DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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. Claims 1 and 11 recite a process and a computer system for performing the process, the process including the steps of determining at least one task metric from the data, the at least one task metric associated with the task; and using the at least one task metric to assign a value to at least one quality assessment metric at each time interval throughout the task based on a progression curve having a novice skill level at a first end of the curve, an expert skill level at a second end of the curve opposite to the first end, and undefined skill levels in between, the at least one quality assessment metric associated with the task. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are determining a task metric associated with the task and using the task metric to assign a value to at least one quality assessment metric based on a progression/skill curve. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (evaluation (determining at least one task metric), judgement (assign a value to at least one quality assessment metric)). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 recite abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements are a processing unit [claim 11]; a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program instructions executable by the processing unit [claim 11]; obtaining, at a computing device, data at a plurality of time intervals throughout a task performed by a user, the data generated by a control device manipulated by the user while performing the task; and displaying in real-time, at the computing device, a first time-varying graphical indicator indicative of the value of the at least one quality assessment metric. The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity and instructions for applying the judicial exception with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional step(s) is/are merely gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and displaying the results of the judicial exception. The other additional elements of a processing unit, a NTCRM having stored thereon program instructions, and a computing device are generic computer components for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. Further, paragraphs 0065, 0071 of the specification describe generic computing components and state the computer device as a personal computer, server, or network device. As such, these additional elements are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements and steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional step(s) of obtaining data and displaying in real-time a graphical indicator is/are insignificant extra-solution activity performed during the abstract idea. The additional elements of a processing unit, a NTCRM, and a computing device used to perform the process are generic computing components/device used to apply the judicial exception and therefore fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the practice of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are not directed to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are dependent from claims 1 and 11, respectively, and include all the limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 2, 4, 7, 12, 14, and 17 recite further abstract ideas including assigning a value to at least one risk metric (judgement mental process (MP)), predicting the value of the at least one task metric for the expert skill level (judgement MP), providing guidance to the user in real-time (opinion MP; certain method of organizing human activity in the form of teaching (CMOHA)), and applying a regression model that scores the at least one quality assessment metric (evaluation MP). As the limitations are further abstract ideas, the limitations cannot meaningfully limit or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The additional elements of the dependent claims are further insignificant extra-solution activities including displaying a second graphical indicator. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 recite further displaying steps, the display occurring when a threshold is exceeded, and performing the task on a virtual simulator. The limitations are further insignificant extra-solution activity (displaying the results of the process) and merely generally linking the judicial exceptions with a field of use. Due to the high-level generality of the recitation of a virtual simulator, the limitation is interpreted as merely linking the judicial exceptions with virtual reality/simulation technology. Further, the high-level recitation amounts to a generic computing device or component. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 8 and 18 recite the additional element of “wherein a recurrent neural network is used to implement the regression model”. Due to the high-level of generality of the recitation of a recurrent neural network, the limitation is interpreted as mere computer code for performing the computer functions and falls under the instructions for applying an abstract idea with a generic computing device. Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
Accordingly, claims 2-10 and 12-20 are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter.
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.
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, 4, 10-11, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samosky et al. (US PGPub 20130323700), hereinafter referred to as Samosky, in view of Ottensmeyer et al. (US PGPub 20150037775), hereinafter referred to as Ottensmeyer.
With regard to claims 1 and 11, Samosky teaches a method [claim 1] (Abstract; Paragraph 0037; “methods”) and a system [claim 11] (Abstract; Paragraph 0037; “systems”) comprising:
a processing unit [claim 11] (Paragraph 0088; “single-processor or multiprocessor”); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program instructions executable by the processing unit (Paragraphs 0089-0090) for:
obtaining, at a computing device, data at a plurality of time intervals throughout a task performed by a user (Paragraphs 0042, 0062, 0074 teach the system can track user performance in real-time including tracking metrics at time intervals), the data generated by a control device manipulated by the user while performing the task (Paragraphs 0041-0042 teach the data can be gathered from a clinical instrument or other device used by the user to interact with the system);
determining, at the computing device, at least one task metric from the data, the at least one task metric associated with the task (Paragraphs 0042, 0074, 0085 teach the system can determine and record one or more performance metrics associated with the task/procedure);
using the at least one task metric to assign, at the computing device, a value to at least one quality assessment metric at each time interval throughout the task, the at least one quality assessment metric associated with the task (Paragraphs 0084, 0086 teach the system can measure performance including presenting color changing display of position performance and scoring the trainee’s performance associated with the task based on the performance metrics); and
displaying in real-time, at the computing device, a first time-varying graphical indicator indicative of the value of the at least one quality assessment metric (Paragraphs 0055, 0083-0084 teach the system can provide visual feedback of the metrics including bar graphs and color changing an object within the simulation based on performance wherein the color is indicative of the metric).
Samosky may not explicitly teach based on a progression curve having a novice skill level at a first end of the curve, an expert skill level at a second end of the curve opposite to the first end, and undefined skill levels in between. However, Ottensmeyer teaches a system and method for surgical training including evaluating a trainees performance according to a scale (curve) from 0 to 100 where a 0 is a novice and 100 is an expert (Abstract; Paragraph 0137).
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 Samosky to incorporate the teachings of Ottensmeyer by incorporating the teaching of evaluating user/trainee performance on a scale of 0 to 100 as a representation of novice to expert skill as taught by Ottensmeyer to the performance metrics of Samosky, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to surgical/medical training simulators that evaluate user performance based on metrics. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Samosky by coding the system to evaluate the performance metrics on a scale/curve of 0 to 100 wherein 0 is representative of a novice and 100 is representative of an expert such that the performance score calculated using the plurality of metrics of Samosky would be based on the scale. Upon such modification, the method and system of Samosky would include based on a progression curve having a novice skill level at a first end of the curve, an expert skill level at a second end of the curve opposite to the first end, and undefined skill levels in between. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Ottensmeyer with Samosky’s system and method in order to further classify user performance and provide a relevant scale of user performance for comparison.
With regard to claims 4 and 14, Samosky further teaches further comprising predicting, at the computing device, the value of the at least one task metric for the expert skill level at a current time point in the task (Paragraphs 0042-0043, 0052, 0074, 0084 teach the system can base performance analysis on comparison of user performance to an expert performance including expert metrics such as position tracking compared to the user’s metrics wherein the expert performance is stored and retrieved from memory); and providing, at the computing device, guidance to the user in real-time based on a difference between the predicted value and an actual value of the at least one task metric (Paragraphs 0042-0043, 0052, 0074, 0084 teach the system can provide real-time feedback based on the comparison of the user’s metrics and performance to an experts performance including displaying bar graphs and color changes based on the deviation between the user’s performance and the expert performance thereby providing guidance based on the difference).
With regard to claims 10 and 20, Samosky further teaches wherein the task is performed by the user on a virtual simulator (Paragraphs 0035-0036, 0042 teach the system can include virtual reality simulations such that the user performance of the procedure/task is performed on a virtual model).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Gocho et al. (US PGPub 20200297422), hereinafter referred to as Gocho.
With regard to claims 2 and 12, Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer may not explicitly teach further comprising: assigning, at the computing device, a value to at least one risk metric from the data, the at least one risk metric indicative of a negative outcome associated with the task; and displaying in real time, at the computing device, a second time-varying graphical indicator indicative of the value of the at least one risk metric. However, Gocho teaches a system and method for supporting a surgical operation including determining risk of an operation, such as a bleeding risk, based on real-time scene and distance information with reference to the treatment instrument and displaying the risk (Paragraphs 0095, 0099).
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 Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer to incorporate the teachings of Gocho by incorporating the teaching of determining a risk such as a probability of bleeding based on instrument position as taught by Gocho as one of the metrics of Samosky, as, while Gocho is intended for use with a “real” surgical operation or medical treatment, both references and the claimed invention work by evaluating position and interaction of a user with an operating device/instrument and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Gocho to improve Samosky in the same way by providing a user with a, albeit simulated, risk metric. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer by coding the system to determine a risk metric such as a simulated probability of bleeding based on the user’s performance and displaying the corresponding metric as a performance metric. Upon such modification, the method and system of Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer would include further comprising: assigning, at the computing device, a value to at least one risk metric from the data, the at least one risk metric indicative of a negative outcome associated with the task; and displaying in real time, at the computing device, a second time-varying graphical indicator indicative of the value of the at least one risk metric. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Gocho with Samosky in view of Ottenmeyer’s system and method in order to provide further evaluation of user performance and simulate a more realistic environment by providing users with simulated risks.
With regard to claims 3 and 13, Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer may not explicitly teach further comprising displaying, at the computing device, a graphical warning to the user when the value of the at least one risk metric reaches a first threshold. However, Gocho further teaches the system and method providing a warning to a user via the display when the risk probability is higher than a predetermined value (threshold) (Paragraphs 0098-0099).
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 Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer to incorporate the teachings of Gocho by incorporating the teaching of determining a risk such as a probability of bleeding based on instrument position and displaying a warning when the risk exceeds a predetermined value as taught by Gocho as one of the metrics of Samosky, as, while Gocho is intended for use with a “real” surgical operation or medical treatment, both references and the claimed invention work by evaluating position and interaction of a user with an operating device/instrument and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Gocho to improve Samosky in the same way by providing a user with a, albeit simulated, risk metric. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer by coding the system to determine a risk metric such as a simulated probability of bleeding based on the user’s performance and displaying a warning when the metric exceeds a predetermined value/threshold. Upon such modification, the method and system of Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer would include further comprising displaying, at the computing device, a graphical warning to the user when the value of the at least one risk metric reaches a first threshold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Gocho with Samosky in view of Ottenmeyer’s system and method in order to provide further evaluation of user performance and simulate a more realistic environment by providing users with simulated risks.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Patil et al. (US PGPub 20220087644), hereinafter referred to as Patil.
With regard to claims 5 and 15, Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer may not explicitly teach wherein providing guidance to the user in real-time comprises displaying a guidance message associated with improving the value of the at least one task metric. However, Patil teaches a system and method for providing adaptive user guidance based on a user’s proficiency during a medical procedure wherein the guidance can be presented when a parameter/metric exceeds a threshold and the guidance is in the form of text displayed on the screen (message) for improving user performance (Abstract; Paragraphs 0029, 0048, 0075).
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 Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer to incorporate the teachings of Patil by incorporating the teaching of displaying user guidance/feedback in the form of text or visual instructions as taught by Patil as the visual feedback of Samosky, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to medical simulator training devices including user feedback based on user performance and metrics. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer by coding the system to superimpose text based guidance and feedback on the display based on the user performance to improve performance. Upon such modification, the method and system of Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer would include wherein providing guidance to the user in real-time comprises displaying a guidance message associated with improving the value of the at least one task metric. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Patil with Samosky in view of Ottenmeyer’s system and method in order to improve user performance and provide comprehensive user feedback and guidance.
With regard to claims 6 and 16, Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer may not explicitly teach wherein the guidance message is displayed when the difference between the predicted value and the actual value of the at least one task metric is above a second threshold. However, Patil teaches a system and method for providing adaptive user guidance based on a user’s proficiency during a medical procedure wherein the guidance can be presented when a parameter/metric exceeds a threshold wherein the threshold can be based on a user’s proficiency level and a criteria set based on an expert operator and the proficiency can be based on a difference between a user’s performance/criteria and an expected or expert performance/criteria (predicted value) such that the exceeded threshold is the proficiency score/difference value (Abstract; Paragraphs 0045, 0048, 0075-0076, 0088, 0092, 0104).
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 Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer to incorporate the teachings of Patil by incorporating the teaching of displaying user guidance/feedback when a threshold is exceeded as taught by Patil as the visual feedback of Samosky, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to medical simulator training devices including user feedback based on user performance and metrics. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer by coding the system to superimpose text based guidance and feedback on the display based on the user performance to improve performance when the user performance metric/proficiency exceeds a threshold or is below a threshold based in part on the difference between actual and expected performance. Upon such modification, the method and system of Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer would include wherein the guidance message is displayed when the difference between the predicted value and the actual value of the at least one task metric is above a second threshold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Patil with Samosky in view of Ottenmeyer’s system and method in order to improve user performance and provide comprehensive user feedback and guidance.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US PGPub 20150079565), hereinafter referred to as Miller.
Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer may not explicitly teach wherein displaying in real-time the first time-varying graphical indicator comprises presenting the first time-varying graphical indicator adjacent to a skill level scale representative of the progression curve. However, Miller teaches a system and method for evaluating performance of a procedure including performance metrics wherein the user performance can be displayed on a graph including a mastery scale (skill level scale) as the axis (Abstract; Paragraphs 0087, 0099, 0103).
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 Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer to incorporate the teachings of Miller by incorporating the teaching of displaying user performance metrics of Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer on a graph including a mastery scale/axis as taught by Miller as the visual feedback of Samosky, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to medical simulator training devices including user feedback based on user performance and metrics. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer by coding the system to present the user performance metrics, based on the novice to expert scale of Ottensmeyer, as a sequence of graphs updated in real-time wherein the performance metrics are scaled by the mastery axis from 0 to 100 corresponding to the novice to expert skill level. Upon such modification, the method and system of Samosky in view of Ottensmeyer would include wherein displaying in real-time the first time-varying graphical indicator comprises presenting the first time-varying graphical indicator adjacent to a skill level scale representative of the progression curve. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Patil with Samosky in view of Ottenmeyer’s system and method in order to provide comprehensive user feedback and guidance and visually represent user performance in real-time.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715