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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 April 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9, 11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Campbell (WO 2015/193664).
In regard to claims 1 and 11, Campbell discloses an information acquisition system for acquiring information regarding disinfection or a chemical reaction (“computer system”; 2nd to last paragraph of page 13), the information acquisition system comprising: a detection unit (code reading apparatus; 3rd paragraph of page 13) configured to detect a machine-readable information code comprising a plurality of symbols arranged in a pattern (not positively recited but equivalent to a QR code as depicted in Figures 1a and 1b), wherein the pattern before application of a disinfectant/occurrence of a chemical reaction represents a first information code (see Figure 1a and at least pages 3-7) representing identification information (“identification data;” see the 2nd paragraph of page 11) of an object and the pattern after the application of the disinfectant/occurrence of a chemical reaction represents a second information code (see Figure 1b and the 3rd paragraph of page 7) representing status information indicating that the disinfection has been performed (such as “pass” or the date and time of the sterilization procedure; see the 2nd paragraph of page 11), the second information code being different from the first information code (see the paragraph running from page 7 to page 8); one or more memories (necessarily a component of a computer system for storing a database; 2nd to last paragraph of page 13); and one or more processors (necessarily a component of a computer system for storing a database; 2nd to last paragraph of page 13) in communication with the detection unit and with the one or more memories, wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are configured to: determine, based on the detected pattern of symbols, whether the detected machine-readable information code corresponds to the first information code or to the second information code (necessarily part of a “pass” or “fail” determination; see the 2nd paragraph of page 11); determine that disinfection/the chemical reaction has been completed when the detected machine-readable information code corresponds to the second information code (necessarily part of a “pass” determination; see the 2nd paragraph of page 11); and acquire information (such as “information relating to a sterilisation/wash test procedure,” “data and/or time on which the sterilization/wash test procedure took place,” or other data recited in the paragraph; see the 2nd paragraph of page 11) regarding the disinfection/the chemical reaction by associating the status information of the second information code with the identification information of the object in the more or more memories in response to determining that the disinfection has been completed. See Figures 1a-1b and pages 3-13.
In regard to claim 2, it is noted that the machine-readable information code has not been positively recited in the system as the system need only to be capable of detecting the information code. Thus, it is held that the system of Campbell is capable of detecting a machine-readable information code which includes a region where the pattern changes with the application of the disinfectant and a region where the pattern does not change with the application of the disinfectant. The Courts have held that “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115). The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, it is noted that Campbell discloses wherein the machine-readable information code includes a region where the pattern changes with the application of the disinfectant and a region where the pattern does not change with the application of disinfectant (“a change in [..] part of the code”). See the paragraph running from page 7 to page 8.
In regard to claim 3, Campbell discloses wherein the information regarding the disinfection includes information regarding a place where the disinfectant has been applied (see the discussion of “tracking procedures” in the 1st paragraph of page 5).
In regard to claim 4, it is noted that the machine-readable information code has not been positively recited in the system as the system need only to be capable of detecting the machine-readable information code. Thus, it is held that the system of Campbell is capable of detecting a machine-readable information code which causes at least one of disappearance of part of the pattern forming the first information code upon the application of the disinfectant and appearance of a pattern upon the application of the disinfectant, the pattern being not included in the pattern forming the first information code. The Courts have held that “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115). The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, it is noted that Campbell discloses wherein the machine-readable information code cause at least one of disappearance of part of the pattern of the first information code upon the application of the disinfectant and appearance of a pattern upon the application of the disinfectant, the pattern being not included in the pattern forming the first information code. See the last paragraph of page 8.
In regard to claim 5, Campbell discloses wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to acquire the information regarding the disinfection with the detection unit detecting both the first information code and the second information code as the code reading apparatus sends gathered information to the database of the computer system. See page 13.
In regard to claim 6, it is noted that the machine-readable information code has not been positively recited in the system as the system need only to be capable of detecting the machine-readable information code. It is therefore held that the information acquisition system of Campbell would be capable of detecting the second information after the application of the disinfect wherein the first information code is indicated again after a period of time as the detection unit of Campbell is not functionally impacted by a machine-readable information code which functions in the recited manner. It is noted that the Courts have held that “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115). The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
In regard to claims 7 and 8, it is noted that the machine-readable information code has not been positively recited in the system as the system need only to be capable of detecting the machine-readable information code. It is therefore held that the system of Campbell is capable of detecting wherein the machine-readable information code presents a pattern after the application of the disinfectant, the pattern representing a third information code different from the first information code, and the second information code and the third information code appear at different times after the application of the disinfectant. It is noted that the Courts have held that “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115). The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, it is noted that Campbell discloses wherein the machine-readable information code presents a pattern after the application of disinfectant, the pattern representing a third information code (see the 5th paragraph of page 7) different from the first information code, and the second information code and the third information code appear at different times after the application of disinfectant to indicate partial sterilization (5th paragraph of page 7). It is held that the computer system and its database are further configured to acquire data regarding the partial sterilization from detection of the third information code.
In regard to claim 9, it is noted that the machine-readable information code has not been positively recited in the system as the system need only to be capable of detecting the machine-readable information code. It is therefore held that the information acquisition system of Campbell would be capable of detecting a machine-readable information code which indicates the second information code after lapse of a certain time from the application of the disinfectant as the detection unit of Campbell is not functionally impacted by a machine-readable information code which functions in the recited manner. It is noted that the Courts have held that “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115). The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
In regard to claim 14, Campbell discloses wherein the first information code and the second information code are two-dimensional machine-readable codes comprising a plurality of symbols arranged in a matrix pattern (QR code). See the 4th paragraph of page 6.
In regard to claim 15, Campbell discloses wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to store, as the information regarding the disinfection, (i) information indicating that the application of the disinfectant has been performed as determined based on the second information decoded from the second information code (“pass” determination), (ii) information indicating a time at which the application of the disinfectant has been performed (“date and/or time on which a sterilisation/wash test procedure took place”), and (iii) information indicating a place where the application of the disinfectant has been performed (location of the […] sterilisation/wash test procedure”), in association with each other. See the 2nd paragraph of page 11.
In regard to claim 16, it is held that the claimed limitation is merely met by repeated use of the system of Campbell, as each detection of the machine-readable information code would constitute a different “disinfected region” as each code has its own discrete location in space and the one or more processors and the one or more memories would necessarily acquire the disinfection for each of the different “regions” constituted by each of the information codes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Rahn et al. (US 2021/0161355; hereinafter “Rahn”).
In regard to claim 17, Campbell is silent in regard to an analysis unit.
Rahn discloses an analysis unit (clearing verification module 206) which are configured to provide recommended information (“suggest corrective action(s)”) regarding disinfection of the plurality of disinfected regions based on the information stored in the one or more memories. See [0069]-[0076] and Figure 4A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the analysis unit of Rahn with the system of Campbell for the purpose of suggesting corrective actions based on the detected result of a procedure.
In regard to claim 18, Campbell is silent in regard to the computer system being configured to cause a terminal device to perform a predetermined operation in response to reading the second information code.
Rahn discloses wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to cause a terminal device (clean verification module 206) that has read the second information code to perform a predetermined operation (such as to “automatically adjust one or more cleaning process parameters” as taught in [0072] or “cause one or more notifications for display” as taught in [0073]) in response to reading the second information code.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the clean verification module of Rahn with the system of Campbell for the purpose of automatically adjusting one or more cleaning process parameters as a result of the detected condition of the machine information code.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights