CTFR 18/760,279 CTFR 81513 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Formal Matters Applicant’s response and amendments filed 3 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 5, 8, and 17 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and under examination. Objections/Rejections Withdrawn The objection to the Abstract of the disclosure because the abstract contains more than 150 words is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. The rejection of claim 20 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. Response to Arguments Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcome the rejections under 35 USC 103 because State disclosure is limited to updating and rendering graphical overlays based on sensor-driven device emplacement and newly acquired device data rather than “wherein the virtual representation is based on a three-dimensional model of the probe and a reference pot of an end effector assembly of the surgical instrument.” Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Contrary to Applicant’s argument, State teaches the amendments to claims 1, 8, and 17. State teaches that “3D graphics can be produced using underlying data models stored in the image guidance unit” (e.g., “generated”) (¶41). State teaches that “the underlying 3D model can be updated based on the relative emplacements of the various devices 145 and 155 as determined by the position sensing unit 140 and/or based on new data associated with the devices 145 and 155” (¶41). State teaches an example that if the first medical device 145 is a stapler, then the underlying model can be updated to reflect any changes related to the jaws [e.g., “end effector assembly of the surgical instrument”], such as information regarding the affected region or angles of the jaws and/or transecting knife” (¶41). States also discloses that any appropriate 3D graphics processing can be used for rendering (¶41). Regarding the amendment to claim 17 wherein a monitor displays the video of the tissue and the surgical instrument and the virtual representation of the probe in the deployed position based on a distance of the probe to the critical structure, State teaches this at ¶¶187-189 and expressly discloses that “the system 100 can concurrently determine the emplacement of the medical image and/or one or more virtual medical devices, etc.” (¶189). Objections/Rejections MaintainedClaim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-7 and 17-19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horner et al., US 20150327913 (19 November 2015) in view of State et al., US 20180116731 (3 May 2018), for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth herein . Regarding claim 1 , Horner teaches a surgical system ( FIG 1 ) comprising: a surgical instrument ( 10 ) including: first ( 110 ) and second ( 120 ) jaw members, at least one of the first ( 110 ) or second ( 120 ) jaw members movable relative to the other of the first ( 110 ) or second jaw members from a spaced apart position to an approximated position to grasp tissue therebetween (¶ 34 ), at least one of the first ( 110 ) or second ( 120 ) jaw members adapted (¶ 33 wires; cable 8 ) to connect to a source of energy ( generator “G” ) for conducting energy (¶ 33 ) through tissue grasped between the first ( 110 ) and second ( 120 ) jaw members to treat the tissue (¶ 33 ); and a probe ( 151 ) adapted to connect to a source of energy (¶ 49 ) and movable (¶ 44 slidably housed within end effector assembly 150) ; from a retracted position ( FIGs 2 and 4 ) to a deployed position ( FIGs 3 and 5 ). Horner does not teach a camera configured to capture a video of a tissue and the surgical instrument; a controller configured to generate a virtual representation of the probe based on the video of the surgical instrument; and a monitor configured to display the video of the tissue and the surgical instrument, and the virtual representation of the probe in the deployed position. However, Horner also teach that the robotic surgical system is intended to for use in endoscopic surgical procedures (¶ 31 ) and the system comprises a controller system that controls the end effector assembly and other instrumentation parameters ( ¶ ¶ 59-60 ). State teaches medical instrument navigation systems ( FIG 1A, ¶26 and FIG 13, ¶149 ) comprising system ( 100 ) comprising a display unit ( 120 ) and a position sensing unit ( 140) communicatively coupled to an image guidance unit ( 130 ) (¶ 30 ). State teaches that the system comprises a camera ( 155 ) configured to capture a video (¶ 31 ) of a tissue and the surgical instrument ( 145 ). State teaches a controller ( processor, ¶ 41 ) configured to generate a virtual representation ( 122 ) of the probe ( 155 ) based on the video (¶ 31 ) of the surgical instrument ( 145 ) (¶ 31 ), where the instrument includes jaws or a transecting knife (¶ 41 ). State teaches a monitor ( 120 ) configured to display the video (¶ 31 ) of the tissue and the surgical instrument ( 145 ), and the virtual representation of the probe ( 155 ) in the deployed position (¶ 31 ). State also teaches that “3D graphics can be produced using underlying data models stored in the image guidance unit” (e.g., “generated”) (¶ 41 ). State teaches that “the underlying 3D model can be updated based on the relative emplacements of the various devices 145 and 155 as determined by the position sensing unit 140 and/or based on new data associated with the devices 145 and 155 ” (¶ 41 ). State teaches an example that if the first medical device 145 is a stapler, then the underlying model can be updated to reflect any changes related to the jaws [e.g., “end effector assembly of the surgical instrument”], such as information regarding the affected region or angles of the jaws and/or transecting knife” (¶ 41 ). State also discloses that any appropriate 3D graphics processing can be used for rendering (¶ 41 ). State also teaches that “the system 100 can concurrently determine the emplacement of the medical image and/or one or more virtual medical devices, etc.” (¶ 189 ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Horner and State, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Horner and State teach in the same field of endeavor, medical surgical systems comprising surgical tools with jaw members. Horner and State included each element claimed although not necessarily in a single reference. Although, Horner discloses the claimed base surgical system comprising jaw members adapted to treat tissue and a probe adapted to connect to an energy source and movably housed within an end effector assembly from a retracted to a deployed position, Horner does not teach a camera configured to capture a video of a tissue and the surgical instrument; a controller configured to generate a virtual representation of the probe based on the video of the surgical instrument; and a monitor configured to display the video of the tissue and the surgical instrument, and the virtual representation of the probe in the deployed position. State specifically addressed the navigation system and provides image guidance for placement of one or more medical devices at a target location (Abstract). State’s system can cause one or more displays to display video perspectives of images as well as image guidance cues, including virtual representations of the devices in 3D space (Abstract). Similarly, the systems of State can concurrently determine the emplacement of the medical image and/or one or more virtual medical devices. Because Horner medical surgical system is compatible with endoscopic surgical systems, comprising surgical tools with jaw members that are controllable by a controller, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to more precisely control the end effector assembly tools and probe would reasonably consult State’s navigation and 3D virtual representation solution. State’s navigation and 3D virtual representation solution can be incorporated alongside Horner’s base surgical device (same general location and interaction with the surgical end effector assembly and probe, as well as endoscopic cameras and controls) using known assembly methods and known software without redesigning Horner’s core surgical device. Because the references address the same engineering problem (controlling and visualizing endoscopic and robotic medical surgical systems comprising end effector surgical tool assemblies with jaw members and probes) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding a controller-based position and navigation system and known software to correlate video with an overlying virtual representation model) to the base surgical system of Horner, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings. Regarding claim 2 , Horner modified by State teaches the surgical system according to claim 1, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above. Horner teaches the system further comprising a switch ( monopolar activation switch 157 ) operable in a first stage in response to which the probe is moved to the deployed position ( deployed position FIGs 3 and 5; ¶46 ). Regarding claim 3 , Horner modified by State teaches the surgical system according to claim 2, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above. Horner teaches wherein the switch ( monopolar activation switch 157 ) is operable in a second stage ( fully extended, ¶49 ) in response to which the probe is energized ( electrical activation, ¶49 ). Regarding claim 4 , Horner modified by State teaches the surgical system according to claim 1, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above. State teaches wherein the controller ( ¶41, processor ) is further configured to analyze ( determining “emplacement” ¶32 ) the video (¶ 31 ) to identify a critical structure (¶ 22 ) of the tissue (¶ 141 ). Regarding claim 5 , Horner modified by State teaches the surgical system according to claim 4, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above. State teaches wherein the controller ( ¶41, processor ) is further configured to output the virtual representation of the probe based on a distance of the probe to the critical structure ( ¶187 ). Regarding claim 6 , Horner modified by State teaches the surgical system according to claim 4, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above. State teaches wherein the controller ( ¶41, processor ) is further configured to highlight the critical structure ( ¶203 ). Regarding claim 7 , Horner modified by State teaches the surgical system according to claim 1 as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above. State teaches wherein the monitor ( display unit 120 ) is configured to display the virtual representation in response to a user command ( ¶61 ). Regarding independent claim 17 , Horner teaches a method for controlling deployment of a probe of a surgical instrument (¶ 16 ), the method comprising: a surgical instrument ( 10 ) including an end effector assembly ( first (110) and second (120) jaw members ) and a probe ( 151 ) adapted to connect to a source of energy (¶ 49 ), the probe movable from a retracted position to a deployed position relative to the end effector assembly (¶ 44 slidably housed within end effector assembly 150) ; from a retracted position ( FIGs 2 and 4 ) to a deployed position ( FIGs 3 and 5 ); Horner does not teach capturing a video of a tissue, generating, at a controller, a virtual representation of the probe based on the video of the surgical instrument, wherein the virtual representation of the probe is generated based on a three-dimensional model of the probe and a reference point of the end effector assembly; analyzing, at a controller, the video to identify a critical structure of the tissue; and displaying on a monitor the video of the tissue and the surgical instrument and the virtual representation deployed position based on a distance of the probe to the critical structure. State teaches medical instrument navigation systems ( FIG 1A, ¶26 and FIG 13, ¶149 ) comprising system ( 100 ) capturing a video ( ¶31 ) of a tissue, generating, at a controller (¶ 41, processor ), a virtual representation ( 122 ) of the probe ( 155 ) based on the video of the surgical instrument (¶ 31 ); analyzing, at a controller (¶ 41, processor ), the video (¶ 31 ) to identify a critical structure of the tissue ( ¶203 ); and displaying on the monitor ( 120 ) the virtual representation of the probe in the deployed position based on a distance of the probe to the critical structure ( ¶187 ). States teaches wherein a monitor displays the video of the tissue (¶ 31 ) and the surgical instrument ( 145 ) and the virtual representation of the probe ( 155 ) in the deployed position based on a distance of the probe to the critical structure (¶¶ 187-189 ) and expressly discloses that “the system 100 can concurrently determine the emplacement of the medical image and/or one or more virtual medical devices, etc.” (¶ 189 ). State also teaches that “3D graphics can be produced using underlying data models stored in the image guidance unit” (e.g., “generated”) (¶ 41 ). State teaches that “the underlying 3D model can be updated based on the relative emplacements of the various devices 145 and 155 as determined by the position sensing unit 140 and/or based on new data associated with the devices 145 and 155 ” (¶ 41 ). State teaches an example that if the first medical device 145 is a stapler, then the underlying model can be updated to reflect any changes related to the jaws [e.g., “end effector assembly of the surgical instrument”], such as information regarding the affected region or angles of the jaws and/or transecting knife” (¶ 41 ). State also discloses that any appropriate 3D graphics processing can be used for rendering (¶ 41 ). State also teaches that “the system 100 can concurrently determine the emplacement of the medical image and/or one or more virtual medical devices, etc.” (¶ 189 ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Horner and State, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Horner and State teach in the same field of endeavor, medical surgical systems comprising surgical tools with jaw members. Horner and State included each element claimed although not necessarily in a single reference. Although, Horner discloses the claimed base surgical system comprising jaw members adapted to treat tissue and a probe adapted to connect to an energy source and movably housed within an end effector assembly from a retracted to a deployed position, Horner does not teach a camera configured to capture a video of a tissue and the surgical instrument; a controller configured to generate a virtual representation of the probe based on the video of the surgical instrument; and a monitor configured to display the video of the tissue and the surgical instrument, and the virtual representation of the probe in the deployed position. State specifically addressed the navigation system and provides image guidance for placement of one or more medical devices at a target location (Abstract). State’s system can cause one or more displays to display video perspectives of images as well as image guidance cues, including virtual representations of the devices in 3D space (Abstract). Similarly, the systems of State can concurrently determine the emplacement of the medical image and/or one or more virtual medical devices. Because Horner medical surgical system is compatible with endoscopic surgical systems, comprising surgical tools with jaw members that are controllable by a controller, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to more precisely control the end effector assembly tools and probe would reasonably consult State’s navigation and 3D virtual representation solution. State’s navigation and 3D virtual representation solution can be incorporated alongside Horner’s base surgical device (same general location and interaction with the surgical end effector assembly and probe, as well as endoscopic cameras and controls) using known assembly methods and known software without redesigning Horner’s core surgical device. Because the references address the same engineering problem (controlling and visualizing endoscopic and robotic medical surgical systems comprising end effector surgical tool assemblies with jaw members and probes) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding a controller-based position and navigation system and known software to correlate video with an overlying virtual representation model) to the base surgical system of Horner, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings. Regarding claim 18 , Horner modified by State teaches the method according to claim 17, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above. Horner teaches the system further comprising receiving a first input from a switch ( monopolar activation switch 157 ) operable to move the probe to the deployed position ( deployed position FIGs 3 and 5; ¶46 ). Regarding claim 19 , Horner modified by State teaches the method according to claim 17, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above. Horner teaches the system further comprising receiving a second input from a switch ( monopolar activation switch 157 ; fully extended, ¶49 ) to energize the probe ( electrical activation, ¶49 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8-16 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horner et al., US 20150327913 (19 November 2015) in view of State et al., US 20180116731 (3 May 2018) and further in view of Shelton et al., US 20200405375 (31 December 