DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 4/15/2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.
Claim 1-20 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejection previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §101. As such, said rejection is herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Hansen et al. (US 2023/0260636) and Kerns et al. (US 2012/0325704) teach a surgical apparatus. Hansen et al. and Kerns et al. do not teach “in a grid pattern and configured to determine the spatial coordinates," "the surgical board comprises a screen, wherein the screen comprises an illustration...,” etc. Therefore, the Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0003]-[0007]) the need to manage surgical items and count consumable objects during surgery in an automated manner. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by/through providing surgical inventory control using the steps of “detecting whether surgical instrument are received within a receptacle, detecting tracking device of surgical instrument when in use on surgical beds, issuing notifications to users of surgical boards if a surgical instrument is not received,” etc. Applicant’s method/apparatus is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “providing surgical inventory control,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0008]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, method/apparatus for performing the steps of “detecting whether surgical instrument are received within a receptacle, detecting tracking device of surgical instrument when in use on surgical beds, issuing notifications to users of surgical boards if a surgical instrument is not received,” etc., that is “providing surgical inventory control,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. surgical boards, receptacles, instruments, light indicators, RFID tags, displays, digital indications, sponge dispensers, RFID readers, gauze dispensers, disposal containers, proximity sensors, sensors, communications, screens, sponges, cameras, speakers (Applicant’s Specification [0064]-[0068], [0070], [0074]-[0075], [0078]-[0079], [0082]-[0085], [0088], [0090], [0092], [0094], [0099]), etc.) to perform steps of “detecting whether surgical instrument are received within a receptacle, detecting tracking device of surgical instrument when in use on surgical beds, issuing notifications to users of surgical boards if a surgical instrument is not received,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 1-20 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations (i.e. surgical boards, receptacles, instruments, light indicators, RFID tags, displays, digital indications, sponge dispensers, RFID readers, gauze dispensers, disposal containers, proximity sensors, sensors, communications, screens, sponges, cameras, speakers, etc.) only store and retrieve information and perform repetitive calculations, and these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (Berkheimer- Court Decisions). These court decisions indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. surgical boards, receptacles, instruments, light indicators, RFID tags, displays, digital indications, sponge dispensers, RFID readers, gauze dispensers, disposal containers, proximity sensors, sensors, communications, screens, sponges, cameras, speakers, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0064]-[0068], [0070], [0074]-[0075], [0078]-[0079], [0082]-[0085], [0088], [0090], [0092], [0094], [0099], Applicant’s specification describes conventional computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “surgical boards, receptacles, instruments, light indicators, RFID tags, displays, digital indications, sponge dispensers, RFID readers, gauze dispensers, disposal containers, proximity sensors, sensors, communications, screens, sponges, cameras, speakers,” etc. to perform the functions of “detecting whether surgical instrument are received within a receptacle, detecting tracking device of surgical instrument when in use on surgical beds, issuing notifications to users of surgical boards if a surgical instrument is not received,” etc. The recited “surgical boards, receptacles, instruments, light indicators, RFID tags, displays, digital indications, sponge dispensers, RFID readers, gauze dispensers, disposal containers, proximity sensors, sensors, communications, screens, sponges, cameras, speakers,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1-20 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2-12 and 14-20 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claim(s) 1 and 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/15/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 4/15/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/15/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (A), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
Rehash
Applicant's remarks and arguments merely rehash issues addressed in the Office Action mailed 1/15/2026 and incorporated herein.
Applicant’s Amendments
Applicant amended claims recite “wherein the plurality of sensors comprises at least three sensors, and wherein the surgical bed communicates with the surgical board to reconstruct a three-dimensional spatial location of each surgical instrument on the surgical bed based on data from the at least three sensors.” This is an information processing step that is part of Applicant’s abstract idea and does not move Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Data Processing Step
Applicant’s amended step of “wherein the plurality of sensors comprises at least three sensors, and wherein the surgical bed communicates with the surgical board to reconstruct a three-dimensional spatial location of each surgical instrument on the surgical bed based on data from the at least three sensors,” is an abstract compurational step that are part of Applicant’s abtract idea. In Electric Power Group the collection, manipulation and display of data has been found to be an abstract process. When claims, such as Applicant’s claims, are “directed to an abstract idea” and “merely requir[e] generic computer implementation,” they “do[] not move into [§] 101 eligibility territory.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, analysis of information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, is essentially a mental processes within the abstract-idea category (Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354). Further, Applicant appears to be claiming generic computer implementation of a certain method of organsing human interaction.Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Sensors
Despite recitation of at least three sensors, Applicant’s claims are, at bottom, directed to the collection, organization, grouping and storage of data. The at least three sensors recited in Applicant’s claims are merely tools used for organizing human activity. Applicant’s claims elements either individually or as an ordered combination do not transform Applicant’s claims into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. Applicant’s claims do not impose any meaningful limit on the method of collection, organization, grouping and storage of data. Rather the at least three sensors elements recite generic technology for implementing the claimed abstract idea.
Integration into a Practical Application
Integration into a practical application requires additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (e.g. Enfish, McRO and Vanda) (2019 PEG).
Applicant’s “surgical boards, receptacles, instruments, light indicators, RFID tags, displays, digital indications, sponge dispensers, RFID readers, gauze dispensers, disposal containers, proximity sensors, sensors, communications, screens, sponges, cameras, speakers” is/are not an additional element(s) that reflects in the an improvement in the functioning of a computer, is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis, is/are not an additional element(s) that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or things, and is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment for the reasons explained in the 101 rejection above. Applicant’s “surgical boards, receptacles, instruments, light indicators, RFID tags, displays, digital indications, sponge dispensers, RFID readers, gauze dispensers, disposal containers, proximity sensors, sensors, communications, screens, sponges, cameras, speakers” is/are merely tools used by Applicant to implement data processing. Data processing is an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Significantly More
Further, the Examiner is not persuaded that “detecting whether surgical instrument are received within a receptacle, detecting tracking device of surgical instrument when in use on surgical beds, issuing notifications to users of surgical boards if a surgical instrument is not received,” etc. constitutes significantly more than the abstract idea. “[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.” Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355. Moreover, the claims “do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions…by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept.” Id. at 1356. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer processor to perform generic computer functions. See Applicant’s specification at paragraph(s) [0064]-[0068], [0070], [0074]-[0075], [0078]-[0079], [0082]-[0085], [0088], [0090], [0092], [0094], [0099] describing generic computer components (i.e. surgical boards, receptacles, instruments, light indicators, RFID tags, displays, digital indications, sponge dispensers, RFID readers, gauze dispensers, disposal containers, proximity sensors, sensors, communications, screens, sponges, cameras, speakers, etc.). And considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s method/apparatus add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. For example, “detecting whether surgical instrument are received within a receptacle, detecting tracking device of surgical instrument when in use on surgical beds, issuing notifications to users of surgical boards if a surgical instrument is not received,” etc. is/are purely conventional in computer systems and its use in the claim both individually and in the ordered combination fails to transform the nature of the claim. Each step of the claimed system/method/apparatus/computer readable medium does no more than require a generic computer to form a generic computer function. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) for rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set for 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 extension free 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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, ROBERT W. MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights