DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to amendment and remarks filed June 12, 2025. Claims 1 and 15-16 have been amended. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statement dated 7/31/2025 has been acknowledged and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per independent claims 1, 15 and 16, it is unclear as to what the limitation “for the default unit being ended” in the amended claim language for the independent claims is referring to. This limitation will be given little to no patentable weight until further clarification is given. Claims 2-14 incorporate the deficiencies of the independent claim from which they depend upon.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-14 are drawn to a medical service support device for outputting medical service support information, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 15 is drawn to a medical service support method for outputting medical service support information, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 16 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for outputting medical service support information, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. article of manufacture).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A medical service support device comprising:
a processor;
and a memory that is connected to or built into the processor, wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire a washing wait time from when an endoscope procedure service using an endoscope is ended to when washing of the endoscope by a washer is started, for each default unit capable of classifying the washing wait time;
output medical service support information in which the washing wait time and the default unit are associated with each other; and
in response to another endoscope procedure service using the endoscope for the default unit being ended, cause the washer to wash the endoscope according to the washing waiting time.
These recited underlined limitations fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The limitations of acquiring a wash wait and outputting medical service support information as drafted and detailed above, are steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites steps for organizing human interactions. The claimed invention is directed to acquiring and outputting information which is a concept relating to tracking or filtering information. Tracking information or filtering content has been found to be an abstract idea and a method of organizing human behavior. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). That is other than reciting “a processor”; and “memory” language, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from describing concepts related to receiving and organizing specification information between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts related to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A medical service support device comprising:
a processor; and a memory that is connected to or built into the processor, wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire a washing wait time from when an endoscope procedure service using an endoscope is ended to when washing of the endoscope by a washer is started, for each default unit capable of classifying the washing wait time;
output medical service support information in which the washing wait time and the default unit are associated with each other; and
in response to another endoscope procedure service using the endoscope for the default unit being ended, cause the washer to wash the endoscope according to the washing waiting time.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
the recitations performing the functions by the processor and memory amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraph [00234] of the present specification.
The recitation of in response to another endoscope procedure service using the endoscope, cause the washer to wash the endoscope according to the washing waiting time recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (i.e. claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished)
The feature of causing the washer to wash the endoscope according to the washing waiting time in response to another procedure being ended merely teaches a general outcome (washing the endoscope according to a washing waiting time).
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)– for example, the recitation of performing the functions by the processor and memory merely limits the abstract idea the environment of a computer.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and the same analysis applies with regards to whether they amount to “significantly more.”
Therefore, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the at least one abstract idea.
As per claims 15, the claim teaches limitations similar to claim 1 and the same abstract idea (“certain methods of organizing human activity”) for the same reasons as stated above. Claim 15 further teaches a method to perform the functionality taught by claim 1. Independent claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea.
As per claim 16, the claim teaches limitations similar to claim 1 and the same abstract idea (“certain methods of organizing human activity”) for the same reasons as stated above. Claim 16 further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program to perform the functionality taught by claim 1. These limitations of a computer-readable storage as generally recited, amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Independent claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, for similar reasons as representative independent claim 1, analogous independent claims 15-16 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor add significantly more.
The following dependent claims further the define the abstract idea or are also directed to an abstract idea itself:
Dependent claims 3-13 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 14: This claim specifies an information processing apparatus used together with an endoscope and washer which thus does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Claim 2: This claim recites acquiring the washing wait time which therefore merely represent insignificant extra-solution (data output) activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The dependent claims further do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-16 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant begins arguments on pg. 7 of the 6/12/2025 Remarks traversing the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101. Applicant first argues that the claims meet Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility test because the claims are tied to concrete physical operations in a medical context and the claims are not directed to a mental process or general data organization. Examiner maintains that the claims continue to be directed to general data organization notwithstanding the recitation of activating a washer. Tying the claims to “concrete physical operations” does not, alone, mean the claims cannot be directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant next argues that automatically triggering a washer to begin cleaning of the endoscope is not generic computer implementation and amounts to a practical application because it provides a technical solution. Examiner disagrees. Applicant notes that the technical solution is solving a problem in hospital logistics by optimizing sterilization timing. However, Applicant does not explain what technical process is being improved upon. Activating the washer, alone, as a result of one procedure being done does not detail an improvement to the technology.
Subject Matter free from Prior Art
The closest domestic prior art of record Noguchi (2007/0286764), Abstract, teaches an acquiring unit acquires information indicative of a finish time of the endoscopic examination which is the newest and performed by the endoscope apparatus. Noguchi para. [0083] further teaches a controller extracts, from the read-out examination data, "cleaning/disinfection-finish time data," which includes a date on which a cleaning and disinfection work was done and a finish time instant of the cleaning and disinfection work.
However, the closest prior art of record does not expressly teach, as per independent claims 1, 15 and 16: acquiring a washing wait time from when an endoscope procedure service using an endoscope is ended to when washing of the endoscope by a washer is started, for each default unit capable of classifying the washing wait time;
No final decision on patentability has been made in light of pending rejections.
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 LINH GIANG MICHELLE LE whose telephone number is (571)272-8207. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8:30am - 5:30pm PST.
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, JASON DUNHAM can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
LINH GIANG "MICHELLE" LE
PRIMARY EXAMINER
Art Unit 3686
/LINH GIANG LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686 9/10/2025