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 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 1–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, namely a machine.
Accordingly, the analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites a judicial exception.
Specifically, claim 1 recites limitations including:
receiving input from a parts ordering system identifying a replacement part by a part-type number (PTN);
determining logging metrics corresponding to the PTN;
extracting the determined logging metrics into a new log file;
modifying a log-file upload configuration;
prioritizing upload of the newly created log file.
These limitations describe collecting information, analyzing information, organizing information, generating additional information, and managing the transmission of information based upon business or service information.
Such activities constitute one or more of the following abstract ideas identified in the 2024 USPTO Eligibility Guidance:
certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions involving maintenance and servicing of equipment;
mental processes, because the claimed steps of identifying a replacement part, determining corresponding diagnostic information, selecting relevant log information, creating a report, and prioritizing transmission can practically be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper; and
mathematical concepts/data analysis, insofar as the processor merely correlates a PTN with corresponding logging metrics and generates a resulting file.
The claim therefore recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include: a medical system; a set of log files; a log file uploader; an upload configuration component; a user input device; an electronic processor.
These elements merely perform their ordinary and expected functions of:storing information; receiving information; processing information; generating information; modifying stored configuration information; uploading information.
The claimed processor simply automates the abstract idea using generic computer technology.
The claim does not improve: medical imaging, patient monitoring, computer networking, processor operation, memory architecture, database technology, communications protocols, file systems, logging technology, or any other computer functionality.
Instead, the claim merely uses generic computing components as tools to implement the abstract idea.
The claim also does not:
effect a particular treatment of a patient;
improve operation of the medical device itself;
improve sensor operation;
improve image acquisition;
improve hardware diagnostics;
improve processor efficiency;
or otherwise apply the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the exception.
Rather, the claim merely prioritizes diagnostic information for later transmission to a service engineer.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Because the claim is directed to a judicial exception without integration into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
The additional claim elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The recited:
processor,
log uploader,
upload configuration component,
user input device,
log files,
parts ordering system,
are described at a high level of generality and merely perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions including:
receiving data;
storing data;
retrieving data;
correlating data;
extracting information;
generating a file;
modifying configuration data;
uploading files.
The ordered combination likewise merely automates the longstanding practice of:
identifying a replacement part;
determining which diagnostic records relate to that part;
assembling those records;
assigning priority;
sending the information to a service technician.
Automating this workflow using generic computer components does not constitute an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Representative Claim Analysis
Claim 1 is representative.
Dependent claims 2–6 merely add insignificant extra-solution activity or field-of-use limitations.
Claim 2
Claim 2 further recites that the newly created log file includes an identification tag.
Adding metadata or an identification tag merely labels the generated information and constitutes insignificant post-solution activity that does not improve computer functionality or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 3
Claim 3 further specifies that the identification tag includes priority, identification history, and/or criticality information.
Assigning priority or descriptive metadata merely organizes information for later use and therefore constitutes an additional mental process and insignificant post-solution activity.
Claim 4
Claim 4 further recites sending replacement-date information to the parts ordering system.
Sending additional information to another system merely communicates the result of the abstract idea and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 5
Claim 5 further recites querying a list of possible extracted parts against a log file.
Comparing one data set with another to identify a matching part merely constitutes additional data gathering and analysis and therefore remains part of the abstract idea.
Claim 6
Claim 6 limits the medical system to a medical imaging device or patient monitor.
Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological environment merely constitutes a field-of-use limitation and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, claims 1–6 are directed to an abstract idea and do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, claims 1–6 are ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 allowable over prior art. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROKIB MASUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/ROKIB MASUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights