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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 1/30/2026 in which claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-14 have been amended, claims 3 and 10 have been added. Thus, the claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-14 are pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
In claims 1-2 and 4-7, Examiner interprets a processor to be a computer processor. With that interpretation, Examiner has not rejected claims 1-2 and 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner recommends the Applicant to amend the claim to include a computer processor.
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 8-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of limiting the functional capabilities of the surgical device based on the medical information satisfying the condition without significantly more.
Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 8 recites a series of steps, e.g., determining that a smoke evacuation device is capable of obtaining medical information from another surgical device; receiving the medical information from the other surgical device, wherein the medical information indicates that a patient core body temperature is below a threshold; determining, based on the medical information indicating that the patient core body temperature is below the threshold, that operation of the smoke evacuation device and operation of the other surgical device have created a negative feedback loop that negatively impacts patient health; and generating a control signal configured to limit functional capabilities of the smoke evacuation device based on the determination that the negative feedback loop has been created, wherein generating the control signal configured to limit functional capabilities of the smoke evacuation device comprises generating a control signal configured to reduce a rate of smoke evacuation. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) describe the abstract idea of limiting the functional capabilities of the surgical device based on the medical information satisfying the condition which corresponds to a certain method of organizing human activity and hence are abstract in nature. The claim recites the additional elements of a smoke evacuation device, surgical device, and a control signal which do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a processor and surgical devices result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a smoke evacuation device, surgical device, and a control signal are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprise a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a smoke evacuation device, surgical device, and a control signal result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a smoke evacuation device, surgical device, and a control signal are all recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 9 and 11-14 further define the abstract idea that is present in the independent claim 8, thus correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 9 and 11-14 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 8-9 and 11-14 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al., US Patent Application No. 2022/0104807 in view of Isaura, ES-2980657-T3.
Regarding claim 1, Shelton, IV discloses a surgical system comprising a processor configured to:
determine that a smoke evacuation device is capable of obtaining medical information from another surgical device ([0164], smoke evacuation module, [0253], medical information);
receive the medical information from the other surgical device, wherein the medical information indicates that a patient core body temperature is below a threshold ([0253]);
determine, based on the medical information indicating that the patient core body temperature is below the threshold, that operation of the smoke evacuation device and operation of the other surgical device have created a negative feedback loop that negatively impacts patient health ([0253], a patient suffered from postoperative complications from a particular procedure; [0544]); and
generate a control signal configured to limit functional capabilities of the smoke evacuation device based on the determination that the negative feedback loop has been created, wherein the processor being configured to generate the control signal configured to limit functional capabilities of the smoke evacuation device comprises the processor being configured to generate a control signal configured to reduce a rate of smoke evacuation ([0225], control the motor rate of the smoke evacuator appropriately; provide a consistent amount of smoke evacuation, [0544], computer system may provide a second recommendation (serves as a control signal) for the surgeon to adjust his or her technique or deactivate the surgical instrument; [0640], exchanging one medical instrument for another medical instruction serves as limit functional capabilities of the first surgical device).
Shelton, IV does not specifically disclose
the medical information indicates that a patient core body temperature is below a threshold.
However, Isaura discloses
the medical information indicates that a patient core body temperature is below a threshold (pages 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Shelton, IV with the above-noted disclosure of Isaura. The motivation for combining these references would have been to provide patient care.
Regarding claim 2, Shelton, IV discloses wherein the processor being configured to generate the control signal configured to limit functional capabilities of the smoke evacuation device comprises the processor being configured to generate a control signal configured to cause the smoke evacuation device to operate in a manner, different than the smoke evacuation device would operate without access to the medical information, so as to curtail negative impacts on a patient due to a negative feedback loop caused by normal operation of the smoke evacuation device and the other surgical device ([0164], [0544], [0640]).
Regarding claim 4, Isaura discloses wherein the other surgical device is a first surgical device, the medical information is first medical information, the threshold is a first threshold, the negative feedback loop is a first negative feedback loop, and the processor is further configured to:
determine that a patient heating system is capable to obtaining second medical information from a second surgical device, wherein the second medical information indicates that the patient core body temperature or a patient extremity body temperature is below a second threshold (pages 2-3);
determine, based on the second medical information indicating that the patient core body temperature or the patient extremity body temperature is below the second threshold, that operation of the patient heating system and operation of the second surgical device have created a second negative feedback loop that negatively impacts patient health (pages 2-3); and
generate a control signal configured to limit functional capabilities of the patient heating system based on the determination that the second negative feedback loop has been created, wherein the processor being configured to generate the control signal configured to limit functional capabilities of the patient heating system comprises the processor being configured to generate a control signal configured to adjust patient heating (pages 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Shelton, IV with the above-noted disclosure of Isaura. The motivation for combining these references would have been to provide patient care.
Claims 8-9 and 11 are substantially similar to claims 1-2 and 4 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claims 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al., US Patent Application No. 2022/0104807 in view of Isaura, ES-2980657-T3 in view of Tirinato et al., US Patent No. 10,290,366.
Regarding claim 5, Shelton, IV discloses wherein the other surgical device is a first surgical device, the medical information is first medical information, the threshold is a first threshold, the negative feedback loop is a first negative loop ([0164], [0225], [0544]), and the processor is further configured to:
determining that a ventilator is capable of obtaining second medial information from a second surgical device, wherein the second medical information indicates that carbon dioxide levels in a patient are above a second threshold;
determine, based on the second medical information indicating that carbon dioxide levels in the patient are above the second threshold, that operation of the ventilator and operation of the second surgical device have created a second negative feedback loop that negatively impacts patient health ([0253], [0544]); and
generate a control signal configured to limit functional capabilities of the ventilator based on the determination that the second negative feedback loop has been created, wherein the processor being configured to generate the control signal configured to limit functional capabilities of the ventilator comprises the processor being configured to generate a control signal configured to adjust a tidal volume of the ventilator ([0544], [0640]).
Tirinato discloses
determining that a ventilator is capable of obtaining second medial information from a second surgical device, wherein the second medical information indicates that caron dioxide levels in a patient are above a second threshold (col. 5, lines 42-46);
determine, based on the second medical information indicating that carbon dioxide levels in the patient are above the second threshold, that operation of the ventilator and operation of the second surgical device have created a second negative feedback loop that negatively impacts patient health (col. 19, lines 1-2, 21-30, 31-50, Fig. 5D); and
generate a control signal configured to limit functional capabilities of the ventilator based on the determination that the second negative feedback loop has been created, wherein the processor being configured to generate the control signal configured to limit functional capabilities of the ventilator comprises the processor being configured to generate a control signal configured to adjust a tidal volume of the ventilator (col. 17, lines 20-25, “Tidal volume”, select, col. 19, lines 21-30, Fig. 5C; col 20, lines 45-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Shelton, IV with the above-noted disclosure of Tirinato. The motivation for combining these references would have been to provide patient care.
Regarding claim 6, Shelton, IV discloses wherein the other surgical device is a first surgical device, the medical information is first medical information, the threshold is a first threshold, the negative feedback loop is a first negative feedback loop ([0164], [0225], [0544]), and the processor is further configured to:
determining that a ventilator is capable of obtaining second medical information from a second surgical device wherein the second medical information indicates that carbon dioxide levels in a patient are below a second threshold;
determine, based on the second medical information indicating that carbon dioxide levels in the patient are below the second threshold, that operation of the ventilator and operation of the second surgical device have created a second negative feedback loop that negatively impacts patient health ([0164], [0225], [0544]); and
generate a control signal configured to limit functional capabilities of the ventilator based on the determination that the second negative feedback loop has been created, wherein the processor being configured to generate the control signal to limit functional capabilities of the ventilator comprises the processor being configured to generate a control signal configured to decrease a tidal volume of the ventilator ([0544], computer system may provide a second recommendation (serves as a control signal) for the surgeon to adjust his or her technique or deactivate the surgical instrument; [0640], exchanging one medical instrument for another medical instruction serves as limit functional capabilities of the first surgical device).
Tirinato discloses
determining that a ventilator is capable of obtaining second medical information from a second surgical device wherein the second medical information indicates that carbon dioxide levels in a patient are below a second threshold (col. 5, lines 42-46);
determine, based on the second medical information indicating that carbon dioxide levels in the patient are below the second threshold, that operation of the ventilator and operation of the second surgical device have created a second negative feedback loop that negatively impacts patient health (col. 19, lines 1-2, 21-30, 31-50, Fig. 5D); and
generate a control signal configured to limit functional capabilities of the ventilator based on the determination that the second negative feedback loop has been created, wherein the processor being configured to generate the control signal to limit functional capabilities of the ventilator comprises the processor being configured to generate a control signal configured to decrease a tidal volume of the ventilator (col. 17, lines 20-25, “Tidal volume”, select, col. 19, lines 21-30, Fig. 5C; col 20, lines 45-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Shelton, IV and Isaura with the above-noted disclosure of Tirinato. The motivation for combining these references would have been to provide patient care.
Claims 12-13 are substantially similar to claims 5-6 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al., US Patent Application No. 2022/0104807 in view of Isaura, ES-2980657-T3.
Regarding claim 4, Shelton, IV discloses wherein the other surgical device is a first surgical device, the medical information is first medical information, the threshold is a first threshold, the negative feedback loop is a first negative feedback loop ([0164], [0225], [0544]), and the processor is further configured to:
determine that a patient heating system is capable to obtaining second medical information from a second surgical device, wherein the second medical information indicates that the patient core body temperature or a patient extremity body temperature is below a second threshold (pages 2-3);
determine, based on the second medical information indicating that the patient core body temperature or the patient extremity body temperature is below the second threshold, that operation of the patient heating system and operation of the second surgical device have created a second negative feedback loop that negatively impacts patient health (pages 2-3); and
generate a control signal configured to limit functional capabilities of the patient heating system based on the determination that the second negative feedback loop has been created, wherein the processor being configured to generate the control signal configured to limit functional capabilities of the patient heating system comprises the processor being configured to generate a control signal configured to adjust patient heating (pages 2-3).
Isaura discloses
determine that a patient heating system is capable to obtaining second medical information from a second surgical device, wherein the second medical information indicates that the patient core body temperature or a patient extremity body temperature is below a second threshold (pages 2-3);
determine, based on the second medical information indicating that the patient core body temperature or the patient extremity body temperature is below the second threshold, that operation of the patient heating system and operation of the second surgical device have created a second negative feedback loop that negatively impacts patient health (pages 2-3); and
generate a control signal configured to limit functional capabilities of the patient heating system based on the determination that the second negative feedback loop has been created, wherein the processor being configured to generate the control signal configured to limit functional capabilities of the patient heating system comprises the processor being configured to generate a control signal configured to adjust patient heating (pages 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Shelton, IV with the above-noted disclosure of Isaura. The motivation for combining these references would have been to provide patient care.
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 4 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al., US Patent Application No. 2022/0104807 in view of Isaura, ES-2980657-T3 in view of Shelton, IV, US Patent Application No. 2021/0322018 (hereinafter Shelton, IV ‘018).
Regarding claim 7, Shelton, IV ‘018 discloses wherein the medical information is first medical information, the processor is further configured to:
determine that a first robotic arm in control of a first surgical instrument is capable of obtaining second medical information from a second robotic arm in control of a second surgical instrument ([1944]);
determine, based on the second medical information, that a current movement trajectory of the first robotic arm will cause a collision between the first surgical instrument and the second surgical instrument ([0189], device trajectory, [1279], [1949], collision between robotic arms); and
in response to the determination that the current movement trajectory of the first robotic arm will cause the collision between the first surgical instrument and the second surgical instrument, generate a control signal configured to stop or change the movement trajectory of the first robotic arm ([1944]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Shelton, IV and Isaura with the above-noted disclosure of Shelton, IV ‘018. The motivation for combining these references would have been to provide patient care.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 7 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Examiner has withdrawn rejection of claims 1-7 in view of amendment. However, Examiner recommends the Applicant to include a computer processor to carry out the steps of claim 8 in order to meet eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-2 and 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant states that the rejection is unclear. Furthermore, claim 1 has been further amended to include elements from claim 3. In rejecting claim 3, the office action cites paragraph (0225] of Shelton as allegedly disclosing “the processor being configured to limit functional capabilities of the first surgical device comprises the processor being configured to reduce the rate of smoke evacuation.” Although this paragraph teaches that the motor rate of a smoke evacuator can be controlled based on the body of cavity being operated in, the office action has not shown that Shelton teaches limiting functional capabilities of the some evacuation device based on the determination that a negative feedback loop has been created, as recited in amended claims 1 and 8.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that these arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection presented above in this office action.
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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights