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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 5, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, and 12 have been amended. Claims 3-5 have been canceled. Claims 1, 2, and 6-14 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant argues Double Patenting, pg. 7 of Remarks:
Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 11 and 12
Claims 1, 2, 11 and 12 were provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. US 17/963,443.
Reconsideration of the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1, 2, 11 and 12 in view of the amendments to the claims of the subject application is respectfully requested.
Withdrawn for now based on review of the co-pending application claims. However, this will be reviewed in the future as the claims change.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 Rejection, starting pg. 7 of Remarks:
Rejection of Claims 1, 2 and 6-14 Under 35 U.S.C. $101 — Subject Matter Eligibility
Claims 1, 2 and 6-14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 2 and 6-14, as presented hereinabove, are directed to patent eligible subject matter for at least the following reasons.
Claims 1, 2 and 6-14 satisfy the two-step subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis set forth by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Claim 1 recites, in clean form:
A provisioning system comprising:
a processor comprising hardware, the processor being configured to:
control a display to firstly display, in a user interface:
data about ready-to-use endoscopes in a first presentation area of the user interface;
data about scheduled procedures in a second presentation area of the user interface; and
data about endoscopes undergoing a reprocessing process in a third presentation area of the user interface,
wherein the first presentation area, the second presentation area, and the third presentation area are arranged along a main direction of the display, wherein the third presentation area is arranged between the first presentation area and the second presentation area, and
wherein, in a case where data for an endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process and data for a scheduled procedure at a scheduled time indicate that the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process will be ready to use in the scheduled procedure at a scheduled time, the processor is configured to control the display to display data relating to the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process presented in the third presentation area to be aligned along a second main direction, perpendicular to the first main direction, with data relating to the scheduled procedure in the second presentation area;
receive updated second information indicating a delay in the reprocessing process for the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process, wherein the delay would cause the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process to not be ready for use at the scheduled time;
in response to receiving the updated second information, determine one or more steps in the reprocessing process that can be modified to compensate for the delay;
control the display to switch to display, in an updated user interface, a graphical user interface to receive user input to instruct executing of the one or more steps in the reprocessing process that can be modified to compensate for the delay; and
in response to receiving the user input, control one or more reprocessing stations to modify the one or more steps in the reprocessing process to compensate for the delay.
Support for claim 1 can be found in the original disclosure at, for example, FIGS. 1-3 and the corresponding written description in the specification.
FIGS. 1-3 show an example of a provisioning system comprising:
a processor comprising hardware, the processor being configured to: control a display to firstly display, in a user interface 105/205:
data about ready-to-use endoscopes (e.g., E3a-zx, E4d-zz) in a first presentation area 110/210 of the user interface 105/205;
data about scheduled procedures (e.g., 11:00 UR3, 14:00 UR2, 16:00 UR3) in a second presentation area 120/220 of the user interface 105/205; and
data about endoscopes (e.g., E3b, E3c) undergoing a reprocessing process in a third presentation area 130/230 of the user interface 105/205,
wherein the first presentation area 210, the second presentation area 220, and the third presentation area 230 are arranged along a main direction (left-right) of the display, wherein the third presentation area 230 is arranged between the first presentation area 210 and the second presentation area 220, and
wherein, in a case (FIG. 2) where data for an endoscope (e.g., E3b) undergoing the reprocessing process and data for a scheduled procedure (e.g., 16:00 UR3) at a scheduled time (e.g., 16:00) indicate that the endoscope (e.g., E3b) undergoing the reprocessing process will be ready to use in the scheduled procedure (e.g., 16:00 UR3) at the scheduled time (e.g., 16:00), the processor is configured to control the display to display data relating to the endoscope (e.g., E3b) undergoing the reprocessing process presented in the third presentation area 130 to be aligned along a second main direction (top-down), perpendicular to the first main direction (left-right), with data relating to the scheduled procedure (16:00 UR3) in the second presentation area 120;
receive updated second information indicating a delay (e.g., compare FIG. 3: E3b to be completed at 16:10 instead of FIG. 2: E3b to be completed at 16:00) in the reprocessing process for the endoscope (e.g., E3b) undergoing the reprocessing process, wherein the delay would cause the endoscope (E3b) undergoing the reprocessing process to not be ready for use at the scheduled time (e.g., 16:00);
in response to receiving the updated second information, determine one or more steps 232 in the reprocessing process that can be modified to compensate for the delay;
control the display to switch to display, in an updated user interface (FIG. 3), a graphical user interface (e.g., [0105]-[0108] of PGPub) to receive user input to instruct executing of the one or more steps in the reprocessing process that can be modified to compensate for the delay; and
in response to receiving the user input, control (e.g., [0109]) one or more reprocessing stations to modify the one or more steps in the reprocessing process to compensate for the delay.
