DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on November 21, 2025. Claims 1, 4, 10, 13, and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are currently pending.
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 .
Inventorship
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using 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 is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using 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 is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1-20 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.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1 is directed to a system, independent claim 10 is directed to a method and independent claim 19 is directed to a nontransitory computer readable medium.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Mathematical concepts
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite the limitations, “determining, by the one or more processors via a second model that is different from the first model, a level of confidence in the prediction made via the first model; attributing, by the one or more processors via a second model, portions of the level of confidence among at least two input features of the plurality of input features;” are directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. In particular, the limitations recite using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, and/or mathematical calculations (e.g., machine learning or models) to determine a level of confidence in the prediction via a second model and assigning or referencing segments or sections of the level of confidence to at least two input features.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The applicant has not shown or demonstrated any of the requirements described above under "integration into a practical application" under step 2A. Specifically, the applicant's limitations are not "integrated into a practical application" because they are adding words "apply it" with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field has not been shown or disclosed (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the applicant’s limitations are not “significantly more” because they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The applicant’s claimed limitations do not demonstrate an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, effecting a transformation or reduction of particular article to a different state or thing. The current application does not amount to 'significantly more' than the abstract idea as described above. The claim does not include additional elements or limitations individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the individual elements of one or more processors, memory, video stream, and robotic medical system amount to no more than implementing an idea with a computerized system and they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements taken in combination add nothing more than what is present when the elements are considered individually. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the exception (i.e., abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. The following dependent claims: dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-14, 16-18 and 20 recite one or more processors. Dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-14, 16-18 and 20 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
determine, via a second model that is different from the first model, a level of confidence in the prediction made via the first model;
attribute, via the second model, portions of the level of confidence among at least two input features of the plurality of input features;
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. According to applicant’s argument on page 9 of the remarks discloses, “First, the claims are not directed to a judicial exception or abstract idea, but to a specific technical solution. The claims do not recite any ineligible mathematical concepts, methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes under Alice Step 2A, Prong 1. Rather, the claims are directed to a technical solution to a technical problem that arises from a computer-based medical video analysis system that automatically analyzes a video stream to make predictions. As such, the claims are simply not directed to an abstract idea under Alice Step 2A, Prong 1. Accordingly, withdrawal of this rejection is requested for at least this reason.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite the limitations, “determining, by the one or more processors via a second model that is different from the first model, a level of confidence in the prediction made via the first model; attributing, by the one or more processors via a second model, portions of the level of confidence among at least two input features of the plurality of input features;” are directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. In particular, the limitations recite using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, and/or mathematical calculations (e.g., machine learning or models) to determine a level of confidence in the prediction via a second model and assigning or referencing segments or sections of the level of confidence to at least two input features. Specifically, the models recited use mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, and/or mathematical calculations) to generate predictions associated with associated with a plurality of input features, generate confidence levels associated with the plurality of input features, and referencing segments of the confidence levels associated with at least two input features.
B. According to applicant’s argument on pages 9-10 of the remarks disclose, “Second, even if the claims were deemed to be directed to an abstract idea, which Applicant does not concede, Applicant submits that any such purported abstract idea is integrated into a practical application under Alice Step 2A, Prong 2. Indeed, the claims not only recite a technical solution to a technical problem, but are directed to the improvement in the functioning of computing technology that automatically analyzes a medical video stream to make predictions. To do so, the claims recite using a second model to attribute portions of a level of confidence in a prediction among input features, where the second model is different than a first model that had made the prediction and provided the input features. Furthermore, the claims recite an improved arrangement of graphical user interface elements, which improves the graphical user interface, by actually overlaying an indication of the per-feature attribution on the video stream itself. As such, even if the claims were directed to a judicial exception, any such purported judicial exception is integrated into a practical application in accordance with Alice Step 2A, Prong 2. Accordingly, withdrawal of this rejection is requested for at least this reason.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, examiners should consider whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field. Additionally, making this determination, examiners should determine whether there is a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention in the specification and the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology. The recited claims do not recite and reflect an improvement in the technology or technical field as required in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility. Specifically, the applicant cites improvements such as automatically analyzes a medical video stream to make predictions and arrangement of graphical user interface elements by overlaying an indication of the per-feature attribution on the video stream itself. The feature of automatically analyzing a medical video stream to make predictions is not recited within the body of independent claims 1, 10, and 19. Additionally, overlaying information on a video stream or content is not an improvement in the function of the computer or technical field. The examiner notes the specification and claims do not provide a technical explanation as to how the invention/computer, technical field, or other technology is improved with regards to automatically analyzing a medical video stream to make predictions and arranging of graphical user interface elements by overlaying an indication of the per-feature attribution on the video stream itself. Additionally, the applicant's arguments are geared towards to intended end result of the making predictions and overlaying attributions, but not how the improvement is performed or implemented. The examiner notes the implementation or use of machine learning or a classifier does not automatically describe an improvement in the computer itself, technology, or technical field.
C. According to applicant’s argument on page 10 of the remarks discloses, “Third, the claims also provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the purported abstract idea under Alice Step 2B. For example, the claims are directed to: 1) using a second model to attribute portions of a level of confidence in a prediction among multiple input features, where the second model is different than a first model that had made the prediction and provided the input features; and 2) specifically overlaying an indication of the attribution on the video stream. As such, the claims also provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any purported abstract idea in accordance with Alice Step 2B. Accordingly, withdrawal of this rejection is requested for at least this reason.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barral et al. US Publication 20200302600 A1 Improving Surgical Video Consumption by Identifying Useful Segments in Surgical Videos
Barral discloses one example method for identifying useful segments in surgical videos includes accessing a video of a surgical procedure and user activities of a plurality of users who have watched the video of the surgical procedure. The user activities include operations performed during playback of the video. The method further includes dividing the video into multiple segments and determining a popularity score for each of the multiple segments based on the operations. Useful segments are identified from the segments based on the popularity scores. The method further includes generating metadata for the video of the surgical procedure to include an indication of the identified useful segments and associating the metadata with the video of the surgical procedure.
Jin et al. US Publication 20200226751 A1 Surgical Workflow and Activity Detection Based on Surgical Videos
Jin discloses one example method for detecting phases of a surgical procedure via video processing includes accessing a video of the surgical procedure and dividing the video into one or more blocks, each of the blocks containing one or more video frames. For each of the blocks, the method includes applying a prediction model on the video frames of the respective block to obtain a phase prediction for each of the video frames. The prediction model is configured to predict, for an input video frame, one of the plurality of phases of the surgical procedure. The method further includes generating an aggregated phase prediction for the respective block by aggregating the phase predictions of the video frames, and modifying the video of the surgical procedure to include an indication of a predicted phase of the respective block based on the aggregated phase prediction.
Lendvay et al. US Patent 10,147,052 B2 Automated Assessment of Operator Performance
Lendvay discloses “Applications 320 may include computer executable instructions that can execute on processor 302 to perform actions. In some embodiments, one or more of applications 320 may be part of an application that may be loaded into mass memory and run on an operating system Applications 320 may include text classifiers 322, video classifiers 324, classification processing engine 326, and assessment engine 327. Text classifiers 322 process words, sentences, and/or paragraphs to identify features of written commentary. For example, text classifiers 322 may identify positive, negative, or neutral comments, as well as severity and/or relativity. Video classifiers 324 may identify various events/attributes of the activity recorded in the video. For example, in a surgical context, video classifiers may identify bleeding, cautery, suturing, or other surgical events or techniques. In one embodiment, classifiers refer to machine learning systems, e.g. neural networks that have been trained with a “ground truth” to identify certain features. In the context of surgery, for example, a machine learning system may be trained with videos depicting suturing, along with an indication (i.e. ground truth) that a human expert has identified the videos as including suturing. By applying machine learning techniques, these classifiers process this input, and can then be used to identify, to a level of confidence, the existence of the trained event, e.g. suturing.” (column 15, line 60 to column 16, line 18).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30-5:30 pm EST.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571)270-5096. 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.
/MATTHEW L HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682