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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 14 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 14, line(s) 5, “causing to display a representation” seems to be a grammatical error. Examiner recommends amending it to read -- causing [[to]]a display of a representation --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1-20 are allowable over prior art because the prior art of record fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims, in particular: “generating a device prompt based at least in part on the user query and the one or more device parameters; generating a query response by applying a machine learning model to the device prompt and a data repository including information associated with the medical device, the query response being in the identified language; and causing to deliver the query response in the identified language.” Because the prior art does not teach or disclose the above features in the specific manner and combinations recited in independent claims 1, 14, claims 1, 14 are hereby deemed to be allowable over prior art. Originally numbered dependent claims 2-13, 15-20 incorporate the allowable features of originally numbered independent claims 1, 14, through dependency, respectively.
However, the claims are still rejected under 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 11-12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “greater” in claims 11, 19 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “greater” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, is the “difference between the query response and the device content in the data repository” numerical? Or, how is the “predetermined level” determined? Thus, it is unclear how “greater” is defined. For examination purposes, the “difference between the query response and the device content in the data repository” is interpreted as numerical and “greater than a predetermined level” refers to a numerical scale.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected as being dependent on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Claim 1 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method). Claim 14 is drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine).
Independent claim 14 (which is representative of independent claim 1) recites… receiving information associated with the medical device; identifying one or more device parameters of the medical device; causing to display a representation of the medical device associated with the one or more device parameters of the medical device; receiving a user query related to the representation of the medical device; identifying a language of the user query; generating a device prompt based at least in part on the user query and the one or more device parameters; generating a query response by applying a…model to the device prompt and…information associated with the medical device, the query response being in the identified language; and causing to deliver the query response in the identified language.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations noted above, as drafted, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to collect data, analyze the data, and output data accordingly (i.e., instructions for use) in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps as indicated supra. That is, other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), the claim amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people following rules or instructions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites additional elements (i.e., a machine learning model; a data repository). Claim 14 recites additional elements (i.e., A system comprising: one or more memories having instructions stored thereon; and one or more processors; a machine learning model; a data repository). Looking to the specifications, a computing system having one or more memories having instructions stored thereon, one or more processors is described at a high level of generality (¶ 00127-00134), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, “a machine learning model” is described at a high level of generality and is only used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the model functions and does not include details about how “generating a query response” is accomplished (i.e., no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result), such that using a machine learning model amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, “a data repository” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing, providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. The use of a general purpose computer or computers (i.e., a computing system having one or more memories having instructions stored thereon, one or more processors) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, “a machine learning model” is described at a high level of generality and is only used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the model functions and does not include details about how “generating a query response” is accomplished (i.e., no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result), such that using a machine learning model amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, “a data repository” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing, providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook; similarly, the current invention merely limits the claimed calculations to the healthcare industry which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-13, 15-20 include all the limitations of the parent claims and further elaborate on the abstract idea discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-10, 13, 15-16, 18, 20 further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claims 3, 7, 11-12, 17, 19 further recites the additional elements of information from “the data repository,” which is still only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing, providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Although the dependent claims add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea groupings and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0394360 A1 teaches identifying the need for troubleshooting “power-on problems”, “operating errors”, and “configuration errors.”
US 2022/0261817 A1 teaches using machine learning to generate solutions for user problems based on dialogue.
WO 2021/19441 A1 teaches providing user support for a hardware device by communicating with a user device.
US 2022/0059205 A1 teaches responding to user inquiries via a chatbot regarding medical device use.
US 2020/0285225 A1 teaches interactive voice based Chatbot technology that accepts the voice input from user and provides the necessary output to guide the user to perform the necessary actions.
US 2026/0024656 A1 teaches using machine learning to collect and resolve troubleshooting data of medical devices.
“An Expert System For The Laboratory” teaches querying a computer for troubleshooting advice and for information on how a circuit (equipment) is to function in a laboratory session.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-8317. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights