DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system for determining a surgical level. Under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lIl), concepts relating to mental processes including observation, evaluation and judgment are drawn to abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the provision of generic computer components does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the factors set forth in MPEP 2106. Such factors include:
• Improvements to another technology or technical field;
• Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself;
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine;
• Transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state of being;
• Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or
• Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Further guidance is provided by Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014). Alice held that a method of mitigating settlement risk was drawn to an abstract idea. Alice further held that the performance of the method performed on a computer did not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea, and thus the claimed invention was drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea:
These cases demonstrate that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at_(slip op., at 3). Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’” Bilski, supra, at 610-611. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to “implement]” an abstract idea “on ... a computer,” Mayo, supra, at_(slip op., at 16), that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our §101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, see 717 F.3d, at 1286 (Lourie, J., concurring), wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of “additional feature]” that provides any “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Mayo, 566 U.S., at_(slip op., at 8-9).
Id at pp 1983-1984. Alice further held that apparatus claims drawn to a computer system were subject to the same analysis as the method claims, and were also not patentable subject matter:
Petitioner's claims to a computer system and a computer-readable medium fail for substantially the same reasons. Petitioner conceded below that its media claims rise or fall with its method claims. En Banc Response Brief for Defendant-Appellant in No. 11 -1301 (CA Fed.) p. 50, n. 3. As to its system claims, petitioner emphasizes that those claims recite “specific hardware” configured to perform “specific computerized functions.” Brief for Petitioner 53. But what petitioner characterizes as specific hardware— a “data processing system” with a “communications controller” and “data storage unit,” for example, see App. 954, 958, 1257—is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer will include a “communications controller” and “data storage unit” capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method bclaims. See 717 F.3d, at 1290 (Lourie, J., concurring). As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers.” Id., at 1291 (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S., at 610-611).
Id. at pp 1984-1985. Turning to the claimed invention, a method and system for receiving and analyzing information, and displaying the results of the analysis, is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(ll)(D) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 -52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The process to be undertaken by the system – accepting data and determining a surgical level - is a mental process pertaining to receiving and analyzing information. The method is performed by a generic computing device which under Alice is not sufficient to impart patentability to the system or method.
Consideration of the factors listed above pertaining to what is significantly more than the judicial exception, as viewed in light of the holding in Alice, weighs against patentability. While the method includes the use of a computer, the method does not involve an improvement in the function of a computer or other technology. Rather, generic computer components (interface, control unit, processor, non-transitory computer readable medium) are used in their usual and customary way to perform the method. Mere automation of mental processes to improve efficiency is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017), as cited in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015), as cited in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed method does not require the use of a particular machine, as a generic computer system is not a “particular machine” under Alice, nor does it result in the transformation of a physical article. Rather, the result of the claimed method is a determination as to whether a calculated metric is outside a given set of ranges, which itself is an abstract concept.
. Because the claimed invention does not involve significantly more than the abstract concept of analyzing information, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Hannaford (US 2007/0172803). Hannaford discloses a system for determining a surgical level comprising a user interface (see e.g. paragraphs [0031] and [0034]) and a control unit including a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium (these features are inherent in the computer system disclosed at paragraph [0031] and claims 1, 5 and 21). The control unit is configured to accept data (paragraphs [0062] and [0064]) relating to at least two surgical elements (paragraph [0046]), and determine a surgical level based at least partially on input received via the user interface (paragraphs [0033-35] and [0125-126]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT FERNSTROM whose telephone number is (571)272-4422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/KURT FERNSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
November 14, 2025