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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-19 and 21-23 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-19 and 21-23 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant's argument that the prior art of record fails to meet the claim limitations, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-14, 17, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leist (WO 2019/232552).
Regarding claim 1:
Leist discloses a coordination system for coordinating content presentation associated with a session involving use of a computer-assisted medical system (computer-assisted surgical system 100), the coordination system comprising:
a session awareness engine configured to:
obtain data from the computer-assisted medical system, the data indicative of an operational state of the computer-assisted medical system (surgical session data, see at least ¶0019); and
determine a context of the session based on the data (identifying contextual information, see at least ¶0019); and
a content selection engine configured to:
select a content for presentation to a user of the computer-assisted medical system from a plurality of contents by applying a content selection logic to the context of the session (see at least ¶0019); and
select a second content for presentation to a local user of the computer-assisted medical system from the plurality of contents by applying a content selection logic to the context of the session (see at least Fig. 11, user role, contextual information instance),
wherein the first content and the second content are selected to enable the remote user to support, via the first and second content, the local user, and
facilitate presentation of the first content and the second content to the remote user and the local user, respectively (see at least ¶0019, ¶0098-0104, presenting different content to different users on remote and local devices, see at least Fig. 1, Fig. 7, Fig. 11, ¶0022, ¶0032, ¶0034).
Regarding claim 2:
Leist further discloses wherein the session awareness engine comprises a system awareness engine configured to:
determine a system-internal context based on the data, and
wherein the context of the session comprises the system-internal context (determining a tissue removal event, see at least ¶0022).
Regarding claim 3:
Leist further discloses wherein the data obtained from the computer-assisted medical system is first data,
wherein the system awareness engine is further configured to obtain second data from a data source different from the computer-assisted medical system (see at least data from devices 706, Fig. 7, event data from multiple sources, see at least ¶0082-0099), and
wherein determination of the system-internal context is further based on the second data (see at least ¶0099-0113).
Regarding claim 4:
Leist further discloses wherein the data obtained from the computer-assisted medical system is first data,
wherein the session awareness engine comprises an environment awareness engine configured to:
obtain second data from a data source different from the computer-assisted medical system (see at least data from devices 706, Fig. 7, data regarding the surgical area, ¶0030-0032, event data from multiple sources, see at least ¶0082-0099); and
determine a system-external context based on the second data, and wherein the context of the session comprises the system-external context (see at least ¶0025, ¶0099-0103).
Regarding claim 5:
Leist further teaches wherein determination of the system-external context is further based on the first data (see at least ¶0025, ¶0099-0103).
Regarding claim 6:
Leist further teaches wherein the data source is an image capture device, and wherein the second data includes image data (see at least ¶0025, ¶0077-0079).
Regarding claim 7:
Leist further teaches wherein the system-external context comprises at least one state selected from a group consisting of:
a type of the user;
a type of session;
a spatial location of the user;
a preference of the user;
a type of a medical procedure associated with the session;
a phase of the medical procedure associated with the session; and
information about a patient on which the medical procedure is performed (see at least ¶0022, ¶0025, ¶0099-0103).
Regarding claim 8:
Leist further teaches wherein the content selection engine is further configured to: select a presentation format of the content for the presentation to the user (see at least ¶0023, ¶0099-0104, ¶0111).
Regarding claim 10:
Leist further teaches wherein selecting the presentation format comprises selecting a display for presenting the content to the user (see at least ¶0023).
Regarding claim 11:
Leist further teaches wherein the content selection logic comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of: a rule, and a decision-making algorithm, trained based on prior content selections (see at least ¶0025, ¶0097).
Regarding claim 12:
Leist further teaches wherein the plurality of contents comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of:
a preoperative data view; a point cloud view; a mesh view; a system model view; an endoscopic view; a user control system view; and a view of an operating environment external to the computer-assisted medical system (see at least ¶0034, ¶0079).
Regarding claim 13:
Leist further teaches wherein the computer-assisted medical system comprises a robotic manipulation system, the robotic manipulation system comprising a manipulator arm configured to support an instrument on the manipulator arm (see at least ¶0019).
Regarding claim 14
Leist further teaches wherein obtaining the data from the computer-assisted medical system includes obtaining parameters from the robotic manipulation system, the parameters comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of:
a kinematic configuration of the manipulator arm;
a kinematic configuration of the instrument;
a type of the instrument supported by the manipulator arm;
an activated control mode of the robotic manipulation system;
a docking state of a cannula;
whether the robotic manipulation system is powered;
whether an operator of the robotic manipulation system is engaged with a user control system;
hardware serial numbers;
firmware versions;
installed hardware modules,
installed software modules;
an error of the robotic manipulation system; and
a warning of the robotic manipulation system (see at least ¶0022, ¶0042, ¶0077-0081).
Regarding claim 17:
Leist further teaches wherein the content is selected by the content selection engine in real-time while the computer-assisted medical system is operating (see at least ¶0024).
Regarding claims 21-22, Leist teaches a method and computer readable medium comprising code for performing the method as above.
Regarding claim 23:
Leist further teaches wherein the selection of the first content and the second content is performed to enable the remote user to interactively support, via the first and second content, the local user (see at least ¶0019, ¶0098-0104, presenting different content to different users on remote and local devices, see at least Fig. 1, Fig. 7, Fig. 11, ¶0022, ¶0032, ¶0034).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stokes et al. (US 2019/0125454), or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over stokes in view of Leist.
Regarding claims 1, 21, and 22:
Stokes discloses a coordination system for coordinating content presentation associated with a session involving use of a computer-assisted medical system, the coordination system comprising:
a session awareness engine (situation awareness system, see at least ¶1076-1080) configured to:
obtain data from the computer-assisted medical system, the data indicative of an operational state of the computer-assisted medical system (receive data from various sources, see Figs. 84A-J); and
determine a context of the session based on the data see at least ¶1077-1078); and
a content selection engine configured to:
select a content for presentation to a user of the computer-assisted medical system from a plurality of contents by applying a content selection logic to the context of the session (see at least ¶0921-0925); and
select a second content for presentation to a local user of the computer-assisted medical system from the plurality of contents by applying a content selection logic to the context of the session (see at least Fig. 11, user role, contextual information instance),
wherein the first content and the second content are selected to enable the remote user to support, via the first and second content, the local user, and
facilitate presentation of the first content and the second content to the remote user and the local user, respectively (see at least ¶1234-1244, ¶15671582, ¶1779).
Alternately, in case Stokes does not clearly teach the first and second content in a single embodiment, Leist teaches a surgical assistance system and method, including a plurality of displays configured to select a second content for presentation to a local user of the computer-assisted medical system from the plurality of contents by applying a content selection logic to the context of the session (see at least Fig. 11, user role, contextual information instance),
wherein the first content and the second content are selected to enable the remote user to support, via the first and second content, the local user, and
facilitate presentation of the first content and the second content to the remote user and the local user, respectively (see at least ¶0019, ¶0098-0104, presenting different content to different users on remote and local devices, see at least Fig. 1, Fig. 7, Fig. 11, ¶0022, ¶0032, ¶0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the surgical assistance system and method as taught by Stokes with the technique of providing customized presentation of information to different people in the surgical theater as taught by Leist in order to provide each role in the surgery with the appropriate information required for performing their role, including pertinent information in a concise manner without extraneous data.
Regarding claims 8-9:
Stokes further teaches wherein selecting the presentation format comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of zooming, panning, and 3D orienting the content, based on the context (see at least ¶1035-1339, ¶1121, ¶2006).
Regarding claim 19:
Stokes further teaches wherein the content for presentation to the user comprises a composite of different views (see at least ¶1221-1225).
Claims 2-7, 10-18, and 20 are additionally taught by Stokes as detailed in the provided International Search Report.
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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leist.
Regarding claim 18:
Leist teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above.
Leist further teaches wherein the content is selected by the content selection engine based on data generated during an earlier operation of the computer-assisted medical system (see at least ¶0025).
Leist does not explicitly teach the historical data comprising time stamps.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to utilize the well-known data structure of organizing past data via time stamps in order to properly order the data in time and to determine precise timing for events and actions.
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.
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 of this title, 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 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leist as above, in view of Fuerst et al. (US 2020/0054412)
Regarding claims 15-16:
Leist teaches the limitations as in claim 13 above.
Leist further teaches determining a collision, generating an alert in response, and wherein the output may be augmented reality (see at least ¶0063, ¶0104).
Leist does not explicitly teach wherein the content is a system model view or augmented reality showing the collision.
Fuerst teaches a system and method of setup of surgical robots using an augmented reality display, including determining a collision and presenting content showing a system model of the collision location on an augmented reality display (see at least ¶0031-0032, ¶0044, ¶0048, ¶0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the system and method of context-dependent displaying of information including collisions and augmented reality displays as taught by Leist with the technique of displaying location data of collisions via the augmented reality display as taught by Fuerst in order to allow a user to readily determine a potential collision in the space where the collision will occur.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights