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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP 23189955.0, filed on August 7, 2023.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed on January 20, 2026, the following has occurred: claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 11, 16, 18 have been amended. Now, claim(s) 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “the subset” in p. 2, ll. 21. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices”.
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: “the subset” in p. 6, ll. 4. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1: Step 2A Prong One
during the surgical procedure, analyze the monitoring data to determine a current state of the surgical procedure;
determine one or more observability requirements for the current state of the surgical procedure based on the observability data;
determine based on the one or more observability requirements, a subset to be perceptually prioritized
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the
recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing interactions between people (including following rules or instructions), which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, but for the “a processor and memory, the processor configured to” language, the “analyze” function in the context of this claim encompasses a user following instructions to determine a current state of the surgical procedure. Finally, but for the “a processor and memory, the processor configured to” language, the “determine” functions in the context of this claim encompasses a user following instructions to determine one or more observability requirements for the current state of the surgical procedure, and a user following instructions to determine, based on the determined observability requirements, a subset to be prioritized. These steps could be accomplished by a person following instructions to observe a surgical procedure, determine factors about the surgical procedure and select devices to prioritized, and therefore encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claim 1: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract idea, and adding insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 1, directly or indirectly, recite the following generic computer components, “a processor and memory, the processor configured to”, “…a remote monitoring system”, “…of the plurality of monitoring device” configured to implement the abstract idea. As set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, claim 1 recites “access monitoring data provided by a plurality of monitoring devices;”, “retrieve observability data indicative of observability requirements for a different state of the surgical procedure” that amounts to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, claim 1 recites “send selection data indicative of the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to the remote monitoring system” that amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.")
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Additionally, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP 2016.05(h) and Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USP12d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Claim 16 recites the same functions as claim 1 but in method form, and claim 16 does not recite the “a processor and memory, the processor configured to” language.
Claim 18 recites the same functions as claim 1 but in non-transitory computer-readable medium form.
Dependent claims 2-15 incorporate the abstract idea of claim 1 as identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea. Claims 2-5, 7-8 describe accessing surgical planning data and identifying the current state of the surgical procedure. Similarly, claim 6 further describes the plurality of monitoring devices. Similarly, claims 9-10, 12, 15 further describe the remote monitoring system. Similarly, claim 11 describes adjusting the monitoring devices and medical devices. Similarly, claim 13 describes instructions to perform one or more surgical steps. Similarly, claim 14 further describes the system. Therefore, these claims recite limitations that fall into the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 2-15 recite additional subject matter which amounts to limitations consisted with the additional elements in independent claim 1 (such as claim 13 at a high degree of generality, amount no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technical environment. The recitation is also similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f), merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.)
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already
present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 17, 19-20 recite the same functions as claims 2-4, but in method and non-transitory computer-readable medium form.
Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 11, 13-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0125455) in view of Roh et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0059343).
As per independent claim 1, Shelton, IV discloses a monitoring control system for monitoring a surgical procedure, the system comprising:
a processor and memory (See [0594]: The computer system comprises a processor and a network interface, the processor is coupled to a communication module, storage, memory, non-volatile memory, and input/output interface via a system bus), the processor configured to:
access monitoring data provided by a plurality of monitoring devices (See [0911]-[0916]: The surgical hub may be configured to determine the type of surgical procedure being performed on a patient from data received from one or more of the operating-room monitoring devices, which the Examiner is interpreting data received from one or more of the operating-room monitoring devices to encompass access monitoring data provided by a plurality of monitoring devices);
during the surgical procedure, analyze the monitoring data to determine a current state of the surgical procedure (See Fig. 86 and [0911]-[0914]: During a surgical procedure, the surgical hub can be connected to various operating-room monitoring devices, data collected from these devices can improve the situational awareness of the surgical hub, which the Examiner is interpreting the situational awareness of the surgical hub to encompass determine a current state of the surgical procedure);
determine one or more observability requirements for the current state of the surgical procedure based the observability data (See [1062]-[1066], [1282]: A situationally aware surgical hub could determine whether the current or subsequent step of the surgical procedure requires a different view or degree of magnification on the display according to the feature(s) at the surgical site that the surgeon is expected to need to view, which the Examiner is interpreting a different view or degree of magnification on the display to encompass one or more observability requirements, and interpreting determine the type of surgical procedure being performed, retrieve the corresponding list of steps or order of equipment usage (e.g., from a memory) to encompass observability requirements for different states of the surgical procedure);
determine, based on the one or more observability requirements, a subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to be perceptually prioritized by a remote monitoring system (See [1259], [1266]-[1268]: The prioritization of the input devices may be configured so the foot pedal has highest priority followed by the voice interface and the CPU, which the Examiner is interpreting the input devices to encompass subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to be perceptually prioritized by a remote monitoring system);
send selection data indicative of the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to the remote monitoring system (See [0537]-[0538], [1065]: Each surgical system includes at least one surgical hub in communication with the cloud that may include a remote server, the surgical hub can be configured to determine the type of surgical procedure being performed, retrieve the corresponding checklists, product location, or setup needs (e.g., from a memory), and then compare the current operating theater layout to the standard layout for the type of surgical procedure that the surgical hub determines is being performed, which the Examiner is interpreting the corresponding checklists, product location, or setup needs to encompass the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices.)
While Shelton, IV teaches the system as described above, Shelton, IV may not explicitly teach retrieve observability data indicative of observability requirements for a different state of the surgical procedure.
Roh teaches a system for retrieve observability data indicative of observability requirements for a different state of the surgical procedure (See [0121]-[0122], [0155]-[0157]: A surgical consulting requirement of a medical facility for a surgical procedure is received from a computer device at the medical facility, the surgical consulting requirement can describe the medical equipment located in the medical facility for performing the surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting engagement information to encompass observability data as the communication module determines whether a connection to the medical equipment is needed as part of the surgical consultant's engagement, and interpreting different engagement information to encompass a different state of the surgical procedure ([0157]: “For example, medical students observing the surgical procedure would not need a connection to the anesthesiology machine 140. In another example, an anesthesiologist needs to connect to an anesthesiology machine 140 in the operating room 424.”).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Shelton, IV to include retrieve observability data indicative of observability requirements for a different state of the surgical procedure as taught by Roh as to identify the prioritization of the input devices of Shelton, IV ([1266]-[1268]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Shelton, IV with Roh with the motivation of improved diagnoses, narrowed surgical operation learning curves, reduced operational costs, and shortened image acquisition times (See Detailed Description of Roh in Paragraph [0046]).
Claim(s) 16 and 18 mirror claim 1 only within different statutory categories, and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 2, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
access surgical planning data which is indicative of a planned surgical procedure to be conducted (See [1056]: The situational awareness system includes a pattern recognition system, or machine learning system (e.g., an artificial neural network), that has been trained on training data to correlate various inputs (e.g., data from databases, patient monitoring devices, and/or modular devices) to corresponding contextual information regarding a surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting training data to correlate various inputs (e.g., data from databases, patient monitoring devices, and/or modular devices) to corresponding contextual information regarding a surgical procedure to encompass access surgical planning data which is indicative of a planned surgical procedure to be conducted); and
determine the current state of the surgical procedure based on a comparison to the planned surgical procedure (See [1064]: A situationally aware surgical hub could determine which step of the surgical procedure is being performed or will subsequently be performed and whether particular data or comparisons between data will be required for that step of the surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting determine which step of the surgical procedure is being performed to encompass determine the current state of the surgical procedure, and interpreting comparisons between data will be required for that step of the surgical procedure to encompass a comparison to the planned surgical procedure.)
As per claim 3, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claims 1-2 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
based on the comparison, determine whether the current state represents a deviation from the planned surgical procedure (See [1065]-[1066]: A situationally aware surgical hub could determine whether the surgeon (or other medical personnel) was making an error or otherwise deviating from the expected course of action during the course of a surgical procedure); and
if the deviation is determined, select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the deviation is remotely observable (See [1065]-[1066], [1202], [1344]: A situationally aware surgical hub could determine whether the surgeon (or other medical personnel) was making an error or otherwise deviating from the expected course of action during the course of a surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting determine whether the surgeon (or other medical personnel) was making an error to encompass the deviation is determined, and interpreting the modified video signal having overlaid text is transmitted to the video display allowing the user to visualize useful feedback information from the surgical instrument and/or feedback controller while still observing the surgical site to encompass select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the deviation is remotely observable.)
Claim(s) 17 and 19 mirror claims 2-3 only within different statutory categories, and are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-3.
As per claim 4, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claims 1-3 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
analyze the monitoring data to identify an entity which has caused, contributed to, or is otherwise associated with the deviation (See [1065]-[1066]: A situationally aware surgical hub could determine whether the surgeon (or other medical personnel) was making an error or otherwise deviating from the expected course of action during the course of a surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting the surgeon or other medical personnel to encompass identify an entity which has caused, contributed to, or is otherwise associated with the deviation); and
select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the entity is remotely observable (See [1065]-[1066], [1202], [1344]: A situationally aware surgical hub could determine whether the surgeon (or other medical personnel) was making an error or otherwise deviating from the expected course of action during the course of a surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting determine whether the surgeon (or other medical personnel) was making an error to encompass the deviation is determined, and interpreting the modified video signal having overlaid text is transmitted to the video display allowing the user to visualize useful feedback information from the surgical instrument and/or feedback controller while still observing the surgical site to encompass select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the entity is remotely observable.)
Claim(s) 20 mirrors claim 4 only within a different statutory category, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
As per claim 5, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claims 1-4 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the entity is at least one of:
a surgical target of the surgical procedure, a surgical access point, an instrument used in the surgical procedure, a member of staff attending the surgical procedure, a patient, a surgical robot, and a medical device used during the surgical procedure (See [1065]-[1066]: A situationally aware surgical hub could determine whether the surgeon (or other medical personnel) was making an error or otherwise deviating from the expected course of action during the course of a surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting the surgeon or other medical personnel to encompass a member of staff attending the surgical procedure.)
As per claim 6, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the plurality of monitoring devices comprises at least one of:
an audio-visual recording device, a sensor or component configured to monitor an operational state of an instrument or a surgical robot, and a medical device (See [1723]: The surgical robot can use an imaging device, such as a stereoscopic endoscope, to capture images of the procedure site and output the captured images to an electronics cart.)
As per claim 7, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
based on the current state of the surgical procedure, predict a following step of the surgical procedure (See [1544]-[1548]: To perform the predictive modeling, the cloud system may combine its knowledge of the exact steps to perform a procedure, what instruments may be used to perform each step, and its aggregated data for how each instrument performs each particular step, which the Examiner is interpreting the predictive modeling to encompass predict a following step of the surgical procedure); and
based on the observability data, select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the following step is remotely observable (See [0833], [1063], [1712]: During robotic surgical medical procedures, a patient can be placed on a platform adjacent to a robotic surgical system, and a surgeon can be positioned at a console that is remote from the platform and/or from the robot, which the Examiner is interpreting a surgeon can be positioned at a console that is remote from the platform and/or from the robot to encompass select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the following step is remotely observable.)
As per claim 8, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the current state of the surgical procedure by determining a current step in the surgical procedure by identifying a surgical event in the monitoring data (See [1064]-[1065], [1105]: A situationally aware surgical hub could determine which step of the surgical procedure is being performed or will subsequently be performed and whether particular data or comparisons between data will be required for that step of the surgical procedure, and the surgical hub can compare the relative positions of the devices to a recommended or anticipated layout for the particular surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting infer or determine information regarding a particular event (e.g., when a particular step of a surgical procedure is being performed and/or how long the step took to complete) based on data received from data sources connected to the surgical hub to encompass the claimed portion.)
As per claim 11, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to adjust at least one of a configuration of a monitoring device and a medical device used in the surgical procedure by sending configuration data to at least one of the monitoring device and the medical device (See [1063]: The surgical hub could then proactively change the displayed view (supplied by, e.g., a medical imaging device for the visualization system) accordingly so that the display automatically adjusts throughout the surgical procedure.)
As per claim 13, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches further comprising a surgical robot configured to perform one or more surgical steps during the surgical procedure, and wherein the remote monitoring system is a remote control system configured to remotely control the surgical robot (See [1919]: When manipulating one or more robotic tools of the robotic surgical system, a clinician is often positioned at a surgeon's command console or module, which is also referred to as a remote control console, the remote control console is positioned outside of a sterile field and, thus, can be remote to the sterile field and, in some instances, remote to the patient and even to the operating room.)
As per claim 14, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the system is a subsystem of the remote monitoring system (See [0539]: A robotic system is used in the surgical procedure as a part of the surgical system, which the Examiner is interpreting a robotic system to encompass a subsystem of the remote monitoring system.)
Claims 9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0125455) in view of Roh et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0059343) in further view of Olson et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0378768).
As per claim 9, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV/Roh may not explicitly teach wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to enable a remote user of the remote monitoring system to communicate with a member of staff attending the surgical procedure, wherein the processor is configured to select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the member of staff is perceptually perceivable.
Olson teaches a system wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to enable a remote user of the remote monitoring system to communicate with a member of staff attending the surgical procedure, wherein the processor is configured to select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the member of staff is perceptually perceivable (See [0046]-[0047]: Input from the remote user can include audio data captured at the VR headset, which the Examiner is interpreting the local user to encompass a member of staff attending the surgical procedure, interpreting the VR headset to encompass select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the member of staff is perceptually perceivable.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Shelton, IV/Roh to include enable a remote user of the remote monitoring system to communicate with a member of staff attending the surgical procedure, wherein the processor is configured to select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the member of staff is perceptually perceivable as taught by Olson. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Shelton, IV/Roh with Olson with the motivation of reducing risk through remote collaboration (See Background of Olson in Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 15, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV/Roh may not explicitly teach wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to render the monitoring data provided by the plurality of monitoring devices to enable remote monitoring of the surgical procedure.
Olson teaches a system wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to render the monitoring data provided by the plurality of monitoring devices to enable remote monitoring of the surgical procedure (See [0030]-[0031]: Augmented reality is rendered on the display of the device, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass the claimed portion.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Shelton, IV/Roh to include the remote monitoring system is configured to render the monitoring data provided by the plurality of monitoring devices to enable remote monitoring of the surgical procedure as taught by Olson. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Shelton, IV/Roh with Olson with the motivation of reducing risk through remote collaboration (See Background of Olson in Paragraph [0004]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0125455) in view of Roh et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0059343) in further view of Jorasch et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0293106).
As per claim 10, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the remote monitoring system comprises or is connected to an eye-tracker to eye-track a remote user of the remote monitoring system, and wherein the processor is further configured to:
adjust the selection data based on the eye tracking data (See [1063]: The surgical hub could then proactively change the displayed view (supplied by, e.g., a medical imaging device for the visualization system) accordingly so that the display automatically adjusts throughout the surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass the claimed portion when combined with Jorasch below.)
While Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system for wherein the remote monitoring system comprises or is connected to an eye-tracker to eye-track a remote user of the remote monitoring system, and wherein the processor is further configured to: adjust the selection data based on the eye tracking data, Shelton, IV/Roh may not explicitly teach wherein the remote monitoring system comprises or is connected to an eye-tracker to eye-track a remote user of the remote monitoring system, and wherein the processor is further configured to: access eye tracking data from the eye-tracker to determine which monitoring data is observed by the remote user.
Jorasch teaches a system wherein the remote monitoring system comprises or is connected to an eye-tracker to eye-track a remote user of the remote monitoring system (See [0403]: Exemplary indicators may be obtained through eye tracking), and wherein the processor is further configured to: access eye tracking data from the eye-tracker to determine which monitoring data is observed by the remote user (See [1013]: Various embodiments track which other participants a participant is looking at and when, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass the claimed portion when combined with Shelton, IV's disclosure of a surgical environment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Shelton, IV/Roh to include the remote monitoring system comprises or is connected to an eye-tracker to eye-track a remote user of the remote monitoring system, and wherein the processor is further configured to: access eye tracking data from the eye-tracker to determine which monitoring data is observed by the remote user as taught by Jorasch. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Shelton, IV/Roh with Jorasch with the motivation of improve the interactions and feedback by gathering and delivering more information to participants (See Detailed Description of Jorasch in Paragraph [1698]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0125455) in view of Roh et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0059343) in further view of Nakamura et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0346116).
As per claim 12, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV/Roh may not explicitly teach wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to perceptually prioritize the monitoring data of the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices by selectively rendering or perceptually highlighting the monitoring data of the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices.
Nakamura teaches a system wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to perceptually prioritize the monitoring data of the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices by selectively rendering or perceptually highlighting the monitoring data of the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices (See [0069]-[0070], [0123]: The composition section generates a composite image by compositing images output from the respective electronic instruments such as the operating room camera, the endoscope device, and the medical instrument, which the Examiner is interpreting an image with higher priority to encompass perceptually highlighting the monitoring data of the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Shelton, IV/Roh to include the remote monitoring system is configured to perceptually prioritize the monitoring data of the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices by selectively rendering or perceptually highlighting the monitoring data of the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices as taught by Nakamura. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Shelton, IV/Roh with Nakamura with the motivation of display a plurality of images in an easy-to-see and efficient manner (See Effects of the Invention of Nakamura in Paragraph [0014]).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed on January 20, 2026, the Applicant argues that the newly amended and/or added claims overcome the Claim Objection(s), 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s), and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s). The Examiner acknowledges that the newly added and/or amended claims overcome the previous Claim Objection(s). However, the Examiner does not acknowledge that the newly added and/or amended claims overcome the newly added Claim Objection(s), 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s), and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s).
The Applicant argues that:
(1) claim 1, as amended, addresses operations in a particular technological setting with concrete inputs and outputs tied to monitoring devices and a remote monitoring system, and does not allude to reciting mental steps or organizing human activity. The claim integrates any data analysis into a practical application by specifying that the analysis results in selection data that is sent to a remote monitoring system and that the determined subset is "to be perceptually prioritized by a remote monitoring system." The recited elements reflect a technological implementation involving a plurality of monitoring devices and a remote monitoring system, with the selection causing the remote monitoring system to prioritize a specific subset of a plurality of monitoring devices during the surgical procedure. This amounts to applying the analysis to control how device data is handled within a defined machine environment, and is not simply reporting results or limiting the idea to a field of use. If analysis proceeds to this step, the claim elements in combination provide significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The ordered sequence-"access[ing] monitoring data from a plurality of monitoring devices," "determine[ing] a current state of the surgical procedure," "retriev[ing] observability data," "determine[ing] one or more observability requirements for the current state" based on that data, determining a subset of monitoring devices "to be perceptually prioritized by a remote monitoring system" based on those requirements, and "send[ing] selection data indicative of the subset to the remote monitoring system"-amounts to a specific technical solution implemented within a system comprising monitoring devices and a remote monitoring system. The recited interactions with these components and the real-time use of selection data during the surgical procedure reflect more than insignificant data gathering or mere output and provide an inventive concept when viewed as an ordered combination. For at least these reasons, reconsideration and withdrawal of the 101 rejections to independent claims 1, 16, and 18 are respectfully requested as well as dependent claims 2-15, 17, and 19-20 by virtue of their respective direct and ultimate dependencies from independent claims 1, 16, and 18;
(2) Shelton teaches of a "surgical hub" or a "situationally aware surgical hub" that is configured to "derive information about the surgical procedure being performed based on data received from various data sources and then control the paired modular devices accordingly," (see Shelton, para [1055]. Shelton illustrates examples of using the surgical hub in paras [1057]-[1067]. Shelton, however, does not describe of a processor configured to "retrieve observability data indicative of observability requirements for a different state of the surgical procedure," "determine one or more observability requirements for the current state of the surgical procedure based on the observability data," and "determine, based on the one or more observability requirements, a subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to be perceptually prioritized by a remote monitoring system," as recited in Applicant's claim 1;
(3) Nakamura teaches that the composite image "is generated by compositing image is generated by compositing images output from a plurality of electronic instruments including a medical instrument, metadata related to division of the composite image is added to the composite image, and a display device is controlled to display, in a virtual three-dimensional space, divided images obtained by dividing the composite image into a plurality of divided regions on the basis of the metadata," see Nakamura para [0013], which is different from a perceptual prioritization of the remote monitoring system from Applicant's claims. Nakamura further discusses that the surgery support system have a "display control section 132 [which] may increase the refresh rate thereof or preferentially perform image processing thereon" for "an image with higher priority for the user, that is, an image that the user himself/herself wants to see," (see Nakamura, para [0123]). The Office Action alleges that this "higher priority" image may be similar to Applicant's perceptual prioritization of a subset of a plurality of monitoring devices based on one or more observability requirements. However, Nakamura teaches that "the refresh rate may be determined by whether or not the image that the user is looking at is an image with higher priority for the user. For example, in a case where the operating surgeon is looking at the operative field image, which has higher priority for him/her, the refresh rate is set to 60 Hz, and in a case where he/she is looking at the image obtained by image capture of surgical tools, which has lower priority, the refresh rate is reduced to 30 Hz. Note that which image the user is looking at is determined on the basis of a detection result of the line-of-sight of the user and the movement of the user's head (attitude of the HMD 50)," (see Nakamura, para [0124]). This is not the same as determining "based on the one or more observability requirements, a subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to be perceptually prioritized by a remote monitoring system," as recited in Applicant's amended claim 1. The "increase the refresh rate" or the "image processing" described by Nakamura is not a method of "perceptually prioritizing" as is described by Applicant's Specification, in at least paras [0032]-[0033], [0066], and [0142]. Furthermore, nowhere does Nakamura determine a subset of monitoring devices to be perceptually prioritized "based on the one or more observability requirements" that was recited by Applicant's claim. It would not have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to derive of "observability requirements" or a perceptual prioritization "based on the one or more observability requirements" from Nakamura's invention of refreshing more of an image that a user is looking at a higher rate. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that each independent claims 1, 16, and 18, as amended, are patentable. Applicant further respectfully submits that dependent claims 2-8, 11-14, 17, and 19-20 are patentable by virtue of their respective direct and ultimate dependencies from allowable independent claims 1, 16, and 18, as well as by virtue of the patentably distinct subject matter that they recite;
(4) claims 9 and 15 stand rejected under 35 USC§ 103 as being allegedly unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0125455 to Shelton, IV et al. ("Shelton") in view of U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0346116 to Nakamura et al. ("Nakamura") in further view of U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0378768 to Olson et al. ("Olson"). Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being allegedly unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0125455 to Shelton, IV et al. ("Shelton") in view of U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0346116 to Nakamura et al. ("Nakamura") in further view of U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0293106 to Jorasch et al. ("Jorasch"). Claims 9-10 and 15 depend from claim 1, which Applicant respectfully submits is patentable. Therefore, Applicant submits that claims 9-10 and 15 are patentable by virtue of their respective direct and ultimate dependencies from allowable independent claim 1, as well as by virtue of the patentably distinct subject matter that they recite.
In response to argument (1), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the claims, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing interactions between people (including following rules or instructions), which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s newly amended claims are similar to “iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)), and the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The recitation of “plurality of monitoring devices and a remote monitoring system” are recited at a high level of generality that amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.” The Examiner asserts that the additional elements of the claims generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USP12d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (2), the Examiner finds the Applicant’s argument persuasive. The Examiner has supplemented the rejection of Shelton, IV (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0125455) with Roh et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0059343) to teach the newly amended claimed portion of “retrieve observability data indicative of observability requirements for a different state of the surgical procedure”. The Examiner maintains that the combination of Shelton, IV/Roh teaches the newly amended claims as described above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand. The Examiner maintains that Shelton, IV teaches “determine one or more observability requirements for the current state of the surgical procedure based on the observability data” in Paragraphs 1062]-[1066], [1282] that a situationally aware surgical hub could determine whether the current or subsequent step of the surgical procedure requires a different view or degree of magnification on the display according to the feature(s) at the surgical site that the surgeon is expected to need to view. Additionally, the Examiner maintains that Shelton, IV when combined with Roh teaches “determine, based on the one or more observability requirements, a subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to be perceptually prioritized by a remote monitoring system” as Shelton, IV teaches in Paragraphs [1266]-[1268] that the prioritization of the input devices may be configured so the foot pedal has highest priority followed by the voice interface and the CPU, and the “switching interface” ([1259]) is operable by a surgeon, which the Examiner maintains would be perceptible to the surgeon to control the input devices. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (3), the Examiner has not relied upon Nakamura to teach the newly amended independent claims 1, 16, and 18. The newly amended portion that Nakamura was relied upon in the previous Office Action has been amended and upon consideration of the amended claimed portion, the Examiner has relied upon Shelton, IV to teach the newly amended claimed portion of “determine, based on the one or more observability requirements, a subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to be perceptually prioritized by a remote monitoring system”. The Examiner has relied upon Nakamura in combination with Shelton, IV/Roh to teach claim 12. The Examiner maintains that the claims 2-15, 17, and 19-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 individually and due to the claims dependence to independent claims 1, 16, and 18. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (4), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the claims 2-15, 17, and 19-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 individually and due to the claims dependence to independent claims 1, 16, and 18. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
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 Bennett S Erickson whose telephone number is (571)270-3690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773. 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.
/Bennett Stephen Erickson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683