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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “…using one of Bluetooth or UWB technology” is indefinite as it features the recitation of trademarks/trade names. See MPEP 2173.05(u) – “If the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). See also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 837 Fed. Appx. 780, 784-85, 2020 USPQ2d 11531 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("Following Patent Office procedure, the Examiner in this case rejected the claims of the '821 application as indefinite because they improperly used the trade name 'ALIMTA.' In response to the rejection, Lilly canceled its claims reciting the trade name and pursued claims using the generic name for the same substance, which mooted the rejection. Additionally, as the district court observed, the Examiner 'explicitly noted that pemetrexed disodium was 'also known by the trade name ALIMTA' ' in the contemporaneous obviousness rejection."). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to describe any particular material or product. In fact, the value of a trademark would be lost to the extent that it became the generic name of a product, rather than used as an identification of a source or origin of a product. Thus, the use of a trademark or trade name in a claim to describe a material or product would not only render a claim indefinite, but would also constitute an improper use of the trademark or trade name. If the applicant responds to such a rejection by replacing the trademark or trade name with a generic term, the examiner should determine whether there is sufficient support in the application for use of a generic term.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites (additional elements crossed out):
An endoscope management device comprising:
detect an endoscope ID code of a freshly pre-cleaned endoscope
display current endoscope information
make the current endoscope information available in the communication network
the current endoscope information comprising:
one or more of a name and a serial number associated with the detected endoscope ID code, and
the current remaining time as output by the countdown-timer.
The above limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and mental processes. That is, other than reciting the steps as being performed by a “display”, “ID reader”, “processor comprising hardware”, “countdown timer”, and “communication interface” nothing in the claim precludes the steps as being described as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and mental processes. For example, but for the recited computing language, the limitations describe a system for detecting an endoscope ID code, initiating a countdown, and providing information about the endoscope and the time remaining on the countdown. The limitations describe the management of personal behavior, as well as actions that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes steps that may be performed mentally or with pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a “display”, “ID reader”, “processor comprising hardware”, “countdown timer”, and “communication interface” to perform the steps. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (see at least pages 2-3) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), particularly as it relates to the recited “display”, “ID reader”, “processor comprising hardware”, “countdown timer”, and “communication interface” elements. This is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are therefore still directed to an abstract idea.
Independent claims 11, and 15 feature limitations similar to those of claim 1, and are also found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-8 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Claims 12-14 are dependent on claim 11 and include all the limitations of claim 11. Claims 16-20 are dependent on claim 15 and include all the limitations of claim 15. Therefore, they are also directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 2 indicates that the display comprises an e-paper tag. However, as stated above, the recitation of the display amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components Claim 3 recites a “motion sensor”, however this contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed device (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) and does not integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more. Claim 6 recites “machine learning algorithms” and “tiny machine learning”. Claim 7 recites “Bluetooth or UWB technology”. However, these are merely applied to the judicial exception (i.e., apply it). Claims 16-18 feature the ”pushing” of information to and from a communication network. However, these limitations merely describe the transmission of data, which is deemed a conventional function as evidenced by at least Symantec which featured the conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network. The remaining dependent claims do not feature additional elements, and have not been found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract idea since they merely further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Based upon streamlined analysis, the eligibility of claims 9-10 is found to be self-evident, as they are directed to a “transport container” which is a tangible article. Even when taking into consideration the incorporated abstract functions of claim 1, these functions are integrated into a specific, physical, “transport container” and are not an attempt to tie up use of the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8-11, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US 2021/0298871) in view of Jackson (US 2022/0304560).
Regarding claim 1, Nishiyama discloses an endoscope management device comprising:
A display (See Para. [0027] – “The output apparatus 13 is a monitor apparatus including a display and a speaker and is installed near a sink 9.”
An ID reader (See Para. [0027] – “The preliminary cleaning support apparatus 10 is connected to an imaging unit 11, an ID reader 12, and an output apparatus 13.”
A processor comprising hardware (See Para. [0040] – “The configuration thereof is implemented by hardware such as an arbitrary processor, a memory, auxiliary storage, or other LSis and by software such as a program or the like loaded into the memory.”)
Wherein the processor is configured to:
Detect an endoscope ID code of a freshly pre-cleaned endoscope by the ID reader; (See Para. [0033] – “The cleaning worker brings the RFID tag attached to the endoscope close to the ID reader 12 and causes the ID reader 12 to read the scope ID recorded in the RFID tag.”
Display current endoscope information on the display; (See Para. [0045] – “The notification control unit 26 displays the cleaning procedure of the outer surface of the endoscope on the display of the output apparatus 13 along with a reference diagram M.”
Nishiyama partially discloses A communication interface for wirelessly connecting the processor to an (Nishiyama discloses a local area network (See at least Para. [0024] – “The cleaning support system 1 includes a preliminary cleaning support apparatus 10, a cleaning apparatus 40, and a server apparatus 100, and the preliminary cleaning support apparatus 10, the cleaning apparatus 40, and the server apparatus 100 are communicably connected via a network 2 such as a local area network (LAN).) However, Nishiyama does not disclose a wireless external network See Jackson, Para. [0139] – “The user interface may be directly coupled to a database or directly coupled to a network server system via the Internet or cloud computing.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Jackson since it would expand communication capabilities beyond a local network.
Nishiyama also partially discloses make the current endoscope information available in the communication network by the communication interface; (Nishiyama discloses providing a cleaning status of the endoscope. (See Para. [0075] – “The information indicating the cleaning status determination result in the cleaning status determination unit 20 is transmitted to the cleaning apparatus 40 and the server apparatus 100 as information regarding the determination result along with information indicating the start time and completion time of the preliminary cleaning and the scope ID.) However, the transmission of the cleaning status is not to an external communication network. See Jackson, Para. [0131] – “In some embodiments, the cart is linked wirelessly or is directly wired to a computer system that comprises a data logging module 204, as shown in FIG. 38 to identify, track and inventory endoscopes, as well as obtain data from the sensor and timer of the cart.”, and Para. [0133] – “In some embodiments, data from the data logging module can be transmitted to a cloud network or a personal computer through a wireless connection or through Wi-Fi.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nishiyama to utilize the teachings of Jackson since it would expand communication capabilities beyond a local network.
Nishiyama also does not disclose
A countdown timer;
start the countdown timer which outputs a remaining time until a predetermined time interval ends or until a target time is reached
the current endoscope information comprising:
one or more of a name and a serial number associated with the detected ID code, and
the current remaining time as output by the countdown-timer
(See Jackson, Para. [0007] – “A timer is coupled to the housing, slot and/or tray, that is configured to display increments of time that the endoscope is stored in the tray.”, and Para. [0150] – “The next step 222, the computer will start the timer after the tray is loaded into the slot. This can be done automatically by the computer or manually by the user.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nishiyama to utilize the teachings of Jackson since it would provide a user with the time remaining prior to an endoscope needing reprocessing (Para. [0006] of Jackson).
Regarding claim 3, Nishiyama does not explicitly disclose the endoscope management device according to claim 1,further comprising a housing accommodating the display, wherein the ID reader, the processor, the countdown-timer and the communication interface are also accommodated in the housing. (See Jackson, at least Figs. 1-5, and associated text. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nishiyama to utilize the teachings of Jackson since it would serve as a means of consolidating the components.
Regarding claim 8, Nishiyama does not explicitly disclose The endoscope management device according to claim 1, further comprising one or more of an acoustic warning means and an optical warning means, the acoustic warning means and the optical warning means being configured to emit a warning signal if the current remaining time output by the countdown timer falls below a predetermined threshold. (See Jackson, Para. [0077] – “In some embodiments, the timer is paired with indicia 58 comprising numbers, letters, colors, audible sounds, symbols and/or lights to indicate the increments of time that the endoscope is stored in the tray and endoscope status, as shown in FIGS. 1, 2 and 4.”, and Para. [0078] – “In some embodiments, the indicia comprise a first light 60, a second light 62, and a third light 64, as shown in FIG. 2. In some embodiments, the first light is a green light that indicates a reprocessed endoscope at a time increment, the second light is an amber light that indicates the reprocessed endoscope at a time increment, and the third light is a red light that indicates that the endoscope needs to be reprocessed after a time increment.”
Regarding claim 9, Nishiyama and Jackson disclose A transport container for an endoscope, the transport container comprising:
a container body and an endoscope management device according to claim 1 that is integrated with or attached to the container body. (Nishiyama and Jackson disclose the endoscope management device according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above). However, Nishiyama does not explicitly disclose a container body. See Jackson, Para. [0015] – “FIG. 1 illustrates a perspective view of a cart for storage of an endoscope. The cart comprises a housing having a slot configured to slidably receive a tray that is configured to store an endoscope. A timer is coupled to the housing that is configured to display increments of time that the endoscope is stored in the tray.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nishiyama to utilize the teachings of Jackson since it would allow for the storage of endoscopes in a clean environment (Para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 10, Nishiyama does not explicitly disclose The transport container according to claim 9, wherein the endoscope management device is removably or exchangeably attached to the container body. (See Jackson, Para. [0025] – “FIG. 10 illustrates a perspective view of an embodiment of the tray and an embodiment of the rigid lid where the timer is a digital timer that is removable from the tray and the lid.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nishiyama to utilize the teachings of Jackson since both are within the same field of endeavor (i.e. endoscope reprocessing), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 11 features limitations similar to those of claim 1, but for the recitation of a plurality of endoscope management devices, and is rejected using the same rationale. Also see Nishiyama, Para. [0024] – “FIG. 1 shows one preliminary cleaning support apparatus 10, one cleaning apparatus 40, and one server apparatus 100. Alternatively, there may be a plurality of these apparatuses.”
Claim 15 features limitations similar to those of claim 1, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, Nishiyama does not explicitly disclose The endoscope management method according to claim 15, wherein the starting of the countdown timer is triggered by one of the following trigger events:
the ID reader of the endoscope management device detecting the one endoscope ID code of the freshly cleaned endoscope,
the one endoscope management device recognizing that a corresponding endoscope has been placed inside a transport container,
a user operating an input element provided on the one endoscope management device, or
wherein one of the trigger events triggers the one endoscope management device to request the predetermined target time for the corresponding endoscope from an information management system, and wherein the one endoscope management device receiving the requested target time from the information management system triggers the start of the countdown timer.
(See Jackson, Para. [0150] – “The next step 222, the computer will start the timer after the tray is loaded into the slot. This can be done automatically by the computer or manually by the user.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nishiyama to utilize the teachings of Jackson since it would provide a user with the time remaining prior to an endoscope needing reprocessing (Para. [0006] of Jackson).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US 2021/0298871) in view of Jackson (US 2022/0304560), and in further view of Hsieh (US 2013/0168444)
Regarding claim 2, Nishiyama and Jackson do not explicitly disclose The endoscope management device according to claim 1, wherein the display comprises an e-paper tag, the processor being configured to display one or more of:
the current remaining time and the name, and
the serial number associated with the detected endoscope ID code on the e-paper tag.
Nishiyama and Jackson disclose the display of data. However, Nishiyama and Jackson do not disclose the display being an e-paper tag. See Hsieh, at least Para. [0018] – “The electronic tag system 110 further includes a barcode scanner 31 connected to the barcode input interface 30 and a host 80. The electronic tag 100 communicates with the host 80 via the wireless communication unit 40, the host 80 can communicate with a number of such electronic tags 100 in a electronic tag system 110. The barcode scanner 31 is capable of scanning a barcode of an article, product or merchandise to obtain a barcode code, the barcode scanner 31 further sends the barcode code to the electronic tag 100. The barcode input interface 30 receives the barcode code sent by the barcode scanner 31, and the wireless communication unit 40 sends the barcode code to the host 80 via the antenna 70.”, and Para. [0021] – “Different articles have different barcodes, the host 80 searches the database to determine whether there is a barcode stored in the database matching with the received code. With such configuration, the electronic tag 110 can rapidly and accurately get the updated content that corresponds to the barcode code obtained by the barcode scanner 31 and display the updated content on the E-paper screen 10, to update the original contents.” Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the e-paper screen of the secondary reference(s) for the generically cited display screen of the primary reference. Therefore, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US 2021/0298871) in view of Jackson (US 2022/0304560), and in further view of Rogers (US 2023/0234777).
Regarding claim 4, Nishiyama and Jackson partially disclose The endoscope management device according to claim 1, further comprising a motion sensor, the processor being configured to collect motion data detected by the motion sensor and to make one or more of the detected motion data and information derived from the detected motion data available in the communication network. (Nishiyama and Jackson have already been established as disclosing making data available to a communication network (see claim 1 rejection above). Further, Jackson teaches location tracking of a tray and associated endoscope (See Para. [0128] – “In some embodiments, the location of the tray and/or the exact endoscope located in the tray can be tracked by the RFID reader since the RFID tag will store this information.” However, Nishiyama and Jackson do not disclose the use of motion sensors. See Rogers, Para. [0139] – “It will be appreciated that the sensor 26 may be configured to monitor movement of the container and to monitor movement within the container. Put another way, the sensor 26 may include a gyroscope or accelerometer for monitoring movement of the container and also an ultrasonic sensor and/or an infrared sensor and/or a camera to detect movement within the container. In such arrangements, the neural network 50 may be trained for both sensors. In further alternative arrangements, it will be appreciated that any other suitable sensor arrangement may be used in combination with the neural network 50 described, so as to determine the occupancy of the container 2.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nishiyama and Jackson to utilize the sensors of Rogers since the use of the sensors may provide more accurate information regarding the loading of endoscopes onto the trays of Jackson.
Regarding claim 5, Nishiyama and Jackson do not explicitly disclose The endoscope management device according to claim 4
wherein the processor is configured to recognize at least one or more of the following events, based on the motion data detected by the motion sensor:
the endoscope is placed inside a container to which the endoscope management device is attached,
the endoscope is removed from the container,
the container is transported with the endoscope, and
the container is transported without the endoscope,
wherein the processor is configured to one or more of make information related to the recognized event available in the communication network and to display information related to the recognized event on the display.
Nishiyama and Jackson have already been established as disclosing making data available to a communication network, as well as the display of data (see claim 1 rejection above). Further, Jackson teaches detecting the loading of an endoscope. (See Para. [0150] – “The next step 222, the computer will start the timer after the tray is loaded into the slot. This can be done automatically by the computer or manually by the user.”). However, Nishiyama and Jackson do not disclose the detection being based on motion data detected by the motion sensor. See Rogers, at least Para. [0022] – “The class of container event may be selected from one or more of: material being loaded into a container; material being removed from a container; material within a container being depressed; movement of a container, e.g. over a surface; a person entering a container; a person leaving a container; and a person moving within a container.”, and aforementioned Para. [0139]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nishiyama and Jackson to utilize the teachings of Rogers since it may provide more accurate information regarding the loading of endoscopes onto the trays of Jackson.
Claim 17 features limitations similar to those of claim 5, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US 2021/0298871) in view of Jackson (US 2022/0304560), and in further view of Rogers (US 2023/0234777) and “Deploying Machine Learning on Microcontrollers: How TinyML Enables Sound, Image, and Motion Classification” by Serena Liang, available February 18, 2024, hereinafter referred to as Liang1.
Regarding claim 6, Nishiyama and Jackson do not disclose The endoscope management device according to claim 3,
wherein machine learning algorithms are installed on the processor, the machine learning algorithms enabling the processor to learn to recognize, based on motion data detected by the motion sensor, at least one or more of the following events,
the endoscope is placed inside a container to which the endoscope management device is attached,
the endoscope is removed from the container,
the container is transported with the endoscope, and
the container is transported without the endoscope,
wherein the processor is configured to learn to recognize at least one or more of the events listed above via tiny machine learning.
See at least Rogers, Para. [0034] – “The use of an accelerometer has been found to provide accurate readings as to when an action is being carried out on the container and is able to detect a person getting into or out of a container. The use of this sensor arrangement with the machine learning algorithm has been found to improve the accuracy and reliability of the occupancy determination of a container.”, as well as the aforementioned Paras. [0022] and [0139]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nishiyama and Jackson to utilize the teachings of Rogers since it may provide more accurately detect the loading of endoscopes onto the trays of Jackson. However, Rogers does not explicitly disclose the use of tiny machine learning. See Liang – “TinyML can be used in motion classification and anomaly detection to enable real-time analysis of motion data from sensors, such as accelerometers and gyroscopes. Motion classification involves categorizing motion data into predefined classes or categories, while anomaly detection involves identifying abnormal or unexpected patterns of motion.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nishiyama, Jackson, and Rogers to utilize tiny machine learning as taught by Liang since it would enable real-time analysis of motion data from sensors.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US 2021/0298871) in view of Jackson (US 2022/0304560), and in further view of “10 Features Your Hospital Asset Tracking System Should Have”, available April 18, 2024, hereinafter referred to as Kontakt2
Regarding claim 7, Nishiyama and Jackson do not explicitly disclose The endoscope management device according to claim 1, further comprising localization means for determining a current location of the endoscope management device using one of Bluetooth or UWB technology, wherein the processor is configured to make the determined current location of the device available in the communication network. (See Kontakt – “A hospital asset tracking system is a digital platform that monitors the location, condition, and utilization of medical equipment throughout a healthcare facility. It uses a combination of wireless tags, sensors, and software to automatically collect and display asset data in real time. In practice, this means attaching Bluetooth® Low Energy (BLE), RFID, or other IoT-enabled tags to equipment. These tags communicate with gateways installed throughout the hospital, sending signals that show precisely where each asset is, whether it’s in use, and when it was last maintained. Modern systems, like Kontakt.io’s RTLS platform, integrate these signals into a central dashboard accessible to staff from mobile devices or hospital workstations. The result is instant visibility and control over thousands of devices — reducing search time, optimizing maintenance, and preventing unnecessary purchases.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nishiyama and Jackson to utilize the teachings of Kontakt since it would identify where assets are in real-time.
Claim(s) 12, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US 2021/0298871) in view of Jackson (US 2022/0304560), and in further view of Amos (US 2024/0355465)
Regarding claim 12, Nishiyama and Jackson do not explicitly disclose The endoscope management system according to claim11, further comprising a dashboard configured to display the current endoscope information of the plurality of endoscopes. (See Amos, Para. [0391] – “Referring to FIGS. 12F and 12G, the system may provide dashboards to provide real-time data to surgeons, facility managers and staff, and the supply chain, to provide ready information about inventory levels and flow through the supply chain. For example, dashboards may give orders placed and not yet received, shipment tracking information, delivery estimates, current on-hand inventor levels, and recent use patterns. FIG. 12F shows an inventory list of current inventory of scopes on hand ready for use, including model name, model description, lot number (typically useful in case of a product recall), serial number, and expiration date. FIG. 12G shows recently used scopes—the serial number, and where, when, and by whom used. This information may be presented at a total or statistical level, or as a list of individual scopes and their current status.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nishiyama and Jackson to utilize the teachings of Amos since it would keep personnel aware of the status of medical inventory.
Regarding claim 13, Nishiyama and Jackson do not explicitly disclose The endoscope management system according to claim 12, wherein the dashboard is also configured to display the current location of the plurality of endoscopes. (See Amos, Para. [0391] – “Referring to FIGS. 12F and 12G, the system may provide dashboards to provide real-time data to surgeons, facility managers and staff, and the supply chain, to provide ready information about inventory levels and flow through the supply chain. For example, dashboards may give orders placed and not yet received, shipment tracking information, delivery estimates, current on-hand inventor levels, and recent use patterns. FIG. 12F shows an inventory list of current inventory of scopes on hand ready for use, including model name, model description, lot number (typically useful in case of a product recall), serial number, and expiration date. FIG. 12G shows recently used scopes—the serial number, and where, when, and by whom used. This information may be presented at a total or statistical level, or as a list of individual scopes and their current status.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nishiyama and Jackson to utilize the teachings of Amos since it would keep personnel aware of the status of medical inventory.
Regarding claim 15, Nishiyama and Jackson do not explicitly disclose The endoscope management method according to claim 15, further comprising:
the information management system providing a list of the ID codes and one or more of the associated names and the serial numbers of a plurality of endoscopes respectively corresponding to the plurality of endoscope management devices and making the list available in a communication network, and
pushing down the list from the communication network to the plurality of endoscope management devices.
See Amos, Para. [0391] – “Referring to FIGS. 12F and 12G, the system may provide dashboards to provide real-time data to surgeons, facility managers and staff, and the supply chain, to provide ready information about inventory levels and flow through the supply chain. For example, dashboards may give orders placed and not yet received, shipment tracking information, delivery estimates, current on-hand inventor levels, and recent use patterns. FIG. 12F shows an inventory list of current inventory of scopes on hand ready for use, including model name, model description, lot number (typically useful in case of a product recall), serial number, and expiration date. FIG. 12G shows recently used scopes—the serial number, and where, when, and by whom used. This information may be presented at a total or statistical level, or as a list of individual scopes and their current status.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nishiyama and Jackson to utilize the teachings of Amos since it would keep personnel aware of the status of medical inventory.
Claim(s) 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US 2021/0298871) in view of Jackson (US 2022/0304560), and in further view of Watai (US 2003/0060678).
Regarding claim 14, Nishiyama and Jackson do not explicitly disclose The endoscope management system, according to claim 11, further comprising a planning system for scheduling planned future uses of the plurality of endoscopes in a set of predetermined locations. (See Watai, Abstract – “When, upon setting the endoscopic image filing apparatus to an examination information editing window, a user specifies a patient who is to undergo an examination and designates an examination room and examination date, a schedule for an examination of the patient is automatically created on the basis of schedules already registered, in a time zone not reserved for another examination, whereby user labor can be alleviated and resources such as examination rooms can be utilized effectively.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nishiyama and Jackson to utilize the teachings of Watai since it would keep personnel aware of the status of medical inventory.
Regarding claim 18, Nishiyama and Jackson do not explicitly disclose The endoscope management method according to claim 15, the method further comprising:
generating a list of future uses for at least one selected endoscope from among the plurality of endoscope, the list comprising a time, date and location of at least one future use of the selected endoscope,
pushing up the list of future uses for the selected endoscope to the communication network,
pushing down the list of future uses from the communication network to the endoscope management device corresponding to the selected endoscope, and
displaying the list of future uses or information derived from the list of future uses on the display of the endoscope management device corresponding to the selected endoscope.
(See Watai, Abstract – “When, upon setting the endoscopic image filing apparatus to an examination information editing window, a user specifies a patient who is to undergo an examination and designates an examination room and examination date, a schedule for an examination of the patient is automatically created on the basis of schedules already registered, in a time zone not reserved for another examination, whereby user labor can be alleviated and resources such as examination rooms can be utilized effectively.”, and Para. [0236] – “This endoscopic image filing system 3 comprises: data input means such as the keyboard 23 operated by the user to input data to the image filing apparatus 2; interface means such as the video circuit 21j for inputting endoscopic images from the endoscope apparatus 1 and the communication interface 21i for inputting data related with these endoscopic images; processing means such as the video circuit 21j for performing processing to record or display information obtained by means of the above data input means and interface means; managing means using the CPU21a or similar for managing schedules of endoscopic examinations performed by means of the endoscope apparatus 1; and display means such as the monitor 22 for displaying processing information of the processing means and management information of the managing means, wherein the managing means automatically creates schedules for the endoscopic examinations on the basis of (and in a broader application by means of at least either basis of) conditions such as time zones in which examination rooms are available and time zones in which examiners are able to work, these conditions being preset via the data input means, and on the basis of information such as information on dates and times and on examination rooms for performing the endoscopic examinations, such information being inputted via the data input means at the time an endoscopic examination is reserved or received.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nishiyama and Jackson to utilize the teachings of Watai since it would keep personnel aware of the status of medical inventory.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US 2021/0298871) in view of Jackson (US 2022/0304560), and in further view of Giobbi (US 9,265,450).
Regarding claim 20, Nishiyama and Jackson do not explicitly disclose The endoscope management method according to claim 15, further comprising making information for identifying the one endoscope management device available in the communication network. (See Giobbi, Col. 45, Lines 4-17 – “The tracked item listing 3102 displays an item identifier associated with users or assets tracked by the tracking server 210. For example, the tracked item listing 3102 displays a user name or asset name associated with the tracked items. The tracked items list 3102 can include selected items from a single or most recent search result or can accumulate items from a plurality of search results. In one embodiment, the tracked item listing 3102 receives input selecting a user or asset and a subsequent input received by the item location selector 3106 or the primary item selector 3108 modifies the user interface 310. Items included in the tracked item listing 3102 may be manually identified by user input or may be automatically included based on one or more criteria of a user or an asset.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nishiyama and Jackson to utilize the teachings of Giobbi since it would keep personnel aware of the status of medical inventory.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE G ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 4:30 EST; Friday 7:00-11:00 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/KYLE G ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/CHINYERE MPAMUGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
1 Available at https://www.seeedstudio.com/blog/2023/06/06/deploying-machine-learning-on-microcontrollers-how-tinyml-enables-sound-image-and-motion-classification/?srsltid=AfmBOopsOqACRc3VyUo0aDnHF-u_zh7CC8Cb34BVBiWCrgUWCPwz-FpA
2 Available at https://kontakt.io/blog/best-features-in-a-hospital-asset-tracking-system/
Prosecution Insights