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 1-5, 7-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] Claim(s) 16 recite(s):
A system for determining a surgical skill of a surgeon during a surgical task, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory system comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a video of a surgical task being performed by a surgeon, wherein the video comprise:
a first video captured by a first camera that is outside a patient; and
a second video captured by a second camera that is inside of the patient;
segmenting the surgical task into a plurality of segments;
marking one or more portions in the video, wherein the one or more marked portions comprise a hand of the surgeon, an instrument that the surgeon is using to perform the surgical task, an anatomy on which the surgical task is being performed, or a combination thereof;
determining one or more metrics of the surgical task based at least partially upon a type of the surgical task being performed, one or more of the segments, and the one or more marked portions, wherein the one or more metrics describe movement of the instrument, an appearance of the anatomy, a change in the anatomy, an interaction between the instrument and the anatomy, or a combination thereof;
determining a surgical skill of the surgeon during the surgical task based at least partially upon the one or more metrics, wherein determining the surgical skill also comprises:
constructing an attention map based at least partially upon the videos;
explicitly supervising learning of the attention map; and
providing feedback about the surgical skill.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computing system”, “Processor”, “memory system” and “non-transitory computer-readable media storing instruction”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses an instructor observing videos of student’s surgical work from different viewpoint, determining the skill level of the surgeon performing the surgery and providing feedback about the observed surgery. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
Claim 12 recite:
A method for determining a surgical skill of a surgeon during a surgical task, the method comprising:
capturing videos of a surgical task being performed by a surgeon, wherein the videos comprise:
a first video captured by a first camera that is outside of a patient; and
a second video captured by a second camera that is inside of the patient;
segmenting the surgical task into a plurality of segments;
marking one or more portions in the videos, wherein the one or more marked portions comprise a hand of the surgeon, an instrument that the surgeon is using to perform the surgical task, an anatomy on which the surgical task is being performed, or a combination thereof;
determining one or more metrics of the surgical task based at least partially upon a type of the surgical task being performed, one or more of the segments, and the one or more marked portions, wherein the one or more metrics describe movement of the instrument, an appearance of the anatomy, a change in the anatomy, an interaction between the instrument and the anatomy, or a combination thereof, wherein the instrument comprises forceps, wherein the one or more portions comprise first and second tips of the forceps, and wherein determining the one or more metrics comprises:
determining that the forceps are in a closed state based at least partially upon a distance between the first and second tips;
determining that the first and second tips are grasping the anatomy based at least partially upon the forceps being in the closed state in a predetermined number of consecutive frames of the videos; and
determining that the forceps are tearing the anatomy based at least partially upon the forceps moving more than a predetermined distance while the first and second tips are grasping the anatomy;
determining a surgical skill of the surgeon during the surgical task based at least partially upon the one or more metrics; and
providing feedback about the surgical skill.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a first camera” and “a second camera”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses an instructor observing videos of student’s surgical work from different viewpoint, determining the skill level of the surgeon performing the surgery by observing their use of a forceps and providing feedback about the observed surgery. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The examiner notes that the limitation of claims 1 is more generic version of claims 12, 16 and as such they rise and fall together.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “computing system”, “Processor”, “memory system” and “non-transitory computer-readable media storing instruction”, “first camera” and “second camera”.
The “computing system”, “Processor”, “memory system” and “non-transitory computer-readable media storing instruction”, “first camera” and “second camera”, in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see paragraph 65-66). The limitation of claims 16 includes limitation directed to the limitation “constructing an attention map based at least partially upon the videos” and “explicitly supervising learning of the attention map”. However, since the limitation appears to be presented in high level of generality and can be interpreted to indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 65-66).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-11, 13-15, and 17-20 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. For examples, claim 2-3, 10 are directed to the same abstract idea identified in claim 12 and 16 and are rejected under the same rationale as claim 12 and 16; claims 4-6, 13-15 and 17-20 appear to be directed to the mental process of making an observation based on the tip of an instrument (a forceps); claims 7-9 appear to be directed to the use of the method in conjunction with a temporal convolution network, a convolutional neural network and etc; however, the limitation directed to the machine learning limitation are presented in a high level and generality since the limitation of claims 7-9 appear to use of the abstract idea using a machine learning algorithm. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A new ground of rejection has been presented in order to account to the newly presented amendment. With respect to applicant’s argument that the amendment of the “first camera” and “second camera” would amount to significantly more. However, a new ground of rejection has been promulgated for the currently presented claim limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715