DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites (abstract ideas underlined for clarity): a. “acquiring a target sterilization logarithmic value”. Acquiring a target value is a mental process because it can be performed in the human mind.
b. “determining if a sterilization target is able to be achieved” is a determination is a mental process which can be performed in the human mind and in this context involves performing mathematical calculations.
c. “constructing a sterilization effect prediction model” is a mathematical concept or otherwise a process that can be performed in the human mind, or with a pencil and paper.
d. “determining whether a sterilization anomaly occurs within the medical waste treatment chamber based on the image data” is at best retrieving information and could be just looking at something, and is therefore a mental process.
e. “determining whether the sterilization target is able to be achieved within the preset time based on calculation results of the sterilization effect prediction model and the determination of whether the sterilization anomaly occurs” is also a mental process as it is merely process of evaluation a mathematical output and an observation.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no particular result as an effect of the monitoring or calculation performed. Maintaining a current sterilization would not result in any application as nothing would happen, and just adjusting parameters is generally linking the abstract idea of the field of endeavor (See 2106.05(h)), or just generally “applying” the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), and not a particular practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are the gathering of a real-time temperature within the chamber and acquiring image data within the chamber, which are nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional element within the art of sterilization, as evidenced by the art below.
Claim 2 further recites detecting an initial microbial quantity and a target microbial quantity, and a calculating of a specific value of the target sterilization logarithmic value, which are also mental processes and therefore abstract ideas. These abstract ideas are further and similarly not integrated into any particular practical application as there is no application of the detecting nor the calculating. There are no additional elements specific to claim.
The remaining claims are rejected for reciting all of the limitations of claim 1 for at least the reasons set forth above. None of the claims recite any particular practical application nor recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional within the art of sterilization.
Prior Art
The closest prior art is considered to be Scott (CA 3169732 A1).
Scott discloses a method for sterilizing and monitoring waste (title) including acquiring a real-time temperature of the waste within a treatment chamber (par. 14 directly measuring temperature in the container), wherein models and threshold values for parameters are developed (par. 91). Scott is silent towards acquiring image data, and determining whether a sterilization target is able to be achieved based on the target sterilization logarithmic value, the value being part of a prediction model, Scott is silent with regards to the particular model as claimed and the determination in S43. Therefore, Scott fails to teach or fairly suggest each and every limitation of claim 1.
Noguchi (JP 6467185 B2) discloses a method of waste sterilization (title, abstract), that includes the collection of image data in the treatment chamber (par. 18). Noguchi is similarly deficient with regards the target sterilization value, the prediction model, and the determination steps in S43. Therefore, Noguchi fails to make obvious the invention of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/06/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.Applicant’s remarks directed towards the 101 rejections on pages 7-9 are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims are directed towards practical applications integrating specific technical elements and therefore are not directed towards abstract ideas. Applicant argues that claim 1 integrates physical and technical elements including physical sensors and data collection. However, this contradicts the content of the claim, as there are no sensors positively claimed as part of the system. The function of data collection is positively claimed, however that function is not a physical aspect of the invention, nor does it necessarily make the claim patent eligible. Applicant points out that the image acquiring can be performed by a camera but the inclusion of a camera is neither positively claimed nor does its presence amount to anything more than something that is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of sterilization. Sensors, including optical ones, are ordinary and conventional in the field of sterilization as set forth in the art cited above, and Applicant fails to articulate how this feature amounts to anything significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas.
Applicant then argues that the prediction model constructed in step S41 is not a mathematical concept but a technical model. Applicant does not specifically point out how a technical model that only requires the execution of a mathematical equation using gathered data does not amount to a limitation that is directed towards an abstract idea, specifically the mere performance of mathematical calculations. The limitation is understood to be directed towards an abstract idea, and specifically towards one that does not include any particular practical application.
Applicant then argues that the image analysis (S42) amounts to an application, which is mere allegation. The determining of an anomaly, which according to claim 3 can include the treatment chamber producing smoke, sparks, or leaking, is performed based on a generic image data, which itself could be a video feed or picture. The determining, as claimed, could therefore amount to a person looking at a picture or video and observing those anomalies with their eyes. This is therefore not a practical application, it is a process that can be performed in the human mind and therefore an abstract idea itself.
Applicant then argues that the control decisions (S43, S51, S52) amount to practical applications integrating specific technical elements because sterilization parameters including temperature, spray duration, and stirring speed are maintained or adjusted. The claim does not include any limitations directed towards temperature, spray duration, or any other specific parameter being adjusted. The claim itself does not even require any adjusting at all, as the maintaining of current sterilization does not include any application at all. Furthermore, the adjusting of these parameters would amount to generally linking the abstract ideas to the field of sterilization, or just merely amount to “apply it”, rather than reciting a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h).
The claims recite multiple abstract ideas as set forth above, and Applicant does not sufficiently identify elements of the limitations that render them features that cannot be performed in the human mind, as claimed. The many steps of “determining”, “constructing a sterilization prediction model” are directed towards mental and mathematical processes, and are not themselves recited nor required to be performed by any specific physical feature of any particular system. Furthermore, a generic computer being recited as performing an abstract idea is a limitation that is still directed towards an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)), which further supports the position that the limitations are directed towards abstract ideas. There is no particular machine recited, nor is any particular improvement achieved as claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed towards abstract ideas without any practical application.
Applicant then argues on page 8 that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas. This is further not persuasive.
The only additional elements of claim 1 that are not directed towards abstract ideas are the gathering of a real-time temperature within the chamber and acquiring image data within the chamber, which are nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional element within the art of sterilization. Measuring a temperature and acquiring image data are ordinary and conventional in the field of sterilization as set forth above, particularly in view of the cited art. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach a prediction model as claimed, which is not contested anywhere in this rejection. However, the prediction model is not an additional element to the claim, it is an abstract idea and is, as claimed, not patent eligible subject matter. The additional elements fail to amount to anything significantly more because they are well-understood, routine, and conventional, and therefore the claims remain deficient as written.
Applicant argues that enhanced safety and lag and inaccuracies are overcome and represents improvement in the technology, however these effects are not claimed as the limitations directed towards detecting abnormalities and monitoring/adjusting based on abnormalities are limitations which are directed towards processes that can be performed in the human mind and are thus abstract ideas. The effects and alleged benefits do not flow naturally from what is claimed as the claims include steps that amount to a mere observation and decision making process in the human mind which cannot be said to be directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
Applicant finally argues that the method of claim 1 is integrated into a practical application via being directly applied to medical waste treatment equipment, and being executed via physical sensors, image acquisition devices, and control units. There are no limitations in the claim positively reciting medical waste treatment equipment, medical waste treatment processes, physical sensors, image acquisition devices, or control units. Limitations that are not presented in the claim cannot contribute to integrating the abstract ideas that are recited in the claim into practical applications.
Applicant once more argues on page 9 that the technical features of claim 1 are not conventional or routine. In the process of evaluating a claim for compliance with 101 the abstract ideas are not evaluated for being conventional or routine, the additional elements that are not the abstract ideas are evaluated, which as set forth above are found to be lacking. Applicant argues that S21 in claim 2 amounts to a practical application, but the detection or calculating of values are not particular practical applications, they are at best mere data gathering and manipulation of data respectively, which amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, these limitations themselves are directed towards abstract ideas as the detection of microbial quantities could amount to a mere observation of a reaction such as a change in color and the calculation of a specific value amounts to a mathematical calculation, both of which are abstract ideas. Step S2 and S52 of the claim similarly do not present limitations that recite additional elements or particular practical applications for the recited abstract ideas. The remaining claims similarly do not present any particular practical applications for the abstract ideas, nor do they recite any additional elements that amount to anything more than elements that are well-understood, routine, and conventional within the field of sterilization.
Claim 1 and its dependents remain rejected for being directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights