DETAILED ACTION The Applicant’s filing, received 2 8 September 202 2 , has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. 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. Status of the Claims Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected . Claims 9, 11, 16, and 18 are objected to. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. There are no domestic applications for which benefit is claimed. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) received 2 8 September 202 2 and 28 May 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement s ha ve been considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings were received 2 8 September 202 2. These drawings are accepted . Claim Objections Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “claims” in line one should be replaced with the word “claim.” Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “claims” in line one should be replaced with the word “claim.” Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “claims” in line one should be replaced with the word “claim.” Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “claims” in line one should be replaced with the word “claim.” 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: (a) mathematical concepts , (e.g., mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and (b) mental processes , i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Claim Interpretations Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 recite the limitation(s) “acquire” or “acquiring,” for example, “acquire a first incision line…” or “acquiring a first incision line….” The term “acquire/acquiring” is interpreted to mean setting and/or determining , e.g., setting/determining a first incision line (e.g., see Specification at para. [0031]) . Subject matter eligibility evaluation in accordance with MPEP 2106. Eligibility Step 1: Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Claims 1- 1 8 recite a n incision simulation device comprising a processor (i.e., a machine or manufacture); claim 1 9 recites a n incision simulation method (i.e., a process); and claim 2 0 recites a non-transitory storage medium (i.e., a machine or manufacture). Therefore, these claims are encompassed by the categories of statutory subject matter, and thus, satisfy the subject matter eligibility requirements under step 1. [Step 1: YES] Eligibility Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in Prong Two whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Eligibility Step 2A Prong One: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, examination is performed that analyzes whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Independent claim 1 recite s a device comprising a processor that is configured to execute the abstract ideas recited in independent claim 19. Independent claim 1 9 recite s the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas: acquiring a first incision line (i.e., mental processes ); acquiring a first depth of incision to the first incision line (i.e., mental processes ) ; calculating a first excision region based on the first incision line and the first depth (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts); acquiring a second incision line (i.e., mental processes ); acquiring a second depth of incision to the second incision line (i.e., mental processes ) ; calculating a second excision region based on the first excision region, the second incision line, and the second depth (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) ; and identifying a first region included in the first excision region and the second excision region (i.e., mental processes ). Independent claim 2 0 recite s a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute the abstract ideas recited in independent claim 19. Dependent claims 2- 18 further recite the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas, as noted below. Dependent claim 2 further recites: calculate the second excision region based on a third depth and the second incision line (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) , and the third depth is a depth based on a depth of the first excision region and the second depth at a designated position on the second incision line (i.e., mental processes ) . Dependent claim 3 further recites: the third depth is a sum of the depth of the first excision region and the second depth (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) . Dependent claim 4 further recites: calculate a depth at each position of the second incision line based on the third depth (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) , and calculate the second excision region based on the depth at each position of the second incision line (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) . Dependent claim 5 further recites: the depth at each position of the second incision line is shallower from the designated position toward an end of the second incision line at each position on the second incision line (i.e., mental processes ) . Dependent claim 6 further recites: calculate a second incision width at each position of the second incision line based on the depth at each position of the second incision line (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) , and calculate the second excision region based on the second incision width (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) . Dependent claim 7 further recites: the second incision width at each position of the second incision line is narrower from the designated position toward an end of the second incision line at each position on the second incision line (i.e., mental processes ) . Dependent claim 8 further recites: a depth at each position of the second incision width is shallower from a position on the second incision line toward an end of the second incision width (i.e., mental processes ) , and calculate the second excision region based on the depth at each position of the second incision width (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) . Dependent claim 9 further recites: the designated position on the second incision line is an intermediate portion of the second incision line (i.e., mental processes ) . Dependent claim 10 further recites: the designated position on the second incision line is a middle point of the second incision line (i.e., mental processes ) . Dependent claim 11 further recites: calculate a depth at each position of the first incision line based on the first depth (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) , and calculate the first excision region based on the depth at each position of the first incision line (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) . Dependent claim 1 2 further recites: the depth at each position of the first incision line is shallower from a position of the first depth toward an end of the first incision line at each position on the first incision line (i.e., mental processes ) . Dependent claim 13 further recites: calculate a first incision width at each position of the first incision line based on the depth at each position of the first incision line (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) , and calculate the first excision region based on the first incision width (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) . Dependent claim 14 further recites: the first incision width at each position of the first incision line is narrower from a position of the first depth toward an end of the first incision line at each position on the first incision line (i.e., mental processes ) . Dependent claim 15 further recites: a depth at each position of the first incision width is shallower from a position on the first incision line toward an end of the first incision width (i.e., mental processes ) , and calculate the first excision region based on the depth at each position of the first incision width (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts) . Dependent claim 16 further recites: the position of the first depth of the first incision line is an intermediate portion of the first incision line (i.e., mental processes ) . Dependent claim 17 further recites: the position of the first depth of the first incision line is a middle point of the first incision line (i.e., mental processes ) . Dependent claim 18 further recites: the first region is a region where at least one of a region showing a blood vessel system, a region showing a lymphatic system, a region showing a nervous system, or a region showing a lesion part is excluded (i.e., mental processes ) . The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification. As noted in the foregoing section, the claims are determined to contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of a pen and paper (e.g., identifying a first region included in the first excision region and the second excision region ), and therefore recite judicial exceptions from the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the recited limitations that are identified as judicial exceptions from the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., calculating a second excision region based on the first excision region, the second incision line, and the second depth ) are abstract ideas irrespective of whether or not the limitations are practical to perform in the human mind. Therefore, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea . [Step 2A Prong One: YES] Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I); MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(III)). The judicial exceptions identified in Eligibility Step 2A Prong One are not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons noted below. Dependent claims 3 , 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 16-18 do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception, and thus are part of the judicial exception. The additional elements in independent claim 1 include: a device comprising a processor; and a three-dimensional image showing an organ . The additional elements in independent claim 1 9 include: a three-dimensional image showing an organ . The additional elements in independent claim 20 include: a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute a process ; and a three-dimensional image showing an organ . The additional element in dependent claim s 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, and 15 include: a processor (claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, and 15 ). The additional elements of a device comprising a processor ( claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, and 15 ); and a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute a process (claim 20); invoke a computer and/or computer-related components merely as tools for use in the claimed process, and therefore are not an improvement to computer functionality itself, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field, and thus, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). The additional element of a three-dimensional image showing an organ (claims 1, 19, and 20) is merely part of the pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process – a nominal addition to the claims that does not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore does not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, the additionally recited elements merely invoke a computer and/or computer related components as tools; and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity; and/or a field of use in which to apply a judicial exception; and as such, when all limitations in claims 1- 20 have been considered as a whole , the claims are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and therefore claims 1- 20 are directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(d)). [Step 2A Prong Two: NO] Eligibility Step 2B: Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are probed for a specific inventive concept. The judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05A i-vi). The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because of the reasons noted below. Dependent claims 3 , 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 16-18 do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception(s). The additional elements recited in independent claims 1, 1 9, and 2 0 and dependent claim s 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, and 15 are identified above, and carried over from Step 2A Prong Two along with their conclusions for analysis at Step 2B. Any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A Prong Two was re-evaluated at Step 2B, because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and all additional elements and combination of elements were evaluated to determine whether any additional elements or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional elements of a device comprising a processor ( claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, and 15 ); and a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute a process (claim 20); are conventional computer components and/or functions (see MPEP at 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d)(II) regarding conventionality of computer components and computer processes). The additional element of a three-dimensional image showing an organ (claims 1, 19, and 20) is conventional. Evidence of conventionality is shown by Schenk et al. ( "Planning of Image-Guided Interventions in the Liver . " in IEEE Pulse , Sept.-Oct. 2011, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 48-55 ). Schenk et al. reviews image-guided interventions in the liver using computer-aided treatment planning (page 48) and shows a patient-specific model of liver anatomy (Figure 1) that was generated from a CT image (Figure 1(a)), and that provides a 3-D visualization of all relevant structures, including the tumors and their relative location to the portal venous system, hepatic veins, and hepatic artery (Figure 1(b)). Therefore, when taken alone, all additional elements in claims 1-20 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when evaluated as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception(s) into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, claims 1-20 are deemed to not contribute an inventive concept, i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05(II)). [Step 2B: NO] Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao et al. (US 2019/0172577, as cited in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) received 28 May 2025). Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are broadly directed to a computer-implemented system for performing a simulation method for determining a geometrical characteristic (e.g., three-dimensional coordinates) for making an incision (i.e., a surgical cut made into a tissue) and for determining a geometrical characteristic (e.g., three-dimensional coordinates) for an excision (e.g., a removal of a tumor). Dependent claims 2-18 further define the steps for determining the geometric coordinates for the incision and excision. Nakao et al. is directed to a simulated dissection process (e.g., the precise separation of tissue (incision) for the removal (excision) of diseased tissue) and device for characterizing dissection surfaces corresponding to dissection sites of target organs and progress of dissection utilizing anatomical reference points from patient-specific three-dimensional medical image data. Regarding independent claims 1, 19, and 20 , Nakao et al. shows a system and method for solving problems in the field of surgical planning using patient-specific computer imagery (para. [0012]) that provides information about into which site to put a scalpel, in what direction to move the scalpel, how deep the moving scalpel is, in what order to put the scalpel, and so forth (para s . [0011] & [0047] ). Nakao et al. further shows using anatomical reference points from patient-specific three-dimensional medical image data (para. [0016]) and using the reference points to estimate a patient-specific dissection process (para. [0017]); selecting dissection points (para. [0019]); the user designates one or more dissection points that are specific to a patient, and the dissection process estimation device presents a most suitable dissection surface and dissection process assuming the dissection points to be a constraint to the user (para. [0033]); and the respective image diagrams corresponding to time stamp t=1, 2, 3, (refer to FIGS. 3B, 3C, 3D) represent deformation of the organ when the scalpel cuts through the organ, and cuts 21 to 23 in the figures represent information about from which site on the surface of the organ to put the scalpel, in what direction to move the scalpel, how deep to insert the scalpel, and in what order to put the scalpel (para. [0086]). Regarding dependent claims 2-28 , Nakao et al. further shows steps to calculate a patient-specific dissection surface and dissection process (paras. [0111] – [0115]; and FIGS. 8A, 8B, and 8C); and displaying positions on the surface of the organ to put the scalpel (para. [0100]; and FIGS. 6A, 6B, and 6C). However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method shown by Nakeo et al. by incorporating alternative calculation steps for simulating a patient-specific dissection process (i.e., determining an incision (opening) location and an excision (removal) region) using a patient-specific three-dimensional medical image as these are common variations which would be comprised in the process patient to patient. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the methods of Nakeo et al. because Nakeo et al. shows an automated dissection process that provides information about into which site to put a scalpel, in what direction to move the scalpel, how deep the moving scalpel is, and in what order to put the scalpel and based on the specific patient would or could vary such that it must be a consideration to practice the process successfully . This modification would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that Nakeo et al. discloses a patient-specific dissection method using a patient-specific three-dimensional medical image showing an outer shape of an organ, anatomical structures of tumors, blood vessels, and other organ st r uctures . Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was prima facie obvious. Conclusion No claims are allowed. This Office action is a Non-Final action. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this application. Inquiries Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEVEN W. BAILEY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8170 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri. 1000 - 1800 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT KARLHEINZ SKOWRONEK can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-9047 . 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. /S.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 1687 /Joseph Woitach/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687