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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 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 argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 12, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Themelis US 2019/0247142 in view of Leica “Augment Your Reality” (IDS Reference) NPL-1 and further in view of Nakashima WO 2020/008652 A1.
PNG
media_image1.png
908
1298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Themelis teaches a surgical microscope system (fig. 1 microscope 2) comprising: an optics carrier (camera assembly 8) comprising optical components of a microscope of the surgical microscope system; a display device (display assembly 56) for displaying image data recorded by an optical imaging sensor of the surgical microscope system; and an arm, the arm comprising a first section and a second section, the first section (see above), the second section (see above) being attached to a suspension point of the first section and to the optics carrier,
Themelis does not explicitly recite the first section being configured to provide a vertical and/or lateral adjustment of the position of the optics carrier however the figure clearly shows several hinges therefore if a vertical and/or lateral adjustment is not considered directly taught it would at least have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide adjustment to easily accommodate doctors of different height, patients of different size and operating room environments.
Themelis does also does not teach the display device is positioned behind the second section, the second section having a shape that creates a free space around a geometric axis between the suspension point and the optics carrier, such that an optical path between a central area of the display device and a surgeon remains unobstructed by the second section.
However Leica teaches a surgical microscope wherein the display device is can be positioned behind the second section (see page 9 and page 15 the display is attached to a double arm), the second section having a shape that creates a free space around a geometric axis between the suspension point and the optics carrier (as a C shaped carrier), such that an optical path between a central area of the display device and a surgeon remains unobstructed by the second section to provides multiple simultaneous views of the patient. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Themelis in view of Leica to provide multiple simultaneous views to a surgeon.
Themelis also does not explicitly teach wherein the second section comprises a first sub-section that extends laterally outwards from the suspension point, a second sub-section that leads downwards from the first sub- section, and a third sub-section that subsequently returns inwards from the second sub-section towards the optics carrier, wherein the first sub-section extends outwards for at least 15 cm and the second sub- section leads downwards for at least 20 cm such that a dimension and a shape of the second section are configured to allow the surgent to view the display device positioned behind the second section substantially unobstructed by the second section.
However Nakashima teaches second section comprises a first sub-section (fig. 45 horizonal arm portion 37C) that extends laterally outwards from the suspension point, a second sub-section (second vertical arm portion 37B) that leads downwards from the first sub- section, and a third sub-section (second horizonal arm portion 37D) that subsequently returns inwards from the second sub-section towards the optics carrier, wherein the first sub-section extends outwards and the second sub- section leads downwards such that a dimension and a shape of the second section are configured to allow the surgent to view the display device positioned behind the second section substantially unobstructed by the second section (see fig. 45 field of view FV) to provide an optics carrier that provides good sight lines.
Nakashima does not explicitly provide dimensions such that the first sub-section extends outwards at least 15 cm and the second sub- section leads downwards for at least 20 cm.
However MPEP 2144.04 states In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The limitation exact limitation of the lengths of the first and second subsection would not be patentability distinct from the prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Themelis in view of Nakashima to provide good sight lines to a display while using the optics carrier.
Regarding claim 2, Themelis teaches the surgical microscope system according to claim 1, wherein the central area is centered around a center point of the display device, and/or wherein the central area occupies at least 20% of an overall area of the display device (56).
Regarding claim 3, Themelis teaches the surgical microscope system according to claim 1, wherein the shape of the second section comprises a first sub-section (A see above) that extends laterally outwards from the suspension point, a second sub-section (B) that leads downwards from the first sub-section, and a third sub-section (C) that subsequently returns inwards from the second sub-section towards the optics carrier.
Regarding claim 4-9, the specific limitations of the second section is substantially shaped like the letter “C”; the first sub-section extends outwards for at least 15 cm; the second sub-section leads downwards for at least 20 cm; the second sub-section comprises a portion that leads straight downwards, the portion occupying at least 40% of a vertical height of the second subsection; a transition between the first and second sub-section is slanted, such that, in a parked position of the first and second section of the arm of the surgical microscope system, a pre-defined distance remains between the first section and the slanted transition between the first and second sub-section of the second section; and a vertical height of the third sub-section is at least 20% larger than a lateral width of the third sub-section.
However these are just general shapes and dimensions of a first through third sections which is taught by NPL-1.
Regarding claim 4, NPL-1 teaches second section is substantially shaped like the letter “C”.
Regarding claim 5, NPL-1 teaches the first sub-section extends outwards for at least 15 cm (see page 9) first section vs 55 inch monitor which has a (width of 48-51 inches) and dimensions listed on page 15.
Regarding claim 6, NPL-1 teaches the second sub-section leads downwards for at least 20 cm (see figs on page 15).
Regarding claim 7, NPL-1 teaches the second sub-section comprises a portion that leads straight downwards, the portion occupying at least 40% of a vertical height of the second subsection (see figs on page 15).
Regarding claim 8, NPL-1 teaches a transition between the first and second sub-section is slanted, such that, in a parked position of the first and second section of the arm of the surgical microscope system, a pre-defined distance remains between the first section and the slanted transition between the first and second sub-section of the second section (see page figure on page 9);
Regarding claims 4-8, these features are all considered to provide ergonomics and efficiency (see page 10 1st paragraph). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Themelis in view of NPL-1
Regarding claim 10, Themelis teaches the surgical microscope system according to claim 1, wherein the display device is a display device for displaying three-dimensional image data (see above three dimensional image data 6).
Regarding claim 12, Themelis teaches the surgical microscope system according to claim 1, wherein the shape of the second section is such, that a first lateral distance between a sub-section of the second section that is attached to the optics carrier and the display device is smaller than a lateral distance between a sub-section of the second section that is attached to the first section and the display device (see above section B).
Regarding claim 13, Themelis teaches wherein the optics carrier comprises, at a side of the optics carrier the second section is attached at, a digital eyepiece ([0044] also see above unlabled eyepiece).
Regarding claim 14. Themelis teaches all the limitations of claim 14 except second section is adapted to rotate around the suspension point. NPL-1 teaches a second section adapted to rotate around the suspension point (see page 15) to provide adjustability while viewing. Therefore, it would have been obvious prior the effective filing date of the invention to provide viewing adjustability.
Regarding claim 15, Themelis teaches a method for a surgical microscope system, the method comprising: providing an optics carrier (camera assembly 8) of the surgical microscope system (microscope 2), the optics carrier comprising optical components of a microscope of the surgical microscope system; providing a display device (display 56) of the surgical microscope system, the display device being suitable for displaying image data recorded by an optical imaging sensor of the surgical microscope system; and providing an arm of the surgical microscope system, the arm comprising a first section (labeled above) and a second section (labeled above), the second section being attached to a suspension point of the first section and to the optics carrier,
Themelis does not explicitly recite the first section being configured to provide a vertical and/or lateral adjustment of the position of the optics carrier however the figure clearly shows several hinges therefore if a vertical and/or lateral adjustment is not considered directly taught it would at least have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide adjustment to easily accommodate doctors of different height, patients of different size and operating room environments.
Themelis does also does not teach the display device is positioned behind the second section, the second section having a shape that creates a free space around a geometric axis between the suspension point and the optics carrier, such that a line of sight a central area of the display device and a surgeon remains unobstructed by the second section.
However NPL-1 teaches a surgical microscope wherein the display device is can be positioned behind the second section (see page 9 and page 15 the display is attached to a double arm), the second section having a shape that creates a free space around a geometric axis between the suspension point and the optics carrier (as a C shaped carrier), such that an optical path between a central area of the display device and a surgeon remains unobstructed by the second section to provides multiple simultaneous views of the patient. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Themelis in view of Leica to provide multiple simultaneous views to a surgeon.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Themelis US 2019/0247142 in view of NPL-1 in view of Nakashima WO 2020/008652 in view of Doi US 2011/0134518.
Regarding claim 9, Themelis teaches all the limitations of claim 9 except a vertical height of the third sub-section is at least 20% larger than a lateral width of the third sub-section. Doi teaches a vertical height of a third subsection is at least 20% larger than a lateral width of the third sub-section (see fig. 2) allowing for rotation in multiple axes (X, Y, Z see fig. 2) while being easy to manufacture [0038]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Themelis in view of Doi to allow for multiple axis rotation while being easy to manufacture.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Themelis US 2019/0247142 in view of NPL-1 in view of Nakashima WO 2020/008652 in view of Strauss US 2003/0230698.
Regarding claim 11, Themelis teaches all the limitations of claim 11 except the optics carrier is an optics carrier without an optical eyepiece, and/or wherein the second section comprises a cable duct and a removable cover for accessing cables within the cable duct.
Strauss teaches a second section (fig. 4 holding arm 19) comprises a cable duct (fig. 4/9 cover 46) and a removable cover for accessing cables within the cable duct [0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious prior the effective filing date of the invention to modify Themelis in view of Strauss to provide accessibility to the supply lines.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1562. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 7:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/PHU VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights