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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 10 – 15) in the reply filed on 12 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 – 9 and 16 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 March 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites an audio player subsystem… configured to:… play the selected audio file through an audio output. It is unclear if the audio output is being positively or functionally recited. It is suggested to first positively recite that the surgical robotic system comprises an audio output before describing how it is used.
Claims 11 – 15 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 10.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0362834) in view of Thomas (US PGPUB 2008/0027574).
Regarding claim 10, Venkataraman discloses a surgical robotic system (e.g. ¶ 6) comprising:
a video analysis subsystem (e.g. 530 in Fig. 5) configured to: detect a notification event within a surgical setting (e.g. ¶ 175); and detect a type of surgical procedure or a stage of a surgical procedure (e.g. ¶ 175)
an audio player subsystem communicatively coupled to the video analysis subsystem (e.g. ¶ 176),
wherein the audio player subsystem is configured to: receive the detected type of surgical procedure or stage of the surgical procedure from the video analysis subsystem (e.g. ¶ 114; If an occluded state is detected, the occlusion detection algorithm alerts the user, for example, by causing … an audible alarm to sound); play an audio file based on at least one of the detected type of surgical procedure or stage of surgical procedure as detected by the video analysis subsystem (e.g. ¶ 176; sometimes a given surgical video can be augmented with an audio narrative which explains the actions, events… and complications shown in the video; because the audio explains the actions/events/complications, it is understood that the audio is based on a stage of surgical procedure); play the selected audio file through an audio output device operably coupled to the audio player subsystem (e.g. ¶ 176); receive a detection of a notification event from the video analysis subsystem (e.g. ¶ 175). Venkataraman does not specifically recite that the audio is selected from a plurality of audio files or that the subsystem can control playback of the audio file through the audio output device based on the detection of the notification event by at least one of: stopping the playback of the audio file, pausing the playback of the audio file, muting a volume level of the playback of the audio file, or decreasing the volume level of the playback of the audio file.
Thomas teaches it is known to use an audio subsystem in a surgical console (e.g. Fig. 1 and ABSTRACT). Thomas teaches that an audio file can be selected from a plurality of stored audio filed based on the point of procedure (e.g. ¶ 43). Thomas also teaches that the subsystem can control playback of the audio file through the audio output device based on the detection of the notification event by at least one of: stopping the playback of the audio file, pausing the playback of the audio file, muting a volume level of the playback of the audio file, or decreasing the volume level of the playback of the audio file (e.g. ¶ 42 and Fig. 6; the device will stop background music and issue an alert notifying the surgical team of a specific step, a specific parameter, or an abnormality associated with parameters of the procedure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention as taught by Venkataraman with the audio playback subsystem as taught by Thomas, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of having a single device which will improve safety during surgery by automatically adjusting background audio and playing alerts during surgery.
Regarding claim 11, Venkataraman discloses the claimed invention as discussed above, but fails to specifically recite receiving a user acknowledgement of the detection of a notification event.
Thomas teaches that it is known that a user may be required to acknowledge completion before moving on (e.g. ¶ 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention as taught by Venkataraman with receiving a user acknowledgment as taught by Thomas, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing assurance that the surgical team is aware of the alert.
Regarding claims 12 – 14, neither Venkataraman nor Thomas specifically recite directional audio. Thomas does teach that it is known to use more than one audio output device (e.g. ¶ 42; using speakers of the surgical console or speakers coupled to the surgical console). Furthermore, directional audio and using multiple speakers is well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the audio output as taught by Venkatraman in view of Thomas with directional audio and multiple audio outputs as is known in the art, in order to improve the sound quality to the surgical team during surgery.
Regarding claim 15, Venkatraman discloses including an alarm and notification subsystem configured to cause a display device to display a notification based on the detection of the notification event from the video analysis subsystem (e.g. ¶ 176).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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 McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights