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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to the RCE filed on 12/02/2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 12/02/2025 has been entered.
As per instant Amendment, claims 1-15 were canceled; Claims 16-25 have been added and claims 16 and 21 are independent claims. Claims 16-25 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made Non-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite is withdrawn as the claims have been canceled.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
The Examiner reserve the rights to re-recite the references from previous office actions in next grounds of prosecution, when needed.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “controller configured to display/activate/select/send,” and “endoscope image transmission module displaying,” recited in claim 21; “input and output module configured to transmit/receive,” recited in claim 25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 of this title, 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 16-17, 20-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (“Jones,” US 2016/0225192), published on Aug. 4, 2016, in view of Hellen (US 2019/0099226), published on Apr. 04, 2019.
Regarding claim 16, Jones discloses a method of operating a headset of a surgical robot system, the method comprising (pars. 0069-0078; Figs. 10-12):
displaying, by a controller, a main screen and a plurality of selectable auxiliary screens in a main display region, the selectable auxiliary screens being spaced apart from the main screen (pars. 0069-0078; Figs. 10-12; primary display panel 710 and other display panels 720-724 [display panels 720-724 are being spaced apart from panel 710]);
displaying, by the controller, a plurality of selection screens in an auxiliary display region spaced apart from the main display region (pars. 0069-0078; Figs. 10-12; three of the virtual secondary display panels 720, 722, and 724 are arranged horizontally along an upper row);
displaying, by an endoscope image transmission module, an endoscope image on the main screen in the main display region (pars. 0042, 0069-0078 and 0082; Figs. 6 and 10-13; endoscope cameras/images displayed on display panels 710 and 720-724);
displaying a list of functions on the selection screens (pars. 0027, 0060-0066 and 0069-0078; Figs. 10-12; menu control, images and other information are displayed on the panels 710 and 720-724);
Jones discloses displaying a list of function on the selection screens, but does not explicitly disclose displaying, by a surgical assist function optional transmission module, a list of selectable assist functions in the auxiliary display region, respectively;
However, Hellen discloses a surgical system that performs the steps of:
displaying, by a surgical assist function optional transmission module, a list of selectable assist functions in the auxiliary display region, respectively (Hellen: pars. 0056-0060 and 0106; Figs. 4A and 11B-11C; other surgical menu items 420-422, 426-436 and 438-452, such as display position menu 434, diagnostic device control menu 436, etc. are displayed outside main display region).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Hellen with the system/method of Jones. One would have been motivated to provide users with a multiple display windows enabling users to view surgical images and activate surgical menu during the operation (Hellen: pars. 0056-0060).
The combination of Jones and Hellen further discloses:
activating, by a user, a surgical assist function state by turning a head and gazing at the auxiliary display region (Jones: pars. 0023, 0051 and 0070; the camera 610 or another camera may be directed toward one of the user's eyes to identify a dwell time of the eye, blink timing, and/or movement of the eye to generate a command from the user to control what is displayed on the display screen; Hellen: pars. 0063-0064 and 0083-0084; eye-tracking);
selecting, by the user, a specific assist function from the list of selectable assist functions by blinking while gazing at a corresponding selection screen (Jones: pars. 0023, 0051 and 0070; the camera 610 or another camera may be directed toward one of the user's eyes to identify a dwell time of the eye, blink timing, and/or movement of the eye to generate a command from the user to control what is displayed on the display screen; Hellen: pars. 0063-0064 and 0083-0084; eye-tracking);
selecting, by the user, a specific auxiliary screen from the selectable auxiliary screens by blinking while gazing at the specific auxiliary screen (Jones: pars. 0051 and 0070-0072, 0080; Figs. 10-12; the camera 610 or another camera may be directed toward one of the user's eyes to identify a dwell time of the eye, blink timing, and/or movement of the eye to generate a command from the user to control what is displayed on the display screen; Hellen: pars. 0063-0064 and 0083-0084; eye-tracking); and
displaying, by a surgical assist function transmission module, surgical auxiliary information associated with the selected assist function on the selected auxiliary screen (Jones: 0069-0078; Figs. 10-12; Hellen: pars. 0056-0060 and 0106; Figs. 4A and 11B-11C).
Regarding claim 17, Jones and Hellen disclose the method of claim 16.
The combination of Jones and Hellen further disclose wherein the plurality of selectable auxiliary screens include a left auxiliary screen provided on a left side of the main screen and a right auxiliary screen provided on a right side of the main screen (Jones: pars. 0069-0078; Figs. 10-12; Hellen: Figs. 4A and 11B-11C).
The motivation is the same that of claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 20, Jones and Hellen disclose the method of claim 16.
The combination of Jones and Hellen further discloses transmitting and receiving, by an input and output module, data to and from a peripheral device of the surgical robot system (Jones: pars. 0082-0086 and 0091-0097; Figs. 13-14; Hellen: Figs. 1 and 3A-3B).
Regarding claim 21, Jones discloses a headset for a surgical robot system (Figs. 1-5 and 9-14), the headset comprising:
a controller configured to display a main screen and a plurality of selectable auxiliary screens in a main display region and to display a plurality of selection screens in an auxiliary display region spaced apart from the main display region, the selectable auxiliary screens being spaced apart from the main screen (pars. 0069-0078; Figs. 10-12; primary display panel 710 and other display panels 720-724 [display panels 720-724 are being spaced apart from panel 710];
an endoscope image transmission module configured to display an endoscope image on the main screen in the main display region (pars. 0042, 0069-0078 and 0082; Figs. 10-12; endoscope cameras/images displayed on display panels 710);
displaying a list of selectable assist functions on the selection screens in the auxiliary display (pars. 0027, 0060-0066 and 0069-0078; Figs. 10-12; menu control, images and other information are displayed on the panels 720-724);
Jones discloses displaying a list of function on the selection screens, but does not explicitly disclose displaying, by a surgical assist function optional transmission module, a list of selectable assist functions in the auxiliary display region, respectively;
However, Hellen discloses a surgical system that performs the steps of:
displaying, by a surgical assist function optional transmission module, a list of selectable assist functions in the auxiliary display region, respectively (Hellen: pars. 0056-0060 and 0106; Figs. 4A and 11B-11C; other surgical menu items 420-422, 426-436 and 438-452, such as display position menu 434, diagnostic device control menu 436, etc. are displayed outside main display region).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Hellen with the system/method of Jones. One would have been motivated to provide users with a multiple display windows enabling users to view surgical images and activate surgical menu during the operation (Hellen: pars. 0056-0060).
The combination of Jones and Hellen further discloses:
a surgical assist function optional transmission module displaying a list of selectable assist functions on the selection screens in the auxiliary display region, respectively (Jones: Figs. 10-12; menu control, images and other information are displayed on the panels 720-724; Hellen: pars. 0056-0060 and 0106; Figs. 4A and 11B-11C; other surgical menu items 420-422, 426-436 and 438-452, such as display position menu 434, diagnostic device control menu 436, etc. are displayed outside main display region); and
a surgical assist function transmission module, wherein the controller is further configured to:
activate a surgical assist function state when a user turns a head and gazes at the auxiliary display region (Jones: pars. 0023, 0051 and 0070; the camera 610 or another camera may be directed toward one of the user's eyes to identify a dwell time of the eye, blink timing, and/or movement of the eye to generate a command from the user to control what is displayed on the display screen; Hellen: pars. 0063-0064 and 0083-0084; eye-tracking);
select a specific assist function from the list of selectable assist functions when the user blinks while gazing at a corresponding selection screen (Jones: pars. 0023, 0051 and 0070; the camera 610 or another camera may be directed toward one of the user's eyes to identify a dwell time of the eye, blink timing, and/or movement of the eye to generate a command from the user to control what is displayed on the display screen; Hellen: pars. 0063-0064 and 0083-0084; eye-tracking);
select a specific auxiliary screen from the selectable auxiliary screens when the user blinks while gazing at the specific auxiliary screen (Jones: pars. 0051 and 0070-0072, 0080; Figs. 10-12; the camera 610 or another camera may be directed toward one of the user's eyes to identify a dwell time of the eye, blink timing, and/or movement of the eye to generate a command from the user to control what is displayed on the display screen; Hellen: pars. 0063-0064 and 0083-0084; eye-tracking); and
send a control signal to the surgical assist function transmission module to display surgical auxiliary information associated with the selected assist function on the selected auxiliary screen (Jones: 0069-0078; Figs. 10-12; Hellen: pars. 0056-0060 and 0106; Figs. 4A and 11B-11C).
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is directed to a headset corresponding to the method recited in claim 17. Claim 22 is similar in scope to claim 17, and is therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is directed to a headset corresponding to the method recited in claim 20. Claim 25 is similar in scope to claim 20, and is therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (“Jones,” US 2016/0225192), published on Aug. 4, 2016, in view of Hellen (US 2019/0099226), published on Apr. 04, 2019, and further in view of Flitsch et al., (“Flitsch,” US 2017/0020431), published on Jan. 26, 2017.
Regarding claim 18, Jones and Hellen disclose the method of claim 16.
Jones and Hellen do not explicitly disclose informing, by an alarm transmission module, the user of break recommendation.
However, Flitsch disclose a biomedical device for detecting that the user is becoming increasingly fatigued and informing, by an alarm transmission module, the user of break recommendation (Flitsch: par. 0167; the user may be recommended to take rest/break if the user is becoming increasingly fatigued and in gander of falling asleep when operating the machine).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Flitsch with the system/method of Jones and Hellen. One would have been motivated to send user an alert message for taking a break if the user is becoming increasing fatigued (Flitsch: par. 0167).
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is directed to a headset corresponding to the method recited in claim 18. Claim 23 is similar in scope to claim 18, and is therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (“Jones,” US 2016/0225192), published on Aug. 4, 2016, in view of Hellen (US 2019/0099226), published on Apr. 04, 2019, and further in view of Wolf et al., (“Wolf,” US 2020/0237452), published on July 30, 2020.
Regarding claim 19, Jones and Hellen disclose the method of claim 16.
Jones and Hellen do not explicitly disclose wherein the surgical auxiliary information displayed on the selected auxiliary screen is one of real-time medical information of the patient, visual information of a bleeding area in a surgical view, visual information highlighting major lesions or tissues in the surgical view, reference information for a surgery guide, surgery prognostic prediction information, or information on calculation of an improvement degree and prognostic prediction of the patient during resurgery.
However, Wolf display an surgical system wherein the surgical auxiliary information displayed on the selected auxiliary screen is one of real-time medical information of the patient, visual information of a bleeding area in a surgical view, visual information highlighting major lesions or tissues in the surgical view, reference information for a surgery guide, surgery prognostic prediction information, or information on calculation of an improvement degree and prognostic prediction of the patient during resurgery (Wolf: pars. 1010-1015, 0168-0172 and 0190-0199; provide notification in real time during the surgical procedure; determining the change in the predicted outcome based on magnitude of bleeding).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Flitsch with the system/method of Jones and Hellen. One would have been motivated to provide notification in real time during surgical procedure (Flitsch: 0110-0115).
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is directed to a headset corresponding to the method recited in claim 19. Claim 24 is similar in scope to claim 19, and is therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH K PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3230. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM (EST).
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, William L Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. 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.
/LINH K PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174