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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/30/25 has been entered. Claims 28-34 have been amended, and claims 21-27 and 35-40 remain withdrawn. Newly submitted claims 41-47 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally elected for the following reasons: In applicant’s Response to Election/Restriction filed 09/22/25, applicant elected Group II, Claims 28-34, drawn to a method for overlaying information onto a display. Furthermore, applicant withdrew Group I which is drawn to a system for use in a surgical procedure, and new claims are drawn to Group I. Hence, claims 41-47 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 28-34 are addressed in the following office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 28 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuruta et al. (US 5,389,098).
Regarding claim 28, an invention relating to surgical stapler, Tsuruta discloses (Fig. 112) a method for overlaying information [i.e. superimposing] onto a display (704) during a surgical procedure (Col. 37, lines 51-68), the method comprising: displaying a livestream of a surgical site on the display (Col. 37, lines 15-25); capturing an image of the surgical site from the livestream (Col. 37, lines 51-68); analyzing image to identify a staple pattern associated with a previous surgical task [i.e. staple colors from previous tissue stapling and severing] (Col. 8, lines 37-47); deriving information corresponding to the surgical procedure based on the staple pattern [i.e. pressure and body cavity image data]; and overlaying the information corresponding to the surgical procedure onto the display [i.e. superimposing staples and cutter guiding groove on to sub-screen] (Col. 37, lines 37-68 & Col. 38, lines 1-16).
Regarding claim 33, Tsuruta discloses the method of Claim 28. Tsuruta further discloses wherein the method further comprises: identifying, based on the staple pattern, a surgical instrument associated with a staple deployment that is indicated in the image, and wherein the information corresponding to the surgical procedure that is overlaid on the display indicates the surgical instrument (Col. 37, lines 30-51).
Regarding claim 34, Tsuruta discloses the method of Claim 28. Tsuruta further discloses wherein the staple pattern comprises a staple color (Col. 37, lines 30-37)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 29-30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuruta et al. (US 5,389,098) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Widenhouse et al. (US 2017/0055992).
Regarding claims 29-30, Tsuruta discloses the method of Claim 28. Tsuruta fails to further disclose wherein the method further comprises: determining an object in the surgical site based on the image; estimating a distance to the object in the surgical site based on the staple pattern; and determining a position of the object in the surgical site based on the distance to the object, wherein the information corresponding to the surgical procedure that is overlaid on the display is the position of the object [Claim 29]; and wherein the object in the surgical site is a leak in a tissue treated by stapling or application of therapeutic energy [Claim 30].
In the same field of endeavor, which is surgical staplers, Widenhouse discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining an object [i.e. leak] in the surgical site based on the image; estimating a distance to the object in the surgical site based on the staple pattern; and determining a position of the object in the surgical site based on the distance to the object, wherein the information corresponding to the surgical procedure that is overlaid on the display is the position of the object [Claim 29]; and wherein the object in the surgical site is a leak in a tissue treated by stapling or application of therapeutic energy [Claim 30] (Par. 0198-0199, 0203, 0205-0208).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsuruta to have wherein the method further comprises: determining an object in the surgical site based on the image; estimating a distance to the object in the surgical site based on the staple pattern; and determining a position of the object in the surgical site based on the distance to the object, wherein the information corresponding to the surgical procedure that is overlaid on the display is the position of the object [Claim 29]; and wherein the object in the surgical site is a leak in a tissue treated by stapling or application of therapeutic energy [Claim 30]. Doing so would facilitate identification of a leak at a tissue site (Par. 0198), as taught by Widenhouse.
Regarding claim 32, Tsuruta discloses the method of Claim 28. Tsuruta fails to further disclose wherein the method further comprises: determining a proximal and a distal end for a staple deployment that is indicated in the image, wherein the proximal and the distal end are determined based on the staple pattern; and determining a position of a leak in a tissue treated by the staple deployment based on the proximal and the distal end, wherein the information corresponding to the surgical procedure that is overlaid on the display indicates the position of the leak.
In the same field of endeavor, which is surgical staplers, Widenhouse discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining a proximal and a distal end for a staple deployment that is indicated in the image, wherein the proximal and the distal end are determined based on the staple pattern; and determining a position of a leak in a tissue treated by the staple deployment based on the proximal and the distal end, wherein the information corresponding to the surgical procedure that is overlaid on the display indicates the position of the leak (Par. 0198-0199, 0203, 0205-0208).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsuruta to have wherein the method further comprises: determining a proximal and a distal end for a staple deployment that is indicated in the image, wherein the proximal and the distal end are determined based on the staple pattern; and determining a position of a leak in a tissue treated by the staple deployment based on the proximal and the distal end, wherein the information corresponding to the surgical procedure that is overlaid on the display indicates the position of the leak. Doing so would facilitate identification of a leak at a tissue site (Par. 0198), as taught by Widenhouse.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuruta et al. (US 5,389,098) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Weisenburgh, II et al. (US 2009/0206131).
Regarding claim 31, Tsuruta discloses the method of Claim 28. Tsuruta fails to disclose wherein the method further comprises: determining an identification number (ID) associated with a staple cartridge based on the staple pattern, wherein the information corresponding to the surgical procedure that is overlaid on the display indicates the ID associated with the staple cartridge.
In the same field of endeavor, which is surgical staplers, Weisnburgh teaches wherein the method further comprises: determining an identification number (ID) associated with a staple cartridge based on the staple pattern, wherein the information corresponding to the surgical procedure that is overlaid on the display indicates the ID associated with the staple cartridge (Par. 0255).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsuruta to have wherein the method further comprises: determining an identification number (ID) associated with a staple cartridge based on the staple pattern, wherein the information corresponding to the surgical procedure that is overlaid on the display indicates the ID associated with the staple cartridge. Doing so would allow a surgeon, or other clinician, to readily identify matching pairs of anvils and staple cartridges (Par. 0255), as taught by Weisnburgh.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 12/30/25, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly cited prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Chima Igboko whose telephone number is (571)272-8422. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.U.I/ Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/ASHLEY L FISHBACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771 February 27, 2026