2020), for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth herein . Regarding independent claim 8 , Horner teaches a surgical robotic system ( FIG 1 ) comprising: a first robotic arm controlling a surgical instrument (¶ 60 ) including: first ( 110 ) and second ( 120 ) jaw members, at least one of the first ( 110 ) and second ( 120 ) jaw members movable relative to the other of the first ( 110 ) and second ( 120 ) jaw members from a spaced apart position to an approximated position to grasp tissue therebetween (¶ 34 ), at least one of the first ( 110 ) or second ( 120 ) jaw members adapted (¶ 33 wires; cable 8 ) to connect to a source of energy ( generator “G” ) for conducting energy (¶ 33 ) through tissue grasped between the first ( 110 ) and second ( 120 ) jaw members to treat the tissue (¶ 33 ); and a probe ( 151 ) adapted to connect to a source of energy (¶ 49 ), and movable (¶ 44 slidably housed within end effector assembly 150) ; from a retracted position ( FIGs 2 and 4 ) to a deployed position ( FIGs 3 and 5 ) Horner does not teach a second robotic arm controlling a camera configured to capture a video of a tissue and the surgical instrument; a controller configured to generate a virtual representation of the probe based on the video of the surgical instrument, wherein the virtual representation is generated based on a three-dimensional model of the probe and a reference point of an end effector assembly of the surgical instrument; and a monitor configured to display the video of the tissue and the surgical instrument, and the virtual representation of the probe in the deployed position. State also teaches medical instrument navigation systems ( FIG 1A, ¶26 and FIG 13, ¶149 ) comprising system ( 100 ) capturing a video ( ¶31 ) of a tissue, generating, at a controller (¶ 41, processor ), a virtual representation ( 122 ) of the probe ( 155 ) based on the video of the surgical instrument (¶ 31 ); analyzing, at a controller (¶ 41, processor ), the video (¶ 31 ) to identify a critical structure of the tissue ( ¶203 ); and displaying on the monitor ( 120 ) the virtual representation of the probe in the deployed position based on a distance of the probe to the critical structure ( ¶187 ). States teaches wherein a monitor displays the video of the tissue (¶ 31 ) and the surgical instrument ( 145 ) and the virtual representation of the probe ( 155 ) in the deployed position based on a distance of the probe to the critical structure (¶¶ 187-189 ) and expressly discloses that “the system 100 can concurrently determine the emplacement of the medical image and/or one or more virtual medical devices, etc.” (¶ 189 ). State also teaches that “3D graphics can be produced using underlying data models stored in the image guidance unit” (e.g., “generated”) (¶ 41 ). State teaches that “the underlying 3D model can be updated based on the relative emplacements of the various devices 145 and 155 as determined by the position sensing unit 140 and/or based on new data associated with the devices 145 and 155 ” (¶ 41 ). State teaches an example that if the first medical device 145 is a stapler, then the underlying model can be updated to reflect any changes related to the jaws [e.g., “end effector assembly of the surgical instrument”], such as information regarding the affected region or angles of the jaws and/or transecting knife” (¶ 41 ). State also discloses that any appropriate 3D graphics processing can be used for rendering (¶ 41 ). State also teaches that “the system 100 can concurrently determine the emplacement of the medical image and/or one or more virtual medical devices, etc.” (¶ 189 ). Horner generically teaches robotic “arms” (¶ 58 ). State does not teach a second robotic arm. Shelton teaches a multi-arm robotic surgical system ( FIG 2 ) with arm-to-arm correlation to provide close operational control of an end-effector (¶ 430 ) where a second arm comprises a camera to generate relative positions of the end effectors, thereby establishing coordinate systems for each robotic surgical tool (¶ 430 ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Horner, State, and Shelton, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Horner, State, and Shelton teach in the same field of endeavor, medical surgical systems comprising surgical tools with jaw members. Although, Horner discloses the claimed base surgical system comprising jaw members adapted to treat tissue and a probe adapted to connect to an energy source and movably housed within an end effector assembly from a retracted to a deployed position, Horner does not teach a camera configured to capture a video of a tissue and the surgical instrument; a controller configured to generate a virtual representation of the probe based on the video of the surgical instrument; and a monitor configured to display the video of the tissue and the surgical instrument, and the virtual representation of the probe in the deployed position. State specifically addressed the navigation system and provides image guidance for placement of one or more medical devices at a target location (Abstract). State’s system can cause one or more displays to display video perspectives of images as well as image guidance cues, including virtual representations of the devices in 3D space (Abstract). Similarly, the systems of State can concurrently determine the emplacement of the medical image and/or one or more virtual medical devices. Shelton’s multi-arm robotic surgical system with arm-to-arm correlation provides a camera on a second arm to generate relative positions of the end effectors, establishing coordinate systems for each robotic surgical tool, and providing better control to compensate for arm-t0-arm variances. Because Horner based medical surgical system is compatible with endoscopic surgical systems, comprising surgical tools with jaw members that are controllable by a controller and is compatible with multiple robotic arms, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to more precisely control the end effector assembly tools and probe would reasonably consult State’s navigation and 3D virtual representation solution. State’s navigation and 3D virtual representation solution can be incorporated alongside Horner’s base surgical device (same general location and interaction with the surgical end effector assembly and probe, as well as endoscopic cameras and controls) using known assembly methods and known software without redesigning Horner’s core surgical device. Additionally, because Shelton’s multi-arm robotic surgical system with arm-to-arm correlation provides a camera on a second arm to generate relative positions of the end effectors, establishing coordinate systems for each robotic surgical tool, and providing better control to compensate for arm-t0-arm variances, further refining the control of the system and the use of surgical tool assembly tools, jaw members, and probes. Because the references address the same engineering problem (controlling and visualizing endoscopic and robotic medical surgical systems comprising end effector surgical tool assemblies with jaw members and probes) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding a controller-based position and navigation system and known software to correlate video with an overlying virtual representation model and adding a second robotic arm) to the base surgical system of Horner, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings. Regarding claim 9 , Horner, modified by State and Shelton, teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 8, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above. Horner teaches the system further comprising a surgical console including a foot pedal ( foot switch, ¶33 ) operable in a first stage in response to which the probe is moved to the deployed position ( deployed position FIGs 3 and 5; ¶46 ). Regarding claim 10 , Horner modified by State and Shelton, teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 9, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above. Horner teaches the system wherein the foot pedal ( foot switch, ¶33 ) is operable in a second stage in response to which the probe is energized ( facilitate electrical application of the forceps 10, ¶33 ) . Regarding claim 11 , Horner, modified by State and Shelton, teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 9, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above. Horner teaches the system wherein the foot pedal ( foot switch, ¶33 ) includes at least one of a distance sensor or a contact sensor ( jaw member activation switch 200, ¶33 ) to operate in the first stage ( deployed position FIGs 3 and 5; ¶46 ). Regarding claim 12 , Horner, modified by State and Shelton, teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 8, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above. State teaches the system wherein the controller ( ¶41, processor ) is further configured to analyze ( determining “emplacement” ¶32 ) the video (¶ 31 ) to identify a critical structure (¶ 22 ) of the tissue (¶ 141 ). Regarding claim 13 , Horner, modified by State and Shelton, teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 12, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above. State teaches wherein the controller ( ¶41, processor ) is further configured to output the virtual representation of the probe based on a distance of the probe to the critical structure ( ¶187 ). Regarding claim 14 , Horner, modified by State and Shelton, teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 13, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above. State teaches wherein the controller ( ¶41, processor ) is further configured to output the virtual representation of the probe based on a distance of the probe to the critical structure ( ¶187 ). Shelton teaches that the controller is configured based on at least one of the video or kinematics data of the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm (“arm-to-arm correlation to provide close operational control of an end-effector” (¶ 430 ); “a second arm comprises a camera to generate relative positions of the end effectors, thereby establishing coordinate systems for each robotic surgical tool” (¶ 430 )). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Horner, State, and Shelton, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Horner, State, and Shelton teach in the same field of endeavor, medical surgical systems comprising surgical tools with jaw members. Although, Horner discloses the claimed base surgical system comprising jaw members adapted to treat tissue and a probe adapted to connect to an energy source and movably housed within an end effector assembly from a retracted to a deployed position, Horner does not teach a camera configured to capture a video of a tissue and the surgical instrument; a controller configured to generate a virtual representation of the probe based on the video of the surgical instrument; and a monitor configured to display the video of the tissue and the surgical instrument, and the virtual representation of the probe in the deployed position. State specifically addressed the navigation system and provides image guidance for placement of one or more medical devices at a target location (Abstract). State’s system can cause one or more displays to display video perspectives of images as well as image guidance cues, including virtual representations of the devices in 3D space (Abstract). Similarly, the systems of State can concurrently determine the emplacement of the medical image and/or one or more virtual medical devices. Shelton’s multi-arm robotic surgical system with arm-to-arm correlation provides a camera on a second arm to generate relative positions of the end effectors, establishing coordinate systems for each robotic surgical tool, and providing better control to compensate for arm-t0-arm variances. Because Horner based medical surgical system is compatible with endoscopic surgical systems, comprising surgical tools with jaw members that are controllable by a controller and is compatible with multiple robotic arms, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to more precisely control the end effector assembly tools and probe would reasonably consult State’s navigation and 3D virtual representation solution. State’s navigation and 3D virtual representation solution can be incorporated alongside Horner’s base surgical device (same general location and interaction with the surgical end effector assembly and probe, as well as endoscopic cameras and controls) using known assembly methods and known software without redesigning Horner’s core surgical device. Additionally, because Shelton’s multi-arm robotic surgical system with arm-to-arm correlation provides a camera on a second arm to generate relative positions of the end effectors, establishing coordinate systems for each robotic surgical tool, and providing better control to compensate for arm-t0-arm variances, further refining the control of the system and the use of surgical tool assembly tools, jaw members, and probes. Because the references address the same engineering problem (controlling and visualizing endoscopic and robotic medical surgical systems comprising end effector surgical tool assemblies with jaw members and probes) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding a controller-based position and navigation system and known software to correlate video with an overlying virtual representation model and adding a second robotic arm) to the base surgical system of Horner, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings. Regarding claim 15 , Horner, modified by State and Shelton, teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 12, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above. State teaches wherein the controller ( ¶41, processor ) is further configured to highlight the critical structure ( ¶203 ). Regarding claim 16 , Horner, modified by State and Shelton, teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 8, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above. State teaches wherein the monitor ( display unit 120 ) is configured to display the virtual representation in response to a user command ( ¶61 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horner et al., US 20150327913 (19 November 2015) in view of State et al., US 20180116731 (3 May 2018) and further in view of Durant et al., US 9,043,027 (26 May 2015) . Regarding claim 20 , Horner teaches a method for controlling deployment of a probe of a surgical instrument (¶ 16 ), the method comprising: a surgical instrument ( 10 ) including an end effector assembly ( first (110) and second (120) jaw members ) and a probe ( 151 ) adapted to connect to a source of energy (¶ 49 ), the probe movable from a retracted position to a deployed position relative to the end effector assembly (¶ 44 slidably housed within end effector assembly 150) ; from a retracted position ( FIGs 2 and 4 ) to a deployed position ( FIGs 3 and 5 ); Horner does not teach capturing a video of a tissue, generating, at a controller, a virtual representation of the probe based on the video of the surgical instrument, wherein the virtual representation of the probe is generated based on a three-dimensional model of the probe and a reference point of the end effector assembly; analyzing, at a controller, the video to identify a critical structure of the tissue; and displaying on a monitor the video of the tissue and the surgical instrument and the virtual representation deployed position based on a distance of the probe to the critical structure. State teaches medical instrument navigation systems ( FIG 1A, ¶26 and FIG 13, ¶149 ) comprising system ( 100 ) capturing a video ( ¶31 ) of a tissue, generating, at a controller (¶ 41, processor ), a virtual representation ( 122 ) of the probe ( 155 ) based on the video of the surgical instrument (¶ 31 ); analyzing, at a controller (¶ 41, processor ), the video (¶ 31 ) to identify a critical structure of the tissue ( ¶203 ); and displaying on the monitor ( 120 ) the virtual representation of the probe in the deployed position based on a distance of the probe to the critical structure ( ¶187 ). States teaches wherein a monitor displays the video of the tissue (¶ 31 ) and the surgical instrument ( 145 ) and the virtual representation of the probe ( 155 ) in the deployed position based on a distance of the probe to the critical structure (¶¶ 187-189 ) and expressly discloses that “the system 100 can concurrently determine the emplacement of the medical image and/or one or more virtual medical devices, etc.” (¶ 189 ). State also teaches that “3D graphics can be produced using underlying data models stored in the image guidance unit” (e.g., “generated”) (¶ 41 ). State teaches that “the underlying 3D model can be updated based on the relative emplacements of the various devices 145 and 155 as determined by the position sensing unit 140 and/or based on new data associated with the devices 145 and 155 ” (¶ 41 ). State teaches an example that if the first medical device 145 is a stapler, then the underlying model can be updated to reflect any changes related to the jaws [e.g., “end effector assembly of the surgical instrument”], such as information regarding the affected region or angles of the jaws and/or transecting knife” (¶ 41 ). State also discloses that any appropriate 3D graphics processing can be used for rendering (¶ 41 ). State also teaches that “the system 100 can concurrently determine the emplacement of the medical image and/or one or more virtual medical devices, etc.” (¶ 189 ). Horner and State do not teach further comprising: displaying, on the monitor, a prompt to at least one of deploy or energize the probe based on the identity of the critical structure. Durant suggests methods of controlling surgical end effectors ( Abstract ) where the user may be prompted to provide secondary input, where the form of the prompt may be a visual image including text ( col 11, lines 63-67 ). Durant teaches that after receiving the feedback the user can act to cause the end effector 20 of the surgical instrument 18 to perform the surgical procedure ( col 11, line 67 to col 12, line 16 ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Horner, State, and Durant, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Horner, State, and Durant teach in the same field of endeavor, medical surgical systems comprising surgical tools with end effectors. Although, Horner discloses the claimed base surgical system comprising jaw members adapted to treat tissue and a probe adapted to connect to an energy source and movably housed within an end effector assembly from a retracted to a deployed position, Horner does not teach a camera configured to capture a video of a tissue and the surgical instrument; a controller configured to generate a virtual representation of the probe based on the video of the surgical instrument; and a monitor configured to display the video of the tissue and the surgical instrument, and the virtual representation of the probe in the deployed position. State specifically addressed the navigation system and provides image guidance for placement of one or more medical devices at a target location (Abstract). State’s system can cause one or more displays to display video perspectives of images as well as image guidance cues, including virtual representations of the devices in 3D space (Abstract). Similarly, the systems of State can concurrently determine the emplacement of the medical image and/or one or more virtual medical devices. Because Horner medical surgical system is compatible with endoscopic surgical systems, comprising surgical tools with jaw members that are controllable by a controller, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to more precisely control the end effector assembly tools and probe would reasonably consult State’s navigation and 3D virtual representation solution. State’s navigation and 3D virtual representation solution can be incorporated alongside Horner’s base surgical device (same general location and interaction with the surgical end effector assembly and probe, as well as endoscopic cameras and controls) using known assembly methods and known software without redesigning Horner’s core surgical device. Durant specifically addressed a prompt method step provides direct feedback in the form of visual images and texts for the express purpose of having the user act to cause the end effector of the surgical instrument to perform the surgical procedure. Horner teaches that the probe movable from a retracted position (FIGs 2 and 4) to a deployed position (FIGs 3 and 5) relative to the end effector assembly (¶44 slidably housed within end effector assembly 150). Horner teaches a switch (monopolar activation switch 157) is operable in a second stage (fully extended, ¶49) in response to which the probe is energized (electrical activation, ¶49). System feedback in the form of prompts displayed on a monitor that prompts a clinician or other individual or device to deploy or energize the probe based on the identity of the critical structure would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the teachings, suggestion, and motivations of Durant, with a reasonable expectation of success. The method steps taught by Durant are elements that would have performed the same function as they did separately. Because the references address the same engineering problem (controlling and visualizing endoscopic and robotic medical surgical systems comprising end effector surgical tool assemblies with jaw members and probes) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding a controller-based position and navigation system and known software to correlate video with an overlying virtual representation model and prompting based on feedback) to the base surgical system of Horner, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings. Conclusion No claim is allowed. 07-40 AIA 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 CHERIE M POLAND whose telephone number is (703)756-1341. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (9am-6pm CST) and R-F (9am-3pm CST). 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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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. /CHERIE M POLAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /KATHLEEN S HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 2 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 3 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 4 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 5 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 6 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 7 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 8 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 9 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 10 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 11 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 12 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 13 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 14 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 15 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 16 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 17 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 18 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/760,279 Page 19 Art Unit: 3771
Prosecution Insights