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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 12-15, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 12, line 10-11, “the electronics” should read “the electronic system”.
Claim 12, line 12, “the corresponding functional surgical instrument” should read “a functional surgical instrument”.
Claim 12, line 25, “the operating state” should read “an operating state”.
Claim 12, line 25, “the virtual instrument” should read “the virtual surgical instrument”.
Claim 13, line 2, “a functional element” should read “the functional element”.
Claim 14, lines 2-3, “a functional element” should read “the functional element”.
Claim 14, line 3, “the actual surgical instrument” should read “the virtual surgical instrument”.
Claim 15, lines 2-3, “a functional element” should read “the functional element”.
Claim 18, line 2, “the operator” should read “an operator”.
Claim 20, lines 2-3, “the display device” should read “a display device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall inside one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)? Yes for claims 12-22.
Claims 12-22 are drawn to a surgical simulation device comprising a computing unit. (i.e., process).
Step 2A - Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? Yes
Claim 12 recites:
A surgical simulation device, comprising:
a computing unit,
a real surgical instrument, and a virtual surgical instrument connected to the computing unit,
and an electronic system comprising an electronic card and at least one sensor,
the electronic system connecting the real surgical instrument to the computing unit
These steps amount to a form of mental process, measuring capacity and relative movement, and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea) because a human (trainee) can train on deceased bodies and on patients under the supervision of a surgeon. Applicant of claimed invention discloses “It is known in the field of medicine to offer training devices to trainee surgeons. Trainees can of course train on deceased bodies, but these are limited in number. Trainees can also train on living patients under the supervision of a senior surgeon [0002].
Dependent claims 13-22 are directed towards the simulation device (sensors, an electronic system and card, a haptic system, a spatial localization system, etc.). Each claim amounts to a form of mental process, measuring capacity and relative movement, and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea).
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 12 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception? No
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a computing unit, an electronic system, a haptic system, and a spatial localization system (independent claim 12 and dependent claims 13-22) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of a computing unit - remote computer or a microcontroller comprising an arithmetic and logic unit and a memory (independent claim 12 and dependent claims 13-22) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Use of a computer, processor, memory or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to a computerized environment (e.g., identifying and displaying, etc.) performed by a computing device, processor, and memory, etc. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined “an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer”). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 13-22 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? i.e., Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea? No
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an “inventive concept.” An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong Two”, the identified additional elements in independent claim 12 and dependent claims 13-22 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and/or append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 13-22 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in the respective independent claim is further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in the respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above.
Therefore, claims 12-22 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under US 20210233429 A1 (“Barber”) in view of US 20200357176 A1 (“Crowther”), and US 20200135056 A1 (“Omata”).
In regards to claim 12, Barber discloses the following limitations with the exception of the underlined limitations.
A surgical simulation device, comprising ([0027], “Our surgical simulation system is a … surgical simulator”):
a computing unit ([0050], “A computer model … is incorporated into the … tracking machine … and display machine” Examiner notes that a computing unit is used to execute a computer model.),
a real surgical instrument ([0007], “The system includes … real surgical instruments”),
and a virtual surgical instrument connected to the computing unit, and
an electronic system comprising an electronic card and at least one sensor, the electronic system connecting the real surgical instrument to the computing unit, the electronic card and the at least one sensor being integrated into the real surgical instrument by means of at least one specific interface part ([0047], “Each device … may be a real surgical tool with a clamp-on … tracker … The … tracker … is configured to mount with a setscrew … to a … body … of a surgical tool”. Examiner notes that an interface part is any component that acts as a connection point between different systems or devices. Examiner notes that the tracker may be used as an interface part given its ability to mount with a setscrew.),
wherein:
the real surgical instrument with the electronics has substantially the same weight ([0026], “FIGS. 12 and 13 illustrate in full and cutaway views an endoscope” Examiner notes that an endoscope is a surgical instrument that may weigh ~ .5 pounds.) as the corresponding functional surgical instrument,
the real surgical instrument corresponds to a functional surgical instrument ([0026], “FIGS. 12 and 13 illustrate in full and cutaway views an endoscope” Examiner notes that an endoscope is a real surgical instrument and a functional surgical instrument.), the functional surgical instrument being intended to be manipulated within the framework of a surgical operation ([0055], “In operation, a trainee or operating surgeon … manipulates the endoscope …”), the functional surgical instrument comprising at least one functional element ([0045], “Interaction of the device representing an endoscope with the head physical model as the device is inserted into the model” Examiner notes that inserting the device into the model requires an insertion tube, which is a functional element of an endoscope.), the real surgical instrument comprising the same functional element ([0070], “the endoscope device being configured to be inserted into the physical head model”), the at least one functional element being able to be activated ([0070], “the endoscope device being configured to be inserted into the physical head model”) according to at least two distinct operating states ([0007], “A tracking, modeling, and display machine is configured to track a tip of the endoscope within the physical head model” Examiner notes that operating states of an endoscope’s insertion tube include insertion and angulation (bending of the tip). Examiner interprets “track a tip” as tracking when the tip is bending in addition to the location of the tip, etc.),
the virtual surgical instrument has the same geometrical characteristics as the real surgical instrument and has a virtual functional element similar to the functional element of the real surgical instrument, the virtual functional element of the virtual surgical instrument is adapted to be activated in the same operating states as the functional element of the real surgical instrument, and
the operating state of the virtual functional element of the virtual instrument is adapted to be aligned, in real time, with the operating state of the functional element of the real surgical instrument.
Crowther discloses
and a virtual surgical instrument connected to the computing unit, and ([0009], “In some embodiments, the computer program further causes the processor to display a movement of the virtual surgical instrument”)
the virtual surgical instrument has the same geometrical characteristics as the real surgical instrument and has a virtual functional element similar to the functional element of the real surgical instrument, the virtual functional element of the virtual surgical instrument is adapted to be activated in the same operating states as the functional element of the real surgical instrument ([0032], “Disclosed herein ... the virtual surgical field comprises ... an endoscope” Examiner notes that the virtual surgical instrument is a virtual endoscope that has the same geometrical characteristics, functional element, and operating states as the real surgical instrument described above by Barber [0026], [0045], [0070], and [0007].), and
the operating state of the virtual functional element of the virtual instrument is adapted to be aligned, in real time, with the operating state of the functional element of the real surgical instrument ([0084], “the systems … described herein enable the use of … complex multi-part solids that can be manipulated in real time.” Examiner notes that the systems may represent the operating state of the virtual functional element, which may be manipulated (or adapted to be aligned) with the operating state of the real functional element.).
Barber and Crowther are considered analogous to the claim invention because they are in the field of training in surgery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a surgical simulation device, comprising: a computing unit, a real surgical instrument, being integrated into the real surgical instrument by means of at least one specific interface part, wherein: the real surgical instrument with the electronics has substantially the same weight, the real surgical instrument corresponds to a functional surgical instrument, the functional surgical instrument being intended to be manipulated within the framework of a surgical operation, the functional surgical instrument comprising at least one functional element, the real surgical instrument comprising the same functional element, the at least one functional element being able to be activated according to at least two distinct operating states, as disclosed by Barber, the virtual surgical instrument has the same geometrical characteristics as the real surgical instrument and has a virtual functional element similar to the functional element of the real surgical instrument, the virtual functional element of the virtual surgical instrument is adapted to be activated in the same operating states as the functional element of the real surgical instrument, and the operating state of the virtual functional element of the virtual instrument is adapted to be aligned, in real time, with the operating state of the functional element of the real surgical instrument, as disclosed by Crowther, to provide an endoscope and complex multi-part solids for systems, software, and methods for providing medical training in a virtual, augmented, or mixed reality environment.
Omata discloses
an electronic system comprising an electronic card and at least one sensor ([0143], “data from the … sensor was read by an Arduino” Examiner notes that in the claimed invention ‘The electronic card … of the electronic system … may for example be a board of the Arduino’ [0061]”), the electronic system connecting the real surgical instrument to the computing unit ([0143], “An air-tightly sealed … sensor … was mounted on the … hypodermic needle, and … data from the … sensor was read by an Arduino” Examiner notes that an Arduino is a type of computing unit and a hypodermic unit is a surgical instrument.), the electronic card and the at least one sensor ([0143], “data from the … sensor was read by an Arduino”), as the corresponding functional surgical instrument ([0143], “data from the … sensor was read by an Arduino” Examiner notes that the Arduino may weigh ~ 7 grams and the sensor may weigh ~ 8.5 grams for a total of ~15.5 grams. Examiner notes that adding the electronics (Arduino and sensor) to the endoscope increases the weight by ~6.8%, which is substantially the same weight.).
Barber and Omata are considered analogous to the claim invention because they are in the field of training in surgery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a surgical simulation device, comprising: a computing unit, a real surgical instrument, being integrated into the real surgical instrument by means of at least one specific interface part, wherein: the real surgical instrument with the electronics has substantially the same weight, the real surgical instrument corresponds to a functional surgical instrument, the functional surgical instrument being intended to be manipulated within the framework of a surgical operation, the functional surgical instrument comprising at least one functional element, the real surgical instrument comprising the same functional element, the at least one functional element being able to be activated according to at least two distinct operating states, as disclosed by Barber, an electronic system comprising an electronic card and at least one sensor, the electronic system connecting the real surgical instrument to the computing unit, the electronic card and the at least one sensor, as the corresponding functional surgical instrument, as disclosed by Omata, to provide an Arduino, a sensor, and a hypodermic needle for a device for training in ophthalmic surgery, and a method for training in ophthalmic surgery.
In regards to claim 13, Barber does not disclose wherein the at least one sensor of the electronic system constitutes a functional element of the real surgical instrument.
Omata discloses
wherein the at least one sensor of the electronic system constitutes a functional element of the real surgical instrument ([0143], “An air-tightly sealed … sensor … was mounted on the … hypodermic needle” Examiner notes that a hypodermic needle is a surgical instrument.).
Barber and Omata are considered analogous to the claim invention because they are in the field of training in surgery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a surgical simulation device, comprising: a computing unit, a real surgical instrument, being integrated into the real surgical instrument by means of at least one specific interface part, wherein: the real surgical instrument with the electronics has substantially the same weight, the real surgical instrument corresponds to a functional surgical instrument, the functional surgical instrument being intended to be manipulated within the framework of a surgical operation, the functional surgical instrument comprising at least one functional element, the real surgical instrument comprising the same functional element, the at least one functional element being able to be activated according to at least two distinct operating states, as disclosed by Barber, wherein the at least one sensor of the electronic system constitutes a functional element of the real surgical instrument, as disclosed by Omata, to provide a sensor and a hypodermic needle for a device for training in ophthalmic surgery, and a method for training in ophthalmic surgery.
In regards to claim 14, Barber does not disclose wherein the at least one sensor of the electronic system is for measuring a mechanical capacity of a functional element of the actual surgical instrument.
Omata discloses
wherein the at least one sensor of the electronic system is for measuring a mechanical capacity of a functional element of the actual surgical instrument ([0121], “The pressure sensor … is not … limited as long as a pressure … can be measured.” Examiner notes that pressure can be considered a type of mechanical capacity in that it is the force applied per unit area.).
Barber and Omata are considered analogous to the claim invention because they are in the field of training in surgery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a surgical simulation device, comprising: a computing unit, a real surgical instrument, being integrated into the real surgical instrument by means of at least one specific interface part, wherein: the real surgical instrument with the electronics has substantially the same weight, the real surgical instrument corresponds to a functional surgical instrument, the functional surgical instrument being intended to be manipulated within the framework of a surgical operation, the functional surgical instrument comprising at least one functional element, the real surgical instrument comprising the same functional element, the at least one functional element being able to be activated according to at least two distinct operating states, as disclosed by Barber, wherein the at least one sensor of the electronic system is for measuring a mechanical capacity of a functional element of the actual surgical instrument, as disclosed by Omata, to provide a pressure sensor for a device for training in ophthalmic surgery, and a method for training in ophthalmic surgery.
In regards to claim 15, Barber does not disclose wherein the at least one sensor of the electronic system is intended to measure a relative movement of a functional element of the real surgical instrument with respect to an original position.
Omata discloses
wherein the at least one sensor of the electronic system is intended to measure a relative movement of a functional element of the real surgical instrument with respect to an original position ([0118], “a pressure sensor … that detects a pressure of the fluid” Examiner notes that a pressure sensor measures movement indirectly by the detection of pressure changes created by movement.)
Barber and Omata are considered analogous to the claim invention because they are in the field of training in surgery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a surgical simulation device, comprising: a computing unit, a real surgical instrument, being integrated into the real surgical instrument by means of at least one specific interface part, wherein: the real surgical instrument with the electronics has substantially the same weight, the real surgical instrument corresponds to a functional surgical instrument, the functional surgical instrument being intended to be manipulated within the framework of a surgical operation, the functional surgical instrument comprising at least one functional element, the real surgical instrument comprising the same functional element, the at least one functional element being able to be activated according to at least two distinct operating states, as disclosed by Barber, wherein the at least one sensor of the electronic system is intended to measure a relative movement of a functional element of the real surgical instrument with respect to an original position, as disclosed by Omata, to provide a pressure sensor for a device for training in ophthalmic surgery, and a method for training in ophthalmic surgery.
In regards to claim 16, Barber discloses
wherein the real surgical instrument provided with the electronic system has dimensions, shapes, and a centre of mass substantially identical to those of the functional surgical instrument ([0026], “FIGS. 12 and 13 illustrate in full and cutaway views an endoscope” Examiner notes that the real surgical instrument can be an endoscope and the functional instrument can be an endoscope with identical dimensions, shapes, and centre of mass.).
In regards to claim 17, Barber discloses the following limitations with the exception of the underlined limitations.
wherein the electronic card, the at least one sensor and the at least one specific interface piece are integrated into the real surgical tool in replacement of at least one electronic component of a set of electronic components of the functional surgical instrument ([0047], “Each device … may be a real surgical tool with a clamp-on … tracker … The … tracker … is configured to mount with a setscrew … to a … body … of a surgical tool”. Examiner notes that the Arduino, sensor, and clamp-on tracker may be a replacement for the electronic component in the functional surgical instrument.).
Omata discloses
wherein the electronic card, the at least one sensor ([0143], “data from the … sensor was read by an Arduino”).
Barber and Omata are considered analogous to the claim invention because they are in the field of training in surgery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a surgical simulation device, comprising: a computing unit, a real surgical instrument, being integrated into the real surgical instrument by means of at least one specific interface part, wherein: the real surgical instrument with the electronics has substantially the same weight, the real surgical instrument corresponds to a functional surgical instrument, the functional surgical instrument being intended to be manipulated within the framework of a surgical operation, the functional surgical instrument comprising at least one functional element, the real surgical instrument comprising the same functional element, the at least one functional element being able to be activated according to at least two distinct operating states, and the at least one specific interface piece are integrated into the real surgical tool in replacement of at least one electronic component of a set of electronic components of the functional surgical instrument, as disclosed by Barber, wherein the electronic card, the at least one sensor, as disclosed by Omata, to provide a sensor and an Arduino for a device for training in ophthalmic surgery, and a method for training in ophthalmic surgery.
In regards to claim 18, Barber does not disclose wherein the virtual surgical instrument is adapted to be viewed by the operator on a viewing device connected to the computing unit.
Crowther discloses
wherein the virtual surgical instrument is adapted to be viewed by the operator on a viewing device connected to the computing unit ([0023], “a system described herein provides graphic simulations of a medical surgery that deliver a user realistic feedback … from a computer interface tool representing a virtual surgical instrument displayed in the simulation.”).
Barber and Crowther are considered analogous to the claim invention because they are in the field of training in surgery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a surgical simulation device, comprising: a computing unit, a real surgical instrument, being integrated into the real surgical instrument by means of at least one specific interface part, wherein: the real surgical instrument with the electronics has substantially the same weight, the real surgical instrument corresponds to a functional surgical instrument, the functional surgical instrument being intended to be manipulated within the framework of a surgical operation, the functional surgical instrument comprising at least one functional element, the real surgical instrument comprising the same functional element, the at least one functional element being able to be activated according to at least two distinct operating states, as disclosed by Barber, wherein the virtual surgical instrument is adapted to be viewed by the operator on a viewing device connected to the computing unit, as disclosed by Crowther, to provide graphic simulations for systems, software, and methods for providing medical training in a virtual, augmented, or mixed reality environment.
In regards to claim 19, Barber discloses
wherein the real surgical instrument is provided with a haptic device so as to be able to simulate, for the operator, an interaction with a predefined body, of a nature and positioning determined by the computing unit ([0045], “Interaction of the device representing an endoscope with the head physical model as the device is inserted into the model provides … haptic feedback to a surgeon or trainee that resembles … haptic feedback as the surgeon or trainee inserts a real endoscope into a patient's real head”).
In regards to claim 20, Barber does not disclose wherein a virtual equivalent of the predefined body is adapted to be visualized, by the operator, on the display device.
Crowther discloses
wherein a virtual equivalent of the predefined body is adapted to be visualized, by the operator, on the display device ([0032], “the user is able to view images of the bony and soft tissues of the spine and the positioning of their surgical tools with respect to those tissues”).
Barber and Crowther are considered analogous to the claim invention because they are in the field of training in surgery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a surgical simulation device, comprising: a computing unit, a real surgical instrument, being integrated into the real surgical instrument by means of at least one specific interface part, wherein: the real surgical instrument with the electronics has substantially the same weight, the real surgical instrument corresponds to a functional surgical instrument, the functional surgical instrument being intended to be manipulated within the framework of a surgical operation, the functional surgical instrument comprising at least one functional element, the real surgical instrument comprising the same functional element, the at least one functional element being able to be activated according to at least two distinct operating states, as disclosed by Barber, wherein a virtual equivalent of the predefined body is adapted to be visualized, by the operator, on the display device, as disclosed by Crowther, to provide an ability for users to view images for systems, software, and methods for providing medical training in a virtual, augmented, or mixed reality environment.
In regards to claim 21, Barber does not disclose wherein the real surgical instrument is provided with a sound feedback system.
Omata discloses
wherein the real surgical instrument is provided with a sound feedback system ([0127], “it is also possible to include a notification step … in which, when the edge of the surgical knife has come into contact with the conductor layer, a notification that electricity has been conducted is issued, such as by generation of an alarm sound.”).
Barber and Omata are considered analogous to the claim invention because they are in the field of training in surgery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a surgical simulation device, comprising: a computing unit, a real surgical instrument, being integrated into the real surgical instrument by means of at least one specific interface part, wherein: the real surgical instrument with the electronics has substantially the same weight, the real surgical instrument corresponds to a functional surgical instrument, the functional surgical instrument being intended to be manipulated within the framework of a surgical operation, the functional surgical instrument comprising at least one functional element, the real surgical instrument comprising the same functional element, the at least one functional element being able to be activated according to at least two distinct operating states, as disclosed by Barber, wherein the real surgical instrument is provided with a sound feedback system, as disclosed by Omata, to provide a notification step and notification regarding electricity for training in ophthalmic surgery, and a method for training in ophthalmic surgery.
In regards to claim 22, Barber does not disclose wherein the real surgical instrument is provided with a spatial localization system so that the computing unit can determine, at each instant, the positioning of the real surgical instrument in space with respect to a predefined origin.
Omata discloses
wherein the real surgical instrument is provided with a spatial localization system so that the computing unit can determine, at each instant, the positioning of the real surgical instrument in space with respect to a predefined origin ([0118], “the pressure sensor … may be provided at a location where the tube is interposed” Examiner notes that a spatial localization system often includes a pressure sensor, which improves the accuracy of vertical positioning.).
Barber and Omata are considered analogous to the claim invention because they are in the field of training in surgery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a surgical simulation device, comprising: a computing unit, a real surgical instrument, being integrated into the real surgical instrument by means of at least one specific interface part, wherein: the real surgical instrument with the electronics has substantially the same weight, the real surgical instrument corresponds to a functional surgical instrument, the functional surgical instrument being intended to be manipulated within the framework of a surgical operation, the functional surgical instrument comprising at least one functional element, the real surgical instrument comprising the same functional element, the at least one functional element being able to be activated according to at least two distinct operating states, as disclosed by Barber, wherein the real surgical instrument is provided with a spatial localization system so that the computing unit can determine, at each instant, the positioning of the real surgical instrument in space with respect to a predefined origin, as disclosed by Omata, to provide a pressure sensor for training in ophthalmic surgery, and a method for training in ophthalmic surgery.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LISA HOPE ANTOINE whose telephone number is
(571) 272-4252. The examiner can be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30 am-5:30 pm CDT. 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, Xuan Thai, can be reached on (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Publication Information
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be
obtained from the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent
Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the
Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the
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.
/LISA HOPE ANTOINE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/GAUTAM UBALE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 4100