DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner notes that claim 13 is missing from the claim set as originally filed, and is not indicated by a status identifier as canceled. Therefore, claim 13 is not under examination. When the application is ready for allowance, the examiner, if necessary, will renumber the claims consecutively in the order in which they appear or in such order as may have been requested by applicant.
Accordingly, claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending and under examination. Based on the examination of claims 1-12 and 14-20, there is no art rejection. All pending objections and rejections in this application are set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “accessors” is misspelled and should be amended to read “assessors”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1 = YES: The claimed invention is to a process and product, and thus fall under one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
STEP 2A, Prong 1 = YES: The claim(s) recite(s) a series of steps which can be practically performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion)(see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Moreover, the claims recite steps akin to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which the court in Electric Power Group held to recite a mental process. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This includes: A surgical simulation network system comprising:
…capture data associated with a user's performance on one or more surgical simulations (mental observation);
…store the data associated with user performance on the one or more surgical simulations (mental process: evaluation of the collected data, e.g., using pen and paper);
…process the data associated with user performance on the one or more surgical simulations (mental process: observation and evaluation of the collected data),
display the data for one or more accessors assigned to review the data (mental process: evaluation; human interaction, e.g., teaching or following instructions),
provides guidelines for the one or more accessors used to assess the data (mental process: evaluation; human interaction, e.g., teaching or following instructions), and receive feedback from the one or more accessors related to the data (mental process: observation and evaluation; human interaction, e.g., teaching or following instructions);
…capture the data associated with the user's performance on the one or more surgical procedures (mental observation);
…capture images that track movement of surgical devices and user interaction between the surgical devices and a model enclosed within each of the surgical trainers (mental observation);
…capture images associated with body posture and hand movements of the user (mental observation);
wherein the captured data associated with a user's performance on one or more surgical simulations comprise a combination of the captured images obtained from the audio and/or video sources located both internal and external to the surgical trainer (further limitation to the abstract idea identified above, e.g., captured data);
…validate the captured data that is directly streamed to ensure that the captured data is satisfactory (mental process);
wherein the validation of the captured data comprises: determining that the captured data associated with a user's performance on one or more surgical simulations is of a pre-determined format; determining that the captured data associated with a user's performance on one or more surgical simulations is of a pre-determined size; determining that the captured data is complete; and determining that data packets associated with the captured data are in a correct order (further limitation to the abstract idea identified above, e.g., validation);
…tag or link data to the data associated with user performance on the one or more surgical simulations (mental evaluation);
wherein the tagging or linking is performed manually (further limitation to the abstract idea identified above, e.g., tagging or linking);
…determines a feedback automatically for the data associated with user performance on the one or more surgical simulations …(mental evaluation); and
… provide different guidelines based on an experience the user has when performing the one or more surgical simulations (mental process: evaluation; human interaction, e.g., teaching or following instructions).
The steps identified above are a process that can be performed by human without a computer. In particular, the process is akin to organizing human activity and/or mental processes, as indicated above, and thus fall within an enumerated category of abstract ideas. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) to help them complete the recited steps above, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
STEP 2A, Prong 2 = NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
To the extent the claims recite additional elements related to defining physical components to implement the abstract idea above (i.e., a plurality of surgical trainers, including audio and/or video sources located: in an internal cavity of each of the plurality of surgical trainers, in an external space of each of the plurality of surgical trainers, or both internally and externally for each of the plurality of surgical trainers, or wherein each of the plurality of surgical trainers are located at different physical locations, wherein one or more of the plurality of surgical trainers are configured to directly stream the captured data associated with a user's performance on one or more surgical simulations to the cloud-based computing system, wherein one or more of the plurality of surgical trainers are configured to receive interchangeable models corresponding to different simulated surgical procedures, wherein one or more of the plurality of surgical trainers are configured to receive interchangeable models corresponding to different simulated surgical procedures, and defined as configured to perform the steps identified under Prong 1 as an abstract idea, including automatically via computer vision or via use of computer vision and machine-learning associated processes; a database defined as configured to perform the steps identified under Prong 1 as an abstract idea; a computing system, wherein the computing system is located at a different physical location than each of the plurality of surgical trainers; wherein the computing system is cloud-based, and defined as configured to perform the steps identified under Prong 1 as an abstract idea; cloud-based computing system defined as configured to perform the steps identified under Prong 1 as an abstract idea), they are recited at a high level of generality, in a result-based manner, to perform the abstract idea identified under Prong 1 without any particular detail that amounts to a particular machine or technical improvement thereof, nor do they represent an improvement in any other technology. The claims lack any particular structure with respect to the claimed surgical trainers, the database, or the computing system. Moreover, the recited surgical trainers are recited to perform insignificant extra-solution activity because they are defined without any particular structure to merely capture data associated with a user’s performance on one or more surgical simulations, a task that can otherwise be performed by human analog. The generic manner which these additional elements are claimed amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use, and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the physical components identified above does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: YES).
STEP 2B = NO: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as provided under Prong 2, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and for the purpose of insignificant extra-solution activity. Moreover, the specification of the instant application further demonstrates that the additional elements are recited for their well-understood, routine and conventional functionality, which refers to the claimed computing system with video and audio sources, the database, and the surgical trainers by name in conjunction with functions to be performed. Similar to the generically-claimed database and computing system functionality, storing and retrieving information in memory is recognized by the courts has a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Additionally, the use of a computing system, as claimed, to perform the steps identified under Prong 1 as an abstract idea amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.07(a). Lastly, the following prior art demonstrates that surgical trainers are widely prevalent and in common use, and thus establishing the claimed surgical trainers are well-known, routine, and conventional: US 2005/0142525 A1 to COTIN which describes in the Background of the Invention that “[a]s is known in the art, there are a variety of known surgical training systems” and “[o]ver the past decade or so, several computer-based surgical trainers have been developed.” (par. 0004); US 2006/0232664 A1 to TOLY which discloses “[a] videoendoscopic surgery training system includes a housing defining a practice volume in which a simulated anatomical structure is disposed” and “[a] digital video camera is disposed within the house to image the anatomical structure within the practice volume” (Abstract), that “[b]ox trainers are relatively inexpensive and very portable, and are therefore desirable teaching tools” (par. 0010), and that the use of a digital camera “also enables many different training scenarios to be supported” including storing the user’s performance on a recording medium, in addition to displaying the exercise in real-time (par. 0065); and US 2010/0167249 A1 to RYAN which discloses a “surgical training device includes a body form, an optical tracking system within the body form, and a camera configured to be optically tracked and to obtain images of at least one surgical instrument located within the body form” (Abstract). The claims do not further define the surgical trainers by any particular structure, but instead refer to them by name in conjunction with a result to be achieved. Thus, the additional elements amount to merely automating a manual process using conventional equipment, which the courts have held to be insufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Therefore, the claims are not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-12 and 14-20 are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hull whose telephone number is 571-272-0996. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7147. 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715