DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03 September 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 03 September 2025. Claims 1, 6, 10, 14, 16, and 20 were amended. Claims 9, 13, and 19 were previously canceled. Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-18, and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 September 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the final Office action on 03 June 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-8, 10-12, 14-18, and 20 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.
Claim 1 (and similar claim 14) recites the limitation "a second surgical procedure" in line 23 and “the second surgical procedure” in line 24. There is not a first or any other recited “surgical procedure” in the claims, so it is not clear what is meant by there being a “second” surgical procedure. Therefore, this claim language is considered to be indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to recite “a surgical procedure” in line 23 and “the surgical procedure” in line 24 (and the corresponding locations in claim 14). Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-8, 10-12, 15-18, and 20 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 1 (and similar claim 14) recites the limitation “a second patient characteristic” in line 23. There is not a first or any other recited “patient characteristic” in the claims, so it is not clear what is meant by there being a “second” patient characteristic. Therefore, this claim language is considered to be indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to recite “a patient characteristic” in line 23 (and the corresponding location in claim 14). Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-8, 10-12, 15-18, and 20 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 1 (and similar claim 14) recites the limitation “indicates a recommended operation parameter for the first surgical instrument by improving integrity of a staple line or tissue weld to prevent sepsis” in lines 26 and 27. The way this element is written, it is unclear how an annotation can indicate “a recommended operation parameter … by improving integrity of a staple line or tissue weld to prevent sepsis.” Therefore, this claim language is considered to be indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the element will be considered to be written to match how it is written in the final two lines of the claim, “indicates a recommended operation parameter for the first surgical instrument to prevent sepsis by improving integrity of a staple line or tissue weld.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-8, 10-12, 15-18, and 20 inherit this deficiency.
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 1-8, 10-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-18, and 20 fall within one or more statutory categories. Claims 1-8 and 10-12 fall within the category of a machine. Claims 14-18 and 20 fall within the category of a process.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-18, and 20 recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites:
receive … a data stream comprising first data and second data, wherein the first data is associated with a first surgical instrument, and the second data is associated with a second surgical instrument, wherein the first data is collected at a first sampling rate, and the second data is collected at a second sampling rate;
identify a database for receiving surgical information indicated by the data stream, wherein the database is in a standard format, and wherein the standard format indicates a third sampling rate;
select a rule set based on the surgical data interface and the database;
generate a transformed data stream in the standard format based on the selected rule set and the data stream, wherein the transformed data stream comprises transformed first data in the standard format indicating the third sampling rate, and transformed second data in the standard format indicating the third sampling rate;
generate an annotation based on the transformed first data, the transformed second data, and a surgical procedure associated with a patient characteristic,
wherein the standard format of the transformed data stream enables a comparison with the surgical procedure,
wherein the annotation indicates a surgical outcome based on the comparison and indicates a recommended operation parameter for the first surgical instrument to prevent sepsis by improving integrity of a staple line or tissue weld; and
send an instruction to control the first surgical instrument based on the recommend operation parameter to prevent the sepsis by improving the integrity of the staple line or tissue weld.
Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “collecting, combining, and annotating surgical data,” which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity. “Collecting and combining surgical data” is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it is an example managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims include the interaction between a healthcare provider reading instrument data and a patient hooked up to those instruments. Further, the claims are directed to a mental process, a concept capable of being performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s):
a processor;
a surgical data interface.
The additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. These additional element merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, considered individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s), individually and in combination, merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the database is a relational database, wherein the rule set is selected based on the standard format associated with the database.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 2 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the standard format further indicates at least one of a resolution, a measurement type, a unit of measurement, or a type of data stream, and wherein the type of data stream comprises a discrete data stream or a continuous data stream.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 3 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the rule set comprises one or more of a data cleaning rule, a data verification rule, or a data formatting rule.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 4 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the data stream comprises visualization data, biomarker data, surgical instrument data, or surgical equipment data.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 5 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
wherein the transformed first data and the transformed second data are in the standard format indicating a same synchronization.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 6 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the second data stream comprises a patient data stream, a surgical instrument data stream associated with a surgical operation, or a surgical equipment data stream.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 6 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 7 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the processor is further configured to: determine, for the data stream, invalid data and invalid associations based on the selected rule set, wherein the transformed data stream excludes the invalid data and the invalid associations.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 8 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 10 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
to generate the transformed data stream, the processor is further configured to: determine that the third sampling rate associated with the database is greater than the first sampling rate;
obtain the first data based on a data field associated with the first data ; and
determine intermediate average data points based on the first data and based on the third sampling rate associated with the database, wherein the transformed data stream comprises the intermediate average data points.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 10 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 11 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
to generate the transformed data stream, the processor is further configured to parse the data stream using a data parser.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 11 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 12 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the processor is further configured to send the database to a displaying device.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 12 is ineligible.
Claims 14-18 and 20 are parallel in nature to claims 1, 5-8, and 10. Accordingly claims 14-20 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
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 1-8, 10-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grantcharov et al. (U.S. 2018/0122506), hereinafter “Grantcharov,” in view of Shelton, IV et al. (U.S. 2019/0125455), hereinafter “Shelton.”
Regarding Claim 1, Grantcharov discloses a device comprising:
a processor (See Grantcharov Fig. 11 [0197] the system includes the use of a processor.) configured to:
receive, via a surgical data interface, a data stream comprising first data and second data, wherein the first data is associated with a first surgical instrument, and the second data is associated with a second surgical instrument (See Grantcharov [0077] hardware units may gather or collect one or more independent data streams from different devices. [0244] the system can integrate multiple feeds from multiple sources with multiple formats into a common format for subsequent data analysis. See also [0079].);
identify a database for receiving surgical information indicated by the data stream (See Grantcharov [0079] the system may synchronize and record the data streams to a common clock or timeline in order to generate a session container file. See also [0167].), wherein the database is in a standard format (See Grantcharov [0077] the system may have hardware/software for translating, connecting, and formatting the real-time data streams received independently from the hardware units. This is understood to be a “standard format.”), select a rule set based on the surgical data interface and the database (See Grantcharov [0079] the system can synchronize the data feeds. The synchronization may aggregate independent data feeds in a consistent manner to generate a comprehensive data feed generated by data from multiple independent devices into a common clock or timeline and store that in a specific session container file. [0244] the system can integrate multiple feeds from multiple sources with multiple formats into a common format for subsequent data analysis. See also [0118]. This is understood to include rules that at least determine the specific session being recorded from the various data streams.);
generate a transformed data stream in the standard format based on the selected rule set and the data stream (See Grantcharov [0079] the system can synchronize the data feeds. The synchronization may aggregate independent data feeds in a consistent manner to generate a comprehensive data feed generated by data from multiple independent devices into a common clock or timeline and store that in a specific session container file. [0244] the system can integrate multiple feeds from multiple sources with multiple formats into a common format for subsequent data analysis. See also [0264].),
wherein the transformed data stream comprises transformed first data in the standard format… (See Grantcharov [0079] the system can synchronize the data feeds. The synchronization may aggregate independent data feeds in a consistent manner to generate a comprehensive data feed generated by data from multiple independent devices into a common clock or timeline.), and transformed second data in the standard format… (See Grantcharov [0077] the system collects surgical data streams and connects and formats them together. This is still surgical data after it has been connected and formatted.);
generate an annotation based on the transformed first data, the transformed second data (See Grantcharov [0159] significant “events” may be detected, tagged, time-stamped and/or recorded as a time-point on a timeline that represents the entire duration of the procedure and/or clinical encounter. [0228] allows for the annotation and tagging of the rich content streams. This meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of generating an annotation.), and a surgical procedure associated with a patient characteristic (See Grantcharov [0228] the annotation and tagging dictionary may be: the type of medical procedure being performed, the aspect of the procedure that is being analyzed, the geographic area/region where the procedure is being performed.), wherein the standard format of the transformed data stream enables a comparison with the surgical procedure (See Grantcharov [0233] the system can use the data for comparative analysis. [0234] data available to the system for analyses include the complete resultant annotated and tagged content streams.), wherein the annotation indicates a surgical outcome based on the comparison (See Grantcharov [0160] analyses performed by the system can be used to identify underlying factors and/or patterns of events that led up to adverse outcome. [0177] analysis of chains of events leading to adverse outcomes. The data collection and processing provide an opportunity to retrospectively evaluate one or more mechanisms and/or root causes leading to adverse outcomes in medicine and surgery. [0187] multi-channel data view of the operating theatre may allow for simultaneous analysis of technical and non-technical performance and identification of key events leading up to an adverse outcome.) and indicates a recommended operation parameter for the first surgical instrument (See Grantcharov [0345] recurrent themes that are identified as affecting team performance and processes on an organizational level may be addressed by policy recommendations and the design of standard operating procedures.).
Grantcharov does not disclose:
wherein the first data is collected at a first sampling rate, and the second data is collected at a second sampling rate;
wherein the standard format indicates a third sampling rate;
[the annotation indicates a recommended operation parameter for the first surgical instrument] to prevent sepsis by improving integrity of a staple line or tissue weld; and
send an instruction to control the first surgical instrument based on the recommend operation parameter to prevent the sepsis by improving the integrity of the staple line or tissue weld.
Shelton teaches:
wherein the first data is collected at a first sampling rate, and the second data is collected at a second sampling rate (See Shelton [1022] the data transmitted by way of a self-describing data packet is sampled by the instrument device at a predetermined sample rate. This is understood to be unique to each instrument. See also [1148].);
wherein the standard format indicates a third sampling rate (See Shelton [1022] the predetermined sampling rate and transmission rate are dictated by communication traffic in the surgical hub and may be adjusted dynamically to accommodate current bandwidth limitations. This meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a third sampling rate.);
[the annotation indicates a recommended operation parameter for the first surgical instrument] to prevent sepsis by improving integrity of a staple line or tissue weld (See Shelton [1061] system can use contextual data to make a determination on the integrity of the staple line or tissue weld in the context of hemostasis, which is understood to be directly connected to preventing sepsis. [1062] the system can use the collected data (including data pertaining to the integrity of the staple line or tissue weld) to automatically control other surgical instruments. [1443] measurements taken by the system, and used in the disclosed analyses, can be indicative of infection. Examiner notes that this element is understood to be a non-limiting intended result which merely describes a desired result from use of the recited structure, and therefore is not given patentable weight.); and
send an instruction to control the first surgical instrument based on the recommend operation parameter (See Shelton [1061] system can use contextual data to make a determination on the integrity of the staple line or tissue weld in the context of hemostasis, which is understood to be directly connected to preventing sepsis. [1062] the system can use the collected data (including data pertaining to the integrity of the staple line or tissue weld) to automatically control other surgical instruments. [1443] measurements taken by the system, and used in the disclosed analyses, can be indicative of infection.) to prevent the sepsis by improving the integrity of the staple line or tissue weld (See Shelton [1061] system can use contextual data to make a determination on the integrity of the staple line or tissue weld in the context of hemostasis, which is understood to be directly connected to preventing sepsis. Examiner notes that this element is understood to be a non-limiting intended result which merely describes a desired result from use of the recited structure, and therefore is not given patentable weight.).
The system of Shelton is applicable to the disclosure of Grantcharov as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to collecting patient data streams. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grantcharov to include standard sampling rates as taught by Shelton. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Grantcharov in order to improve patient practices by finding ways to better interconnect medical systems and facilities (see Shelton [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Grantcharov in view of Shelton discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above. Grantcharov further discloses a device, wherein:
the database is a relational database, wherein the rule set is selected based on the standard format associated with the database (See Grantcharov [0079] the session container file stores the various data streams in a comprehensive data feed, showing the relationship via at least a common clock or timeline. This makes it a relational database.).
Regarding claim 3, Grantcharov in view of Shelton discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above. Grantcharov further discloses a device, wherein:
the standard format further indicates at least one of a resolution, a measurement type, a unit of measurement, or a type of data stream, and wherein the type of data stream comprises a discrete data stream or a continuous data stream (See Grantcharov [0158] the data stream can be a continuous data stream. [0159] the system may detect significant events and time stamp them. This meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a discrete data stream.).
Regarding claim 4, Grantcharov in view of Shelton discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above. Grantcharov further discloses a device, wherein:
the rule set comprises one or more of a data cleaning rule, a data verification rule, or a data formatting rule (See Grantcharov [0079] the system can synchronize the data feeds. The synchronization may aggregate independent data feeds in a consistent manner to generate a comprehensive data feed generated by data from multiple independent devices into a common clock or timeline and store that in a specific session container file. [0244] the system can integrate multiple feeds from multiple sources with multiple formats into a common format for subsequent data analysis. See also [0118]. This is understood to include rules that at least determine the specific session being recorded from the various data streams. These are also data formatting rules.).
Regarding claim 5, Grantcharov in view of Shelton discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above. Grantcharov further discloses a device, wherein:
the data stream comprises visualization data (See Grantcharov [0077] the data streams are received from hardware units. [0101] the data streams include audio, video, text, metadata, quantitative, semi-quantitative, and data feeds.), biomarker data (See Grantcharov [0077] the data streams are received from hardware units. [0133] the hardware units include patient monitoring devices, such as O2 monitors.), surgical instrument data, or surgical equipment data (See Grantcharov [0077] the data streams are received from hardware units. [0133] the hardware units intelligent surgical devices (i.e. smart staplers, smart laparoscopic instruments.).
Regarding claim 6, Grantcharov in view of Shelton discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above. Grantcharov further discloses a device, wherein:
wherein the transformed first data and the transformed second data are in the standard format indicating a same synchronization (See Grantcharov [0077] hardware units may gather or collect one or more independent data streams from different devices. [0244] the system can integrate multiple feeds from multiple sources with multiple formats into a common format for subsequent data analysis. See also [0079]. [0187] simultaneously records multiple synchronized data feeds, including procedural views, room cameras, audio, environmental factors through multiple sensors, an anesthesia device, medical/surgical devices, implants, and hospital patient administrative systems. These are multi-perspective view of the operating theatre, allowing analysis of the same adverse outcome related to a surgical procedure.).
Regarding claim 7, Grantcharov in view of Shelton discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above. Grantcharov further discloses a device, wherein:
the data stream comprises a patient data stream, a surgical instrument data stream associated with a surgical operation, or a surgical equipment data stream (See Grantcharov [0187] simultaneously records multiple synchronized data feeds, including procedural views, room cameras, audio, environmental factors through multiple sensors, an anesthesia device, medical/surgical devices, implants, and hospital patient administrative systems. These are multi-perspective view of the operating theatre, allowing analysis of the same adverse outcome related to a surgical procedure.).
Regarding claim 8, Grantcharov in view of Shelton discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above. Grantcharov further discloses a device, wherein:
the processor is further configured to: determine, for the data stream, invalid data and invalid associations based on the selected rule set, wherein the transformed data stream excludes the invalid data and the invalid associations (See Grantcharov [0306] the system can use algorithms to validate data and relationships, and then filter out incorrect patterns.).
Regarding claim 10, Grantcharov in view of Shelton discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above. Grantcharov further discloses a device, wherein:
to generate the transformed data stream, the processor is further configured to: determine that the third sampling rate associated with the database is greater than the first sampling rate (See Grantcharov [0079] the system can synchronize the data feeds. The synchronization may aggregate independent data feeds in a consistent manner to generate a comprehensive data feed generated by data from multiple independent devices into a common clock or timeline and store that in a specific session container file. [0244] the system can integrate multiple feeds from multiple sources with multiple formats into a common format for subsequent data analysis. See also [0232] and [0264].);
obtain the first data based on a data field associated with the first data (See Grantcharov [0077] hardware units may gather or collect one or more independent data streams from different devices. [0244] the system can integrate multiple feeds from multiple sources with multiple formats into a common format for subsequent data analysis. See also [0079].); and
determine intermediate average data points based on the first data and based on the third sampling rate associated with the database, wherein the transformed data stream comprises the intermediate average data points (See Grantcharov [0079] the system can synchronize the data feeds. The synchronization may aggregate independent data feeds in a consistent manner to generate a comprehensive data feed generated by data from multiple independent devices into a common clock or timeline and store that in a specific session container file. [0244] the system can integrate multiple feeds from multiple sources with multiple formats into a common format for subsequent data analysis. See also [0275] and [0329].).
Regarding claim 11, Grantcharov in view of Shelton discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above. Grantcharov does not further disclose a device, wherein:
to generate the transformed data stream, the processor is further configured to parse the data stream using a data parser.
Shelton teaches:
to generate the transformed data stream, the processor is further configured to parse the data stream using a data parser (See Shelton [1112] data tracked by the surgical hubs can be parsed to provide increasingly detailed metrics related to surgical procedures or the use of the surgical hub.).
The system of Shelton is applicable to the disclosure of Grantcharov as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to collecting patient data streams. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grantcharov to include standard sampling rates as taught by Shelton. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Grantcharov in order to improve patient practices by finding ways to better interconnect medical systems and facilities (see Shelton [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, Grantcharov in view of Shelton discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above. Grantcharov further discloses a device, wherein:
the processor is further configured to send the database to a displaying device (See Grantcharov [0106] the system can generate a comprehensive, real-time data representation of the medical or surgical procedure. See also [0108].).
Regarding claim 14-18 and 20, Grantcharov in view of Shelton discloses the device of claims 1, 5-8, and 10. Claims 14-18 and 20 recite a method that is substantially similar to the method performed by the device of claims 1, 5-8, and 10. Accordingly, claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected based on the same analysis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 September 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two because they show an improvement to technology (see Applicant Remarks page 7-9). This is not persuasive. Applicant appears to argues that the use of data standardization and comparison improve the computer technology involved in surgical procedures. This is not persuasive because the only additional elements recited in the claims include generic computer function and hardware, which amounts to merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims remain rejected as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments filed 03 September 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claims, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly cited Shelton reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sobol et al. (U.S. 2021/0319894) discloses a system for collecting health data from various data streams.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN L HANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/B.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684