Referring to the holding in Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921, F.3d 1084, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the Examiner stated “‘...if there is some type of structure that improves accuracy in a particular manner, that may show an improvement to technology.” See December 11, 2024 Office Action, page 7.
Claim 1 has been amended to further recite elements that improve accuracy to show an improvement to technology. Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to recite:
receive updated second information indicating a delay in the reprocessing process for the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process, wherein the delay would cause the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process to not be ready for use at the scheduled time;
in response to receiving the updated second information, determine one or more steps in the reprocessing process that can be modified to compensate for the delay;
control the display to switch to display, in an updated user interface, a graphical user interface to receive user input to instruct executing of the one or more steps in the reprocessing process that can be modified to compensate for the delay; and
in response to receiving the user input, control the one or more reprocessing stations to modify the one or more steps in the reprocessing process to compensate for the delay.
In claim 1, the processor is configured to firstly display display data relating to an endoscope undergoing a reprocessing process aligned with data relating to a scheduled procedure in a case where data for the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process will be ready to use in the scheduled procedure at a scheduled time. This aligned data display feature improves the ability of a user to recognize that the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process will be ready for use.
Respectfully, the above “improved the ability of a user to recognize that the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process will be ready for use” is an effect or result that may or may not happen. Further, it requires a judicial exception (e.g., mental process of displaying such as with pen and paper aligned data relating to schedule procedure…) for the improvement.
Further, in claim 1, the processor is configured to adapt to a situation where there is a delay in the reprocessing process that would cause the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing to not be ready for use.
In such a situation, the processor is configured to determine one or more steps in the reprocessing process that can be modified to compensate for the delay. Further, the processor is then configured to control the display to switch to a display where a graphical user interface is provided to receive user input to instruct execution of the one or more steps in the reprocessing process that can be modified to compensate for the delay. Still further, the processor is configured to control one or more reprocessing stations to modify the one or more steps in the reprocessing process to compensate for the delay.
Modification of the one or more steps in the reprocessing process after the start of the reprocessing process would compensate for the delay and thereby improve the timeliness of the reprocessing process to make the endoscope ready for use at the scheduled time of a scheduled procedure.
Modify steps in a reprocessing process to compensate for a delay is something that can be done with pen and paper or generic computer. A gnat chart, for example, is a management tool used to track scheduled tasks to determine if the tasks are on schedule.
The delays that can occur in a reprocessing process is analogous to the changes in prices in Trading Techs.
Providing a graphical user interface and processor configurations to determine modifications to the reprocessing process, receive user instructions to perform the modifications and control one or more reprocessing stations to perform the modifications to improve timeliness of the reprocessing process is analogous to providing a graphical user interface to arrange transactional information to improve the accuracy of executed trades in Trading Techs.
The Trading Technologies case was non-precedential. However, their interface was constructed in a manner to improve the accuracy of trading. Applicant’s display is just displaying information.
From the Trading Technologies precedential case (MPEP 2106.05(a) II)…
“However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. are cited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG,921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.
Therefore, the interface provided more information for making a trade, but did not improve computers or technology itself.
From the non-precedential case (MPEP 2106.05(a) II)…
“viii. A specific, structured graphical user interface that improves the accuracy of trader transactions by displaying bid and asked prices in a particular manner that prevents order entry at a changed price, Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675Fed. App'x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (non-precedential);
Therefore, an interface that improves accuracy of trader transactions and prevents order entry at a changed price.
There is no teaching or indication that a specific GUI improves accuracy of anything based on a specific, structured GUI. Further, just displaying information in a particular format is not the same as interacting with the display to improve an outcome, such as trading in the Trading Technologies case.
As shown above, claim 1 recites additional elements that improve timeliness of a reprocessing process of an endoscope to thereby integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 1 satisfies Step 2A, Prong Two, of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s subject matter eligibility analysis. Accordingly, claim | should be found to be directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. $101.
Claim 11 should be found to be directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 for similar reasons.
Claims 2, 6-10 and 12-14 depend from and incorporate by reference all the elements of claims | and 11, respectively. Therefore, claims 2-10 and 12-14 are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. $101 for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claims | and 11.
Withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 6-14 under 35 U.S.C. §101 is respectfully requested.
The rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments. The Examiner points to Office Example 37 where an improvement to a GUI is provided. In that example, computer technology itself was improved and support for this was both in the Background teaching and the claims themselves.
Applicant argues 35 USC §103 Rejection, starting pg. 12 of Remarks:
Rejection of Claims 1, 2 and 6-14 Under 35 U.S.C. $103
Claims 1, 2 and 6-14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. $103 as being obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0102189 A1 to Hosoi et al. (hereinafter “Hosov”’) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0107113 Al to Araki (hereinafter “Arak1’).
Claims 1, 2 and 6-12, as presented hereinabove, are not obvious over the cited references for at least the following reasons.
Obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim. CFMT, Inc., v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Hosoi and Araki were cited as teaching processors and displays with user interfaces providing information regarding endoscope cleaning and scheduling.
However, Hosoi and Araki, taken individually or in combination, do not teach or suggest:
receiving updated second information indicating a delay in a reprocessing process for an endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process, wherein the delay would cause the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process to not be ready for use at a scheduled time;
in response to receiving the updated second information, determining one or more steps in the reprocessing process that can be modified to compensate for the delay;
controlling the display to switch to display, in an updated user interface, a graphical user interface to receive user input to instruct executing of the one or more steps in the reprocessing process that can be modified to compensate for the delay; and
in response to receiving the user input, controlling one or more reprocessing stations to modify the one or more steps in the reprocessing process to compensate for the delay.
Therefore, Hosoi in view of Araki does not teach or suggest:
receive updated second information indicating a delay in the reprocessing process for the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process, wherein the delay would cause the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process to not be ready for use at the scheduled time;
Hosoi teaches:
Rescheduling (receive updated second information) caused by a delay (not be ready for use at the scheduled time) in the cleaning (reprocessing) schedule…
“In addition, when endoscope cleaning is not completed within a scheduled time due to occurrence of a trouble in a cleaning machine, the examination scheduled to use the endoscope and the subsequent cleaning schedules may be delayed. In addition, an examination schedule may be corrected because a primary doctor can no longer be in charge of an examination for a sudden reason. Therefore, even when an examination schedule and a cleaning schedule are set, it is preferable to appropriately perform a review of the examination schedule and the cleaning schedule by executing rescheduling processing depending on the situation of cleaning processing in a cleaning machine, the situation of a doctor, and the like.” [0015]
in response to receiving the updated second information, determine one or more steps in the reprocessing process that can be modified to compensate for the delay;
Hosoi teaches:
Change an element (process) in the cleaning (reprocessing) schedule…
“…a situation information acquisition unit that acquires situation information on the situation of an endoscope; and a rescheduling processing unit that determines based the situation information that it is necessary to change the examination schedule and/or the cleaning schedule. The rescheduling processing unit instructs at least one of the examination schedule management unit and the cleaning schedule management unit to change an element included in the examination schedule and/or the cleaning schedule.” [0018]
Where changing the element includes the cleaning machine assigned to an endoscope, cleaning start time, end time, therefore, steps to modify (e.g., change cleaning machine, start time, end time)…
“When determining based on the situation information that it is necessary to change the examination schedule and/or the cleaning schedule, the rescheduling processing unit 172 instructs at least one of the examination schedule management unit 110 and the cleaning schedule management unit 130 to change an element included in the examination schedule and/or the cleaning schedule. Herein, the element included in the examination schedule is an examination specified by an examination ID, an examination room assigned to an examination, information on scheduled examination start time, that on scheduled examination end time, a primary doctor, or an endoscope 30; while the element included in the cleaning schedule is a cleaning machine assigned to an endoscope 30, information on scheduled cleaning start time, or that on scheduled cleaning end time. When a person-in-charge is assigned to cleaning processing in the cleaning schedule, as illustrated in Example 5 (FIG. 38), person-in-charge information is also included in the element included in the cleaning schedule.” [0315]
control the display to switch to display, in an updated user interface, a graphical user interface to receive user input to instruct executing of the one or more steps in the reprocessing process that can be modified to compensate for the delay; and
Hosoi teaches:
Notice to user to confirm (receive input) that cleaning machine assignment is permitted…
“The end time determination unit 146 determines whether, as a result of the assignment of the cleaning machine 50 to the endoscope 30 by the cleaning machine assignment unit 144, the scheduled cleaning end time is after a reference time (12:30). When it is determined by the end time determination unit 146 that the scheduled cleaning end time is after the reference time, the cleaning machine assignment availability confirmation unit 148 may transmit a notice to a user (e.g., an operator) to confirm whether the cleaning machine assignment is permitted. For example, the timing of this notification may be after the assignment processing of the endoscopes 30 is completed for all the examinations. With reference to FIG. 21, the scheduled cleaning end time of the endoscope G-H-1 is 12:35, and hence also with respect to this cleaning schedule, the cleaning machine assignment availability confirmation unit 148 confirms to a user the availability of cleaning machine assignment.” [0207]
Another example of reschedule using user input…
“Alternatively, the cleaning start notice information and the cleaning end notice information may be input by a user and received by the input receiving unit 176 along with the time information, and the input receiving unit 176 may transfer the cleaning start notice information and the cleaning end notice information to the situation information acquisition unit 170 as the situation information. Alternatively, the situation information acquisition unit 170 has the function of communicating with a terminal device other than cleaning machine 50, and may acquire the cleaning start notice information and the cleaning end notice information from the terminal device. The situation information acquisition unit 170 only has to be able to acquire the situation information indicating the usage condition of the cleaning machine 50 by some means, but in order to execute efficient rescheduling processing, it is preferable to acquire the situation information in real time and to provide it to the rescheduling processing unit 172 along with the acquired time information.” [0484]
in response to receiving the user input, control one or more reprocessing stations to modify the one or more steps in the reprocessing process to compensate for the delay.
Confirmation of cleaning machine assignment…
“The end time determination unit 146 determines whether, as a result of the assignment of the cleaning machine 50 to the endoscope 30 by the cleaning machine assignment unit 144, the scheduled cleaning end time is after a reference time (12:30). When it is determined by the end time determination unit 146 that the scheduled cleaning end time is after the reference time, the cleaning machine assignment availability confirmation unit 148 may transmit a notice to a user (e.g., an operator) to confirm whether the cleaning machine assignment is permitted. For example, the timing of this notification may be after the assignment processing of the endoscopes 30 is completed for all the examinations. With reference to FIG. 21, the scheduled cleaning end time of the endoscope G-H-1 is 12:35, and hence also with respect to this cleaning schedule, the cleaning machine assignment availability confirmation unit 148 confirms to a user the availability of cleaning machine assignment.” [0207]
Based on the foregoing discussion, it must be concluded that the cited references fail to suggest all the elements of claim 1. Therefore, claim | is not obvious over the cited references.
Hosoi et al. specifically teaches dealing with delays and rescheduling, as indicated above, where delay can be caused by the examination process or cleaning process.
Claim 11 is not obvious over the cited references for similar reasons.
Claims 2, 6-10 and 12-14 depend from and incorporate by reference all the elements of claims | and 11, respectively. Therefore, claim s2, 6-10 and 12-14 are not obvious over the cited references for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claims | and 11.
Withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 6-14 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is respectfully requested.
The rejection is respectfully modified for the claim amendments but maintained. Some of the claim language is focused on claiming a particular display layout. However, displaying a particular layout is not given patentable weight, as some type of functionality or interaction with the display is required.
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, 2, and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-14 are directed to a system or method, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method Claim 11 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to system Claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitations of:
A method comprising:
controlling a display to firstly display, in a user interface:
data about ready-to-use endoscopes in a first presentation area of the user interface;
data about scheduled procedures in a second presentation area of the user interface;
data about endoscopes undergoing reprocessing process in a third area of the user interface,
wherein the first presentation area, the second presentation area, and the third presentation area are arranged along a main direction of the display, wherein the third presentation area is arranged between the first presentation area and the second presentation area, and
wherein, in a case where data for an endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process and data for a scheduled procedure at a scheduled time indicate that the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process will be ready to use in the scheduled procedure at the scheduled time, the display is controlled to display data relating to the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process presented in the third presentation area to be aligned along a second main direction, perpendicular to the main direction, with data relating to the scheduled procedure in the second presentation area;
receiving updated second information indicating a delay in the reprocessing process for the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process, where the delay would cause the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process to not be ready for use at the scheduled time;
in response to receiving the updated second information, determining one or more steps in the reprocessing process that can be modified to compensate for the delay;
controlling the display to switch to display, in an updated user interface, a graphical user interface to receive user input to instruct executing of the one or more steps in the reprocessing process that can be modified to compensate for the delay; and
in response to receiving the user input, controlling one or more reprocessing stations to modify the one or more steps in the reprocessing process to compensate for the delay.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes. The claim recites elements, in non-bold above, which covers performance of the limitation that can be concepts performed in the mind of a person or with pen and paper (e.g., a person can receive schedule and status information and display the information). A person with pen and paper can display on paper with pen data about ready-to-use endoscopes, scheduled procedures, and data about endoscopes undergoing reprocessing. A person with pen and paper can draw presentation areas in a particular layout. A person can receive delay information about reprocessing for an endoscope and determine steps that can be modified to compensate for the delay. A person can update with pen and paper to instruct executing reprocessing steps to compensate for the delay and modify the reprocessing steps with an input. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C where use of a generic computer has been shown to be abstract. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
In as much as the claims are displaying data in a user interface, determining steps that can be modified in response to receiving updated delay information, and receive user input to instruct executing steps to compensate for the delay, and modify the steps in the reprocessing process to compensate for the delay, the claims are managing personal behavior including teaching (e.g., determining steps for reprocessing) and following rules or instructions (receive user input to instruct executing steps in reprocessing process). Therefore, the claims are also abstract as certain methods of organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite: processor, display, user interface, graphical user interface, endoscopes, reprocessing stations, processor, graphical user interface, reprocessing stations (Claim 1); display, user interface, endoscopes, graphical user interface, reprocessing stations (Claim 11). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See Applicant’s specification, pg. 5, lines 4-6 about implantation using regular or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f). The endoscope is a generic device. Controlling the display to switch is recited at a high level and the term “switch” is not used in the specification, further this appears to be a manual process. Regarding controlling reprocessing stations, this appears to be a manual process (see pg. 14, lines 24-26) Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts 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. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Steps such as receiving are steps that are considered insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using general computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(d), II). Thus claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2, 6-10, and 12-14 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Claims 2, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 14 recite endoscope as a generic device and at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claims 2, 6-10, and 12-14 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 2, and 6-14 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “control the display to switch to display, in an updated user interface, a graphical user interface to receive user input to instruct executing of the one or more steps in the reprocessing process that can be modified to compensate for the delay;…” where no teaching of “control the display to switch to display can be found. Applicant cites Fig. 3 and para’s [0105]-[0108] of the published specification. However, control the display to switch to display is not recited in the paragraphs. A user can interact with an interface, but there is no teaching of control display to switch to display. The original filed claims recited “control a display to display a user interface” but there was no teaching of “switch.” For examination purposes this is interpreted to mean a display for user input. Claim 11 has a similar issue.
Claims 2, 6-10, and 12-14 are further rejected as they depend from their respective independent claim.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No. US 2018/0102189 to Hosoi et al. in view of Pub. No. US 2004/0107113 to Araki.
Regarding claims 1 and 11
(claim 1) A provisioning system comprising:
a processor comprising hardware, the processor being configured to:
Hosoi et al. teaches:
CPU and computer hardware…
“Each component of the information management device 10 can be realized by a CPU, memory, or other LSIs of an arbitrary computer in terms of hardware, and realized by a program or the like loaded in a memory in terms of software, but herein functional blocks realized by the cooperation of hardware and software are depicted. Therefore, it is to be understood by those skilled in the art that these functional blocks can be realized in various forms, namely, solely in hardware, solely in software, or through a combination of hardware and software.” [0128]
control a display to firstly display, in a user interface:
Example schedule information displayed (control a display) of screen (display) on terminal device (user interface)…
“The schedule information on the endoscope 30 is generated by the information management device 10. The timing when the schedule information is generated is before endoscopic examination work for one day starts, and a person preparing for examination can determine the handling of the endoscope 30 by seeing the schedule information displayed on the screen of the terminal device 12. Although the terminal device 12 may be a stationary personal computer, it may be a terminal device such as a portable PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) or a tablet.” [0123]
data about ready-to-use endoscopes in a first presentation area of the user interface;
[No Patentable Weight is given to non-functional descriptive claim language of “in a first presentation area…” as this is just displaying an area on a user interface with no function interaction.]
Endoscope availability (ready-to-use)…
“Returning to FIG. 3, the first assignment processing unit 120 performs processing for assigning the endoscope 30 to an examination in the examination schedule. Specifically, the first assignment processing unit 120 has the function of executing the steps of S16 and S18 of the basic flowchart, and includes an examination extraction unit 122, an endoscope specification unit 124, an endoscope assignment unit 126, an endoscope assignment availability confirmation unit 128, and a doctor assignment unit 129. As described above, the doctor assignment unit 129 takes charge of processing for assigning a doctor to an examination in generating the examination schedule.” [0150]
Assigns and holds (ready-to-use) endoscopes…
“Returning to a FIG. 3, the assigned endoscope information holding unit 228 holds preferential endoscope information on the endoscope preferentially assigned to a doctor. FIG. 30 illustrates a preferential endoscope table stored in the assigned endoscope information holding unit 228. In the preferential endoscope table, preferential endoscope information that define the priority orders of the endoscopes 30 to be assigned are recorded for each primary doctor in charge of an endoscopic examination and for each endoscope model. Herein, the priority order is provided on the premise that a medical facility possesses a plurality of endoscopes 30 of the same model, and the assigned endoscope information holding unit 228 holds, of the plurality of endoscopes 30 of the same model, the endoscopes to be preferentially assigned to doctors as preferential endoscope information. In FIG. 30, the “preferential endoscope 1” means an endoscope with the highest assignment priority order, the “preferential endoscope 2” means an endoscope with the second highest assignment priority order, and the “preferential endoscope 3” means an endoscope with the third highest assignment priority order.” [0256]
Fig. 30 teaches assigned endoscopes ready to use…
PNG
media_image1.png
146
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig 30 and another example of first information…
PNG
media_image2.png
207
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See Presentation below.
data about scheduled procedures in a second presentation area of the user interface; and
[No Patentable Weight is given to non-functional descriptive claim language of “in a second presentation area…” as this is just displaying an area on a user interface with no function interaction.]
Example of examination schedule…
“Therefore, it is preferable to set an appropriate examination schedule and a cleaning schedule with respect to each individual of endoscopes such that a doctor and a person preparing for examination perform an examination and preparation work according to the respective schedules.” [0012]
Fig. 5 teaches examination type (first information)…
PNG
media_image3.png
143
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig 30 and another example of first information…
PNG
media_image2.png
207
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Set (receive) cleaning schedule…
“In addition, when endoscope cleaning is not completed within a scheduled time due to occurrence of a trouble in a cleaning machine, the examination scheduled to use the endoscope and the subsequent cleaning schedules may be delayed. In addition, an examination schedule may be corrected because a primary doctor can no longer be in charge of an examination for a sudden reason. Therefore, even when an examination schedule and a cleaning schedule are set, it is preferable to appropriately perform a review of the examination schedule and the cleaning schedule by executing rescheduling processing depending on the situation of cleaning processing in a cleaning machine, the situation of a doctor, and the like.” [0015]
Detect (information) endoscope in use (currently in use) and scheduled endoscope (is ready for use)…
“When receiving the examination start notice information from the situation information acquisition unit 170, the rescheduling processing unit 172 determines whether the endoscope ID of the endoscope 30 actually used in the examination E21 coincides with the endoscope ID assigned to the examination E21 in the examination schedule. At this time, the endoscope ID acquired by the situation information acquisition unit 170 is “G-R-2”, while the endoscope ID assigned to the examination E21 is “G-R-1.” Therefore, the rescheduling processing unit 172 detects that the endoscope in use is different from the scheduled endoscope, and determines that it is necessary to change the examination schedule and/or the cleaning schedule.” [0410]
See Presentation below.
data about endoscopes undergoing a reprocessing process in a third presentation area of the user interface,
[No Patentable Weight is given to non-functional descriptive claim language of “in a third presentation area…” as this is just displaying an area on a user interface with no function interaction.]
Example of endoscope and cleaning schedule (undergoing reprocessing process)…
“The rescheduling processing unit 172 determines based on the situation information whether it is necessary to change an element included in the examination schedule and/or the cleaning schedule, which are illustrated in FIG. 60. For example, at the time when the situation information acquisition unit 170 receives the examination start notice information, if the endoscope ID acquired in advance for an examination is different from the endoscope ID in the examination schedule that is assigned to the same examination by the endoscope assignment unit 126, the rescheduling processing unit 172 determines that it is necessary to change the examination schedule and/or the cleaning schedule.” [0403]
“FIG. 14 illustrates a cleaning schedule generated by the cleaning (reprocessing) schedule management unit 130. Herein, the results of the assignment by the cleaning machine assignment unit 144 are reflected in the cleaning schedule, and specifically it is registered that between 9:10 and 9:30: the endoscope G-R-1 is cleaned by the first cleaning machine 50a; the endoscope G-R-2 by the second cleaning machine 50b; and the endoscope G-R-3 by the third cleaning machine 50c, and registered that between 9:15 and 9:35 the endoscope C-R-1 is cleaned by the fourth cleaning machine 50d. The cleaning schedule management unit 130 records the updated cleaning schedule in the cleaning schedule holding unit 208.” [0181]
Fig. 14 teaches schedule with examination room with device and cleaning schedule…
PNG
media_image4.png
203
905
media_image4.png
Greyscale
See Presentation below.
wherein the first presentation area, the second presentation area, and the third presentation area are arranged along a main direction of the display, wherein the third presentation area is arranged between the first presentation area and the second presentation area,
[No Patentable Weight is given to non-functional descriptive claim language of “wherein the first presentation area, the second presentation area, and the third presentation area are arranged along a main direction of the display, wherein the third presentation area is arranged between the first presentation area and the second presentation area” as this is just displaying an arrangement of presentation areas.]
wherein, in a case where data for an endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process and data for a scheduled procedure at a scheduled time indicate that the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process will be ready to use in the scheduled procedure at a scheduled time, the processor is configured to control the display to display data relating to the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process presented in the third presentation area to be aligned along a second main direction, perpendicular to the first main direction, with data relating to the scheduled procedure in the second presentation area;
[No Patentable Weight is given to non-functional descriptive claim language of “…to display data relating to the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process presented in the third presentation area to be aligned along a second main direction, perpendicular to the first main direction, with data relating to the scheduled procedure in the second presentation area;…” as this is just displaying data in presentation areas with a particular arrangement.]
Specify an available endoscope…
“Returning to FIG. 9, the endoscope specification unit 124 executes retrieval processing on the possessed endoscopes to specify an available endoscope 30 (S52). Herein, the endoscope specification unit 124 executes the retrieval processing by narrowing down to the endoscopes specified as “under standby” in S50. Because the endoscope 30, the status of which is other than “under standby”, that is, “under use”, “used”, or “under cleaning”, cannot be assigned to an examination at that time, retrieval efficiency can be improved by excluding it from the retrieval targets.” [0160]
Example of endoscope with cleaning machine assignment for scheduled examination…
“As illustrated in the examination schedule, the scheduled examination end time of the examination E12 in which the endoscope C-R-1 is to be used is 10:00, on the other hand, according to the cleaning schedule of the fourth cleaning machine 50d, the fourth cleaning machine 50d is available after 9:55. Therefore, the cleaning machine assignment unit 144 can assign, from 10:00, the fourth cleaning machine 50d to the endoscope C-R-1 for the examination E12, but a 5-minute unused time occurs with the fourth cleaning machine 50d, and hence the cleaning machine assignment unit 144 assigns the first cleaning machine 50a to the endoscope C-R-1.” [0196]
receive updated second information indicating a delay in the reprocessing process for the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process, wherein the delay would cause the endoscope undergoing the reprocessing process to not be ready for use at the scheduled time;
“As illustrated in FIG. 21, the endoscope C-R-1 is scheduled to be under cleaning between 12:30 and 12:50. Depending on a medical facility, if the lunch break of persons preparing for examination is defined to be, for example, between 12:30 and 13:30, it may be notified that this c