CTNF 18/614,711 CTNF 78752 DETAILED ACTION Notice to Applicant 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This communication is in response to the application filed 3/24/24 and the election response filed on 8/11/25. Claims 1-17 are pending. The restriction of the previous office action is moot in view of applicant’s amendments. The IDS filed on 8/7/24 has been considered by the Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 15, and 16 recite “the providing comprising applying a trained function to input data.” However, it is unclear what “input data” includes, and unclear whether the time-resolved procedure data captured in the method is the “input data” being referenced. Claims 1, 15, and 16 further recite: “wherein the target procedure configuration, comprising a target procedure parameter, a target device configuration, or the target procedure parameter and the target device configuration, and the item of time information , designating an interval between an identified procedure event and the target instant , the target instant, or the interval and the target instant , is provided as output data…” The groupings of the terms in the wherein clause are unclear. In particular, it is unclear how the phrase “and the item of time information, designating an interval between an identified procedure event and the target instant, the target instant, or the interval and the target instant” is intended to modify the claim language of the claim, and which elements are provided as output data. A similar analysis applies to claims 6 and 17, which recites similar language. More specifically, claims 6 and 17 recite: “wherein an item of comparison time information is determined, the item of comparison time information designating an interval between the comparison procedure event and the comparison instant, the comparison instant, or the interval and the comparison instant ” and “wherein the training procedure configuration, comprising a training procedure parameter, a training device configuration, or the training procedure parameter and the training device configuration, and the item of training time information, designating an interval between an identified training procedure event and the training instant, the training instant , or the interval between the identified training procedure event and the training instant and the training instant are provided as the output data.” It is unclear which items listed are intended to further modify the rest of the claim language. Claims 5 and 14 recite “wherein: the physiological data comprises an ECG signal, a breathing signal, a movement signal, an EEG signal, or any combination thereof of the examination object; the device configuration comprises an item of positioning information, an acquisition parameter of a medical imaging device for recording the medical image data of the examination object, or a combination thereof, or a combination thereof.” As drafted, it is unclear if the claims require both the physiological data AND the device configuration data, or whether the claims require either the physiological data OR the device configuration data OR a combination of the both (i.e. a combination thereof) Claims 2-14, and 17 inherit the deficiencies of their respective independent claims through dependency, and are therefore also rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-17 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. 35 USC 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these “four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of Section 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Applicant’s claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1-14 are drawn to a method; claims 15-17 are drawn to a system/apparatus. Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not complete the eligibility analysis. Claims drawn only to an abstract idea, a natural phenomenon, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection. As described in MPEP 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68). In 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) prepared revised guidance (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility. The framework for this revised guidance, which sets forth the procedures for determining whether a patent claim or patent application claim is directed to a judicial exception (laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas), is described in MPEP sections 2106.03 and 2106.04. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance explains that abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. Moreover, this guidance explains that a patent claim or patent application claim that recites a judicial exception is not ‘‘directed to’’ the judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception. A claim that recites a judicial exception, but is not integrated into a practical application, is directed to the judicial exception under Step 2A and must then be evaluated under Step 2B (inventive concept) to determine the subject matter eligibility of the claim. Step 2A asks: Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? (Prong One) If so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception? ( Prong Two ) A claim recites a judicial exception when a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms “set forth” and “describe” are thus both equated with “recite”, their different language is intended to indicate that there are different ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr set forth a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, while the claims in Mayo set forth laws of nature in the wherein clause, meaning that the claims in those cases contained discrete claim language that was identifiable as a judicial exception. The claims in Alice Corp., however, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.” A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. In the instant case, claims 1-17 recite(s) a method and system for certain methods of organizing human activities, which is subject matter that falls within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas described in MPEP 2106.04 (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) Certain methods of organizing human activities includes fundamental economic practices, like insurance; commercial interactions (i.e. legal obligations, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). Organizing human activity also encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.) The claimed method and apparatus claims recite evaluating procedure/examination data and identifying time information regarding the procedure as it relates to a target (time and/or configuration) (i.e. medical procedure benchmarking) (i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions) In particular, the claims 1, 15, and 16 recite a method and system for: capturing time-resolved procedure data relating to a medical procedure, the time- resolved procedure data comprising procedure parameters, a device configuration, physiological data of an examination object, medical image data of the examination object, or any combination thereof, and providing an item of time information relating to a target instant and a target procedure configuration for the target instant. Claims 6 and 17 additionally recite: capturing time-resolved training procedure data relating to a medical training procedure, the time-resolved training procedure data comprising a procedure parameter, a second device configuration, physiological data of a training examination object, medical image data of the training examination object, or any combination thereof, capturing a user input using an input unit, wherein the user input marks a comparison instant within the medical training procedure; identifying a comparison procedure configuration comprising the procedure parameter, the second device configuration, or the procedure parameter and the second device configuration at the comparison instant; identifying a comparison procedure event by retrospective analysis of the training procedure data, starting from the training instant, in at least one predefined time window, wherein an item of comparison time information is determined, the item of comparison time information designating an interval between the comparison procedure event and the comparison instant, the comparison instant, or the interval and the comparison instant; providing an item of training time information relating to a training instant and a training procedure configuration for the training instant,; adjusting at least one parameter of the trained function based on a comparison of the training procedure configuration with the comparison procedure configuration and a comparison of the item of training time information with the item of comparison time information; and providing the trained function. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language does not recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); see also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I-II)). Moreover, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed invention does not: apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); or apply or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment see MPEP 2106.05(e). (Considerations for integration into a practical application in Step 2A, prong two and for recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception in Step 2B ) While abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patenting by themselves, claims that integrate these exceptions into an inventive concept are thereby transformed into patent-eligible inventions. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)). Thus, the second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Id. An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute Sections 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under Section 101”). 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 Section 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). As described in MPEP 2106.05, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)). Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 6 recites additional limitation(s), including the “an input unit.” Claims 15 and 16 recite a “provision unit” and processor. Claim 17 recites a first and second processor. The additional components is/are generic components that perform well-understood, routine and conventional activities that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. (i.e. data capture/input; data analysis; output) It is noted that claims 16 and 17 additionally recite a “medical imaging device.” However, as recited in the claims, the medical imaging device is used in a generic capacity, as a source of data collection for procedure parameters. As such, the medical imaging device functions as a generic component that performs well-understood, routine and conventional activities that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. (i.e. data capture/input) The generic nature of the computer system used to carryout steps of the recited method is underscored by the system description in the instant application, which discloses: “The provision unit may include a computing unit (e.g., including one or more processors), a memory unit, and/or an interface. The provision unit may be configured for carrying out a method of the present embodiments for procedure support in which the interface, the computing unit, and/or the memory unit are configured for executing the corresponding method acts." (par. 76 of PG-Pub for instant application) The disclosure also states: “the user input is captured by the input unit. The input unit may include, for example, a keyboard and/or a button and/or a joystick and/or a touchpad and/or a microphone (e.g., for speech recognition) and/or a camera (e.g., for gesture capture). In one embodiment, the input unit may be integrated in a display unit (e.g., as a resistive and/or capacitive input display (touchscreen)). The input unit may capture the user input and provide a corresponding signal to a provision unit..” (par. 41) The application also explains: “The at least one medical imaging device for recording the image data of the examination object may include a medical X-ray device (e.g., a medical C-arm X-ray device and/or a cone beam computed tomography system (CBCT)) and/or a computed tomography system (CT system) and/or a magnetic resonance tomography system (MRT system) and/or a positron emission tomography system (PET system) and/or an ultrasound device” (par. 37) and “The imaging device may also have an input unit 42 (e.g., a keyboard) and a display unit 41 (e.g., a monitor and/or a display and/or a projector). The input unit 42 may be integrated in the display unit 41 (e.g., in the case of a capacitive and/or resistive input display).” (see par. 113) Such language underscores that the applicant's perceived invention/ novelty focuses on the computerized implementation of the abstract idea, not the underlying structure of generic system components. Furthermore, the courts have recognized certain computer functions as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)). Among these are the following features, which are recited in the claims: - 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 )); - 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."); - 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; Claims 1, 6, and 15-17 further recite: “applying a trained function…” to perform various steps. As currently drafted, the recitation a trained function in the claims fails to recite significantly more, and amounts to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp ., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. (See MPEP 2106.05(A)) The recitation of “a trained function” and providing an item of time information recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, but the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Moreover, as drafted, the claims invoke the use of a trained function to generate output merely as a tool to perform an existing process. (medical/imaging procedure benchmarking). Claims 2-14 are dependent from Claim 1 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 1. However, the additional limitations of the claims 2-14 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional limitations further define the abstract idea with additional steps or details regarding data types; or additional steps which amount to insignificant extra solution activities. Therefore, claim(s) 2-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 17 is dependent from Claim 16, and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 16. However, the additional limitations of the claim 17 fails to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional limitations further define the abstract idea with additional steps or details regarding data types; or additional steps which amount to insignificant extra solution activities. Therefore, claim(s) 17 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-1 7 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a )(1) as being an ticipated by Sa ur et al (US 20210286996 A1). Cl aims 1, 15 and 16 Saur teaches a system comprising a provision unit including a processor being configured to perform a computer- implemented method (par. 11, par. 77) comprising: capturing time-resolved procedure data relating to a medical procedure, the time- resolved procedure data comprising procedure parameters, a device configuration, physiological data of an examination object, medical image data of the examination object, or any combination thereof, and (par. 76-77: capturing sensor data and digital image data , wherein the annotated sensor data and the annotated digital image data have synchronized timestamps and wherein the annotations refer to states of the ophthalmological surgery). providing an item of time information relating to a target instant and a target procedure configuration for the target instant, (par. 77-79: predicting a state of an ophthalmological surgery and, on the basis thereof, outputting a control signal) the providing comprising: applying a trained function to input data, wherein the input data is based on the time-resolved procedure data, (par. 9- determining a state of an ophthalmological surgery by means of a second machine learning system which has a trained learning model that is adapted to predict a state of an ophthalmological surgery; on the basis of the prediction of the state, the method can provide for the output of a control signal) wherein the target procedure configuration, comprising a target procedure parameter, a target device configuration, or the target procedure parameter and the target device configuration, (par. 15; par. 23-24; par 26-configuration and control of devices during procedure) and the item of time information, designating an interval between an identified procedure event and the target instant, the target instant, or the interval and the target instant, is provided as output data, (par. 76-providing information of the stage/state of surgery: adapted to store sensor data of a phaco system, which were generated during the ophthalmological surgery by a sensor of the phaco system and which are annotated, wherein the annotated sensor data and the annotated digital image data have synchronized timestamps and wherein the annotations refer to states of the ophthalmological surgery ) . and wherein at least one parameter of the trained function is adjusted based on a comparison of a training procedure configuration with a comparison procedure configuration and a comparison of an item of training time information with an item of comparison time information. (par. 50-53: When training the neural network, the weighting parameter values of the links adjust automatically on the basis of input signals so as to generate a desired result) claim 2. Saur teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the capturing and the providing are repeatedly executed until occurrence of a termination condition. (par. 50 claim 3. Saur teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising capturing a user identification, wherein the input data of the trained function is also based on the user identification. (par. 18-19: it is possible to generate at least one control signal from the state identification of the surgery such that the surgery devices, in their interplay, assist the surgeon during the surgery. This reliably avoids possibly contradictory individual optimizations of the devices. Consequently, the surgeon receives an assistance function which—depending on the phase of surgery within the scope of an ophthalmological surgery—may extend to a live OCT system (or intraoperative OCT system), a surgical microscope, a robot system (which may be part of the surgical microscope) and a phaco system; par. 48) claim 4 Saur teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the providing comprises outputting a workflow note for implementation of the target procedure configuration for the target instant. (par. 23-generating alert for the surgeon) claim 5. Saur teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the physiological data comprises an ECG signal, a breathing signal, a movement signal, an EEG signal, or any combination thereof of the examination object; the device configuration comprises an item of positioning information, an acquisition parameter of a medical imaging device for recording the medical image data of the examination object, or a combination thereof, or a combination thereof. (par. 26- use can be made of an array of further sensor data which can be used together with the image data and sensor data already discussed for the purposes of creating the learning model. Examples include sensor data of the surgical microscope such as zoom, focus settings, and light intensity settings and additional axis position data in the case of a robotic, motorized surgical microscope.) claims 6 and 17 Saur teaches the method for providing a trained function of claim 1, the method being computer-implemented and wherein the device configuration is a first device configuration, and wherein the method further comprising :providing the trained function, providing the trained function comprising:capturing time-resolved training procedure data relating to a medical training procedure, the time-resolved training procedure data comprising a procedureparameter, a second device configuration, physiological data of a training examination object, medical image data of the training examination object, or any combination thereof, capturing a user input using an input unit, wherein the user input marks a comparison instant within the medical training procedure; identifying a comparison procedure configuration comprising the procedure parameter, the second device configuration, or the procedure parameter and the second device configuration at the comparison instant;identifying a comparison procedure event by retrospective analysis of the training procedure data, starting from the training instant, in at least one predefined time window, wherein an item of comparison time information is determined, the item of comparison time information designating an interval between the comparison procedure event and the comparison instant, the comparison instant, or the interval and the comparison instant;providing an item of training time information relating to a training instant and a training procedure configuration for the training instant, the providing comprising applying the trained function to input data, wherein the input data is based on the training procedure data before the comparison instant, and wherein the training procedure configuration, comprising a training procedure parameter, a training device configuration, or the training procedure parameter and the training device configuration, and the item of training time information, designating an interval between an identified training procedure event and the training instant, the training instant, or the interval between the identified training procedure event and the training instant and the training instant are provided as the output data; adjusting at least one parameter of the trained function based on a comparison of the training procedure configuration with the comparison procedure configuration and a comparison of the item of training time information with the item of comparison time information; andproviding the trained function. (par. 65-74) claim 7. Saur teaches The method of claim 6, wherein the capturing of the time-resolved training procedure data, the capturing of the user input, the identifying of the comparison procedure configuration, the identifying of the comparison procedure event, the providing of the item of training time information, and the providing of the trained function are repeatedly executed until occurrence of a termination condition. (par. 70-75) claim 8. Saur teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising capturing a training user identification, wherein the input data of the trained function is also based on the training user identification. (par. 70-75) Claim 9. Saur teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the identifying of the comparison procedure event comprises a manual identification of the comparison procedure event or a manual adjustment of an automatically identified candidate procedure event. par. 50-53: When training the neural network, the weighting parameter values of the links adjust automatically on the basis of input signals so as to generate a desired result) Claims 10-14 Saur teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the comparison procedure event is identified using a temporal change of the training procedure data; wherein the temporal change includes a variance, a standard deviation, or the variance and the standard deviation; wherein the training procedure data is retrospectively analyzed for identification of the comparison procedure event, starting from the comparison instant, in a plurality of predefined time windows with at least partially different temporal resolution; wherein the training procedure data is retrospectively analyzed for identification of the comparison procedure event, starting from the comparison instant, in a plurality of predefined time windows of different window width. (par. 64; par. 70-75 Claim 14. Saur teaches method of claim 6, wherein: the physiological data comprises an ECG signal, a breathing signal, a movement signal, an EEG signal of the training examination object, or any combination thereof;the device configuration comprises an item of positioning information, an acquisition parameter of a medical imaging device for recording the medical image data of the training examination object, or a combination thereof, or a combination thereof. (par. 26- use can be made of an array of further sensor data which can be used together with the image data and sensor data already discussed for the purposes of creating the learning model. Examples include sensor data of the surgical microscope such as zoom, focus settings, and light intensity settings and additional axis position data in the case of a robotic, motorized surgical microscope.) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel L Porter whose telephone number is (571)272-6775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6:30. 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. RACHEL L. PORTER Primary Examiner Art Unit 3684 /Rachel L. Porter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 2 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 3 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 4 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 5 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 6 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 7 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 8 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 9 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 10 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 11 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 12 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 13 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 14 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 15 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 16 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 17 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 18 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 19 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 20 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/614,711 Page 21 Art Unit: 3684
Prosecution Insights