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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/960,006 in view of Hamidi (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0364290).
The instant application contains a surgical hub and/or a cloud-based server comprising a processor and a memory, which is not found in the copending application. However, Hamidi teaches a surgical hub (Paragraphs [0015] and [0017-0018] discuss sterile field control (SFC) system that includes a processor and a memory.) comprising: a processor (Paragraphs [0015] and [0017-0018] discuss sterile field control (SFC) system that includes a processor and a memory.); and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising (Paragraphs [0015] and [0017-0018] discuss sterile field control (SFC) system that includes a processor and a memory.).
Hamidi further teaches a cloud-based server (See at least paragraphs [0020-0021] describing a cloud-based server with processing power and memory to execute the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the instant application to including a surgical hub or a cloud-based server, as taught by Hamidi, in order to implement the SFC system by various edge resources (Hamidi, Paragraph [0019]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-19 and 20 are drawn to systems for surgical data management which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Step 2A | Prong One
Claims 1-19 (Group I) recite a surgical data management system, comprising:
a surgical hub comprising:
a processor (apply it, MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (apply it, MPEP § 2106.05(f) and, insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP § 2106.05(g)) comprising:
during a performance of a surgical procedure on a patient, adjust processing of a dataflow associated with a surgical system, which is located within a first digital fence surrounding an aspect of the surgical procedure, in response to the surgical system moving into a second digital fence that is nested within the first digital fence;
wherein the dataflow includes data regarding a measured patient parameter that at least one of the surgical hub and the surgical system is configured to use in performing a function during the performance of the surgical procedure.
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are underlined and are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Claim 20 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, but recites a cloud-based server (apply it, MPEP § 2106.05(f)) instead of a surgical hub.
Dependent Claims 2-19 include other limitations, for example Claim 2 recites wherein the first digital fence represents a fence surrounding a physical space, Claim 3 recites wherein the physical space is an operating room in which the surgical procedure is to be performed; and the second digital fence represents a fence surrounding a partial portion of the operating room, Claim 4 recites wherein the second digital fence represents a fence surrounding a surgical field in the operating room, Claim 5 recites wherein the first digital fence represents a fence surrounding a temporal space; and the temporal space is a total amount of time in which the surgical procedure is to be performed; and the second digital fence represents a fence surrounding a portion of the total amount of time, Claim 6 recites adjusting processing of the dataflow associated with the surgical system, which is located within the first digital fence, in response to the surgical system moving into a third digital fence that is nested within the first digital fence; and the third digital fence represents a fence surrounding a second, different portion of the total amount of time, Claim 7 recites wherein adjusting the processing comprises at least one of: adjusting a data flow rate of the dataflow, adjusting a bandwidth capacity of the dataflow, adjusting a latency of the dataflow, matching the processing of the dataflow with a processing of a second dataflow of a second surgical system located in the second digital fence, and preventing transmission of the dataflow, Claim 8 recites adjusting processing of the dataflow associated with the surgical system, which is located within the first digital fence, in response to the surgical system moving into a third digital fence that is nested within the first digital fence and is different from the second digital fence, Claim 9 recites wherein the first digital fence represents a fence surrounding a physical space; the physical space is an operating room in which the surgical procedure is to be performed; the second digital fence represents a fence surrounding a first portion of a surgical field in the operating room; and the third digital fence represents a fence surrounding a second, different portion of the surgical field in the operating room, Claim 10 recites adjusting processing of the dataflow associated with the surgical system, which is located within the second digital fence, in response to the surgical system moving out of the second digital fence and remaining in the first digital fence, Claim 11 recites wherein a predefined first set of rules for processing data is associated with the first digital fence; a predefined second set of rules for processing data is associated with the second digital fence; the adjusting in response to the surgical system moving into the second digital fence comprises the dataflow being processed in accordance with the predefined first set of rules and the predefined second set of rules; and the adjusting in response to the surgical system moving out of the second digital fence comprises the dataflow being processed in accordance with the predefined first set of rules and not in accordance with the predefined second set of rules, Claim 12 recites wherein a predefined first set of rules for processing data is associated with the first digital fence; a predefined second set of rules for processing data is associated with the second digital fence; and the adjusting comprises processing the dataflow in accordance with the predefined second set of rules in addition to the predefined first set of rules, Claim 13 recites adjusting processing of the dataflow associated with the surgical system, which is located within the second digital fence, in response to the surgical system moving out of the second digital fence such that the dataflow is processed in accordance with the predefined first set of rules and is no longer processed in accordance with the predefined second set of rules, Claim 14 recites wherein a predefined first set of rules for processing data is associated with the first digital fence; a predefined second set of rules for processing data is associated with the second digital fence; and the adjusting comprises suspending at least one of the rules in the predefined first set of rules such that the dataflow is configured to be processed in accordance with the predefined second set of rules and with a subset of the predefined first set of rules, Claim 15 recites adjusting processing of the dataflow associated with the surgical system, which is located within the second digital fence, in response to the surgical system moving out of the second digital fence such that the dataflow is configured to processed in accordance with the predefined first set of rules instead of in accordance with the subset of the predefined first set of rules, Claim 16 recites wherein a predefined first set of rules for processing data is associated with the first digital fence; a predefined second set of rules for processing data is associated with the second digital fence; and the adjusting comprises adding to at least one of the rules in the predefined first set of rules such that the dataflow is configured to be processed in accordance with the predefined second set of rules and with the added-to predefined first set of rules, Claim 17 recites adjusting processing of the dataflow associated with the surgical system, which is located within the second digital fence, in response to the surgical system moving out of the second digital fence such that the dataflow is configured to be processed in accordance with the predefined first set of rules instead of in accordance with the added-to predefined first set of rules, Claim 18 recites receiving data characterizing the surgical procedure, and establish, prior to a start of the performance of the surgical procedure on the patient and using the received data: the first digital fence and the second digital fence; wherein the received data includes at least one of information regarding a plan for the surgical procedure, a total amount of time for the surgical procedure, a location where the surgical procedure is to be performed, a layout of a location where the surgical procedure is to be performed, and at least one surgical tool to be used in the surgical procedure, and Claim 19 recites wherein boundaries of the first and second digital fences are defined using a global positioning system (GPS) or a radio frequency identification (RFID) system (apply it, MPEP § 2106.05(f)); the surgical system is one of a hospital network, a database, a surgical instrument, or a surgical cart; and/or the surgical hub is configured to be operatively coupled to a robotic surgical system, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1 and 20.
Step 2A | Prong Two
Furthermore, Claims 1-20 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of a processor, a memory, a cloud-based server, global positioning system (GPS) or a radio frequency identification (RFID) system, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0173], [0226] and [0249-250] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f)
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of storing data, which amounts to an insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the recitation of processor or cloud-based server, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Step 2B
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0173], [0226] and [0249-250] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. a processor, a memory, a cloud-based server, global positioning system (GPS) or a radio frequency identification (RFID) system) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. storing data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the current invention merely recites the storing of instruction data on a database and/or electronic memory;
Dependent Claims 2-19 include other limitations, but none of these functions are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly represent no more than using a global positioning system (GPS) or a radio frequency identification (RFID) system, which are recited an “apply it” level. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the received data includes at least one of information regarding a plan for the surgical procedure, a total amount of time for the surgical procedure, a location where the surgical procedure is to be performed, a layout of a location where the surgical procedure is to be performed, and at least one surgical tool to be used in the surgical procedure, the patient.” It is unclear what is meant by the end of the limitation as “the patient” does make sense. It does not appear Applicant is trying to claim the patient themselves, and as such, Examiner will be construing the claims as reciting “wherein the received data includes at least one of information regarding a plan for the surgical procedure, a total amount of time for the surgical procedure, a location where the surgical procedure is to be performed, a layout of a location where the surgical procedure is to be performed, and at least one surgical tool to be used in the surgical procedure” without “, the patient at the end.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamidi (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0364290 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hamidi discloses a surgical data management system, comprising: a surgical hub (Paragraphs [0015] and [0017-0018] discuss sterile field control (SFC) system that includes a processor and a memory.) comprising: a processor (Paragraphs [0015] and [0017-0018] discuss sterile field control (SFC) system that includes a processor and a memory.); and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising (Paragraphs [0015] and [0017-0018] discuss sterile field control (SFC) system that includes a processor and a memory.):
during a performance of a surgical procedure on a patient, adjust processing of a dataflow associated with a surgical system, which is located within a first digital fence surrounding an aspect of the surgical procedure, in response to the surgical system moving into a second digital fence that is nested within the first digital fence (Paragraphs [0157], [0159] and [0162-0163] discuss a set of radar sensors defining a first boundary to collectively define a virtual fence, referred to as a first outermost sterile field (OSF); there can also be an inner sterile field (ISF) within the first OSF; the data transmitted depends on the location of the item.); wherein the dataflow includes data regarding a measured patient parameter that at least one of the surgical hub and the surgical system is configured to use in performing a function during the performance of the surgical procedure (Paragraph [0146] discusses the dataflow based on the field of view (FOV) for the various areas of the operating room, such as electrocardiogram data that measured and used during the surgery.) .
Regarding Claim 2, Hamidi discloses wherein the first digital fence represents a fence surrounding a physical space (Paragraphs [0157], [0159] and [0161-0163] discuss a set of radar sensors defining a first boundary to collectively define a virtual fence, referred to as a first outermost sterile field (OSF), construed as a physical space. For example, the OSF could be the entire operating room or a boundary around the surgical bed, as shown in Figures 4A-4C.).
Regarding Claim 3, Hamidi discloses wherein the physical space is an operating room in which the surgical procedure is to be performed; and the second digital fence represents a fence surrounding a partial portion of the operating room (Paragraph [0161] discusses multiple virtual fences, including a critical sterile field (CSF) inside the OSF, construed as a second digital fence surrounding a partial portion of the operating room.).
Regarding Claim 4, Hamidi discloses wherein the second digital fence represents a fence surrounding a surgical field in the operating room (Paragraph [0161] discusses multiple virtual fences, including a critical sterile field (CSF) inside the OSF, construed as a second digital fence surrounding a surgical field.).
Regarding Claim 5, Hamidi discloses, wherein the first digital fence represents a fence surrounding a temporal space; and the temporal space is a total amount of time in which the surgical procedure is to be performed (Paragraphs [0152] and [0163] discuss a defined time duration to perform a set of activities for a surgery for within each surgical field.); and the second digital fence represents a fence surrounding a portion of the total amount of time (Paragraphs [0152] and [0163] discuss a defined time duration to perform a set of activities for a surgery for within each surgical field.).
Regarding Claim 6, Hamidi discloses wherein: adjusting processing of the dataflow associated with the surgical system, which is located within the first digital fence, in response to the surgical system moving into a third digital fence that is nested within the first digital fence (Paragraphs [0159-0164] discuss adjusting the data collected based on which SF is breached.); and the third digital fence represents a fence surrounding a second, different portion of the total amount of time (Paragraphs [0064] and [0159] discusses multiple surgical fields, including a first CSF contained within the OSF with different defined time intervals.).
Regarding Claim 7, Hamidi discloses wherein adjusting the processing comprises at least one of: adjusting a bandwidth capacity of the dataflow (Paragraph [0024] discusses adjusting the bandwidth.).
Regarding Claim 8, Hamidi discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to perform operations comprising: adjust processing of the dataflow associated with the surgical system, which is located within the first digital fence, in response to the surgical system moving into a third digital fence that is nested within the first digital fence and is different from the second digital fence (Paragraphs [0159-0164] discuss adjusting the data collected based on which SF is breached. Paragraphs [0064] and [0159] discusses multiple surgical fields, including a first CSF contained within the OSF with different defined time intervals.).
Regarding Claim 9, Hamidi discloses:
wherein the first digital fence represents a fence surrounding a physical space (Paragraphs [0157], [0159] and [0161-0163] discuss a set of radar sensors defining a first boundary to collectively define a virtual fence, referred to as a first outermost sterile field (OSF), construed as a physical space.); the physical space is an operating room in which the surgical procedure is to be performed (Paragraph [0163] discusses the physical space being in an operating room.); the second digital fence represents a fence surrounding a first portion of a surgical field in the operating room (Paragraph [0161] discusses multiple virtual fences, including a critical sterile field (CSF) inside the OSF, construed as a second digital fence surrounding a partial portion of the operating room.); and the third digital fence represents a fence surrounding a second, different portion of the surgical field in the operating room (Paragraphs [0064] and [0159] discusses multiple surgical fields, including a first CSF contained within the OSF. See figure 4c showing different fences, including 420a, 420b, and 420c.).
Regarding Claim 10, Hamidi discloses adjusting processing of the dataflow associated with the surgical system, which is located within the second digital fence, in response to the surgical system moving out of the second digital fence and remaining in the first digital fence (Paragraphs [0159-0164] discuss adjusting the data collected based on which SF is breached.).
Regarding Claim 11, Hamidi discloses:
wherein a predefined first set of rules for processing data is associated with the first digital fence (Paragraphs [0030-0031] and [0184-0185] discuss that the SFC system has pre-defined rules for each area.); a predefined second set of rules for processing data is associated with the second digital fence (Paragraphs [0030-0031] and [0184-0185] discuss that the SFC system has pre-defined rules for each area.); the adjusting in response to the surgical system moving into the second digital fence comprises the dataflow being processed in accordance with the predefined first set of rules and the predefined second set of rules (Paragraphs [0030-0031], [0184-0185] and [0224-0225] discuss that the SFC system has pre-defined rules for each area.); and the adjusting in response to the surgical system moving out of the second digital fence comprises the dataflow being processed in accordance with the predefined first set of rules and not in accordance with the predefined second set of rules (Paragraphs [0030-0031], [0184-0185] and [0224-0225] discuss that the SFC system has pre-defined rules for each area.).
Regarding Claim 12, Hamidi discloses:
wherein a predefined first set of rules for processing data is associated with the first digital fence (Paragraphs [0184-0185] discuss the location data corresponding to a pre-defined sequence of activities, which includes the first digital fence.); a predefined second set of rules for processing data is associated with the second digital fence (Paragraphs [0184-0185] discuss the location data corresponding to a pre-defined sequence of activities, including the second digital fence.); and the adjusting comprises processing the dataflow in accordance with the predefined second set of rules in addition to the predefined first set of rules (Paragraphs [0184-0185] discuss the location data corresponding to a pre-defined sequence of activities.).
Regarding Claim 13, Hamidi discloses:
adjusting processing of the dataflow associated with the surgical system, which is located within the second digital fence, in response to the surgical system moving out of the second digital fence such that the dataflow is processed in accordance with the predefined first set of rules and is no longer processed in accordance with the predefined second set of rules (Paragraphs [0030-0031], [0184-0185] and [0224-0225] discuss that the SFC system has pre-defined rules for each area accounting for movement and location of surgical staff and items used for surgery.).
Regarding Claim 14, Hamidi discloses:
wherein a predefined first set of rules for processing data is associated with the first digital fence (Paragraphs [0184-0185] discuss the location data corresponding to a pre-defined sequence of activities, which includes the first digital fence.); a predefined second set of rules for processing data is associated with the second digital fence (Paragraph [0184-0185] discuss the location data corresponding to a pre-defined sequence of activities, including the second digital fence.); and the adjusting comprises suspending at least one of the rules in the predefined first set of rules such that the dataflow is configured to be processed in accordance with the predefined second set of rules and with a subset of the predefined first set of rules (Paragraphs [0163] and [0184-0185] discuss the location data corresponding to a pre-defined sequence of activities includes stopping the transmission of data.).
Regarding Claim 15, Hamidi discloses:
adjusting processing of the dataflow associated with the surgical system, which is located within the second digital fence, in response to the surgical system moving out of the second digital fence such that the dataflow is configured to processed in accordance with the predefined first set of rules instead of in accordance with the subset of the predefined first set of rules (Paragraphs [0030-0031], [0184-0185] and [0224-0225] discuss that the SFC system has pre-defined rules for each area accounting for movement and location of surgical staff and items used for surgery.).
Regarding Claim 16, Hamidi discloses:
wherein a predefined first set of rules for processing data is associated with the first digital fence (Paragraphs [0184-0185] discuss the location data corresponding to a pre-defined sequence of activities, which includes the first digital fence.); a predefined second set of rules for processing data is associated with the second digital fence (Paragraph [0184-0185] discuss the location data corresponding to a pre-defined sequence of activities, including the second digital fence.); and the adjusting comprises adding to at least one of the rules in the predefined first set of rules such that the dataflow is configured to be processed in accordance with the predefined second set of rules and with the added-to predefined first set of rules (Paragraphs [0081] and [0184-0185] discuss the location data corresponding to a pre-defined sequence of activities that can be dynamically updated, such as modifying the sterile field boundaries, construed as adding at least one of the rules.).
Regarding Claim 17, Hamidi discloses: adjusting processing of the dataflow associated with the surgical system, which is located within the second digital fence, in response to the surgical system moving out of the second digital fence such that the dataflow is configured to be processed in accordance with the predefined first set of rules instead of in accordance with the added-to predefined first set of rules (Paragraphs [0030-0031], [0076], [0184-0185] and [0224-0225] discuss that the SFC system has pre-defined rules for each area accounting for movement and location of surgical staff and items used for surgery to follow the standard sterile procedure, construed as using predefined rules.).
Regarding Claim 18, Hamidi discloses: receiving data characterizing the surgical procedure (Paragraph [0184] discusses the parameters including the surgery scheduled for the patient.), and establishing, prior to a start of the performance of the surgical procedure on the patient and using the received data: the first digital fence and the second digital fence (Paragraphs [0084] and [0184-0185] discuss using the surgical parameters to establish pre-defined sterile fields, which are virtual fences.); wherein the received data includes at least one of information regarding a plan for the surgical procedure, a total amount of time for the surgical procedure, a location where the surgical procedure is to be performed, a layout of a location where the surgical procedure is to be performed, and at least one surgical tool to be used in the surgical procedure (Paragraphs [0053], [0116-0122], [0173] and [0181] discuss using the set of protocols pertaining to the responsibilities and duties during the surgical workflow, including workflow, construed as a plan, the schedule of surgeries, construed including timing and location, instruments needed for the surgery.) .
Regarding Claim 19, Hamidi discloses:
wherein boundaries of the first and second digital fences are defined using a global positioning system (GPS) or a radio frequency identification (RFID) system (Paragraph [0144] discusses the system using RFID or GPS technology.); the surgical system is one of a hospital network, a database, a surgical instrument, or a surgical cart (Paragraphs [0011-0012] and [0016] discusses the system being a network that is located in an operating room at a healthcare facility.); and/or the surgical hub is configured to be operatively coupled to a robotic surgical system (Paragraph [0048] discusses the system is connected to a controller engine to control various devices in the room, construed as including being capable of being operatively coupled to a surgical robot.).2025Attorney Docket No. 317EP.001US01
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 20 recites a cloud-based server instead of a surgical hub. However, Hamidi discloses using cloud-based servers with processing power and memory (See at least paragraphs [0020-0021] describing a cloud-based server to execute the limitations of claim 1 and 20.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Dunham can be reached at (571)272-8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686