Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/23/2025 has been entered.
3. The following is a non-Final Office Action. In response to Examiner’s Final Action of 05/06/2025, Applicant, on 10/23/2025, amended Claims 21-36. Claims 1-20 were previously cancelled.
Claims 21-36 are pending in the current application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
4. The prior 35 USC §112 rejection withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
5. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection maintained despite Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 21-36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of system (machine) and method (process), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
8. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 22 recites A method for medical procedure room supply and logistics management, the method comprising: receiving .. a medical supply input associated with a combination of a medical practitioner identifier identifying a medical practitioner and a medical procedure identifier identifying a medical procedure to be performed by the medical practitioner in a medical procedure room; receiving .. another medical supply input associated with at least one of another medical practitioner identifier identifying another medical practitioner and another medical procedure identifier identifying another medical procedure in the medical procedure room; obtaining .. a layout of the medical procedure room identifying placement of a plurality of (i) items in a closed tray in the medical procedure room without opening the closed tray and (ii) equipments and instruments in the medical procedure room, wherein the placement of the plurality of the items in the closed tray, the equipments, and the instruments in the medical procedure room is based on the medical supply input and the other medical supply input; recognizing and registering .. spatial characteristics of the closed tray and the medical procedure room with respect to the layout; based on the obtained layout, .. includes data including count and identification of each of the plurality of the items in the closed tray, the equipments, and the instruments; obtaining .. inputs associated with a plurality of items in the closed tray, selectively identified equipments, and instruments ..; tracking .. data associated with the selectively identified items in the closed tray without opening the closed tray, the equipments, and the instruments present in the medical procedure room corresponding to the medical supply input and the other medical supply input respectively, wherein the tracking includes .. pointing to one or more locations associated with the selectively identified items, the equipment, and the instruments present in the medical procedure room; obtaining .. the tracked data associated with the selectively identified items in the closed tray, the equipments, and the instruments present in the medical procedure room .. corresponding to the medical supply input and the other medical supply input respectively; determining .. data associated with a count of the plurality of the selectively identified items in the closed tray, the equipments, and the instruments used in the medical procedure room based on the tracked data corresponding to the medical supply input and the other medical supply input respectively; analyzing .. prestored data associated with a count of the plurality of the selectively identified items, the equipments, and the instruments used in one or more reference medical procedures corresponding to the combination of the medical practitioner identifier and the medical procedure identifier provided in the medical supply input to determine a relationship of data associated with usage of the plurality of the selectively identified items in the closed tray, the equipments, and the instruments in the one or more reference medical procedures with the combination of the medical practitioner identifier and the medical procedure identifier provided in the medical supply input; optimizing .. the relationship based on the determined data to determine an optimized data associated with the count of the plurality of the selectively identified items, the equipments, and the instruments corresponding to the combination of the medical practitioner identifier and the medical procedure identifier provided in the medical supply input; receiving .. the other medical supply input; analyzing .. another prestored data associated with a count of the plurality of the selectively identified items, the equipments, and the instruments used in one or more reference medical procedures corresponding to the combination of the other medical practitioner identifier and the other medical procedure identifier provided in the other medical supply input; optimizing .. the relationship based on the other prestored data associated with the other medical supply input; identifying .. the optimized relationship as the relationship; repeating .. the optimization of the relationship for every medical supply input; generating .. an optimal operating room setup corresponding to the combination of the medical practitioner identifier and the medical procedure identifier based on the optimization, wherein the optimal operating room setup defines the count, the identification, placement, usage or any combination thereof of the plurality of the selectively identified items, the equipment, and the instruments based on the optimized relationship and the optimized data; providing .. the generated optimal operating room setup .. in response to receiving a subsequent medical supply input .. and based on the medical practitioner identifier and the medical procedure identifier provided in the subsequent medical supply input, generating .. the count, the identification, the placement, the usage, or any combination thereof of the plurality of the selectively identified items, the equipment, and the instruments based on the subsequent medical supply input and the generated optimal operating room setup, determining .. a mismatch between the generated optimal operating room setup and an actual room setup for the medical procedure .., wherein the actual room setup corresponds to the plurality of the selectively identified items, the equipment, and the instruments provided in the medical procedure room; and providing .. at least one .. feedback, alert, indication, .. or any combination thereof associated with the count, the identification, placement, usage, or any combination thereof, of the plurality of the selectively identified items, the equipment, and the instruments based on the determined mismatch, which is an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because analyzing usage of items in a medical procedure corresponding to a medical practitioner identifier and a medical procedure identifier is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves evaluation, judgement or observation; it is also an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), because tracking data associated with items used in a medical procedure is a business process for mitigating risk, and for commercial interactions and following rules or instructions. Claim 21 recites the same abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the independent Claims, including additional elements such as by a communication device, by one or more mixed reality devices, creating, by one or more mixed reality devices, a three-dimensional mixed reality map of the medical procedure room indicating holographic representations of the plurality of the items within the closed tray without opening the closed tray, the equipments, and the instruments in the medical procedure room, from the plurality of the items, the equipments, and the instruments on the created three-dimensional mixed reality map, providing one or more artificial prompts, by an optimization computing device transceiver of an optimization computing device, from the one or more mixed reality devices, by a machine learning module of the optimization computing device, by an optimizing computing device processor of the optimization computing device, to the one or more mixed reality devices, via the communication device or the one or more mixed reality devices, based on the generated three-dimensional mixed reality map, real-time, a request to a remote connection, a machine learning module, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B of the analysis, the independent Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 3, 4 of the Drawings and paragraphs 26-66 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 23-36 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in the independent Claims and further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 23-28 and 31-35 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited in the independent Claims, and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claims.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 29, 30 and 36 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because these Claims, including additional elements such as those listed above for the independent Claims and a natural language processing module, a machine-readable format, one or more machine learning algorithms, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 23-28 and 31-35 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited above for the independent Claims, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for the independent Claims.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 29, 30 and 36 also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above and a natural language processing module, a machine-readable format, one or more machine learning algorithms, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by Figure 3, 4 of the Drawings and paragraphs 26-66 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant Claim, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Therefore, Claims 21-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
10. Applicant argues (at pp. 19-22) that at Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter analysis, the amended claim language does not recite an abstract idea of Mental Processes because, for example, limitations such as “creating, by one or more mixed reality devices, a three-dimensional mixed reality map of the medical procedure room indicating holographic representations of the plurality of the items .., the equipments, and the instruments in the medical procedure room” cannot be performed in the human mind. Applicant also argues that the amended claim language does not recite an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because, for example, “the tracking of items, .. to generate optimal medical procedure room setups, identify discrepancies, if any, and take proactive measures (by providing feedback, alerts, .. via mixed reality devices) so as to improve performance .. cannot be considered a business process or a commercial interaction for mitigating financial risks.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The analysis at Step 2A Prong One (see MPEP 2106.04(II)A(1)), presented in detail at paragraph 8 above in this office action, clearly demonstrates the recitation of an abstract idea of Mental Processes, for example by “analyzing .. another prestored data associated with a count of the plurality of the selectively identified items”; and also demonstrates the recitation of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, for example by “tracking .. data associated with the selectively identified items .. to determine a relationship of data associated with usage of the plurality of the selectively identified items”, which is a business process under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation in light of the Specification (see paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Specification, for instance: “Further, information about the number and type of supplies used during the procedure may be useful .. for efficiency evaluation .. cost per procedure”).
Examiner notes that limitations such as “creating, by one or more mixed reality devices, a three-dimensional mixed reality map of the medical procedure room indicating holographic representations of the plurality of the items” describe the additional elements which are reviewed at Step 2A Prong Two of the subject matter analysis.
11. Applicant argues (at pp. 23-25) that at Step 2A Prong Two, “claim features reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer and in the technical field of mixed reality-based planning of operating room setups for different medical procedures” which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional computer elements in the instant claims are merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f))). Furthermore, the abstract idea is generally linked to the technical field of mixed reality (see for example, Specification at paragraph 40, “It will further be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that the mixed reality device 132 may be a head-mounted display device in the form of eyeglasses, goggles, a helmet, a visor, or any other mixed reality device”), which is not indicative of integration into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Examiner notes, with regard to Applicant’s arguments concerning the analogy with Claim 2 of each of Examples 45 and 46 of the Subject Matter Eligibility examples, with Enfish, and with Ex Parte Desjardins, that the fact patterns in those instances (computer functions of sending a control signal to open a mold, sending a control signal to dispense supplemental salt and minerals mixed with feed, configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table, and preventing “catastrophic forgetting” while training a machine learning model) are totally different to that in the instant application which involves data comparison and transmission; the latter is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer, but merely the use of a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, as noted above.
12. Applicant further argues (at pp. 25-27) that, at Step 2B of the subject matter analysis, “As will be established below in the discussion of non-obviousness, the recited approach is not well understood, routine, or conventional. .. the technical advantages of the present invention are evident in view of the above, .. the technical problem of having to keep track of various aspects of specific items .. provides a technical solution involving mixed-reality devices” and therefore that the “claims are directed to significantly more than an abstract idea”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As required by Berkheimer Memo, evidence is clearly provided (at paragraph 8 above in this Office Action) for the determination that the instant claims do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers, by specifying Figures 3, 4 of the Drawings and paragraphs 26-66 of the Specification in the instant Application, for example, which clearly demonstrate the generic nature of the additional elements; the instant claim language is therefore not indicative of an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) - see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Examiner also notes that an improvement to the abstract idea, as evidenced by the withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in an earlier office action in this application, does not make a claim patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the court has noted (see MPEP 2106.05(I): "As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).").
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Chila et al. (US Publication 20200377301 A1) describes a method for dispensing and tracking medical products in various medical locations.
Schmucker et al. (US Publication 20140263633 A1) describes a method for tracking medical devices and tools in a medical environment.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Wu Rutao can be reached on (571)272-6045. 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623