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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Office Action is in response to the claims filed on July 16, 2025.
Claims 3-5 and 18-19 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 6-7, 10-17, and 20-22 have been amended.
Claims 1-2, 6-17, and 20-22 remain pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 06, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-2, 6-17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Eligibility Step 1 (Does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?)
Claims 1-2, 6-17, and 20 are drawn to a system, claim 21 is drawn to a method, and claim 22 is drawn to a non-transitory computer and thus, are within the four statutory categories.
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?)
Claims 1-2, 6-17, and 20-22 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below:
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 21 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 1 and 22.
Claim 21 recites a series of steps for displaying and inputting data before a surgical procedure, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea that falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. following a set of rules or instructions).
Claim 21 recites the following limitations which set forth the abstract idea:
[…] displaying information to a first member who plays a first role among operation team members and […] for displaying information to a second member who plays a second role among the operation team members;
performs processing of displaying […] a first check list that requires input before start of surgical support by a surgical support system to present the first check list to a first member;
when accepting input to the first check list from the first member […], performing processing of displaying […] the first check list, a check status of which is changed in accordance with the accepted input […];
performing identification authentication to confirm correspondence between the second member and […]
when correspondence between the second member and […] is confirmed, inhibiting input to the first check list […].
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1, 21 and 22 recite the following additional elements:
A processor (claim 1) configured to establish communication connection with a plurality of terminals including a first terminal and a second terminal (claims 1, 21, 22)
A first terminal
A second terminal
Non-transitory information storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing of data (claim 22)
The processor, computer medium, and terminals are recited a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)(I) which states that merely having the words “apply it” and/or “generally linking” the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more). Therefore, claims 1, 21, and 22 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The use of additional elements noted above as tools to implement/automate the abstract idea does not render claims 1, 21, and 22 to be patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?):
Claims 1, 21, and 22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements noted above to perform the generic computer functions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component or generally link the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 21, and 22 are, therefore, not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2, 6-17 and 20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above.
Claims 8-9, 11, 14-15, 17, and 20 do not recite any additional elements not already recited in the respective independent claim.
Claim 2, 6-7, 10, 12-13, 16 recites the following additional elements:
A third terminal (claim 2, 6, 7, 10, 12, 16)
A monitor (12, 13)
The noted above additional elements are recited a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)(I) which states that merely having the words “apply it” and/or “generally linking” the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more). Therefore, claim 2, 6-7, 10, 12-13, and 16 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Claims 2, 6-17 and 20 are, therefore, not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-12, 14-16, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prigent (US 20140379370 A1), hereinafter Prigent, in view of Cohen (US 20050177050 A1), hereinafter Cohen.
Regarding claim 1, Prigent teaches a surgical support system comprising:
a processor configured to establish communication connection with a plurality of terminals ([0050 discloses multiple terminals) including a first terminal for displaying information to a first member who plays a first role among operation team members and a second terminal for displaying information to a second member who plays a second role among the operation team members; ([0060] discloses several members of the medical team to use different display devices to access and modify a document relating to the patient),
perform processing of displaying on the first terminal and the second terminal a first check list that requires input before start of surgical support by the surgical support system to present the first check list to the first member and the second member and perform processing of selective control of the first terminal and the second terminal to receive input to the first checklist ([0098] discloses the system displays the operator interface (for example preoperative checklist). [0119] discloses an edit screen allows the operator to respond to the various questions of the check-list. ([0015]-[0017] disclose validating the identity of the operator performing the checklist and encrypting the validation data such that it is unmodifiable),
when accepting input to the first check list via the first terminal, perform processing of displaying on the first terminal and the second terminal the first check list, a check status of which is changed in accordance with the accepted input via the first terminal ([0131] discloses a state is associated with a question as to inform regarding its state (in particular responded to or not)), and
perform identification authentication to confirm correspondence between the second member and the second terminal ([0015] discloses verifying the identity of the operator performing the particular step in progress); and
Prigent does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, Cohen teaches
when correspondence between the second member and the second terminal is confirmed, inhibit input to the [data] via the second terminal ([0061] discloses a user logs in to view a display of patient information. However, the user does not have the requisite degree of access, then they will not be given the option to alter the information, but could be granted Read Only access).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to be motivated to modify the identification authentication step of Prigent to include inhibiting altering data as taught by Cohen in order to reduce the chance of medical errors and maintain data validity.
Regarding claim 2, Prigent/Cohen teach the surgical support system as defined in claim 1. Prigent further teaches:
wherein the plurality of terminals include a third terminal presenting information for displaying information to a third member who plays a third role among the operation team members ([0060] discloses several members of the medical team to use different display devices to access and modify a document relating to the patient), and
wherein the processor is configured to:
perform processing of displaying the first check list on the first terminal, the second terminal and the third terminal ([0098]-[0099] discloses the system displays the operator interface or interfaces with the checklist allowing the checklist to be completed by one or more operators); and
when accepting at least one of input to the first check list from the first member via the first terminal or input to the first check list from the third member via the third terminal, performs processing of displaying on the first terminal and the third terminal the first check list, the check status of which is changed in accordance with the accepted input ([0061] discloses the modifying an item of data from display device is automatically updated on the other display devices).
Regarding claim 6, Prigent/Cohen teach the surgical support system as defined in claim 2. Prigent further teaches wherein the processor is configured to, when a first check item in the first check list is displayed in a first display state on the first terminal and the third terminal, change a display state of the first check item to a second display state different from the first display state in accordance with at least one of input to the first check item from the first member via the first terminal or input to the first check item from the third member via the third terminal, and perform processing of displaying the first check item in the second display state on the first terminal and the third terminal ([0110] discloses each response to a question on a form is characterized by a state which is updated upon a response to said question on the operator interface, where a group of color patterns indicates a state of the question).
Regarding claim 7, Prigent/Cohen teach the surgical support system as defined in claim 6. Prigent further teaches wherein the processor is configured to, when the first check item is displayed in the second display state on the first terminal and the third terminal, change the display state of the first check item to a third display state different from the first display state and the second display state in accordance with at least one of input to the first check item via the first terminal or input to the first check item via the third terminal, and perform processing of displaying the first check item in the third display state on the first terminal and the third terminal ([0112] discloses six different states such as off, in progress, ok, attention, error and no response. For example, the off state (first display state) can lead to the in progress state (second display state) which can then lead to the ok state (third display state)).
Regarding claim 8, Prigent/Cohen teach the surgical support system as defined in claim 7. Prigent further teaches wherein the first display state indicates that the first check item has not been checked ([0112] discloses an off state), the second display state indicates that the first check item has been checked ([0112] discloses an in progress state), and the third display state indicates that the first check item is in a display state indicating an objection state ([0112] discloses an error or attention state).
Regarding claim 9, Prigent/Cohen teach the surgical support system as defined in claim 1. Prigent further teaches wherein the first check list is a check list that requires input before administration of anesthesia ([0103]-[0104] discloses the surgery check-list tracking consists of five phases, each of which include multiple forms; the phases consisting of a preoperative phase and a before anesthesia phase).
Regarding claim 10, Prigent/Cohen teach the surgical support system as defined in claim 2. Prigent further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
perform processing of displaying on the first terminal and the third terminal a button for moving to a next screen after input to the first check list is completed; (Figure 6 discloses a first phase begins with an associated form/forms displayed. When the first phase ends, a loop for the next phase begins with the display of the next associated form), and
when accepting at least one of input to the button via the first terminal or input to the button via the third terminal, perform processing of displaying the next screen on the first terminal and the third terminal ([0109] and Figure 6 disclose the display of the next form or an interruption button/screen).
Regarding claim 11, Prigent/Cohen teach the surgical support system as defined in claim 1. Prigent further teaches wherein the processor is configured to
perform processing of displaying on the first terminal and the second terminal a second check list that requires input before start of surgical support by the surgical support system after input to the first check list is completed to present the second check list to the first member and the second member ([0098] discloses preoperative checklists. [0102] discloses the checklist is subdivided into phases with several forms/checklists. [0109] discloses forms A-D in Fig 5 where each form is a series of questions. Subsequent forms of subsequent phases are presented upon completion of previous forms.),
when accepting at least one of input to the second check list via the first terminal or input to the second check list via the second terminal, perform processing of displaying on the first terminal and the second terminal the second check list, a check status of which is changed in accordance with the accepted input ([0131] discloses a state is associated with a question as to inform regarding its state (in particular responded to or not)).
Regarding claim 12, Prigent/Cohen teaches the surgical support system as defined in claim 11. Prigent further teaches wherein the plurality of terminals include a third terminal operated by a third member who plays a third role among the operation team members ([0060] discloses several members of the medical team to use different display devices to access and modify a document relating to the patient), and the processor is configured to perform processing of displaying the second check list on the first terminal, the second terminal, the third terminal, and a monitor for presenting information to a surgeon among the operation team members to present the second check list to the first member, the second member, the third member, and the surgeon (Figure 3 discloses displaying patient documents (forms) to multiple devices for synchronized communication); and when accepting at least one of input to the second check list from the first member via the first terminal, input to the second check list from the second member via the second terminal, input to the second check list from the third member via the third terminal, or input to the second check list from the surgeon via the monitor, perform processing of displaying on the first terminal, the second terminal, the third terminal, and the monitor the second check list, a check status of which is changed in accordance with the accepted input ([0123] discloses the checklists may contain cross-check questions that require responses by various operators. [0110] discloses on the operator interface, a group of color patterns advises as to the current state of the question).
Regarding claim 14, Prigent/Cohen teach the surgical support system as defined in claim 11. Prigent further teaches wherein the processor is configured to perform processing of recording completion of input to the second check list ([0118] discloses terminating the checklist upon completion).
Regarding claim 15, Prigent/Cohen teaches the surgical support system as defined in claim 9. Prigent further teaches wherein the processor is configured to perform processing of displaying on the first terminal and the second terminal a third check list that requires input after end of the surgical support to present the third check list to the first member and the second member ([0103] discloses the surgery check-list tracking consists of five phases including after the operation phase and a postoperative/recovery room phase, each of the phases involving displaying forms to be completed); and when accepting at least one of input to the third check list via the first terminal or input to the third check list via the second terminal, perform processing of displaying on the first terminal and the second terminal the third check list, a check status of which is changed in accordance with the accepted input ([0110] discloses color patterns to advise the current state of the questions in the forms. [0112] discloses the checklist system uses 6 different states to indicate status of the questions).
Regarding claim 16, Prigent/Cohen teaches the surgical support system as defined in claim 15. Prigent further teaches wherein the plurality of terminals include a third terminal operated by a third member who plays a third role among the operation team members ([0060] discloses several members of the medical team to use different display devices to access and modify a document relating to the patient), wherein the processor is configured to perform processing of displaying the third check list on the first terminal, the second terminal, the third terminal, and a monitor for presenting information to a surgeon among the operation team members to present the third check list to the first member, the second member, the third member, and the surgeon (Figure 3 discloses displaying patient documents to multiple devices for synchronized communication); and when accepting at least one of input to the third check list via the first terminal, input to the third check list via the second terminal, input to the third check list via the third terminal, or input to the third check list from the surgeon via the monitor, perform processing of displaying on the first terminal, the second terminal, the third terminal, and the monitor the third check list, a check status of which is changed in accordance with the accepted input ([0123] discloses the checklists may contain cross-check questions that require responses by various operators. [0110] discloses on the operator interface, a group of color patterns advises as to the current state of the question).
Regarding claim 20, Prigent/Cohen teach the surgical support system as defined in claim 1. Prigent further teaches the system further comprising the plurality of terminals ([0050 discloses multiple terminals).
Regarding claim 21,
The claim limitations are analogous to the limitations in claim 1. As such, claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons given for claim 1.
Regarding claim 22,
The claim limitations are analogous to the limitations in claim 1. As such, claim 22 is rejected for the same reasons given for claim 1.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prigent (US 20140379370 A1), hereinafter Prigent, in view of Cohen (US 20050177050 A1), hereinafter Cohen, and further in view of Curd et al. (US 20150033128 A1), hereinafter Curd.
Regarding claim 13, Prigent/Cohen teach the surgical support system as defined in claim 11. Prigent/Cohen do not explicitly teach the following limitation; however, Curd teaches wherein the processor is configured to perform processing of displaying on a monitor surgical support information for performing the surgical support for a surgeon among the operation team members after input to the second check list is completed ([0021] discloses pre-populating the checklist with clinical data of the patient prior to initiation of the medical procedure. [0022] discloses the computer displays on a monitor a checklist for the surgeon to view to determine the particular stage of the medical procedure. [0057] discloses during the medical procedure, various commands are received from the checklist to guide the surgeon through the medical procedure performed.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to be motivated to modify the surgical support system of Prigent/Cohen to include displaying surgical support information to the surgeon’s monitor as taught by Curd in order to “improve surgical procedures and reduce the possibility of post-operative trauma or infections through improved consistency of healthcare facility surgical standards” (Curd, [0049])
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prigent (US 20140379370 A1), hereinafter Prigent, in view of Cohen (US 20050177050 A1), hereinafter Cohen, and further in view of Demers et al. (US 20070136097 A1), hereinafter Demers.
Regarding claim 17, Prigent/Cohen teach the surgical support system as defined in claim 1. Prigent/Cohen do not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, Demers teaches wherein the processor performs processing of displaying on the first terminal a fourth check list that requires input before the first check list is checked to present the fourth check list to the first member, and accepts input to the fourth check list from the first member via the first terminal, and performs processing of displaying the first check list on the first terminal after input to the fourth check list is completed ([0029] discloses a pre-op checklist in Fig. 3 that is required to be completed before further checklist procedures such as pre-induction checklist and patient prep checklist can begin).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to be motivated to modify the surgical support system of Prigent/Cohen to include displaying checklists in a specific order as taught by Demers in order to provide increased operating room efficiencies (Demer, [0007]).
Response to Arguments
Benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. US 63/213,359
The Examiner has reviewed Pages 3-10 of the translation submitted on June 14, 2022 and determined that the earliest effective filing date of the claims are that of the provisional filed on June 22, 2021.
Rejection of Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d)
The Examiner has reconsidered the claim language and Applicant’s arguments and finds them persuasive. As such, the 112d rejection has been withdrawn.
Rejection of Claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding the 101 rejection, Applicant has canceled claims 3-5 and 18-19 rendering rejection of those claims moot.
Applicant argues: Claim 1 recites additional limitations that incorporate any alleged abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human behavior) into a practical application through improvement of a technology. Specifically, claim 1 improves a surgical support system for controlling start of surgical support by providing control through identification processing to inhibit input to a first check list via a specific terminal (e.g., second terminal) when correspondence between a specific member (e.g., second member) and the specific terminal (e.g., second terminal) is confirmed. Based on the foregoing discussion, it must be concluded that claim 1 satisfies Step 2A, Prong Two, of the SME analysis. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to patent eligible subject matter. Claims 21 and 22 are directed to patent eligible subject matter for similar reasons. Claims 2, 6-17 and 20 depend from and incorporate by reference all the elements of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2, 6-17 and 20 are directed to patent eligible subject matter for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states “the word ‘improvements’ in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B.” Here, there is no improvement to the computer nor is there an improvement to another technology like identity verification technology. Applicant’s claims are directed to an improvement regarding the abstract idea. Because neither type of improvement is present in the claims, an improvement to technology is not present and there is no practical application.
Rejection of Claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103
Regarding the prior art rejection of claims 1-22, Applicant has canceled claims 3-5 and 18-19 rendering the rejection of those claims moot.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues that the Prigent reference does not expressly or inherently describe performing processing of displaying a first checklist on a first terminal and a second terminal, modifying the response to a question in accordance with accepted input via the first terminal; performing identification authentication to confirm correspondence between a second member and the second terminal; and when correspondence between the second member and the second terminal is confirmed, inhibiting input to the first checklist via the second terminal.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument regarding some of these limitations. The Examiner has highlighted in the prior art rejection above, how Prigent teaches the first three limitations listed above specifically pointing to [0015], [0060], [0098], [0119], [0131] of Prigent. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments regarding the last limitation are moot, because the Examiner has applied a new reference (Cohen) to teach the amended limitation.
Applicant has not provided specific arguments regarding the dependent claims. As such, the dependent claims are included in the new prior art rejection under U.S.C. 103.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and is listed in the attached form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited). Unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, all documents listed on form PTO-892 are cited in their entirety.
Geller et al. (US 20190237189 A1) teaches: Perioperative workflow system, architecture, and interface.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MALAK M NASSER whose telephone number is (703)756-4610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached on 571-270-1813. 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.
/MALAK M NASSER/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687