DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to the application filed on 20 June 2025. Claim 1 is pending and presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/662,788, filed on 21 June 2024, is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 or 1.152 for the reasons indicated below. New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
All the drawings are literally unreadable and apparently unreproducible – they appear to be color image that prints in gray scale. All text presented is indistinguishable and/or lacks contrast so as to be able to be read.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes that recitations to Applicant's specification, as below, are in reference to the Pre-Grant Publication of Applicant’s specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 1 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “receiving real-time notifications for troubleshooting said equipment” at the final element. It is indefinite what the troubleshooting is for. The troubleshooting may be related to the operability, failure, performance, or capabilities of one or some pieces of the equipment, or the size and layout of the room, or the need for other equipment, or the lack of need for included equipment, so some other aspect. The specification indicates troubleshooting at various locations, but only in reference to alerts or notifications, such as by a “troubleshooting button” without any apparent indication of what any troubleshooting is related to (see, e.g., Applicant ¶¶ 0005, 0007, 0029, 0030, 0032 as submitted (Table 2 as published) – “User Story”, and “Business Case”, 0033 as submitted (Tables 3-4 as published) – “All”, “Notifications”, and “Troubleshoot button”, 0038, OR Layouts, 3rd section, as submitted (0061 as published)).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a method, which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 1 recites a method of tracking equipment in a healthcare facility using a mobile application, comprising: creating a personalized visual representation of an Operating Room (OR) layout; tracking equipment within said visual representation of said OR layout using serial numbers corresponding to said equipment; virtually placing said equipment within said visual representation of said OR layout; and receiving real-time notifications for troubleshooting said equipment.
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of creating a visual representation of a room layout with equipment (and/or furniture); however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within the Certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. … commercial or legal interactions such as … advertising, marketing or sales activities/behaviors, or business relations; and/or managing personal behavior or relationships between people such as social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) grouping(s) of subject matter. The Examiner notes that the conveyed envisioning of use or utility includes for sales representatives (at Applicant ¶ 0003), sales support (at Applicant ¶ 0005, 0032 “All” “Notifications” (as submitted, Table 2 “Business Case” as published), 0033 “Sales Division” (as submitted, Table 4 “Sales Division” as published), and 0035, “Users”, “Fields”, “Role” (as submitted, 0037 as published).
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are using a mobile application (rather than hand-drawing, or using representative slips of paper, etc. to represent equipment or furniture). These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (there is no medical disease or condition, much less a treatment or prophylaxis for one), implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity.
There is no indication the Examiner can find in the record regarding any specialized computer hardware or other “inventive” components, but rather, the claims merely indicate computer components which appear to be generic components and therefore do not satisfy an inventive concept that would constitute “significantly more” with respect to eligibility. The only apparent indication of the mobile application device being that “Sales representatives can view all their accounts on their phone” (Applicant ¶ 0033 at p. 9, “Sales Division”, “Account Overview”, as submitted, Table 4 “as published). As such, the claimed mobile application is considered as merely implemented on/by generic computers and/or components.
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Please see the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instruction materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes the latest guidance, memoranda, and update(s) for further information.
NOTICE
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0181258, hereinafter Roh) in view of Leitermann et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0074257, hereinafter Leitermann) .
Claim 1: Roh discloses a method of tracking equipment in a healthcare facility using a mobile application, comprising:
creating a personalized visual representation of an Operating Room (OR) layout (see Roh at least at, e.g., ¶¶ 0207, “Pre-operative plans can include scheduling of equipment, surgical room, staff, surgical teams, and resources for surgery”, 0274, “the user may customize the virtual surgical simulation environment to match the operating room the surgeon will perform the surgery in, allowing the user to structure or design an operating room to determine the location of certain items for when the surgery is performed, or allow the user to create a unique operating room that is personalized by the user”; citation hereafter by number only);
tracking equipment within said visual representation of said OR layout corresponding to said equipment (Roh at 0274, “the user may customize the virtual surgical simulation environment to match the operating room the surgeon will perform the surgery in, allowing the user to structure or design an operating room to determine the location of certain items for when the surgery is performed, or allow the user to create a unique operating room that is personalized by the user”);
virtually placing said equipment within said visual representation of said OR layout (Roh at 0274, “the user may customize the virtual surgical simulation environment to match the operating room the surgeon will perform the surgery in, allowing the user to structure or design an operating room to determine the location of certain items for when the surgery is performed, or allow the user to create a unique operating room that is personalized by the user”); and
receiving real-time notifications for troubleshooting said equipment (Roh at 0180, “The robotic surgical system 400 can generate the imaging plan based on imaging capabilities of the multi-modality imager 453. The robotic surgical system 400 can notify the surgical team to add or replace imaging devices 454 to achieve the desired imaging capability”, 0190, “if an adverse event occurs during the procedure requiring the consultant to provide additional care, the consultant can request access to the additional equipment (e.g., robotic arms of surgical robot, breathing machine, heart rate monitor, etc.) via the authorization input 493. The surgical suite system can receive the requested authorization and perform an authorization protocol routine to determine whether the consultant should be granted permission rights to the additionally requested equipment. The surgical suite system can analyze the surgical plan, planned permission rights (e.g., plan of permission rights assigning permission rights to features or steps of the surgical plan), consultant credentials and/or expertise, and/or other information disclosed herein to determine whether to grant permissions. If requested permission rights are denied, the on-site medical team can be notified of the denied request and consultant input, recommendation, etc. If the request is granted, the system can automatically establish communication and control channels for displaying the additional information for the additional equipment via the consultant device 401”).
Roh, though, does not appear to explicitly disclose that the tracking for OR layout is using serial numbers. Where the Examiner understands that including the serial number with the RFID data appears to be what Roh is doing, but Roh does not appear to explicitly say so. However, Leitermann teaches that “The system may include features for receiving first identification information of an RFID tag read at a first location via one or more of a plurality of RFID protocols, receiving characteristic information, such as product name, serial number, and/or description from a manufacturer, a distributor” (Leitermann at 0013), where “the stand-alone reader device may be configured to generate a visual and/or a tactile notification when being used in a location where an audible notification may cause a distraction or may interfere with audible notifications generated by another medical device (e.g., a heart monitor), such as when used in an operating room or in a patient room” (Leitermann at 0069). Where Roh indicates that “the system 100 includes equipment tracking systems 162, such as RFID, which is used to tag an instrument with an electronic tag and tracks it using the tag.… [and] Reading of RFID tags can be done by portable or mounted RFID readers. The read range for RFID varies with the frequency used. Managing and locating important assets is a key challenge for tracking medical equipment. Time spent searching for critical equipment can lead to expensive delays or downtime, missed deadlines and customer commitments, and wasted labor. The problem has previously been solved by using barcode labels or manual serial numbers and spreadsheets; however, these require manual labor” (Roh at 0101). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to track equipment using serial number, such as through an RFID tag is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to avoid the manual labor required for manual tracking of devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the RFID tracking of Roh with the inclusion of a device serial number in the RFID information of Leitermann in order to track equipment using serial number, such as through an RFID tag so as to avoid the manual labor required for manual tracking of devices.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to track equipment using serial number, such as through an RFID tag is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to avoid the manual labor required for manual tracking of devices as explained above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Virtalis.com, Using Virtual Reality for Surgical Room Layout and Scenario Planning, downloaded 6 May 2026 from the WayBack Machine at Archive.org at https://web.archive.org/web/20230130172043/https://www.virtalis.com/case-studies/using-virtual-reality-for-surgical-room-layout-and-scenario-planning, and dated 30 January 2023, indicating Virtalis, prior to at least 30 January 2023 offered an application or service for virtual reality surgical room layout.
Stryker.com, The ISuite Experience, Reimagine your OR, dated 2 June 2023, downloaded 6 May 2026 from the WayBack Machine at Archive.org at https://web.archive.org/web/20230602205748/https://www.stryker.com/us/en/communications/systems/-isuite-experience/room-design.html, indicating Stryker was offering for sale, more than a year before the earliest available priority date, services that include visual representation of an operating room, and that this is shown to include the equipment in the operating room.
Taaffe et al., Operating room design using agent-based simulation to reduce room obstructions. Health Care Manag Sci. 2023 Jun;26(2):261-278. doi: 10.1007/s10729-022-09622-3. Epub 2022 Dec 19. PMID: 36529790; PMCID: PMC10369668. Downloaded 6 May 2026 from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10369668/, indicating “data was abstracted into a generalized, agent-based, discrete event simulation model to study how OR size and OR equipment layout affected surgical staff movement and total number of surgical team contacts during a procedure. A full factorial experiment with seven input factors – OR size, OR shape, operating table orientation, circulating nurse (CN) workstation location, team size, number of doors, and procedure type – was conducted. Results were analyzed using multiple linear regression with surgical team contacts as the dependent variable. The OR size, the CN workstation location, and team size significantly affected surgical team contacts. Also, two- and three-way interactions between staff, procedure type, table orientation, and CN workstation location significantly affected contacts” (at Abstract).
Rotenberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0307510, hereinafter Rotenberg) indicating “A method and system to generate an operating room layout plan for a surgical procedure involving a patient and a trajectory of access. A patient model is positioned in a virtual coordinate space representing the operating room, and is rendered, along with the trajectory of access relative to the patient, on a display. The trajectory of access defines a zone of operation in the virtual coordinate space. The planning system receives selection of a navigation camera location in the virtual coordinate space; renders a navigation camera model visually indicating an operative field of view; determines whether the navigation camera has a direct line-of-sight to the zone of operation and, if not, indicates an error; and outputs the operating room layout plan based on the location of the models in the virtual coordinate space” (at Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT D GARTLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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 at 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.
/SCOTT D GARTLAND/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights