DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/5/2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 3/5/2026.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 13-14 and 17-20 have been amended.
Claims 8-9, 12 and 15-16 have been cancelled.
Claim 1-7, 10-11, 13-14 and 17-20 currently pending and have been examined.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Hosoi et al. (US 2018/0102189) teach a medical service support device. Hosoi et al. do not teach “obtain management target information which includes endoscope information, the endoscope information records at least an endoscope identification (ID) corresponding to an information processing apparatus...,” etc. Therefore, the Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0004]) the need to support efficient performance of endoscope handling. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by/through providing medical service support using the steps of “obtaining information, storing information, specifying data, determining operation times, determining operation rates, deriving operation rates, generating information, transmitting information,” etc. Applicant’s system/method/computer readable medium is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claims 1-7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 19 and 20 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “providing medical service support,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0002]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-7, recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, system/method/computer readable medium for performing the steps of “obtaining information, storing information, specifying data, determining operation times, determining operation rates, deriving operation rates, generating information, transmitting information,” etc., that is “providing medical service support,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1-7, recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. light source devices, endoscope processing device, barcode readers, information storage, CPUs, memory, communication interfaces, displays, endoscopes, transmission units, imaging part (Applicant’s Specification [0030]-[0051]), etc.) to perform steps of “obtaining information, storing information, specifying data, determining operation times, determining operation rates, deriving operation rates, generating information, transmitting information,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 1-7, recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e. light source devices, endoscope processing device, barcode readers, information storage, CPUs, memory, communication interfaces, displays, endoscopes, transmission units, imaging part, etc.) are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept (Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. light source devices, endoscope processing device, barcode readers, information storage, CPUs, memory, communication interfaces, displays, endoscopes, transmission units, imaging part, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0030]-[0051], Applicant’s specification describes generic computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “light source devices, endoscope processing device, barcode readers, information storage, CPUs, memory, communication interfaces, displays, endoscopes, transmission units, imaging part,” etc. to perform the functions of “obtaining information, storing information, specifying data, determining operation times, determining operation rates, deriving operation rates, generating information, transmitting information,” etc. The recited “light source devices, endoscope processing device, barcode readers, information storage, CPUs, memory, communication interfaces, displays, endoscopes, transmission units, imaging part,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). 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, or improves a technical field, or provides a technical improvement to a technical problem. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1-7, do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2-18 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 2-18 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 2-18 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/5/2026 with respect to claims 1-7, 10-11, 13-14 and 17-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 3/5/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/5/2026 with respect to claims 1-7, 10-11, 13-14 and 17-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (A), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
Rehash
Applicant's remarks and arguments merely rehash issues addressed in the Office Action mailed 12/05/2025 and incorporated herein.
Applicant’s Amendments
Applicant amended claims recite “store the management target information in the support device management database,” “determine an endoscope standard operation time…,” “determine an endoscope operation rate reference value…,” “wherein the medical service support information further includes notification information…” These are information processing steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea and do not move Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Data Processing Step
Applicant’s amended steps of “store the management target information in the support device management database,” “determine an endoscope standard operation time…,” “determine an endoscope operation rate reference value…,” “wherein the medical service support information further includes notification information…,” are abstract compurational steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea. In Electric Power Group the collection, manipulation and display of data has been found to be an abstract process. When claims, such as Applicant’s claims, are “directed to an abstract idea” and “merely requir[e] generic computer implementation,” they “do[] not move into [§] 101 eligibility territory.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, analysis of information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, is essentially a mental processes within the abstract-idea category (Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354). Further, Applicant appears to be claiming generic computer implementation of a certain method of organsing human interaction. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Integration into a Practical Application
Integration into a practical application requires additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (e.g. Enfish, McRO and Vanda) (2019 PEG).
Applicant’s “light source devices, endoscope processing device, barcode readers, information storage, CPUs, memory, communication interfaces, displays, endoscopes, transmission units, imaging part” is/are not an additional element(s) that reflects in the an improvement in the functioning of a computer, is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis, is/are not an additional element(s) that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or things, and is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment for the reasons explained in the 101 rejection above. Applicant’s “light source devices, endoscope processing device, barcode readers, information storage, CPUs, memory, communication interfaces, displays, endoscopes, transmission units, imaging part” is/are merely tools used by Applicant to implement data processing. Data processing is an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improvements – Advantageous over previous methods
The test for patent-eligible subject matter is not whether the claims are advantageous over previous methods. Even if Applicant’s claims provide advantages over manual collection of data, Applicant’s claims no technological improvement beyond improvement beyond the use of generic computer components/a generic computer network. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improvements
Despite recitation of light source devices, endoscope processing device, barcode readers, information storage, CPUs, memory, communication interfaces, displays, endoscopes, transmission units, imaging part, Applicant’s claims are, at bottom, directed to the collection, organization, grouping and storage of data using techniques such as information processing. The light source devices, endoscope processing device, barcode readers, information storage, CPUs, memory, communication interfaces, displays, endoscopes, transmission units, imaging part recited in Applicant’s claims are merely tools used for organizing human activity, and are not an improvement to computer technology. This, the claims do not present any specific improvement in computer capabilities. Applicant’s arguments are nothing more than conclusory statements unmoored from specific claim language. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant claims the improvement of “efficient use of endoscopes in a medical facility by displaying the medical service support information on a screen,” “improving the efficiency of the use of endoscope by showing the user the medical service support information,” “increased efficiency of the usage of endoscope devices," "improving the usage of endoscope devices," "accurately ascertain information related to information processing apparatus,” etc. It has been held that it is not enough to merely improve a fundamental practices or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool (Affinity Labs. of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation). In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), it was held that “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible. In SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC it was held that patent directed to “selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying results,” are ineligible, and claims focused on an improvement in wholly abstract ideas are ineligible. Further, invocation of “already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be in advance…amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional” (SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC). Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Abstract Idea Cannot Supply the Inventive Concept
Applicant’s reliance on “efficient use of endoscopes in a medical facility by displaying the medical service support information on a screen,” “improving the efficiency of the use of endoscope by showing the user the medical service support information,” “increased efficiency of the usage of endoscope devices," "improving the usage of endoscope devices," "accurately ascertain information related to information processing apparatus,” etc. is misplaced because “the abstract idea itself cannot supply the invention concept, no matter how groundbreaking the advance” (Trading Technologies International, Inc. v IBG LLC). Thus, the claims do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a-5:00p.
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, ROBERT W MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683