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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6251113 to Applebaum et al. (hereinafter Applebaum), in view of US 20210145526 to Robinson et al. (hereinafter Robinson).
Regarding claim 1, an interpretation of Applebaum discloses an ophthalmic surgical system (Col 4:26-28 discloses a system for controlling a plurality of ophthalmic microsurgical instruments), the ophthalmic surgical system comprising:
an ophthalmic surgical console comprising a host computer (Col 6:32-39 the microsurgical control system includes a computer unit);
a display screen (Col 6:32-39 the microsurgical control system includes a flat panel display); and
a plurality of instruments configured to be connected to the ophthalmic surgical console (Col 6:39-42 the microsurgical control system includes modules for controlling ophthalmic microsurgical instruments utilized in performing various ophthalmic surgical procedures);
wherein the ophthalmic surgical system has a plurality of alternative setup conditions (Col 1:27-32 the typical ophthalmic microsurgical system has anterior and/or posterior segment capabilities and may include a variety of functions, Col 1:65- Col 2:5 further discloses prior art microsurgical control systems that include programming keys for setting up a system with particular parameters and characteristic desired by individual surgeons).
An interpretation of Applebaum may not explicitly disclose wherein the host computer is configured to detect the setup condition of the ophthalmic surgical system and to display on the display screen a graphical user interface corresponding to the detected setup condition.
However, in the same field of endeavor (surgical control systems), Robinson teaches control systems for controlling surgical robots, similar to the surgical system of Applebaum. Furthermore, Robinson discloses wherein the setup conditions may be detected and displayed on a graphical user interface of the display screen ([0079] the control system is configured to cause the display device to display a graphical representation of instruments that are connected to the system, are available for control by the surgeon console, currently selected by the surgeon console, etc. Such representations are not possible without a detection of the setup conditions of said instruments).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ophthalmic microsurgical system of Applebaum to include the detection and graphical representation of instruments utilized by the surgical system as in Robinson. One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the advantage of providing an improved surgical control system capable of minimizing operator error ([0005]-[0006]).
Claim 13 recites limitations similar to those of claim 1, and as a result is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, an interpretation of Applebaum further discloses wherein the alternative setup conditions of the ophthalmic surgical system include two or more of the following conditions: an anterior-only condition, a posterior-only condition, and a combined function condition (Col 6:49-55 operating parameters of the microsurgical system may be set, such as whether a procedure is being performed in the anterior or posterior position).
Claim 15 recites limitations similar to those of claim 2, and as a result is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 3, an interpretation of Applebaum further discloses wherein the ophthalmic surgical console is capable of being configured as an anterior-only machine or as a combined function machine, and wherein the alternative setup conditions of the ophthalmic surgical system include an anterior-only condition when the ophthalmic surgical console is configured as an anterior-only machine and a combined function condition when the ophthalmic surgical console is configured as a combined function machine (Col 6:49-55 discloses that operating parameters of the microsurgical system may be set, such as whether a procedure is being performed in the anterior or posterior position; Col 1:27-32 further discloses that a typical ophthalmic microsurgical system has anterior and/or posterior segment capabilities).
Claim 16 recites limitations similar to those of claim 3, and as a result is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, an interpretation of Applebaum discloses wherein the ophthalmic surgical system further comprises a plurality of fluidics cassettes that are configured to be installed on the ophthalmic surgical console (Col 34:19-22 microsurgical ophthalmic systems typically employ a vacuum-operated aspiration system with a removable fluid collection cassette).
Regarding claim 5, Applebaum and Robinson disclose wherein the alternative setup conditions of the ophthalmic surgical system include alternative setup conditions based upon which cassette of the plurality of fluidics cassettes is installed on the ophthalmic surgical console (Applebaum Col 6:27-55 discloses particular parameters to optimize a particular procedure, while Col 34:19-22 disclose the use of a removable fluid collection cassette and Col 34:63-Col 35:30 discloses determining if the proper cassette is loaded and notifying the system. Robinson [0165] discloses graphical representations of status or details relating to system elements).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ophthalmic microsurgical system of Applebaum to include the detection and graphical representation of instruments utilized by the surgical system as in Robinson. One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the advantage of providing an improved surgical control system capable of minimizing operator error ([0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 6, Applebaum discloses wherein the plurality of fluidics cassettes includes two or more of the following: an anterior-only cassette, a posterior-only cassette, and a combined function cassette (Col 1:27-32 discloses that a typical ophthalmic microsurgical system has anterior and/or posterior segment capabilities; Col 34:19-22 the use of a removable fluid collection cassette; Col 4:35-41 further discloses that different microsurgical cassettes may be utilized for different procedures).
Regarding claim 7, Applebaum discloses wherein the alternative setup conditions of the ophthalmic surgical system include two or more of the following conditions: an anterior-only condition when an anterior-only cassette is installed on the ophthalmic surgical console, a posterior-only condition when a posterior- only cassette is installed on the ophthalmic surgical console, and a combined function condition when a combined function cassette is installed on the ophthalmic surgical console (Col 1:27-32 discloses that a typical ophthalmic microsurgical system has anterior and/or posterior segment capabilities and at Col 34:19-22 the use of a removable fluid collection cassette. Applebaum Col 4:35-41 further discloses that different microsurgical cassettes may be utilized for different procedures. The existence of anterior or posterior only procedures utilizing cassettes specific to those procedures is analogous to the existence of the “alternative setup conditions”, as claimed).
Regarding claim 8, Applebaum discloses wherein the ophthalmic surgical console comprises a plurality of instrument ports to which the plurality of instruments may be connected (Col 7:7-11 modules include connections or ports by which microsurgical instruments may be connected).
Regarding claim 9, Applebaum and Robinson fail to explicitly disclose wherein the host computer is configured to display on the display screen a graphical user interface that graphically indicates the instrument ports that are available for instrument connections in the detected setup condition of the ophthalmic surgical system.
Robinson is concerned with providing a graphical user interface providing system status information to a user (Robinson [0164-0166]). The status of available instrument ports, such as those used to connect the instruments of Applebaum (Applebaum Col 7:7-11), is a type of system status information similar to that disclosed for monitoring by Robinson. As a result, it would have been obvious to modify the graphical user interface of Robinson to include port availability information, or any other type of system status information.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ophthalmic microsurgical system of Applebaum to include the detection and graphical representation of instruments utilized by the surgical system as in Robinson. One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the advantage of providing an improved surgical control system capable of minimizing operator error ([0005]-[0006]).
Claim 18 recites limitations similar to those of claim 9, and as a result is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 10, Applebaum and Robinson fail to explicitly disclose wherein the host computer is configured to display on the display screen a graphical user interface that graphically indicates the instrument ports that are not available for instrument connections in the detected setup condition of the ophthalmic surgical system.
Robinson is concerned with providing a graphical user interface providing system status information to a user (Robinson [0164-0166]). The status of unavailable instrument ports, such as those used to connect the instruments of Applebaum (Applebaum Col 7:7-11), is a type of system status information similar to that disclosed for monitoring by Robinson. As a result, it would have been obvious to modify the graphical user interface of Robinson to include port availability information, or any other type of system status information.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ophthalmic microsurgical system of Applebaum to include the detection and graphical representation of instruments utilized by the surgical system as in Robinson. One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the advantage of providing an improved surgical control system capable of minimizing operator error ([0005]-[0006]).
Claim 19 recites limitations similar to those of claim 10, and as a result is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11, Applebaum and Robinson fail to explicitly disclose wherein the host computer is configured to display on the display screen a graphical user interface that graphically indicates the instrument ports to which instruments are connected.
Robinson is concerned with providing a graphical user interface providing system status information to a user (Robinson [0164-0166]). The status of instrument ports, such as those used to connect the instruments of Applebaum (Applebaum Col 7:7-11), is a type of system status information similar to that disclosed for monitoring by Robinson. As a result, it would have been obvious to modify the graphical user interface of Robinson to include port availability information, or any other type of system status information.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ophthalmic microsurgical system of Applebaum to include the detection and graphical representation of instruments utilized by the surgical system as in Robinson. One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the advantage of providing an improved surgical control system capable of minimizing operator error ([0005]-[0006]).
Claim 20 recites limitations similar to those of claim 11, and as a result is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12, Applebaum discloses wherein the display screen is part of the ophthalmic surgical console (Col 6:32-39 the microsurgical control system includes a flat panel display).
Regarding claim 14, Applebaum and Robinson disclose detecting a setup condition of the ophthalmic surgical system from a plurality of alternative setup conditions of the ophthalmic surgical system; and displaying on a display screen a graphical user interface corresponding to the detected setup condition ([0079] Robinson discloses the control system is configured to cause the display device to display a graphical representation of instruments that are connected to the system, are available for control by the surgeon console, currently selected by the surgeon console, etc. Such representations are not possible without a detection of the setup conditions of said instruments. Applebaum discloses a display screen for displaying relevant system information).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ophthalmic microsurgical system of Applebaum to include the detection and graphical representation of instruments utilized by the surgical system as in Robinson. One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the advantage of providing an improved surgical control system capable of minimizing operator error ([0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 17, Applebaum discloses wherein the method further comprises: prior to the step of detecting a setup condition of the ophthalmic surgical system, installing a fluidics cassette on an ophthalmic surgical console of the ophthalmic surgical system; and wherein the step of detecting a setup condition of the ophthalmic surgical system comprises detecting a setup condition of the ophthalmic surgical system based upon which cassette of a plurality of fluidics cassettes is installed on the ophthalmic surgical console (Col 1:27-32 discloses that a typical ophthalmic microsurgical system has anterior and/or posterior segment capabilities, and at Col 34:19-22 the use of a removable fluid collection cassette. Applebaum at Col 4:35-41 further discloses that different microsurgical cassettes may be utilized for different procedures. The existence of anterior or posterior only procedures utilizing cassettes specific to those procedures is analogous to the existence of the “alternative setup conditions”, as claimed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R MOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-3506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9:30 am - 5:30 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571)272-8506. 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.
/James Moss/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights