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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP 23189955.0, filed on August 7, 2023.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed on August 4, 2026, the following has occurred: claim(s) 1, 12, 16, 18 have been amended. Now, claim(s) 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: “7. (Previously Presented) The system…based on the observability…” in p. 4, ll. 14-19. This appears to be a typographical error as Claim 7 has been amended. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “7. (Currently Amended) The system…based on the observability…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recite(s):
during the surgical procedure, analyze the monitoring data to determine a current state of the surgical procedure based on a comparison to a planned surgical procedure;
determine, a subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to be perceptually prioritized by a remote monitoring system, wherein the monitoring devices of the subset provide monitoring data meeting the retrieved observability requirement
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the
recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing interactions between people (including following rules or instructions), which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, but for the “a processor and memory, the processor configured to” language, the “analyze” function in the context of this claim encompasses a user following instructions to determine a current state of the surgical procedure based on a comparison to a planned surgical procedure. Finally, but for the “a processor and memory, the processor configured to” language, the “determine” function in the context of this claim encompasses a user following instructions to determine, based on the determined observability requirements, a subset to be prioritized. These steps could be accomplished by a person following instructions to observe a surgical procedure, determine factors about the surgical procedure and select devices to be prioritized, and therefore encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claim 1: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract idea, and adding insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 1, directly or indirectly, recite the following generic computer components, “a processor and memory, the processor configured to”, “…a remote monitoring system”, “…of the plurality of monitoring device” configured to implement the abstract idea. As set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, claim 1 recites “access monitoring data comprising image data, audio data, and medical data provided by at least one of a monitoring device and a medical device during the surgical procedure;”, “retrieve observability requirements of the current state of the surgical procedure from a set of predetermined rules mapping states of the planned surgical procedure to respective observability requirements of the states of the planned surgical procedure” that amounts to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, claim 1 recites “send selection data identifying the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to the remote monitoring system for perceptual prioritization by the remote monitoring system, wherein the perceptual prioritization is at least one of: selecting only the monitoring data of the identified subset for rendering by the remote monitoring system, and highlighting the monitoring data of the identified subset in a render by the remote monitoring system” that amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.")
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Additionally, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USP12d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Claim 16 recites the same functions as claim 1 but in method form, and claim 16 does not recite the “a processor and memory, the processor configured to” language.
Claim 18 recites the same functions as claim 1 but in non-transitory computer-readable medium form.
Dependent claims 2-15 incorporate the abstract idea of claim 1 as identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea. Claims 2-5, 7-8 describe accessing surgical planning data and identifying the current state of the surgical procedure. Similarly, claim 6 further describes the plurality of monitoring devices. Similarly, claims 9-10, 12, 15 further describe the remote monitoring system. Similarly, claim 11 describes adjusting the monitoring devices and medical devices. Similarly, claim 13 describes instructions to perform one or more surgical steps. Similarly, claim 14 further describes the system. Therefore, these claims recite limitations that fall into the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 2-15 recite additional subject matter which amounts to limitations consisted with the additional elements in independent claim 1 (such as claim 13 at a high degree of generality, amount no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technical environment. The recitation is also similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f), merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.)
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already
present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 17, 19-20 recite the same functions as claims 2-4, but in method and non-transitory computer-readable medium form.
Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 1-8, 11, 13-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0125455) in view of Roh et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0059343).
As per independent claim 1, Shelton, IV discloses a monitoring control system for monitoring a surgical procedure, the system comprising:
a processor and memory (See [0594]: The computer system comprises a processor and a network interface, the processor is coupled to a communication module, storage, memory, non-volatile memory, and input/output interface via a system bus), the processor configured to:
access monitoring data comprising image data, audio data, and medical data provided by at least one of a monitoring device and a medical device during the surgical procedure (See [0911]-[0916], [1245]: The surgical hub may be configured to determine the type of surgical procedure being performed on a patient from data received from one or more of the operating-room monitoring devices, which the Examiner is interpreting data received from one or more of the operating-room monitoring devices to encompass access monitoring data comprising image data, audio data, and medical data provided by at least one of a monitoring device and a medical device during the surgical procedure as the signal combiner receives image data from an imaging module ([1245]), interpreting the audio and image data received by the signal combiner from the headset ([1245]) to encompass image data, interpreting a headset and/or surgical instruments to encompass a medical device ([1245], [1507]), and interpreting medical data from the instruments to encompass medical data);
during the surgical procedure, analyze the monitoring data to determine a current state of the surgical procedure based on a comparison to a planned surgical procedure (See Fig. 86 and [0911]-[0914], [1061], [1066]: During a surgical procedure, the surgical hub can be connected to various operating-room monitoring devices, data collected from these devices can improve the situational awareness of the surgical hub, which the Examiner is interpreting the situational awareness of the surgical hub to encompass determine a current state of the surgical procedure based on a comparison to a planned surgical procedure as the surgical hub can be configured to determine the type of surgical procedure being performed, retrieve the corresponding list of steps or order of equipment usage (e.g., from a memory), and then compare the steps being performed or the equipment being used during the course of the surgical procedure to the expected steps or equipment for the type of surgical procedure that the surgical hub determined is being performed ([1066]));
determine a subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to be perceptually prioritized by a remote monitoring system (See [1259], [1266]-[1268]: The prioritization of the input devices may be configured so the foot pedal has highest priority followed by the voice interface and the CPU, which the Examiner is interpreting the input devices to encompass subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to be perceptually prioritized by a remote monitoring system), wherein the monitoring devices of the subset provide monitoring data meeting the retrieved observability requirements (See [1647]: A cloud computing system (computer-implemented interactive surgical system as described above) for providing data handling, sorting, and prioritization, which may be applied to critical data generated during various medical operations, and handling critical data (which could be aggregated) may refer to data sorting, prioritizing, and other data handling based on specific criteria or thresholds, which the Examiner is interpreting critical data to encompass monitoring data, and interpreting specific criteria to encompass meeting the retrieved observability requirements when combined with Roh); and
send selection data identifying the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to the remote monitoring system for perceptual prioritization by the remote monitoring system (See [0738]-[0739] [0911]-[0916], [1659]-[1661]: A control circuit to prioritize surgical data associated with a surgical procedure to a cloud-based system communicatively coupled to a plurality of surgical hubs, which the Examiner is interpreting prioritize surgical data to encompass identifying the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to the remote monitoring system for perceptual prioritization by the remote monitoring system as the surgical hub is selected from a plurality of surgical hubs), wherein the perceptual prioritization is at least one of:
selecting only the monitoring data of the identified subset for rendering by the remote monitoring system (See [1096]-[1097], [1118]-[1119]: The surgical hub can be configured to cross-reference the list of items indicated by the received data with a lookup table or database of items utilized for various types of surgical procedures in order to infer the particular surgical procedure that is to be (or was) performed, which the Examiner is interpreting the control circuit then retrieves the aggregated data for the particular event type and displays the appropriate aggregated data corresponding to the query to encompass selecting only the monitoring data of the identified subset for rendering by the remote monitoring system), and highlighting the monitoring data of the identified subset in a render by the remote monitoring system.
While Shelton, IV teaches the system as described above, Shelton, IV may not explicitly teach retrieve observability requirements of the current state of the surgical procedure from a set of predetermined rules mapping states of the planned surgical procedure to respective observability requirements of the states of the planned surgical procedure.
Roh teaches a system for retrieve observability requirements of the current state of the surgical procedure (See [0045]-[0046], [0121]-[0122], [0155]-[0157]: A surgical consulting requirement of a medical facility for a surgical procedure is received from a computer device at the medical facility, the surgical consulting requirement can describe the medical equipment located in the medical facility for performing the surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting engagement information to encompass observability requirements of the current state of the surgical procedure as the communication module determines whether a connection to the medical equipment is needed as part of the surgical consultant's engagement) from a set of predetermined rules mapping states of the planned surgical procedure to respective observability requirements of the states of the planned surgical procedure (See [0121], [0187]-[0188]: The robotic surgical system can retrieve surgical system information from a database to identify events, the robotic surgical system can use other information in databases disclosed herein to generate rules for triggering actions, identifying warnings, defining events, or the like, which the Examiner is interpreting identify events to encompass states of the planned surgical procedure, interpreting a surgical consulting requirement to encompass respective observability requirements of the states of the planned surgical procedure.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Shelton, IV to include retrieve observability requirements of the current state of the surgical procedure from a set of predetermined rules mapping states of the planned surgical procedure to respective observability requirements of the states of the planned surgical procedure as taught by Roh as to identify the prioritization of the input devices of Shelton, IV ([1266]-[1268]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Shelton, IV with Roh with the motivation of improved diagnoses, narrowed surgical operation learning curves, reduced operational costs, and shortened image acquisition times (See Detailed Description of Roh in Paragraph [0046]).
Claim(s) 16 and 18 mirror claim 1 only within different statutory categories, and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 2, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
access surgical planning data which is indicative of a planned surgical procedure to be conducted (See [1056]: The situational awareness system includes a pattern recognition system, or machine learning system (e.g., an artificial neural network), that has been trained on training data to correlate various inputs (e.g., data from databases, patient monitoring devices, and/or modular devices) to corresponding contextual information regarding a surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting training data to correlate various inputs (e.g., data from databases, patient monitoring devices, and/or modular devices) to corresponding contextual information regarding a surgical procedure to encompass access surgical planning data which is indicative of a planned surgical procedure to be conducted); and
determine the current state of the surgical procedure based on a comparison to the planned surgical procedure (See [1064]: A situationally aware surgical hub could determine which step of the surgical procedure is being performed or will subsequently be performed and whether particular data or comparisons between data will be required for that step of the surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting determine which step of the surgical procedure is being performed to encompass determine the current state of the surgical procedure, and interpreting comparisons between data will be required for that step of the surgical procedure to encompass a comparison to the planned surgical procedure.)
As per claim 3, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claims 1-2 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
based on the comparison, determine whether the current state represents a deviation from the planned surgical procedure (See [1065]-[1066]: A situationally aware surgical hub could determine whether the surgeon (or other medical personnel) was making an error or otherwise deviating from the expected course of action during the course of a surgical procedure); and
if the deviation is determined, select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the deviation is remotely observable (See [1065]-[1066], [1202], [1344]: A situationally aware surgical hub could determine whether the surgeon (or other medical personnel) was making an error or otherwise deviating from the expected course of action during the course of a surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting determine whether the surgeon (or other medical personnel) was making an error to encompass the deviation is determined, and interpreting the modified video signal having overlaid text is transmitted to the video display allowing the user to visualize useful feedback information from the surgical instrument and/or feedback controller while still observing the surgical site to encompass select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the deviation is remotely observable.)
Claim(s) 17 and 19 mirror claims 2-3 only within different statutory categories, and are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-3.
As per claim 4, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claims 1-3 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
analyze the monitoring data to identify an entity which has caused, contributed to, or is otherwise associated with the deviation (See [1065]-[1066]: A situationally aware surgical hub could determine whether the surgeon (or other medical personnel) was making an error or otherwise deviating from the expected course of action during the course of a surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting the surgeon or other medical personnel to encompass identify an entity which has caused, contributed to, or is otherwise associated with the deviation); and
select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the entity is remotely observable (See [1065]-[1066], [1202], [1344]: A situationally aware surgical hub could determine whether the surgeon (or other medical personnel) was making an error or otherwise deviating from the expected course of action during the course of a surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting determine whether the surgeon (or other medical personnel) was making an error to encompass the deviation is determined, and interpreting the modified video signal having overlaid text is transmitted to the video display allowing the user to visualize useful feedback information from the surgical instrument and/or feedback controller while still observing the surgical site to encompass select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the entity is remotely observable.)
Claim(s) 20 mirrors claim 4 only within a different statutory category, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
As per claim 5, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claims 1-4 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the entity is at least one of:
a surgical target of the surgical procedure, a surgical access point, an instrument used in the surgical procedure, a member of staff attending the surgical procedure, a patient, a surgical robot, and a medical device used during the surgical procedure (See [1065]-[1066]: A situationally aware surgical hub could determine whether the surgeon (or other medical personnel) was making an error or otherwise deviating from the expected course of action during the course of a surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting the surgeon or other medical personnel to encompass a member of staff attending the surgical procedure.)
As per claim 6, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the plurality of monitoring devices comprises at least one of:
an audio-visual recording device, a sensor or component configured to monitor an operational state of an instrument or a surgical robot, and a medical device (See [1723]: The surgical robot can use an imaging device, such as a stereoscopic endoscope, to capture images of the procedure site and output the captured images to an electronics cart.)
As per claim 7, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
based on the current state of the surgical procedure, predict a following step of the surgical procedure (See [1544]-[1548]: To perform the predictive modeling, the cloud system may combine its knowledge of the exact steps to perform a procedure, what instruments may be used to perform each step, and its aggregated data for how each instrument performs each particular step, which the Examiner is interpreting the predictive modeling to encompass predict a following step of the surgical procedure); and
based on the observability data, select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the following step is remotely observable (See [0833], [1063], [1712]: During robotic surgical medical procedures, a patient can be placed on a platform adjacent to a robotic surgical system, and a surgeon can be positioned at a console that is remote from the platform and/or from the robot, which the Examiner is interpreting a surgeon can be positioned at a console that is remote from the platform and/or from the robot to encompass select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the following step is remotely observable.)
As per claim 8, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the current state of the surgical procedure by determining a current step in the surgical procedure by identifying a surgical event in the monitoring data (See [1064]-[1065], [1105]: A situationally aware surgical hub could determine which step of the surgical procedure is being performed or will subsequently be performed and whether particular data or comparisons between data will be required for that step of the surgical procedure, and the surgical hub can compare the relative positions of the devices to a recommended or anticipated layout for the particular surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting infer or determine information regarding a particular event (e.g., when a particular step of a surgical procedure is being performed and/or how long the step took to complete) based on data received from data sources connected to the surgical hub to encompass the claimed portion.)
As per claim 11, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to adjust at least one of a configuration of a monitoring device and a medical device used in the surgical procedure by sending configuration data to at least one of the monitoring device and the medical device (See [1063]: The surgical hub could then proactively change the displayed view (supplied by, e.g., a medical imaging device for the visualization system) accordingly so that the display automatically adjusts throughout the surgical procedure.)
As per claim 13, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches further comprising a surgical robot configured to perform one or more surgical steps during the surgical procedure, and wherein the remote monitoring system is a remote control system configured to remotely control the surgical robot (See [1919]: When manipulating one or more robotic tools of the robotic surgical system, a clinician is often positioned at a surgeon's command console or module, which is also referred to as a remote control console, the remote control console is positioned outside of a sterile field and, thus, can be remote to the sterile field and, in some instances, remote to the patient and even to the operating room.)
As per claim 14, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the system is a subsystem of the remote monitoring system (See [0539]: A robotic system is used in the surgical procedure as a part of the surgical system, which the Examiner is interpreting a robotic system to encompass a subsystem of the remote monitoring system.)
Claims 9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0125455) in view of Roh et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0059343) in further view of Olson et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0378768).
Claims 9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0125455) in view of Roh et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0059343) in further view of Olson et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0378768).
As per claim 9, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV/Roh may not explicitly teach wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to enable a remote user of the remote monitoring system to communicate with a member of staff attending the surgical procedure, wherein the processor is configured to select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the member of staff is perceptually perceivable.
Olson teaches a system wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to enable a remote user of the remote monitoring system to communicate with a member of staff attending the surgical procedure, wherein the processor is configured to select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the member of staff is perceptually perceivable (See [0046]-[0047]: Input from the remote user can include audio data captured at the VR headset, which the Examiner is interpreting the local user to encompass a member of staff attending the surgical procedure, interpreting the VR headset to encompass select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the member of staff is perceptually perceivable.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Shelton, IV/Roh to include enable a remote user of the remote monitoring system to communicate with a member of staff attending the surgical procedure, wherein the processor is configured to select the subset to include at least one monitoring device through which the member of staff is perceptually perceivable as taught by Olson. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Shelton, IV/Roh with Olson with the motivation of reducing risk through remote collaboration (See Background of Olson in Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 15, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV/Roh may not explicitly teach wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to render the monitoring data provided by the plurality of monitoring devices to enable remote monitoring of the surgical procedure.
Olson teaches a system wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to render the monitoring data provided by the plurality of monitoring devices to enable remote monitoring of the surgical procedure (See [0030]-[0031]: Augmented reality is rendered on the display of the device, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass the claimed portion.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Shelton, IV/Roh to include the remote monitoring system is configured to render the monitoring data provided by the plurality of monitoring devices to enable remote monitoring of the surgical procedure as taught by Olson. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Shelton, IV/Roh with Olson with the motivation of reducing risk through remote collaboration (See Background of Olson in Paragraph [0004]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0125455) in view of Roh et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0059343) in further view of Jorasch et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0293106).
As per claim 10, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV further teaches wherein the remote monitoring system comprises or is connected to an eye-tracker to eye-track a remote user of the remote monitoring system, and wherein the processor is further configured to:
adjust the selection data based on the eye tracking data (See [1063]: The surgical hub could then proactively change the displayed view (supplied by, e.g., a medical imaging device for the visualization system) accordingly so that the display automatically adjusts throughout the surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass the claimed portion when combined with Jorasch below.)
While Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system for wherein the remote monitoring system comprises or is connected to an eye-tracker to eye-track a remote user of the remote monitoring system, and wherein the processor is further configured to: adjust the selection data based on the eye tracking data, Shelton, IV/Roh may not explicitly teach wherein the remote monitoring system comprises or is connected to an eye-tracker to eye-track a remote user of the remote monitoring system, and wherein the processor is further configured to: access eye tracking data from the eye-tracker to determine which monitoring data is observed by the remote user.
Jorasch teaches a system wherein the remote monitoring system comprises or is connected to an eye-tracker to eye-track a remote user of the remote monitoring system (See [0403]: Exemplary indicators may be obtained through eye tracking), and wherein the processor is further configured to: access eye tracking data from the eye-tracker to determine which monitoring data is observed by the remote user (See [1013]: Various embodiments track which other participants a participant is looking at and when, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass the claimed portion when combined with Shelton, IV's disclosure of a surgical environment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Shelton, IV/Roh to include the remote monitoring system comprises or is connected to an eye-tracker to eye-track a remote user of the remote monitoring system, and wherein the processor is further configured to: access eye tracking data from the eye-tracker to determine which monitoring data is observed by the remote user as taught by Jorasch. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Shelton, IV/Roh with Jorasch with the motivation of improve the interactions and feedback by gathering and delivering more information to participants (See Detailed Description of Jorasch in Paragraph [1698]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0125455) in view of Roh et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0059343) in further view of Nakamura et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0346116).
As per claim 12, Shelton, IV/Roh discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Shelton, IV/Roh may not explicitly teach wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to perceptually prioritize the monitoring data of the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices by selectively displaying the monitoring data of the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices while other monitoring data is at least temporarily not displayed.
Nakamura teaches a system wherein the remote monitoring system is configured to perceptually prioritize the monitoring data of the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices by selectively displaying the monitoring data of the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices while other monitoring data is at least temporarily not displayed (See [0069]-[0070], [0123]-[0124]: The composition section generates a composite image by compositing images output from the respective electronic instruments such as the operating room camera, the endoscope device, and the medical instrument, which the Examiner is interpreting an image with higher priority to encompass perceptually highlighting the monitoring data of the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices, and interpreting the composite image to encompass displaying the monitoring data of the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices while other monitoring data is at least temporarily not displayed as the refresh rate may be determined by whether or not the image that the user is looking at is an image with higher priority for the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Shelton, IV/Roh to include the remote monitoring system is configured to perceptually prioritize the monitoring data of the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices by selectively displaying the monitoring data of the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices while other monitoring data is at least temporarily not displayed as taught by Nakamura. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Shelton, IV/Roh with Nakamura with the motivation of display a plurality of images in an easy-to-see and efficient manner (See Effects of the Invention of Nakamura in Paragraph [0014]).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed on August 4, 2026, the Applicant argues that the newly amended and/or added claims overcome the Claim Objection(s), 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s), and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s). The Examiner acknowledges that the newly added and/or amended claims overcome the previous Claim Objection(s). However, the Examiner does not acknowledge that the newly added and/or amended claims overcome the newly added Claim Objection(s), 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s), and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s).
The Applicant argues that:
(1) independent claim 1, considered as a whole, is not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity nor does it claim a person merely following instructions to observe surgery or choose devices, as alleged in page 4 of the Office Action. Rather, claim 1 requires a processor to access image data, audio data, and medical data generated during the surgical procedure; analyze that multimodal data against a planned surgical procedure to determine the current surgical state; retrieve the observability requirements for that state from predetermined rules mapping states of the planned procedure to corresponding requirements; determine monitoring devices that provide data meeting those requirements; and transmit selection data that causes the remote monitoring system either to render only the monitoring data of the identified subset or to highlight the monitoring data of the identified subset. This is a defined, machine-implemented control sequence for adapting the remote-system rendering to the actual current state of a surgical procedure. The determination of the current state is specifically tied to comparison of the monitoring data to a planned surgical procedure, rather than a general human assessment. The predetermined rules "[map] states of the planned surgical procedure to respective observability requirements of the states of the planned surgical procedure" that govern selection of the subset of monitoring devices for perceptual prioritization. For example, "the monitoring control system may determine the observability requirements using a rule-based system which may contain predetermined rules which map states of a surgical procedure, e.g., in terms of progress and/or status, to observability requirements. In other embodiments, a machine learning model or other artificial intelligence based technique may be used to determine the observability requirements, for example by having been trained on training data for that purpose. In general, observability requirements may be defined in relation to entities in the surgical workspace. For example, an observability requirement may define that any one of the following may be shown or otherwise rendered: a surgical target of the surgical procedure, a surgical access or entry point, an instrument used in the surgical procedure, a member of staff attending the surgical procedure, a patient, a surgical robot, and a medical device used during the surgical procedure. The monitoring control system may identify which monitoring data pertains to which entity by analysing the monitoring data, e.g., using computer vision or computer audition, or by analysing metadata which is associated with the monitoring data. For example, the metadata may indicate that certain medical data is patient monitoring data." (See Applicant's Specification, para [0174]). This process does not organize interactions among people, but is rather an automatic control to identify whether sets of data fit certain requirements;
(2) even if any individual determination were characterized as abstract, amended claim I integrates it into a practical application. The claim applies the retrieved observability requirements on the monitoring data of a surgical procedure to control the remote monitoring system's rendering of monitoring data during a surgical procedure. The claimed result is not merely a selection of data for later manipulation, as asserted in the Office Action on page 5. The selection data identifying the subset causes a specific rendering operation: only monitoring data from the identified subset is rendered, or that subset's monitoring data is highlighted. Applicant's Specification identifies the technical problem addressed by this control operation: conventional remote monitoring may "fail to give the operator the same situational awareness as if he/she were locally present in the surgical workspace. For example, a single camera feed may be insufficient to be able to observe both the surgery and local staff, such as a surgical assistant, in the surgical workspace. This problem may be addressed in part by providing more monitoring devices, e.g., multiple camera feeds with different field of views, multiple audio feeds, more medical data from medical devices, etc." (see Applicant's Specification, para [0006]). However, "it may be difficult for the remote operator to obtain good situational awareness when being provided with the monitoring data of a plurality of monitoring devices in case the number of monitoring devices is relatively high" and that it is desirable that "the sheer amount of monitoring data provided by the monitoring devices does not overwhelm the operator," (see Applicant's Specification, para [0009]). Applicant's Specification further explains how the claimed invention directs the remote user to monitoring data relevant to the current surgical state by perceptually prioritizing the relevant data, reduces distraction from other monitoring data, and improves remote situational awareness. It further describes selective display, in which nonselected monitoring data is temporarily not displayed, and visual highlighting of selected data windows, as shown in Figs. 2B-2D. Thus, accessing monitoring data and retrieving observability requirements are not insignificant extra-solution activity; they are necessary to how the remote monitoring system renders data;
(3) the claim also recites significantly more than any alleged judicial exception. The ordered combination is not generic computer implementation of an instruction to "select" data. It requires: (i) "accessing monitoring data comprising image data, audio data, and medical data provided by at least one of a monitoring device and a medical device during the procedure;" (ii) analysis of the monitoring data "to determine a current state of the surgical procedure based on a comparison to a planned surgical procedure;" (iii) retrieval of "observability requirements of the current state... from a set of predetermined rules mapping states of the planned surgical procedure to respective observability requirements ... ;" (iv) determination of "a subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to be perceptually prioritized" based on whether the monitoring data meets the retrieved observability requirements; and (v) transmission of selection data that effectuates selective rendering or highlighting at the remote monitoring system. Accordingly, the claim is directed to a particular technological solution for improving the operation of remote surgical monitoring, not to use of a generic computer in a particular technological environment as alleged on pages 5-6 of the Office Action. The asserted comparison to Alice therefore does not apply. For at least these reasons, reconsideration and withdrawal of the 101 rejections to amended independent claims 1, 16, and 18 are respectfully requested as well as dependent claims 2-15, 17, and 19-20 by virtue of their respective direct and ultimate dependencies from independent claims 1, 16, and 18;
(4) Office Action alleges that the combination of Shelton and Roh teach all limitations of Applicant's claims. However, Applicant respectfully disagrees since neither Shelton or Roh allude to at least of a processor configured to "send selection data identifying the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to the remote monitoring system for perceptual prioritization by the remote monitoring system, wherein the perceptual prioritization is at least one of: selecting only the monitoring data of the identified subset for rendering by the remote monitoring system; and highlighting the monitoring data of the identified subset in a render by the remote monitoring system," as recited in independent claim 1. The Office Action looks to Shelton in paragraphs [091l]-[0916] and [1659]-[1660] to allegedly teach this limitation. Shelton, in paragraph [0911], is directed to managing data size of a stored still frame "by scaling the resolution of the captured information based on the area of the screen where the focal point is or where end effectors are located... [t]he remainder of the screen could be captured at a lower resolution," (see Shelton, paras [0909]-[0910]). The disclosure in paragraphs [0911] discusses capturing "the comers of the screen and the edges... at a lower resolution" (for managing data size of images). Shelton also discusses collecting patient data from "heart rate monitors and insufflation pumps" to determine if "the surgical site is in a region high in sensory nerves" from high heart rates or if the surgical procedure is an abdominal surgical procedure (since "insufflation is not required in theoretic surgery") in paragraphs [0912]-[0915]. Shelton also discusses monitoring of "AC current supply to one or more of its components to assess whether a component is active" in paragraph [0916]. However, neither of these embodiments from Shelton discuss of "identifying [a] subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to the remote monitoring system for perceptual prioritizing by the remote monitoring system," as required in independent claim 1. Such examples of identifying a subset of monitoring devices for perceptual prioritization include, but is not limited to, "select[ing] a microphone worn by the member(s) of staff for rendering" and "select[ing] a ceiling-mounted camera which is located above the patient and which provides... [an] obstruction-free view" (see Applicant's Specification, para [0031]), or more specifically "selecting only the monitoring data of the identified subset for rendering by the remote monitoring system; and highlighting the monitoring data of the identified subset in a render by the remote monitoring system," as recited in independent claim 1. Nor do the examples of managing data size, collecting patient data, and monitoring AC supply from Shelton allude to "perceptual prioritization by the remote monitoring system, wherein the perceptual prioritization is at least one of: selecting only the monitoring data of the identified subset for rendering by the remote monitoring system, and highlighting the monitoring data of the identified subset in a render by the remote monitoring system," as recited in independent claim 1. Such examples of perceptual prioritization include, but is not limited to, "only selecting the monitoring data of the subset of monitoring devices for rendering" or "highlighting the monitoring data of the subset of monitoring devices, for example by changing a size of a camera feed or adjusting the volume of an audio feed" (see Applicant's Specification, para [0032]). Note that Shelton's discussion of managing data size is directed to reducing resolution of portions that are not important, and is not the same as "changing a size of a camera feed" to highlight the monitoring data. Shelton's discussions in paragraphs [1659]-[1660] are directed to a completely different matter than are the discussions in paragraphs [091l]-[0916]. Shelton, in paragraphs [1659]-[1660], is directed to classifying suspicious data by an "authorization and security module" in situations where "the data appears significantly different than expected so as to suggest unauthorized tampering, data or serial numbers appear to be modified, security of surgical instruments or corresponding hub appears to be comprised" (see Shelton, para [01658]). Shelton teaches of a "watch list" in paragraph [1659] of surgical instruments, in which surgical instruments may be on the watch list if a "suspiciousness or unexpectedness threshold... that exceeds surgical instrument design certification" is met, or for any other reasons of suspiciousness. Shelton further explains in paragraph [1660] that the "watch list. .. can be maintained as a set of database records comprising identifiers corresponding to prohibited surgical hubs, surgical instruments, and other medical devices" wherein surgical instruments on the watch list "may be prevented from fully functioning or restricted from access with surgical hubs." This is completely different from "identifying [a] subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to the remote monitoring system for perceptual prioritization," as required in independent claim 1. The subset is identified based on having "monitoring data meeting the retrieved observability requirements," and thus determination of monitoring data provided by the subset having met the observability requirements also aid in "the perceptual prioritization... selecting only the monitoring data of the identified subset for rendering by the remote monitoring system, and highlighting the monitoring data of the identified subset in a render by the remote monitoring system," as recited in independent claim 1. Not only does Shelton aim to "restrict" or "prohibit" the surgical instruments in the "watch list," whereas Applicant's claims aim to perceptually prioritize the identified subset, Shelton also does not discuss of "selecting only the monitoring data of the identified subset for rendering by the remote monitoring system" or "highlighting the monitoring data of the identified subset in a render by the remote monitoring system" since Shelton's "surgical instruments" have no such function. Furthermore, the subset of monitoring devices identified in Applicant's claims is determined based on "observability requirements for the current state of the surgical procedure based on the observability data." Shelton's discussion of suspicious surgical instruments do not have the functions of "determin[ing] a current state of the surgical procedure" nor "retriev[ing] observability requirements" of the current state of the surgical procedure in order to determine "a subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to be perceptually prioritized by a remote monitoring system, wherein the monitoring devices of the subset provide monitoring data meeting the retrieved observability requirements," as recited in independent claim 1. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that each independent claims 1, 16, and 18, as amended, are patentable. Applicant further respectfully submits that dependent claims 2-8. 11-14, 17, and 19-20 are patentable by virtue of their respective direct and ultimate dependencies from allowable independent claims 1, 16, and 18, as well as by virtue of the patentably distinct subject matter that they recite. Claims 9 and 15 stand rejected under 35 USC§ 103 as being allegedly unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0125455 to Shelton, IV et al. ("Shelton") in view of U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0059343 to Roh et al. ("Roh") in further view of U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0378768 to Olson et al. ("Olson"). Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being allegedly unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0125455 to Shelton, IV et al. ("Shelton") in view of U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0059343 to Roh et al. ("Roh") in further view of U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0293106 to Jorasch et al. ("Jorasch"). Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being allegedly unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0125455 to Shelton, IV et al. ("Shelton") in view of U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0059343 to Roh et al. ("Roh") in further view of U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0346116 to Nakamura et al. ("Nakamura"). Claims 9-10, 12, and 15 depend from claim 1, which Applicant respectfully submits is patentable. Therefore, Applicant submits that claims 9-10, 12, and 15 are patentable by virtue of their respective direct and ultimate dependencies from allowable independent claim 1, as well as by virtue of the patentably distinct subject matter that they recite.
In response to argument (1), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the claims, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing interactions between people (including following rules or instructions), which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s newly amended claims are similar to “iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)), and the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The Examiner maintains that a person following rules or instructions would be able to determine a comparison of the monitoring data to a planned surgical procedure. The Examiner maintains that a person following rules or instructions could make determinations based on observability requirements. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (2), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the additional elements of the claims generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USP12d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Examiner maintains that identifying and listing the prioritization of received data could be accomplished by a person following instructions. The Examiner maintains that “the selection data identifying the subset causes a specific rendering operation: only monitoring data from the identified subset is rendered, or that subset's monitoring data is highlighted” is similar to “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (3), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(S) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s newly amended claims recite an abstract idea without significantly more. The Examiner maintains that the additional elements recite insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s newly amended claims do not recite a particular technological solution as the claims are similar to “iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48” and “vii. Selecting one type of content (e.g., FM radio content) from within a range of existing broadcast content types, or selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content) from within a range of well-known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” which the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (4), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that Shelton/Roh teaches “send selection data identifying the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to the remote monitoring system for perceptual prioritization by the remote monitoring system, wherein the perceptual prioritization is at least one of: selecting only the monitoring data of the identified subset for rendering by the remote monitoring system; and highlighting the monitoring data of the identified subset in a render by the remote monitoring system,” as recited in independent claim 1 in Shelton, IV describes in [0911]-[0916], [1659]-[1661]: The cloud can monitor data from a series of surgical operations to determine whether outliers or data variations significantly reduce without an apparent reason, such as a reduction without a corresponding change in parameters of used surgical instruments or a change in surgical technique, additionally, suspiciousness can be measured by a predetermined suspiciousness or unexpectedness threshold, unauthorized modification of device data, unsecure communication of data, or placement of the surgical instrument on a watch list, which the Examiner is interpreting the watchlist to encompass identifying the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to the remote monitoring system for perceptual prioritization by the remote monitoring system, and in [1096]-[1097], [1118]-[1119]: The surgical hub can be configured to cross-reference the list of items indicated by the received data with a lookup table or database of items utilized for various types of surgical procedures in order to infer the particular surgical procedure that is to be (or was) performed, which the Examiner is interpreting the control circuit then retrieves the aggregated data for the particular event type and displays the appropriate aggregated data corresponding to the query to encompass selecting only the monitoring data of the identified subset for rendering by the remote monitoring system. Shelton, IV discloses "identifying [a] subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to the remote monitoring system for perceptual prioritization," in [0738]-[0739] [0911]-[0916], [1659]-[1661]: A control circuit to prioritize surgical data associated with a surgical procedure to a cloud-based system communicatively coupled to a plurality of surgical hubs, which the Examiner is interpreting prioritize surgical data to encompass identifying the subset of the plurality of monitoring devices to the remote monitoring system for perceptual prioritization by the remote monitoring system as the surgical hub is selected from a plurality of surgical hubs. The Examiner maintains that Shelton, IV describes “selecting only the monitoring data of the identified subset for rendering by the remote monitoring system” in [1096]-[1097], [1118]-[1119]: The surgical hub can be configured to cross-reference the list of items indicated by the received data with a lookup table or database of items utilized for various types of surgical procedures in order to infer the particular surgical procedure that is to be (or was) performed, which the Examiner is interpreting the control circuit then retrieves the aggregated data for the particular event type and displays the appropriate aggregated data corresponding to the query to encompass selecting only the monitoring data of the identified subset for rendering by the remote monitoring system. Shelton, IV teaches “determining a current state of the surgical procedure” in [0816] as the surgical hub is configured to maintain spatial awareness during operation by periodically mapping its operating room, which can be helpful in determining if the surgical hub has been moved. The Examiner maintains that Roh teaches retrieve observability requirements of the current state of the surgical procedure from a set of predetermined rules mapping states of the planned surgical procedure to respective observability requirements of the states of the planned surgical procedure in [0045]-[0046], [0121]-[0122], [0155]-[0157]: A surgical consulting requirement of a medical facility for a surgical procedure is received from a computer device at the medical facility, the surgical consulting requirement can describe the medical equipment located in the medical facility for performing the surgical procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting engagement information to encompass observability requirements of the current state of the surgical procedure as the communication module determines whether a connection to the medical equipment is needed as part of the surgical consultant's engagement and [0121], [0187]-[0188]: The robotic surgical system can retrieve surgical system information from a database to identify events, the robotic surgical system can use other information in databases disclosed herein to generate rules for triggering actions, identifying warnings, defining events, or the like, which the Examiner is interpreting identify events to encompass states of the planned surgical procedure, interpreting a surgical consulting requirement to encompass respective observability requirements of the states of the planned surgical procedure. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
El Amm (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0315734), describes a method for using a surgical enhanced visualization system for enhancing a surgical operation includes the steps of acquiring patient reference data, loading the patient reference data and features into the computer, and acquiring live data from the operating suite during the surgical operation, where the live data includes a live three dimensional model of the patient.
McGreevy (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2005/0128184), describes a virtual control system for an operating room establishes virtual control devices to control surgical equipment and patient monitoring equipment and to display control, status and functionality information concerning the surgical equipment and condition information of the patient.
Feizi et al. (“Robotics and AI for Teleoperation, Tele-Assessment, and Tele-Training for Surgery in the Era of COVID-19: Existing Challenges, and Future Vision”), describes evaluating the use of robotics and AI in 1) robotics-assisted surgery, 2) tele-examination of patients for pre- and post-surgery, and 3) tele-training for surgical procedures.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Bennett S Erickson whose telephone number is (571)270-3690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773. 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.
/Bennett Stephen Erickson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
