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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending.
This communication is in response to the communication filed 5/26/2023.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “reporting module graphical user interface (GUI)” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses generic placeholders “module” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claims 6-8 and 15-17 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that there is no corresponding structure described in the specification or in Fig. 21-23 for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 6-8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “reporting module graphical user interface” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yellowlees et al. US20250054623 (hereinafter Yellow) in view of Davidson et al. US20150313445.
As per claim 1, Yellow teaches
displaying a live video feed from a scope within a GI tract of a patient; (Yellow par. 106)
capturing and displaying an image from the live video feed in response to a natural language (NL) command recognized during the GI procedure with an artificial intelligence (AI) language processor; (Yellow par. 69, 102-109)
extracting a label and a GI location associated with the image from uttered NL using the AI language processor during the GI procedure; (Yellow par. 107, 136)
Yellow does not specifically teach the following limitations met by Davidson, a method for processing content collected during a gastrointestinal (GI) procedure, comprising: (Davidson par. 7-8, 82-83); annotating the image with the label and GI location while the image is displayed during the GI procedure; and (Davidson par. 115, 116, 138); displaying a GI tract replica during the procedure, wherein the replica includes a visual indicator that maps the GI location of the image in the GI tract (Davidson par. 82 teaches providing a replica, prototype, representation, mockup or template, of a body cavity or lumen, such as a gastro intestinal (GI) tract, stomach, small intestine, colon, etc., that can be examined by using an endoscope. In an embodiment, the pre-designed model of a body cavity is used as a reference frame for mapping therein images of various parts of the body cavity captured by one or more cameras or viewing elements located in the endoscope tip (such as the tip section 200 of FIG. 1), in real time. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the systems and methods as taught by Yellow to use GI procedure content processing, annotate images, and display GI tract replica as taught by Davidson with the motivation to improve endoscopy (Davidson par. 10-12). There is a need for a method enabling an operating physician to scan a body cavity efficiently without missing any region therein. There is need for a method that ensures an endoscopic scan with a complete and uniform coverage of the body cavity being scanned. There is also need for a method that provides high quality scanning images, of a body cavity being endoscopically scanned, that may be analyzed, tagged, marked and stored for comparisons with corresponding scanned images of the body cavity obtained at a later point in time. There is still further need for a method that also allows verification of an endoscopic examination and double check the presence or absence of disease-causing conditions (Davidson par. 12).
As per claim 2, Yellow and Davidson teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach extracting biopsy and jar information associated with a removed tissue specimen during the procedure from uttered NL (Yellow par. 69, 102-109; Davidson par. 150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the systems and methods as taught by Yellow to extract biopsy and jar information associated with a removed tissue specimen as taught by Davidson with the motivation to improve endoscopy (Davidson par. 10-12).
As per claim 3, Yellow and Davidson teach all the limitations of claim 2 and further teach printing a label and pathology requisitions using the biopsy and jar information for the removed tissue specimen (Davidson par. 115, 150 teaches tagging). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the systems and methods as taught by Yellow to print labels as taught by Davidson with the motivation to improve endoscopy (Davidson par. 10-12).
As per claim 4, Yellow and Davidson teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach wherein the image is displayed separately from the live video feed during the procedure (Yellow par. 91 teaches the electronic platform may include graphical user interfaces (GUIs) displayed on each electronic data source 420, the end-user devices 440, and/or the administrator computing device 450. An example of the electronic platform generated and hosted by the analytics server 410a may be a web-based application or a website configured to be displayed on different electronic devices,).
As per claims 10-13, see claim rejections above.
Claims 5-8 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yellowlees et al. US20250054623 (hereinafter Yellow) in view of Davidson et al. US20150313445 in further view of Wolf et al. US20200237452.
As per claim 5, Yellow and Davidson teach all the limitations of claim 1, but do not teach the following limitations taught by Wolf, selecting the image to appear in a post operative report during the procedure based on uttered NL captured by the AI language processor (Wolf par. 406).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the systems and methods as taught by Yellow and Davidson to select the image to appear in a post operative report as taught by Wolf with the motivation to find a need for unconventional approaches that efficiently and effectively analyze surgical videos to enable a surgeon to view surgical events, provide decision support, and/or facilitate postoperative activity (Wolf par. 4).
As per claim 6, Yellow, Davidson, and Wolf teach all the limitations of claim 5 and further teach displaying a reporting module graphical user interface (GUI); generating predictions in the reporting module GUI, wherein the predictions include a predictive diagnosis, suggested recommendations, and recommended medical codes, and wherein the predictions are generated with an artificial intelligence (AI) model (Yellow par. 49-51, 91, 201).
As per claim 7, Yellow, Davidson, and Wolf teach all the limitations of claim 6 and further teach wherein the predictions are generated in response to a set of inputs to the AI model that include an age of the patient, clinical findings, and a procedure name (Yellow par. 66, 121).
As per claim 8, Yellow, Davidson, and Wolf teach all the limitations of claim 7 and further teach wherein the AI model includes a generative language model trained on previously published biomedical research articles and historical GI clinical data (Yellow par. 28, 86; Wolf par. 244).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the systems and methods as taught by Yellow and Davidson to use generative models as taught by Wolf with the motivation to find a need for unconventional approaches that efficiently and effectively analyze surgical videos to enable a surgeon to view surgical events, provide decision support, and/or facilitate postoperative activity (Wolf par. 4).
As per claim 9, Yellow, Davidson, and Wolf teach all the limitations above and further teach wherein the AI language processor includes an automatic speech recognition system and an automated text analysis system (Wolf par. 79, 183).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the systems and methods as taught by Yellow and Davidson to use an automatic speech recognition system and an automated text analysis system as taught by Wolf with the motivation to find a need for unconventional approaches that efficiently and effectively analyze surgical videos to enable a surgeon to view surgical events, provide decision support, and/or facilitate postoperative activity (Wolf par. 4).
As per claims 14-17, see claim rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY M. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6793 and email is jay.patel2@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM.
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, Peter H. Choi can be reached on (469)295-9171. 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.
/JAY M. PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights