DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 09/12/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 16 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 2, 6, 10, 15 and 17 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-14, 16 and 18-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrie (US 2013/0066647 A1) in view of Thompson (US 2011/0307284 A1) further in view of Miller (US 2017/0296178 A1) and (Katsuki (US 9,730,717 B2).
Claim 1:
Andrie discloses A surgical system, comprising:
a Surgical hub communicably couplable with a plurality of surgical devices of an institution, wherein the surgical hub is configured to control actuation of the surgical devices (See [P0056] Any of a variety of parties can access, interact with, control, etc. the system 10 from any of a variety of locations. For example, the system 10 can be accessible from an operating room, a nurse's station, a medical device distribution facility, a medical device company.), and wherein the surgical hub (See Fig. 2, Fig. 7, P0002, P0004, P0014, P0060 supporting surgeons, managing and scheduling surgeries which includes an inventory of medical devices.) is further configured to:
receive a unique identifier for each surgical device of the plurality of surgical devices (See Fig. 6, Fig. 8, P0061 exemplary Product Information such as the identified BENGAL in inventory. Also, see P0073 product name, model number, lot number, expiration date, disposition, RFID tag number, manufacturer name, serial number and division.);
receive usage data for each surgical device, wherein the usage data is automatically incremented based on usage of each surgical device (See usage reporting of inventory that has been expired, updated, changed, checked as retrieved from the inventory database in P0069-P0070.); and
transmit the usage data (Taught as inventory reporting mentioned in P0067-P0068.); and
a analytics system communicatively coupled to the surgical hub, the analytics system comprising a remote server, wherein the analytics system is configured (See web server mentioned in P0052.) to:
receive a selection of a surgical procedure to be performed (See Fig. 8 details of Schedule New Surgery mentioned in P0061.);
determine a property of a tissue to be treated based on the surgical procedure (See Fig. 7 exemplary procedure types such as Vertebroplasty, on the Lumbar and selecting the anatomical location of the surgery mentioned in P0061, which would allow a user to integrate tissue property.):
receive, from the surgical hub, data associated with the plurality of surgical devices, wherein the received data comprises the unique identifier and the usage data for each surgical device (See P0073 product name, model number, lot number, expiration date, disposition, RFID tag number, manufacturer name, serial number and division. Also, see P0064.); and
compare for each surgical device to a criticality threshold (Comparing can be done with the inventory’s expiration dates, reported as missing, damaged, in need of maintenance, sterilization and the difference between the on hand quantity and the typical quantity (P0067-P0068.) where alerting when inventory items have expired is resulting from a threshold date met.).
Although Andrie discloses a surgical hub communicably couplable with surgical devices of an institution where the remaining usable life for each surgical device is determined as mentioned above, Andrie does not explicitly a cloud-based analytics system. Thompson teaches the cloud-based analytics system (See Fig. 1, 50 command center where stored and RFID tagged instruments are identified (P0028), and inventory is tracked (P0030) via cloud computing (P0009).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of managing activities in a medical environment before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Andrie to include the property of the tissue property comprises tissue elasticity, tissue impedance, or tissue perfusion, as taught by Thompson to allow a physician and other hospital staff to view the centralized interface at their offices, labs, homes, and other locations mentioned in Thompson’s P0010.
Although Andrie discloses a surgical hub communicably couplable with an analytics system for managing the surgical hub and data associated with the plurality of surgical devices as mentioned above, Andrie and Thompson do not explicitly teach locking out surgical devices that satisfy a criticality threshold, rendered unusable. Miller teaches:
transmit a signal to the surgical hub causing the surgical hub to automatically lock out surgical devices that satisfy the criticality threshold, wherein the locked out surgical devices are rendered unusable for the surgical procedure (See Fig. 20, P0252-P0253, P0411 lockout mechanism as a result of a predefined threshold value, percentage increase to prevent surgical devices from cutting.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of surgical instrumentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Andrie and Thompson to include locking out surgical devices that satisfy a criticality threshold, rendered unusable, as taught by Miller to aide in the placement of the end effector and to confirm which objects to operate on, or alternatively, to avoid during surgery mentioned in Miller’s P0150.
Although Andrie, Thompson and Miller teach the cloud-based analytics, surgical system include locked out surgical devices that satisfy a criticality threshold, rendered unusable and transmitting a signal to the surgical hub causing the surgical hub to automatically lock out surgical devices, Andrie, Thompson and Miller do not explicitly teach comparing usage count for each surgical device to a critical usage count threshold, automatically incremented based on actuating the surgical device. Katsuki teaches:
usage data comprising a usage count for each surgical device, wherein the usage count for each surgical device is automatically incremented based on actuating the surgical device (See Fig. 7, column 17, lines 31-48. Also, see column 2, lines 30-42, column 15, lines 21-28.),
compare the usage count for each surgical device to a critical usage count threshold (See column 2, lines 30-42, column 15, lines 21-28 where a preset count (limit usage count) serves as the critical usage count threshold for comparing.); and
having a usage count that satisfies the critical usage count threshold, wherein the surgical devices are prevented from actuating during the surgical procedure (See column 2, lines 40-61 where the working unit is prevented from being used based on exceeded usage counts or time.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of endoscopic surgery before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Andrie, Thompson and Miller to comparing usage count for each surgical device to a critical usage count threshold, automatically incremented based on actuating the surgical device, as taught by Katsuki to help identify a start time of surgery mentioned in Katsuki’s column 28, lines 1-16.
Claim 9:
Andrie discloses A surgical system, comprising:
a surgical hub communicably couplable with a plurality of surgical devices of an institution, wherein the surgical hub is configured to control actuation of the surgical devices (See [P0056] Any of a variety of parties can access, interact with, control, etc. the system 10 from any of a variety of locations. For example, the system 10 can be accessible from an operating room, a nurse's station, a medical device distribution facility, a medical device company.), and wherein the surgical hub (See Fig. 2, Fig. 7, P0002, P0004, P0014, P0060 supporting surgeons, managing and scheduling surgeries which includes an inventory of medical devices.) is further configured to:
receive a unique identifier for each surgical device of the plurality of surgical devices (See Fig. 6, Fig. 8, P0061 exemplary Product Information such as the identified BENGAL in inventory. Also, see P0073 product name, model number, lot number, expiration date, disposition, RFID tag number, manufacturer name, serial number and division.);
receive usage data for each surgical device, wherein the usage is automatically updated based on usage of the surgical device (See usage reporting of inventory that has been expired, updated, changed, checked as retrieved from the inventory database in P0069-P0070. Also, see P0067-P0068 display an alert when inventory items have expired or will expire in the near future, indicating inventoried by a particular department and the actual on hand quantity of the item.); and
transmit the usage data (Taught as inventory reporting mentioned in P0067-P0068.); and
a analytics system communicatively coupled to the surgical hub, the analytics system comprising a remote server, wherein the analytics system is configured (See web server mentioned in P0052.) to:
receive a selection of a surgical procedure to be performed (See Fig. 8 details of Schedule New Surgery mentioned in P0061.);
receive perioperative data for the surgical procedure (See pre-operative planning in P0082, P0089.);
receive, from the surgical hub, data associated with the plurality of surgical devices, wherein the received data comprises the unique identifier and the usage data for each surgical device (See P0073 product name, model number, lot number, expiration date, disposition, RFID tag number, manufacturer name, serial number and division. Also, see P0064.); and
compare for each surgical device to a criticality threshold (Comparing can be done with the inventory’s expiration dates, reported as missing, damaged, in need of maintenance, sterilization and the difference between the on hand quantity and the typical quantity (P0067-P0068.) where alerting when inventory items have expired is resulting from a threshold date met.).
Although Andrie discloses a surgical hub communicably couplable with surgical devices of an institution where the remaining usable life for each surgical device is determined as mentioned above, Andrie does not explicitly a cloud-based analytics system. Thompson teaches the cloud-based analytics system (See Fig. 1, 50 command center where stored and RFID tagged instruments are identified (P0028), and inventory is tracked (P0030) via cloud computing (P0009).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of managing activities in a medical environment before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Andrie to include the property of the tissue property comprises tissue elasticity, tissue impedance, or tissue perfusion, as taught by Thompson to allow a physician and other hospital staff to view the centralized interface at their offices, labs, homes, and other locations mentioned in Thompson’s P0010.
Although Andrie discloses a surgical hub communicably couplable with an analytics system for managing the surgical hub and data associated with the plurality of surgical devices as mentioned above, Andrie and Thompson do not explicitly teach locking out surgical devices that satisfy a criticality threshold, rendered unusable. Miller teaches:
transmit a signal to the surgical hub causing the surgical hub to automatically lock out surgical devices that satisfies the threshold, wherein the locked out surgical devices are rendered unusable (See Fig. 20, P0252-P0253, P0411 lockout mechanism as a result of a predefined threshold value, percentage increase to prevent surgical devices from cutting.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of surgical instrumentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Andrie and Thompson to include locking out surgical devices that satisfy a criticality threshold, rendered unusable, as taught by Miller to aide in the placement of the end effector and to confirm which objects to operate on, or alternatively, to avoid during surgery mentioned in Miller’s P0150.
Although Andrie, Thompson and Miller teach the cloud-based analytics, surgical system include locked out surgical devices that satisfy a criticality threshold, rendered unusable and transmitting a signal to the surgical hub causing the surgical hub to automatically lock out surgical devices, Andrie, Thompson and Miller do not explicitly teach comparing usage count for each surgical device to a critical usage count threshold, automatically incremented based on actuating the surgical device. Katsuki teaches:
usage data comprising a usage count for each surgical device, wherein the usage count for each surgical device is automatically incremented based on actuating the surgical device (See Fig. 7, column 17, lines 31-48. Also, see column 2, lines 30-42, column 15, lines 21-28.),
compare the usage count for each surgical device to a critical usage count threshold (See column 2, lines 30-42, column 15, lines 21-28 where a preset count (limit usage count) serves as the critical usage count threshold for comparing.); and
having a usage count that satisfies the critical usage count threshold, wherein the surgical devices are prevented from actuating during the surgical procedure (See column 2, lines 40-61 where the working unit is prevented from being used based on exceeded usage counts or time.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of endoscopic surgery before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Andrie, Thompson and Miller to comparing usage count for each surgical device to a critical usage count threshold, automatically incremented based on actuating the surgical device, as taught by Katsuki to help identify a start time of surgery mentioned in Katsuki’s column 28, lines 1-16.
Claim 16:
Andrie discloses A surgical system, comprising:
a surgical hub communicably couplable with a plurality of surgical devices of an institution wherein the surgical hub is configured to control actuation of the surgical devices (See [P0056] Any of a variety of parties can access, interact with, control, etc. the system 10 from any of a variety of locations. For example, the system 10 can be accessible from an operating room, a nurse's station, a medical device distribution facility, a medical device company. Also, see Fig. 2, Fig. 7, P0002, P0004, P0014, P0060 supporting surgeons, managing and scheduling surgeries which includes an inventory of medical devices.); and
a analytics system communicatively coupled to the surgical hub, the analytics system comprising a remote server, wherein the analytics system is configured (See web server mentioned in P0052.) to:
receive a selection of a surgical procedure to be performed (See Fig. 8 details of Schedule New Surgery mentioned in P0061.);
determine a characteristic of the surgical procedure (See Fig. 7, P0060 information relating to each surgery or case is shown in the list.);
receive, from the surgical hub, data associated with the plurality of surgical devices, wherein the received data comprises the unique identifier and the usage data for each surgical device (See P0073 product name, model number, lot number, expiration date, disposition, RFID tag number, manufacturer name, serial number and division. Also, see P0064.); and
compare for each surgical device to a threshold (Comparing can be done with the inventory’s expiration dates, reported as missing, damaged, in need of maintenance, sterilization and the difference between the on hand quantity and the typical quantity (P0067-P0068.) where alerting when inventory items have expired is resulting from a threshold date met.).
Although Andrie discloses a surgical hub communicably couplable with surgical devices of an institution where the remaining usable life for each surgical device is determined as mentioned above, Andrie does not explicitly a cloud-based analytics system. Thompson teaches the cloud-based analytics system (See Fig. 1, 50 command center where stored and RFID tagged instruments are identified (P0028), and inventory is tracked (P0030) via cloud computing (P0009).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of managing activities in a medical environment before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Andrie to include the property of the tissue property comprises tissue elasticity, tissue impedance, or tissue perfusion, as taught by Thompson to allow a physician and other hospital staff to view the centralized interface at their offices, labs, homes, and other locations mentioned in Thompson’s P0010.
Although Andrie discloses a surgical hub communicably couplable with an analytics system for managing the surgical hub and data associated with the plurality of surgical devices as mentioned above, Andrie and Thompson do not explicitly teach locking out surgical devices that satisfy a criticality threshold, rendered unusable. Miller teaches:
transmit a signal to the surgical hub causing the surgical hub to automatically lock out surgical devices that satisfy the criticality threshold, wherein the locked out surgical devices are rendered unusable for the surgical procedure (See Fig. 20, P0252-P0253, P0411 lockout mechanism as a result of a predefined threshold value, percentage increase to prevent surgical devices from cutting.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of surgical instrumentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Andrie and Thompson to include locking out surgical devices that satisfy a criticality threshold, rendered unusable, as taught by Miller to aide in the placement of the end effector and to confirm which objects to operate on, or alternatively, to avoid during surgery mentioned in Miller’s P0150.
Although Andrie, Thompson and Miller teach the cloud-based analytics, surgical system include locked out surgical devices that satisfy a criticality threshold, rendered unusable and transmitting a signal to the surgical hub causing the surgical hub to automatically lock out surgical devices, Andrie, Thompson and Miller do not explicitly teach comparing usage count for each surgical device to a critical usage count threshold, automatically incremented based on actuating the surgical device. Katsuki teaches:
comprising the usage count for each surgical device, wherein the usage count for each surgical device is based on a number of actuations executed by the surgical device (See Fig. 7, column 17, lines 31-48. Also, see column 2, lines 30-42, column 15, lines 21-28.),
compare the usage count for each surgical device to a critical usage count threshold (See column 2, lines 30-42, column 15, lines 21-28 where a preset count (limit usage count) serves as the critical usage count threshold for comparing.); and
having a usage count that satisfies the critical usage count threshold, wherein the surgical devices are prevented from actuating during the surgical procedure (See column 2, lines 40-61 where the working unit is prevented from being used based on exceeded usage counts or time.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of endoscopic surgery before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Andrie, Thompson and Miller to comparing usage count for each surgical device to a critical usage count threshold, automatically incremented based on actuating the surgical device, as taught by Katsuki to help identify a start time of surgery mentioned in Katsuki’s column 28, lines 1-16.
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 18, although Andrie discloses the surgical system of Claims 1, 9 and 16, Andrie does not explicitly teach locking out surgical devices that satisfy a criticality threshold, rendered unusable. Miller teaches:
wherein the cloud-based analytics system is further configured to determine to automatically lock out the surgical devices based on the unique identifier for each of the surgical devices and system-defined constraints, wherein the system-defined constraints comprise at least one use restriction (See Fig. 20, P0252-P0253, P0411 lockout mechanism as a result of a predefined threshold value, percentage increase to prevent surgical devices from cutting.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of surgical instrumentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Andrie to include locking out surgical devices that satisfy a criticality threshold, rendered unusable, as taught by Thompson to aide in the placement of the end effector and to confirm which objects to operate on, or alternatively, to avoid during surgery mentioned in Thompson’s P0150.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, although Andrie and Thompson tech the surgical system of Claims 1 and 9 mentioned above, Andrie and Thompson do not explicitly teach locking out surgical devices and alternative surgical device for use in the surgical procedure based on the property of the tissue. Miller teaches:
wherein the cloud-based analytics system is further configured to: identify the locked out surgical devices that are rendered unusable for the surgical procedure; and recommend an available alternative surgical device for use in the surgical procedure based on the property of the tissue (See [Abstract] a surgical instrument having one or more sensors at or a near an end effector and configured to aide in the detection of tissues and other materials and structures at a surgical site. See Fig. 20, P0252-P0253, P0411 lockout mechanism as a result of a predefined threshold value, percentage increase to prevent surgical devices from cutting. Also, see [P0356] The plurality of secondary sensors 3260a-3260d comprise electrodes and/or sensing geometries configured to create a stabilized tissue condition when the plurality of secondary sensors 3260a-3260d are engaged with a tissue section 3264, such as, for example, during a clamping operation. In some aspects, one or more of the plurality of secondary sensors 3260a-3260d may be replaced with non-sensing tissue stabilizing elements.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of surgical instrumentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Andrie and Thompson to include locking out surgical devices and alternative surgical device for use in the surgical procedure based on the property of the tissue, as taught by Miller to aide in the placement of the end effector and to confirm which objects to operate on, or alternatively, to avoid during surgery mentioned in Miller’s P0150.
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 19, although Andrie, Miller and Katsuki teach the surgical system of claims 3, 11 and 18, Andrie, Miller and Katsuki do not explicitly teach a cloud-based analytics system to generate a cloud interface for the institution, comprising user-interface elements, a user-interface element enables selection of the surgical procedure to be performed, and selecting the surgical procedure, availability of each surgical device associated with the surgical procedure is dynamically generated on the institution's cloud interface. Thompson teaches wherein the cloud-based analytics system is further configured to generate a cloud interface for the institution, wherein the institution's cloud interface comprises a plurality of user-interface elements, wherein at least one user-interface element enables selection of the surgical procedure to be performed, and wherein after selection of the surgical procedure, availability of each surgical device associated with the surgical procedure is dynamically generated on the institution's cloud interface (See Fig. 1, 50 command center where stored and RFID tagged instruments are identified (P0028), and inventory is tracked (P0030) via cloud computing (P0009). See [P0037] the data received by the command center 50 may be presented to the physician as part of a centralized interface where a physician can view schedules of hospital procedures, patient involved in the procedures, medical data related to the patients, and arability of various medical devices involved in the procedures.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of managing activities in a medical environment before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Andrie, Miller and Katsuki to include a cloud-based analytics system to generate a cloud interface for the institution, comprising user-interface elements, a user-interface element enables selection of the surgical procedure to be performed, and selecting the surgical procedure, availability of each surgical device associated with the surgical procedure is dynamically generated on the institution's cloud interface, as taught by Thompson to allow a physician and other hospital staff to view the centralized interface at their offices, labs, homes, and other locations mentioned in Thompson’s P0010.
Claims 5, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrie (US 2013/0066647 A1) in view of Thompson (US 2011/0307284 A1) further in view of Miller (US 2017/0296178 A1), (Katsuki (US 9730717 B2) and Nawana (US 2016/0338685 A1).
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 20, although Andrie, Thompson, Miller and Katsuki teach the surgical system of claims 4, 12 and 19 as mentioned above, Andrie, Thompson, Miller and Katsuki do not explicitly teach system-defined constraints. Nawana teaches wherein the cloud-based analytics system is configured to transmit an alert for each surgical device determined as not available based on the system-defined constraints (Taught in P0238, where incorrect and missing instruments account for inventory Also, see security credentials in P0119.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of scheduling hospital procedures before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Andrie, Thompson, Miller and Katsuki to include system-defined constraints, as taught by Nawana to only allow access to authorized users mentioned in P0019.
Claims 8 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrie (US 2013/0066647 A1) in view of Thompson (US 2011/0307284 A1) further in view of Miller (US 2017/0296178 A1), (Katsuki (US 9730717 B2) and Groene (US 2017/0143366 A1).
Regarding claim 8, although Andrie, Thompson, Miller and Katsuki teach the surgical system of claim 1 mentioned above, Andrie, Thompson, Miller and Katsuki do not explicitly teach the property of the tissue property comprises tissue elasticity, tissue impedance, or tissue perfusion. Groene teaches wherein the property of the tissue comprises tissue elasticity, tissue impedance, or tissue perfusion (See [P0050] An advanced functionality or mode of operation may provide adaptive delivery of ultrasonic energy at a power level that varies in real time based on sensed tissue conditions (e.g., tissue temperature, tissue impedance, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of surgical instrument management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Andrie, Thompson, Miller and Katsuki to include the property of the tissue property comprises tissue elasticity, tissue impedance, or tissue perfusion, as taught by Groene to have adaptive cutting functionality when the original surgical instrument lacks the configuration to support the functionality mentioned in Groene’s P0050.
Regarding claim 21, although Andrie, Thompson, Miller and Katsuki teach the surgical system of claim 1 mentioned above, Andrie, Thompson, Miller and Katsuki do not explicitly teach when surgical devices comprise modular components. Groene teaches wherein the plurality of surgical devices comprise a plurality of modular components (With modular component as energy generator, see Fig. 1, item 112, generator includes a power source and control module mentioned in P0025.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of scheduling hospital procedures before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Andrie, Thompson, Miller and Katsuki when surgical devices comprise modular components, as taught by and Groene to provide power to the surgical devices.
Regarding claim 22, although Andrie, Thompson, Miller and Katsuki teach the surgical system of claim 21 mentioned above, Andrie, Thompson, Miller and Katsuki do not explicitly teach including modular components combined to form a portion of a surgical instrument. Groene teaches wherein two or more modular components are combined to form at least a portion of a surgical instrument (With modular component as energy generator, see Fig. 1, item 112, generator of a transducer includes a power source and control module mentioned in [P0025] Display (118) provides information on the generator (112) and any attached surgical instrument (100).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of scheduling hospital procedures before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Andrie, Thompson, Miller and Katsuki to include modular components combined to form a portion of a surgical instrument, as taught by and Groene to provide power to the surgical devices.
Response to Arguments
In light of the “Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101”, under the Alice/Mayo analysis, the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. With the surgical hub now configured to control actuation of the surgical devices, the claimed amendment satisfying the Subject Matter Eligibility requirement of Section 101.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are now moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The Examiner has entered a new rejection under 35 USC § 103(a) and applied new art and art already of record.
Conclusion
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 TERESA S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-5509. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30 am -6:30 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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/T.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3687 12/29/2025
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687