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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-15, in the reply filed on July 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
As such, Group II, Claims 16-20, is withdrawn.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation “the received usage information” on Line 24. It is unclear whether this “received usage information” is the same as the “receiv[ed] usage information of the connection device” previously recited on Line 16, the “receiv[ed]… usage information… of the first connector” previously recited on Lines 16-17, the “receiv[ed]… usage information… of… the second connector”, previously recited on Lines 16-17, or a separate, different received usage information. For the purpose of examination, “the received usage information” is being interpreted as “the received usage information of the connection device”.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation “the updated usage information” on Line 25. It is unclear whether this updated usage information” is the same as the “updat[ed] usage information… of the first connector” previously recited on Line 18, the “updat[ed] usage information… of… the second connector” previously recited on Lines 18-19, an updated usage information of the connection device, not previously recited, or a separate, different updated usage information. For the purpose of examination, “the updated usage information” is being interpreted as “the updated usage information of either the first connector or the second connector”.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitation “the received usage information” on Line 1. It is unclear whether this “received usage information” is the same as the “receiv[ed] usage information of the connection device” previously recited on Line 16 of Claim 1, the “receiv[ed]… usage information… of the first connector” previously recited on Lines 16-17 of Claim 1, the “receiv[ed]… usage information… of… the second connector”, previously recited on Lines 16-17 of Claim 1, or a separate, different received usage information. For the purpose of examination, “the received usage information” is being interpreted as “the received usage information of the connection device”.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitation “the updated usage information” on Lines 1-2. It is unclear whether this updated usage information” is the same as the “updat[ed] usage information… of the first connector” previously recited on Line 18 of Claim 1, the “updat[ed] usage information… of… the second connector” previously recited on Lines 18-19 of Claim 1, an updated usage information of the connection device, not previously recited, or a separate, different updated usage information. For the purpose of examination, “the updated usage information” is being interpreted as “the updated usage information of either the first connector or the second connector”.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 recites the limitation “the received usage information” on Line 1. It is unclear whether this “received usage information” is the same as the “receiv[ed] usage information of the connection device” previously recited on Line 16 of Claim 1, the “receiv[ed]… usage information… of the first connector” previously recited on Lines 16-17 of Claim 1, the “receiv[ed]… usage information… of… the second connector”, previously recited on Lines 16-17 of Claim 1, or a separate, different received usage information. For the purpose of examination, “the received usage information” is being interpreted as “the received usage information of the connection device”.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 recites the limitation “the received usage information” on Line 1. It is unclear whether this “received usage information” is the same as the “receiv[ed] usage information of the connection device” previously recited on Line 16 of Claim 1, the “receiv[ed]… usage information… of the first connector” previously recited on Lines 16-17 of Claim 1, the “receiv[ed]… usage information… of… the second connector”, previously recited on Lines 16-17 of Claim 1, or a separate, different received usage information. For the purpose of examination, “the received usage information” is being interpreted as “the received usage information of the connection device”.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 recites the limitation “the updated usage information” on Line 3. It is unclear whether this updated usage information” is the same as the “updat[ed] usage information… of the first connector” previously recited on Line 18 of Claim 1, the “updat[ed] usage information… of… the second connector” previously recited on Lines 18-19 of Claim 1, an updated usage information of the connection device, not previously recited, or a separate, different updated usage information. For the purpose of examination, “the updated usage information” is being interpreted as “the updated usage information of either the first connector or the second connector”.
Regarding Claims 2, 6-13 & 15, Claims 2, 6-13 & 15 are rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Tran et al. (US 2020/0221933) discloses a medical system (Figs. 2A & 2B, 200; [0100]), comprising:
a computing system (Fig. 2B, 203; [0100]); and
a connection device (Figs. 2A & 2B, 202; [0100]) configured to removably connect one or more medical devices (Fig. 2A, 201 wherein 201 is an endoscopic camera head; [0100]) to the computing system for use in one or more medical procedures ([0100]), the connection device including a memory (Fig. 2B, 212; [0106]), a first connector (Fig. 2B, 208; [0101]) connectable to the computing system ([0101]), and a second connector (Fig. 2A, 205; [0101]), different from the first connector ([0101]), connectable to the one or more medical devices ([0101]), wherein the connection device has a lifetime for use ([0135]);
wherein the computing system comprises at least one memory ([0129]) configured to store instructions ([0129]) and at least one processor ([0129]) configured to execute the instructions to perform operations to monitor usage of the connection device ([0135]), the operations comprising:
detecting a connection of the first connector to the computing system ([0130]);
determining a connection of the second connector to a first medical device of the one or more medical devices based on one or more data interactions detected between the computing system and the first medical device ([0105]);
receiving usage information of the connection device ([0135]);
updating the usage information of the connection device [0135]).
Tran et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform operations to independently monitor usage of the first connector and the second connector of the connection device; receiving usage information specific to each of the first connector and the second connector; updating the usage information for each of the first connector and the second connector based on the connection of the first connector to the computing system and the connection of the second connector to the first medical device, respectively; determining whether at least one of a plurality of predetermined thresholds indicating the lifetime of the connection device is approaching or has been reached has been met or exceeded based on the received usage information or the updated usage information, the plurality of predetermined thresholds including one or more predetermined thresholds specific to each of the first connector and the second connector; and in response to determining at least one of the plurality of predetermined thresholds has been met or exceeded, performing one or more actions to indicate the lifetime of the connection device is approaching or has been reached.
Additionally, no prior art of record, alone or in combination, discloses, teaches or suggests, a medical system of the instant application.
Regarding the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of PCT/US2025/010408 (hereinafter “PCT”), mailed April 9, 2025, the PCT cites US 2015/0374206 to Shimony et al. (hereinafter “Shimony”) and US 2022/0151463 to Fancher et al. (hereinafter “Fancher”) as each anticipating, inter alia, Claim 1 of the instant application, Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Shimony and Fancher each disclose a medical system having a connection device connecting a medical device to a computing system and monitoring the usage thereof, neither Shimony nor Fancher disclose, teach or suggest, inter alia, a second connector of the connection device connectable to the medical device and wherein the computing system independently monitors the usage of the first connector and the second connector. As such, neither Shimony nor Fancher anticipate the claimed invention nor would they render the claims obvious in combination with Tran.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2025/0194902; US 2021/0311297; US 2020/0187758; US 2019/0320879; US 2019/0183317; US 2018/0263464; US 2017/0064856; US 2015/0347744; US 2015/0305603; US 2014/0184770; US 2011/0184239 and U.S. 5,896,166.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CAREY can be reached at (571)270-7235. 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.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights