DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the communication filed on July 26, 2025. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-13 are pending. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 19/176,708 (hereinafter ‘708) in view of Matthews et al. (USPPN: 2019/0155271; hereinafter Matthews).
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 19/076,195 (hereinafter ‘195) in view of Matthews et al. (USPPN: 2019/0155271; hereinafter Matthews).
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 19/033,901 (hereinafter ‘901) in view of Aluy et al. (USPPN: 2022/0199241; hereinafter Aluy).
As to the ‘708 application, claims 1-13 are nearly identical to claim 1-13 of the present application but for the executing object tracking being performed in response to an object command as opposed to the de-assignment request from clinical workflow of the present application. However, Matthews teaches executing device tracking/monitoring based on a modification request of the digital twin asset (i.e., de-assignment request). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify ‘708 in view of Matthews before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to virtually determine operating performance of virtual assets which can be reported to a user for further optimizations and/or improvements (e.g., see [0017], [0018] of Matthews).
As to the ‘195 application, claims 1-11 are nearly identical to claim 1-11 of the present application but for the executing object tracking being performed as opposed to in response to de-assignment request from clinical workflow of the present application. However, Matthews teaches executing device tracking/monitoring based on a modification request of the digital twin asset (i.e., de-assignment request). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify ‘195 in view of Matthews before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to virtually determine operating performance of virtual assets which can be reported to a user for further optimizations and/or improvements (e.g., see [0017], [0018] of Matthews).
As to the ‘901 application, claims 1-10 are nearly identical to claim 1-10 of the present application but for the present application reciting medical treatment devices. However, Aluy teaches the devices being medical treatment devices. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify ‘901 in view of Aluy as a simple substitution of monitoring generic objects/devices of ‘901 with medical devices of Aluy to yield the predictable results of monitoring and performing preventative maintenance on medical devices thereby improving patient care.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-13 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.
Claims 1-13 recite a method of monitoring medical treatment devices, which is within the statutory category of a process.
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Claims 1-13, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The bolded limitations of:
Claim 1
executing, by a processor, environment interpretation software from a first non-transitory memory causing the processor to detect and identify a plurality of medical treatment devices of a medical treatment environment based on at least one of environment signaling of the medical treatment environment and premise messages exchanged with another processor to produce an identified medical treatment device identifier for each medical treatment device of the identified plurality of medical treatment devices, each medical treatment device of the plurality of medical treatment devices comprising at least one of a physical object within the medical treatment environment when the medical treatment environment includes a physical environment and a virtual object within the medical treatment environment when the medical treatment environment includes a virtual environment, the environment signaling comprising at least one of an unencoded direct electromagnetic emission, an unencoded indirect electromagnetic emission, an encoded electromagnetic emission, an encoded electronic signal, an unencoded mechanical wave, and an encoded mechanical wave, the premise messages comprising object profile information for each identified medical treatment device, the object profile information comprising one or more of object basics, object deployment information, and object availability information; executing, by the processor, profile generation software from a second non-transitory memory to facilitate intercommunication between the environment interpretation software and the profile generation software causing the processor to exchange prescriptive information associated with at least some of the identified medical treatment device identifiers with an artificial intelligence (AI) memory, the prescriptive information comprising object learnings based on an interpretation of a plurality of historical patient care observations associated with at least one medical treatment device of the plurality of medical treatment devices and a plurality of other medical treatment devices associated with another medical treatment environment; and executing, by the processor, object tracking software from a third non-transitory memory to facilitate intercommunication between the profile generation software and the object tracking software causing the processor to exchange further environment signaling for at least some of the plurality of medical treatment devices within the medical treatment environment using the object profile information and at least some of the prescriptive information to produce patient care tracking information in response to a de-assignment request from clinical workflow information for storage within a digital twin memory, wherein the patient care tracking information is available to be subsequently recovered from the digital twin memory and utilized to virtually represent patient care provided by at least some of the plurality of medical treatment devices within a virtual representation of the medical treatment environment and to subsequently generate the clinical workflow information.
as presently drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions). For example, but for the noted computer elements, the claim encompasses a person following rules or instructions to store and process data in the manner described in the abstract idea. For example, a person can monitor medical devices and using the monitored medical device information and observed historical patient care observation to generate a clinical workflow. The examiner further notes that “methods of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at Pg. 5). If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing persona behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of a generic computer component. For example, a person can monitor medical devices and using the monitored medical device information and observed historical patient care observation to opine a clinical workflow. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The additional elements merely amount to instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (“a processor”, "a non-transitory memory”, “another processor”, “software”, “memory”—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application). Similarly, a “virtual representation” is merely a consequence of the claim being implemented on a computer and similarly merely amounts to instructions to “apply it.” Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The “digital twin” is not a generic computer component; however it is recited at a high levels of generality and similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Similarly, insomuch as the AI memory for eligibility purposes is not a generic computer component, it is also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generally linking. Additionally, “the environment signaling comprising at least one of an unencoded direct electromagnetic emission, an unencoded indirect electromagnetic emission, an encoded electromagnetic emission, an encoded electronic signal, an unencoded mechanical wave, and an encoded mechanical wave” is recited at a high levels of generality and similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements as part of performing the abstract idea. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. 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 or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2. Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional generic computing elements (“a processor”, "a non-transitory memory”, “another processor”, “software”, “memory”—see Specification Figs. 1-3, [0145], [0146] describing the various components as general purpose, common, standard, known to one of ordinary skill, and at a high level of generality, and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements). Similarly, the “AI memory” is not described with any particular details outside of “AI memory”, which can be reasonably interpreted as being analogous to a generic memory. Therefore, these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, translating, and displaying data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
Furthermore, as discussed above, the additional element of a “digital twin” is recited at high levels of generality and were determined to generally link the abstract idea into a particular technological environment or field of use. This additional element have been re-evaluated under step 2B and have also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(A) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more). Furthermore, the Background section of Applicant’s Specification (e.g., see [0005] indicates the use of digital twins is well-understood, routing, and conventional in the field. (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) indicating that well-understood, routine, and conventional activities cannot provide significantly more).
Additionally, the additional element of the environment signaling comprising at least one of an unencoded direct electromagnetic emission, an unencoded indirect electromagnetic emission, an encoded electromagnetic emission, an encoded electronic signal, an unencoded mechanical wave, and an encoded mechanical wave” is recited at high levels of generality and were determined to generally link the abstract idea into a particular technological environment or field of use. This additional element have been re-evaluated under step 2B and have also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(A) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more). Furthermore, the Background section of Applicant’s Specification (e.g., see [0020] indicates the various environment signaling being well-understood, routing, and conventional in the field. (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) indicating that well-understood, routine, and conventional activities cannot provide significantly more).
Furthermore, as discussed above, the disclosure of the “AI memory” lacked any particulars with respect to the AI memory and can be reasonably interpreted as being analogous to a generic computer component to perform the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”). Additionally, the “AI memory” was recited at a high level of generality and determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. While the. This additional element has been re-evaluated under step 2B and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(A) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more).
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 function of a computer, technology, or technical field, and their collective functions merely provided conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent Claims
The limitations of dependent but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Claim 2 merely recites an additional analysis/interpretation based on the received data, claim 3 merely recites updating the data, claims 4 and 8 merely recites the use of a dashboard, claim 5 recites interpreting patient care tracking information with the particular medical device, claim 6 recites causing a change with regard to the patient care, claim 7 recites further tracking the medical treatment devices, claim 9 recites indicating the objects based on the received signal, claim 10 recites producing object profile information from data in the memory, claim 12 and 13 recite generating the clinical workflow information based on the medical device information and patient information, which covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions).
Claim 11 further refine the abstract idea described in the independent claim and merely recite using distributed ledger. These additional elements are considered to “generally linking” under both the practical application and significantly more analysis, as detailed in the analysis above.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aluy et al. (USPPN: 2022/0199241; hereinafter Aluy) in further view of Matthews et al. (USPPN: 2019/0155271; hereinafter Matthews).
As to claim 1, Aluy teaches A computerized method for processing data of a self-forming communication and control system (e.g., see Title, Abstract), the method comprising:
executing, by a processor, environment interpretation software from a first non-transitory memory causing the processor to detect and identify a plurality of medical treatment devices of a medical treatment environment based on at least one of environment signaling of the medical treatment environment and premise messages exchanged with another processor to produce an identified medical treatment device identifier for each medical treatment device of the identified plurality of medical treatment devices, each medical treatment device of the plurality of medical treatment devices comprising at least one of a physical object within the medical treatment environment when the medical treatment environment includes a physical environment, the environment signaling comprising at least one of an unencoded direct electromagnetic emission, an unencoded indirect electromagnetic emission, an encoded electromagnetic emission, an encoded electronic signal, an unencoded mechanical wave, and an encoded mechanical wave, the premise messages comprising object profile information for each identified medical treatment device, the object profile information comprising one or more of object basics, object deployment information, and object availability information (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0023]-[0024] teaching a computing environment in which various medical devices used to diagnose patients and perform procedures generate and transmit usage patterns such as operational conditions);
executing, by the processor, profile generation software from a second non-transitory memory to facilitate intercommunication between the environment interpretation software and the profile generation software causing the processor to exchange prescriptive information associated with at least some of the identified medical treatment device identifiers with an artificial intelligence (AI) memory, the prescriptive information comprising object learnings based on an interpretation of a plurality of historical patient care observations associated with at least one medical treatment device of the plurality of medical treatment devices and a plurality of other medical treatment devices associated with another medical treatment environment (Notably, the term “AI memory” is interpreted as non-functional descriptive language as it is not functionally required in the claimed method. See MPEP 2111.05. The function described in the claimed memory would be performed the same regardless of if the memory was AI or not. Therefore, Aluy, having taught a memory reads upon the claimed limitation. e.g., see [0025], [0056], [0061] wherein patient anatomical measurements associated with the medical device is consistently generating measurement data to associate with the functioning of the medical device).
Aluy fails to teach a virtual object within the medical treatment environment when the medical treatment environment includes a virtual environment and executing, by the processor, object tracking software from a third non-transitory memory to facilitate intercommunication between the profile generation software and the object tracking software causing the processor to exchange further environment signaling for at least some of the plurality of medical treatment devices within the medical treatment environment using the object profile information and at least some of the prescriptive information to produce patient care tracking information in response to a de-assignment request from clinical workflow information for storage within a digital twin memory, wherein the patient care tracking information is available to be subsequently recovered from the digital twin memory and utilized to virtually represent patient care provided by at least some of the plurality of medical treatment devices within a virtual representation of the medical treatment environment and to subsequently generate the clinical workflow information. However, it is noted that these claim limitations are contingent limitations as per MPEP 2111.04(II). It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method or process claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met. As the virtual objects are only met when there is a virtual environment and the object tracking only occurs in response to a de-assignment request, the subsequent claim recitations are not required to occur absent a virtual environment and de-assignment request.
Nonetheless, for the purposes of compact prosecution and in the same field of endeavor of resource management Matthews teaches a virtual object within the medical treatment environment when the medical treatment environment includes a virtual environment (e.g., see Fig. 2, [0028], [0031] teaching instantiating a virtual asset in a virtual environment) and executing, by the processor, object tracking software from a third non-transitory memory to facilitate intercommunication between the profile generation software and the object tracking software causing the processor to exchange further environment signaling for at least some of the plurality of medical treatment devices within the medical treatment environment using the object profile information [and at least some of the prescriptive information] to produce [patient care] tracking information in response to a de-assignment request from [clinical] workflow information for storage within a digital twin memory, wherein the [patient care] tracking information is available to be subsequently recovered from the digital twin memory and utilized to virtually represent [patient] care provided by at least some of the plurality of medical treatment devices within a virtual representation of the medical treatment environment and to subsequently generate the [clinical] workflow information (e.g., see [0031], [0032], [0036]-[0038] wherein modeled data retrieved from a digital twin is utilized to assess optimization of virtual devices, including medical devices, which can be used for asset allocation. See also rejection of Aluy wherein the medical devices can further be associated with particular patient care/prescriptive information).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Aluy in view of Matthews before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to virtually determine operating performance of virtual assets which can be reported to a user for further optimizations and/or improvements (e.g., see [0017], [0018] of Matthews).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1, Aluy further teaches executing, by the processor, object learning software from a fourth non-transitory memory causing the processor to: interpret other environment signaling for the corresponding plurality of other medical treatment devices associated with the other medical treatment environment to produce other patient care tracking information, store the other patient care tracking information in the AI memory as the plurality of historical patient care observations associated with the corresponding plurality of other medical treatment devices, recover a portion of the plurality of historical patient care observations from the AI memory, and infer the object learnings based on an interpretation of the portion of the plurality of historical patient care observations as the prescriptive information, the object learnings providing guidance for future patient care provided by the plurality of medical treatment devices (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0025], [0039], [0046], [0049] wherein based on measure signals, either electrical or mechanical, from the medical device, and historical patient data, the machine may be predicted for failure and/or need for preventative maintenance).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Aluy further teaches executing, by the processor, further profile generation software from the second non-transitory memory causing the processor to produce updated object profile information for at least some of the plurality of medical treatment devices based on corresponding identified medical treatment device identifiers and updated prescriptive information associated with a particular identified medical treatment device of the plurality of medical treatment devices within the AI memory, the updated object profile information comprising one or more of updated object basics, updated object deployment information, and updated object availability information, the updated prescriptive information comprising one or more of updated object learnings based on another interpretation of the plurality of historical patient care observations associated with the corresponding plurality of other medical treatment devices associated with the other medical treatment environment each of the other medical treatment devices associated with the other medical treatment environment and an evaluation of the updated object learnings against a standard (e.g., see [0025], [0034], [0039] teaching a continuous learning/monitoring process with new data (i.e., updated data) to evaluate the medical device against an expected result).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Aluy-Matthews further teaches executing, by the processor, dashboard software from a fifth non-transitory memory to facilitate intercommunication between the object tracking software and the dashboard software causing the processor to interpret a portion of the patient care tracking information for the plurality of medical treatment devices recovered from the digital twin memory to produce dashboard information, the dashboard information comprising a representation of status of patient care associated with each identified medical treatment device of the plurality of medical treatment devices based on the further environment signaling and in accordance with the object profile information (e.g., see [0051] of Aluy teaching a display for generating one or more notifications including information about the medical device and/or further actions to be taken and [0031], [0034] of Matthews teaching launching of digital twin of the asset to output operating characteristics).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Aluy-Matthews further teach executing, by the processor, further dashboard software from the fifth non-transitory memory causing the processor to: obtain the portion of the patient care tracking information that corresponds to the further environment signaling for a particular identified medical treatment device recovered from the digital twin memory, and interpret the portion of the patient care tracking information in accordance with the object profile information to produce the dashboard information (e.g., see [0051] of Aluy teaching a display for generating one or more notifications including information about the medical device and/or further actions to be taken and [0031], [0034] of Matthews teaching launching of digital twin of the asset to output operating characteristics).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Aluy further teach executing, by the processor, prescriptive software from a sixth non-transitory memory to facilitate intercommunication between the dashboard software and the prescriptive software causing the processor to process a portion of the dashboard information to produce the prescriptive information within the AI memory, the prescriptive information comprising one or more of an interpretation of the portion of the dashboard information, an evaluation of the portion of the dashboard information against a standard, and adaptive processor-executable instructions for use with the object profile information and the further environment signaling to cause change with regards to the patient care associated with the identified plurality of medical treatment devices within the medical treatment environment (e.g., see [0051], [0054] of Aluy teaching a display for generating one or more notifications including information about the medical device and/or further actions to be taken, including mechanically disabling the device).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Aluy further teaches executing, by the processor, further prescriptive software from the sixth non-transitory memory causing the processor to: determine tracking parameters of object tracking of the identified plurality of medical treatment devices based on the object profile information, determine signaling parameters of the further environment signaling based on the identified medical treatment device, and generate the processor-executable instructions based on the tracking parameters and the signaling parameters to facilitate subsequent collection of the further environment signaling associated with the identified medical treatment device to provide the object tracking of the identified plurality of medical treatment devices within the medical treatment environment (e.g., see [0055] wherein additional information can be requested from the device).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Aluy-Matthews further teaches executing, by the processor, further prescriptive software from the sixth non-transitory memory causing the processor to: obtain the portion of the dashboard information corresponding to a prescriptive timeframe from the digital twin memory, process the portion of the dashboard information in accordance with the object profile information to produce preliminary prescriptive information, determine a format for the prescriptive information based on the preliminary prescriptive information and an object knowledgebase of the AI memory, interpret the portion of the dashboard information in accordance with the format for the prescriptive information to produce the prescriptive information, and store the prescriptive information within the AI memory (e.g., see [0042], [0047], [0053], [0054], [0060], [0072] of Aluy wherein the device information may be displayed for various time windows to identify various operational trends and generating instructions with regards to solutions in accordance with existing resources and the record persisted to operational history for future use and training, which is consistent with at least [0104]-[0106] of Applicant’s originally filed specification of “format” and “interpret”. See rejection of above of Matthews teaching digital twin) .
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Aluy-Matthews further teach wherein the processor further executes the environment interpretation software from the first non-transitory memory causing the processor to detect the plurality of medical treatment devices of the medical treatment environment based on the environment signaling of the medical treatment environment to produce the identified plurality of medical treatment devices by: obtaining the environment signaling of the medical treatment environment from an environment sensor module; indicating the physical object as a particular identified medical treatment device when identifying a physical object pattern from at least one of the unencoded direct electromagnetic emission, the unencoded indirect electromagnetic emission, and the unencoded mechanical wave of the environment signaling; and indicating the virtual object as a particular detected object when identifying a virtual object pattern from at least one of the encoded electromagnetic emission, the encoded electronic signal, and the encoded mechanical wave of the environment signaling (e.g., see [0022], [0029], [0054] of Aluy wherein a sensor is used to capture and identify operational parameters of the device and/or various components based on received signal data, the signals being electrical or mechanical. See rejection of Matthews teaching virtual assets. It is further noted the identifying of the physical and virtual objects are contingent limitations as per MPEP 2111.04(II). It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method or process claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met. As the objects are only met when the signaling identifies a physical/virtual object).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Matthews further teaches wherein the processor further executes the environment interpretation software from the first non-transitory memory causing the processor to: access a portion of the digital twin memory that includes an object knowledgebase based on a particular identified medical treatment device; compare an attribute of detection of the particular identified medical treatment device to the portion of the digital twin memory that includes the object knowledgebase to produce the particular identified medical treatment device; and access the portion of the digital twin memory that includes the object knowledgebase based on the particular identified medical treatment device to produce the object profile information (e.g., see [0032] wherein a catalog of digitals twins is accessed to select and launch a digital twin based on the characteristics of the particular asset).
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Aluy-Matthews further teach executing, by the processor, object control software from an eighth non-transitory memory to facilitate intercommunication between the object tracking software and the object control software causing the processor to manage the patient care provided by at least some of the plurality of medical treatment devices by: obtaining a portion of the patient care tracking information from the digital twin memory; identifying a historical operational trend for a first medical device of the plurality of medical devices based on the patient care tracking information; detecting a patient care performance metric of the historical operational trend for the first medical device; identifying a clinical workflow de-assignment for the first medical device based a comparison of the patient care performance metric of the historical operational trend for the first medical device compared to an expected performance range; generating the clinical workflow information based on the clinical workflow de-assignment for the first medical device; and facilitating communication of the clinical workflow information to the first medical device (e.g., see [0024], [0025], [0029], [0047], [0054], [0055] of Aluy wherein operational data of a medical device are retrieved including anatomical measurements from a patient to determine an operational trend of the device which is used to identify various failure rectifiers including notifications, tests, fixes, and/or disabling the device. See rejection above of Matthews teaching a digital twin).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Aluy further teaches executing, by the processor, AI optimization software from a nineth non-transitory memory to facilitate intercommunication between the object tracking software and the AI optimization software causing the processor to manage the patient care provided by at least some of the plurality of medical treatment devices by: obtaining a portion of recovered prescriptive information associated with a first medical treatment device of the plurality of medical devices from the AI memory; identifying a historical operational trend for the first medical device based on the portion of recovered prescriptive information; detecting a patient care performance metric of the historical operational trend for the first medical device; identifying a clinical workflow de-assignment for the first medical device based on a comparison of the patient care performance metric of the historical operational trend for the first medical device compared to an expected performance range and a historical remediation of the portion of recovered prescriptive information that is expected to produce a future patient care performance metric of a future historical operational trend for the first medical device that is inside of the expected performance range; generating the clinical workflow information based on the clinical workflow de-assignment for the first medical device; and facilitating communication of the clinical workflow information to the first medical device (e.g., see [0024], [0025], [0029], [0047], [0054], [0055] of Aluy wherein operational data of a medical device are retrieved including anatomical measurements from a patient to determine an operational trend of the device based on expected values which is used to identify various failure rectifiers including notifications, tests, fixes, and/or disabling the device. Notably, the term “AI optimization software” is interpreted as non-functional descriptive language as it is not functionally required in the claimed method. See MPEP 2111.05. The function described in the claimed software would be performed the same regardless if the software was AI or not. Therefore, Aluy, having taught a computer implemented method/software for improving the medical device (i.e., optimized) reads upon the claimed limitation. Notably, Aluy further teaches the method performed via machine learning).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aluy and Matthews, as applied above, and in further view of Takada Chino et al. (USPPN: 2019/0058599; hereinafter Takada Chino).
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Aluy-Matthews fails to teach executing, by the processor, ledger software from a seventh non-transitory memory to facilitate intercommunication between the object tracking software and the ledger software causing the processor to memorialize the patient care tracking information in an object distributed ledger by: obtaining a portion of the object distributed ledger; hashing a portion of the patient care tracking information utilizing a receiving public key associated with the object distributed ledger to produce a next transaction hash value; encrypting the next transaction hash value utilizing a private key of the processor to produce a next transaction signature; generating a next block of a blockchain of the object distributed ledger to include the portion of the patient care tracking information and the next transaction signature; and causing inclusion of the next block in the object distributed ledger.
However, in the same filed of endeavor of data storage, Takada Chino teaches obtaining a portion of the object distributed ledger; hashing a portion of the [patient care tracking] information utilizing a receiving public key associated with the object distributed ledger to produce a next transaction hash value; encrypting the next transaction hash value utilizing a private key of the processor to produce a next transaction signature; generating a next block of a blockchain of the object distributed ledger to include the portion of the [patient care tracking] information and the next transaction signature; and causing inclusion of the next block in the object distributed ledger (e.g., see Fig. 3-5, [0007], [0036], [0037] describing a digital ledger system hashing data, a public key, and signature of a parent record to generate a hash value, wherein the record is created with a public key and the hash value is utilized with the public key to generate a message value such that a signature of the new record is generated using the message value and a private key corresponding to the public key of the parent record. The signature of the new record is added to the new record utilizing a hashing module and public key to verify the next record in the digital ledger. See rejection of Aluy above teaching patient care tracking).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Aluy-Matthews in view of Takada Chino before the effective filing date of the application with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification In order to provide a reliable and secure distributed ledger system (e.g., see [0001], [0084] of Takada Chino).
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STELLA HIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-5891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9-5PM.
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, Peter Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/STELLA HIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights