CTNF 18/624,358 CTNF 97250 DETAILED ACTION This is the first action in response to US Patent Application 18/624,359, filed 02 April, 2024, as a continuation of International Application PCT/JP2022/031042, filed 17 August, 2022, and with priority to Japanese Application JP 2021-171903, filed 20 October, 2021. All claims 1-16 are pending and have been fully considered. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA 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. 07-30-05 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) 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): (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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) , 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: -“ a first wireless device ” (claim 1, lines 2-3) which performs the function of “storing first identification information”; -“ a second wireless device ” (claim 1, lines 4-5) which performs the function of “storing second identification information”; -“ a third wireless device ” (claim 13, lines 3-4) which performs the function of “storing third identification information”; -“ a reading apparatus ” (claim 1, lines 6-10; claim 16, lines 2-5) which performs the functions of “reading, from a wireless device, identification information stored on the wireless device” and “measuring a relative amount of movement from a reference position using a self-localization technique”; -“ a position estimation unit ” (claim 1, lines 11-16; claim 16, lines 8-14) which functions to “estimate a position of the target based on the relative amount of movement of the reading apparatus from a first point in time at which the first identification information has been read from the first wireless device by the reading apparatus to a second point in time at which the second identification has been read from the second wireless device by the reading apparatus”; -“ a notification unit ” (claim 1, lines 19-21; claim 16, lines 17-19) which functions to “notify a user of a position at which the target is estimated to exist based on the position information stored in the database”; -“ a management unit ” (claim 12, lines 3-5) which functions to “obtain the sterilization-related information output by a sterilizer that performs the sterilization process and cause the database to store it”; and -“ a communication unit ” (claim 16, lines 2-7) which functions to “receive, from a reading apparatus…a result of reading the identification information and a result of measuring the relative amount of movement”. For each of the above limitations, it is evident that: (A) the limitations include a generic placeholder (either “device”, “apparatus” or “unit”); and (B) the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language indicated above. Furthermore, although some of the recited generic placeholder are limited by location (e.g., the second wireless device being attached to a target—see claim 1, lines 4-5) and certain functional limitations may imply some structure to the generic placeholder (e.g., a “wireless” device may be fairly implied to include an antennae, transceiver, or similar component), the claim limitations ultimately do not explicitly modify the generic placeholders with sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Accordingly: -“a wireless device ” (i.e., all of the first, second, and third wireless devices) is a passive RFID tag (instant specification at [0044]), an active RFID tag, a near field communication (NFC) device, a Bluetooth® device ([0046]), or equivalents thereof (e.g., RFID cards or responders); -“ a reading apparatus ” is a tag reader device (100) comprising at least a reading unit (116) and a measuring unit (114), the reading unit (116) having circuitry (e.g., RF controller 120, power amplifier 121, filter 122, coupler 123-124, antenna 125, power detector 126, canceller 127) for reading an RFID tag (see Fig. 2, [0061]) or circuitry for reading an equivalent wireless device (as identified above), and the measuring unit including or communicating with a plurality of sensors (e.g., 3D acceleration sensor 114a, gyro sensor 114b, and geomagnetic sensor 114c) which measure relative movement ([0058]); -“ a position estimation unit ” is a software module (231) ([0064]), or equivalents thereof, optionally programmed onto a server (Fig. 3); -“ a notification unit ” is a software module (233) ([0064]), or equivalents thereof, optionally programmed onto a server; -“ a management unit ” is a software module (sterilization management unit 233) ([0064]), or equivalents thereof, optionally programmed onto a server; and -“ a communication unit” is a wired or wireless communication interface (210) ([0064], such as a wireless local area network interface, a cellular communication interface, a Bluetooth interface, a USB interface (113) ([0057]), or equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1-3, 8, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unp atentable over R aynesford et al. (US 2016/0370454 A1) in view of Perki ns et al. (US 2010/0252627 A1, cited in the IDS filed 02 April, 2024). Raynesford teaches a system (100) for locating tags w ithin a space (title, abstract), comprising: A first wireless device (106) installed at a known position and storing identification information (RFID locator tags 106 are disposed in a manner that prevents unintended movement thereof—[0030]; each RFID indicator tag 106 has a unique locator ID associated therewith, which is used to obtain information specifying the known location of the RFID locator tag—[0031]; RFID locator tag may be coded with additional information such as a position of the RFID locator tag within a space—[0032]) A second wireless device (112, 118) attached to a movable object (RFID inventory tags attach to pieces of inventory and are subject to moving—[0024]; plurality of RFID inventory tags 112/118 attached to a plurality of objects 110/116 within a facility—[0088]) and storing second identification information (signals received from RFID inventory tags are processed to obtain unique tag identifiers therefrom and further processed to obtain location identifiers therefrom—[0089]); A reading apparatus ( 120/200) that moves together with a mobile object (handheld reader 200—Fig. 2; handheld reader is carried around the facility by a person or a mobile device, e.g., an unmanned vehicle—[0087]; reader 120 is the same as or similar to reader 200—[0037])), the reading apparatus being capable of reading, from a wireless device, identification information stored in the wireless device (reader 200 includes RF enabled device 250 for exchanging data with RFID locator tags and inventory tags 112/118—[0039]; device 250 includes transceiver 280 for receiving RF signals and forwarding them to controller 210 for extracting information therefrom—[0040]), and capable of measuring a relative amount of movement from a reference position using a self-localization technique (An attitude and heading reference device [AHR] 150 attached to handheld reader 120 collects measurement data including acceleration data, rotation data, and magnetic field data—[0034]; An AHR device 280, which is the same or similar as AHR device 150, is attached to or integrated with handheld reader 200 and includes acceleration, rotation, and magnetic field sensors 282…the AHR device 280 processes the sensor data to obtain a position and orientation within a frame of reference—[0043]; the AHR device determines a position and orientation within a reference frame amounts to the recited self-localization technique); a position estimation unit (position/location determining application 324—Fig. 3, [0051]) configured to estimate a position of the target based on the relative amount of movement (inertial movement) of the reading apparatus from a first point in time at which the first identification information has been read from the first wireless device by the reading apparatus (known locations of RFID locator tags read by the handheld reader) to a second point in time at which the second identification information has been read from the second wireless device by the reading apparatus (the course, position, and location of the handheld reader [200] is derived using inertial navigation and known locations of RFID locator tags read by the handheld reader—[0053] ; data recorded at each read of an RFID inventory tag 112/118—[0055]—along the path of the handheld reader is used to generate a plurality of cones estimating the location of the inventory tag, and the estimated position of the inventory tag is determined to be within intersection area 506—[0057]; see more detail at Fig. 4 and [0055]-[0060]; the claimed estimation technique is indistinguishable from the technique of Raynesford, which is determines the position of the reader 200 at different points in time based on the measured inertial motion of the reader 200 with in combination with known reference locations read from RFID locator tags 106, and then determining a position of inventory tags 112/118 based on the position(s) and orientation(s) of the reader corresponding to the time when the inventory tags are read—see [0035]); a database that stores position information representing an estimated position of the target (an estimate of the position for an individual RFID inventory tag is made and stored, the data store being internal or external to the handheld reader—[0080], [0092]; system comprises scalable computational platform “SCP” which converts raw data into a database of positions and locations associated with each RFID inventory tag read by the handheld reader—[0023] ; exemplary data store 126 is associated with a server 124 or is part of a memory [204] of the handheld device, and includes data on the known locations of RFID locator tags—see [0031]—the data store 126 further including AHR measurement data and data from each RFID inventory tag read, with timestamps—[0034], [0089]; thus understood that data store 126, which is either on a memory 204 of the handheld reader 120/200 or accessed via a server 124/300, stores estimated target positions converted from raw AHR and RFID data—see step 639 in Fig. 6B) a notification unit (216) configured to notify a user of a position at which the target is estimated to exist based on the position information stored in the database (output device 216 [of handheld apparatus 200] may present the user with a map via a display, the map including a three dimensional map showing the estimated position of the RFID inventory tags within a virtual facility—[0045]; such display of a map clearly serves to notify a user of the estimated target position). See Figs. 6A-B of Raynesford below, which show how the system of Raynesford is configured to function in a manner consistent with the limitations of claim 1, including steps of providing first wireless devices (RFID locator tags) at known locations (604), moving a reader apparatus (handheld reader) through a space (606), generating relative movement data with the reader apparatus (608), reading the first and second wireless devices with the reading apparatus (612), processing and storing measured data (616-620) to determining a course (series of positions) of the reading apparatus (622), further processing the data (624-634) to derive position estimates for each second wireless device (636), storing said position estimates (638), and outputting said estimates to a user (640). PNG media_image1.png 560 430 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 556 430 media_image2.png Greyscale The exemplary embodiments of Raynesford are directed toward use of the system within a retail store facility ([0029]), although Raynesford also indicates the system can be useful in a hospital environment where tracking items and persons is needed ([0026]). Nonetheless, Raynesford differs from the claim in that Raynesford does not indicate that the second wireless device is attached to a target of a sterilization process, that the database includes sterilization related information of the target, and that the notifications unit notifies a user about the estimated position of a target when the target is selected based on the sterilization-related information. However, in the analogous art of wireless tracking systems for sterilizable objects, Perkins teaches a system for location monitoring of a sterilizable object, the system including a tracking tag attached to a sterilizable object ([0019]) such as a surgical kit or a surgical tool ([0020]), wherein the tracking tag essentially is an RFID tag (tag comprises radio frequency transceiver—claim 1; each tag transmits a radio frequency signal—[0051]; prior art RFID tags disclosed at [0012]-[0013]; assets 100 bearing a tag 60—[0048]). Perkins thus teaches a second wireless device (tag 60) attached to a target of a sterilization process (asset 100) . Perkins further teaches that a server (65) acts as a processing means for the system ([0020]) and processes transmissions from sensors to calculate a real-time position for each sterilizable object (100) bearing a tag (60) ([0048]), the server further being configured to add data to database (claim 11). The server receives signals from the tags indicating a sterilization status signal (1003, 1005), determines a sterilization status (1006) for the object, and notifies an operator of the sterilization status (1007) (Fig. 5, steps 1002-1006; [0022] and [0057]). Thus, the server of Perkins must include sterilization related information of the target, such as a threshold or criterion for determining when a sterilization event was complete or incomplete, and data from the sterilization event such as the duration and temperature of sterilization steps (see [0022] indicating first and second status signals from the sensors are received at a remote server which uses said signals to determine whether a sterilization was complete or incomplete, and can communicate to a user details of the sterilization event including duration and temperature). The server further selects a notification to send to the user based on the determined sterilization status (server either sends a message that sterilization was complete or incomplete—see [0022], claims 22-23, step 1007 of Fig. 5). It is evident that the above features of Perkins enable tracking of the sterilization status of surgical instruments within a hospital environment. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adapt the system of Raynesford for a hospital setting (as suggested by Raynesford at [0026]) such that: -the second wireless devices (inventory tags 112/118) of Raynesford are attached to a target of a sterilization process and configured to collect sterilization related data (as seen with the tags 60 on surgical instruments/assets 100 of Perkins, the tags measuring one or more of pressure , temperature, ultrasonic energy, moisture, or chemical concentration [Figs. 4A-H] during a sterilization event); -the database of Raynesford (server 124/data store 126) includes sterilization related information of the target so that the a sterilization status of the surgical instrument can be determined (as seen with the server of Perkins which at least includes a program for determining when sterilization of a target is complete based on received data from the sterilization process, see [0022], Fig. 5) ; and -the notifications unit of Raynesford is configured to select a “sterilization complete” or “sterilization incomplete” status message to send to the user determined based on the sterilization-related information (as seen with the server of Perkins which sends a sterilization complete or incomplete method based on the determined sterilization status, see [0022], Fig. 5, claims 22-23) . The above proposed modifications provide the benefit of enabling the system of Raynesford to track both the sterilization status and the location of surgical items within a hospital facility. Regarding claim 2, Raynesford in view of Perkins teaches the sterilization management system according to claim 1. Raynesford alone does not indicate the sterilization related information includes timing information representing a timing of the sterilization process to be performed for the target, and the notification unit is configured to select the target based on the timing information included in the sterilization-related information. As amended with respect to claim 1, the system of Raynesford incorporates features from the system or Perkins in order to track the location and sterilization status of surgical instruments. Perkins suggests measuring a time of a sterilization event (measuring the time during sterilization event—[0017]; status signals comprising data including time sterilization threshold detected and terminated—[0057]) and comparing it to a predetermined threshold to establish if an object was appropriately sterilized (central processor calculates a time and intensity of exposure of object 100 to the sterilization event, and compares the calculated values to stored data for prescribed sterilization values to determine if the sterilizable object was properly sterilized—[0057]) before notifying an operator if the sterilization was complete or incomplete (sterilization status is communicated to an operator to inform if the sterilization procedure was complete or incomplete—[0057]). Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Raynesford such that the sterilization-related information includes timing information representing a timing of the sterilization process to be performed for the target (i.e., a prescribed sterilization time value and received time data from a sterilization event—see Perkins at [0057]) , and the notification unit is configured to select the target ( i.e., determine if a target will be indicated as having a “complete” or “incomplete” sterilization status in the communicated message—see Perkins at [0057]) based on the timing information included in the sterilization-related information (the calculated time of the sterilization event is compared to the prescribed time of the sterilization event—see Perkins at [0057]), for the benefit of providing a metric by which the completeness of a sterilization event can be determined (see Perkins at [0057], discussing a prescribed sterilization time [which defines sterilization related information] used to determine when a sterilization event was of sufficient duration to be complete). Regarding claim 3, Raynesford in view of Perkins teaches the sterilization management system according to claim 1. As modified with respect to claim 1, Raynesford incorporates features from the system of Perkins, the incorporated features essentially comprising the sterilization-related information includes status information representing a sterilization state for the target, and the notification unit is configured to select the target based on the status information included in the sterilization-related information (as modified with respect to claim 1, Raynesford incorporates features form Perkins which enable the determination of a sterilization status of surgical items—see rejection of claim 1, and Perkins at [0057]; thus modified, the system handles sterilization state information for a target, and a notification of either “complete” or “incomplete” is communicated to an operator based on the determined sterilization status) . Regarding claim 8, Raynesford in view of Perkins teaches the sterilization management system according to claim 1. Raynesford further teaches the notification unit is configured to perform the notification by causing a terminal apparatus of the user to display, on a screen, a map image of an area in which the target exists with the position of the target being plotted thereon (maps presented to the user via the display, the maps including a three dimensional map showing the estimated positions of the RFID inventory tags within a virtual facility—[0045]; provision of a three dimensional map showing locations of RFID inventory tags—[0047], [0051]) . Regarding claim 14, Raynesford in view of Perkins teaches the sterilization management system according to claim 1. Raynesford further teaches the wireless devices (106, 112/118) are radio frequency identification (RFID) tags (RFID locator tags 106—[0030]-[0031]; RFID inventory tags 112/118—[0034]). Claim 14 further indicates that the reading apparatus (120/200) is configured to emit an electromagnetic wave to a reading range and read information sent back from the wireless device utilizing energy of the electromagnetic wave; these claim limitations are understood to describe the ordinary functioning of a passive RFID tag (see the specification of the instant application at paragraph [0044]). Raynesford indicates that the RFID tags can be passive (RFID inventory tags and FRID locator tags can be passive devices—[0033]; also see [0004] discussing passive RFID technology), and is thus understood to teach passive RFIDs which utilize electromagnetic energy emitted from the reader to send back information to the reader. Regarding claim 15, the claim is directed toward a method which largely corresponds to the process by which the system of claim 1 operates. Accordingly, see the rejection of claim 1 above, regarding how Raynesford (especially at Figs. 6A-B) teaches a method comprising: reading, by a reading apparatus (120/200) that moves together with a mobile object ([0087]; see step 606 of Fig. 6A) , first identification information from a first wireless device (106) installed at a known position (see [0030]-[0032] as applied to claim 1 above with respect to RFID locator tags 106, and see step 612 of Fig. 6A including reading (b) at least one RFID locator tag) ; reading, by the reading apparatus (120/200) , second identification information from a second wireless device (112/118) attached to a target of a sterilization process (see [0024], [0037], and [0088]-[0089] with respect to RFID inventory tags 112/118 as applied to claim 1 above, and see step 612 of Fig. 6A including reading (a) at least one of the RFID inventory tags attached to objects within the facility); measuring, by the reading apparatus (120/200) , a relative amount of movement from a reference position using a self-localization method (see [0034] and [0043] as applied to claim 1 above with respect to the function of the AHR device 280 of Raynesford, and steps 612 and 622 of Fig. 6A directed toward measuring inertial movement of the reader by AHR device 280) ; estimating a position of the target based on the relative amount of movement of the reading apparatus from a first point in time at which the first identification information has been read from the first wireless device by the reading apparatus to a second point in time at which the second identification information has been read from the second wireless device by the reading apparatus (see steps 622, 624, 626, and 636 of Figs. 6A-B describing how the position of the reader over time is determined based on the measured relative movement of the reader [step 622] in combination with readings from the locator tags [step 626], and the positions of the reader are in turn used to estimate the position of the inventory tags [steps 628-636]) ; causing a database to store position information representing an estimated position of the target and sterilization-related information for the target (Fig. 6B, step 638: store the position estimates from step 636 in a data store) ; and when the target is selected based on the sterilization-related information , notifying a user of a position at which the target is estimated to exist based on the position information stored in the database (Fig. 6B, step 640: output information from the handheld reader indicating an estimated position and/or location for at least one RFID inventory tag) . Raynesford does not teach the limitations underlined in the above claim mapping. Said limitations were identified with respect to claim 1 as being obvious to incorporate into the invention of Raynesford in view of the teachings of Perkins. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Raynesford to include attachment of the second wireless device to a target of a sterilization process, storing sterilization related information for a target on the database, and selecting the notification sent to a user based on sterilization-related information associated with the target (see rejection of claim 1 above). Regarding claim 16, the claim is understood to essentially be directed toward a server which forms a portion of the system of claim 1, both claims 1 and 16 reciting identical position estimation units, databases, and notification units. Accordingly, see the rejection of claim 1 above regarding how Raynesford in combination with Perkins teaches: a position estimation unit (Raynesford: position determining application 324—Fig. 3) configured to estimate a position of a target of a sterilization process based on the relative amount of movement of the reading apparatus from a first point in time at which first identification information has been read by the reading apparatus from a first wireless device installed at a known position to a second point in time at which second identification information has been read by the reading apparatus from a second wireless device attached to the target (see rejection of claims 1 and 15 above) ; a database (Raynesford: data store 126 of Fig. 1 and/or memory 312 and storage medium 318 of Fig. 3) that stores position information representing an estimated position of the target and sterilization-related information for the target (see rejection of claim 1 above regarding the obviousness of modifying Raynesford in view of Perkins so that the database includes at least a program for determining a sterilization status for a target based on received sterilization event measurements) ; and a notification unit configured to (Raynesford: see data processing and modeling engine 326 in combination with output devices 352, 354, or 356 in Fig. 3) , when the target is selected based on the sterilization-related information (see rejection of claim 1 above regarding the obviousness of modifying Raynesford in view of Perkins so that the notification delivered to the user is selected based on a sterilization status determined based on sterilization-related information) , notify a user of a position at which the target is estimated to exist based on the position information stored in the database (Raynesford: output devices 216 display a map showing estimated positions of RFID inventory tags—[0045]) . Claim 16 is distinct from claim 1 in that it further recites a communication unit which is essentially a network interface for receiving signals from a reading apparatus as set forth in claim 1. As discussed with respect to claims 1 and 15, Raynesford teaches a reading apparatus (120,200) that is capable of reading identification information stored in a wireless device from the wireless device and capable of measuring a relative amount of movement from a reference position using a self-localization technique, a result of reading the identification information and a result of measuring the relative amount of movement (see rejection of claim 1 above). Raynesford further implies a communication unit consistent with claim 16, which facilitates the transfer of data between the reading apparatus and the server (Fig. 1 depicts communication between reader 120 and server 124; Fig. 3 depicts server 300 with a network interface; Fig. 6A, step 620 communicates data from the reading apparatus to a remote server; it is thus evident that the server of Raynesford includes an interface for communicating with the reading apparatus). Accordingly, the combination of Raynesford and Perkins teaches all limitations of claim 16 . 07-21-aia AIA Claims 4-7 are re jected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raynesfo rd et al. (US 2016/0370454 A1) in view of Perkins et al. (US 2010/0252627 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Akinori (JP 2021108029 A, cited in the IDS filed 02 April, 2024; see machine translation provided with this correspondence). Regardin g claim 4, Raynesford in view of Perkins teaches the sterilization management system according to claim 2 . Raynesford and Perkins do not particularly teach that the timing information includes at least one of a sterilization process date representing a date on which the sterilization process was previously performed for the target, and a deadline representing a date on which an effective period from the sterilization process date ends, and the notification unit is configured to, when the deadline determined based on the timing information for the target satisfies a notification condition, select the target to notify the user of a position at which the target is estimated to exist. However, in the analogous art of management systems of medical devices (title, abstract), Akinori teaches a system (10) comprising a processing unit (100), a storage device (120), a display device (12), and a reader (11) ([0017]). The reader (11) reads information embedded in medical instruments ([0018]), particularly identification information embedded in contactless RFID tags of the instruments ([0019]). The system is configured to determine a sterilization assurance/guarantee period for a medical device following a sterilization procedure ([0115]), as well as an expiration date of the sterilization assurance period ([0121],[0123], [0134]) and a remaining period of sterilization assurance period ([0129]-[0130]), all of which are associated and stored with an instrument ID of the medial device ([0116]; equipment ID are associated with work information, including a date and time a sterilization process was completed—[0073], also see [0082]; system calculates reaming period based on sterilization guarantee period and completion date and time of the sterilization process—[0091], also see [0123]). With the stored information, the system is able to identify a device (extract a device ID) which meets a condition based on the sterilization guarantee expiration date ([0133]), such as the expiration date being expired, one week away, or one month away, and display via the display device (12) a remaining sterilization assurance period for an instrument ([0132], [0135]) and communicate a re-sterilization alert when medical instruments are identified to have expired their sterilization guarantee period ([0136], [0153]). Akinori further indicates the system can provide alerts when the expiration of the sterilization guarantee period is one week or one month away ([0155], [0157]; also see [0044], [0152]). It is evident that the configuration of Akinori discussed above prevents the use of medical devices which may have lost a sterile status due to a prolonged storage period, so that only medical devices with guaranteed sterility are used (see [0146] discussing how the system prevents the use of device identified as not sterile until re-sterilization occurs). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the configure the modified system of Raynesford to store sterilization data including a sterilization process date and deadline (expiration of date of the sterilization assurance period) associated with a medical device and to notify a user when the deadline has expired, is one week away, and/or is one month away, as seen in Akinori, for the benefit of preventing the use of medical devices which may have lost sterility due to prolonged storage. Such a modified configuration amounts to the sterilization information including timing information which includes at least one of a sterilization process date representing a date on which the sterilization process was previously performed for the target, and a deadline representing a date on which an effective period from the sterilization process date ends, and the notification unit is configured to, when the deadline determined based on the timing information for the target satisfies a notification condition, select the target to notify the user of the sterilization state thereof. Akinori does not particularly indicate that the notification includes of a position at which the target is estimated to exist (Akinori at [0136] discusses the re-sterilization alert conveys information to allow a user to recognize a medical device has expired its sterilization guarantee period, but does not particularly suggest that the alert includes an indication of an estimated position) . However, in combination with the teachings of Raynesford and Perkins with respect to estimating the position of a target and tracking medical devices, respectively, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the notifications of Akinori with the existing location notifications of modified Raynesford for the evident benefit of guiding a user to locate a medical device in need of re-sterilization. Regarding claim 5, the combination of Raynesford, Perkins, and Akinori teaches the sterilization management system according to claim 4. As modified with respect to