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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 6, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 10, and 21 have been amended. Claims 5-9, 11-19, and 23 have not been modified. Claims 2-4, 20, and 22 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 5-19, 21, and 23 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 6, 2026 have been considered but are not persuasive. Response has been provided below.
Applicant argues 35 U.S.C. §112 Rejections, pg. 9 of Remarks:
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments and withdraws the prior 112 rejection. However, Applicant amendments have caused a new 112 rejection. Please see below.
Applicant argues 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections, pg. 10 of Remarks:
Applicant argues that Williams in view of Molenda does not teach the amended claim limitations.
Regarding lack a convincing line of reasoning to combine Williams and Molenda to cure William’s lack of AI techniques, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The reason to combine was provided on pg. 33 of the prior Office Action and is maintained with regards to the newly amended claim limitations. It is provided below for Applicant convenience.
Williams in view of Molenda are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of processing patient data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams with Molenda for the advantage of “apply[ing] machine learning, artificial intelligence, and augmented intelligence” (Molenda; [0407]).
Regarding the amended limitation of the abnormal morphological feature being one that does not affect the normal function of such body structures, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The presence of a fracture does not necessarily affect the normal function of the bone as evidenced by:
CarrothersOrthopaedics, Identifying and Treating Hairline Fractures, 15 June 2018, Carrothers Orthopaedics: pg. 3, “People don’t always realise at first that they have a hairline fracture.” Examiner notes that not realizing that one has a fracture indicates that the abnormal morphological feature does not significantly affect the normal function of the bone itself, as it does not cause any negative consequences that draw attention.
Al-Sari, Impact of mild and moderate/severe vertebral fractures on physical activity: a prospective study of older women in the UK, 7 Sep 2018, Osteoporosis International, Volume 30, pgs. 155-166: pg. 155, “At 5.4 years follow-up, women with moderate/severe fracture self-reported shorter walking duration compared to those without fracture, even after adjusting for potential confounders (OR 2.96, 95%CI 1.11–7.88, P = 0.030). No independent association was seen between the presence of mild fractures and reduced physical activity at follow-up.”
Additionally, another normal function of the spine is to maintain the spinal cord within the bone. Presence of a fracture, especially a mild fracture, does not then cause the spinal cord to not be disposed of within the middle of the spine. Thus, even with a fracture, the normal function is maintained.
For the purpose of Examination, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and applied art, Examiner interprets fractures as taught by Williams to include fractures that do not affect the normal function of the bone, as Williams does not place any limits on the severity of fractures. Thus, Examiner maintains the art rejection.
Regarding one or more AI techniques that are utilized for analyzing at least one of patient-specific medical imaging data or patient medical history to identify the abnormal morphological features, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of Williams in view of Molenda teaches the amended claim limitation.
Molenda recites: [0417], “The automatic note writer function 775 applies artificial intelligence, coordinated language model 980 engines, detections, and inputs to generate text-based and visual summaries of the anatomy, health data, patient data morphologies, and diagnoses.” [0131], “The GUI 991 can include one or more interfaces, also called “screenshots” with interactable objects, e.g., anatomic representations, that will be further described in further detail below. In certain embodiments, the GUI 991 can also be combined with or part of other components of the system such as an output device 989” [0275], “Anatomy based histories, diagnosis-based histories, procedure based histories, and other histories can also use the systems and methods to generate context aware and relevant information a user has access to” [0169], “The anatomic site that the dynamic anatomic address correlates to is visually depicted on a display 987 for the system 985 user on anatomic maps and/or visualizations and/or representations, including actual patient multimedia that includes photographs, …, medical imaging (such as X-rays, CT scans, MRIs, or Ultrasounds), virtual reality, and mixed reality.”
As noted above, and in Fig. 7 provided below, the fractures of Williams may encompass the abnormal morphologies that do not affect the normal function of the body structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
772
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that combining AI techniques to identify relevant patient anatomies by creating summaries (selecting relevant anatomical features to create summaries of) of anatomic representations using anatomical histories and patient images as taught by Molenda with the abnormal morphological features of Williams would result in using AI techniques to identify abnormal morphological features.
Thus, Examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
Applicant argues 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections, pg. 15 of Remarks:
Regarding application of AI algorithms, Applicant argues that the claim recites a concrete technical process where AI algorithms analyze actual patient data to identify specific anatomical variations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Identifying specific anatomical variations is a human activity typically performed by doctors for their patients. AI is only applied to perform the abstract idea, and does not represent a specific, technical improvement to the field of AI. See also Claim 2 of Example 47, which specifically describes wherein a claim limitation using artificial intelligence can be found be abstract.
Regarding the filtering, Examiner notes that filtering is also considered abstract and inclusion of such a feature only contributes to an improvement to the abstract idea of improving medical documentation accuracy. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)IIC, which provides examples of managing personal behaviors including: “i. filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis)”.
Regarding the specific technical problem of improving medical documentation accuracy and workflows, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The identified problem is an abstract problem, not one rooted in technology or a technical field. Workflows can be performed by medical staff themselves, as indicated by pg. 4 of Applicant specification (“This procedure is inefficient and costly since the process requires manual and inaccurate transcription. Furthermore, such a procedure is time-consuming to a physician, who must review and edit the transcribed report.”). Thus, the identified problem is one that falls under an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as managing personal behaviors. An improvement to the abstract idea does not amount to an improvement to technology or a technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(III) stating “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 5-19, 21, and 23 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.
The terms “normal function” and “clinically appropriate” in claims 1 and 21 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “normal” and “clinically appropriate” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Pg. 52 of Applicant specification provides examples of anomalies having abnormal morphological features that do not affect the normal function of such anomalies. However, many examples contradict the claimed language. For example, “absence of muscles” would affect the normal function of the muscle as there would be no muscle to perform the normal functions of a muscle.
Claims 5-19 and 23 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claims 1 and 21.
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, 5-19, 21, and 23 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process and a machine
(claims 1, 5-19, 21, and 23). Accordingly, claims 1, 5-19, 21, and 23 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and /or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP §2106.04(a).
The Examiner has identified system Claim 21 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis; method claim 1 being similar to system claim 21.
Claim 21:
A computer system for generating a surgical report indicative of a medical procedure performed on a patient, comprising:
a memory;
a processor disposed in communication with said memory, and configured to issue a plurality of instructions stored in the memory, wherein the instructions cause the processor to:
generate, on a computer display, a Graphical User Interface (GUI), the GUI including a user interactive animated visual representation of at least a portion of a human body representative of the patient;
receive, input from a user, on the GUI, wherein the input selects one or more portions of the human body visual representation that are associated with the medical procedure;
indicate, on the GUI, one or more medical procedures that may be associated with the medical procedure performed on the patient with respect to the selected human body portions;
receive, input from the user, on the GUI, wherein the input selects one or more indicated medical procedures performed on the patient with respect to the selected human body portions;
generate billing codes associated with the medical procedures that were performed;
generate text, based on input received via the GUI, identifying at least some of the medical procedures that were performed; and
generate a surgical report including the generated billing codes, and the generate text corresponding to the selected medical procedures performed on the patient associated with the surgical procedure; and
generate for user selection on the GUI, a plurality of selectable anatomical anomalies that may be relevant to the patient,
wherein the one or more portions of the human body, and the one or more medical procedures identified on the GUI, are contingent upon one or more user selected anatomical anomalies determined to be relevant to the patient,
wherein the plurality of selectable anatomical anomalies are body structures of the patient having abnormal morphological features that do not affect the normal function of such body structures, including variations in shape, size, number, orientation or position of an organ, muscle, vessel, joint or bone, and
wherein one or more Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques are utilized for analyzing at least one of patient-specific medical imaging data or patient medical history to identify the abnormal morphological features, for determining the one or more selectable anatomical anomalies that may be relevant to the patient, and the one or more medical procedures identified on the GUI, and for generating the surgical report, wherein the system automatically filters and displays on the GUI only those medical procedures from a database that are clinically appropriate for the identified anatomical anomalies.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behaviors of people and fundamental economic practices. The claim elements are directed towards indicating medical procedures, generating text about the medical procedures, and generating a surgical report, which are typically human activities performed by surgical staff post-surgery. The claim further recites receiving input from the user, which is monitoring the interaction between a user and a computing device. The claims are further directed to generating billing codes associated with the performed medical procedures, which is a fundamental economic activity of billing for performed services.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04 (ID)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
Additional elements cited in the claims:
A computer display (1,5-6,21), a graphical user interface (1,5,11-17,21,23); Artificial Intelligence techniques (1,21); touch screen device (5-6,); a stylus device (6); dictation techniques (7); a Virtual Reality headset (8); a communications network (9,18); a remotely located computer (9); a cloud-based computer system (10); a portable user smart computing device (11); a three-dimensional model (12-13); a memory (21); a processor (21); a computer server (23); one or more user portable computing devices (23)
Any computing devices that would be able to perform the method (computer system, processor, memory, remotely located computer, cloud-based computer system, computer server) are taught at a high level of generality such that the claim elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using any generic component capable of performing the claim limitations. [0018] of Applicant specification recites: “Computing device 2000 is operational with numerous other general purpose or special purpose computing system environments or configurations. Examples of well- known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with computing device 2000 include, but are not limited to, personal computer systems, server computer systems, thin clients, thick clients, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputer systems, and distributed data processing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like.” No specific, technical improvements are being made to computing devices as generic devices with software modules are simply being used to perform the abstract idea.
Displays (touch screen device, portable user smart computing device, one or more user portable computing devices) and user interfaces are taught at a high level of generality. Pg. 53 of Application specification recites: “Starting at step 5100, caused to be generated by computer system 132, on a computer display provided on user device 116, is a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that includes a user interactive animated visual representation of at least a portion of a human body 6000 representative of the patient (FIG. 22A) in conjunction with user touch interactive touch points (6002-6008) and identifiers (6010-6016) provided on the GUI. As described above, the computer display is preferably a touch screen device wherein the user input consists of detection of user touch (6018) on the GUI.” Pg. 28 of Application specification recites: “suitable touch screen units include the iPad series of tablets from Apple, Inc. of Cupertino, CA, the Galaxy Tab series of tablets from Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Seoul, South Korea, and the Kindle Fire series of tablets from Amazon.com, Inc. of Seattle, WA. Other touch screen units may include smart phones, such as the iPhone series of smart phones from Apple, Inc.” No specific technical improvements are being made to display devices or user interfaces as commercially available devices are simply applied to perform the abstract idea of obtaining user inputs and providing a visual representation.
Machine learning is also taught at a high level of generality. Pg. 19 of Applicant specification recites: “Preferably integrated into a computer system 2000, coupled to a plurality of external databases / data sources, is an AI system (e.g., an Expert System) that implements machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms to conduct one or more of the above mentioned tasks, including generating one or more medical documents utilizing hierarchically organized database views presented on a touch screen interface for automatically generating medical reports indicative of one or more medical (e.g., surgical) procedures performed on a patient.” Pg. 22 of Applicant specification recites: “the aforesaid learning processor, for generating a medical report, as described herein, includes usage of a Large Language Model (LLM).” No specific, technical improvements are being made to the field of machine learning as a generic LLM is simply applied to perform the abstract idea of generating medical documents.
User input mechanisms (stylus device, dictation techniques, Virtual Reality headset) are also taught at a high level of generality. Pg. 26 of Applicant specification recites: “one or more of the input touchscreen units 116-118 consists of stylus and associated touchscreen units, which are to be understood to be preferably handheld electronic devices having a writing (e.g., soft) tip configured and operative to operate a cooperating touch screen unit. For instance, they may include a passive stylus pen, also known as a capacitive stylus, that register input on a touchscreen by either distorting the touchscreen's electrostatic field or blocking the transmission of light. Additionally, an active stylus pen may be utilized which utilizes internal communication technology to perform touch commands. Active styluses typically contain computer chips, or other hardware, inside of them, which they use to communicate with touchscreens. Further, a Bluetooth stylus device may be utilized, as well as an Apple Pencil stylus device. In other illustrated embodiments, the input units 116-118 utilize voice recognition techniques (e.g., dictation techniques) for enabling a user (e.g., a surgeon) to provide input, or otherwise interact with a GUI, as described herein for generating a medical report as described below with reference 5000 of FIG. 21. In yet additional illustrated embodiments, one or more of the input units 116-118 consists of a virtual reality (VR) headset, also known as VR goggles, which is commonly known as a head-mounted device that provides immersive 3D virtual experiences, that typically includes a pair of lenses that users look through, a screen (or screens) inside the device that the user interacts with, a mechanism to secure it to the user's head, and VR input units (e.g., handheld devices, the user's hands/fingers, etc.) configured and operative to enable the user to interact with GUI's provided in the VR screen In accordance with the illustrated embodiments, the computer system 132 causes the below described GUI's to be generated in a VR screen to which the user interacts25 wi as described further below with reference to process 5000 of FIG. 21.” No specific, technical improvements are being made to user input mechanisms as a variety of known mechanisms are simply applied to perform the abstract activity of facilitating user input.
Three-dimensional models are also taught at a high level of generality. Pg. 54 of Applicant specification recites: “interactive animated visual representation of at least a portion of the human body 6000 representative of the patient is a three-dimensional (3D) model of the human body portion 6000 that has an adjustable view perspective on the GUI via manipulation of the 3D human body model caused by user interactive touch input upon the GUI. In accordance with certain illustrated embodiments, the adjustable view perspective of the 3D human body portion displayed on the GUI is caused by human touch upon the GUI of device 116, via user manipulation of the 3D human body model (as best shown in FIGS. 22B-E). In certain illustrated embodiments, the computer system 200 is operative and configured to determine, and generate for user selection on the GUI of device 116, a plurality of selectable anatomical anomalies that may be relevant to the patient (See, FIG. 22A).” No specific, technical improvements are being made to 3D models, as they are only applied to be used as a mechanism for gathering patient input, which encompasses an insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data.
Communication networks are also taught at a high level of generality. Pg. 21 of Applicant specification recites: “The communication unit 3310 may transmit and receive data to and from external devices such as other AI devices 3300a to 3300e and the AI server 4000 by using wire/wireless communication technology. For example, the communication unit 3310 may transmit and receive sensor information, a user input, a learning model, and a control signal to and from external devices. The communication technology used by the communication unit 3310 preferably includes GSM (Global System for Mobile communication), CDMA (Code Division Multi Access), LTE (Long Term Evolution), 5G, WLAN (Wireless LAN), Wi-Fi (Wireless- Fidelity), BluetoothTM, RFID (Radio Frequency Identification), Infrared Data Association (IrDA), ZigBee, NFC (Near Field Communication), and the like.” No specific, technical improvements are being made to communication networks as a variety of known mechanisms are simply applied to perform the insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting and receiving data.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID)(A)(2).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 5: This claim recites wherein the computer display is touch screen device and wherein the user input consists of detection of user touch on the GUI; which teaches touch screen devices and user inputs at a high level of generality, such that touch screen devices are only applied to perform the insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data to facilitate the abstract idea of generating medical documents.
Claim 6: This claim recites wherein the computer display is a touch screen device and wherein the user input consists of use of a stylus device; which teaches touch screen devices and styluses at a high level of generality, such that touch screen devices and styluses are only applied to perform the insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data to facilitate the abstract idea of generating medical documents.
Claim 7: This claim recites wherein the user input consists of dictation techniques; which teaches dictation techniques at a high level of generality to perform the insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data to facilitate the abstract idea of generating medical documents.
Claim 8: This claim recites wherein the computer display is provided by a Virtual Reality (VR) headset; which teaches VR headsets at a high level of generality, such that the headset is only applied to perform the insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying data.
Claim 9: This claim recites wherein the display device receives, via a communications network, instructions and data from a remotely located computer for enabling operation of the GUI, wherein the remotely located computer generates the surgical report; which teaches an abstract idea of generating the surgical report as well as providing instructions to a user for enabling operation of the GUI. This claim further teaches communication networks and remotely located computers at a high level of generality, such that they only perform the insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting data.
Claim 10: This claim recites wherein the remotely located computer is a cloud-based computer system; which only serves to limit the remotely located computer.
Claim 11: This claim recites wherein the GUI is provided by a portable user smart computing device; which only serves to narrow the output device with no specific, technical improvements to the computing device itself.
Claim 12: This claim recites wherein the interactive animated visual representation of at least a portion of the human body representative of the patient is a three-dimensional (3D) model of the human body portion that has an adjustable view perspective on the GUI via manipulation of the 3D human body model caused by user interactive touch input upon the GUI; which teaches the three-dimensional model with an adjustable view perspective at a high level of generality such that it is only applied to improve upon the abstract idea of the surgical report.
Claim 13: This claim recites wherein the adjustable view perspective of the 3D human body portion displayed on the GUI, via user manipulation of the 3D human body model, causes, for user selection, one or more medical procedures to be displayed on the GUI associated with the displayed 3D human body portion; which teaches an abstract idea of providing relevant information.
Claim 14: This claim recites the method further including generating, on the GUI, a menu that is common to each display generated on the GUI associated with the surgical procedure whereby the menu is interactive to highlight a portion of the menu associated with one or more of the medical procedures associated with the surgical procedure currently displayed on the GUI; which teaches an abstract idea of highlighting a portion of the menu, as a person could highlight a relevant portion of a displayed document related to a procedure.
Claim 15: This claim recites the method further including, displaying for user selection on the GUI, one or more pharmaceuticals administered during the medical procedure for inclusion in the surgical report; which only serves to further limit the abstract idea by allowing a user to select administered pharmaceuticals for inclusion in the surgical report.
Claim 16: This claim recites the method further including displaying for user selection on the GUI, one or more pharmaceuticals prescribed for post-surgery treatment of the patient; which only serves to further limit the abstract idea by allowing a user to select prescribed pharmaceuticals for inclusion in the surgical report.
Claim 17: This claim recites the method further including displaying for user selection on the GUI, one or more medical instrumentalities utilized during the medical procedure for inclusion in the surgical report; which only serves to further limit the abstract idea by allowing a user to select instruments used by staff during a procedure for inclusion in the surgical report.
Claim 18: This claim recites the method further including transmitting, via a communications network, the generated medical report to a designated recipient; which teaches an abstract idea of sharing information. This claim further teaches the communications network at a high level of generality, such that it is only applied to perform an insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting data.
Claim 19: This claim recites wherein the designated recipient is an insurance entity; which only serves to narrow the designated recipient. This claim teaches an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as commercial or legal interactions, as the recipient is an insurance entity.
Claim 23 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 9 and 11, as described above.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
Amount to elements that have been recognized as activities in particular fields (such as 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), MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(i);storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Three dimensional models of the human body that have an adjustable view perspective on a graphical user interface are known, as demonstrated by:
3D4Medical, 3D4Medical, 7 Jul 2011:
PNG
media_image2.png
443
853
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Biomedical Visualisation, Interactive 3D Digital Models for Anatomy and Medical Education, 17 Jul 2019, Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, AEMB, volume 1138, pgs. 1-15:
PNG
media_image3.png
925
1263
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 5-19 and 23 additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as activities in particular fields, claims 5-19 and 23, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(ii); claims 5-19 and 23, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv). 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.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1, 5-19, 21, and 23 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, 11, 15-19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 20130191154) in view of Molenda (US 20230368878).
Regarding claim 1, Williams teaches computer-implemented method for generating a surgical report indicative of a medical procedure performed on a patient, comprising:
generating, on a computer display, a Graphical User Interface (GUI), the GUI including a user interactive animated visual representation of at least a portion of a human body representative of the patient ([0097], “Upon selecting a surgery type, the surgical data system accesses a surgery type database and retrieves anatomical representations for that selected surgery type. As illustrated in FIG. 10, and operator has selected to do a spinal procedure… In the case of a spinal surgery type, and anatomical representation of an entire human spine 151 is first displayed.”);
PNG
media_image4.png
650
510
media_image4.png
Greyscale
receiving input from a user, on the GUI, wherein the input selects one or more portions of the human body visual representation that are associated with the medical procedure ([0097], “In the case of a spinal surgery type, and anatomical representation of an entire human spine 151 is first displayed. Medical personnel then select which spinal levels the operation is to be performed, using either the graphical 151 or tabular 152, 154 inputs. Once the operator has selected the proper range, he or she commits 155 the process and an anatomical representation of the selected surgical site is then presented to the surgical team.”);
indicating, on the GUI, one or more medical procedures that may be associated with the medical procedure performed on the patient with respect to the selected human body portions ([0102], “Referring now to FIG. 13, an example 210 for collecting information regarding tissue and bone removal is illustrated. As described with reference to FIG. 12, each spine level 215 is divided into 24 individual portions 212... Accordingly, as a surgeon removes tissue, an operator uses the tab boxes 217, 218 and 219, as illustrated in FIG. 13, to specify the spine level that is being worked on, and then the specific type of removal or procedure performed on that level. The system selects the appropriate graphical image to represent the specific surgical task selected, and replaces one or more of the 24 portions to annotate what the surgeon did.”). See Fig. 13, below, which displays medical procedures that may be associated with the medical procedure performed on the patient (218 and 219, in red box) with respect to the selected human body portions (spine).
PNG
media_image5.png
571
436
media_image5.png
Greyscale
receiving input from the user, on the GUI, wherein the input selects one or more indicated medical procedures performed on the patient with respect to the selected human body portions ([0102], “Referring now to FIG. 13, an example 210 for collecting information regarding tissue and bone removal is illustrated. As described with reference to FIG. 12, each spine level 215 is divided into 24 individual portions 212... Accordingly, as a surgeon removes tissue, an operator uses the tab boxes 217, 218 and 219, as illustrated in FIG. 13, to specify the spine level that is being worked on, and then the specific type of removal or procedure performed on that level.”);
generating billing codes associated with the medical procedures that were performed ([0072], “Since the annotations, parts, implants, and procedures may be linked to specific standard billing codes, the generation of bills and invoices may be mostly automated.” [0132], “The operative report is the primary document used by the doctor and the medical facility to document the specific procedures, and is used to drive the billing, inventory, invoicing, and business needs of the medical facility… the operative report may provide the specific DRG code for billing and inventory purposes, along with indications 712 and consents 713.”);
generating text, based on input received via the GUI, identifying at least some of the medical procedures that were performed ([0075], “Completing this simple, yet critical step of electronically capturing real time information allows the medical data system to make the interpretations and specific data storage resulting in automated generation of the summary reports, business applications, analytics, and financial evaluations. Also included in the system is the ability to have the descriptions of data collected during surgery (selections) link to an alternative description which would show up on the operative report generation and or other reports. For example, during the data collection you may have this description for the "selection": (i.e. "Removal of Lamina"). But on the Operative Report of other report generation this "selection" would have the ability to be described differently: (i.e. "L2 bilateral removal of lamina").”);
generating a surgical report including the generated billing codes, and the generate text corresponding to the selected medical procedures performed on the patient associated with the medical procedure ([0085], “the surgical data system substantially automates the process for generating this surgical report, thereby enabling the doctor to verify and finalize his or her authorizations promptly upon completion of the surgery.” [0132], “As illustrated in 33B, the operative report may provide the specific DRG code for billing and inventory purposes, along with indications 712 and consents 713. The operative report also identifies data such as global procedures 714, and then gives specifics about the surgery performed 715.”); and
generating for user selection on the GUI, a plurality of selectable anatomical anomalies that may be relevant to the patient ([0092], “Referring now to FIG. 7, an input screen 100 allows for input of specific pre-operative 104 and post-operative 106 data. The surgical data system allows the doctor or medical manager to use a consistent interface and selection process for defining and capturing both the pre-operative diagnosis and the post-operative diagnosis.” [0092], “The surgical data system allows the doctor or medical manager to use a consistent interface and selection process for defining and capturing both the pre-operative diagnosis and the post-operative diagnosis.”). See the selectable list of anatomical anomalies below. It would be obvious that the pre-operative diagnostics would also include a list of selectable anomalies, as the data system uses a consistent interface.
PNG
media_image1.png
772
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the one or more portions of the human body, and the one or more medical procedures identified on the GUI, are contingent upon the one or more user selected anatomical anomalies determined relevant to the patient (Fig. 7; Fig. 13). See Fig. 7, red boxes above, which depicts wherein the portion of the body (spinal) is contingent upon selecting the anomaly (fracture). Examiner notes that the image was modified (increased contrast and brightness) for clarity. See also Fig. 13, below, which shows wherein the option for the specific removal procedure is selectable after the selecting the relevant physiology (bone) and type of procedure (facetectomy).
PNG
media_image6.png
703
549
media_image6.png
Greyscale
And wherein the plurality of selectable anomalies are body structures of the patient having abnormal morphological features that do not affect the normal function of such body structures, including variations in shape, size, number, orientation or position of an organ, muscle, vessel, joint or bone (Fig. 7). Examiner notes that a spinal fracture is an abnormal morphological feature that indicates a variation in the shape of the spine, a fracture in the bone where a fracture should not be. Additionally, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a mild/hairline fractures may not affect the normal function of bone, including functions such as physical support during actions such as walking and housing the spinal cord.
PNG
media_image1.png
772
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Williams does not teach wherein one or more Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques are utilized for analyzing at least one of patient-specific medical imaging data or patient medical history to identify the abnormal morphological features, for determining the one or more selectable anatomical anomalies that may be relevant to the patient, and the one or more medical procedures identified on the GUI, and for generating the surgical report, wherein the system automatically filters and displays on the GUI only those medical procedures from a database that are clinically appropriate for the identified anatomical anomalies.
However, Williams in view of Molenda does teach wherein one or more Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques are utilized for analyzing at least one of patient-specific medical imaging data or patient medical history to identify the abnormal morphological features, for determining the one or more selectable anatomical anomalies that may be relevant to the patient (Molenda, [0417], “The automatic note writer function 775 applies artificial intelligence, coordinated language model 980 engines, detections, and inputs to generate text-based and visual summaries of the anatomy, health data, patient data morphologies, and diagnoses.” [0131], “The GUI 991 can include one or more interfaces, also called “screenshots” with interactable objects, e.g., anatomic representations, that will be further described in further detail below. In certain embodiments, the GUI 991 can also be combined with or part of other components of the system such as an output device 989” [0275], “Anatomy based histories, diagnosis-based histories, procedure based histories, and other histories can also use the systems and methods to generate context aware and relevant information a user has access to” [0169], “The anatomic site that the dynamic anatomic address correlates to is visually depicted on a display 987 for the system 985 user on anatomic maps and/or visualizations and/or representations, including actual patient multimedia that includes photographs, …, medical imaging (such as X-rays, CT scans, MRIs, or Ultrasounds), virtual reality, and mixed reality. These visualizations can be two- or three-dimensional and may accept input from an input device 988.” Williams, Fig. 7). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that combining AI techniques to identify relevant patient anatomies by creating summaries (selecting relevant anatomical features to create summaries of) of anatomic representations using anatomical histories and patient images as taught by Molenda with the abnormal morphological features of Williams would result in using AI techniques to identify abnormal morphological features.
PNG
media_image1.png
772
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
And the one or more medical procedures identified on the GUI (Molenda, [0322], “The digital copy of the paper form can be as simple as overlaying the detections on a digital copy, or as complicated as applying neural networks (e.g. as enabled by modules in the medium 995 such as the data processing module 999) for dropping pins, distribution segments, and health data onto multidimensional anatomic maps to automatically document anatomic locations, anatomic distributions, medical procedures, and diagnoses with automatic application of the documentation to calculate the correct code sets based on country and language.”) and
for generating the surgical report (Molenda, [0427], “Range types in the embodiments illustrated enabled by the system 985 are contemplated to be any combination of alphanumeric and numerical indices, collections of codes or language (or language components or a large language model), symbols, or image ranges, or coordinates such as those on maps, avatars, visualizations, or multimedia.” [0460], “a pathology report or a progress note generated by the system 985 that has multiple sites on it (e.g., enabled by the generation module 993).”),
wherein the system automatically filters and displays on the GUI only those medical procedures from a database that are clinically appropriate for the identified anatomical anomalies (Molenda, [0269], “ The digital shadow chart 6213 can then be directly printed into a paper shadow chart 6214 (e.g., enabled by the generation module 993 in communication with the output device 988) or modified in electronic form with different selections, filters, and interaction modifiers 6215. Examples of filters could include, but are not limited to, diagnoses and history relevant to the practitioner, specialty, procedures, morphologies, symptoms, treatment recommendations, or anatomic sites of interest (e.g., enabled by modules on the medium 995, such as the data processing module 999, in communication with the processor 986).” [0468], “a system of a coordinated language model engine, comprised of at least three of the following components: … a database that contains encoded information anatomy, …, morphologies, cross-mappings, diagnoses, symptoms, procedures, tags, slang, synonyms, or translations;… alerts related to anatomic site or health information associated with an anatomic site such as a procedure or treatment recommendation” Williams, Fig. 7).
Williams in view of Molenda are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of processing patient data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams with Molenda for the advantage of “apply[ing] machine learning, artificial intelligence, and augmented intelligence” (Molenda; [0407]).
Regarding claim 5, Williams in view of Molenda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Williams further teaches wherein the computer display is touch screen device and wherein the user input consists of detection of user touch on the GUI ([0051], “the graphical data collection system 11 may include a touch screen, keyboard, mouse, tablet computer, display, or other graphical data input device.” [0067], “Although FIG. 2 shows a standard computer configuration, it will be understood that other devices, such as laptops, wireless appliances, smartphones, or PDA's may be used as part of the system.”).
Regarding claim 6, Williams in view of Molenda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Williams does not teach wherein the computer display is touch screen device and wherein the user input consists of use of a stylus device.
However, Molenda does teach wherein the computer display is touch screen device and wherein the user input consists of use of a stylus device ([0051], “Electronic forms 257 include the same data as printed forms 256 but in electronic format. In certain embodiments, the electronic form is a digital consent form capable of accepting electronic inputs from the record retrieval engine 261 (e.g., enabled by the record retrieval module 997) to fill-in blanks on the form, such that it can accept a digital patient signature (e.g., through the input device 988 like a stylus or touch screen).”).
Williams in view of Molenda are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of patient reports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams with Molenda for the advantage of “receiv[ing] a multiple of different inputs via the input device 988” (Molenda; [0138]).
Regarding claim 7, Williams in view of Molenda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Williams further teaches wherein the user input consists of dictation techniques ([0126], “Referring now to FIG. 27, example input screens 600 for the surgical data system are illustrated. The surgical data system also allows for capture or use of the specific intravenous and fluid substances 601 used for the medical procedure. This includes both pharmaceuticals and blood. Additionally, the surgeon is allowed to enter free-form notes 604 in the system, which may be done textually or through dictation.”).
Regarding claim 8, Williams in view of Molenda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Williams does not teach wherein the computer display is provide by a Virtual Reality (VR) headset.
However, Molenda does teach wherein the computer display is provide by a Virtual Reality (VR) headset ([0169], “The anatomic site that the dynamic anatomic address correlates to is visually depicted on a display 987 for the system 985 user on anatomic maps and/or visualizations and/or representations, including actual patient multimedia that includes photographs, video, live views through camera previews or augmented reality as non-limiting input device 988 examples, two dimensional views, three-dimensional views, four-dimensional views (over time), multi-dimensional views, medical imaging (such as X-rays, CT scans, MRIs, or Ultrasounds), virtual reality, and mixed reality.”).
Williams in view of Molenda are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of patient reports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams with Molenda for the advantage of “using spatial computing and an augmented vision device such as glasses, contact lenses, a headset, or goggles” (Molenda; [0327]).
Regarding claim 11, Williams in view of Molenda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11. Williams further teaches wherein the GUI is provided by a portable user smart computing device ([0067], “Although FIG. 2 shows a standard computer configuration, it will be understood that other devices, such as laptops, wireless appliances, smartphones, or PDA's may be used as part of the system.”).
Regarding claim 15, Williams in view of Molenda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Williams further teaches the method further including, displaying for user selection on the GUI, one or more pharmaceuticals administered during the medical procedure for inclusion in the surgical report ([0127], “FIG. 28, example input screens 620 for the surgical data system are illustrated. The surgical data system allows for capture of anesthesia and medications 621 used during the surgery, as well as to track specific times and dosages 624 used with that particular patient.”).
PNG
media_image7.png
580
601
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Williams in view of Molenda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Williams does not teach the method further including, displaying for user selection on the GUI, one or more pharmaceuticals prescribed for post-surgery treatment of the patient.
However, Molenda does teach the method further including, displaying for user selection on the GUI, one or more pharmaceuticals prescribed for post-surgery treatment of the patient ([0127], “FIG. 6C shows a workflow initiator 643 at the end of a pin description 630 to send a refill on a medication. The workflow initiator 643 is currently unchecked. A user could initiate the medication refill by checking the box.” [0236], “Since you decided to perform the major surgery today, I also documented the decision making process and conversation of risks, benefits, and alternatives I heard you have with Mr. Smith. The patient has an allergy to Penicillin, and has 2 interactions with Doxycycline. I know you typically prefer sending Keflex, but due to this allergy, and the minimal severity of the interactions with Doxycycline, would you like to send the Doxycycline 100 mg by mouth twice daily?”… PHYSICIAN: “Please send the doxycycline and have patient hold the magnesium and multivitamin for 1 week” WHITEBOARD: “The Doxycycline has been sent for 1 week to the patient’s preferred pharmacy, CVS at 1249 Lane Ave in Toledo” ” [0377], “FIG. 6C, a workflow initiated by a workflow initiator 6430 is a new documentation update for a diagnosis that includes a list of medications associated with the diagnosis where a refill of a medication is automatically sent or queued to the patient’s preferred pharmacy, and all of the documentation related to that workflow is automatically documented in the electronic health record in the relevant sections (diagnosis, progress note, refills, medication lists, etc.).”). Examiner notes that the box checking (selection by a user on the GUI) for a medication could also apply to a post-surgery medicine, as providing prescription post-surgery is also contemplated by Molenda.
[No patentable weight is given to the intended use language of “for user selection on the GUI” and “for post-surgery treatment of the patient”]
Williams in view of Molenda are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of patient reports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams with Molenda for the advantage of “include[ing] a list of medications associated with the diagnosis” (Molenda; [0377]).
Regarding claim 17, Williams in view of Molenda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Williams further teaches the method further including, displaying for user selection on the GUI, one or more medical instrumentalities utilized during the medical procedure for inclusion in the surgical report ([0093], “FIGS. 8A and 8B, an input screen 110 allows for input of specific disposable information 100 or for biological information 120. The medical data system allows detailed tracking of disposables, parts or tools that are used during the surgery but that do not remain in the patient's body after surgery.”).
Regarding claim 18, Williams in view of Molenda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Williams further teaches the method further including, transmitting, via a communications network, the generated medical report to a designated recipient ([0071], “The medical data system 20 may use a wide-area network 27, such as the Internet, to enable interested and authorized parties 30 to access data, and to organize and view medical information reports 32.”).
Regarding claim 19, Williams in view of Molenda teaches the computer-implemented method of claims 1 and 18. Williams further teaches wherein the designated recipient is an insurance entity ([0072], “Once the surgeon or doctor has approved that the procedure has been accurately capture, and has generated the surgical report, the hospital can use the information to re-order parts from vendors, pay vendors for the parts used, communicate invoices and billing information to insurance companies or government providers, or provide information to show regulatory compliance.”).
Regarding claim 21, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 2. Williams further teaches computer system for generating a surgical report indicative of a medical procedure performed on a patient, comprising:
a memory ([0105], “due to the local storage in readily accessible memory, the system remains highly responsive to commands and inputs from the operator”);
a processor disposed in communication with said memory, and configured to issue a plurality of instructions stored in the memory ([0079], “the following disclosure uses a local computer in or near the surgical room, which is connected to a local area network.” [0105], “By offloading computational operations from the server to the client side, the overall system is enabled to operate more efficiently, to be more scalable, and to enable remote and distance access.”),
wherein the instructions cause the processor to perform the method ([0012], “computer systems and processes for collecting, presenting, and using medical information.”).
Regarding claim 23, Williams in view of Molenda teaches the system of claims 21 and 22. Williams further teaches wherein the computer system consists of a computer server remotely located from one or more user portable computing devices, wherein each user portable computing device includes the generated user interactive GUI ([0013], “The surgical support system has a graphical display in the operating room that is used by a technician, nurse, or doctor to capture, in near real time, what happens in the operating room. Generally, the surgical support system allows medical personnel to select a medical process that is to be performed, such as spine surgery, and then display an anatomic rendering for the specific area of the patient being operated on.” [0105], “Further, due to the local storage in readily accessible memory, the system remains highly responsive to commands and inputs from the operator. By offloading computational operations from the server to the client side, the overall system is enabled to operate more efficiently, to be more scalable, and to enable remote and distance access.”). Examiner notes that allowing remote and distance access of the system, which provides a GUI for use in generating the surgical report, encompasses a remote server that communicates with portable devices, each including the generated GUI.
Claims 9-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 20130191154) in view of Molenda (US 20230368878) further in view of Turquier (US 20170273745).
Regarding claim 9, Williams in view of Molenda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Williams in view of Molenda does not teach wherein the display device receives, via a communications network, instructions and data from a remotely located computer for enabling operation of the GUI, wherein the remotely located computer generates the surgical report.
However, Turquier does teach wherein the display device receives, via a communications network, instructions and data from a remotely located computer for enabling operation of the GUI, wherein the remotely located computer generates the surgical report ([0107], “Application 116 may be installed directly on computing device 100, or may be installed on another computer, for example a central server, and opened on computing device 100 via network interface 108.” [0108], “Application 116 communicates with a user interface 118 that presents visual interactive features to a clinician, for example, on display 110 and for receiving clinician input, for example, via a user input device.” [0104], “Network interface 108 may be configured to connect to a network such as a local area network (LAN) consisting of a wired network and/or a wireless network, a wide area network (WAN), a wireless mobile network, a Bluetooth network, and/or the internet.” [0168], “Simulations, indicated confidence levels, and corresponding clinical profiles, biomechanical profiles, and surgical plans may be stored in the memory 102 of computing device 100 and/or on a remote server (e.g., a hospital server) through use of the network interface 108.”).
Williams in view of Molenda further in view of Turquier are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of patient reports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Molenda with Turquier for the advantage of utilizing “a remote server (e.g., a hospital server) through use of the network interface” (Turquier; [0168]).
Regarding claim 10, Williams in view of Molenda teaches the computer-implemented method of claims 1 and 9. Williams in view of Molenda does not teach wherein the remotely located computer is a cloud-based computer system.
However, Turquier does teach wherein the remotely located computer is a cloud-based computer system ([0104], “Network interface 108 may be configured to connect to a network such as a local area network (LAN) consisting of a wired network and/or a wireless network, a wide area network (WAN), a wireless mobile network, a Bluetooth network, and/or the internet. For example, computing device 100 may receive patient data from a server, for example, a hospital server, internet server, or other similar servers, for use during model generating and/or simulation.”). Examiner interprets an internet server to encompass a cloud server.
Williams in view of Molenda further in view of Turquier are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of processing patient data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Molenda with Turquier for the advantage of using “a remote server (e.g., a hospital server) through use of the network interface” (Turquier; [0168]).
Regarding claim 12, Williams in view of Molenda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Williams in view of Molenda does not teach wherein the interactive animated visual representation of at least a portion of the human body representative of the patient is a three-dimensional (3D) model of the human body portion that has an adjustable view perspective on the GUI via manipulation of the 3D human body model caused by user interactive touch input upon the GUI.
However, Turquier does teach wherein the interactive animated visual representation of at least a portion of the human body representative of the patient is a three-dimensional (3D) model of the human body portion that has an adjustable view perspective on the GUI via manipulation of the 3D human body model caused by user interactive touch input upon the GUI ([0], “an interactive 3D model of a surgical repair site is generated on the display 110, as shown in FIGS. 6A, 7A, and 8A, based on the clinical profile provided in step 210. The interactive 3D model may include depictions of the patient's anatomical structures such as tissue, fat, and bone. The interactive 3D model may be interacted with and manipulated by the clinician through the user interface 118. For example, the clinician may have the capability to zoom in and out on the 3D model, rotate the 3D model about an X-Y-Z axis, and move the 3D model within the display.”)
Williams in view of Molenda further in view of Turquier are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of patient reports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Molenda with Turquier for the advantage of “graphically generat[ing] an interactive observable 3D model of the surgical repair site on a suitable graphical display” (Turquier; [0098]).
Regarding claim 13, Williams in view of Molenda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Williams in view of Molenda does not teach wherein the adjustable view perspective of the 3D human body portion displayed on the GUI, via user manipulation of the 3D human body model, causes, for user selection, one or more medical procedures to be displayed on the GUI associated with the displayed 3D human body portion.
However, Turquier does teach wherein the adjustable view perspective of the 3D human body portion displayed on the GUI, via user manipulation of the 3D human body model, causes, for user selection, one or more medical procedures to be displayed on the GUI associated with the displayed 3D human body portion ([0122], “FIG. 7A, the application 116 generates a tissue quality index of particular tissue properties (e.g., tissue elasticity) of the patient's particular anatomical structures and displays these tissue quality indexes to the clinician via the user interface 118 such that the clinician is provided with the opportunity to review, confirm, and/or edit the tissue quality indexes generated by the application 116.” [0124], “FIG. 8B, selecting “expert import” in this instance generates a menu (e.g., a pop up window) from which the clinician may select supplemental sources of data that provide data related to muscular contractibility. For example, the clinician may import patient diagnostic results from various diagnostic modalities such as deep electromyography and/or surface electromyography.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, user manipulation of the 3D model encompasses manipulations to the mechanics of the model. Thus, Examiner interprets the pop up menu that lists “Deep Electromyography” and “Surface Electromyography” (two medical procedures) to upon selecting a GUI element to manipulate the 3D model to encompass causing, for user selection, one or more medical procedures to be displayed on the GUI associated with the displayed portion.
PNG
media_image8.png
338
503
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Williams in view of Molenda further in view of Turquier are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of patient reports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Molenda with Turquier for the advantage of “using spatial computing and an augmented vision device such as glasses, contact lenses, a headset, or goggles” (Turquier; [0327]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 20130191154) in view of Molenda (US 20230368878) further in view of Morsch (US 20090070140).
Regarding claim 14, Williams in view of Molenda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Williams in view of Molenda does not teach the method further including generating, on the GUI, a menu that is common to each display generated on GUI associated with the surgical procedure whereby the menu is interactive to highlight a portion of the menu associated with one or more of the medical procedures associate with the surgical procedure currently displayed on the GUI.
However, Morsch does teach the method further including generating, on the GUI, a menu that is common to each display generated on GUI associated with the surgical procedure whereby the menu is interactive to highlight a portion of the menu associated with one or more of the medical procedures associate with the surgical procedure currently displayed on the GUI ([0035], “The GUI 200 enables bi-directional communication between the user and the system with natural language processing functions to provide documentation and coding of medical procedures, such as interventional surgical procedures. The bi-directional graphical user interface allows a user to visualize the narrative text, vascular anatomy diagrams and medical codes.”). See wherein the icons on the right side of Figs. 2 and 3 below (Automated Procedure Mapping) are highlighted (darker border similar to the highlighting of “General” on Fig. 22B of Applicant specification), and is common to both displays on the GUI associated with the surgical procedure.
PNG
media_image9.png
701
934
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
701
975
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Williams in view of Molenda further in view of Morsch are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of patient reports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams in view of Molenda with Morsch for the advantage of “include[ing] commonly used GUI elements such as buttons, tabs, menu items, etc.” (Morsch; [0058]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CarrothersOrthopaedics, Identifying and Treating Hairline Fractures, 15 June 2018, Carrothers Orthopaedics, which teaches identifying and treating hairline fractures.
Al-Sari, Impact of mild and moderate/severe vertebral fractures on physical activity: a prospective study of older women in the UK, 7 Sep 2018, Osteoporosis International, Volume 30, pgs. 155-166, which notes that mild fractures have no association with reduced physical activity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-3931. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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 on (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.
/D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684