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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the Amendment dated 16 December 2025, the following occurred:
Claims 1, 19, 20, and 21 were amended;
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-22 are pending.
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 1-7, 9-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite components, systems, and methods for analyzing surgical footage and therefore meet step 1.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 1 being representative) accessing intracorporeal video footage captured during a surgical procedure on a patient; accessing pre-procedure information associated with the surgical procedure, the pre-procedure information being available before a beginning of the surgical procedure; analyzing the intracorporeal video footage, the analyzing further comprising: calculating a first result value for the respective […portion of the video…], the first result value indicating whether a surgical tool is present in the respective […portion of the video…]; calculating a second result value for the respective […portion of the video…], the second result value indicating whether a reimbursable event associated with the surgical tool is present in the respective […portion of the video…]; identifying a spatial orientation between two anatomical structures using… [an analysis technique], the ...[analysis technique]… applied towards a region of the respective frame; and using the identified spatial orientation between the two anatomical structures to identify an elevated complexity of the surgical procedure compared to a most likely complexity based on the pre-procedure information alone; based on the surgical tool, the reimbursable event, and the elevated complexity, determining a medical reimbursement code for the detected reimbursable event; and outputting the medical reimbursement code, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, falls in the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions). The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to identify a reimbursable event that occurs during surgery by analyzing a video of the surgery (see preamble) in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “accessing…analyzing…calculating…identifying…determining…and outputting.”
Other than reciting generic computing components, i.e., a component, a method, and a system implemented by a processor (claims 1 and 20) and a computer readable medium (claim 1), the claimed invention amounts to organizing human activity. The Examiner notes that Claim 19 is not tied to any particular technological environment. The Examiner further notes that identifying a reimbursable event during a medical procedure is a human activity, as is known in the art (see also Spec. Para. 00129, 00182). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor (claims 1 and 20) and a non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 1) that implement the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are not exclusively described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., any well-known computer, see, e.g., Para. 00235) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims further recite the additional element(s) of:
transforming each frame of the intracorporeal video footage into an array of pixel values corresponding to a component of the respective frame, wherein the component comprises a color or depth of the respective frame;
calculating a first result value for the respective frame by executing a first convolution on the array of pixel values corresponding to the component;
calculating a second result value for the respective frame by executing a second convolution on the array of pixel values corresponding to the component;
using a semantic segmentation algorithm, the semantic segmentation algorithm applied towards a region of the respective frame
The Examiner submits that these steps represent the application of well-known semantic segmentation to video. See evidentiary reference “What is Semantic Segmentation?,” “The Beginner’s Guide to Semantic Segmentation,” and “An overview of semantic image segmentation.” describing these steps as the definition of semantic segmentation (see also Spec. Para. 0048, 0049, 0200). The semantic segmentation algorithm represents a particular type of information processing, which is a form of extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception cannot provide a practical application. Alternatively, the semantic segmentation algorithm equates to saying “apply it.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
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 general-purpose computer to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a semantic segmentation algorithm was considered to represent extra-solution data gathering activity. Further and for completeness, the prior art of record indicates that using a semantic segmentation algorithm to analyze frames/images is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see US 2022/0114393 to Keshwani at Para. 0003; US 20220198652 to Shirai at Para. 0049; WO 2022/195304 to Giataganas at Para. 0089, 0187). Alternatively, the semantic segmentation algorithm was determined to be “apply it.” This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim 2 merely describes identifying, extracting, and outputting, which further defines the abstract idea. Claims 3-5 merely describes the at least one representative frame, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 6 merely describes the detected reimbursable event, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 7 merely describes analyzing the intracorporeal video footage, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 9 merely describes generating a summary, which further defines the abstract idea. Claims 10 and 12 merely describe the reimbursable event, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 11 merely describes the reimbursable event and determining the medical reimbursement code, which further defines the abstract idea. Claims 13 and 14 merely describe analyzing the intracorporeal video footage and determining the medical reimbursement code, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 15 merely describes the medical reimbursement code, which further defines the abstract idea. Claims 17 and 18 merely describe analyzing and identifying the elevated complexity, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 21 merely describes determining the medical reimbursement code, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 21 further recites a machine learning model. The Examiner notes that the machine learning model is described in the Specification at Para. 0048 as encompassing a predictive model, a classification model, a data regression model, or a clustering model, several of which are simple enough to be included in the abstract idea.
Claim 22 merely describes analyzing the intracorporeal video footage based on the pre-procedure information, which further defines the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Drawings
Regarding the objection to Figure 20, the Applicant has provided Replacement Sheets of drawings such that an objection is no longer required. The objection has been withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Regarding the indefiniteness rejection of Claim 21, the Applicant has amended the claims such that a rejection is no longer required. The rejection is withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-21, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Conventional systems and processes are tedious and error-prone, struggling to effectively identify and track the elements within an intracorporeal video stream... This provides a technical solution to the above-described technical problem faced by conventional intracorporeal video analysis systems and processes.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any technological problem caused by the technological environment to which Applicant's claims are confined (a general-purpose computer). Para. 0004 states that the process of analyzing medical procedure information is tedious and error-prone. This does not state, as Applicant asserts, that this problem is a problem with intracorporeal video streams. It is a problem with the information itself and this problem was not caused by the computer; the computer is merely used as a tool to improve the speed and efficiency of analyzing the information. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) instructs that “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.” Thus, the problem asserted by the Applicant is not a technical problem.
The claimed invention purports to solve this non-technical problem by using a computer to perform the task of assigning medical codes. This is using a computer for its intended purpose and does not provide a practical application by any measure in Further, Applicant's claims are not improving intracorporeal video analysis systems. Applicant's claims are merely using video analysis as a tool; the actual video analysis is not improved in any way. Any improvement present is an improvement to the abstract idea.
The specific techniques recited by the claims were not generally known in the art. This is evidenced by the lack of any art-based rejections in the present Office Action… Thus, the instant claims reflect a non-conventional arrangement of features for performing an intracorporeal video analysis associated with a medical malpractice claim.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(d) states: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (emphasis added).” Further, MPEP 2106.05(I) states: “As made clear by the courts, the novelty of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter (internal quotations omitted, emphasis original).” As such, it is only the additional elements identified by the Examiner to not be part of the abstract idea that are analyzed to determine whether they represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the field of the invention.
In that regard, MPEP 2106.05(d)(I) indicates that in determining whether the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activities, the Examiner should consider whether the additional elements (1) provide an improvement to the technological environment to which the claim is confined, (2) whether the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, or (3) whether the additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of the claims do not provide significantly more based on this inquiry.
Taking these in turn, whether the additional elements of the claim provide an improvement was analyzed/addressed in the 2A2 analysis. Any improvement present is an improvement to the abstract idea. The technological environment to which the claims are confined (a general-purpose computer) is recited at a high level of generality and has been found by the courts to be insufficient to provide a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Alice Corp.). The additional element of a semantic segmentation algorithm that was found to represent extra-solution activity was analyzed and determined to represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the field. As such, when viewed either individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea and the claims are not subject matter eligible.
Regarding Applicant’s “arrangement” argument, the Examiner submits that there is no arrangement of "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces" present in the claims. Initially, the Examiner notes that Applicant appears to be admitting that the semantic segmentation portion of the claim represent “known, conventional pieces.” Be that as it may, there is no arrangement recited in the claim; everything is performed on a general-purpose computer. As such, this argument cannot be persuasive.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Shelton, IV et al. (U.S. 2023/0377709) which discloses a method of controlling autonomous operations in a surgical system.
Olson et al. (U.S. 2021/0378754) which discloses using image processing to determine the positioning of surgical instruments.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CAMRYN B LEWIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 8:00 pm 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, Robert W Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. 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.
/CAMRYN B LEWIS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683