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 .
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 and 6-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations drawn to mental concepts/ organized human activity involving routine data gathering (collection of data) and then comparing it to stored data to output a result/ decide, which is merely insignificant post solution activity, and is similar to concepts of Electric Power v. Alstom. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computer environment.
Re the newly added limitation that the device is configured to be repeatedly sterilized, this is not a practical application as it merely requires that the device is configured to be sterilized, which is part of insignificant pre solution activity, and does not impart any structural limitations. Re the limtaitons added about determining the threshold, updating the memory, and denying usage, these limitations fall under mental steps/ organized human activity related to tracking usage of the device, with denying being insignificant post solution activity, similar to displaying results.
The dependent claims merely recite data types or data related to how to determine acceptability of a device and do not provide a practical application such as specific arrangement of sensors or other devices that can qualify as significantly more. The newly added dependent claims 16-22 are merely specifying details of the types of data which are not a practical application but merely details of the abstract idea. The recitation of a tray or pad for a transponder is still generic computer components for routine data gathering steps. Comparisons of data still fall under mental steps (done by generic computer components). An indicator is seen as displaying results and is mental steps and/or insignificant post solution activity.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 13-14, and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junger et al. (US 11974890) in view of Conlon et al. (US 201703120044).
Re claim 1, Junger et al. teaches:
A method of monitoring utilization of reusable surgical devices in a surgical operating environment, comprising, by a surgical console (100):
receiving an indicator of an intent to use a reusable surgical device in a surgical procedure (RFID reader 102 reads RFID 202 on laser probe 200);
responsive to the received indicator, receiving, from memory associated with the reusable surgical device, a usage value associated with an amount of previous usage of the reusable surgical device (col 2, lines 26+ teaches operation history of the laser probe stored in the RFID tag such as the number of pulses);
assessing an acceptability of the reusable surgical device for use in the surgical procedure based on a comparison of the usage value with a usage threshold associated with a usage limit of the reusable surgical device (col 2, lines 26+ teaches deauthenticating a laser probe based on the operation history exceeding a usage threshold); and
allowing or denying usage of the reusable surgical device in the surgical procedure based on the assessed acceptability of the reusable surgical device (deauthenticating prevents laser probe usage).
Junger is silent to the reusable device being configured to be repeatedly sterilized when used in surgical procedures.
Conlon et al. teaches determines if reuse ca be performed before sterilization of the medical device (abstract+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for cleaning for reuse. Conlon teaches that the display 304 can display where any more uses remain which is updating to reflect allowable usage and denying usage when the threshold is hit (paragraph [0060]+).
Re claim 6, Junger teaches col 2, lines 20+ teach that when deauthenticated, that the laser probe is not activated. Though silent to displaying/ advising, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to display information related to the deactivation for information providing purposes, especially as display 416 displaying information in a user interface. Conlon et al. teaches advising via the display discussed above.
Re claim 7, the laser probe is interpreted as an attachment to a surgical tool (Junger) and Conlon teaches an attachment (abstract+).
Re claim 13, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 14, RFID has been discussed above.
Re claim 16, Conlon et al. teaches previous surgical procedures (abstract+ teaches surgical instruments and uses remaining and determining usage for another surgery prior to sterilization, wherein it is implicit that the surgical tool being reused is used in surgical procedures ).
Re claim 17, a network or cloud is not used, as Conlon et al teaches memory on the device itself (270) and displaying at the display 304.
Re claim 18, via Conlon et al., RFID has been discussed above, including usage from 270 (memory/ NFC, which obviates RFID). A pad has been discussed above as an obvious expedient to hold the items/ devices.
Re claim 19, Conlon et al. teaches previous surgical procedures (abstract+ teaches surgical instruments and uses remaining and determining usage for another surgery prior to sterilization ).
Re claim 20, a network or cloud is not used, as Conlon et al teaches memory on the device itself (270) and displaying at the display 304.
Re claim 21, a usage sensor has been discussed above via the displaying
Re claim 22, the limtaitons have been discussed above.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junger et al./ Conlon et al., as discussed above, in view of Tethrake et al. (US 8454613).
Re claim 8, the teachings of Junger al./ Conlon et al. have been discussed above but are silent to placement on a tray to detect.
Tethrake et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 2+)
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings, to provide a reader with a place to organize/ store tools for convenience.
Re clam 15, the surgical tray 210 has an inner base, broadly interpreted/ obviating the use of a pad for insertion, wherein a specific type of material is an obvious expedient for expected results for holding. One would have been motivated for the inner base to be a pad for securing the tools.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junger et al./ Conlon et al., as discussed above, in view of Venkataraman (US 12658310).
The teachings of Junger et al./ Conlon et al. have been discussed above but are silent to determine the acceptability/ unacceptability based on shelf life (age).
Venkataraman teaches that shelf life is number of users (col 9, lines 40+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to ensure that the device is safe to use based on manufacturer data.
Re claim 12, though silent to explicitly updating a value in the memory to reflect discrepancy, Junger et al. teaches that the RFID tag can be read/write where specific object data can be written by the system user and that claim 12 teaches that tag indicates previous deauthentication, which obviates a marking or notation or value in the memory indicating such.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junger et al./ Conlon et al., as discussed above, in view of Casady et al. (US 20150234995).
The teachings of Junger et al./ Conlon et al. have been discussed above but are silent to using recall information.
Casady et al. generally teaches looking at recall information to determine if recalls exist and alerting paragraph [0038]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in order to have up to date information for patient safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. New art has been provided above. Re the 101, newly added limitations to claim 1 about determining usage and denying are not seen as a practical application as discussed above. Determining is seen as mental steps/ math. Updating a counter is generic computerization of mental steps. Without a practical application by further specifying what “denying” the usage entails, the limitations are seen as insignificant post solution activity.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights