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add operative connections between medical devices, as taught by Jensen. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to understand if medical devices are connected to each other and are compatible, to improve the delivery of critical patient care, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0001, Jensen discloses: “Medical devices collect, monitor, and display various aspects associated with a patient's physiology. These medical devices need to be serviced at periodic intervals such that quality of patient care is maintained”).
Jensen does not explicitly disclose:
generating a connected graph comprising nodes representing the medical devices of the plurality of medical devices and edges between pairs of nodes wherein each edge represents an operative connection between the medical devices represented by the nodes connected by that edge.
Mehta discloses:
generating a connected graph comprising nodes representing the medical devices of the plurality of medical devices and edges between pairs of nodes wherein each edge represents an operative connection between the medical devices represented by the nodes connected by that edge(Figure 1, Mehta discloses a representation of medical devices(nodes) and connections(edges))
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add graphical representation of medical devices and connections between, as taught by Mehta. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to visualize the plurality of medical devices and connection status, to quickly determine any issues that would impact delivery of healthcare to patients, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0003, Mehta discloses: “Portable medical devices having wireless data communication capabilities are becoming increasingly popular, especially for patients that have conditions that must be monitored on a continuous or frequent basis.”).
Claim 9
Pekarske discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the instructions are further readable and executable by at least one processor to: (Figure 4, #88, Pekarske discloses the determination of compatibility between medical devices).
Pekarske and Jensen do not explicitly disclose:
add one or more new edges to the connected graph
Mehta discloses:
add one or more new edges to the connected graph(Figure 38, Mehta discloses the detection of a new device, requiring a new edge)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add the addition of one or more new edges to the graphical representation, as taught by Mehta. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to easily update the dashboard graphic with the addition of a new medical device into the network, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0003, Mehta discloses: “Portable medical devices having wireless data communication capabilities are becoming increasingly popular, especially for patients that have conditions that must be monitored on a continuous or frequent basis.”).
Claim 10
Pekarske and Jensen do not explicitly disclose:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further readable and executable by at least one processor to: add data related to a proposed new medical device to the data related to the plurality of medical devices, and the compatibility status is between the proposed new medical device and at least one other medical device of the plurality of medical devices with which the proposed new medical device is proposed to be connected.
Mehta discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further readable and executable by at least one processor to: add data related to a proposed new medical device to the data related to the plurality of medical devices(Para 00284, Mehta discloses after detection and connection with a new medical device occurs, a data transfer is initiated), and the compatibility status is between the proposed new medical device and at least one other medical device of the plurality of medical devices with which the proposed new medical device is proposed to be connected(Para 00284, Mehta discloses after detection of a new medical device, a connection is initiated).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add the addition of one or more new edges to the graphical representation, as taught by Mehta. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to easily update the dashboard graphic with the addition of a new medical device into the network, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0003, Mehta discloses: “Portable medical devices having wireless data communication capabilities are becoming increasingly popular, especially for patients that have conditions that must be monitored on a continuous or frequent basis.”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pekarske(US10290371B1) in view of Jensen(US20150371198A1), Hillier(US20210392030A1), and Braunstein(US20220164230A1).
Claim 11
Pekarske discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim1, wherein the instructions are further readable and executable by at least one processor to: repeating the determination of the compatibility status between multiple medical devices of the plurality of medical devices(Figure 4, #88, Pekarske discloses the determination of compatibility between medical devices) for each of a plurality of different potential
Pekarske does not explicitly disclose:
upgrades to the plurality of medical devices
assigning a score to each potential upgrade based on the compatibility status for that potential upgrade
and a set of customer priorities and/or requirements including at least one of sharpness of images captured by the medical devices, resolution of images captured by the medical devices, speed of operation of the medical devices, and data communication latency of the medical devices
wherein the output, on the GUI displayed on the display device, of the indication of the compatibility status includes outputting indications of the scores assigned to the respective potential upgrades
Jensen discloses:
upgrades to the plurality of medical devices(Para 0062, Jensen discloses update status of medical devices)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add upgrades to the plurality of medical devices, as taught by Jensen. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to understand the upgrade status of medical devices, to improve the delivery of critical patient care, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0001, Jensen discloses: “Medical devices collect, monitor, and display various aspects associated with a patient's physiology. These medical devices need to be serviced at periodic intervals such that quality of patient care is maintained”).
Jensen does not explicitly disclose:
assigning a score to each potential upgrade based on the compatibility status for that potential upgrade
and a set of customer priorities and/or requirements including at least one of sharpness of images captured by the medical devices, resolution of images captured by the medical devices, speed of operation of the medical devices, and data communication latency of the medical devices
wherein the output, on the GUI displayed on the display device, of the indication of the compatibility status includes outputting indications of the scores assigned to the respective potential upgrades.
Hillier discloses:
assigning a score to each potential upgrade based on the compatibility status for that potential upgrade(Para 0174, Hillier discloses configuration compatibility score)
wherein the output, on the GUI displayed on the display device, of the indication of the compatibility status includes outputting indications of the scores assigned to the respective potential upgrades(Figure 4, Para 0233, Hillier discloses the output on a web client interface, the compatibility scores between systems).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add assigning a score to each potential upgrade based on the compatibility status for that potential upgrade and outputting of the scores, as taught by Hillier. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to better understand the level of compatibility between systems using a score to better assess potential implications of the upgrade to the system and for the patient, but in this case for a system for determining compatibility of computer systems(Para 0013, Hillier discloses: “These incompatibilities limit the combinations of systems that can be consolidated successfully. In enterprise computing environments, the virtually infinite number of possible consolidation permutations which include suboptimal and incompatibility system combinations make choosing appropriate consolidation solutions difficult, error-prone and time consuming.”).
Hillier does not explicitly disclose:
and a set of customer priorities and/or requirements including at least one of sharpness of images captured by the medical devices, resolution of images captured by the medical devices, speed of operation of the medical devices, and data communication latency of the medical devices
Braunstein discloses:
and a set of customer priorities and/or requirements including at least one of sharpness of images captured by the medical devices, resolution of images captured by the medical devices, speed of operation of the medical devices, and data communication latency of the medical devices(Para 0085, Braunstein discloses a customer priority corresponding to a latency requirement)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add a set of customer priorities, as taught by Braunstein. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to understand customer priority to better enable how to allocate resources to medical devices, but in this case for a distributed medical software platform(Para 0004, Braunstein discloses: “Existing facilities rely on a patchwork of medical software and systems, and due to a variety of medical constraints, such as regulatory verification and validation requirements for medical technology, integration and management of such medical software and systems is increasingly complex, costly, and inefficient.”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pekarske(US10290371B1) in view of Jensen(US20150371198A1), Hillier(US20210392030A1), Braunstein(US20220164230A1), and Buskirk(US20180075457A9).
Pekarske, Jensen, Hillier and Braunstein do not explicitly disclose:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions are further readable and executable by at least one processor to: display, on the GUI, a user dialog via which the set of customer priorities and/or requirements is received.
Buskirk discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions are further readable and executable by at least one processor to: display, on the GUI, a user dialog(Figure 4A, Buskirk discloses a user dialogue GUI) via which the set of customer priorities and/or requirements is received(Para 0025, Buskirk discloses customer requirements to classify questions and prompts).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add a user dialog, as taught by Buskirk. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to understand attain customer priorities to better gauge upgrades to the medical devices, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0004, Buskirk discloses: “Conventional methods for providing customer support typically involve using proprietary systems of limited functionality or purchasing third party software capable of providing customer support. In either case, when a communications service provider seeks to offer dynamic support for new services or changes to services, or to offer customized support for a specific customer’s needs, the communications service provider must employ developers to add functionality to the system or modify existing functionality, both of which are time consuming and expensive.”).
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen(US20150371198A1) in view of Hillier(US20210392030A1) and Buskirk(US20180075457A9).
Claim 13
Jensen discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing: data related to a plurality of medical devices and potential upgrades to the plurality of medical devices(Para 0062, Jensen discloses update status of medical devices); and instructions readable and executable by at least one processor to: receive or determine a plurality of different potential upgrades for the plurality of medical devices(Para 0062, Jensen discloses an update module that determine devices needing updates/upgrades);
Jensen does not explicitly disclose:
provide a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a display device via which a set of customer priorities and/or requirements are received(Figure 4A, Buskirk discloses a user dialogue GUI);
assign a score to each potential upgrade based on the received set of customer priorities and/or requirements
and output, on the GUI, an indication of at least the highest-scoring potential upgrade
Hillier discloses:
assign a score to each potential upgrade based on the received set of customer priorities and/or requirements(Para 0174, Hillier discloses configuration compatibility score);
and output, on the GUI, an indication of at least the highest-scoring potential upgrade(Figure 4, Para 0233, Hillier discloses the output on a web client interface, the compatibility scores between systems).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add assigning a score to each potential upgrade based on the compatibility status for that potential upgrade and outputting of the scores, as taught by Hillier. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to better understand the level of compatibility between systems using a score to better assess potential implications of the upgrade to the system and for the patient, but in this case for a system for determining compatibility of computer systems(Para 0013, Hillier discloses: “These incompatibilities limit the combinations of systems that can be consolidated successfully. In enterprise computing environments, the virtually infinite number of possible consolidation permutations which include suboptimal and incompatibility system combinations make choosing appropriate consolidation solutions difficult, error-prone and time consuming.”).
Hillier does not explicitly disclose:
provide a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a display device via which a set of customer priorities and/or requirements are received
Buskirk discloses:
provide a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a display device via which a set of customer priorities and/or requirements are received(Figure 4A, Buskirk discloses a user dialogue GUI);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add a user dialog, as taught by Buskirk. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to understand attain customer priorities to better gauge upgrades to the medical devices, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0004, Buskirk discloses: “Conventional methods for providing customer support typically involve using proprietary systems of limited functionality or purchasing third party software capable of providing customer support. In either case, when a communications service provider seeks to offer dynamic support for new services or changes to services, or to offer customized support for a specific customer’s needs, the communications service provider must employ developers to add functionality to the system or modify existing functionality, both of which are time consuming and expensive.”).
Claim 16
Jensen discloses:
(Para 0074, Jensen discloses selecting a device to upgrade) based on the scoring.
Jensen does not explicitly disclose:
plurality of different potential upgrades for the plurality of medical devices are received via the GUI as what- if scenarios for upgrading the plurality of medical devices, and the performing of the what- if scenarios on the data related to a plurality of medical devices and potential upgrades to the plurality of medical devices
analyzing one or more customer factors for the potential upgrades, the one or more customer factors including one or more of monetary cost, downtime,
and compatibility of updated medical devices with non-updated medical devices
scoring the one or more potential upgrades to the plurality of medical devices based on the analyzing of the one or more customer factors
Hillier discloses:
different potential upgrades for the plurality of medical devices are received via the GUI as what- if scenarios for upgrading the plurality of medical devices, and the performing of the what- if scenarios on the data related to a plurality of medical devices and potential upgrades to the plurality of medical devices(Figure 4, Hillier discloses compatibility scoring between various combinations of systems, which can be considered what-if scenario analysis)
and compatibility of updated medical devices with non-updated medical devices(Figure 4, Hillier discloses compatibility of computer systems with varying update levels)
scoring the one or more potential upgrades to the plurality of medical devices based on the analyzing of the one or more customer factors(Para 0174, Hillier discloses configuration compatibility score)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add what-if scenarios, compatibility, and upgrade scoring, as taught by Hillier. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to better understand the level of compatibility between systems using a score to better assess potential implications of the upgrade to the system and for the patient, but in this case for a system for determining compatibility of computer systems(Para 0013, Hillier discloses: “These incompatibilities limit the combinations of systems that can be consolidated successfully. In enterprise computing environments, the virtually infinite number of possible consolidation permutations which include suboptimal and incompatibility system combinations make choosing appropriate consolidation solutions difficult, error-prone and time consuming.”).
Hillier does not explicitly disclose:
analyzing one or more customer factors for the potential upgrades, the one or more customer factors including one or more of monetary cost, downtime
Buskirk discloses:
analyzing one or more customer factors for the potential upgrades, the one or more customer factors including one or more of monetary cost(Para 0060, Buskirk discloses cost), downtime,
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add customer priority cost, as taught by Buskirk. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to understand attain customer priorities to better gauge upgrades to the medical devices, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0004, Buskirk discloses: “Conventional methods for providing customer support typically involve using proprietary systems of limited functionality or purchasing third party software capable of providing customer support. In either case, when a communications service provider seeks to offer dynamic support for new services or changes to services, or to offer customized support for a specific customer’s needs, the communications service provider must employ developers to add functionality to the system or modify existing functionality, both of which are time consuming and expensive.”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen(US20150371198A1) in view of Hillier(US20210392030A1), Buskirk(US20180075457A9), and Braunstein(US20220164230A1).
Claim 14
Jensen, Hillier, and Buskirk do not explicitly disclose:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein the received set of customer priorities and/or requirements includes performance requirements for the medical devices including at least one of sharpness of images captured by the medical devices, resolution of images captured by the medical devices, speed of operation of the medical devices, and data communication latency of the medical devices
Braunstein discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein the received set of customer priorities and/or requirements includes performance requirements for the medical devices including at least one of sharpness of images captured by the medical devices, resolution of images captured by the medical devices, speed of operation of the medical devices, and data communication latency of the medical devices(Para 0085, Braunstein discloses a customer priority corresponding to a latency requirement).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add a set of customer priorities, as taught by Braunstein. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to understand customer priority to better enable how to allocate resources to medical devices, but in this case for a distributed medical software platform(Para 0004, Braunstein discloses: “Existing facilities rely on a patchwork of medical software and systems, and due to a variety of medical constraints, such as regulatory verification and validation requirements for medical technology, integration and management of such medical software and systems is increasingly complex, costly, and inefficient.”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen(US20150371198A1) in view of Hillier(US20210392030A1), Buskirk(US20180075457A9), and Declerck(US20200275896A1).
Claim 15
Jensen discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of either one of claim 13, wherein the instructions are further readable and executable by the at least one processor to: receive, via the GUI, a selection of a potential software upgrade indicated by the output for implementation(Para 0074, Jensen discloses selecting a device to upgrade);
Jensen, Hillier, and Buskirk do not explicitly disclose:
automatically push the software upgrade to the plurality of medical devices over an electronic network
Declerck discloses:
automatically push the software upgrade to the plurality of medical devices over an electronic network(Para 0051, Declerck discloses applying updates to chosen medical devices)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add pushing a software upgrade, as taught by Declerck. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to quickly update a medical device required to provide efficient and accurate delivery of critical patient care, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0003, Declerck discloses: “Increasingly, medical devices are becoming electronic or involve an electronic or software component. Electronic devices, distributed facilities, and scattered patients make training, treatment, and troubleshooting difficult. Operators and administrators may also introduce inefficiencies in their operation and management of medical devices due to a lack of information and access.”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen(US20150371198A1) in view of Hillier(US20210392030A1), Buskirk(US20180075457A9), and Nekoomaram(US20220037007A1).
Claim 17
Jensen, Hillier, and Buskirk do not explicitly disclose:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of any one of claim 13, wherein the instructions further include: storing a status of each medical device prior to any implemented update; and reverting at least one of the medical devices to the stored status responsive to a failed update.
Nekoomaram discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of any one of claim 13, wherein the instructions further include: storing a status of each medical device prior to any implemented update(Para 0039, Nekoomaram discloses default factory settings for a medical device); and reverting at least one of the medical devices to the stored status responsive to a failed update(Para 0065, Nekoomaram discloses.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add storing a status and reverting a device to a stored status, as taught by Nekoomaram. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to quickly revert to a previous version of an upgrade to minimize downtime of a critical medical device, but in this case for a system for updating a medical device(Para 0003, Nekoomaram discloses: “One challenge of currently available continuous glucose monitoring devices is upgrading software or firmware of the continuous glucose monitoring devices and the components of the continuous glucose monitoring devices.”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen(US20150371198A1) in view of Hillier(US20210392030A1), Buskirk(US20180075457A9), Nekoomaram(US20220037007A1), and Mehta(WO2008097316A1).
Claim 19
Claim 19 recite similar limitations as claim 8. Please see claim 8 analysis.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen(US20150371198A1) in view of Hillier(US20210392030A1), Buskirk(US20180075457A9), Nekoomaram(US20220037007A1), Mehta(WO2008097316A1), and Pekarske(US10290371B1).
Claim 20
Claim 20 recite similar limitations as claim 9. Please see claim 9 analysis.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pekarske(US10290371B1) in view of Jensen(US20150371198A1).
Claim 18
Pekarske discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing: data related to a plurality of medical devices(Col. 4, Line 14, Pekarske discloses a compatibility database); and instructions readable and executable by at least one processor to: determine, from the data related to the plurality of medical devices, a compatibility status between multiple medical devices of the plurality of medical devices(Figure 4, #88, Pekarske discloses the determination of compatibility between medical devices),
Pekarske does not explicitly disclose:
the compatibility status between the multiple medical devices of the plurality of medical devices is a compatibility of an operative connection between a pair of medical devices of the plurality of medical devices; and output, on a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a display device, an indication of the compatibility status.
Jensen discloses:
the compatibility status between the multiple medical devices of the plurality of medical devices is a compatibility of an operative connection between a pair of medical devices of the plurality of medical devices(Figure 1, Jensen discloses a network which acts as an operative connection between a pair of medical devices); and output, on a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a display device(Figure 5, Jensen discloses a GUI), an indication of the compatibility status(Figure 5, Jensen discloses a display for compatibility status).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system to control medical devices of Pekarske to
add GUI, compatibility status, and operative connection, as taught by Jensen. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to visualize and control the status of a plurality of medical devices for accurate management of health critical medical devices, but in this case for a medical device maintenance system(Para 0001, Jensen discloses: “Medical devices collect, monitor, and display various aspects associated with a patient's physiology. These medical devices need to be serviced at periodic intervals such that quality of patient care is maintained”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Page(US20220319684A1) discloses a system for medical device monitoring.
Yeager(US20150379221A1) discloses a method to simulate maintenance of a device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERYL GOPAL PATEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30am to 2:30pm PST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/S.G.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights