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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 06 November 2025, with respect to 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of amendment. The 103 rejection of 08 September 2025 has been withdrawn (Please see examiner’ reasons for indicating allowable subject matter below).
The examiner notes that claims are under 101 rejection and the claims would be allowable when amended to overcome 101 rejection. The limitations of claims 1 and 14 are not recited in a way to integrate into practical application, rather recites limitations that can be performed by human mind, using pen and pencil, to plan and use of ranking and scoring, and selection based on the scores, as well as cost function, which falls into mathematical concepts as it is a mathematical model describing the relationship between two variables. The examiner notes that none of the limitations require any type of machine/computing device to perform the limitation. The examiner further notes that all the limitations can be completely performed “mentally” using an initial planning dataset, which can also be a paper or any data in surgeon’s mental memory. Moreover, claim 14 recites “an imaging device” to perform all the limitations, but does not lead to integration into practical application, rather an imaging device is not even recited to acquire any images to obtain image data. The examiner recommends amending the limitations of claims 1 and 14 to make integration into practical application of the recited limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10, 12, 14-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method for providing a specification, and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitations
“receiving selection information relating to one or more available medical objects”
“capturing selection information relating to one or more available medical objects”
“The specification has suitability information and a desired path, wherein the desired path has a plurality of spatial points and/or temporal control points that specify desired positioning for the one or more available medical objects,”
“the suitability information comprises a suitability value characterizing the suitability of each available medial objects of the plurality of available medical objects for an arrangement and/or movement of the plurality of available medical objects along the spatial and/or temporal control points of the desired path, a compatibility between the plurality of available medical objects and a hollow organ of the examination object, a movement speed of the plurality of available medical objects along the desired path from a start positioning to a target position or a combination thereof.”
“wherein the specification further comprises an object specification that identifies an available medical object of the plurality of available medical objects using the suitability information for the desired path in which a medical object of the plurality of available medical objects having a highest suitability value for the desired path is selected.”
These limitations, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to making selection and determining suitability information. The limitation of selecting information, capturing selection information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, as one can make observation, and draw conclusion by making most appropriate selection and suitability information in mind. Specifically, desired path can be determined by observing and making judgement in mind to take a safe and/or shortest route of the medical objects to reach target. In addition, details of suitability information can be determined as a suitability value by scoring and ranking, from the best arrangement, compatibility with organ, and speed of the movement, by simply making observation and writing down rank and/or score of the most to least suitable medical object with respect to the target organ of the patient and the desired path. In addition, one can choose medical object from plurality of medical objects based on the suitability information by observation and draw a conclusion in mind that which medical object has a highest score/rank among the plurality of medical objects. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
The claim further recites the limitations “determining the specification by applying a specification function to input data and minimizing a cost value of a first cost function, wherein the input data is based on the planning dataset and the selection information,” and “wherein the cost function assess a compatibility between the plurality of available medical objects and a hollow organ of the examination object in which the desired path runs at least partially.” These limitations recite a mathematical calculation of specification by applying a function with an input data, and applying a mathematical model to calculate a cost function to calculate a relationship between the medical objects and the organ which falls into the “mathematical concepts” grouping of the subtract ideas. For example, a physician can determine the specification by assessing the input data of dataset by calculating the score and/or rank of the suitability and applying it to known function to determine which input results in best output (score). In addition, a surgeon can apply a cost function (Which is also known as loss function) to calculate the degree of compatibility between the medical objects and the organ, and rank them to determine a minimum cost value and selecting the minimum value of the calculated cost function. The recited function is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, and even with a use of a physical aid, like a pen, paper and/or calculator, to make such calculations, the use of the physical aid would not negate the mental nature of the limitation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. B.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements:
“receiving selection information relating to one or more available medical objects” and “providing the specification as output data of the specification function.” Receiving dataset is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. In addition, displaying the determined result of specification function in a display as a graphical representation of the specification as output data of the specification function is displaying the output of the specification function merely amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity used to perform the judicial exception. Use of graphical representation is recited in high level of generality of displaying the output, and does not integrate judicial exception into practical application.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claims recite the limitations
“wherein second cost function assess a movement duration of the plurality of available medical objects along the desired path from the start positioning to the target positioning,”
“wherein the suitability information is determined at least partially based on the cost value of the cost or second cost function,”
These limitations, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to observing whether medical objects are compatible with the hollow organ and movement duration of the medical objects along the desired path by using comparison, matching process and recording the time of travel of the medical object along the course based on the speed of the object and distance to the target, which can be all performed in mind and with aid of pen/pencil. One can further determine compatibility of medical object with the organ of interest, and determining suitability information based on cost value of the cost function by observing the calculated cost value and ranking the values and make decision to determine compatibility by selecting least cost value. Particularly, one can assign cost value of the cost function by scoring the compatibility and determine which medical object has highest or lowest score of the cost function by observing and determining in mind, which involves organizing data. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No – No additional claim elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claims 6 and 9 are ineligible.
Claim 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 1 rejection.
Claims 4 and 7 recites the following elements: “wherein tissue information is determined using the planning dataset, and the wherein input data of the specification is additionally based on the tissue information.”
These limitations, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to observing the data and making a determination and tissue information is used as input data. For example, one can observe the planning dataset by looking at medical image and can determine tissue information and use the tissue information for further step by mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No – claim elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claims 4 and 7 are ineligible.
Claim 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 1 rejection.
Claims 5 and 8 recites the following elements:
“the starting and the target positioning are identified for a predefined selection of the plurality of available medical object,”
“wherein the input data of the specification function is additionally based on the start and the target positioning, and wherein the desired path begins at the start and ends at the target positioning.”
These limitations, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to observing the image, and identifying initial point and the desired target, and making a determination and tissue information is used as input data. For example, one can observe the medical image, and using a pen, mark the initial position and the end position of the target for medical objects, and further use identified information for further step by remembering the information and use the information for subsequent steps such as plugging into mathematical equation or make decision. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No-There is no claim element that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. In light of above, claim 5 is ineligible.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claims 5 and 8 are ineligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 1 rejection.
Claim 10 recites the following elements: “wherein the desired path has at least one movement parameter for moving the plurality of available medical objects between the spatial control points and/or temporal control points of the desired path.” This claim element is a mere data gathering as all desired path have temporal or spatial points, as points make up the path, and movement parameter of the medical objects can encompass movement direction and speed of the medical objects following the path which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity. One can determine how fast and which direction the medical objects should move by simply following the course of direction of the path which can be performed by hand or in mental process such as simulation in mind.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim 10 is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 1 rejection.
Claim 12 further recites a trained function and adjusting the parameter of the trained function based on a comparison of a training path with a comparison with a comparison path and training suitability information with comparison suitability information.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the adjusting the parameter of the trained function based on comparison of two paths and suitability information which can be performed by mind. This can be performed by observing the data and making comparison by finding a difference between two data, and drawing a conclusion and making adjustment according to the conclusion. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not recite any further limitation.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 12 is ineligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a system, and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitations
“receive a planning dataset having a pre-ascertained mapping and/or a model of an examination object;”
“capture selection information relating to a plurality of available medical objects”
“wherein the specification has suitability information and a desired path, wherein the desired path has a plurality of spatial points and/or temporal control points that specify desired positioning for the one or more available medical objects,”
“wherein the suitability information comprises a suitability value characterizing the suitability of the plurality of available medial objects for an arrangement and/or movement of the one or more medical objects along the spatial and/or temporal control points of the desired path,”
“wherein a compatibility function assess a compatibility between the plurality of available medical objects and a hollow organ of the examination object, a movement speed of the one or more available medical objects along the desired path from a start positioning to a target position or a combination thereof,”
“wherein the specification further comprises an object specification that identifies an available medical object of the plurality of available medical objects using the suitability information for the desired path in which a medical object of the plurality of available medical objects having a highest suitability value for the desired path is selected.”
These limitations, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to making selection and determining suitability information. The limitations of determining and making selecting information, determining suitability information based on the dataset, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, as one can make observation, and draw conclusion by making most appropriate selection and suitability information in mind. Specifically, desired path can be determined by observing and making judgement in mind to take a safe and/or shortest route of the medical objects to reach target. In addition details of suitability information can be determined as a suitability value by scoring and ranking, from the best arrangement, compatibility, and speed of the movement, by simply making observation and writing down rank and/or score of the most suitable object with respect to the target organ of the patient. Specifically, one can assign value of 1 to 10 for plurality of medical objects based on suitability information. In addition, one can choose medical object from plurality of medical objects based on the suitability information by observation and draw a conclusion in mind that which medical object among the plurality of available medical objects has a highest score/rank for suitability value. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
The claim further recites the limitations
“determining the specification by applying a specification function to input data and minimize a cost value of a first cost function wherein the input data is based on the planning dataset and the selection information.”
“wherein the first cost function assess a computability between the plurality of available medical objects and a hollow organ of the examination object in which the desired path runs at least partially,”
This limitation recite a mathematical calculation of specification by applying a function with an input data, and minimizing a cost value of a cost function, which is calculated using a cost function formula to assess a computability between medical objects and organ, which falls into the “mathematical concepts” grouping of the subtract ideas. For example, a physician can determine the specification by assessing the input data of dataset by calculating the score and/or rank of the suitability and applying it to known function to determine which input results in best output (score) and select minimum cost value of a function, which would select the most compatible medical objects for a given organ for procedure. The recited function is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, and even with a use of a physical aid, like a pen, paper and/or calculator, to make such calculations, the use of the physical aid would not negate the mental nature of the limitation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. B.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “a medical imaging device,” “receive dataset” and “providing the trained function.” Receiving dataset and medical imaging device are forms of a pre-solution insignificant activity as it is acquiring and collecting data. The use of imaging device that performs the claimed limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception. In addition, displaying the determined result of specification function in a display as a graphical representation of the specification as output data of the specification function is displaying the output of the specification function merely amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity used to perform the judicial exception. Use of graphical representation as displaying output is recited in high level of generality of displaying the output, and does not integrate judicial exception into practical application.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 14 is ineligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a system, and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitations
“capture a positioning of a medical object arranged in the examination object in an operating state of the system,”
“compare, at least at the control points of the desired path, the captured positioning with the respective desired positioning;” and
“provide a workflow note when there is a deviation identified in the comparison between the captured positioning and the respective desired positioning.
These limitations, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to observing position of the medical object and compare its position with the desired path and making a note when position is deviated from the desired path, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, as one can make observation of the medical object and note its position, comparing the position with respect to desired path by mind. In addition, a workflow note can be a written note whenever the result of comparison indicates deviation between two positions, that can be performed by simple observation. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
The claim further recites the limitations
“determining the specification by applying a specification function to input data, wherein the input data is based on the planning dataset and the selection information.”
This limitation recite a mathematical calculation of specification by applying a function with an input data, which falls into the “mathematical concepts” grouping of the subtract ideas. For example, a physician can determine the specification by assessing the input data of dataset by calculating the score and/or rank of the suitability and applying it to known function to determine which input results in best output (score). The recited function is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, and even with a use of a physical aid, like a pen, paper and/or calculator, to make such calculations, the use of the physical aid would not negate the mental nature of the limitation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. B.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “a medical imaging device.” The use of imaging device that performs the claimed limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception. Providing the specification is outputting the result of the function which merely amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity. used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 15 is ineligible.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 15 rejection.
Claim 16 further recites “wherein the system is further configured to capture the positioning of the medical object using the mapping.”
These limitations, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to observing position of the medical object, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, as one can make observation of the medical object using the mapping and note its position, comparing the position with respect to desired path by mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “a medical imaging device,” “medical imaging device is a magnetic resonance tomography system, a computed tomography system,” a medial X-ray device, a positron emission tomography system, and an ultrasound device” and “robotically move the medical object.” The use of imaging device that performs the claimed limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception. Robotically moving the object according to the specification merely amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity of outputting the result and performing movement of the object used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claims 16-18 are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method, and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitations
“wherein the suitability value further characterizes a mean deviation of an arrangement of the plurality of available medical objects in respect of the desired positionings and/or maximum deviation of the arrangement of the plurality of available medical objects in respect of the desired positioning.”
This limitation recite a mathematical determination of the suitability value by applying a mean deviation or maximum deviation of the position, which falls into the “mathematical concepts” grouping of the subtract ideas. For example, a physician can determine the mean or maximum deviation of the position with respect to the desired positioning, by calculating a difference of two positions, and applying a mean algorithm or scoring the difference and ranking the differences in order, to determine maximum. The recited function is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, and even with a use of a physical aid, like a pen, paper and/or calculator, to make such calculations, the use of the physical aid would not negate the mental nature of the limitation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. B.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not further recite limitations. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 20 is ineligible.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 1 rejection.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the graphical representation comprises a graphical representation of the desired path at least partially overlayed with a graphical representation of the planning dataset.” The use of graphical representation of path overlayed with a dataset can be done by overlapping path on the data, path can be superimposed or overlaid onto the data (for example, a line on the data/image of organ) and merely amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity of outputting the result to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim 21 is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method, and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitations
“receiving an initial path or determining the initial path using the planning dataset, wherein the initial path is independent of the plurality of available medical objects and has a plurality of initial spatial points and/or initial temporal control points that specify one initial desired positioning respectively,”
“wherein the specification function adjusts the plurality of initial spatial control points and/or initial temporal control points of the initial path based on the selection information and the planning dataset by minimizing the cost value of the first cost function to provide the desired path.”
These limitations, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to determining an initial path od desired positioning and adjustment to the initial path based on selection information and planning dataset by minimizing the cost function, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, as one can make receive or determine initial plan of path with checkpoints, by mind (such as coming up with a plan for particular path toward an organ of interest), and make observation of the medical objects, and select one with minimum cost function that will optimize the navigation through the path, and adjust the path check points, by changing points along the trajectory that will minimize any collision with obstacles, which can be performed in a paper using pencil based on the mentally making judgement and drawing a conclusion. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements:
“wherein the input data is based on the planning dataset, the selection information and the initial path” Receiving dataset is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. Gathering data is recited in high generality and does not integrate judicial exception into practical application.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 21 is ineligible.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 14 are allowable when amended to overcome 101 rejection.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The following prior art previously made of record is considered pertinent to the reasons of allowance:
Levain (US2023/0363821) discloses selecting a medical object from a plurality of objects for performing simulation based on various limitations and advantages associated with the instrument ([0194]; [0031]-[0032]),
However, the prior art previously and currently made of record fails to disclose or make obvious the limitation “suitability value for each of the plurality of available medical objects based on the compatibility and identifies an available medical object of the plurality of available medical objects using the suitability information for the desired path in which a medical object of the plurality of available medical objects having a highest suitability value for the desired path is selected” in combination with the rest of the limitations of independent claim(s) 1 and 14. There is no reason absent hindsight to have combined and modified teachings of the cited references before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a user to combine and/or modify prior arts in order to produce the claimed invention. Furthermore, such a configuration allows comparison of suitability information for multiple medical objects and selecting a medical object with the highest suitability value ([0022]), advantages claimed by present invention.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 and 14 overcome(s) previously and currently cited prior art and is/are found to be allowable when amended to overcome 101 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA J PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 am - 3 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. 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.
/PATRICIA J PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798