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 11/15/2024. Claims 1, 49, 65-82 have been examined and are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for a provisional application filed on 5/17/2022. The Applicant claims benefit of continuation of PCT/US2023/067143, filed on 5/17/2023. 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 11/15/2024 cancelled claim 2-48, 50-64. No claim was previously cancelled. New claims 66-82 are added. Claim 1, 49, 65 has been amended. Claims 1, 49, 65-82 are considered and pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/24/2024 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 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, 49, 65-82 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, 49, 65-82) 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 1 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to multiple abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and “Mental process”.
Claim 1, Steps of,
receiving scheduling information for the medical procedure, the scheduling information including a plurality of team members with computer devices assigned to perform the surgical procedure and a set of tasks associated with each of the plurality of team members prior to commencing the surgical medical procedure, wherein each of set of tasks for each of the plurality of team members is specific for performance by the team member for either preparing or performing the surgical medical procedure;
providing the set of tasks to each of the team members on the computer devices;
generating a task list interface on each of the computer devices that includes an input to indicate completion of tasks on the set of tasks associated with the each team member with the computer device; and
communicating to the computer devices of all other team members that a task has been completed from any of the team members; and
recording when a task has been completed on all the computer devices of all the team members on the task list interface.
fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps recite “receiving scheduling information, providing the tasks to team members, generating a task list interface, communicating/sending/recording/reporting to the devices”, 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 1, 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/receive/provide scheduling/task information, can observe/generate an interface to record/input/output/report information.
Further, steps of (“receiving”, “providing’, “communicating”) are considered as “insignificant extra-solution activity” to the judicial exception since they are merely receiving/collecting/providing/sending data.
Independent claim 1, 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 devices”) 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 “on all computer devices”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, 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 generate data, receive data, input data, send/display 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 receiving/inputting data, generating data, sending 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 1, (step 2B):
The additional element “on all computer devices”, 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 1).
Independent claim 49, 65: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent system/apparatus claim 49, and product claim 65, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claim(s) 1.
Further, the components (i.e., a controller, a storage device, a communication interface, a machine readable medium) described in independent claims 49, 65, 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, [00104] 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 66-82, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 49, 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 66-82, are also non-statutory subject matter.
Viewed as a whole, the claims (1, 49, 65-82) 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 49, 65-74, 77-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (hereinafter, Brown, US 2020/0411169).
As per claim 1, 49, 65, Brown discloses a computer implemented method for coordination of tasks for a surgical medical procedure team of medical professionals performing a surgical medical procedure [0030—0034], a system [0005] and a non-transitory, machine readable medium [0157, 0158], for monitoring surgical medical procedures [0030—0034], comprising:
a storage device ([0036, 0057, 0050, 0051]),
a communications interface ([0038, 0179, 0092, 0116]),
a controller ([0172—0174]),
receiving scheduling information for the medical procedure, the scheduling information including a plurality of team members with computer devices assigned to perform the surgical procedure and a set of tasks associated with each of the plurality of team members prior to commencing the surgical procedure, wherein each of set of tasks for each of the plurality of team members is specific for performance by the team member for either preparing or performing the surgical medical procedure ([0050, 0051, 0057, 0062, 0067]);
providing the set of tasks to each of the team members on the computer devices ([0148, 0156]);
generating a task list interface on each of the computer devices that includes an input to indicate completion of tasks on the set of tasks associated with the team member with the computer device ([0092, 0103, 0116, 0179]);
receive inputs from one of the user devices indicating the completion of a task on the task list ([0103, 0116, 0092, 0179]);
communicating to the computer devices of all other team members that a task has been completed from any of the team members ([0038, 0116, 0167, 0168, 0171]); and
recording when a task has been completed on all the computer devices of all the team members on the task list interface ([0092, 0103, 0116, 0179]).
As per claim 66, Brown further discloses, wherein the server is operable to generate a report based on the recording of the completed tasks and completed tasks for other teams and other surgical procedures ([0073, 0074, 0077]).
As per claim 67, Brown further discloses, wherein the report includes one of recurring incident cases, turnover time by specialty, task timing by specialty, turnover time by code, and compliance by room ([0062, 0073, 0074, 0077, 0096, 0097]).
As per claim 68, Brown further discloses, wherein the report is limited by filters of the completed tasks ([0135—0137]).
As per claim 69, Brown further discloses, wherein the filters include time period, surgical room, specialty, medical procedure code, or disease code ([0135—0137]).
As per claim 70, Brown further discloses, wherein the medical procedure code is a Current Procedural Technology (CPT) code, and wherein the disease code is an International Classification of Diseases Revision 10 (ICD-10) code ([0062—0063]).
As per claim 71, Brown further discloses, wherein the set of tasks are standard across a plurality of different types of surgical procedures, the plurality of surgical procedures including the surgical procedure ([0062, 0063, 0067, 0091, 0092]).
As per claim 72, Brown further discloses, wherein each task list is specialized according to at least one of the group consisting of: (a) an identity of a first physician; (b) an identity of a first and a second physician; (c) a medical procedure identifier code; (d) a disease or condition code; or (e) a location of an operating room ([0062, 0063, 0067—0071, 0091—0096]).
As per claim 73, Brown further discloses, wherein the team is extracted from at least one of an electronic health record, an electronic medical record, or an emergency procedure case report generated by emergency medical service providers or wherein the team is created by an individual selecting the case from a list of cases displayed from the scheduling information ([0033, 0046—0050, 0114, 0115]).
As per claim 74, Brown further discloses, wherein the server is operable to add a second surgical procedure in real-time to a schedule, wherein the surgical procedure is part of the schedule ([0033, 0046—0050, 0114, 0115]).
As per claim 77, Brown further discloses, wherein the server allows communication between team members or and an individual associated with the surgical procedure via the computer devices ([0092, 0103, 0116, 0179]).
As per claim 78, Brown further discloses, wherein the controller is operable to display an interface showing identification of all team members ([0092, 0103, 0116, 0179]).
As per claim 79, Brown further discloses, wherein the surgical procedure is one of a plurality of surgical procedures assigned to one of the team members, and wherein the controller is operable to: display a list of the plurality of surgical procedures assigned to the team member; and display a list of tasks of the team member associated with each of the plurality of surgical procedures, when one the plurality of surgical procedures is selected, and wherein each of the plurality of surgical procedures includes a graphic indicator of the status of the tasks of each team member assigned to the procedure (Fig. 4, Fig. 6, [0057, 0092, 0103, 0116, 0179]).
As per claim 80, Brown further discloses, wherein the controller displays an interface showing information for a patient’s medical representative (Fig. 4, Fig. 6, [0057, 0092, 0103, 0116, 0179]).
As per claim 81, Brown further discloses, wherein one of the tasks is completion of a document, wherein an input allows display of the document on each user device ([0012, 0013]).
As per claim 82, Brown further discloses, wherein the controller is operable to display a multi-case view showing the status of a plurality of surgical procedure teams, wherein the plurality of surgical procedure teams includes the surgical procedure team (Fig. 4, Fig. 6, [0057, 0092, 0103, 0116, 0179]).
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 75, 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (hereinafter, Brown, US 2020/0411169), in view of D'Agostino et al. (hereinafter, D'Agostino, US 2023/0044881),
As per claim 75, Brown further discloses, however, Brown does not explicitly disclose, wherein the task list interface includes at least one dynamic case status indicator.
D'Agostino teaches (Fig.5, item 402, Fig. 7, item 602a-e).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Brown to include “status indicator”, taught by D'Agostino. One would be motivated to do this in order to perform planning/scheduling work for each patient.
As per claim 76, Brown further discloses, however, Brown does not explicitly disclose,
wherein the dynamic case status indicator is indicated in a first color when all tasks are completed, a second color when at least one task is incomplete, and a third color when the medical procedure has been canceled, the patient has entered the operating room, or the medical procedure has begun.
D'Agostino teaches (Fig.5, item 402, Fig. 12, [0066, 0068, 0070, 0078, 0079, 0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Brown to include “status indicator”, taught by D'Agostino. One would be motivated to do this in order to perform planning/scheduling work for each patient.
The prior art made of record and relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Mako et al. (US 2019/0287671, teaches managing surgical procedures, more particularly, for ensuring the correct location/side of a surgery).
Fabian (US 2017/0177807, teaches automatically creating a surgical team schedule provided with enhanced user interfaces with optional biometric recognition apparatus. Typical surgical team participants may include nurses, vendor representatives, administrative and technical staff, doctors and other specialists such as anesthesiologists and surgeons).
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