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 1-15 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/ make a determination, 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 recite 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. 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.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Junger et al. (US 11974890).
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).
Re claims 2-3, the limitations have been discussed re the deauthetnicating the probe based on the usage value to prevent usage of the unit and allowing usage when it has not exceeded the usage limit.
Re claim 7, the laser probe is interpreted as an attachment to a surgical tool.
Re claim 13, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 14, RFID has been discussed above.
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) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junger et al., as discussed above.
Re claims 4-5, as discussed above, the prior art teaches comparing the number of pulses to see if the probe is usable. Though silent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to update the usage value so that subsequent determinations can be made about whether to allow the probe to be used based on pulse count. The selection of decreasing the usage value is implicit in that a finite number of uses are allowed, and each subsequent use reduces the amount left. The selection of whether to record the count of uses performed and/ or the count of future uses available involves only routine skill in the art based on the desired output.
Re claim 6, 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 tot the deactivation for information providing purposes, especially as display 416 displaying information in a user interface.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junger et al., as discussed above, in view of Tethrake et al. (US 8454613).
Re claim 8, the teachings of Junger 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 as a pad for insertion, wherein a specific type of material is an obvious expedient for expected results for holding.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junger et al., as discussed above, in view of
The teachings of Junger et al. have been discussed above but are silent to determine the acceptability/ unacceptability based on shelf life (age) and recall data.
Shleton, IV teaches (col 21, lines 20+) that the RFID system determines if RFID replaceable components are compatible with the surgical instrument, have an expiration data, or a recall.
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 devise used are safe and proper (such as comparing age/ shelf life and recall 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.
Conclusion
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