claim 4, the system of Raynesford substantially incorporates the deadline monitoring and notification features of Akinori , said features of Akinori comprising: the notification condition includes that a number of remaining days until the deadline is equal to or less than a threshold that is preset or designated by the user (Akinori indicates that a number of days until a deadline is calculated—[0091], [0130]—and that an alert can be provided when the deadline is a week or a month away, based on user selection—[0155]—i.e., an alert is provided when a notification indication condition that the days until deadline is less than or equal to a threshold of 7 days or 30 days) . Regarding claim 6, the combination of Raynesford, Perkins, and Akinori teaches the sterilization management system according to claim 4. As modified with respect to claim 4, the system of Raynesford substantially incorporates the deadline monitoring and notification features of Akinori. Akinori indicates that a that a display (12) can display the remaining sterilization assurance period associated with a medical instrument ([0132], [0135]), and that when a sterilization guarantee period has expired (i.e., a deadline conditions is surpassed) an alert that re-sterilization is required is communicated to a user ([0136]). Accordingly, Akinori fairly suggests a first notification mode for the target with the deadline not satisfying the notification condition (regular display of device ID and remaining sterilization assurance period—see [0132], [0135]) and a second notification mode for the target with the deadline satisfying the notification condition , the second notification mode being more emphasized than he first notification mode (re-sterilization alert—see [0136]; an “alert” implies more emphasis than a general display of information). As similarly discussed with the rejection of claim 4, incorporating such features of Akinori into the modified system of Raynesford provides the benefit of preventing the use of medical instruments which may no longer be sterile due to an extended storage period, and it would be further obvious to include the estimated location of the target (as taught by Raynesford) alongside the notifications incorporated from Akinori for the benefit of guiding a user to locate the medical devices in need of re-sterilization. Regarding claim 7, the combination of Raynesford, Perkins, and Akinori teaches the sterilization management system according to claim 4. As modified with respect to claim 4, the system of Raynesford substantially incorporates the deadline monitoring and notification features of Akinori. Claim 7 appears to essentially define a broader embodiment of the system of claim 6. Accordingly, see the rejection of claim 6 above regarding the obviousness of the notification unit being configured to notify the user of a position at which the target is estimated to exist for the target with the deadline being a past date in a different notification mode than that for another target (as modified with respect to claim 6 above, the system of Raynesford incorporates features of the system of Akinori so that an approaching deadline and target location is displayed to a user in a first notification mode if the deadline has not expired, and a re-sterilization required alert is displayed to a user along with a target location in a second notification mode if the deadline has expired) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R aynesford et al. (US 2016/0370454 A1) in view of Perkins et al. (US 2010/0252627 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, in further view of Schwartz et al. (US 7,138,916 B2). R egarding claim 9, Raynesford in view of Perkins teaches the sterilization management system according to claim 8. Raynesford discusses an embodiment wherein a plurality of position estimates are made at different points in time and combined to determine a more accurate position (see Figs. 4-5, [0055]-[0058]), and that a heat map can display the expected location of targets based on the estimated positions ([0045]), but Raynesford does not particularly suggest displaying the trajectory of a moved object. That is, Raynesford does not teach the position information represents a plurality of estimated positions of the target that correspond respectively to a plurality of points in time, and the notification unit is configured to cause a history of the position at which the target is estimated to exist or a trajectory of movement of the target to be plotted on the map image and displayed on the screen based on the position information. However, in the analogous art of inventory management (computerized system providing a method of inventory articles—abstract), Schwartz teaches a system wherein an inventory article is provided with a tag (column 6, lines 57-67, and column 7, lines 1-11) and software is used to determine and display an estimated position of the tagged article (column 4, lines 6-15). The software can further display a history of known locations of the tagged item, i.e., a trajectory of movement (Fig. 3, column 4, lines 16-29: a series of icons show the location of the protected item form a historical perspective…the icons are connected with a wide green line and are numbered in order to show the time sequence of the movement of the item). Mapping the historical position data can have various expected benefits, such as showing where a misplaced item should be returned to or providing insight into how and when the item was last used (based on where an item was taken). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Raynesford such that the system is configured to store historic position data of tagged items and plot previous known locations on the map, as seen in Schwartz, for the benefit of providing insight into how and when the item was last used . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 i s rej ected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray nesford et al. (US 2016/0370454 A1) in view of Perkins et al. (US 2010/0252627 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, in further view of Pierson et al. (US 2021/0074417 A1). Reg arding claim 10, Raynesford in view of Perkins teaches the sterilization management system according to claim 8. Raynesford further teaches that the position estimation unit (324, see Fig. 3) is configured to further estimate a position of the reading apparatus (120/200) based on the relative amount of movement measured by the reading apparatus (see step 622 in Fig. 6A, and step 626 in Fig. 6B, described at [0090]-[0091]; also see [0031] indicating that server 124/300 determines a position estimate for the handheld reader with a facility, and [0035] indicating the data from the HR device is used to derive a sequence of positions and orientations of the handheld reader 120—[0035]; [0052] further discusses the server 300 estimating positions of the handheld reader—[0052]). As discussed with respect to claim 8 above, Raynesford indicates that the positions of the second wireless devices (RFID inventory tags) are plotted on a map displayed to a user (maps show the estimated positions of the RFID inventory tags within a virtual facility—[0045], [0047], [0051]). Raynsford does not explicitly indicate that the position of the reading apparatus is also plotted on the map; accordingly, Raynesford and Perkins do not teach the notification unit is configured to cause the estimated position of the reading apparatus to be further plotted on the map image and displayed on the screen. However, in the analogous art of medical equipment management (title), Pierson teaches a system wherein a hand held mobile device (140) is held by an inspector (110) and used to inspect medical equipment (120) (Fig. 1, [0026]), the mobile device including an asset tag reader (1090) ([0036]) and the medical equipment including an RID tag (236) ([0037]) so that information including identification information can be transferred from the medical equipment (120) to the mobile device (140) ([0062]-[0063], [0066]). The mobile device (140) includes a display which depicts a map marked with the locations of pieces of medical equipment (120) ([0091]), the map further showing the location (950) of the mobile device in addition to the locations (920, 930, 940) of medical equipment (Fig. 9, [0136]). It is evident that including the location of the handled reader on the map assists a user/inspector in orienting themselves within and navigating through the space to a location of medical equipment (see [0136] and Fig. 9). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Raynesford such that the estimated position of the reading apparatus is plotted on the displayed map in addition to the location of the second wireless devices, as substantially seen in Pierson (see Fig. 9, [0136]), for the benefit of assisting a user in navigating through the facility space to a target item . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1 1 is r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R aynesford et al. (US 2016/0370454 A1) in view of Perkins et al. (US 2010/0252627 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Fead et al. (US 2020/0320469 A1). R egarding claim 11, Raynesford in view of Perkins teaches the sterilization management system according to claim 1 . Raynesford teaches the position information represents a plurality of estimated positions of the target that correspond respectively to a plurality of points in time, the plurality of estimated positions being estimated by the position estimation unit based on results of reading identification information from a wireless device and on results of measuring relative amounts of movement by the reading apparatuses (Raynesford indicates that the position of an inventory tag is determined by first establishing the path of the reading apparatus based in part on the relative motion of the reading apparatus, processing a plurality of readings of the inventory tag by the wireless device at different points in time along the path of the reading apparatus to generating “cones” representing initial estimates of the inventory tag position at a plurality of points in time, and identifying the overlapping portions of the cones as the most accurate estimate of the inventory tag position—see Figs. 6A-B, especially at steps 628 and 636, [0055]-[0058], and [0091]-[0091]). Raynesford does not particularly suggest that the position information includes estimated positions determined from the readings a plurality of reading apparatuses. However, in the analogous art of inventory management using RFID scanning (title, abstract), Fead teaches reading apparatuses comprising at least a scanner and an associated or integral wireless device (user devices 222 and scanners 224 in Fig. 2, devices 322 and scanners 324 in Fig. 3, devices 422 and scanners 424 in Fig. 4), the reading apparatuses configured to read RFID tags associated with inventory items and communicate a location of an inventory item to a computing system, the location typically determined based on a location of the reading apparatus at a time of reading and characteristics of the signal received from the inventory item RFID tag ([0027], [0049]-[0050]). Fead further indicates that the multiple reading apparatuses can be operated in a team scan mode, which allows for the data scanned and processed by multiple reading apparatuses to be aggregated at a computing system and used to update an inventory database (see [0070]-[0077], abstract). The team scan mode allows multiple readers to provide updated information to the database, enabling quicker scanning of all tagged items within a facility. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Raynesford to include multiple reading apparatuses which coordinate scanning with each other via a common database for the benefit of enabling quicker scans of all tagged items within a facility. Thus modified, the plurality of reading apparatuses would send position information to the database consistent with claim 11, as understood . 07-21-aia AIA Claims 12- 13 are rej ected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray nesford et al. (US 2016/0370454 A1) in view of Perkins et al. (US 2010/0252627 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of LaBore (US 9,977,865 B1): Reg arding claim 12, Raynesford in view of Perkins teaches the sterilization management system according to claim 1. Raynesford does not teach a management unit configured to obtain the sterilization-related information output by a sterilizer that performs the sterilization process and cause the database to store it. Perkins discusses a sterilizer (autoclave 105) which receives an item (tray 100) ([0052]) having an RFID tag (sterilizable object 100 bearing tag 60—[0050]; tags 60 transmit radio frequency signals—[0051]), the tag being tracked throughout the facility by a plurality of sensors (55) ([0052]). Perkins does not particularly suggest the sterilizer outputting sterilization-related information to the database. However, in the analogous art of systems for managing data comprising RFID chips affixed to medical items (abstract), LaBore teaches a reading apparatus (data collection engine “DCE”) which reads RFID chips associated with medical items and is in communication with a server (column 8, lines 41-44; Fig. 1, column 9, lines 1-32), the reading apparatus configured as a handheld RFID reader (column 9, lines 27-32). La Bore further teaches an autoclave machine (2602) equipped with an RFID tag (2604) (column 26, lines 62-67), wherein the autoclave is configured to receive and sterilize a medical item which also includes an RFID tag (e.g., 902, 904) (column 27, lines 2-24). The reading apparatus (DCE) can receive sterilization information from the RFID tag of the autoclave or from the RFID tag of the sterilized medical item (column 27, lines 25-27), which the reading apparatus (DCE) forwards to a database (1108) of a server device (1110) (column 27, lines 16-21). Thus, LaBore teaches a system configured to obtain sterilization-related information output by a sterilizer (autoclave) that performs a sterilization process and cause a database to store it . Also, the sterilizer of LaBore includes a third wireless device (RFID tag 2604) and a second wireless device (e.g., tag 902,904 of the sterilized medical item) which can each be read by a reading apparatus (DCE). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Raynsford to include a sterilizer with an RFID tag which facilitates the communication of sterilization information to the database via the reading apparatus, as seen in LaBore, for the benefit of allowing a user to query the database to determine the time of sterilization of a medical item (see LaBore at column 27, lines 21-24). Regarding claim 13, Raynesford in combination with Perkins and Labore teaches the sterilization management system according to claim 12 . As modified in view of LaBore with respect to claim 12 above, the system of Raynesford incorporates a third wireless device installed on the sterilizer and storing third identification information (RFID tag 2604 of LaBore; an RFID tag stores at least ID information). Said third wireless device can be read by the reading apparatus at a certain point in time, and the reading apparatus can further read a second wireless device attached to a medical item. Furthermore, within the modified system of Raynesford, substantially all the data read from the wireless devices is forwarded to a server and stored on a database thereof. Thus, the server of the modified system of Raynesford fairly comprises a management unit configured to associate the sterilization-related information output by the sterilizer with the target based on correlation between a third point in time at which the third identification information has been read from the third wireless device by the reading apparatus and a fourth point in time at which the second identification information has been read from the second wireless device by the reading apparatus. It is emphasized that the claimed “associating” and “correlating” steps are broad [to the extent of encompassing mental processes], wherein the server storing a read time (timestamps—see Raynesford at [0034],[0052],[0088]-[0091]) for each event yields an inherent association/correlation between the stored data from the third and second wireless devices . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chawla et al. (“An Overview of Passive RFID”, IEEE Applications & Practice, September 2007) teaches the basics of passive RFID technology (abstract), indicating that a passive tag has no internal power source and instead uses an electromagnetic field transmitted by a reader to power an internal circuit and uses “backscattering” to transmit data to the reader (introduction). - Yasuhiro (JP 2011/204207 A, cited in the IDs filed 02 April, 2024; see machine translation provided with this correspondence) is in the art of information managements systems for managing the sterilization of medical equipment (abstract). Yasuhiro teaches a system (100/1) installed in a hospital (10A) comprising at least a server (2) and communication line (101) ([0015]), the server including a processing unit (12) and storage unit (13) ([0017]). Equipment (60) includes RFID tags on which identification information is written, so that an RFID scanner (20) can read the identification information from the tag into a terminal device (18) ([0022]; also see [0028]). The processing unit (12) stores information about the completion of a disinfection process of the equipment (60) alongside the corresponding equipment identifier ([0026]; also see [0039]-[0040]). The stored information includes at least a time and date when the sterilization of a medical device was completed ([0061]). The processing unit can determine a sterilization expiration date and provide notifications if the deadline is approaching or expired ([0053]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY C PILSBURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8054. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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. /BRADY C PILSBURY/Examiner, Art Unit 1799 /JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 2 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 3 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 4 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 5 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 6 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 7 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 8 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 9 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 10 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 11 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 12 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 13 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 14 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 15 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 16 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 17 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 18 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 19 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 20 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 21 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 22 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 23 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 24 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 25 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 26 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 27 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/624,358 Page 28 Art Unit: 1799
Prosecution Insights