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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 9/18/2025 in which claims 1, 5, 10, and 16 have been amended, claims 2, 4, 6, and 8 have been canceled. Thus, the claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9-24 are pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9-24 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 elsewhere, where applicable) recites the limitation "a sensor" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 (and elsewhere, where applicable) recites the limitation "a sensor" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 1 (and elsewhere, where applicable), line 11, it is unclear what type of data is obtained (patient data, operation data, etc.). Not clear how a situational awareness system, an edge computing system or an enterprise cloud server relate to patient/procedure and whether these devices are located locally or remotely. Obtaining data can be interpreted as a user receiving data via a user interface or another computing device receiving data from these devices. Obtaining data limitation and how this data can be used to derive contextual information about the surgical procedure is unclear.
In claim 1 (elsewhere, where applicable), lines 13-15, since the scope of the data is unclear, Examiner interprets deriving contextual information associated with a surgical procedure to be any information that relates to the surgical procedure. Moreover, in line 14, the claim states that the contextual information is derived based on at least one of a combination of data. The limitation in line 11 obtains data but does not identify different forms of data in order for the limitation in line 14 to be considered as a combination of data. This renders the claim indefinite.
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, 3, 5, 7, 9-15, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of performing an operation without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 1 as the representative claim that describes the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1 and 5.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites a series of steps, e.g., obtaining a parameter associated with at least one of a patient, a health care professional (HCP), a surgical environment, or a modular device in an operating room, wherein the parameter associated with the patient comprises a biomarker measurement obtained by a sensor, the parameter associated with the HCP comprises at least one of a fatigue biomarker measurement or a fine motor skill biomarker measurement obtained by a sensor, the parameter associated with the surgical environment comprises at least one of an ambient noise, a temperature, or a humidity in the surgical environment obtained by the sensor, and the parameter associated with the modular device comprises operation data associated with a device in the operating room; obtaining data from at least one of a situational awareness system, an edge computing system, or an enterprise cloud server; deriving contextual information associated with a surgical procedure based on the data, wherein the contextual information is derived based on at least one of a combination of the data or a particular order in which the data is obtained; based on the parameter and the contextual information, determining an autonomous operation parameter for a smart surgical device that is associated with the surgical procedure, wherein the autonomous operation parameter is configured to control the smart surgical device; generating a control signal for an autonomous operation based on the autonomous operation parameter; and sending the control signal, generated based on the autonomous operation parameter, to the smart surgical device, wherein the control signal is configured to autonomously control the smart surgical device. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) recite an abstract idea of performing an operation which may correspond to a certain method of organizing human activity. The additional elements of a modular device, a sensor, a device, a situational awareness system, an edge computing system, an enterprise cloud server, autonomous (which is interpreted as a computerized step), a smart surgical device, and a control signal do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a modular device, a sensor, a device, a situational awareness system, an edge computing system, an enterprise cloud server, autonomous (which is interpreted as a computerized step), a smart surgical device, and a control signal result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea. The additional elements of a modular device, a device, a situational awareness system, an edge computing system, an enterprise cloud server, autonomous (which is interpreted as a computerized step), a smart surgical device, and a control signal are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic technical arrangement. The presence of a generic technical arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention by applying the exception using a generic element (MPEP 2106.05(f)). A sensor is also recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering step) and does not transform an abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of a modular device, a device, a situational awareness system, an edge computing system, an enterprise cloud server, autonomous (which is interpreted as a computerized step), a smart surgical device, and a control signal are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer element. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these elements provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. A sensor is also recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering step) and does not transform an abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to add significantly more (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be applied to other independent claim 5 and hence the claim 5 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 3, 7, 9-15, and 22-23 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 5, thus correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-15, and 22-23 are not patent-eligible.
Claims 16-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of performing an operation without significantly more.
Claim 16 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 16 recites a series of steps, e.g., obtaining a parameter associated with at least one of a patient, a health care professional (HCP), a surgical environment, or a modular device in an operating room, wherein the parameter associated with the patient comprises a biomarker measurement obtained by a sensor, the parameter associated with the HCP comprises at least one of a fatigue biomarker measurement or a fine motor skill biomarker measurement obtained by a sensor, the parameter associated with the surgical environment comprises at least one of an ambient noise, a temperature, or a humidity in the surgical environment obtained by the sensor, and the parameter associated with the modular device comprises operation data associated with a device in the operating room; obtaining data from at least one of a situational awareness system, an edge computing system, or an enterprise cloud server; deriving contextual information associated with a surgical procedure based on the data, wherein the contextual information is derived based on at least one of a combination of the data or a particular order in which the data is obtained; operating at a first level of automation of a plurality of levels of automation associated with the surgical task; obtaining an indication to switch to a second level of automation of the plurality of levels of automation associated with the surgical task; wherein the indication is based on detecting a trigger, and wherein the trigger is based on the parameter and the contextual information; based on the indication, switching, from the operation at the first level of automation of the plurality of levels of automation associated with the surgical task, to the second level of automation of the plurality of levels of automation associated with the surgical task; and operating at the second level of automation of the plurality of levels of automation associated with the surgical task. The limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) recite an abstract idea of performing an operation which may correspond to a certain method of organizing human activity. The additional elements of a modular device, a sensor, a device, a situational awareness system, an edge computing system, an enterprise cloud server, a smart surgical device, a control signal, and automation (which is interpreted as a computerized step) do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 16 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a modular device, a device, a situational awareness system, an edge computing system, an enterprise cloud server, a smart surgical device, a control signal, and automation (which is interpreted as a computerized step) result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea. The additional elements of a modular device and automation are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic technical arrangement. The presence of a generic technical arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention by applying the exception using a generic element (MPEP 2106.05(f)). A sensor is also recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering step) and does not transform an abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the recitation of additional elements does not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 16 does not include additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a modular device and automation are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer element. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination does not amount to add significantly more as these elements provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. A sensor is also recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering step) and does not transform an abstract into a practical application or amounts to add significantly more (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 17-21 and 24 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 16, thus correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence is abstract in nature for the reason presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 16-21 and 24 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 16-17, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Refai et al., US Patent Application No. 2019/0231220.
Regarding claim 1, Refai discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining a parameter associated with at least one of a patient, a health care professional (HCP), a surgical environment, or a modular device in an operating room, wherein the parameter associated with the patient comprises a biomarker measurement obtained by a sensor, the parameter associated with the HCP comprises at least one of a fatigue biomarker measurement or a fine motor skill biomarker measurement obtained by a sensor, the parameter associated with the surgical environment comprises at least one of an ambient noise, a temperature, or a humidity in the surgical environment obtained by the sensor, and the parameter associated with the modular device comprises operation data associated with a device in the operating room ([0135], the system 10, 10a, 10b, 10c, or 10d may exert primary control over the robotic systems; parameters dictated by the operator or the procedure);
obtaining data from at least one of a situational awareness system, an edge computing system, or an enterprise cloud server ([0048], [0082] a distributed system using multiple computers and/or processors (e.g., internal and/or external to a patient’s body during use);
deriving contextual information associated with a surgical procedure based on the data, wherein the contextual information is derived based on at least one of a combination of the data or a particular order in which the data is obtained ([0135]);
based on the parameter and the contextual information, determining an autonomous operation parameter for a smart surgical device that is associated with the surgical procedure, wherein the autonomous operation parameter is configured to control the smart surgical device ([0135]);
generating a control signal for an autonomous operation based on the autonomous operation parameter ([0135]); and
sending the control signal, generated based on the autonomous operation parameter, to the smart surgical device, wherein the control signal is configured to autonomously control the smart surgical device ([0135]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combine different disclosure of Refai. The motivation for combining these disclosures would have been to automate the procedure.
Regarding claim 3, Refai discloses obtaining at least one of surgical data or surgical context data, wherein the autonomous operation parameter is determined based on at least one of the surgical data or surgical context data ([0135], operator or patient).
Regarding claim 16, Refai discloses a method for automating a surgical task, the method comprising:
obtaining a parameter associated with at least one of a patient, a health care professional (HCP), a surgical environment, or a modular device in an operating room, wherein the parameter associated with the patient comprises a biomarker measurement obtained by a sensor, the parameter associated with the HCP comprises at least one of a fatigue biomarker measurement or a fine motor skill biomarker measurement obtained by a sensor, the parameter associated with the surgical environment comprises at least one of an ambient noise, a temperature, or a humidity in the surgical environment obtained by the sensor, and the parameter associated with the modular device comprises operation data associated with a device in the operating room ([0135], the system 10, 10a, 10b, 10c, or 10d may exert primary control over the robotic systems; parameters dictated by the operator or the procedure);
obtaining data from at least one of a situational awareness system, an edge computing system, or an enterprise cloud server ([0048], [0082] a distributed system using multiple computers and/or processors (e.g., internal and/or external to a patient’s body during use);
deriving contextual information associated with a surgical procedure based on the data, wherein the contextual information is derived based on at least one of a combination of the data or a particular order in which the data is obtained ([0135]);
operating at a first level of automation of a plurality of levels of automation associated with the surgical task ([0135]-[0137]);
obtaining an indication to switch to a second level of automation of the plurality of levels of automation associated with the surgical task; wherein the indication is based on detecting a trigger, and wherein the trigger is based on the parameter and the contextual information ([0135]-[0137]); and
based on the indication, switching, from the operation at the first level of automation of the plurality of levels of automation associated with the surgical task, to the second level of automation of the plurality of levels of automation associated with the surgical task ([0135]-[0137]); and operating at the second level of automation of the plurality of levels of automation associated with the surgical task ([0135]-[0137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine different disclosure of Refai in order to perform surgery on a patient.
Regarding claim 17, Refai discloses wherein the indication is based on monitoring a performance of the first level of automation ([0135]-[0137]).
Regarding claim 22, Refai discloses wherein the modular device comprises a sensor that is configured to detect the parameter, and wherein the contextual information comprises at least one of a step of the surgical procedure that a surgeon is performing, a type of tissue being operated on, or a body cavity that is a subject of the surgical procedure ([0010], [0135]).
Claims 5, 7, and 23-24 are substantially similar to claims 1, 3, and 22 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claims 9-10, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Refai et al., US Patent Application No. 2019/0231220 in view of Shelton IV et al., US Patent No. 2023/0028059.
Regarding claim 9, Shelton IV discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: monitor the autonomous operation by tracking an output associated with a control
feedback ([0127], provide an alert serves as monitor); and
in response to detecting the output crossing a threshold, switch to a second autonomous operation ([0127], deviating from the expected course; [0128], display adjustments may be provided to surgical instruments).
Regarding claim 10, Shelton IV discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: detect a first surgical device in a surgical environment, wherein the first surgical
device comprises a first plurality of features (Fig. 2, [0059]),
detect a second surgical device in the surgical environment, wherein the second surgical device comprises a second plurality of features (Fig. 2, [0059]); and
determine one or more features from the first plurality of features, for the first surgical device to perform and determine one or more features, from the second plurality of features, for the second surgical device to perform (Fig. 2, [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 12, Shelton IV discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a first discrete signal associated with clamping control; generate, in response to the first discrete signal, a first continuous signal to cause a continuous application of force based on a first autonomous control algorithm, wherein the continuous application of force is adjusted autonomously based on at least a first measurement; receive a second discrete signal associated with a deployment operation; and generate, in response to the second discrete signal, a second continuous signal to cause the deployment operation based on a second autonomous control algorithm, wherein the deployment operation is adjusted autonomously based on at least a second measurement ([0117], control adjustment, [0119], [0128]).
Regarding claim 13, Shelton IV discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain surgical procedure data from a plurality of surgical systems; annotate the surgical
procedure data with surgical context data ([0116], [0129], labeled output);
determine, based on at least in part the annotated surgical procedure data, a data needs associated with a subsequent target system task associated with a target system ([0129]);
generate a data package associated with the data need, the data package comprising a subset of the annotated surgical procedure data ([0079], [0133], packets); and
send the data package to the target system ([0079], [0081], [0133]).
Regarding claim 14, Shelton IV discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain patient specific pre-surgical data for a patient specific surgical procedure; obtain a surgical procedure template comprising surgical procedure steps; determine one or more surgical task options for a first surgical procedure step and a second surgical procedure step based at least in part on the patient specific pre-surgical data; determine a respective characterization for the one or more surgical task options based on the patient specific pre-surgical data, wherein the respective characterizations are associated with a respective predicted outcome; and generate a populated patient specific procedure plan comprising the one or more surgical task options for the first surgical procedure step and the second surgical procedure step and the respective characterizations associated with the one or more surgical task options (Fig. 2, [0048], [0060], [0078]).
Regarding claim 15, Shelton IV discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain surgical context data; obtain a surgical video comprising one or more surgical video frames; identify one or more elements in a first surgical video frame based on the obtained surgical context data using image processing, wherein the one or more elements comprise a respective group of pixels; and generate annotation data for the first surgical video frame based on the surgical context data and the one or more elements in the first surgical video frame, wherein the annotation data comprises respective element annotation data associated with the identified one or more elements ([0112], [0116], [0129]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Refai et al., US Patent Application No. 2019/0231220 in view of Harris, EP3506287A1.
Regarding claim 11, Harris discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: receive first operation data associated with a first surgical procedure and second
operation data associated with a second surgical procedure, wherein the first operation data is associated with an aspect of a control algorithm of a first surgical device, wherein the second operation data is associated with an aspect of a control algorithm of a second surgical device, and wherein the first surgical device and second surgical device are of a first surgical device type ([0002]-[0004], [0008], one or more surgical system 102 implies that the first and a second surgical device are of a first surgical device type);
receive first outcome data associated with the first surgical procedure and second outcome data associated with the second surgical procedure ([0002]-[0004]);
determine that each of the control algorithm of the first surgical device and the control algorithm of the second surgical device is an up-to-date control algorithm associated with the first surgical device type ([0002]-[0004], [0008]);
generate first aggregation data based on at least the first operation data, the second operation data, the first outcome data, and the second outcome data ([0002]-[0004], analyze the perioperative data and the procedural outcome data (serves as generate first aggregation data) to determine whether the operational behavior is suboptimal);
based on at least the first aggregation data, determine a correlation between the first aspect of the up-to-date control algorithm and outcome data, wherein the outcome data comprises the first outcome data and the second outcome data ([0002]-[0004], analyze the perioperative data and the procedural outcome data (serves as generate first aggregation data) to determine whether the operational behavior is suboptimal (serves as determine a correlation); and
based on the determined correlation, generate an updated up-to-date control algorithm ([0002]-[0004], update).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combine different disclosure of Refai with the above-noted disclosure of Harris. The motivation for combining these disclosures would have been to address any shortcomings with the control algorithm.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Refai et al., US Patent Application No. 2019/0231220 in view of Shelton IV et al., US Patent No. 2023/0028059.
Regarding claim 18, Shelton IV discloses wherein the performance of the first level of automation is based on real-time surgical data ([0078] real-time and to generate surgical plans).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine above-noted disclosure of Refai with the above-noted disclosure of Shelton IV in order to perform surgery on a patient.
Regarding claim 19, Shelton IV discloses
receiving an updated control algorithm ([0113], [0121]);
determining the updated control algorithm is more up-to-date than an installed control algorithm; replacing the installed control algorithm with the updated control algorithm; and operating using the updated control algorithm ([0113], [0121]).
Regarding claim 20, Shelton IV discloses wherein replacing the installed control algorithm with the updated control algorithm comprises replacing coefficients associated with the installed control algorithm with updated coefficients associated with the updated control algorithm ([0113], [0121]).
Regarding claim 21, Refai discloses wherein the second level of automation comprises automating less surgical instrument task compare to the first level of automation ([0135], semi-autonomous level).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the ability to accurately interpret data from various sources, such as the sensors, the situational awareness system, the edge computing system, or the enterprise cloud server, as the claims recite, may be crucial to improve “processing accuracy and/or the usage of the data during the course of a surgical procedure.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that various sources are recited at a high level of generality in that it merely transfer data. Transfer data involves receiving and sending data which does not improve technology or provide any technical solution to a technical problem. Moreover, the claim does not even clarify the scope of data. It is unclear what type of data is being exchanged and accurately interpretation may not be applicable when the complete scope of data being received is not clearly defined. Moreover, even if the scope of the data is clearly defined, it is the objective of the various devices to interpret the data accurately. It is unclear how the claimed invention makes various sources to interpret the data accurately which otherwise would not have been possible. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of clams 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 16, 17, and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant states that Refai does not teach “obtaining a parameter associated with at least one of a patient, ….and the parameter associated with the modular device comprises operation data associated with a device in the operating room…,” “deriving contextual information associated with a surgical procedure based on the data, wherein the contextual information is derived based on at least one of a combination of the data or a particular order in which the data is obtained…,”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the office action describes Refai for disclosing obtaining a parameter associated with a modular device in an operating room, wherein the parameter associated with the modular device comprises operation data associated with a device in the operating room as the limitation states at least one of a patient,… In this regard, Refai discloses in paragraph [0135], the system 10, 10a, 10b, 10c, or 10d (i.e., a modular device) may exert primary control over the robotic systems (i.e., a device); parameters dictated by the operator or the procedure. Thus, Refai reads on the claimed limitation. Regarding “contextual information” based on the data which is derived from a combination of the data, the claim does not specifically describe receiving different form of data that can be considered as a combination of data. Moreover, the claim does not describe if the data relates to a procedure or a patient. This makes deriving contextual information associated with a surgical procedure based on the data difficult. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set 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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684