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, and 20 were amended;
Claims 1-20 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 1-20 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) (a) accessing a data structure identifying a plurality of surgical guidelines, each surgical guideline specifying a set of actions to take place during a type of surgical procedure; (b) receiving a selection of a surgeon covered by an original insurance policy; (c) accessing a repository of a plurality of intracorporeal video streams, each intracorporeal video stream depicting a surgical procedure performed by the surgeon; (d) for each of the plurality of intracorporeal video streams, performing image analysis on the respective intracorporeal video stream from the repository using […an analysis technique…]; determining, using the […analysis technique…], whether at least one action from the set of actions specified in a surgical guideline governing the surgical procedure depicted in the respective intracorporeal video stream occurred based on the result value of the respective frame; determining, based on the image analysis, that the surgeon complied with a particular surgical guideline of the plurality of surgical guidelines in a first subset of the plurality of intracorporeal video streams, and that the surgeon failed to comply with the particular surgical guideline in a second subset of the plurality of intracorporeal video streams; determining a temporal relation between the first and second subsets of the plurality of intracorporeal video streams; based on the image analysis, determining a level of compliance indicating a degree to which the surgeon has complied with the at least some of the plurality of surgical guidelines; and outputting information based on the determined level of compliance to enable a determination of an adjustment to an insurance premium of the original insurance policy, wherein the adjustment is based on the temporal relation, 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 perform intracorporeal video analysis operations for use in adjusting a physician insurance premium (see preamble) in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “accessing… transforming… calculating… 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 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. The Examiner notes that Claim 19 is not tied to any particular technological environment. The Examiner further notes that identifying a surgical event giving rise to a medical malpractice clam is a human activity, as is known in the art (see also Spec. Para. 00129, 00182).
Regarding the convolution calculation, this is alternatively interpreted as a mathematical concept. The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes. 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 respective intracorporeal video stream 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; and
calculating a result value for the respective frame by executing a convolution on the array of pixel values corresponding to the component.
The Examiner submits that these steps represent the application of well-known image classification to video. See evidentiary reference “What is Image Classification?,” “A Beginner’s Guide to Image Classification using Deep Learning Models,” and “What is image classification? Basics you need to know,” describing these steps as the definition of image classification (see also Spec. Para. 0198, 0204, 0226). The image classification 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 image classification 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 image classification was considered to represent extra-solution data gathering activity. Further and for completeness, the prior art of record indicates that using image classification to analyze frames/images is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see US 2023/0073357 to Tsunoda at Para. 0064; KR 2021/0099835 to Choi at Para. 0053; WO 2014/049598 to Atarot at Page 41). Alternatively, the image classification 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 2-18 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 receiving a selection, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 3 merely describes repeating, determining, and outputting, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 4 merely describes the plurality of intracorporeal video streams and the level of compliance, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 5 merely describes accessing a data structure and determining the adjustment, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 6 merely describes an amount of the adjustment to the insurance premium, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 7 merely describes determining the adjustment and providing an indication, which further defines the abstract idea. Claims 8-11 merely describe the determination of the adjustment, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 12 merely describes determining a temporal trend and basing the determination of the adjustment on the temporal trend, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 13 merely describes determining a likely reason for the failure and basing the determination of the adjustment on the likely reason, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 14 merely describes determining a failure type and basing the determination of the adjustment on the failure type, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 15 merely describes determining a condition of the adjustment and outputting an indication, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 16 merely describes outputting the determined level of compliance, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 17 merely describes calculating a convolution and using the result value, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 18 merely describes analyzing the intracorporeal video stream, 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. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, 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 determining a surgeon’s level of compliance. This is using a computer for its intended purpose and does not provide a practical application by any measure. 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 image classification 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 image classification portion of the claim represents “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:
Udechukwu et al. (U.S. 2024/0221888) which discloses a machine learning system for irrevocable patient out-of-pocket costs for prescriptions.
Bheemanakatte et al. (U.S. 2013/0325516) which discloses a system and method for generating insurance contract documents compliant with state insurance regulations.
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 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 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