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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 21, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 17 have been amended. Claims 19 and 21 are canceled. Claim 22 is new. Claims 3-4, 6, 12-16, 18 are withdrawn. Currently, claims 1-2, 5, 7-11, 17, 20, 22 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed October 21, 2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under an alternative interpretation of Shelton, IV et al. (US 2019/0200977). Additionally during the most recent search, Dronen et al. (US 2020/0136990) was identified as describing distributed processing of data, specifically breaking data into a first subset and second subset of data for transmission ([0129-0141]).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed October 21, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular the amendments to claims 1 and 17 (“control the surgical device based on the control adjustments”) now integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of claims 5 and 7 and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-2, 5, 7-11, 17 and 20 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 9-11, 17, 20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Shelton, IV et al. (US 2019/0200977).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Shelton, IV et al. discloses a surgical system (fig. 9) for use with a surgical device 235, the surgical system comprising: a surgical hub 236 (fig 9-10), 5706 (fig. 88), 5602 (“Each node 5602a, 5602b, 5602c can represent… a surgical hub” [1244]; fig. 103) configured to: communicably couple to a remote processing device 5706 (fig. 88), 5602 (“Each node 5602a, 5602b, 5602c can represent… a surgical hub” [1244]; fig. 103) and the surgical device, the surgical hub comprising a hub control circuit 244 (fig. 10), wherein the hub control circuit performs distributed processing ([0695], [1051], [1071-1072], [1076]) along with a device control circuit 5704 of the remote processing device 5602 (fig. 103); wherein the hub control circuit is configured to: determine that a distributed processing of data associated with the surgical device is needed (“the data processing for controlling the modular devices, such as surgical instruments, can be taxing for an individual surgical hub to perform… surgical hubs can be configured to utilize a distributed computing system where at least a portion of the processing is performed across multiple separate surgical hubs” [1242]), data associated with the surgical device being received from the surgical device or a device associated with the surgical device (“control circuit executing the process 5350 receives data from the data sources, such as the modular device(s)” [1231]); break the data associated with the surgical device into a first subset of data associated with the surgical device and a second subset of data associated with the surgical device (“transmit only the electroencephalogram (EEG) features…transmit only the complex data features that are pertinent to the surgical instrument detection” [1245]; interpreted as breaking the data into a first subset of EEG features or complex data features for transmission while a second subset of data (i.e. non EEG features or non-complex data features) are a second subset of data); transmit a synchronization feature (“passing messages therebetween” [1244]; “the node monitors for a command to re-initiate the distributed computing system” [1248]) to the remote processing device 5706 (fig. 88), the synchronization feature associated with a first subset of data associated with the surgical device (“If a control circuit receives 5658 an appropriate command to re-distribute the processing, then the process 5650 proceeds along the YES branch and the program is once again executed 5652 across the node network” [1248]); transmit the first subset of data to the remote processing device (“the distributed computing system 5600 is configured to transmit only the electroencephalogram (EEG) features. In still yet another exemplification, the distributed computing system 5600 can be configured to transmit only the complex data features that are pertinent to the surgical instrument detection” [1245]); perform a second analysis and generate a second result based on a second subset of data associated with the surgical device (“data aggregation, calculations, and so on” [1239]; [1242-1243]); receive a first result from the remote processing device and synchronization data of the first result (“each individual surgical hub 5706 compiles and analyzes its stored data and then communicates the data to the requesting surgical hub 5706” [1239]; there is currently no positively recited association between “a first result” and “a first subset of data”, therefore any data received from the remote processing device can be interpreted as “a first result”); assess a synchronicity of the first result and the second result based on the received synchronization data (“comparison”, “quantified correlations” [1232-1235]); determine control adjustments for the surgical device based on at least one of the received first result or the generated second result ([1236-1237]); and control the surgical device based on the control adjustments (“control algorithm adjustments can be transmitted by the surgical hub to the paired modular devices” [1242]; “Based on this received data, the control circuit of the surgical hub then determines the appropriate control adjustments for the surgical instrument” [1243]).
Regarding claim 2, Shelton, IV et al. discloses wherein the synchronization feature is a synchronization signal (“the command” [1248]).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Shelton, IV et al. discloses the surgical hub control circuit is further configured to: detect that the first result is out of synchronization with the first result (“the quantified correlation exceeds a particular threshold value”); and resynchronize the first result with the second result based on the synchronization data (“the control circuit can be configured to automatically display a report providing suggestions or other feedback if the quantified correlation exceeds a particular threshold value” [1234]).
Regarding claim 9, Shelton, IV et al. discloses the surgical hub is located at a surgical suite in a medical facility ([0679]) and the remote processing device is located outside the surgical suite (“surgical hubs 5706 of a second medical facility” [1202]).
Regarding claim 10, Shelton, IV et al. discloses wherein the remote processing device is a first remote processing device 5706 (fig. 88), 5602 (“Each node 5602a, 5602b, 5602c can represent… a surgical hub” [1244]; fig. 103), wherein the synchronization data is a first synchronization data (“command” [1248]), wherein the surgical hub is further communicably coupled to a second remote processing device 5602 (fig. 103), and wherein the hub control circuit is further configured to: transmit the synchronization feature (“command”) to the second remote processing device ([1248]); transmit a third subset of data to the second remote processing device, the third subset of data being a part of the data associated with the surgical instrument (“the distributed computing system 5600 is configured to transmit only the electroencephalogram (EEG) features. In still yet another exemplification, the distributed computing system 5600 can be configured to transmit only the complex data features that are pertinent to the surgical instrument detection” [1245]); receive a third result from the second remote processing device and second synchronization data of the third result (“each individual surgical hub 5706 compiles and analyzes its stored data and then communicates the data to the requesting surgical hub 5706” [1239]; there is currently no positively recited association between “a third result” and “a third subset of data”, therefore any data received from the remote processing device can be interpreted as “a third result”); assess a synchronicity of the first result, the second result, and the third result based on first synchronization data and the second synchronization data (“comparison”, “quantified correlations” [1232-1235]); and determine control adjustments for the surgical device based on the first result, the second result, and the third result ([1236-1237]).
Regarding claim 11, Shelton, IV et al. discloses wherein the surgical device is a first surgical device, wherein the surgical hub is further communicably coupled to a second surgical device, and wherein the second subset of data is associated with the second surgical device (“surgical device/instrument 235, energy device 241… control which components (e.g., surgical device/instrument 235, energy device 241) are being utilized in an interactive surgical system 200” [0899]).
Regarding claim 22, Shelton, IV et al. discloses wherein the hub control circuit is further configured to determine that the distributed processing is needed based on at least one of, a processing rate of a processor of the hub control circuit; type, amount, or both of the data associated with the surgical device; or a time threshold for the first result and the second result (“the command to re-distribute the processing across the network can be generated when the sampling rate of the sensor is less than the data communication rate between the modular device and the surgical hub” [1248]).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al. (US 2019/0200977) in view of Chen et al. (US 2004/0181706).
Regarding claim 7, Shelton, IV et al. does not expressly disclose the synchronization feature is used by the device control circuit of the remote processing device to synchronize with the hub control circuit based on the synchronization feature by adjusting a device control circuit clock to match a hub control circuit clock. Shelton, IV et al. however does teach applying timestamps to data ([0747], [0786], [0828], [0829], [0835], [0892], [0897], [1611]) suggesting this data is an important feature to accurately record with respect to data within the system. Chen et al. teaches two devices 104, 110 in communication with each other 115 (fig. 19) each comprising a clock 106, 1990 that is synchronized with each other via a synchronization feature ([0113]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shelton, IV et al. to incorporate a device control circuit clock and a hub control circuit clock and to match the clocks based on a synchronization feature as taught by Chen et al. in order to provide “convenience, for energy saving, and for consistency with other electronic devices” ([0113]) such as those in direct communication with each other.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al. (US 2019/0200977) in view of Agarwal (US 2013/0114507).
Regarding claim 8, Shelton, IV et al. does not expressly disclose the synchronization feature comprises a synchronization byte pattern. Agarwal teaches data signals are known to be in the format of bytes in a synchronization pattern ([0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shelton, IV et al. to use bytes in a synchronization pattern as the data signal format for the synchronization feature as Agarwal teaches this is a known format for data signals, such a modification would have been reasonably predictable and would not have altered the overall operation of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dronen et al. (US 2020/0136990) describes distributed processing of data ([0129-0141]).
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 ERICA S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-7pm, flex.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/ERICA S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796