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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/13/2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment
Amendment received on 4/13/2026 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/19/2026 is being considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, the Examiner is guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019); the October 2019 Update of the 2019 Revised Guidance (Oct. 17, 2019); 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (July 17, 2024), and the USPTO’s Paten Subject Matter Eligibility Memorandums of August 4, 2025 and December 5, 2025.
Step 1
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas). Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U. S. ____ (2014).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 encompasses a computer system (e.g., hardware such as a processor and memory) that implements the recited functions. If assuming that the system comprises a device or set of devices, then the system is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
Claim 10 is directed to a statutory category, because a series of steps for gathering and displaying information satisfies the requirements of a process (a series of acts).
Claim 16 is directed to a statutory category, because a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions satisfies the requirements of a product. (Step 1: Yes).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more of gathering and displaying information. The claim recites:
10. A method of gathering and displaying information pertaining to operating room logistics, the method comprising:
providing a user device in communication with a scheduler system, an EMR/HIS system, and an RTLS system;
accessing the scheduler system using the user device to obtain operating schedules identifying operations scheduled for each operating room and identifying a patient and a surgeon for each scheduled operation;
for each scheduled operation, accessing the EMR/HIS using the user device to obtain patient information associated with the identified patient, a list of team members and a list of items needed for the scheduled operation, and surgeon information associated with the identified surgeon;
accessing the RTLS using the user device to obtain current locations of each item and each team member needed for each scheduled operation; displaying a schedule view display screen on the user device showing the operating room schedules with each of the scheduled operations shown for each operating room, each displayed scheduled operation being selectable by a user;
receiving an input on the user device when the user selects a scheduled operation; and
in response to receiving the input, displaying a case view display screen on the user device including: a list of items needed for the selected scheduled operation along with a current location of each of the listed items; and a list of team members for the selected scheduled operation and a current location of each of the listed team members.
The limitations of providing a device; accessing a schedular system; obtaining schedule related information; accessing EMR/HIS system; obtaining operation related information; accessing RTLS system; obtaining location related information; receiving an input from a user; displaying the obtained information relevant to the user input, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. (Note: Examiner’s language (e.g. “providing a device”; “accessing a schedular system”; etc.) is an abbreviated reference to the detailed claim steps and is not an oversimplification of the claim language; the Examiner employing such shortcuts (that refer to more specific steps) when attempting to explain the rejection). That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, and/or performed as organized human activity. Aside from the general technological environment (addressed below), it covers purely mental concepts and/or certain methods of organizing human activity processes, and the mere nominal recitation of a generic network appliance (e.g. an interface for inputting or outputting data, or generic network-based storage devices and displays) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Specifically, providing information based on user input - said functions could be performed by a human using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas (e.g., mental comparison regarding a sample or test subject to a control or target data in Ambry, Myriad CAFC, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Grams)). In Grams, the recited functions require obtaining data or patient information (from sensors), and analyze that data to ascertain the existence and identity of an abnormality or estimated responses, and possible causes thereof. While said functions are performed by a computer, they are in essence a mathematical algorithm, in that they represent "[a] procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem." Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 93 S.Ct. 253, 254, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has held, “without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, “analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354; see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Furthermore, the claim is analogous to claims in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass’n, Nos. 13-1588,-1589, 14-1112, -1687 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2014), which were generally directed to “the abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory.” Slip op. at 7. The Court explained that ”[t]he concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known,” and noted that “humans have always performed these functions.” Id. The Court then rejected CET’s argument that the claims were patent eligible because they required hardware to perform functions that humans cannot, such as processing and recognizing the stream of bits output by the scanner. Comparing the asserted claims to “the computer-implemented claims in Alice,” the Court concluded that the claims were “drawn to the basic concept of data recognition and storage,” even though they recited a scanner.
It is similar to other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts. See, also, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)—tailoring sales information presented to a user based on, e.g., user data and time data; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC 823 F.3d 607, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2016) - recording, transmitting and administering digital images; DataTreasury Corp. v. Fidelity National Information Services 669 Fed. Appx. 572 (Fed. Cir. 2016) - remote image capture with centralized processing and storage; RecogniCorp LLC v. Nintendo Co. 855 F.3d 1322, 122 U.S.P.Q.2d 1377 (Fed Cir. 2017) - encoding and decoding image data; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co. 850 F.3d 1315, 121 U.S.P.Q.2d 1928 (Fed Cir. 2017) - mobile interface for accessing remotely stored documents, and retrieving data from a database using an index of XML tags and metafiles.
As per receiving, storing and outputting data limitations, it has been held that “As many cases make clear, even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted); see also In re Jobin, 811 F. App’x 633, 637 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (claims to collecting, organizing, grouping, and storing data using techniques such as conducting a survey or crowdsourcing recited a method of organizing human activity, which is a hallmark of abstract ideas).
All these cases describe the significant aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
Therefore, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and/or “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A – Prong 2
In Prong Two, the Examiner determines whether claim 10, as a whole, recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, i.e., whether the additional elements apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. If the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the judicial exception. See id., 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. “An additional element [that] reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field” is indicative of integrating a judicial exception into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
The Examiner determined that this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using a processor to perform the steps of providing a device; accessing a schedular system; obtaining schedule related information; accessing EMR/HIS system; obtaining operation related information; accessing RTLS system; obtaining location related information; receiving an input from a user; displaying the obtained information relevant to the user input. However, the processor in each step is recited (or implied) at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of processing data, including receiving, storing, comparing, and outputting data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The processor that performs the recited steps merely automates these steps which can be done mentally or manually. And said scheduler system, an EMR/HIS, an RTLS and a user device are all conventional hospital information system. The claim merely retrieves data from said conventional systems and display the combined information. Thus, while the additional elements have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." The claim only manipulates abstract data elements into another form, and does not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and, instead, uses computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above.
Further, 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, - their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. None of the additional elements "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). There is no improvement to, e.g., RTLS and/or EMR technology; database architecture; networking; computer performance; graphical rendering, or operation room equipment.
The recited steps do not control or improve operation of a machine (MPEP 2106.05(a)), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), but, instead, require receiving, storing, comparing and outputting data.
As per receiving, storing and/or outputting data limitations, these recitations amount to mere data gathering and/or outputting, is insignificant post-solution or extra-solution component and represents nominal recitation of technology. Insignificant "post-solution” or “extra-solution" activity means activity that is not central to the purpose of the method invented by the applicant. However, “(c) Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the execution of the claimed method steps. Use of a machine or apparatus that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would weigh against eligibility”. See Bilski, 138 S. Ct. at 3230 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, ___ (1978)). Thus, claim drafting strategies that attempt to circumvent the basic exceptions to § 101 using, for example, highly stylized language, hollow field-of-use limitations, or the recitation of token post-solution activity should not be credited. See Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3230.
Therefore, claim 10 as a whole, outputs only data structure, - everything remains in the form of a code stored in the computer memory. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No).
Step 2B
If a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether the provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The Examiner determined that 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 steps of providing a device; accessing a schedular system; obtaining schedule related information; accessing EMR/HIS system; obtaining operation related information; accessing RTLS system; obtaining location related information; receiving an input from a user; displaying the obtained information relevant to the user input amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim is now re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The method would require a processor and memory in order to perform basic computer functions of receiving information, storing the information in a database, retrieving information from the database, comparing data, and outputting said information. These components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality. Based on the Specification, the invention utilizes conventional communication networks, and generic processors, which can be found in mobile devices or desktop computers, conventional memory and display devices, and the functions performed by said generic computer elements are basic functions of a computer - performing a mathematical operation, receiving, storing, comparing and outputting data - have recognized by the courts as routine and conventional activity. And each of said generic user device; a scheduler, EMR/HIS; RTLS; and a display screen performs its ordinary functions, such as a scheduler stores schedules, EMR stores medical information; RTLS stores locations, and the user device displays the said information.Thus, the combination merely aggregates information received from multiple existing sources. Specifically, regarding the recited functions, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) defines said functions as routine and conventional, or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”); collecting and comparing known information in Classen 659 F.3d 1057, 100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and
vi. A web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iii. Restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
v. Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Thus, the background of the current application does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Also, the claim does not involve a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces, as asserted, by receiving information from an external source of data. The receiving of data from an external source over a network, such as via the Internet, can fairly be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity that does not receive patentable weight. See Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d sub nom Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity). Similar to Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014): “And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.” Here, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular asserted inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea. As such, the additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements, do not make the claim as a whole significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, a conclusion that the recited steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, similar to Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. (Fed Cir, 2015-1778, 8/1/2016) (Power Group), claim’ invocation of computers, networks, and displays does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. Claim 10 does not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions on a set of generic computer components and display devices. Nothing in the claim, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. Analogous to Power Group, claim 10 does not even require a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it. As a result, the claim does not require an arguably inventive set of components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques that would generate new data. The claim does not invoke any assertedly inventive programming. Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information - to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for users - by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis into patent eligible subject matter. Merely obtaining and selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas. Therefore, the recited steps represent implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer, or “reciting a commonplace business method aimed at processing business information despite being applied on a general purpose computer” Versata, p. 53; Ultramerical, pp. 11-12.
Furthermore, the recited functions do not improve the functioning of computers itself, including of the processor(s) or the network elements. The claim does not recite, e.g., a new localization algorithm; an improved RTLS operation or an improved scheduling algorithm; there is no improved database synchronization, or reduced network traffic, or new graphical processing techniques. Thus, there are no physical improvements in the claim, like a faster processor or more efficient memory, and there is no operational improvement, like mathematical computation that improve the functioning of the computer. Applicant did not invent a new type of computer; Applicant like everyone else programs their computer to perform functions. The Supreme Court in Alice indicated that an abstract claim might be statutory if it improved another technology or the computer processing itself. Using a (programmed) computer to implement a common business practice does neither. The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, comparing and transmitting data—see the Specification as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions). 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. “However, it is not apparent how appellant’s programmed digital computer can produce any synergistic result. Instead, the computer will simply do the job it is instructed to do. Where is there any surprising or unexpected result? The unlikelihood of any such result is merely one more reason why patents should not be granted in situations where the only novelty is in the programming of general purpose digital computers”. See Sakraida v. Ag. Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 [ 96 S.Ct. 1532, 47 L.Ed.2d 784], 189 USPQ 449 (1976) and A P Tea Co. V. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 [ 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162], 87 USPQ 303 (1950).
Furthermore, there is no transformation recited in the claim as understood in view of 35 USC 101. The recited steps merely represent abstract ideas which cannot meet the transformation test because they are not physical objects or substances. Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963. Said steps are nothing more than mere manipulation or reorganization of data, which does not satisfy the transformation prong. It is further noted that the underlying idea of the recited steps could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind. Moreover, “We agree with the district court that the claimed process manipulates data to organize it in a logical way such that additional fraud tests may be performed. The mere manipulation or reorganization of data, however, does not satisfy the transformation prong.” and “Abele made clear that the basic character of a process claim drawn to an abstract idea is not changed by claiming only its performance by computers, or by claiming the process embodied in program instructions on a computer readable medium. Thus, merely claiming a software implementation of a purely mental process that could otherwise be performed without the use of a computer does not satisfy the machine prong of the machine-or-transformation test”. CyberSource, 659 F.3d 1057, 100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because, when considered separately and in combination, the claim elements do not add significantly more to the exception. Considered separately and as an ordered combination, the claim elements do not provide an improvement to another technology or technical field; do not provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; do not apply the judicial exception by use of a particular machine; do not effect a transformation or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the operation of a generic computer. None of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Id., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). As per “providing a user device…;” “accessing the scheduler system using the user device”, etc. recitations, these limitations do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers." Id., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Limiting the claims to the particular technological environment is, without more, insufficient to transform the claim into patent-eligible applications of the abstract idea at their core.
Accordingly, claim 10 is not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and is not eligible subject matter under § 101. (Step 2B: No).
Further, although the Examiner takes the steps recited in the independent claim as exemplary, the Examiner points out that limitations recited in dependent claims 11-15 further narrow the abstract idea but do not make the claims any less abstract. Dependent claims 11-15 each merely add further details of the abstract steps recited in claim 10 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These claims "add nothing of practical significance to the underlying idea," and thus do not transform the claimed abstract idea into patentable subject matter. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716. Therefore, dependent claims 11-15 are also directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Because Applicant’s apparatus claims 1-9 and computer-readable storage medium claims 16-20 add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea, they too are patent ineligi-ble under §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-13, 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins et al. (US 2022/0037038 A1) (IDS of 5/31/2024) in view of Souissi (US 2022/0020476 A1). (IDS of 5/31/2024)
Claims 1, 10 and 16. Robbins et al. (Robbins) discloses a method of gathering and displaying information pertaining to operating room logistics, the method comprising:
providing a user device in communication with a scheduler system, an EMR/HIS system, and an RTLS system; [0031]; [0036]; [0107]; [0134]; [0136]
accessing the scheduler system using the user device to obtain operating schedules identifying operations scheduled for each operating room and identifying a patient and a surgeon for each scheduled operation; [0044]; [0046]; [0047]
for each scheduled operation, accessing the EMR/HIS using the user device to obtain patient information associated with the identified patient, a list of team members and a list of items needed for the scheduled operation, and surgeon information associated with the identified surgeon; [0047]; [0048]; [0060]; [0074]; [0078]; [0092]; [0093]; [0095]; [0096]; [0107]; [0122]; [0134]
accessing the RTLS using the user device to obtain current locations of each item and each team member needed for each scheduled operation; [0048]; [0058]; [0060]; [0074]; [0078]; [0091]; [0098]; [0099]; [0103]; [0122]; [0123]; [0136]
displaying a schedule view display screen on the user device showing the operating room schedules with each of the scheduled operations shown for each operating room, each displayed scheduled operation being selectable by a user; [0123]
receiving an input on the user device when the user selects a scheduled operation; [0031]; [0036]; [0046]; and
in response to receiving the input, displaying a case view display screen on the user device including: a list of items needed for the selected scheduled operation along with a current location of each of the listed items; and a list of team members for the selected scheduled operation and a current location of each of the listed team members. [0031]; [0036]; [0072]; [0074]; [0088]; [0104]
Further, Souissi discloses an intelligent schedule board system for operating rooms, including an operating room dashboard with a visualization of procedure data along with patient status as provided by a tracking system and status updates. In use, the system is configured to receive inputs from a patient enrollment desk, from nursing station terminals (e.g. computers, tablets), from patient tracking system in real time, as well as status about equipment availability and its whereabouts within the center. Equipment location is sent by the tracking system. Special equipment needs and availability is established for each scheduled procedure. [0040]-[0047]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Souissi, because it would advantageously allow to avoid inefficient scheduling due to manually updating the schedule based on staff availability, equipment availability and operating room availability, thereby causing long waiting time for patients, as specifically stated in Souissi. [0013]
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Souissi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claims 4, 11 and 18. The method of claim 10 and further including displaying a message icon and a call icon on the case view display screen for each listed team member and establishing a communication link with an SMS/call system upon selection of the message icon or call icon to message or call the listed team member. Robbins, [0041]; [0138]; Souissi, [0034]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Souissi, because it would advantageously allow to avoid manual coordination, which require meetings, phone calls, emails, or texting, as specifically stated in Souissi. [0010]
Claims 5, 12 and 19. The method of claim 10 and further including filtering the schedule view display screen to display only those scheduled operations associated with specified personnel. Souissi, Fig. 2; [0019]. Same rationale as applied to claims 1, 10 and 16.
Claims 6, 13 and 20. The method of claim 10 and further including displaying a search display screen to receive search criteria and to provide a list of items or team members and their locations. Robbins, [0034]; [0035]; [0127]; Souissi, [0040]. Same rationale as applied to claims 1, 10 and 16.
Claim 8. The operating room logistics system of claim 1, wherein the user device is further configured to display case notes in the case view display screen, and to display a corresponding note icon in the schedule view display screen to display any case notes in a pop-up case note window when the note icon is selected. Robbins, [0027]; [0104]; [0107]; [0123]
Claims 9 and 15. The method of claim 10, further including determining if a scheduled operation is behind schedule and generating a status indicator on the schedule view display screen indicating that the scheduled operation is behind schedule. Souissi, [0009]; [0013]; [0017]; [0019]
Claims 2-3, 7, 9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins in view of Souissi and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 8,027,849 B2). (IDS of 5/31/2024)
Claims 2 and 3. Robbins does not specifically teach wherein the surgeon information includes surgeon preferences, and the user device is further configured to display the surgeon preferences in the case view display screen, which is disclosed in Johnson et al. (Johnson) C. 7, L. 54-61; C. 16, L. 60-67; C. 17, L. 1-4
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Souissi, because it would advantageously allow to estimate which one or more of the resources will not be available for the at least one block of time of the schedule, or one or more resources will be available only for at least one block of time in the schedule; and outputting the schedule and the confidence level in the schedule for illustration in a display, as specifically stated in Johnson. C. 2, L. 3-7
Claims 7 and 14. Johnson discloses displaying status indicators in the case view display screen for each listed team member and each listed item. C. 18, L. 46-58; C. 22, L. 1-7. Same rationale as applied to claims 2 and 3.
Claims 9 and 15. The method of claim 10, further including determining if a scheduled operation is behind schedule and generating a status indicator on the schedule view display screen indicating that the scheduled operation is behind schedule. Souissi, [0009]; [0013]; [0017]; [0019]; Johnson; Fig. 10; C. 16, L. 42-56; C. 18, L. 46-52. Same rationale as applied to claims 2 and 3.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins in view of Souissi and further in view of Padala (US 2021/0012888 A1). (IDS of 5/31/2024)
Claims 7 and 14. Robbins does not specifically teach displaying status indicators in the case view display screen for each listed team member and each listed item, which is disclosed in Padala. [0029] Padala also discloses displaying status indicators in the case view display screen for each listed item or equipment. [0030]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Padala, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “oversimplification of objections without citing all physical features and critical limitations failed to appreciate the merit of the art”.
The Examiner respectfully notes that the Examiner’s language is an abbreviated reference to the rather detailed claim steps when attempting to explain the rejection, and is not oversimplification of the claims. Specifically, the Examiner stated on pages 4 and 5 of the Final Office action of 01/13/2026: “(Note: the Examiner’s language (e.g. “providing a device”, “accessing a schedular system”; etc.) is an abbreviated reference to the rather detailed claim steps and is not an oversimplification of the claim language; the Examiner employing such shortcuts (that refer to more specific steps) when attempting to explain the rejection).” Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the Examiner characterizes claim limitations at a high level of abstraction, See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”). That does not, “impact the patentability analysis.” See id. at 1241. It is further noted that the Examiner’s characterization at a high level of abstraction is not persuasive of error. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”).
Applicant argues that the claims integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; the claims recite specific technological improvements to operating room logistics systems through the integration of multiple specialized healthcare information systems. The recited features pertain to operating rooms and scheduled operations and items and team members needed for each scheduled operation; and claim covers more than just an intended field of use but instead covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the additional elements have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." The claim only manipulates abstract data elements into another form, and does not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and, instead, uses computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. The claim recites additional elements – a generic processor, an EMR/HIS, an RTLS and a user device. However, the processor in each step is recited (or implied) at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of processing data, including receiving, storing, comparing, and outputting data, and said scheduler system, an EMR/HIS, an RTLS and a user device are all conventional hospital information system. The claim merely retrieves data from said conventional systems and display the combined information. Thus, this generic processor configured to perform the steps of accessing a schedular system; obtaining schedule related information; accessing EMR/HIS system; obtaining operation related information; accessing RTLS system; obtaining location related information; receiving an input from a user; displaying the obtained information relevant to the user input is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The processor that performs the recited steps merely automates these steps which can be done mentally or manually.
Further, there is no improvement to, e.g., RTLS and/or EMR technology; database architecture; networking; computer performance; graphical rendering, or operation room equipment; the recited steps do not control or improve operation of a machine (MPEP 2106.05(a)), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), but, instead, require receiving, storing, comparing and outputting data. Thus, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The current application’ solution to the problem of operating room logistics is not technological, but “business solution”, or “entrepreneurial.” Therefore, the pending claims do not provide a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology, but, instead, is directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.
Applicant argues that the claims provide significantly more.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Based on the Specification, the invention utilizes conventional communication networks, and generic processors, which can be found in mobile devices or desktop computers, conventional memory and display devices, and the functions performed by said generic computer elements are basic functions of a computer - performing a mathematical operation, receiving, storing, comparing and outputting data - have recognized by the courts as routine and conventional activity. And each of said generic user device; a scheduler, EMR/HIS; RTLS; and a display screen performs its ordinary functions, such as a scheduler stores schedules, EMR stores medical information; RTLS stores locations, and the user device displays the said information. Thus, the combination merely aggregates information received from multiple existing sources.
Further, the recited functions do not improve the functioning of computers itself, including of the processor(s) or the network elements. There are no physical improvements in the claim, like a faster processor or more efficient memory, and there is no operational improvement, like mathematical computation that improve the functioning of the computer. The Supreme Court in Alice indicated that an abstract claim might be statutory if it improved another technology or the computer processing itself. Using a (programmed) computer to implement a common business practice does neither. The recited additional elements, apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, comparing and transmitting data—see the Specification as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions). 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Considered separately and as an ordered combination, the claim elements do not provide an improvement to another technology or technical field; do not provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; do not apply the judicial exception by use of a particular machine; do not effect a transformation or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the operation of a generic computer. None of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Id., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Limiting the claims to the particular technological environment is, without more, insufficient to transform the claim into patent-eligible applications of the abstract idea at their core.
As per “no anticipating reference” argument, it is respectfully noted that 101 rejections are not evaluated in light of 35 USC 102 or 103. “Novelty and non-obviousness have no bearing on whether a claim recites an abstract idea. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has made this clear -rejecting an argument substantially similar to Appellants' in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) “”Even newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty”. Ultramerical, 10: “We do not agree with Ultramerical that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete. The question in the second step of the patent-eligibility analysis is not whether a claimed element is novel, but rather, as set forth above, whether the implementation of the abstract idea involves “more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Content Extraction & Transmission LLCv. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).
Applicant argues that combination of Robbins and Souissi fails to teach or suggest the specific claimed features of displaying a case view display screen in response to user selection of a scheduled operation that includes both "a list of items needed for the selected scheduled operation along with a current location of each of the listed items as retrieved from the RTLS" and "a list of team members for the selected scheduled operation and a current location of each of the listed team members as retrieved from the RTLS".
The Examiner notes that Robbins discloses:
a list of team members and a list of items needed for the scheduled operation, and surgeon information associated with the identified surgeon; Fig. 4; 6A;1 [0047]; [0048]; [0060]; [0074]; [0078]; [0092]; [0093]; [0095]; [0096]; [0107]; [0122]; [0134]
accessing the RTLS using the user device to obtain current locations of each item and each team member needed for each scheduled operation; (generating and presenting a checklist template for any suitable hardware customized to that particular operating room) [0043]; [0048]; (Confirming all team members have been introduced and actively participate, including a surgeon, anesthesia care provider, circulator and scrub tech) [0058]; [0060]; [0074]; [0078]; [0091]; [0098]; [0099]; [0103]; [0122]; [0123]; [0136]
Also, Souissi discloses an operating room dashboard with a visualization of procedure data along with patient status as provided by a tracking system and status updates, wherein the system is configured to receive inputs from a patient enrollment desk, from nursing station terminals (e.g. computers, tablets), from patient tracking system in real time, as well as status about equipment availability and its whereabouts within the center. Equipment location is sent by the tracking system. Special equipment needs and availability is established for each scheduled procedure. [0040]-[0047] Same rationale applied to the dependent claims arguments.
Regarding the argument that the combination fails to teach filtering a schedule view display screen to show only operations associated with specified personnel, the Examiner maintains that Souissi discloses said limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
983
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specifically, Souissi teaches displaying the status of scheduled surgeries during a given day. By viewing the display, a staff member sees what surgeries have been completed, which surgeries are underway and at what stage, and the upcoming surgeries scheduled for specific operating rooms. Briefly viewing a display provides a comprehensive view of the entire surgical operations. [0019]
Citations of pertinent art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abri - US 8452615 B2 – discloses a computer implemented system for management of operating room resources, including scheduling, integration with hospital systems, monitoring resources including staff, equipment, patients, and displays/dashboards for operating room operations.
Overmann et al. “Real-time locating systems to improve healthcare delivery: A systematic review” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 28(6), 2021, pp.1308–1317, 2021, discloses integration with clinical workflows, EMR, real-time displays/dashboard, and efficiency gains in OR logistics
Conclusion
The prior art search has been conducted, with no significant prior art found.
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 extension fee 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.
/IGOR N BORISSOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 7/7/2026
Prosecution Insights