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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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: an input unit configured to …, an acquisition unit configured to…, a generation unit configured to…, and a transmission unit configured to … in claim 1. Additional claim limitation(s) is: a display unit configured to … in claim 8.
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, 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 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, 8-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz Morales et al (US 2013/0030571 A1 hereinafter Ruiz Morales) in view of Masahito et al. (JP 2002083058 hereinafter Masahito).
In regards to claim 1, Ruiz Morales discloses an information processing apparatus including:
an input unit configured to acquire information including an operation by a user on a medical device on a computer network (see figure 2 and paragraph 0047, robot control unit communicates over network 42);
an acquisition unit configured to acquire operation information for remotely operating the medical device on a basis of the operation input to the input unit (see figure 1 and paragraphs 0022 and 0023, manipulators 17 and 18 and keyboard 19 provide inputs);
a generation unit configured to generate operation data for remotely operating the medical device using the operation information (see figure 1, the medical device is operated remotely); and
a transmission unit configured to transmit the operation data to the computer network (see figure 1, the surgical device is operated remotely that communicates over the network, therefore a transmission unit).
However, Ruiz Morales fails to particularly disclose wherein the operation data does not include personal information of the user.
Masahito teaches wherein the operation data does not include personal information of the user (see paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ruiz Morales and include not including personal information of the user in transmitted data as taught by Masahito, thereby using known techniques to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 2, as recited in claim 1, Ruiz Morales further discloses wherein the input unit includes a non-contact sensor that inputs the operation by the user in a non-contact manner (see paragraph 0024, an eye movement tracking system).
In regards to claim 3, as recited in claim 1, Ruiz Morales further discloses wherein the input unit includes at least one of a line-of-sight detection sensor that detects a line-of-sight of the user, a sound input sensor that inputs a voice uttered by the user, and a behavior detection sensor that detects a behavior of the user, and the acquisition unit acquires the operation information on a basis of at least one of line-of-sight data input from the line-of-sight detection sensor, sound data input from the sound input sensor, and image data input from the behavior detection sensor (see paragraph 0024, an eye movement tracking system).
In regards to claim 4, as recited in claim 3, Ruiz Morales further discloses wherein the acquisition unit acquires the operation information on a basis of a behavior of a line-of-sight of the user detected by the line-of-sight detection sensor (see paragraph 0024, an eye movement tracking system).
In regards to claim 8, as recited in claim 3, Ruiz Morales further discloses further including a display unit configured to display a video (see figure 1, console 22), wherein the acquisition unit specifies a position being looked at by the user in the video displayed on the display unit on a basis of the line-of-sight of the user detected by the line-of-sight detection sensor, and acquires the operation information on a basis of the position being looked at by the user in the video (see paragraph 0024, an eye movement tracking system).
In regards to claim 9, as recited in claim 8, Ruiz Morales further discloses wherein the video is a video acquired by the medical device (see figure 1 and paragraph 0025, console provides the video from telecamera 14).
In regards to claim 10, as recited in claim 9, Ruiz Morales further discloses wherein the display unit further displays an operation menu for the medical device (see figure 1 and paragraph 0037, selection areas 29 associated with system commands), and the acquisition unit specifies a position being looked at by the user in the operation menu displayed on the display unit on a basis of the line-of-sight of the user detected by the line-of-sight detection sensor, and acquires the operation information on a basis of the position being looked at by the user in the video (see paragraph 0024, an eye movement tracking system).
In regards to claim 11, as recited in claim 1, Masahito further teaches wherein the acquisition unit specifies the user who has input the operation on a basis of the information acquired by the input unit, and acquires the operation information in a case where the specified user is a user who is permitted to perform remote operation on the medical device in advance, and the generation unit generates the operation data including the personal information of the user specified by the acquisition unit (see paragraphs 0033 and 0034, user is required to have an ID or password to connect to the system).
In regards to claim 12, as recited in claim 11, Masahito further teaches wherein the acquisition unit discards the operation input to the input unit in a case where the specified user is not a user who is permitted to perform remote operation on the medical device in advance (see paragraphs 0033 and 0034, user is required to have an ID or password to connect to the system, when a user that doesn’t have the required ID or password their attempts to operate the device will be discarded).
In regards to claim 14, as recited in claim 1, Ruiz Morales further discloses wherein the medical device is an endoscope (see paragraph 0001, robotized surgery system such as an endoscopies).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz Morales and Masahito in view of Wada et al. (US 2020/0037847 A1 hereinafter Wada).
In regards to claim 5, as recited in claim 3, Ruiz Morales fails to particularly disclose wherein the acquisition unit acquires the operation information on a basis of a voice of the user detected by the sound input sensor.
Wada teaches wherein the acquisition unit acquires the operation information on a basis of a voice of the user detected by the sound input sensor (see paragraph 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ruiz Morales and Masahito and include inputs by speech as taught by Wada, thereby using known techniques to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 7, as recited in claim 3, Ruiz Morales fails to particularly discloses wherein the acquisition unit acquires the operation information on a basis of a behavior of the user detected by the behavior detection sensor.
Wada teaches wherein the acquisition unit acquires the operation information on a basis of a behavior of the user detected by the behavior detection sensor (see paragraph 0031, contactless input includes a gesture).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ruiz Morales and Masahito and include inputs by gesture as taught by Wada, thereby using known techniques to yield predictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz Morales and Masahito in view of Perna et al. (US 20160012218 A1 hereinafter Perna).
In regards to claim 13, as recited in claim 1, Ruiz Morales fails to disclose wherein the personal information includes at least one of a face image, an eye image, an iris, and a voice of the user.
Perna teaches wherein the personal information includes at least one of a face image, an eye image, an iris, and a voice of the user (see paragraph 0115, personal profile information include an iris match).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ruiz Morales and Masahito and include personal information that includes an iris match as taught by Perna, thereby using known techniques to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J KOHLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5503. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, NITIN PATEL can be reached at (571) 272-7677. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J KOHLMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights