The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“medical imaging device” in claims 1-20 defined as “endoscope” in pages 7, 23, and 27 of the Specification; and
“control device” in claims 1-20 defined as a surgery control device being “program […] including a processing unit” in page 3 and “camera control unit […] and is, for example, an information processing device having an FPGA, a CPU, a RAM, a ROM, a GPU, and an I/F” in page 10 of the Specification as well as an arm control device which “includes a processor such as a CPU” in page 16 of the Specification.
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Plummer (U.S. Publication 2006/0152516).
As to Claim 1, Plummer discloses a surgery system (10) in [0046] and Fig. 1 comprising:
a medical imaging device (24) in [0046] that captures a surgery region to acquire a surgery image (40) in [0052] and Fig. 1 that is an image of the surgery region as shown in Fig. 1; and
a control device (20) in [0046] and Fig. 1 that outputs a display image to a display device (22) in [0046] on a basis of the surgery image acquired by the medical imaging device,
wherein, with at least one of a surgical instrument and a hand reflected (a touchscreen being sensitive to hand controls and therefore a reflection of a hand) on the surgery image as an operation body (hand controls being operations on the touchscreen), the control device accepts a predetermined instruction operation by the operation body related to control of the medical imaging device or the control device on a basis of an image of the operation body in the surgery image via (34, 36) in [0050] being “virtual buttons” as shown in Fig. 1 along with (50) in [0054]-[0055] and additional virtual menus as shown in Figs. 2-24.
As to Claim 2, Plummer discloses the surgery system according to claim 1,
wherein the instruction operation includes an operation via (34, 36) in [0050] as shown in Fig. 1 for selecting any one of a plurality of kinds of instruction contents related to the control.
As to Claim 3, Plummer discloses the surgery system according to claim 1,
wherein the instruction operation includes an operation via (34, 36) in [0050] as shown in Fig. 1 for giving an instruction to switch the content of the control.
As to Claim 4, Plummer discloses the surgery system according to claim 1,
wherein the control device generates the display image in which an image of a virtual menu via (34, 36) in [0050] being “virtual buttons” as shown in Fig. 1 along with (50) in [0054]-[0055] and additional virtual menus as shown in Figs. 2-24 and which is virtually presented in a space of the surgery region and represents instruction contents that is able to be instructed with respect to the control is superimposed on the surgery image as described in [0050].
As to Claim 5, Plummer discloses the surgery system according to claim 4,
wherein the control device accepts an operation of the operation body on the virtual menu as the instruction operation as described in [0050].
As to Claim 6, Plummer discloses the surgery system according to claim 4,
wherein the control device accepts the instruction operation in a case where the operation body comes into contact with the virtual menu as described in [0050].
As to Claim 7, Plummer discloses the surgery system according to claim 6,
wherein the control device detects an image of a distal end part of the operation body reflected on the surgery image and detects contact of the operation body with the virtual menu on a basis of a position of the image of the distal end part in the surgery image as described in [0050].
As to Claim 8, Plummer discloses the surgery system according to claim 6,
wherein the control device detects an image of a distal end part of the operation body reflected on the surgery image and detects contact of the operation body with the virtual menu on a basis of an overlapping region between a position of the image of the distal end part in the surgery image and a position of the image of the virtual menu in the surgery image as described in [0065] and shown in Fig. 13.
As to Claim 9, Plummer discloses the surgery system according to claim 8,
wherein the distal end part of the operation body includes a distal end part of the surgical instrument or a distal end part of a finger of the hand (hand controls from fingers being operations on the touchscreen).
As to Claim 10, Plummer discloses the surgery system according to claim 8,
wherein the control device accepts the instruction operation in a case where the overlapping region has occurred and a motion of the operation body in a predetermined direction on the virtual menu has been detected as described in [0065] and shown in Fig. 13.
As to Claim 11, Plummer discloses the surgery system according to claim 10,
wherein the virtual menu has a plane of the touchscreen with which the operation body is able to come into contact, and
the motion of the operation body in the predetermined direction such as during a “single press” in [0064] includes a reciprocating motion in the normal direction of the plane.
As to Claim 12, Plummer discloses the surgery system according to claim 8,
wherein the control device accepts the instruction operation in a case where the overlapping region has occurred such as during a “single press” in [0064] and a period of time equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value “predetermined period of time” as described in [0063] that is determined in advance has elapsed.
As to Claim 13, Plummer discloses the surgery system according to claim 4,
wherein the control device superimposes the image of the virtual menu on a region different from an important region in the surgery in the surgery image as described in [0065] and shown in Fig. 13.
As to Claim 14, Plummer discloses the surgery system according to claim 13,
wherein the important region includes any one or more of a region where bleeding is occurring, a region of an organ, a region for surgery, and a region of a center part of the display image as shown in Fig. 13.
As to Claim 16, Plummer discloses the surgery system according to claim 4,
wherein the control device does not present the virtual menu while an energy device is being used (certain source and destination icons not shown as described in [0050]).
As to Claim 17, Plummer discloses the surgery system according to claim 4,
wherein the control device presents the virtual menu at a position that is away from an organ by a predetermined distance as shown in Figs. 1-7.
As to Claim 18, Plummer discloses a surgery control device (10) in [0046] and Fig. 1 comprising:
a processing unit (20) in [0046] and Fig. 1 that accepts, with at least one of a surgical instrument and a hand reflected (a touchscreen being sensitive to hand controls and therefore a reflection of a hand) on a surgery image (40) in [0052] and Fig. 1 obtained by photographing a surgery region as an operation body (hand controls being operations on the touchscreen), a predetermined instruction operation by the operation body on a basis of an image of the operation body in the surgery image via (34, 36) in [0050] being “virtual buttons” as shown in Fig. 1 along with (50) in [0054]-[0055] and additional virtual menus as shown in Figs. 2-24.
As to Claim 19, Plummer discloses a control method,
wherein a surgery control device (10) in [0046] and Fig. 1 has a processing unit (20) in [0046] and Fig. 1 and the processing unit accepts, with at least one of a surgical instrument and a hand reflected (a touchscreen being sensitive to hand controls and therefore a reflection of a hand) on a surgery image (40) in [0052] and Fig. 1 obtained by photographing a surgery region as an operation body (hand controls being operations on the touchscreen), a predetermined instruction operation by the operation body on a basis of an image of the operation body in the surgery image via (34, 36) in [0050] being “virtual buttons” as shown in Fig. 1 along with (50) in [0054]-[0055] and additional virtual menus as shown in Figs. 2-24.
As to Claim 20, Plummer discloses a program that causes a computer (20) in [0046] and Fig. 1 to function as a processing unit that accepts, with at least one of a surgical instrument and a hand reflected (a touchscreen being sensitive to hand controls and therefore a reflection of a hand) on a surgery image (40) in [0052] and Fig. 1 obtained by photographing a surgery region as an operation body (hand controls being operations on the touchscreen), a predetermined instruction operation by the operation body on a basis of an image of the operation body via (34, 36) in [0050] being “virtual buttons” as shown in Fig. 1 along with (50) in [0054]-[0055] and additional virtual menus as shown in Figs. 2-24.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziraknejad and in further view of Kuroda et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0369351, hereinafter “Kuroda”).
As to Claim 15, Plummer discloses the surgery system according to claim 4, however does not specifically disclose voice input. Kuroda teaches in the analogous field of endoscopy wherein a voice input unit “microphone” in [0073] for detecting voice is provided, and the control device switches presence or absence of presentation of the virtual menu on a basis of voice from the voice input unit (the user’s voice being a modality of control). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the surgery system of Plummer with the voice input means taught by Kuroda in order to fulfill the same function of providing input control with predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM B CHOU whose telephone number is (571) 270-3367. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 am - 6 pm.
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, Michael Carey can be reached on (571) 270-7235. 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.
/WILLIAM CHOU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795