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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 2/10/2026 in which claims 1 and 14-20 have been amended. Thus, the claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/10/2026 has been entered.
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 of determining a duration of a medical procedure without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 19 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1, 17, and 19.
Claim 19 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 19 describes a system comprising: an imaging device configured to acquire at least one image of a patient’s anatomy; a memory configured to store information, the information including patient specific information, clinical data, practitioner specific information, preoperative data received from one or more preoperative measurement systems, and prior procedure data related to prior patients that underwent prior procedures; a controller configured to: train a procedure time prediction system on historical imaging data, historical predicted procedure durations, and historical procedure results; execute one or more algorithms to determine, based on the at least one image, at least one parameter of the patient’s anatomy, the parameter including at least one of a B-score determined by quantifying an amount of osteoarthritis damage to a knee joint or a joint-space width; determine, using the procedure time prediction system, and based on the determined at least one parameter and the stored information in the memory, a predicted duration of the medical procedure to be undergone by a patient; determining, based on the predicted duration, an output including at least one of an operating room layout, an operating room schedule, at least one staff member to assist in performance of the procedure, a procedure plan, a case difficulty, a risk of infection, a loss of cartilage, or a predicted pain stress level, anxiety level, or mental health status of the patient after the medical procedure; obtain an actual outcome of the medical procedure; and train the procedure time prediction system on the actual outcome of the medical procedure for use in determining future predicted durations for future medical procedures; and an electronic display configured to display the predicted duration and/or the determined output. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe the abstract idea of determining a duration of a medical procedure. Furthermore, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of an imaging device, a memory, measurement systems, a controller, the procedure time prediction system, algorithms, and an electronic display do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 19 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of an imaging device, a memory, measurement systems, a controller, the procedure time prediction system, algorithms, and an electronic display result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of an imaging device, a memory, measurement systems, a controller, the procedure time prediction system, algorithms, and an electronic display are recited at a high level of generality, and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing device. The presence of a generic computing device does nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPRP 2106.05(f)). The additional limitations of an imaging device, a memory, measurement systems, a controller, the procedure time prediction system, algorithms, and an electronic display are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of an imaging device, a memory, measurement systems, a controller, the procedure time prediction system, algorithms, and an electronic display are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claims 1 and 17 and hence the claims 1 and 17 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 19.
Dependent claims 2-16, 18, and 20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 17, and 19 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-16, 18, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Examiner withdraws 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20 in view of the amendment/argument.
Applicant's arguments filed dated 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that under Step 2A, Prong Two, the currently amended independent claim 1 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The currently amended claims 17 and 19 are directed to patent eligible subject matter for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with regard to currently amended independent claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it simply applies the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as recited in independent claims 1, 17, and 19 trains a procedure time prediction system with historical predicted procedure duration and then determining a predicted duration based on determined one parameter. It is unclear what the determined parameter is? Determining a parameter is recited at a high level and the claim does not specifically describe how one parameter was determined. The system is continuously trained with actual data so that it can make future prediction for patients. Training the system involves inputting historical and actual data. The system is then used to predict or output duration time for a procedure based on the training. The training is nothing more than inputting historical/actual data regarding arthroplasty and predicting is nothing more than to using the historical/actual data. The system simply makes use of the data by evaluating the historical relationship between duration period to the medical arthroplasty procedure to predict procedure duration. This is no more than using a look-up table which contains arthroplasty procedure and duration period. There is no technical improvement to the prediction system. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684