DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on December 17, 2025. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended. Claim 3 has been cancelled. Claims 12-15 have been added. Claims 1-2, and 4-15 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 26, 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim 1 recites the limitation “and at least one memory that stores at least one instruction executable by the processor,”. The examiner suggests replacing “the processor” with “the at least one processor.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim 1 recites the term, “the schedule information” lacks antecedent basis in line 24. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Dependent claim 14 recites the limitation, “wherein when the at least one instruction is executed by the processor, the medical assistance device is further configured to generate a notification to administer medicine or perform a procedure.” which is not supported within the applicant’s specification. Specifically, the specification does not teach “…to generate a notification to administer medicine…”. Paragraph 0088 of the originally-filed specification discloses, “The controller 32 notifies a medical worker scheduled to perform an upcoming procedure of notification information according to a progress of a procedure before the upcoming procedure. In the present example, the controller 32 determines whether a prescribed notification condition is satisfied, generates the notification information when determining that the notification condition is satisfied, and transmits the generated notification information to the user terminal device 40 to perform notification of the notification information. In the present example, the prescribed notification condition is whether a procedure two steps before the upcoming procedure is completed. The prescribed notification condition may also be, for example, whether a procedure immediately before the upcoming procedure is started. The notification method for the notification information may be an auditory method or a visual method.” Paragraph 0088 and the entire specification do not support the limitation, “generate a notification to administer medicine”.
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 1-2 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “real time” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “real time” is 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.
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 1-2 and 4-15 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 1-2 and 4-15 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 medical assistance device.
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).
Mental Processes
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations, “obtain past surgery information, the past surgery information including past required total time information on a previously performed surgery and past auxiliary information, the past auxiliary information including at least one of medication information, the medication information including at least timing information indicating a timing of medicating a patient in the previously performed surgery, and transition information indicating a transition of patient physiological information in the previously performed surgery; generate anticipated surgery schedule information and anticipated auxiliary information, the anticipated auxiliary information including at least one of anticipated medication information and anticipated transition information, based on the past surgery information;” which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. Specifically, the claims are directed to concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, and judgment). In the currently pending claims, a person (e.g., doctor, nurse, or administrator) can evaluate past/historical surgical information to create or develop a proposed surgery schedule with required medication for future surgery.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations, “a communication device that is configured to obtain current procedure information, wherein: generate progress information based on the current procedure information; and anticipated transition information, the anticipated transition information includes anticipated abnormality time information indicating time when a value indicated by the physiological information is an abnormal value, the anticipated surgery schedule information is displayed and updated with a current time tracker overlaid on the schedule information, and the anticipated surgery schedule is updated in real time based on the progress information.” are directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behavior or interactions between people. With respect to the limitations above, it is a way to manage surgeons, doctors, or medical personnel (e.g., specialists) for various roles during surgeries. In particular, it is ensuring the surgery is performed within a certain timelines or time frames based on different categories or procedures (e.g., patient’s medical conditions or medical episodes).
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)) and generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). 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 at least one processor, at least one memory, communication device, and at least one instruction 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.
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.
Dependent claims 2 and 4-15 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. Dependent claim 11 recites an input interface, output interface, medical assistance device, and an external storage device. Dependent claim 12 recites a camera, robot, and medical tool. Dependent claim 13 recites a communication device. Dependent claims 14-15 recite a processor and medical assistance device. Claims 11-15 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
generate anticipated surgery schedule information and anticipated auxiliary information, the anticipated auxiliary information including at least one of anticipated medication information and anticipated transition information, based on the past surgery information;
generate display data including the anticipated surgery schedule information, the anticipated auxiliary information, and anticipated transition information, the anticipated transition information includes anticipated abnormality time information indicating time when a value indicated by the physiological information is an abnormal value, the anticipated surgery schedule information is displayed and updated with a current time tracker overlaid on the schedule information, and the anticipated surgery schedule is updated in real time based on the progress information.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. According to applicant’s arguments on pages 6-8 of the remarks disclose, “Foremost, the claimed subject matter improves medical diagnostic technologies and thus integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application… Here, [0002]-[0003] and [0006]-[0007] of the present application expressly identify a problem with existing medical assistance technologies, particularly the lack of support and guidance for less experience medical workers, especially when problems or abnormalities arise during a procedure. These problems can be addressed using historical surgical data to generate a surgery scheduled based using predictive information, such as the claimed anticipated medication and transition information, enables even less experienced medical workers to forecast procedure timelines, abnormalities, and necessary steps to address such abnormalities. That is, the device does not merely set a surgery schedule based on past surgeries of a similar nature, but rather uses patient specific information related to medication and transition times to predict possible abnormalities and how to address such abnormalities. This schedule is not static, but rather dynamically updated using current procedure information to identify and track abnormalities. Using such information provides a tailored scheduled to the patient, surgery, and surgeon. For instance, for a medical professional who is not experienced with a particular surgery, the tailored assistance from the device provides a dynamic timeline of events/steps that help forecast the surgery without needing to have great experience with the specific surgery. Using medication and transition information, the device can identify abnormalities and the steps required to address such problems when they arise. For example, if the patient's heartrate is climbing, the device can recommend medication at a specific time, and using transition information determine if the medication is working, and if not, how to proceed with the surgery. This updated schedule and necessary steps is provided to the medical profession, so that regardless of experience level, the medical professional knowns what is needed at the exactly right time. Furthermore, this tailored assistance makes complex surgery more manageable for the medical professional regardless of experience levels. That is, with obtaining real-time surgery data, the surgery timeline can be updated and modified real-time to compensate and adjust for unexpected outcomes or delays. For instance, if there is a delay in surgery preparation, the schedule can be automatically updated to adjust the surgery timeline to indicate to the surgeon the necessary timeline to get back on track. As discussed during the interview, these improvements are realized through the limitations of currently amended claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 includes generating an anticipated surgery scheduled based on past surgery information including anticipated medication information and transition timing information, and updating the anticipated surgery schedule in real time using obtained current procedure information. Further, the anticipated surgery schedule information is displayed and updated with a current time tracker overlaid on the schedule information. That is, the device does not merely gather all this information to analysis, but rather provides an updated schedule with a time tracker overlay so the medical professionals can act on such information. By providing the abnormality information to the medical professionals, they are informed of issues they may not be aware of due to experience level, and can further address the abnormality using the provided anticipated transition information. Simply, the claimed device provides steps of obtaining real-time information that is used to update a surgery schedule based on historic surgery data, and enabling the medical professional to address problems/abnormalities when they might appear without needing prior experience in addressing such issue. Accordingly, the dynamic presentation and interaction of anticipated surgical information, tailored to individual medical professionals and patients, and integrated with real-time surgery data allows medical professionals to perform surgery in an efficient, safer, and manageable manner, regardless of experience level. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claim as a whole provides these improvements through the obtaining of current surgery information and real-time updating of a surgery schedule. Therefore, the claim provides limitations that provide an improvement in the medical diagnostic technology, and the improvement integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” 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 assisting less experienced medical workers/professionals to forecast procedure timelines, abnormalities, and necessary steps to address abnormalities associated with a surgery or surgeries. Additionally, the applicant claims improvements such as presentation and interaction of anticipated surgical information to allow medical professionals to perform surgery in an efficient, safer, and manageable manner regardless of experience level. The applicant claims the limitations associated with obtaining real-time information that is used to update a surgery schedule based on historic surgery data, and enabling the medical professional to address problems/abnormalities when they might appear without needing prior experience in addressing such issue are directed to an improvement. The examiner notes the applicant’s arguments are directed to the intended end result of the invention in achieving these results, but does not provide an explanation as to how the technology or computer functions are improved. In addition, the argument/claims focus on the displaying of anticipated surgery schedule, however, a medical professional may not necessarily follow the anticipated surgery schedule. Therefore, the display of the anticipated surgery schedule is not an improvement in the technology or computer functioning of a computer. Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on October 6, 2023. The office has received the foreign priority document on December 3, 2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barral et al. US Patent 12207887 A1 Systems and Methods for Detecting Delays During a Surgical Procedure
Barral discloses examples of systems and methods for detecting delays during a surgical procedure are disclosed. For example, one disclosed method includes receiving, a computing device, video of a robotic surgical procedure; determining, by the computing device, an estimated time-to-complete (“TTC”) the robotic surgical procedure based on the video; and in response to determining a deviation between the estimated TTC and an expected duration of the robotic surgical procedure exceeds a threshold, outputting an indication that the robotic surgical procedure is deviating from the expected duration.
Tiwary et al. US Publication 20230402166 A1 Systems and Methods for Monitoring Surgical Workflow and Progress
Tiwary discloses generally to improving operating room scheduling and resource management efficiency, and more specifically to techniques for monitoring various aspects of an operating room. An exemplary method for adjusting a surgical schedule specifying timing information for one or more surgeries to occur in an operating room comprises: receiving one or more images of the operating room captured by one or more cameras; detecting one or more surgical milestones of a plurality of predefined surgical milestones using one or more trained machine-learning models based on the received one or more images, wherein the one or more machine learning models are trained using a plurality of training images depicting the one or more surgical milestones; and adjusting, based on the detected one or more surgical milestones, the surgical schedule specifying timing information for the one or more surgeries to occur in the operating room.
Ghivizzani US Publication 20140067413 A1 Operating Room Management System and Related Methods
Ghivizzani discloses an operating room management system is for monitoring operating rooms. The operating room management system may include a server, and access devices, each access device being associated with a respective operating room. Each access device may communicate with the server, receive input regarding a current status for a procedure associated with the respective operating room, and display a local status interface including a performance characteristic for the procedure associated with the respective operating room. The operating room management system may include a display communicating with the server and displaying a global status interface including the current status and the performance characteristic of the operating rooms.
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