DETAILED ACTION
Notices to Applicant
This communication is a final rejection. Claims 1-12, as filed 09/18/2025, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority is generally acknowledged as shown in the filing receipt with the earliest priority date being 11/21/2022.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claim limitations “image acquisition unit,” “storage unit,” “reading unit,” “checking unit,” “notification unit,” and “detection unit” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-12 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the image acquisition unit is a radiation detection panel in a radiographic device ([0019]).
The storage unit is functionally described in [0021], but [0065] suggests that it can be a general purpose computer.
The reading unit is part of the radiographic device ([0020]).
The checking unit is part of the FPD control circuit (0020]).
The notification unit is not structurally defined but [0065] suggests that it can be a general purpose computer.
The detection unit is not structurally defined but [0065] suggests that it can be a general purpose computer.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process, machine, and/or article of manufacture which recite:
1. A radiographing device comprising:
an image acquisition unit configured to receive radiation that has passed through an examination target and acquire an image of the examination target (additional element – data gathering; generally linking to a technical field);
a reading unit configured to read identification information assigned to an examination target (additional element – data gathering; generally applying the idea with a computer);
and
a storage unit configured to, store the image of the examination target and the read identification information in association with each other (additional element – data organization and storage; generally applying the abstract idea with a computer),
wherein the radiographing device includes, inside the radiographing device: a storing unit configured to store examination target information (additional element – data storage);
a checking unit configured to check the stored examination target information and the read identification information against each other (abstract idea – mental process);
wherein the radiographing device further includes:
a notification unit configured to make a notification of information about a result of the checking (abstract idea – certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental process because it is communicating the result of an evaluation);
Claim 1 is presented as an exemplary claim but a similar analysis applies to claims 1-12.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes because the italicized portions are analogous to performing a mental evaluation of data and communicating the result to a technician. For example, but for the various units, checking the information can be performed by a supervisor technician who then communicates the result (such as an ID mismatch) with another technician and is thus, in the context of this claim, is analogous to steps a human would perform.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims. For example, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 9-12 add further details on the checking process and/or the communication process.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, the various units of the claims amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification [0065], see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. For example, image acquisition and reading identification amount to mere data gathering and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, storing data recitation amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use such as image acquisition by receiving radiation that has passed through an examination target, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. For example, claim 3 generally applies the abstract idea by using generic computing equipment to communicate the result. Claims 6-8 similarly apply the abstract idea by organizing and storing information with a computer. 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do 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, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields. For example, performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii), electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii), and/or storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wirth (USP App. Pub. No. 2018/0184996) in view of Tajima (USP App. Pub. No. 2016/0029991).
Regarding claim 1, Wirth discloses: A radiographing device comprising:
--an image acquisition unit configured to receive radiation that has passed through an examination target and acquire an image of the examination target (“a digital detector of incident ionizing radiation, taking the form of a flat panel, the detector being positioned in the housing and comprising a memory space, and being intended to generate a digital image of a patient exposed to the ionizing radiation and with whom an identification code is associated, the digital image being stored in the memory space,” [0014]);
--a reading unit configured to read identification information assigned to an examination target (“The identification code 40 of the patient may be a code and the device 39 for selecting the patient a code reader…The invention also applies to a selecting device 39 such as an optical reader (of the video-camera type) able to read any type of information (barcode, QR code and any other symbol or letter),” [0052]; “One possible way of decreasing the risk of confusion as to the identification of the patient is to attribute a barcode to the patient, which barcode is read out, before the radiography, with an additional barcode reader by the operator,” [0009]);
--a storage unit configured to, based on the result of the checking, store the image of the examination target and the read identification information in association with each other (“each image stored in the memory space 17 is associated with an identification code 40 of the patient. The invention allows the operator to be able to take radiographs of patients in any order, this order not needing to be defined beforehand since at the moment at which the image of a patient is taken, the identification code 40 of the patient is also recorded in the memory space 17 of the cassette 3,” [0048]),
wherein the radiographing device includes, inside the radiographing device: a storing unit configured to store examination target information (“memory space” in [0014]; “The memory space of the cassette is therefore a zone in which it is possible to save a piece of information associated with a least one of the generated images, the piece of information possibly being an identification code, a name of a patient, a social security number of a patient and/or a radiographed body part,” [0049]);
--wherein the radiographic device further includes: a notification unit configured to make a notification of information about a result (“This display screen 45 in particular allows the operator to make an additional check of the identification of the patient,” [0053])
Wirth prevents images from being associated with the wrong patient by having the operator manually perform manual checks (e.g., [0053]) rather than an automated check. Wirth does not expressly disclose but Tajima teaches:
--a checking unit configured to check the stored examination target information and the read identification information against each other (“If the imaging subject W does not coincide with the information in the imaging list, the control section 30 proceeds to step S908 and displays an indication at the display 36 that the imaging subject W does not match up. In response to the indication displayed at the display 36 that the imaging subject W does not coincide with the information in the imaging list, the user verifies that the imaging subject W is not in the imaging list,” [0219]; “At this time, as the patient ID, the control section 30 reads, for example, the patient's name written on a name card, a medical record or the like of the imaging subject W with the reader section 33, or reads a barcode, a two-dimensional code such as a QR code (registered trademark) or such, or the like. The control section 30 checks up the imaging subject W by checking the data that is read against the information in the imaging list,” [0217]).
Wirth discloses a portable radiological cassette with memory space ([0014]-[0019]) and a screen that displays a check (“The cassette 3 according to the invention may also comprise a display screen 45 intended to display the identification code 40 read. This display screen 45 in particular allows the operator to make an additional check of the identification of the patient,” [0053]). Thus the structure of Wirth discloses the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 but for the specific data processing steps of Tajima. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been able to substitute the checking logic on the portable radiological cassette of Wirth to include the checking logic of Tajima with the predictable result of Tajima’s check result showing on Wirth’s display screen 45.
Additionally, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Tajima’s checking of the selected patients against the pre-loaded imaging list within the portable imaging system of Wirth because this would improve the chances of the right imaging exams being performed on the right patients and user convenience (Tajima [0006]-[0007]). Further, incorporating Tajima’s check into Wirth’s radiological cassette would be beneficial because “the main advantage of the invention is to allow the digital cassette to be used in a completely stand-alone mode, without risk of confusion between the radiographs of patients, and without the need for an additional portable reader or for radiographs to be taken in a preset order” (Wirth [0060].
Regarding claim 2, Wirth discloses: wherein the identification information includes one or more of a patient name, a patient ID, a date of birth, a gender, or a location (“If the code corresponds to the name of a patient and the images I1 and I2 are of the same patient, then the images I1 and I2 may both have the same code, P1 for example, and the image I3 of another patient may have the code P2. The memory space of the cassette is therefore a zone in which it is possible to save a piece of information associated with a least one of the generated images, the piece of information possibly being an identification code, a name of a patient, a social security number of a patient and/or a radiographed body part. Of course, the memory space may contain a combination of pieces of information,” [0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Wirth discloses: wherein the notification unit makes a notification of the information about a result (“This display screen 45 in particular allows the operator to make an additional check of the identification of the patient,” [0053]; the checking is viewed in light of the teachings and motivations applied to claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Wirth ford not expressly disclose but Tajima teaches: a detection unit configured to detect imaging preparation or imaging completion, wherein, when the detection unit detects imaging preparation or imaging completion in a state where the reading unit has not completed reading of identification information, the notification unit determines that there is no match as the result of checking and makes a notification of information about the result of the checking (S908 in FIG. 23; S618 in FIG. 11; [0218]-[0219]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Wirth ford not expressly disclose but Tajima teaches: when there is no match between the read identification information and the stored examination target information as a result of the checking, the notification unit makes a notification of information about the result of the checking (S908 in FIG. 23; S618 in FIG. 11; [0218]-[0219]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Wirth discloses: a change unit configured to change the stored examination target information (“the portable radiological cassette comprises means for consulting a list of patients on a remote server,” [0022]; [0059]).
Regarding claim 7, Wirth does not expressly disclose but Tajima teaches: wherein the change unit is capable of adding an examination target to the stored examination target information (“Commonly, in a case in which a radiographic image is imaged, a need may arise for an additional image (hereinafter referred to as additional imaging) in addition to the order that has been provided. In this case, if the handheld terminal device 16 is not connected with the console 18 or an external system, the handheld terminal device 16 first images the radiographic image without an order corresponding to the additional imaging having been issued. After the imaging, in a case in which the handheld terminal device 16 is connected with the console 18 or external system, the order is associated with image data of the additional radiographic image. Therefore, if imaging is carried out in a state in which an order has not been issued, as in additional imaging or the like, information representing the fact that an order has not been issued may be associated,” [0306]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Wirth discloses: wherein the stored examination target information includes one or more of a patient name, a patient ID, a date of birth, a gender, or a location (“the piece of information possibly being an identification code, a name of a patient, a social security number of a patient and/or a radiographed body part,” [0049]) and one or more of a date and time of an examination, an imaging procedure (imaged body art in [0010]), the number of photograph, the amount of radiation exposure, or an examination order from among a plurality of examination targets (“This small screen allows a number that is incremented each time an image is taken to be displayed. This number therefore corresponds to the number of images stored in memory in the detector,” [0010]).
Regarding claim 9, Wirth does not expressly disclose but Tajima teaches: wherein the stored examination target information includes an examination order from among a plurality of examination targets, wherein the checking unit is capable of checking an order where the reading unit reads identification information and the examination order from among a plurality of examination targets against each other, and wherein, when there is no match as a result of the checking, the notification unit makes a notification of information about the result of the checking (S908 in FIG. 23; S618 in FIG. 11; [0218]-[0219]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Wirth discloses: wherein the stored examination target information includes the number of photograph (“This small screen allows a number that is incremented each time an image is taken to be displayed. This number therefore corresponds to the number of images stored in memory in the detector,” [0010]).
Wirth does not expressly disclose but Tajima teaches: wherein the checking unit is capable of checking the number of photograph and a number of images stored in association with identification information including information matching the stored examination target information including the number of photograph against each other, and wherein, when the reading unit reads new identification information in a state where there is no match as a result of the checking, the notification unit makes a notification of information about the result of the checking (“Therefore, it is preferable if, for example, a counter or the like is provided that counts the number of image IDs generated at the radiographic imaging device 14 and memorized in the memory section 24, count values of this counter are transmitted to the handheld terminal device 16, the handheld terminal device 16 appropriately compares a received count value of the counter with the number of image IDs memorized in the memory section 32, and the handheld terminal device 16 gives a warning or the like if the values do not coincide. Further, the handheld terminal device 16 may display the count value of the counter at the display 36,” [0309]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Wirth discloses: wherein the stored examination target information includes the number of photograph (“This small screen allows a number that is incremented each time an image is taken to be displayed. This number therefore corresponds to the number of images stored in memory in the detector,” [0010]).
Wirth does not expressly disclose but Tajima teaches: wherein the checking unit is capable of checking the number of photograph and a number of images stored in association with the read identification information including information matching the stored examination target information including the number of photograph against each other, and wherein, when there is no match as a result of the checking, the notification unit makes a notification of information about the result of the checking (“Therefore, it is preferable if, for example, a counter or the like is provided that counts the number of image IDs generated at the radiographic imaging device 14 and memorized in the memory section 24, count values of this counter are transmitted to the handheld terminal device 16, the handheld terminal device 16 appropriately compares a received count value of the counter with the number of image IDs memorized in the memory section 32, and the handheld terminal device 16 gives a warning or the like if the values do not coincide. Further, the handheld terminal device 16 may display the count value of the counter at the display 36,” [0309]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Wirth does not expressly disclose but Tajima teaches: wherein, when the reading unit reads identification information after the notification unit has made a notification, an image not associated with identification information is associated with the read identification information and stored in the storage unit (S908 in FIG. 23; S618 in FIG. 11; [0218]-[0219]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2025 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention integrates any abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) because the specification sets forth an improvement, namely that checking patient during information while rounding with a portable device reduces errors, and that improvement is embodied in the claims . Remarks pages 7-10. The MPEP provides that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field can signal eligibility, see MPEP 2106.05(a), and provides examples of improvements to computer functionality, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and improvements to any other technology of technical field, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool”. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this case, the alleged improvement pertains to both the software and hardware within a medical imaging device. The alleged improvement, i.e., checking patient information for errors during an imaging workflow, is recited at such a high level that it amounts to using generic computing components that perform the check. There is no indication that particular hardware or software problems were solved nor is there any detail on how to implement the software checks within the radiographing device that suggest such an arrangement presents technical problems that were solved or how to solve them. Instead, the specification relies on the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the checks within the radiographing device which belies the asserted improvement in computer or software. See MPEP 2106.05(a): “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.” Thus the examiner finds that the claimed invention fails to include a technical solution and maintains the subject matter eligibility rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant argues that the combination of Wirth and Tajima fails to teach the currently claimed combination where “the radiographing device includes, inside the radiographing device: a storing unit…and a checking unit…” Remarks pages 10-12. “Thus, even in making-round bedside radiography, the radiographing device of claim 1 can perform imaging (i) without using external devices such as a console or a portable information terminal and (ii) without misidentifying the patient to be imaged.” Id. This is not persuasive because the structure of claim 1, namely a radiographic device that performs storing and checking within the radiographic device is taught by the combination. In particular, Wirth teaches that “[t]he cassette 3 according to the invention may also comprise a display screen 45 intended to display the identification code 40 read. This display screen 45 in particular allows the operator to make an additional check of the identification of the patient.” Combining this structure with Tajima’s checking logic maintains the claimed structure as described in greater detail above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JOSHUA BLANCHETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-2299. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7:30AM - 6:00PM, EST.
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, Shahid Merchant, can be reached on (571) 270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA B BLANCHETTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624