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 .
Formal Matters
Applicant’s response and amendments filed 21 January 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 5, 11, and 20 are cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12-17, and 21 are currently amended. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-19, and 21 are pending and under examination.
Advisory Notice
Applicant is advised that the 21 January 2026 response did not contain a status identifier for claim 3, which is currently amended. The status is noted by the examiner in order to promote compact prosecution.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The objections to claims 11 and 20 under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicates, is withdrawn in light of the cancellation of the claims.
The objection to claim 14 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Rejections drawn to cancelled claims 11 and 20 are withdrawn as moot in light of the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uyama et al., WO 2019181632 (26 September 2019), as evidenced by Andrew J. Davison ("Real-Time Simultaneous Localization and Mapping with a Single Camera", Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Volume 2, 2003, pp. 1403-1410), in view of Lang, US 20201038518 (7 May 2020) and Tran US 11,045,271 (29 June 2021), is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the objections, rejections of record under 35 USC 112 and 101, (Remarks pp. 1-2). Applicant’s amendments are persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 Applicant argues that the combination lacks a persuasive motivation and reasonable expectation for success (Remarks, p. 2-4). Applicant argues that the rationale for the combination is largely “toolbox” (Remarks, p. 4) and does not articulate why a PHOSITA would modify Uyama’s SLAM/annotation system to implement the amended claims (Remarks, p. 4). Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive in light of Applicant’s amendments, which require modified rejections, necessitated by amendment, as set forth below.
Additionally, Applicant’s amendments to the system claims continue to be drawn to procedural/method steps, which the examiner has previously discussed as being functional. Accordingly, modified rejections are set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
The claims are interpreted under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) standard. Independent claims 1 and 4 recite “at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions executable by said at least one processor”. This is interpreted as software.
The “receiving” and “analyzing” of real-time image data in claims 1 and 4 is considered a method/process step carried out by the instructions/software.
The “determining” that a predetermined step has been performed or completed in claims 1 and 4 is considered a method/process step carried out by the instructions/software.
The “automatic extraction” step in claims 1 and 4 is considered a method/process step carried out by the instructions/software.
These are broadly interpreted as functional process recitations and not a structural components of the claimed system. The claims indicate that these process steps are carried out by the processor based on instructions (software) stored the at least one memory. Taken as a whole, these steps are also method/process steps and may also be regarded as intended-use process limitations. Accordingly, the terms storing, receive/receiving, analyze/analyzing, determining, extract/extracting are considered extra-solution activity. These activities are interpreted as being incidental to the primary system and are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.
As explained in the MPEP 2106.05(g), “[e]xtra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that “[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula”. 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was “post-solution activity”). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012) (additional element of measuring metabolites of a drug administered to a patient was insignificant extra-solution activity).” Mere data gathering and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated are also examples of extra-solution activity.
Regarding independent claim 1, the system’s structural components are interpreted as including a camera, at least one processor, at least one memory. The remaining recitations are method/process limitations drawn to software instructions that are executable.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the claim is interpreted encompassing only process/method steps drawn to software instructions that are executable.
Regarding dependent claim 3, the claim is interpreted as further comprising a structural component of an image display device, with the remaining recitations as method/process steps drawn to software instructions that are executable.
Regarding independent claim 4, the structural components are interpreted as including a camera, an image display device, at least one processor, at least one memory, and method/process steps drawn to software instructions that are executable.
Regarding dependent claims 6-8, 12, 15-17, the claims are drawn to instructions that are executable by the said at least one processor. The recitations are method/process limitations drawn to software that are carried out on a general computer by at least one processor.
Regarding dependent claims 9, 10, 18, and 19, the claims are drawn to method/process limitations drawn to software instructions that are executable where changes are detected by the at least one processor using software configured to analyze images.
Regarding dependent claim 13, the claim is drawn to the system further including a voice input device and method/process instructions that are executable by at least one processor. The claim adds a prompt and response recitation as well as an instruction to store the annotation. These instructions are interpreted as method/process limitations drawn to software that are carried out on a general computer by at least one processor.
Regarding dependent claims 14 and 21, the claims drawn to the content of the still image taken during the extraction method/process step of independent claims 1 and 4, respectively.
The examiner recognizes that mere rephrasing of a passage does not constitute new matter (MPEP 2163.07 and 608.01(o)). However, Applicant is reminded that there must still be originally filed support even if alternative comparable language (synonyms) are used. The specification recites that the image data is to be analyzed (process step) using “computer vision.” Computer vision is broadly understood to be an image-based machine learning algorithmic process. This is broadly understood to be software. There is no ipsa verba support disclosed for “instructions” as software or applicable to software. The sole mention of instruction on page 7 of the specification is such that “the capture may be automatically performed by the system, or the user may take an action (optionally in response to a prompt to do so) that inputs instructions to capture it”. Similarly, the sole mention of “executable” in the specification is on page 3 in reference to “an algorithm stored in memory accessible by the computing unit is executable to use the image data to perform one or more of the functions described”. Accordingly, the examiner has given Applicant consideration for being their own lexicographer with regard to the language of the amended claims.
The claims are drawn to a system comprising structural apparatus of a camera, at least one processor, and at least one memory storing instructions that are executable. An image display and voice input device are also recited structural components in dependent claims 3 and 13, respectively.
The claimed stored instructions and methods/process steps as functions thereof are broadly interpreted as software. However, the executable instructions/software are considered generic based on the express recitations in the claims and the disclosures in the specification, there being no specific software, algorithms, or code in the disclosure. Additionally, only a general purpose processor is disclosed and claimed. Given this, the software/executable instructions are broadly interpreted as functional recitations. See MPEP 2181.
A patent Applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or functionally. See In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971) ("[T]here is nothing intrinsically wrong with [defining something by what it does rather than what it is] in drafting patent claims."). Yet, choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk, as the CCPA stated in Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 213, 169 USPQ at 228, “where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.” See also In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215, 210 USPQ 609, 611 (CCPA 1981); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64, 169 USPQ 563, 565-67 (CCPA 1971).
With regard to software generally, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure disclosed in the specification be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333, 86 USPQ2d 1235, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). “To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to purely functional claiming” Aristocrat, 521 F3rd 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2s at 1239. Thus, in software claims, the corresponding structure for performing the specific computer function is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but a special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.'” (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). “An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may “express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted)” (MPEP 2181, II(B)).
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: a word is missing in claim 8, line 3, following the term “surgical treatment”. It is believed that the word “site” was inadvertently removed from this portion of the claim. Compare claim 17, line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Modified Rejections – Necessitated by Amendment
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 1-4, 6-10, 12-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uyama et al., WO 2019181632 (26 September 2019) in view of Makrinich et al., US 20210313050 (8 October 2021).
Regarding amended claim 1, Uyama teaches a system (FIG 28; ¶9, apparatus) for capturing records of a surgical procedure (¶22), comprising: a camera (FIG 1, imager 11; ¶18) positionable to capture real-time image data (claim 12; ¶19, real-time) of a surgical treatment site (claim 8; ¶¶19-20); at least one processor (claim 11; FIG 3, information processing device 130); and at least one memory storing instructions executable by said at least one processor (FIG 28; claim 21; ¶198) to:
receive the real-time image data (¶81 “Live”) captured within the surgical instrument site (claim 21) and, when available, kinematic information from a robotic component maneuvering a surgical instrument (claim 21; ¶¶51-54);
analyze the real-time image data (¶55, SLAM mapping) to detect and identify at least one surgical instrument (¶¶29-30) at the surgical treatment site and to track motions of the identified surgical instrument (¶29);
Uyama does not expressly teach determining, based on whether the tracked motions include tool movement patterns or steps in a sequence of movements corresponding to one of a plurality of stored tasks or subtasks for the surgical procedure, that a predetermined surgical step has been performed or completed and in response to determining that the predetermined surgical step has been completed, automatically extract from the real-time image data a still image captured at a time of completion of said predetermined surgical step and store the still image in the at least one memory in a medical record in association with the predetermined surgical step.
Uyama teaches capturing and storing a still image (FIG 14; ¶31) annotating images while tracking specified positions on the basis of the position/posture information (¶100).
Makrinich teaches algorithmic determinations (¶203), based on whether the tracked motions include tool movement patterns (¶203) or steps in a sequence of movements corresponding to one of a plurality of stored tasks or subtasks for the surgical procedure (¶212), that a predetermined surgical step has been performed (¶¶171, 205) or completed (¶212) and in response to determining that the predetermined surgical step has been completed (¶¶212, 219), automatically extract from the real-time image data a still image captured at a time of completion of said predetermined surgical step and store the still image (surgical video frame, ¶213) in the at least one memory in a medical record in association with the predetermined surgical step (¶¶212, 213).
Makrinich also teaches systems comprising at least one processor (¶50) suitable for executing instructions pre-loaded into a memory integrated with or embedded into the controller or stored in a separate memory (¶50). One or more cameras 115 configured to track and identify a surgical tool within an anatomical structure via a computer-based camera control application that uses image recognition algorithms for positioning the camera to capture video/image data of a region-of-interest (ROI) or by a human operator controlling the position of the cameras are taught at ¶61. Surgical video may be recorded in real-time (¶185).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Uyama and Makrinich, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference.
Uyama and Makrinich teach in the same field of endeavor, systems comprising processors, memory, and imaging systems for capturing information and making records of surgical procedures.
Although, Uyama discloses the claimed base processor, memory, camera, real-time data capture, and real-time analysis, including capturing and storing a still images, and annotating images while tracking specified positions on the basis of the position/posture information, Uyama does not disclose the functions of determining, based on whether the tracked motions include tool movement patterns or steps in a sequence of movements corresponding to one of a plurality of stored tasks or subtasks for the surgical procedure, that a predetermined surgical step has been performed or completed and in response to determining that the predetermined surgical step has been completed, automatically extract from the real-time image data a still image captured at a time of completion of said predetermined surgical step and store the still image in the at least one memory in a medical record in association with the predetermined surgical step.
Makrinich specifically addresses algorithmic determinations (¶203), based on whether the tracked motions include tool movement patterns (¶203) or steps in a sequence of movements corresponding to one of a plurality of stored tasks or subtasks for the surgical procedure (¶212), that a predetermined surgical step has been performed (¶205) or completed (¶212) and in response to determining that the predetermined surgical step has been completed (¶212), automatically extract from the real-time image data a still image captured at a time of completion of said predetermined surgical step and store the still image (surgical video frame, ¶213) in the at least one memory in a medical record in association with the predetermined surgical step (¶¶212, 213).
Uyama includes the apparatus components of the system required to perform the functions of tool tracking movement patterns, steps or sequences of movements, capturing and storing a still image, annotating images while tracking specified positions on the basis of the position/posture information, and utilizing SLAM mapping, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to utilize Uyama’s hardware architecture and SLAM mapping features for medical record collection, data analytics, and determining that a predetermined step in a surgical plan has been completed based on the imaging data captured during the procedure would reasonably consult Makrinich’s medical record and surgical workflow documentation solution. Makrinich’s use of algorithmic determinations and analytics can be incorporated alongside Uyama’s hardware (same one or more processors, instructions stored in at least one memory executable by the at least one processor, and camera(s) positionable to capture real-time image data of a surgical treatment site), using known methods without redesigning Uyama’s core architecture.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (documenting real-time surgical imaging using at least one processor, at least one memory, and a camera positionable to capture real-time image data of a surgical treatment site) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding software functions based on tracked motions including tool movement patterns or sequential surgical procedure steps, documenting that the predetermined surgical step has been completed and automatically extracting a still image (frame) from the real-time image data captured at a time of completion of a surgical step and storing the still images (frames) in the at least one memory in a medical record in association with the predetermined surgical step), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding amended claim 2, Uyama modified by Makrinich teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above.
Makrinich teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by said at least one processor (¶203) to, upon detecting completion of the predetermined surgical step (¶¶171, 205), prompting a user to dictate a note, recording a dictated note (audible prerequisite, ¶227), and storing said dictated note in the at least one memory in association with the predetermined surgical step (¶224).
Regarding amended claim 3, Uyama modified by Makrinich teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above.
Uyama teaches wherein the system further includes an image display (display device 15, ¶20) displaying real time (¶19) images from the camera (¶19), and wherein said instructions are further executable by said at least one processor (claim 22) to display the still image as an overlay on the display of the real time image (FIG 7, S14; FIG 8, S19).
Regarding amended independent claim 4, Uyama teaches a system (¶9, apparatus) for assisting a surgical practitioner (¶3), comprising: a camera (FIG 1, imager 11; ¶18) positionable to capture real-time image data (claim 12; ¶19, real-time) of a surgical treatment site (claim 8; ¶¶19-20); an image display (display device 15, ¶20) configured to display the real-time images from the camera (¶19);
at least one processor (claim 11; FIG 3, information processing device 130) and at least one memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor (claim 21; ¶198) to:
receive the real-time image data (¶81 “Live”) captured within the surgical site (claim 21) and, when available, kinematic information from a robotic component maneuvering a surgical instrument (claim 21; ¶¶51-54);
analyze the image data (¶55, SLAM mapping) to detect and identify at least one surgical instrument at the surgical treatment site (¶¶29-30) and to track motions of the identified surgical instrument (¶29).
Uyama does not expressly teach that the image display displays a plurality of procedural steps for a surgical procedure.
Uyama does not expressly teach determining, based on whether the tracked motions include tool movement patterns or steps in a sequence of movements corresponding to one of a plurality of stored tasks or subtasks for the surgical procedure, that a predetermined surgical step has been performed or completed; and in response to determining completion of the predetermined surgical steps, automatically update the displayed plurality of procedural steps to record completion of the predetermined surgical step; and automatically extract from the real-time image data a still image captured at the time of completion and store the still image in the at least one memory in a medical record in association with the predetermined surgical step.
Makrinich teaches the image display displays a plurality of procedural steps for a surgical procedure (¶¶169, 171; FIG 9). Makrinich teaches determining (¶203), based on whether the tracked motions include tool movement patterns (¶203) or steps in a sequence of movements corresponding to one of a plurality of stored tasks or subtasks for the surgical procedure (¶212), that a predetermined surgical step has been performed (¶205) or completed (¶¶212, 219), and in response to determining that the predetermined surgical step has been completed (¶¶171, 212), automatically extract from the real-time image data a still image captured at a time of completion of said predetermined surgical step and store the still image (surgical video frame, ¶213) in the at least one memory in a medical record in association with the predetermined surgical step (¶¶212, 213).
Makrinich also teaches systems comprising at least one processor (¶50) suitable for executing instructions pre-loaded into a memory integrated with or embedded into the controller or stored in a separate memory (¶50). One or more cameras 115 configured to track and identify a surgical tool within an anatomical structure via a computer-based camera control application that uses image recognition algorithms for positioning the camera to capture video/image data of a region-of-interest (ROI) or by a human operator controlling the position of the cameras are taught at ¶61. Surgical video may be recorded in real-time (¶185).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Uyama and Makrinich, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Uyama and Makrinich teach in the same field of endeavor, systems comprising processors, memory, and imaging systems for capturing information and making records of surgical procedures.
Although, Uyama discloses the claimed base processor, memory, camera, real-time data capture, and real-time analysis, including capturing and storing a still images, and annotating images while tracking specified positions on the basis of the position/posture information, Uyama does not expressly disclose the image display displaying a plurality of procedural steps for a surgical procedure or the functions of determining, based on whether the tracked motions include tool movement patterns or steps in a sequence of movements corresponding to one of a plurality of stored tasks or subtasks for the surgical procedure, that a predetermined surgical step has been performed or completed and in response to determining that the predetermined surgical step has been completed, automatically extract from the real-time image data a still image captured at a time of completion of said predetermined surgical step and store the still image in the at least one memory in a medical record in association with the predetermined surgical step.
Makrinich specifically addresses image display displays a plurality of procedural steps for a surgical procedure (¶169; FIG 9). Makrinich also specifically addresses determinations (¶203), based on whether the tracked motions include tool movement patterns (¶203) or steps in a sequence of movements corresponding to one of a plurality of stored tasks or subtasks for the surgical procedure (¶¶212, 219), that a predetermined surgical step has been performed (¶205) or completed (¶212) and in response to determining that the predetermined surgical step has been completed (¶¶212, 219), automatically extract from the real-time image data a still image captured at a time of completion of said predetermined surgical step and store the still image (surgical video frame, ¶213) in the at least one memory in a medical record in association with the predetermined surgical step (¶¶212, 213).
Uyama includes the apparatus components of the system required to perform the functions of tool tracking movement patterns, steps or sequences of movements, capturing and storing a still image, annotating images while tracking specified positions on the basis of the position/posture information, and utilizing SLAM mapping, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to utilize Uyama’s hardware architecture and SLAM mapping features for medical record collection, data analytics, and determining that a predetermined step in a surgical plan has been completed based on the imaging data captured during the procedure would reasonably consult Makrinich’s medical record and surgical workflow documentation solution. Makrinich’s use of algorithmic determinations and analytics can be incorporated alongside Uyama’s hardware (same one or more processors, instructions stored in at least one memory executable by the at least one processor, and camera(s) positionable to capture real-time image data of a surgical treatment site), using known methods without redesigning Uyama’s core architecture.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (documenting real-time surgical imaging using at least one processor, at least one memory, and a camera positionable to capture real-time image data of a surgical treatment site) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding software functions based on tracked motions including tool movement patterns or sequential surgical procedure steps, documenting that the predetermined surgical step has been completed and automatically extracting a still image (frame) from the real-time image data captured at a time of completion of a surgical step and storing the still images (frames) in the at least one memory in a medical record in association with the predetermined surgical step), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding amended claim 6, Uyama modified by Makrinich teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above.
Makrinich teaches wherein the instructions are executable by said at least one processor (¶50) to determine completion of the predetermined step based on detected movement patterns of the surgical tool (¶219).
Regarding amended claim 7, Uyama modified by Makrinich teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above.
Makrinich teaches wherein the instructions are executable by said at least one processor (¶50) to determine completion of the predetermined step based on detected sequences of movements of the surgical tool (¶219).
Regarding amended claim 8, Uyama modified by Makrinich teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above.
Makrinich teaches wherein the instructions are executable by said at least one processor (¶50) to analyze the image data to detect anatomical features at the surgical treatment [site] (¶148) and to detect changes in the detected anatomical features (¶210), and to determine completion of the predetermined step based on detected changes to the anatomical feature (¶¶149, 212, 219).
Regarding claim 9, Uyama modified by Makrinich teaches the system of claim 8, as set forth above.
Makrinich teaches wherein the detected changes include detected changes in position of the anatomical feature (¶¶156, 157).
Regarding claim 10, Uyama modified by Makrinich teaches the system of claim 8, as set forth above.
Makrinich teaches wherein the detected changes include detected changes in shape of the anatomical feature (dimensions of anatomical structures, ¶156).
Regarding amended claim 12, Uyama modified by Makrinich teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above.
Makrinich teaches wherein the instructions are executable by said at least one processor (¶50) to create a medical record storing the still image (surgical video frame, ¶213).
Regarding amended claim 13, Uyama modified by Makrinich teaches the system of claim 12, as set forth above.
Makrinich teaches wherein the system includes a voice input device (audio sensors 425; ¶138), and wherein the instructions are executable by said at least one processor (¶50) to, upon detecting completion of the predetermined step, prompt a user to speak an annotation (¶93), in response to the user speaking the annotation (¶93), receiving data corresponding to the annotation from the voice input device (¶138), store the annotation in the medical record in association with the still image (surgical video frame, ¶213).
Regarding amended claim 14, Uyama modified by Makrinich teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above.
Makrinich teaches wherein the still image (surgical video frame, ¶213). shows showing completion of the predetermined step at the surgical treatment site (¶¶212, 219).
Regarding amended claim 15, Uyama modified by Makrinich teaches the system of claim 4, as set forth above.
Makrinich teaches wherein the instructions are executable by said at least one processor (¶50) determine completion of the predetermined step based on detected movement patterns of the surgical tool (¶219).
Regarding amended claim 16, Uyama modified by Makrinich teaches the system of claim 4, as set forth above.
Makrinich teaches wherein the instructions are executable by said at least one processor (¶50) to determine completion of the predetermined step based on detected sequences of movements of the surgical tool (¶219).
Regarding amended claim 17, Uyama modified by Makrinich teaches the system of claim 4, as set forth above.
Makrinich teaches wherein the instructions are executable by said at least one processor (¶50) to analyze the image data to detect anatomical features at the surgical treatment site (¶148) and to detect changes in the detected anatomical features (¶210), and to determine completion of the predetermined step based on detected changes to the anatomical feature (¶¶149, 212, 219).
Regarding claim 18, Uyama modified by Makrinich teaches the system of claim 17, as set forth above.
Makrinich teaches wherein the detected changes include detected changes in position of the anatomical feature (¶¶156, 157).
Regarding claim 19, Uyama modified by Makrinich teaches the system of claim 17, as set forth above.
Makrinich teaches wherein the detected changes include detected changes in shape of the anatomical feature (dimensions of anatomical structures, ¶156).
Regarding claim 21, Uyama modified by Makrinich teaches the system of claim 4, as set forth above.
Makrinich teaches wherein the still image (surgical video frame, ¶213). shows showing completion of the predetermined step at the surgical treatment site (¶¶212, 219).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The prior art made of record and not presently relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Barral et al., US 20180065248 (8 March 2018) teaches systems and methods for prevention of surgical mistakes.
Singer, US 20020087357 (4 July 2002) teaches medical record forming and storing apparatus and medical record and method related to the same.
Shelton et al., US 11,504,192 (22 November 2020, benefit to 30 November 2014) teaches method of hub communications with surgical instrument systems.
Shelton et al., US 20190125459 (2 May 2019) teaches method of hub communications with surgical instrument systems.
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 CHERIE M POLAND whose telephone number is (703)756-1341. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (9am-9pm CST) and R-F (9am-3pm CST).
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/CHERIE M POLAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /SHAUN L DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights