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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to claims 1-13 in the response filed on 07/02/2025 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application
Claims 1-13 are examined
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims. The applicant has modified claim 1 to require “server having a processor;a client having a processor;an endoscope processor configured to be connected to an endoscope and having an operation panel… the tag reader is configured to read an endoscope ID assigned to a single-use endoscope using a radio frequency identifier or using optical reading of a QR code or barcode … the processor of the endoscope is configured to read a health-care personnel ID assigned to endoscope health-care personnel,the processor of the client is configured to determine whether the health-care personnel ID received from the processor of the endoscope matches an administrator ID, anddisplay an operation screen for the administrator on the operation panel of the processor of the endoscope, allowing selecting, setting, changing, and maintaining of a program executed by the endoscope processor, only in a case in which the received health-care personnel ID matches the ID of the administrator” limitations heretofore not presented for examination in this application. As such, the scope of the claims was substantially changed and new grounds for rejection are presented.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006296675 A to Ishiguro et al. (hereinafter “Ishiguro”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0331433 to Wu et al. (hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding claim 1, Ishiguro discloses a system comprising:
a server having a processor (53a, Fig. 3, [0034]);
a client having a processor (45, Fig. 3, [0032]);
an endoscope processor (6, Fig. 20, [0012]) configured to be connected to an endoscope (2, Fig. 1, [0012] and [0029]) and having an operation panel (2b, Fig. 20, [0014]); and
a tag reader (42, Fig. 3, [0029]-[0038]), wherein
the server and the client are connected via a network ([0029]-[0038]),
the tag reader is configured to:
read an endoscope ID (41, Fig. 1 [0028]) assigned to a single-use endoscope using a radio frequency identifier or using optical reading of a QR code or barcode (2, Fig. 1, [0012] and [0029]);and
transmit the read endoscope ID to the client via wired or wireless communication ([0038]),
the client is configured to:
receive with the client processor the endoscope ID transmitted from the tag reader via wired or wireless communication ([0033]); and
transmit from the client processor via the network use information on the endoscope based on the received endoscope ID ([0033]),
the processor of the server is configured to acquire the use information transmitted from the client processor ([0033]),
Ishiguro fails to expressly teach the processor of the endoscope is configured to read a health-care personnel ID assigned to endoscope health-care personnel, the processor of the client is configured to determine whether the health-care personnel ID received from the processor of the endoscope matches an administrator ID, and display an operation screen for the administrator on the operation panel of the processor of the endoscope, allowing selecting, setting, changing, and maintaining of a program executed by the endoscope processor, only in a case in which the received health-care personnel ID matches the ID of the administrator.
However, Wu teaches of an information processing system (Wu: Fig. 1) wherein processor of the endoscope is configured to read a health-care personnel ID assigned to endoscope health-care personnel, the processor of the client is configured to determine whether the health-care personnel ID received from the processor of the endoscope matches an administrator ID, and display an operation screen for the administrator on the operation panel of the processor of the endoscope, allowing selecting, setting, changing, and maintaining of a program executed by the endoscope processor, only in a case in which the received health-care personnel ID matches the ID of the administrator ([0057] of Wu).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ishiguro, to utilize a processor in the manner taught by Wu. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing authentication ([0057] of Wu).
Regarding claim 2, Ishiguro, in view of Wu, teaches the system according to claim 1, and Ishiguro further discloses wherein the server processor acquires the use information ([0138]), the server processor outputs a delivery instruction for delivering a non-used replaceable endoscope to a medical institution ([0138]).
Regarding claim 3, Ishiguro, in view of Wu, teaches the system according to claim 1, and Ishiguro further discloses wherein the endoscope ID is recorded on a tag (41, Fig. 1 [0028]) attached to a housing container that individually houses the endoscope ([0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Ishiguro, in view of Wu, teaches the system according to claim 1, and Ishiguro further discloses wherein the server processor is configured to determine whether or not there is a non- collected endoscope which passed a predetermined period from a sterilization date in the medical institution, and in a case where the server processor determines that there is a non-collected endoscope which passed the predetermined period from the sterilization date in the medical institution, the server processor outputs a delivery instruction for delivering a non-used replaceable endoscope to the medical institution ([0138]).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006296675 A to Ishiguro et al. (hereinafter “Ishiguro”) in view of Wu and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2007/0083286 to Kobayashi.
Regarding claim 5, Ishiguro, in view of Wu, teaches the system according to claim 1.
Ishiguro, in view of Wu, fails to expressly teach wherein the server processor is configured to determine whether or not the endoscope can be used based on the endoscope ID.
However, Kobayashi teaches of an information processing system (Kobayashi: Fig. 1) fails to expressly teach wherein the server processor is configured to determine whether or not the endoscope can be used based on the endoscope ID (Kobayashi: [0207]-[0209]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ishiguro, in view of Wu, to utilize a server processor in the manner taught by Kobayashi. It would have been advantageous to make the combination in order to determine whether the reusable subassemblies are to be reused or not ([0207] of Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 7, Ishiguro, in view of Wu, teaches the system according to claim 1.
Ishiguro, in view of Wu, fails to expressly teach wherein the operation panel of the endoscope processor has a back light, and a color of a back light of an operation panel of an the endoscope processor is switched according to a determination result by the server processor.
However, Kobayashi teaches of an information processing system (Kobayashi: Fig. 1) wherein the operation panel of the endoscope processor has a back light, and a color of a back light of an operation panel of the endoscope processor is switched according to a determination result by the server processor ([0210]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ishiguro, in view of Kobayashi, to utilize a back light, as taught by Kobayashi. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of informing the user (Kobayashi: [0210]).
Regarding claim 9, Ishiguro, in view of Wu, and Kobayashi, teaches the system according to claim 7.
Ishiguro, in view of Wu, and Kobayashi, fails to expressly teach wherein the operation panel of the endoscope processor has an input button, the back light of the operation panel back lights the input button, and a back light is configured to be switched between anon state and an off state according to a determination result by the server processor.
However, Kobayshi further teaches wherein the operation panel of the endoscope processor has an input button, the back light of the operation panel back lights the input button, and a back light is configured to be switched between anon state and an off state according to a determination result by the server processor ([0210]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ishiguro, in view of Kobayashi, to utilize a back light, as taught by Kobayashi. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of informing the user (Kobayashi: [0210]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiguro in view of Wu and further in view of Kobayashi and U.S. Publication No. 2015/0230691 to Hong et al. (hereinafter “Hong”).
Regarding claim 6, Ishiguro, in view of Wu, and Kobayashi, teaches the system according to claim 5.
Ishiguro, in view of Wu, and Kobayashi, fails to expressly teach wherein in a case where the server processor determines that the endoscope cannot be used, the system is configured to prevent signals to be connected between the endoscope and an endoscope processor connected to the endoscope.
However, Hong teaches of an information processing system (Hong: Fig. 1) wherein in a case where the server processor determines that the endoscope cannot be used, the system is configured to prevent signals to be connected between the endoscope and an endoscope processor (Hong: 30, Fig. 1, [0025]) connected to the endoscope (Hong: [0047]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ishiguro, in view of Wu and Kobayashi, so that the system is configured to prevent signals, as taught by Hong. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of prohibiting the endoscope from being used by means of the work station ([0047] of Hong).
Claim(s) 8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006296675 A to Ishiguro et al. (hereinafter “Ishiguro”) and Wu and Kobyashi and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0206560 to Hanajima et al. (hereinafter “Hanajima”).
Regarding claim 8, Ishiguro, in view of Wu and Kobayashi teaches the system according to claim 7.
Ishiguro, in view of Kobayashi, fails to expressly teach wherein the operation panel is a touch panel.
However, Hanajima teaches of an information processing system (Hanajima: Fig. 35) wherein the operation panel (Hanajima: 64, Fig. 35, [0363]) is a touch panel (Hanajima [0363]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ishiguro, in view of Wu and Kobayashi, so that the operation panel is a touch panel, as taught by Hanajima. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of being the server interface (Hanajima: [0363]).
Regarding claim 10, Ishiguro, in view of Wu and Kobayashi teaches the system according to claim 9.
Ishiguro, in view of Wu and Kobayashi, fails to expressly teach wherein the operation panel is a touch panel.
However, Hanajima teaches of an information processing system (Hanajima: Fig. 35) wherein the operation panel (64, Fig. 35, [0363]) is a touch panel ([0363]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ishiguro, in view of Wu and Kobayashi, so that the operation panel is a touch panel, as taught by Hanajima. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of being the server interface (Hanajima: [0363]).
Regarding claim 11, Ishiguro, in view of Wu and Kobayashi teaches the system according to claim 9.
Ishiguro, in view of Wu and Kobayashi, fails to expressly teach wherein the input button is formed of a physical switch.
However, Hanajima teaches of an information processing system (Hanajima: Fig. 35) wherein the input button (64, Fig. 35, [0363]) is formed of a physical switch ([0363]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ishiguro, in view of Wu and Kobayashi, so that the input button is formed of a physical switch, as taught by Hanajima. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of being the server interface (Hanajima: [0363]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006296675 A to Ishiguro et al. (hereinafter “Ishiguro”) in view of Wu and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0363574 to Takao et al. (hereinafter “Takao”).
Regarding claim 12, Ishiguro, in view of Wu, teaches the system according to claim 1.
Ishiguro, in view of Wu, fails to expressly teach wherein the client processor is configured to determine when the tag reader reads a health-care personnel ID, whether or not the health-care personnel ID matches an administrator ID.
However, Takao teaches of an analogous system wherein the client processor is configured to determine when the tag reader reads a health-care personnel ID, whether or not the health-care personnel ID matches an administrator ID (Takao: [0061]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ishiguro, in view of Wu, to utilize an administrator determination unit, as taught by Takao. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of determining a match (Takao: [0061]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006296675 A to Ishiguro et al. (hereinafter “Ishiguro”) and further in view of Wu and U.S. Publication No. 2015/0363574 to Takao et al. (hereinafter “Takao”) and US 20180256009 A1 to Ouyang et al (hereinafter “Ouyang”).
Regarding claim 13, Ishiguro, in view of Wu, and Takao teaches the system according to claim 12
Ishiguro, in view of Wu, and Takao fails to expressly teach wherein the operation panel of the endoscope processor has a back light.
However, Takeo teaches of an analogous device wherein the operation panel of the endoscope processor has a back light (Ouyang: 150, Fig. 1, [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ishiguro, in view of Wu, and Takao, to utilize an operation panel in the manner taught by Ouyang. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of displaying images ([0080] of Ouyang).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTEN A. SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 6:00 AM - 2:00 PM, and Friday 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM.
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, Mike Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/C.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795