DETAILED ACTION
Notices to Applicant
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-16, and 18-20 as filed 01/27/2026, are currently pending and have been considered below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/27/2026 has been entered.
Priority
The present application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 63/123,577 filed 12/10/2020.
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 1-2, 4-7, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9-14 are drawn to a method for operating a computing device, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. method).
Independent Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites (additional elements bolded):
1. A method of operating a computing device, the method comprising:
receiving, by an application operating on the computing device, an input to initiate a patient session using a visualization system located at a facility, wherein the computing device is communicatively coupled via a private area computer network to the visualization system at the facility for the patient session;
determining, by the application, whether a compliance confirmation device is also located at the facility in the private area computer network associated with the visualization system, wherein the compliance confirmation device is associated with an identification of the facility;
responsive to determining the compliance confirmation device is also located at the facility in the private area computer network associated with the visualization system, receiving, by the application via the private area computer network, the identification of the facility from the compliance confirmation device;
obtaining, using the application, data during the patient session;
associating the data obtained during the patient session with the identification of the facility when writing the data to memory located at the facility;
receiving, by the application, a request to transmit the data obtained during the patient session to a cloud-based data management system for storage;
responsible to receiving the request: obtaining by the application, via the private area computer network, the data obtained during the patient session and storing the obtained data on the computing device;
automatically switching the application from being connected to the private area computer network to being connected to a wide area computer network;
transmitting, by the application via the wide area computer network, both (a) a credential of a user of the application and (b) the identification of the facility to the cloud-based data management system for verification by the cloud-based data management system both that the user of the application is licensed to use the cloud-based data management system and that the facility is approved to transmit the data to the cloud-based data management system;
responsive to receiving, at the application, a notification from the cloud- based management system that the user of the application is not licensed to use the cloud-based data management system and/or the facility is not approved to transmit the data to the cloud-based data management system, blocking transmission of the data via the wide area network from the computing device to the cloud-based data management system; and otherwise
transmitting the data from the computing device via the wide area network to the cloud-based data management system for storage at the cloud-based data management system.
The above claim limitations, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people through following rules or instructions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the above bolded claim limitations, for example, “a computing device,” “an application operating on the computing device,” “a visualization system,” “a private area computer network,” “a compliance confirmation device” “a computer network,” “a cloud-based data management system,” and “memory” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from management of personal behavior or interactions between people. For example, but for the above bolded language, receiving an input to initiate a patient session, determining and receiving that a compliance device is located in a facility and determining and receiving an identification of the facility, obtaining data during the patient session and associating the data obtained during the patient session with the identification of the facility, receiving a request to share the data and then sharing the data only when the identification of the facility and user is verified and approved in the context of this claim encompasses the managing personal behaviors or interactions between people through rules or instructions for determining data authorizations and compliance. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behaviors or interactions between people through rules or instructions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above bolded additional elements, for example “a computing device,” “an application operating on the computing device,” “a visualization system,” “a private area computer network,” “a compliance confirmation device” “a computer network,” “a cloud-based data management system,” and “memory” to perform the claim limitations. The elements in each of these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a computing device and application and a visualization system (e.g. tablet, smartphone, laptop, etc.), a compliance confirmation device (e.g. a processing device, memory, network interface and/or a virtual device that is installed within a controller of the visualization system), a computer network (e.g. a private area network/internet based protocol), and a cloud-based data management system (e.g. a central cloud storage repository) as they relate to a general purpose computers (Application Specification [0023], [0027], [0029], [0040])). As such, the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, the limitations, for example, regarding receiving, by the application operating on a compute ring device, an input to initiate a patient session, receiving, by the application, a request to transmit the data obtained during the patient session to a cloud-based data management system, transmitting, by the application via the wide area computer network, and transmitting the data from the computing device via the wide area network to the cloud-based data management system for storage at the cloud-based data management system amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP2106.05(g) (data gathering). The limitation of “automatically switch the application from being connected to the private area computer network to being connected to a wide area computer network,” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements 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 above bolded additional elements, for example “a computing device,” “an application operating on the computing device,” “a visualization system,” “a private area computer network,” “a compliance confirmation device” “a computer network,” “a cloud-based data management system,” and “memory” to perform the claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. (i.e., a computing device and application and a visualization system (e.g. tablet, smartphone, laptop, etc.), a compliance confirmation device (e.g. a processing device, memory, network interface and/or a virtual device that is installed within a controller of the visualization system), a computer network (e.g. a private area network/internet based protocol), and a cloud-based data management system (e.g. a central cloud storage repository) as they relate to a general purpose computers (Application Specification [0023], [0027], [0029], [0040])). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or other machinery under its ordinary capacity cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, the limitations, for example, regarding receiving, by the application operating on a compute ring device, an input to initiate a patient session, receiving, by the application, a request to transmit the data obtained during the patient session to a cloud-based data management system, transmitting, by the application via the wide area computer network, and transmitting the data from the computing device via the wide area network to the cloud-based data management system for storage at the cloud-based data management system amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP2106.05(d). The limitation of “automatically switch the application from being connected to the private area computer network to being connected to a wide area computer network,” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, and 9-14 include limitations of the independent claim and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein. The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. These additional claims recite what the data is and how it is analyzed. These information characteristics do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the managing personal behaviors or interactions between people through rules or instructions for determining data authorizations and compliance. Claim 7 recites the additional element of displaying “a graphical element,” however, this limitation amounts to mere extra-solution activity recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP2106.05(g). Claim 8 recites the additional element of “switching the application to operate in an internet-based communication protocol” and claim 9 recites that the visualization system is “an arthroscopic tower” such that each amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Claim 11 recites “a camera control unit,” which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to a generic computer component (i.e. the application, computing device, and the visualization system (e.g. camera control unit) to obtain data (e.g. images and/or video of the patient) See Application Specification at [0055]-[0056], [0059]). Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore the dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 15-16 and 18 are drawn to a system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Independent Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 15 recites (additional elements bolded):
15. A system comprising: a memory device storing instructions; and at least one processing device communicatively coupled to the memory device, the at least one processing device executes the instructions to:
receive, by an application implemented by the instructions, an input to initiate a patient session using a visualization system located at a facility, wherein the at least one processing device is communicatively coupled via a private area network to the visualization system for the patient session;
determine, by the application, whether a compliance confirmation device is also located at the facility in the private area computer network associated with the visualization system, wherein the compliance confirmation device is associated with an identification of the facility;
responsive to determining the compliance confirmation device is also located at the facility in the private area computer network associated with the visualization system, receive, by the application via the private area computer network, the identification of the facility from the compliance confirmation device;
obtain, using the application, data during the patient session;
associate the data obtained during the patient session with the identification of the facility when writing the data to memory at the facility;
receive, by the application, a request to transmit the data obtained during the patient session to a cloud-based data management system for storage;
responsive to the request: obtain by the application, via the private area computer network, the data obtained during the patient session and store the obtained data on the computing device;
automatically switch the application from being connected to the private area computer network to being connected to a wide area computer network;
transmit, by the application via the wide area computer network, both (a) a credential of a user of the application and (b) the identification of the facility to the cloud-based data management system for verification by the cloud-based data management system both that the user of the application is licensed to use the cloud-based data management system and that the facility is approved to transmit the data to the cloud-based data management system;
responsive to receiving, at the application, a notification from the cloud- based management system that the user of the application is not licensed to use the cloud-based data management system and/or the facility is not approved to transmit the data to the cloud-based data management system, block transmission of the data via the wide area network from the computing device to the cloud-based data management system; and otherwise:
transmit the data from the memory at the facility computing device via the wide area network to the cloud-based data management system for storage at the cloud-based data management system.
The above claim limitations, as drafted, is a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people through following rules or instructions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the above bolded claim limitations, such as “a memory device storing instructions; and at least one processing device communicatively coupled to the memory device, the at least one processing device executes the instructions to” “by an application implemented by the instructions,” “wherein the processing device is communicatively coupled via a private area network to the visualization system,” “a compliance confirmation device” “a wide area computer network,” “a cloud-based data management system,” and “memory,” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from management of personal behavior or interactions between people. For example, but for the above bolded language, receiving an input to initiate a patient session, determining and receiving that a compliance device is located in a facility and determining and receiving an identification of the facility, obtaining data during the patient session and associating the data obtained during the patient session with the identification of the facility, receiving a request to share the data and then sharing the data only when the identification of the facility and user is verified and approved in the context of this claim encompasses the managing personal behaviors or interactions between people through rules or instructions for determining data authorizations and compliance. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behaviors or interactions between people through rules or instructions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above bolded additional elements, for example “a memory device storing instructions; and at least one processing device communicatively coupled to the memory device, the at least one processing device executes the instructions to” “by an application implemented by the instructions,” “wherein the processing device is communicatively coupled via a private area network to the visualization system,” “a compliance confirmation device” “a wide area computer network,” “a cloud-based data management system,” and “memory,” to perform the claim limitations. The elements in each of these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a processing device and memory such as read-only memory/flash memory and application and a visualization system (e.g. tablet, smartphone, laptop, etc.), a compliance confirmation device (e.g. a virtual device that is installed within a controller of the visualization system), a computer network (e.g. a private area network/internet based protocol), and a cloud-based data management system (e.g. a central cloud storage repository) as they relate to a general purpose computers (Application Specification [0023], [0027], [0029], [0040], [0078])). As such, the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, the limitations, for example, regarding receiving, by the application operating on a compute ring device, an input to initiate a patient session, receiving, by the application, a request to transmit the data obtained during the patient session to a cloud-based data management system, transmitting, by the application via the wide area computer network, and transmitting the data from the computing device via the wide area network to the cloud-based data management system for storage at the cloud-based data management system amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP2106.05(g) (data gathering). The limitation of “automatically switch the application from being connected to the private area computer network to being connected to a wide area computer network,” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements 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 above bolded additional elements, for example “a memory device storing instructions; and at least one processing device communicatively coupled to the memory device, the at least one processing device executes the instructions to” “by an application implemented by the instructions,” “wherein the processing device is communicatively coupled via a private area network to the visualization system,” “a compliance confirmation device” “a wide area computer network,” “a cloud-based data management system,” and “memory,” to perform the claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. (i.e., a processing device and memory such as read-only memory/flash memory and application and a visualization system (e.g. tablet, smartphone, laptop, etc.), a compliance confirmation device (e.g. a virtual device that is installed within a controller of the visualization system), a computer network (e.g. a private area network/internet based protocol), and a cloud-based data management system (e.g. a central cloud storage repository) as they relate to a general purpose computers (Application Specification [0023], [0027], [0029], [0040], [0078])). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or other machinery under its ordinary capacity cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, the limitations, for example, regarding receiving, by the application operating on a compute ring device, an input to initiate a patient session, receiving, by the application, a request to transmit the data obtained during the patient session to a cloud-based data management system, transmitting, by the application via the wide area computer network, and transmitting the data from the computing device via the wide area network to the cloud-based data management system for storage at the cloud-based data management system amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP2106.05(d). The limitation of “automatically switch the application from being connected to the private area computer network to being connected to a wide area computer network,” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 16 and 18 include limitations of the independent claim and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein. The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. These additional claims recite what the data is and how it is analyzed. These information characteristics do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the managing personal behaviors or interactions between people through rules or instructions for determining data authorizations and compliance. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore the dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 19-20 are drawn to a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium for operating a computing device, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Independent Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 19 recites:
19. A tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to:
receive, by an application implemented by the instructions, an input to initiate a patient session using a visualization system located at a facility, wherein the processing device is communicatively coupled via a private area computer network to the visualization system at the facility for the patient session;
determine, by the application, whether a compliance confirmation device is also located at the facility in the private area computer network associated with the visualization system, wherein the compliance confirmation device is associated with an identification of the facility at which the visualization system is used;
responsive to determining the compliance confirmation device is also located at the facility in the private area computer network associated with the visualization system, receive, by the application via the private area computer network, the identification of the facility from the compliance confirmation device;
obtain, using the application, data during the patient session;
associate the data obtained during the patient session with the identification of the facility when writing the data to memory at the facility;
receive, by the application, a request to transmit the data obtained during the patient session to a cloud-based data management system for storage;
responsive to the request: obtain by the application, via the private area computer network, the data obtained during the patient session and store the obtained data on the computing device;
automatically switch the application from being connected to the private area computer network to being connected to a wide area computer network;
transmit, by the application via the wide area computer network, both (a) a credential of a user of the application and (b) the identification of the facility to the cloud-based data management system for verification by the cloud-based data management system both that the user of the application is licensed to use the cloud-based data management system and that the facility is approved to transmit the data to the cloud-based data management system;
responsive to receiving, at the application, a notification from the cloud-based management system that the user of the application is not licensed to use the cloud-based data management system and/or the facility is not approved to transmit the data to the cloud-based data management system, block transmission of the data via the wide area network from the computing device to the cloud-based data management system; and otherwise:
transmit the data from the computing device via the wide area network to the cloud-based data management system for storage at the cloud-based data management system.
The above claim limitations, as drafted, is a manufacture that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people through following rules or instructions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the above bolded claim limitations, such as “a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to” “by an application implemented by the instructions,” “a visualization system,” “a private area computer network,” “a compliance confirmation device” “a wide area computer network,” “a cloud-based data management system,” and “memory,” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from management of personal behavior or interactions between people. For example, but for the above bolded language, receiving an input to initiate a patient session, determining and receiving that a compliance device is located in a facility and determining and receiving an identification of the facility, obtaining data during the patient session and associating the data obtained during the patient session with the identification of the facility, receiving a request to share the data and then sharing the data only when the identification of the facility and user is verified and approved in the context of this claim encompasses the managing personal behaviors or interactions between people through rules or instructions for determining data authorizations and compliance. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behaviors or interactions between people through rules or instructions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above bolded additional elements, for example “a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to” “by an application implemented by the instructions,” “a visualization system,” “a private area computer network,” “a compliance confirmation device” “a wide area computer network,” “a cloud-based data management system,” and “memory,” to perform the claim limitations. The elements in each of these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a processing device and memory such as read-only memory/flash memory and application and a visualization system (e.g. tablet, smartphone, laptop, etc.), a compliance confirmation device (e.g. a virtual device that is installed within a controller of the visualization system), a computer network (e.g. a private area network/internet based protocol), and a cloud-based data management system (e.g. a central cloud storage repository) as they relate to a general purpose computers (Application Specification [0023], [0027], [0029], [0040], [0078])). As such, the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, the limitations, for example, regarding receiving, by the application operating on a compute ring device, an input to initiate a patient session, receiving, by the application, a request to transmit the data obtained during the patient session to a cloud-based data management system, transmitting, by the application via the wide area computer network, and transmitting the data from the computing device via the wide area network to the cloud-based data management system for storage at the cloud-based data management system amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP2106.05(g) (data gathering). The limitation of “automatically switch the application from being connected to the private area computer network to being connected to a wide area computer network,” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements 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 above bolded additional elements, for example “a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to” “by an application implemented by the instructions,” “a visualization system,” “a private area computer network,” “a compliance confirmation device” “a wide area computer network,” “a cloud-based data management system,” and “memory,” to perform the claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. (i.e., a processing device and memory such as read-only memory/flash memory and application and a visualization system (e.g. tablet, smartphone, laptop, etc.), a compliance confirmation device (e.g. a virtual device that is installed within a controller of the visualization system), a computer network (e.g. a private area network/internet based protocol), and a cloud-based data management system (e.g. a central cloud storage repository) as they relate to a general purpose computers (Application Specification [0023], [0027], [0029], [0040], [0078])). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or other machinery under its ordinary capacity cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).Further, the limitations, for example, regarding receiving, by the application operating on a compute ring device, an input to initiate a patient session, receiving, by the application, a request to transmit the data obtained during the patient session to a cloud-based data management system, transmitting, by the application via the wide area computer network, and transmitting the data from the computing device via the wide area network to the cloud-based data management system for storage at the cloud-based data management system amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP2106.05(d). The limitation of “automatically switch the application from being connected to the private area computer network to being connected to a wide area computer network,” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 20 includes limitations of the independent claim and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein. The dependent claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because it is directed to non-statutory subject matter. This additional claim recites what the data is and how it is analyzed. These information characteristics do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the managing personal behaviors or interactions between people through rules or instructions for determining data authorizations and compliance. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore the dependent claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed on 01/27/2026.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that:
Regarding the 101 rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-16, and 18-20, Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a practical application in the area of computer network transmission and storage – that of providing a surgeon flexibility of moving with his or her computing device between facilities. See Remarks at pg. 11.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (a) regarding the 101 rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-16, and 18-20, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Applicant argues in favor of the current amendments regarding obtaining and storing data during a patient session. Examiner respectfully submits that these limitations are recited at a high-level, such that the obtaining of data is recited merely being performed using the application via a private area network, which is merely applying generic computer components (application and a network) to perform data gathering under the ordinary capacity of these computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Second, Applicant argues in favor of the current amendments regarding switching from a private area network to a wide area network. Examiner respectfully submits that the claim limitation, as currently recited, does not link the switching from a private area network to a wide area network (i.e. both generic computer component) to any technical improvement, but the claim limitation merely states a switch at a high level of generality such that it amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Third, the step of the step of verifying the credential of the user and the facility is licensed to transmit the patient session data is a step of the abstract idea as a rule or instruction for managing personal behavior or interactions between people. Whereas the blocking transmission is merely a negative output from the abstract idea analysis for not providing license to transmit data. The claims do not recite a technical improvement to a technical problem rooted in the improvement of the functioning of a computer itself or the area of computer networking or storage thereof, but rather, provide a technical solution to the abstract idea itself through using general purpose computer components as a tool to avoid manual data compliance authorization confirmation by a user such as a surgeon.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully maintains the 101 rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-16, and 18-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2015/0149211 A1 teaches a cloud-based clinical information system from a first healthcare entity registered with the cloud-based clinical information system (Abstract); and
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0394243 A1 teaches a cloud computing system for a data source with a compliance requirement and input collection algorithm for cyber security ([0527]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY BALAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-8181. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/A.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights