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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 32-34, and 36-40 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action having a notification date of September 19, 2025 (“non-final Office Action”). Following the non-final Office Action, Applicant filed an amendment on December 15, 2025 (the “Amendment”), amending claims 1, 10, 36 and adding new claims 42-44.
The present Final Office Action addresses pending claims 1, 4-7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 32-34, 36-40, and 42-44 in the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §101
At page 12 of the Amendment, Applicant takes the position that limiting the initiated automated action (to reduce likelihood of a future failure event) to "performing a recalibration of one or more components of the robotically assisted surgical system" would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to yield improvements in the operation of the robotic system, particularly when starting from a state with observed performance anomalies.
To facilitate analysis of whether "performing a recalibration of one or more components of the robotically assisted surgical system" provides a technological improvement amounting to a "practical application" of or providing "significantly more" than the abstract idea, the present specification must be consulted to determine whether a technical explanation as to how to implement the improvement is present such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a). However, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the present case, the specification sets forth (e.g., in [0029], [0046], [0049], and [0056]) the alleged "improvement" (i.e., performing a calibration/recalibration of one or more parts/components of the surgical system) but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art). More specifically, these portions of the specification just generically disclose performing a calibration/recalibration as part of a generic list of other types of generic remedial actions (e.g., replacing a part, performing a maintenance action, etc.) without any details of the calibration/recalibration that would be apparent to the ordinary artisan. Furthermore, the paragraphs mentioned by Applicant (i.e., [0024], [0041], [0051]) as providing support for Applicant's assertion that performing the recited recalibration yields the stated improvement do not even mention recalibration or calibration in the first place.
Still further, even though the present specification does not specify, "recalibration" is being interpreted to mean "calibrating" something again (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recalibrate) and "calibrate" is being interpreted to mean adjusting precisely for a particular function, determining deviation from a standard to ascertain proper correction factors, measuring precisely, etc. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calibrate). The Examiner respectfully asserts that generically adjusting one or more components of the surgical system precisely for some function, generically determining deviation of the one or more components from a standard to ascertain "proper" correction factors, and/or generically measuring the one or more components "precisely" just amounts to a conclusory description of an alleged improvement without providing the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art of an improvement in technology.
The Examiner also disagrees with Applicant's assertion that claims 42 and 43 yield a "technical improvement" leading to patent-eligibility of the claims. Specifically, generating API messages to causing maintenance activity scheduling or replacement part ordering is practically performable in the human mind ("mental processes") because a human could practically develop in their mind and write down on paper an API message for scheduling/ordering. Furthermore, transmitting the (mentally-determinable) API message to the connected scheduling platform/ordering system just amounts to insignificant application (e.g., similar to cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated this limitation and determined it to not be unconventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
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, 4-7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 32-34, 36-40, and 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, and 42-44 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claims 10, 13, 16, and 32-34 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., a manufacture); and claims 36-40 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1, 4-7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 32-34, 36-40, and 42-44 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. 35 USC §101.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 and July 2024 updates issued by the USPTO as incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 10 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 10 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for predicting maintenance activities in a robotically assisted surgical system, the instructions when executed by a processor causing the processor to perform steps including:
obtaining operational data associated with operation of the robotically assisted surgical system, wherein the operational data comprises control command data generated during operation of the robotically assisted surgical system, the control command data including at least joint actuator control inputs controlling motion of the robotically assisted surgical system during medical procedures;
applying a machine learning model to the operational data to generate a classification of an operational state of the robotically assisted surgical system as corresponding to one of a predefined set of healthy states, one of a predefined set of known failure states, or an anomalous state that does not correspond to any of the predefined set of healthy states or the predefined set of known failure states, wherein the machine learning model is trained according to a clustering technique that clusters historical operational data into the predefined set of healthy states and predefined set of failure states; and
based on classifying the operational state as an anomalous state that does not correspond to any of the predefined set of health states or the predefined set of known failure states, initiating an automated remedial action of the robotically assisted surgical system to reduce likelihood of a future failure event, wherein initiating the automated remedial action of the robotically assisted surgical system comprises automatically performing a recalibration of one or more components of the robotically assigned surgical system.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “mental processes” because they are observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). As an example, a medical equipment technician or the like could initially review historical operating data (e.g., command signals controlling movement of joint actuators, power input to a motor of the system, operational hours per day, generated error codes, etc.) for one or more surgical systems and cluster the historical operating data into one or more healthy states and failure states. For instance, numerous historical operating data sets where command signals/power inputs/operation hours are all within normal operating ranges and there are not generated error codes can be plotted on a graph and clustered into one or more "healthy" state while others of the historical operating data sets where command signals/power inputs/operation hours are not within normal operating ranges and there are one or more generated error codes can be plotted on a graph and clustered into one or more "failure" states.
Thereafter, the technician could obtain and analyze one or more types of operational data associated with operation of current robotically assisted surgical system (e.g., command signals controlling movement of joint actuators, power input to a motor of the system, operational hours per day, generated error codes, etc.) and then classify an operational state of the surgical system as a predefined healthy state (e.g., one of the above "healthy" clusters), a known failure state (e.g., one of the above "failure" clusters), or an unknown/anomalous state (not one of the above clusters). For instance, the technician can perform any appropriate similarity analysis to compare the operating parameters of the current system to those of the various clusters.
In the case where the operating state of the current surgical system is operating in an "anomalous" state (i.e., does not correspond to one of the healthy or known failure states), the technician could use their experience or the like to generate a recommendation to initiate a remedial action to perform a diagnostic test, enable or disable a system component, etc. to reduce a likelihood of a future failure event. Furthermore, at least the performing a diagnostic test remedial action is practically mentally performable as the technician could observe operation of the system or corresponding data and conduct a test/analysis in their mind to yield results that facilitate a reduction in likelihood of a future failure event (e.g., providing useful information regarding how an adjustment/modification to the system is to be made).
These recitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQe2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims “directed to collection of information, comprehending the meaning of that collected information, and indication of the results, all on a generic computer network operating in its normal, expected manner,” fail step one of the Alice framework. In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Claims directed to “collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data" are abstract. Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. General Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Claims directed to organizing, storing, and transmitting information determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Cyberfone Sys., L.L.C. v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App' x 988, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 4, 5, 13, 32, 37, 39, 42, and 43 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below:
-Claims 4, 5, 13, 32, 37, and 39 recite various different types of operational parameters (e.g., motor power input, motor rotational velocity, brake actuation count, etc.) which just further defines the abstract idea discussed above.
-Claims 42 and 43 call for generating API messages to causing maintenance activity scheduling or replacement part ordering which is practically performable in the human mind (e.g., a human could practically develop in their mind and write down on paper an API message for scheduling/ordering).
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for predicting maintenance activities in a robotically assisted surgical system, the instructions when executed by a processor causing the processor to perform steps including (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
obtaining operational data associated with operation of the robotically assisted surgical system, wherein the operational data comprises control command data generated during operation of the robotically assisted surgical system, the control command data including at least joint actuator control inputs controlling motion of the robotically assisted surgical system during medical procedures;
applying a machine learning model to the operational data to (merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) generate a classification of an operational state of the robotically assisted surgical system as corresponding to one of a predefined set of healthy states, one of a predefined set of known failure states, or an anomalous state that does not correspond to any of the predefined set of healthy states or the predefined set of known failure states, wherein the machine learning model is trained according to (merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) a clustering technique that clusters historical operational data into the predefined set of healthy states and predefined set of failure states;
based on classifying the operational state as an anomalous state that does not correspond to any of the predefined set of health states or the predefined set of known failure states, initiating an automated remedial action of the robotically assisted surgical system to reduce likelihood of a future failure event, wherein initiating the automated remedial action of the robotically assisted surgical system comprises automatically performing a recalibration of one or more components of the robotically assigned surgical system (merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, general instructions to "apply" the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); mere field of use limitation as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of applying an ML model to the operational data to generate the classification, the ML model being trained via a "clustering technique" that clusters historical data into healthy and failure states, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Initially, merely reciting how some generic ML model is "applied" to the operational data to generate the classification does not recite any details regarding how the ML model is applied to generate the classification. Furthermore, reciting how the ML model is trained by a "clustering technique" that clusters historical data into healthy and failure states just describes how unsupervised training works in general (i.e., because unsupervised training does not rely on labeled training data, it necessary proceeds by somehow grouping/clustering unlabeled inputs to learn associations/correlations). Accordingly, these limitations provide only a result-oriented solution and lack details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
Claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are not patent eligible. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), pp. 10, 14. An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment. Id. Requirements that the machine learning model be “iteratively trained” or dynamically adjusted do not represent a technological improvement because iterative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning. Id., p. 12. “[T]he way machine learning works is the inputs are defined, the model is trained, and then the algorithm is actually updated and improved over time based on the input.” Id. Allowing a claim that functionally describes a mere concept without disclosing how to implement that concept risks defeating the very purpose of the patent system. Id., p. 13.
Regarding the additional limitation of initiating an automated remedial action including automatically performing a recalibration of one or more components of the robotically assisted surgical system (to reduce likelihood of a future failure event), the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to generic instructions to "apply" the abstract idea and/or merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Similar to how nothing in the claims indicated what steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea of collecting, displaying and manipulating data in the context of somehow modifying an underlying XML document based on modifications made in a dynamic document in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), nothing in the present claims indicates what steps are taken other than merely using the anomalous state classification (i.e., the "mental processes" abstract idea) in the context of initiating an automated remedial action based on the anomalous state classification via broadly "performing a recalibration of one or more components of the robotically assisted surgical system" to reduce the likelihood of the future failure events.
Alternatively, specifying that the automated remedial action initiation includes "performing a recalibration of one or more components of the robotically assisted surgical system" to reduce the likelihood of the future failure events does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea and is merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Stated differently, automatically initiating the remedial action via performing a recalibration of one or more components of the robotically assisted surgical system merely limits use of the anomalous state classification (i.e., the "mental processes" abstract idea) to the context of robotic system recalibrations and does not alter/effect how the process steps of determining the anomalous state are performed.
Regarding the additional limitation of the "robot for facilitating assistance associated with a medical procedure" as recited in independent claim 36, the Examiner submits that this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 10 and analogous independent claims 1 and 36 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 10 and analogous independent claims 1 and 36 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
-Claims 6 and 33 call for outputting a notification for display on an output device which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claims 7, 16, and 38 recite how initiating the automated remedial action includes outputting an API message to trigger an action in a computing platform connected to the surgical system which is mere instructions to apply the above-noted at least one abstract idea and again provides no details regarding how the triggered action in the computing platform counteracts the future failure event (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, outputting an API message to a computing platform is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is similar to receiving/transmitting data over a network such as using the Internet to gather data. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
-Claims 9, 34, and 40 recite how initiating the automated remedial action includes initiating maintenance activity independent of a scheduled maintenance plan which is mere instructions to apply the above-noted at least one abstract idea and again provides no details regarding how the maintenance activity is initiated independent of a scheduled maintenance plan to counteract the future failure event (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
-Claims 42 and 43 call for transmitting the (mentally-determinable) API message to the connected scheduling platform/ordering system which amounts to insignificant application (e.g., similar to cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
-Claim 45 recites how the automated remedial action includes performing a system or sub-system reset, performing a diagnostic test, initiating an automated maintenance cycle, enabling or disabling a component of the robotically assisted surgical system, and automatically performing a software or firmware update, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to generic instructions to "apply" the abstract idea and/or merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
When the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 10 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of applying an ML model to the operational data to generate the classification, the ML model being trained via a "clustering technique" that clusters historical data into healthy and failure states, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Initially, merely reciting how some generic ML model is "applied" to the operational data to generate the classification does not recite any details regarding how the ML model is applied to generate the classification. Furthermore, reciting how the ML model is trained by a "clustering technique" that clusters historical data into healthy and failure states just describes how unsupervised training works in general (i.e., because unsupervised training does not rely on labeled training data, it necessary proceeds by somehow grouping/clustering unlabeled inputs to learn associations/correlations). Accordingly, these limitations provide only a result-oriented solution and lack details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
Claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are not patent eligible. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), pp. 10, 14. An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment. Id. Requirements that the machine learning model be “iteratively trained” or dynamically adjusted do not represent a technological improvement because iterative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning. Id., p. 12. “[T]he way machine learning works is the inputs are defined, the model is trained, and then the algorithm is actually updated and improved over time based on the input.” Id. Allowing a claim that functionally describes a mere concept without disclosing how to implement that concept risks defeating the very purpose of the patent system. Id., p. 13.
Regarding the additional limitation of initiating an automated remedial action including automatically performing a recalibration of one or more components of the robotically assisted surgical system (to reduce likelihood of a future failure event), the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to generic instructions to "apply" the abstract idea and/or merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Similar to how nothing in the claims indicated what steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea of collecting, displaying and manipulating data in the context of somehow modifying an underlying XML document based on modifications made in a dynamic document in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), nothing in the present claims indicates what steps are taken other than merely using the anomalous state classification (i.e., the "mental processes" abstract idea) in the context of initiating an automated remedial action based on the anomalous state classification via broadly "performing a recalibration of one or more components of the robotically assisted surgical system" to reduce the likelihood of the future failure events.
Alternatively, specifying that the automated remedial action initiation includes "performing a recalibration of one or more components of the robotically assisted surgical system" to reduce the likelihood of the future failure events does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea and is merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Stated differently, automatically initiating the remedial action via performing a recalibration of one or more components of the robotically assisted surgical system merely limits use of the anomalous state classification (i.e., the "mental processes" abstract idea) to the context of robotic system recalibrations and does not alter/effect how the process steps of determining the anomalous state are performed.
Regarding the additional limitation of the "robot for facilitating assistance associated with a medical procedure" as recited in independent claim 36, the Examiner submits that this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
-Claims 6 and 33 call for outputting a notification for display on an output device which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claims 7, 16, and 38 recite how initiating the automated remedial action includes outputting an API message to trigger an action in a computing platform connected to the surgical system which is mere instructions to apply the above-noted at least one abstract idea and again provides no details regarding how the triggered action in the computing platform counteracts the future failure event (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, outputting an API message to a computing platform is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is similar to receiving/transmitting data over a network such as using the Internet to gather data. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
-Claims 9, 34, and 40 recite how initiating the automated remedial action includes initiating maintenance activity independent of a scheduled maintenance plan which is mere instructions to apply the above-noted at least one abstract idea and again provides no details regarding how the maintenance activity is initiated independent of a scheduled maintenance plan to counteract the future failure event (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
-Claims 42 and 43 call for transmitting the (mentally-determinable) API message to the connected scheduling platform/ordering system which amounts to insignificant application (e.g., similar to cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated this limitation and determined it to not be unconventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
-Claim 45 recites how the automated remedial action includes performing a system or sub-system reset, performing a diagnostic test, initiating an automated maintenance cycle, enabling or disabling a component of the robotically assisted surgical system, and automatically performing a software or firmware update, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to generic instructions to "apply" the abstract idea and/or merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claims 1, 4-7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 32-34, 36-40, and 42-44 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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, Jason Dunham, can be reached on 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686