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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-15, filed December 15, 2025, with respect to claims 8-12 and 14-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 8-12 and 14-20 under 35 USC 102 and 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's additional arguments filed December 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In re pages 8-10, Applicant argues that Korndorffer and Ikuma do not disclose a plurality of targets wherein one or more of the plurality of targets includes a direction marker that indicates direction information to a next target, as recited in claim 2.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See MPEP 2111.
Korndorffer and Ikuma are both directed to medical training devices (Korndorffer: paragraphs [0002] – [0011]; Ikuma: paragraphs [0003] – [0011]). Korndorffer discloses a training device with a plurality of geometric targets (Korndorffer: paragraph [0033]). Korndorffer further discloses that each of the targets includes a number in an acquisition sequence order (Korndorffer: paragraphs [0030] and [0056]). Ikuma discloses use of guide arrows to indicate a direction to a subsequent target (Ikuma: Figs. 7-8, paragraph [0098]). Thus, Korndorffer and Ikuma teach where one or more of the plurality of targets includes a direction marker that indicates direction information to a next target of the plurality of targets in a sequence or order, as recited in claim 2.
Applicant asserts that, “Ikuma’s guide arrow has no physical presence or structure and thus can’t be equated to the structural limitation of a direction marker included on a target of an insert as required by claim 2.”
It is not the view of the Examiner, however, that the language of claim 2 necessarily requires a physical presence or structure to the direction marker. Claim 2 recites, “wherein one or more of the plurality of targets includes a direction marker…” (emphasis added). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation of this language, to include a direction marker means more than just the physical presence of a direction marker but also means to include a direction marker associated with the target when viewed by a user. This is the case with Ikuma, which discloses targets that include a direction marker when viewed on a display. By amending the claims, Applicant can delineate the type and placement of the directional markers and directional information.
In re pages 10-11, Applicant asserts that Ikuma does not disclose where the direction marker is an arrow or an indentation located within a perimeter of the one or more of the plurality of targets, as recited in claim 3.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ikuma discloses where the direction marker is an arrow (Ikuma: Figs. 7-8, paragraph [0098]).
In re pages 11-12, Applicant asserts that Korndorffer does not disclose that the plurality of targets are two-dimensional and printed onto the flat upper surface of the insert.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Korndorffer discloses printed two-dimensional targets (Korndorffer: Fig. 6, paragraph [0034]). Although Korndorffer discloses, as Applicant states, a “preferred embodiment” where an acquisition target template is placed on a monitor, Korndorffer discloses other embodiments such as a base with geometric targets (Korndorffer: paragraph [0030]). This base includes targets of red circles—e.g., two-dimensional shapes—disposed on flat regions of the upper surface of the insert (Korndorffer: Fig. 4, paragraph [0030]). Thus, Korndorffer discloses that the plurality of targets are two-dimensional and printed onto the flat upper surface of the insert.
In re page 12, Applicant argues that the cited art does not disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 7 for prior asserted deficiencies with the teachings of Korndorffer and Ikuma. For the reasons discussed above, this argument is not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The device of claim 22, the direction marker” (line 1) should read -- The device of claim 22, wherein the direction marker -- . Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 3, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Korndorffer (US 2006/0183095 A1, already of record, referred to herein as “Korndorffer) in view of Ikuma et al. (US 2017/0112578 A1, already of record, referred to herein as “Ikuma”).
Regarding claim 2, Korndorffer discloses: A device for training surgical camera navigation
(Korndorffer: paragraph [0002], disclosing a device for teaching the manipulation of laparoscopes),
the device comprising an insert (Korndorffer: paragraph [0033], disclosing a base to be inserted into a box
trainer) comprising:
a plurality of targets (Korndorffer: paragraph [0030], disclosing a plurality of geometric targets
comprising a red circle on a white background); and
a flat upper surface, the plurality of targets being disposed on the flat upper surface (Korndorffer:
paragraph [0030], disclosing a base upon which the targets are disposed; Fig. 1, element 10,
disclosing that the base includes a flat upper surface with the associated targets),
wherein one or more of the plurality of targets includes a… marker that indicates… information to a next
target of the plurality of targets in a sequence or order (Korndorffer: Fig. 1, paragraph [0030], disclosing that each one of the targets includes a number and that the numbers of the targets are in a sequence
order; paragraph [0056], disclosing laparoscopic acquisition in target order).
Korndorffer does not explicitly disclose where the targets include a direction marker that
indicates directional information.
However, Ikuma discloses where the targets include a direction marker that indicates directional
information (Ikuma: Figs. 7-8, paragraph [0098], disclosing guide arrows to indicate direction to a
subsequent target viewed through a medical device).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person
having ordinary skill in the art to use the direction marker of Ikuma in the device of Korndorffer.
One would have been motivated to modify Korndorffer in this manner in order to indicate
to a user how to navigate to a next target (Ikuma: paragraphs [0006] and [0098]).
Regarding claim 3, Korndorffer and Ikuma disclose: The device of claim 2, wherein the direction
marker is an arrow or an indentation located within a perimeter of the one or more of the plurality of targets (Ikuma:
Figs. 7-8, paragraph [0098], disclosing guide arrows).
The motivation for combining Korndorffer and Ikuma has been disclosed in connection
with claim 2, above.
Regarding claim 4, Korndorffer and Ikuma disclose: The device of claim 2, wherein the plurality of
targets are two-dimensional and printed onto the flat upper surface of the insert (Korndorffer: Fig. 6, paragraph
[0034], disclosing two-dimensional targets printed on the upper surface of the base).
Regarding claim 5, Korndorffer and Ikuma disclose: The device of claim 2, wherein each of the
plurality of targets are configured to define a different orientation for a surgical scope with respect to a fulcrum point fixed above the insert, wherein the surgical scope is configured to be manipulated about the fulcrum point
(Korndorffer: paragraph [0008], disclosing a laparoscopic instrument manipulated about a fulcrum
point; Fig. 1, paragraph [0030], disclosing targets of different orientations with respect to the
fulcrum point).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korndorffer in
view of Ikuma as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ando et al.
(US 2016/0314713 A1, already of record, referred to herein as “Ando”).
Regarding claim 6, Korndorffer and Ikuma disclose: The device of claim 2, as discussed above.
Korndorffer and Ikuma do not explicitly disclose: further comprising a second insert positioned above
the insert, wherein the second insert is configured to obscure the plurality of targets of the insert arranged beneath the
second insert, and wherein the second insert comprises at least one opening configured to allow a surgical scope to pass
through the second insert to observe the plurality of targets on the insert.
However, Ando discloses: further comprising a second insert positioned above the insert, wherein the
second insert is configured to obscure the plurality of targets of the insert arranged beneath the second insert, and
wherein the second insert comprises at least one opening configured to allow a surgical scope to pass through the second
insert to observe the plurality of targets on the insert (Ando: Fig. 1, paragraph [0029], disclosing a device for
surgical training that includes a second insert position, above a first insert position, that allows a
surgical scope to pass through and observe a plurality of targets).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person
having ordinary skill in the art to use the inserts of Ando in the device of Korndorffer and Ikuma.
One would have been motivated to modify Korndorffer and Ikuma in this manner in order
permit various insertion points for surgical simulation (Ando: paragraphs [0029] – [0030]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korndorffer in
view of Ikuma as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Poulsen et al.
(US 2014/0093852 A1, already of record, referred to herein as “Poulsen”).
Regarding claim 7, Korndorffer and Ikuma disclose: The device of claim 2, as discussed above.
Korndorffer and Ikuma do not explicitly disclose: wherein at least one of the plurality of targets
includes a secondary target enclosed within a boundary of the at least one of the plurality of targets, the secondary target
sharing a center with the at least one of the plurality of targets.
However, Poulsen discloses: wherein at least one of the plurality of targets includes a secondary target
enclosed within a boundary of the at least one of the plurality of targets, the secondary target sharing a center with the
at least one of the plurality of targets (Poulsen: Fig. 1, paragraph [0014], disclosing a laparoscopic training
device; Fig. 2, paragraphs [0018] – [0020], disclosing practice stations—e.g., targets—including a first
practice station that has an aperture—e.g., secondary target—enclosed in an object and sharing a
center with the object).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person
having ordinary skill in the art to use the targets of Poulsen in the device of Korndorffer and Ikuma.
One would have been motivated to modify Korndorffer and Ikuma in this manner in order
to permit a user to practice various surgical techniques (Poulsen: paragraphs [0003] – [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 and 14-20 are allowed.
Claims 22 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 22, Korndorffer, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where the direction information further includes rotational direction information to the next target of the plurality of targets.
Regarding cliam 23, Korndorffer, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where the direction marker is an arrow located between adjacent targets of the plurality of targets and having a dashed line indicating the rotational direction information to the next target of the plurality of targets.
Conclusion
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.
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 Christopher Braniff whose telephone number is (571)270-5009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM to 4PM.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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.
CHRISTOPHER T. BRANIFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/CHRISTOPHER BRANIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484