The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 22, 2026, on page 9 and 10 with respect to the Wada reference have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims based on the previously cited prior art has been withdrawn. Since claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the same controller language that was previously in claim 11, and claim 11 was rejected over Mizoguchi in view of Wada, these arguments against the Wada reference are now applicable to both claims 1 and 11. However, the claims are not yet in condition for allowance due to the rejections below under 35 USC 112(b). Since at least claim 11 is unchanged in the applicant’s response, this action is made non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Second Paragraph
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 1-19 and 21 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 1 is rejected because it recites “receiv[ing] one or more camera images” and then “evaluating one or more representations of the display device in the one or more camera images”, and then “activate the actuated structure to main the display device unobstructed in a field of view of a surgeon… based on the one or more representations of the display device.” This is indefinite and unclear because (1) there are no cameras claimed in the system of claim 1, therefore it is unclear what “camera images” are being received and how they relate, in any way, to the area in which the ophthalmic surgery is taking place, (2) the camera images as claimed merely evaluate one or more representations of the display device, and then unclearly activate the actuated structure to keep the display in an unobstructed field of view of a surgeon. It is unclear how an image that merely shows a display device would know how to move a display in the real-world to provide an unobstructed field of view for a surgeon unless the surgeon is also in the image and the position of the surgeon’s head and/or eyes are also evaluated. Without a surgeon in the image, there is no way an evaluation of a (unknown) camera image of a display device would be provide sufficient information to keep the display device free of obstructions from the viewpoint of an unknown surgeon/person within the room. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is indefinite as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as #2 described above in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 21 are rejected based on their dependency from claims 1 and/or 10, thereby containing the same issues described above.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, as no prior art rejections are made herein:
The prior art fails to teach a system as claimed. Specifically, an actuated structure mounted to a display that is controlled by a controller based on evaluation of images, such that the end result of the actuation and evaluation maintains a display device in an unobstructed field of view of a surgeon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES KISH whose telephone number is (571)272-5554. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00a - 6p EST.
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 KISH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
