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 .
The following is a non-final, first office action on the merits, in response to application filed 10/8/2024. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for a provisional application filed on 4/14/2022. The Applicant claims benefit of continuation of PCT/EP2023/059797, filed on 4/14/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/8/2024 cancelled no claim. No claim was previously cancelled. No new claim is added. Claim 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 has been amended. Claims 1-20 are considered and pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/8/2024 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Modifications made to page 1, [0001], to the original specification are acknowledged.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, regardless of a system/apparatus, a method, or a product claim.
The claimed invention (Claims 1-20) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, “an idea “of itself”, which have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in new 101 memos of the subject matter eligibility in here (https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility) including 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
Independent claim 15 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to multiple abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and “Mental process”.
Claim 15, Steps of,
analyzing a plurality of surgical workflows, by a processor, to identify one or more surgical workflows as an outlier for review,
wherein identification of an outlier comprises determining distances between workflows using a density-based clustering algorithm.
fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps recite “analyzing a plurality of surgical workflows,…., to identify one or more surgical workflows as an outlier for review”, “determining distances between workflows using a density-based clustering algorithm”, which are human activities and/or interactions between users/people/devices and therefore, certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer.
In addition, claim 15, steps mentioned above also falls within the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since these limitation covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, a human being can observe/analyze workflows to identify an outlier for review, can evaluate/determine the distance by using an algorithm.
Independent claim 15, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element (“computer-implemented in the preamble”) that are not significant more than the abstract ideas. In particular, there is no machine/hardware/computer to actually perform the abstract steps mentioned above. Other than reciting “by a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or by paper and pen, and is simply organized information through human activity or merely mental tasks, and is part of, or a related, judicial exception and does not meaningfully limit the application of the identified judicial exception, and as such does not constitute significantly more.
There is no specificity regarding any technology, just broadly, execute the programming instructions to receive data, analyze data. There are no additional elements, for example, hardware processor of a machine to actually perform all of the steps at all. The steps are mainly identifying data, determining data. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 15, (step 2B):
The additional element “a computer-implemented method in the preamble”, is recited at a high level of generality, and add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. This component is merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic sensor/computer components recited as performing generic sensing/computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive/send/display information over communication network/internet does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 15).
Dependent claims 16-20, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 15, without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 16-20, are also non-statutory subject matter.
Similarly, independent claim 8 is rejected under Alice 101 rejection, (see analysis in claim 15).
Dependent claims 9-14, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 8, without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 9-14, are also non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 1: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent system/apparatus claim 1, is also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claim(s) 8 and 15.
Further, the components (i.e., a memory, a processor) described in independent claim 1, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. Similarly, as it relates to the computer system claims, the limitations appear to be performed by a generic sensor/computing system/device. These components are merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic sensing/computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic encoder/decoder/computer components to receive/access/identify/search/transmit/send/display information over communication network/internet does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 1).
According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "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); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (evidence required by Berkeimer memo). Further, according to Berkheimer memo 04/19/2018, section III.A.1, “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)”.
Applicant’s Specification, [0084] indicate a general-purpose computer perform the instant steps and demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the information processing device (a processor/a memory/a computer) in any computing implementation. Thus, evidence has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to Berkheimer memo. Therefore, for the above-mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above steps do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-7, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1, without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, are also non-statutory subject matter.
Viewed as a whole, the claims (1-20) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, the claims do NOT recite limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, the claimed invention, as a whole, does not provide 'significantly more' than the abstract idea, and is non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (hereinafter, Baker, US 2021/0398650), in view of Rebolledo (EP-3879482-A1).
As per claim 1, 8, 15, Baker discloses a system, a method, a computer-implemented method, for identification of surgical workflow outliers, comprising:
a non-transitory memory storing a plurality of surgical workflows ([0033]); and
a processor ([0033]) configured to access the plurality of surgical workflows and
analyze the workflows, to identify one or more surgical workflows as an outlier for review (Fig. 8, [0024, 0026, 0028, 0037, 0038, 1112, 0121-0124]), wherein such identified one or more surgical workflows is further identified as including events of interest or low quality data ([0054,0024, 0078, 0139, 0184, 0188]).
However, Baker does not explicitly disclose,
wherein identification of an outlier comprises determining distances between workflows using a density-based clustering algorithm.
Rebolledo teaches {0043, 0044}).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Baker to include” clustering algorithm”, taught by Rebolledo. One would be motivated to identify outliers, add selected outliers to a training set thereby to provide an improved healthcare system, or, more generally, an improved way of meeting agreements of using data.
As per claim 2, 9, 16, Baker further discloses,
wherein the processor is further configured to provide visualization of workflows and outliers on a display (Fig. 2, 8, 9, [0033, 0035, 0043, 0185, 0186]).
As per claim 3, 10, 17, Baker further discloses,
wherein visualization is performed utilizing Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection techniques (Fig. 13, [0034, 0120, 0127, 0166, 0189]).
As per claim 4, 11, 18, Baker further discloses,
wherein a display or interface identifies surgical workflow details or annotations for each workflow ([0053, 0127, 0129, 0135]).
As per claim 5, 12, 19, Baker further discloses, wherein each surgical workflow is shown as a linear sequence of identified details ([0053, 0127, 0129, 0135, 0176]).
As per claim 6, 13, 20, Baker further discloses,
wherein a surgical dashboard interface displays the plurality of surgical workflows with the surgical workflow details or annotations and provides accessible tools to identify outliers ([0035, 0053, 0127, 0129, 0135]).
Claims 7, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (hereinafter, Baker, US 2021/0398650), in view of Rebolledo (EP-3879482-A1), further in view of Sha et al. (hereinafter, Sha, US 2016/0147974).
As per claim 7, 14, 20, Baker further discloses,
However, Baker and Rebolledo do not explicitly disclose,
wherein surgical workflow details and identified outliers are color coded to identify the details within each workflow.
Sha teaches ([0146, 0149, 0150]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Baker and Rebolledo to include” color-coded details”, taught by Sha. One would be motivated to identify outliers, add selected outliers to a training set thereby to provide an improved healthcare system, or, more generally, an improved way of meeting agreements of using data.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Steigauf et al. (US 2019/0279363, teaches medical imaging and diagnostic workflows involving the use of machine learning techniques such as deep learning, artificial neural networks, and related algorithms that perform machine recognition of specific features and conditions in imaging data).
Ryan et al. (US 2017/0177801, teaches providing stratification of a medical population to facilitate the most efficient use of health intervention resources to improve the health of individual patients).
Crafts, JR, et al. (US 2017/0124263, teaches providing a plurality of predefined workflows corresponding to respective different conditions or diseases. The visualization engine shows a selected visualization from a plurality of predefined visualization templates based on a current operation in a selected one of the predefined workflows and based on an identity of the user).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN M LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5489. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30am--5pm. Fax is 571-270-6489.
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, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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.
/SUN M LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights