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 § 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.
Claims 1, 7-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunwald et al. (hereinafter Grunwald – US Doc. No. 20040138569).
Regarding claim 1, Grunwald discloses a monitor device operable to receive image data from one or more medical visualization devices, the monitor device comprising:
a housing (see Figure 19, element 1902 – note that the monitor 1902 contains a scree 1914 which is located in the monitor housing 1902), and
a processing unit adapted to receive the image data from the medical visualization device and cause a display to display a live representation of the image data (1908; see also paragraphs 0203-0205 – note that the computer system 1908 “processes the data collected and converts it into a format to be displayed on screen”),
wherein the monitor device displays with the display a graphical user interface and displays, within a first portion of the graphical user interface, a representation of a medical visualization device comprising one or more programmable buttons including a first programmable button (see Figures 20 and 21, elements 2016 and programmable button 2108; see also paragraphs 0216-0217 and 0236 – note that button 2108 is ‘user programmable’ [para 0236] and also note that the screen may contain a representation of buttons 2016 [para 0217]), and
wherein the monitor device is adapted to detect a first user input corresponding to selection of the first programmable button, and in response to detecting the first user input the monitor device displays, within a second portion of the graphical user interface, a first button setup menu for selecting one or more actions to be associated with one or more activations of the first programmable button (see paragraph 0231 – note that the user selects the function for the programmable button from a predetermined list of functions [read: menu]; see also paragraphs 0226-0227 – note that the GUI provides for active elements such as functions and/or menus). Grunwald does not specifically disclose that the setup menu for the programmable button is displayed in a ‘second portion of the graphical user interface’. Grunwald does, however, show multiple display regions in the screen view of the display (as shown in Figure 23 – see display regions 2302, 2304, 2306, and 2308).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display the function list [read: menu] for the selectable function of the programmable key in any region of the display screen in order to best allow the user to assign the function to the programmable key the motivation being to allow the user to see a visual representation of the function being assigned to the programmable key without blocking the displayed patient/image data.
Regarding claim 7, Grunwald discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Grunwald further discloses wherein the one or more programmable buttons of the medical visualization device includes a second programmable button (see Figures 20 and 21, elements 2016 and programmable button 2110; see also paragraphs 0216-0217 and 0236 – note that button 2110 is ‘user programmable’ [para 0236] and also note that the screen may contain a representation of buttons 2016 [para 0217]). Grunwald further discloses that a second button setup menu for selecting one or more actions to be associated with one or more activations of the second programmable button (see paragraph 0231 – note that the user selects the function for the programmable button from a predetermined list of functions [read: menu]; see also paragraphs 0226-0227 – note that the GUI provides for active elements such as functions and/or menus). Grunwald does not specifically disclose that the setup menu for the programmable button is displayed in a ‘second portion of the graphical user interface’. Grunwald fails to disclose that and wherein the monitor device is adapted to detect a second user input corresponding to selection of the second programmable button, and in response to detecting the second user input the monitor device displays, within the second portion of the graphical user interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display the function list [read: menu] for the selectable function of the programmable key in any region of the display screen in order to best allow the user to assign the function to the programmable key the motivation being to allow the user to see a visual representation of the function being assigned to the programmable key without blocking the displayed patient/image data.
Regarding claim 8, Grunwald discloses all of the limitations of claim 7 as discussed in the claim 7 rejection above. Although Grunwald discloses a button setup menu for selecting one or more actions to be associated with one or more activations of the programmable button (see paragraph 0231 – note that the user selects the function for the programmable button from a predetermined list of functions [read: menu]). Grunwald does not specifically disclose that the first list of actions and the second list of actions comprises the same actions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display the function list [read: menu] for the selectable function of the programmable key as disclosed by Grunwald, in any region of the display screen in order to best allow the user to assign the function to the programmable key the motivation being to allow the user to see a visual representation of the function being assigned to the programmable key without blocking the displayed patient/image data and, since the functionality can be user-defined, this does not preclude the first list of actions and the second list of actions comprises the same actions.
Regarding claim 9, Grunwald discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Grunwald further discloses that the medical visualization device is a first primary medical visualization device being a first type of a plurality of types of medical visualization devices couplable to the monitor device, and the first primary medical visualization device being of a primary model of a plurality of models of the first type of medical visualization devices (see paragraph 0069 – note that the first primary medical visualization device is an ultrasound imaging device).
Regarding claim 10, Grunwald discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Grunwald further discloses that the monitor device is actively coupled to the medical visualization device (as shown in Figure 19; see also paragraphs 0202-0203 – note that the transducer system [medical visualization device] 1910 is coupled to the monitor device 1902).
Regarding claim 11, Grunwald discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Grunwald further discloses that the monitor device is adapted to detect one or more initial user inputs (see paragraph 0206 – note the touch sensitive control areas on the screen), and the monitor device displays the representation of the medical visualization device (see paragraphs 0216-0217 and 0236 – note that the screen may contain a representation of buttons 2016 [para 0217]). Grunwald does not specifically disclose that in response to detecting the one or more initial user inputs the monitor device displays the representation of the medical visualization device.
It would have been obvious to combine the touch screen display as disclosed by Grunwald with the user input causing the display of the representation of the medical visualization device, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement, and further it would allow the user to determine which button was pressed without looking away from the display.
Regarding claim 16, Grunwald discloses a medical visualization system comprising the monitor device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and a medical visualization device, the medical visualization device comprising:
an image sensor adapted to generate image data indicative of a view from the medical visualization device (see Figure 20, element 2010), and
a handle having one or more programmable buttons. (2014 and 2016 – note that handle 2014 has buttons 2016).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunwald et al. (hereinafter Grunwald – US Doc. No. 20040138569) in view of Sahebjavaher et al. (hereinafter Sahebjavaher – US Doc. No. 20180343024).
Regarding claim 2, Grunwald discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Grunwald fails to disclose that the one or more activations of the first programmable button includes a short press of the first programmable button and a long press of the first programmable button.
Sahebjavaher discloses an electronic device comprising programmable buttons wherein a short press and a long press are detected and configured to produce different functionality as assigned by the user (see paragraph 0067).
It would have been obvious to combine the monitor device comprising a display screen and user-programmable buttons as disclosed by Grunwald with electronic device comprising different user-assigned functionality to the button based on the duration of pressing said button as disclosed by Sahebjavaher, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement, and further to allow for more functionality of the electronic device without the need for more buttons.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Grunwald and Sahebjavaher discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed in the claim 2 rejection above. Neither Grunwald nor Sahebjavaher specifically disclose that the short press of the first programmable button corresponds to an activation of the first programmable button for a duration being less than a threshold duration, and wherein the long press of the first programmable button corresponds to an activation of the first programmable button for a duration longer than the threshold duration.
Sahebjavaher discloses an electronic device comprising programmable buttons wherein a short press and a long press are detected and configured to produce different functionality as assigned by the user (see paragraph 0067).
It would have been obvious to combine the monitor device comprising a display screen and user-programmable buttons as disclosed by Grunwald with electronic device comprising different user-assigned functionality to the button based on the duration of pressing said button as disclosed by Sahebjavaher, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement, and further to better determine the user’s intention by using a threshold duration with which the intended press/selection can be determined.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Grunwald and Sahebjavaher discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed in the claim 2 rejection above. Grunwald discloses (see paragraph 0231 – note that the user selects the function for the programmable button from a predetermined list of functions [read: menu]). Sahebjavaher discloses an electronic device comprising programmable buttons wherein a short press and a long press are detected and configured to produce different functionality as assigned by the user (see paragraph 0067).
It would have been obvious to combine the monitor device comprising a display screen and user-programmable buttons as disclosed by Grunwald with electronic device comprising different user-assigned functionality to the button based on the duration of pressing said button as disclosed by Sahebjavaher, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement, and further to allow a structured GUI for the user to assign functionality to the programmable button.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Grunwald and Sahebjavaher discloses all of the limitations of claim 4 as discussed in the claim 4 rejection above. Grunwald discloses (see paragraph 0231 – note that the user selects the function for the programmable button from a predetermined list of functions [read: menu]).
Sahebjavaher discloses an electronic device comprising programmable buttons wherein a short press and a long press are detected and configured to produce different functionality as assigned by the user (see paragraph 0067).
It would have been obvious to combine the monitor device comprising a display screen and user-programmable buttons as disclosed by Grunwald with electronic device comprising different user-assigned functionality to the button based on the duration of pressing said button as disclosed by Sahebjavaher, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement, and further to allow a structured GUI for the user to assign a second functionality to the programmable button.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Grunwald and Sahebjavaher discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 as discussed in the claim 5 rejection above. Neither Grunwald nor Sahebjavaher specifically disclose that the first primary list of actions and the first secondary list of actions comprise the same actions.
Sahebjavaher discloses an electronic device comprising programmable buttons wherein the button functionality is determined/set by the user and wherein a short press and a long press are detected and configured to produce different functionality as assigned by the user (see paragraph 0067).
It would have been obvious to combine the monitor device comprising a display screen and user-programmable buttons as disclosed by Grunwald with electronic device comprising different user-assigned functionality to the button based on the duration of pressing said button as disclosed by Sahebjavaher, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement, and since the functionality can be user-defined this does not preclude the first primary list of actions and the first secondary list of actions comprise the same actions.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunwald et al. (hereinafter Grunwald – US Doc. No. 20040138569) in view of Yoshimura (US Doc. No. 20210378483).
Regarding claim 17, Grunwald discloses all of the limitations of claim 16 as discussed in the claim 16 rejection above. Grunwald does not specifically disclose that the medical visualization device is a laryngoscope. Grunwald does disclose an ultrasonic imaging system.
Yoshimura discloses an endoscopic ultrasound system (see paragraphs 0050-0051) comprising programmable buttons (see paragraph 0077).
It would have been obvious to combine the medical imaging system as disclosed by Grunwald with endoscopic ultrasound system [read: laryngoscope] as disclosed by Yoshimura, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement, and further allowing the ultrasonic imaging system to be usable as a throat endoscope.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 and 18-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, none of the prior art, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the one or more initial user inputs comprises a first initial user input and in response to detecting the first initial user input the monitor device displays, within the first portion of the graphical user interface, a plurality of selectable medical visualization devices including a first primary selectable medical visualization device corresponding to a first primary medical visualization device and a first secondary selectable medical visualization device corresponding to a first secondary medical visualization device.
Claims 13 and 14 depend from claim 12 and are allowable for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, none of the prior art, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests that the monitor device:
displays a device selection menu within a third portion of the graphical user interface, the device selection menu comprises one or more selectable types of medical visualization devices including a first selectable type corresponding to a first type of a plurality of types of medical visualization devices couplable to the monitor device,
is adapted to detect a primary user input corresponding to selection of the first selectable type of the device selection menu, and in response to detecting the primary user input the monitor device displays, within the first portion of the graphical user interface, one or more selectable medical visualization devices of the first type including a first primary selectable medical visualization device corresponding to a first primary medical visualization device, wherein the first primary medical visualization device comprises one or more programmable buttons, and
is adapted to detect a secondary user input corresponding to selection of the first primary selectable medical visualization device, and in response to detecting the secondary user input the monitor device displays within the first portion of the graphical user interface, the representation of the medical visualization device, wherein the medical visualization device is the first primary medical visualization device.
Regarding claim 18, none of the prior art, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests that wherein the medical visualization device comprises an insertion cord extending from the handle to a distal cord portion, and wherein the view from the visualization device is a view from the distal cord portion of the insertion cord.
Regarding claim 19, none of the prior art, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests that the handle comprises a control mechanism adapted to receive an input in a first input direction, and wherein the input in the first input direction causes a bendable section of the insertion cord to bend in a first bending direction.
Regarding claim 20, none of the prior art, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests that the medical visualization device is a first primary medical visualization device being a first type of a plurality of types of medical visualization devices couplable to the monitor device, and the first primary medical visualization device being of a primary model of a plurality of models of the first type of medical visualization devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM R GIESY whose telephone number is (571)272-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-6.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 5712727603. 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.
/ADAM R. GIESY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622