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 .
Claim Objections
The status of claims 1-20 is:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is:
“computing unit” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. Three categories of subject matter are found to be judicially recognized exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e. patent ineligible) (1) laws of nature, (2) physical phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas. MPEP 2106(II). To be patent-eligible, a claim directed to a judicial exception must as whole be integrated into a practical application or directed to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106). Hence, the claim must describe a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claim passes Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Independent claim 1 is directed to operating a medical apparatus, the computer-implemented method comprising: capturing a first user input specifying an intention to operate the medical apparatus for a usage case; generating, depending on the medical apparatus and the usage case, at least one input suggestion for a computer-implemented language model; outputting a representation of the at least one input suggestion; capturing a second user input that validates or rejects a first input suggestion of the at least one input suggestion; and in response to validation of the first input suggestion by the second user input, generating and outputting user information for controlling the medical apparatus for the usage case by applying the computer-implemented language model to the first input suggestion. An individual can capture a first user input specifying an intention to operate a medical apparatus for a usage case; generate, depending on the medical apparatus and the usage case, at least one input suggestion for a computer-implemented language model; output a representation of the at least one input suggestion, capture a second user input that validates or rejects a first user input suggestion of the at least one input suggestion, and in response to the validation of the first input suggestion by the second user input, generating and outputting user information for controlling the medical apparatus for the usage case by applying the computer-implemented language model to the first input suggestion. Accordingly, the analysis under prong one of Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Additional elements
Independent claim 1 does not have any additional elements. Claim 13 claims the method including a computing unit. Claim 14 claims the method being stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
The above-identified elements do not integrate the judicial into a practical application nor do they suggest an improvement.
The additional elements of a computing unit and a non-transitory computer-readable medium amounts to merely using generic computer hardware or components as a tool to perform the claimed mental process.
Using a general purpose computer to apply a judicial exception does not qualify as a particular machine and therefore, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Further, the act of acquiring data is mere data gathering which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding independent claim 1 and claims 13-14, as noted above, the additional elements are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
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 and other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
For all the foregoing reasons, independent claim 1 and claims 13-14 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2 recites wherein the user information includes at least one of system settings for the medical apparatus, guidance for operating the medical apparatus for the usage case, or one or more pictorial representations of a procedure for operating the medical apparatus for the usage case. The features of claim 2 are directed towards the mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 2 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites wherein the computer-implemented language model includes a trained artificial neural network. The features of claim 3 are directed towards the mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 3 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites wherein the trained artificial neural network is a generative pre-trained transformer. The features of claim 4 are directed towards the mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 4 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites wherein the at least one input suggestion includes the first input suggestion and a second input suggestion, and the second user input either selects and validates the first input suggestion or rejects the at least one input suggestion. The features of claim 5 are directed towards the mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 5 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites further comprising: outputting source information relating to the user information. The features of claim 6 are directed towards the mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 6 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites wherein the source information includes at least one of a textual or pictorial representation of at least one extract from an information source for the user information, and the computer-implemented method includes displaying the at least one of the textual or pictorial representation on a display device, wherein a part of the at least one of the textual or pictorial representation that is relevant to the user information is highlighted visually. The features of claim 7 are directed towards the mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 7 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites wherein, upon rejection of the at least one input suggestion by the second user input, the computer-implemented method further comprises: generating, depending on the medical apparatus and the usage case, at least one further input suggestion for the computer-implemented language model; outputting a representation of the at least one further input suggestion; capturing a third user input that validates or rejects a first further input suggestion of the at least one further input suggestion; and in response to validation of the first further input suggestion by the third user input, generating and outputting further user information for controlling the medical apparatus for the usage case by applying the computer-implemented language model to the first further input suggestion. The features of claim 8 are directed towards the mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 recites wherein the at least one further input suggestion is generated according to content of the second user input. The features of claim 9 are directed towards the mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 9 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites further comprising: capturing a fourth user input that specifies at least one of an acceptance or applicability of the user information for the usage case; and in response to the fourth user input specifying that the user information was at least one of not accepted or not applicable, generating and outputting further user information for controlling the medical apparatus for the usage case by applying the computer-implemented language model to the first input suggestion and the fourth user input. The features of claim 10 are directed towards the mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 10 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites wherein the medical apparatus is an imaging modality. The features of claim 11 are directed towards the mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites further comprising: in response to validation of the first input suggestion by the second user input, at least one of automatically setting a parameter of the medical apparatus on the basis of the user information, or automatically controlling the medical apparatus on the basis of the user information to perform a measurement automatically. The features of claim 12 are directed towards the mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 12 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 recites further comprising: outputting source information relating to the user information. The features of claim 15 are directed towards the mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites wherein the source information includes at least one of a textual or pictorial representation of at least one extract from an information source for the user information, and the computer-implemented method includes displaying the at least one of the textual or pictorial representation on a display device, wherein a part of the at least one of the textual or pictorial representation that is relevant to the user information is highlighted visually. The features of claim 16 are directed towards the mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 16 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 recites wherein, upon rejection of the at least one input suggestion by the second user input, the computer-implemented method further comprises: generating, depending on the medical apparatus and the usage case, at least one further input suggestion for the computer-implemented language model; outputting a representation of the at least one further input suggestion; capturing a third user input that validates or rejects a first further input suggestion of the at least one further input suggestion; and in response to validation of the first further input suggestion by the third user input, generating and outputting further user information for controlling the medical apparatus for the usage case by applying the computer-implemented language model to the first further input suggestion. The features of claim 17 are directed towards the mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 17 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18 recites wherein, upon rejection of the at least one input suggestion by the second user input, the computer-implemented method further comprises: generating, depending on the medical apparatus and the usage case, at least one further input suggestion for the computer-implemented language model; outputting a representation of the at least one further input suggestion; capturing a third user input that validates or rejects a first further input suggestion of the at least one further input suggestion; and in response to validation of the first further input suggestion by the third user input, generating and outputting further user information for controlling the medical apparatus for the usage case by applying the computer-implemented language model to the first further input suggestion. The features of claim 18 are directed towards the mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 18 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19 recites further comprising: capturing a fourth user input that specifies at least one of an acceptance or applicability of the user information for the usage case; and in response to the fourth user input specifying that the user information was at least one of not accepted or not applicable, generating and outputting further user information for controlling the medical apparatus for the usage case by applying the computer-implemented language model to the first input suggestion and the fourth user input. The features of claim 19 are directed towards the mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 19 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20 recites further comprising: in response to validation of the first input suggestion by the second user input, at least one of automatically setting a parameter of the medical apparatus on the basis of the user information, or automatically controlling the medical apparatus on the basis of the user information to perform a measurement automatically. The features of claim 20 are directed towards the mental process recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 20 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 10-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roh et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No 2023/0210612 included in the IDS received 07/19/2024, hereinafter “Roh”).
Regarding claim 1, Roh discloses a computer-implemented method for human-machine interaction for operating a medical apparatus (Roh Abstract: “Methods, apparatuses, and systems for using speech input to control a surgical robot are disclosed. A surgical robot is disclosed that can be controlled by a surgeon using speech input in a conversational manner”), the computer-implemented method comprising:
capturing a first user input specifying an intention to operate the medical apparatus for a usage case (Roh [0129]: “The surgical robot 602 can further include a user interface for accepting control inputs from a user”);
generating, depending on the medical apparatus and the usage case, at least one input suggestion for a computer-implemented language model (Roh [0137]: “The surgical robot 602 receives the surgeon's speech input and uses a natural language processing model to determine the surgeon's intended action and further predicts the action sequence and parameters to be used in the completion of the surgeon's intended action”);
outputting a representation of the at least one input suggestion (Roh [0138]: “Responsive to determining that the surgical robot 602 is capable to perform the one or more actions, the surgical system transmits a notification to the surgeon using a user interface that the surgical robot 602 is capable to perform a portion of the surgical procedure indicated by the instruction from the surgeon. Responsive to transmitting the notification, the surgical system performs the one or more actions of the surgical procedure on the patient's body in accordance with the parameters using the surgical robot 602. For example, the action module 626 seeks approval of the action sequence and parameters from the surgeon and may receive adjustments to the action sequence and parameters prior to executing the action sequence, or alternatively, will receive further instructions to do nothing and allow the surgeon to perform the actions requested by the surgeon's instructions”); and
in response to validation of the first input suggestion by the second user input, generating and outputting user information for controlling the medical apparatus for the usage case by applying the computer-implemented language model to the first input suggestion (Roh [0138]: “Responsive to determining that the surgical robot 602 is capable to perform the one or more actions, the surgical system transmits a notification to the surgeon using a user interface that the surgical robot 602 is capable to perform a portion of the surgical procedure indicated by the instruction from the surgeon. Responsive to transmitting the notification, the surgical system performs the one or more actions of the surgical procedure on the patient's body in accordance with the parameters using the surgical robot 602. For example, the action module 626 seeks approval of the action sequence and parameters from the surgeon and may receive adjustments to the action sequence and parameters prior to executing the action sequence, or alternatively, will receive further instructions to do nothing and allow the surgeon to perform the actions requested by the surgeon's instructions”).
Regarding claim 2, Roh discloses the method, wherein the user information includes at least one of system settings for the medical apparatus,
guidance for operating the medical apparatus for the usage case (Roh [0181]: “In some embodiments, a user interface of the surgical system of FIG. 6 displays information describing one or more actions. The user interface receives a command from a surgeon for the surgical robot 602 to cease performing the one or more actions. Responsive to receiving the command, the surgical robot 602 transfers control of the surgical procedure to the surgeon. For example, in step 1016, the action module 626 prompts the surgeon to approve the action sequences and tool parameters selected to execute the determined instructions”), or
one or more pictorial representations of a procedure for operating the medical apparatus for the usage case.
Regarding claim 3, Roh discloses the method, wherein the computer-implemented language model includes a trained artificial neural network (Roh [0081]: “In alternative example embodiments, the ML model 216, e.g., in the form of a CNN generates the output 224, without the need for feature extraction, directly from the input data 204. The output 224 is provided to the computer device 228 or the console 108 illustrated and described in more detail with reference to FIG. 1. The computer device 228 is a server, computer, tablet, smartphone, smart speaker, etc., implemented using components of the example computer system 300 illustrated and described in more detail with reference to FIG. 3. In some embodiments, the steps performed by the ML system 200 are stored in memory on the computer device 228 for execution. In other embodiments, the output 224 is displayed on the high-definition monitors 124 illustrated and described in more detail with reference to FIG. 1”; Roh [0082]: “A CNN is a type of feed-forward artificial neural network”).
Regarding claim 5, Roh discloses the method, wherein
the at least one input suggestion includes the first input suggestion and a second input suggestion (Roh [0178]: “In some embodiments, the surgical robot 602 performs one or more actions of a surgical procedure on a patient's body in accordance with the generated parameters. For example, in step 1010, the action module 626 selects the action sequence and further tool parameters required to execute the instructions or actions. The action sequence includes the discrete actions required to execute the instructions identified in response to the surgeon's commands. In an example, the action module 626 identifies a 3 mm diameter polyp in view of the imaging device and 2 inches away from the end of the endoscope. The action module 626 determines that forceps must be inserted through the tool channel, extended 2 inches past the end of the endoscope, opened, and then positioned to grasp opposing sides of the polyp before closing around the polyp and applying a force of no more than 5 pounds per square inch. Once the polyp is firmly grasped, the forceps are retracted with a steady force away from the side of the colon at a 45-degree angle. Once the polyp is removed, it is extracted by the forceps via the tool channel in the endoscope and placed in a sample jar”), and
the second user input either selects and validates the first input suggestion or rejects the at least one input suggestion (Roh [0181]: “The surgeon may further converse with the surgical robot 602 to adjust the selected tool parameters or may alternatively choose to perform the action sequence manually”; Roh [0138]: “Responsive to determining that the surgical robot 602 is capable to perform the one or more actions, the surgical system transmits a notification to the surgeon using a user interface that the surgical robot 602 is capable to perform a portion of the surgical procedure indicated by the instruction from the surgeon. Responsive to transmitting the notification, the surgical system performs the one or more actions of the surgical procedure on the patient's body in accordance with the parameters using the surgical robot 602. For example, the action module 626 seeks approval of the action sequence and parameters from the surgeon and may receive adjustments to the action sequence and parameters prior to executing the action sequence, or alternatively, will receive further instructions to do nothing and allow the surgeon to perform the actions requested by the surgeon's instructions”; Roh [0183]: “The surgeon may then reply, “use a maximum of 3 pounds per square inch of gripping strength” or alternatively, “use a wire loop instead of forceps.””).
Regarding claim 6, Roh discloses the method, further comprising:
outputting source information relating to the user information (Roh [0101]: “The viewer 430 can display at least a portion of a surgical plan, including past and future surgical steps, patient monitor readings (e.g., vitals), surgical room information (e.g., available team members, available surgical equipment, surgical robot status, or the like), images (e.g., pre-operative images, images from simulations, real-time images, instructional images, etc.), and other surgical assist information. In some embodiments, the viewer 430 can be a VR/AR headset, display, or the like. The robotic surgical system 400, illustrated and described in more detail with reference to FIG. 4A, can further include multiple viewers 430 so that multiple members of a surgical team can view the surgical procedure. The number and configuration of the viewers 430 can be selected based on the configuration and number of surgical robots”).
Regarding claim 7, Roh discloses the method, wherein
the source information includes at least one of a textual or pictorial representation of at least one extract from an information source for the user information (Roh [0101]: “The viewer 430 can display at least a portion of a surgical plan, including past and future surgical steps, patient monitor readings (e.g., vitals), surgical room information (e.g., available team members, available surgical equipment, surgical robot status, or the like), images (e.g., pre-operative images, images from simulations, real-time images, instructional images, etc.), and other surgical assist information. In some embodiments, the viewer 430 can be a VR/AR headset, display, or the like. The robotic surgical system 400, illustrated and described in more detail with reference to FIG. 4A, can further include multiple viewers 430 so that multiple members of a surgical team can view the surgical procedure. The number and configuration of the viewers 430 can be selected based on the configuration and number of surgical robots”), and
the computer-implemented method includes displaying the at least one of the textual or pictorial representation on a display device (Roh [0101]: “The viewer 430 can display at least a portion of a surgical plan, including past and future surgical steps, patient monitor readings (e.g., vitals), surgical room information (e.g., available team members, available surgical equipment, surgical robot status, or the like), images (e.g., pre-operative images, images from simulations, real-time images, instructional images, etc.), and other surgical assist information. In some embodiments, the viewer 430 can be a VR/AR headset, display, or the like. The robotic surgical system 400, illustrated and described in more detail with reference to FIG. 4A, can further include multiple viewers 430 so that multiple members of a surgical team can view the surgical procedure. The number and configuration of the viewers 430 can be selected based on the configuration and number of surgical robots”), wherein
a part of the at least one of the textual or pictorial representation that is relevant to the user information is highlighted visually (Roh [0101]: “The viewer 430 can display at least a portion of a surgical plan, including past and future surgical steps, patient monitor readings (e.g., vitals), surgical room information (e.g., available team members, available surgical equipment, surgical robot status, or the like), images (e.g., pre-operative images, images from simulations, real-time images, instructional images, etc.), and other surgical assist information. In some embodiments, the viewer 430 can be a VR/AR headset, display, or the like. The robotic surgical system 400, illustrated and described in more detail with reference to FIG. 4A, can further include multiple viewers 430 so that multiple members of a surgical team can view the surgical procedure. The number and configuration of the viewers 430 can be selected based on the configuration and number of surgical robots”).
Regarding claim 10, Roh discloses the method, further comprising:
capturing a fourth user input that specifies at least one of an acceptance or applicability of the user information for the usage case (Roh [0184]: “In step 1018, the action module 626 determines whether the surgeon approves of the action sequence”); and
in response to the fourth user input specifying that the user information was at least one of not accepted or not applicable, generating and outputting further user information for controlling the medical apparatus for the usage case by applying the computer-implemented language model to the first input suggestion and the fourth user input (Roh [0185]: “In step 1020, the action module 626 performs the action sequence with the parameters approved by the surgeon”).
Regarding claim 11, Roh discloses the method, wherein the medical apparatus is an imaging modality (Roh [0045]: “In some embodiments, the system 100 includes an imaging system 136 (instruments are used for the creation of images and visualization of the interior of a human body for diagnostic and treatment purposes). The imaging system 136 is used in different medical settings and can help in the screening of health conditions, diagnosing causes of symptoms, or monitoring of health conditions. The imaging system 136 can include various imaging techniques such as X-ray, fluoroscopy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, endoscopy, elastography, tactile imaging, thermography, medical photography, and nuclear medicine, e.g., positron emission tomography (PET). Some factors which can drive the market are cost and clinical advantages of medical imaging modalities, a rising share of ageing populations, increasing prevalence of cardiovascular or lifestyle diseases, and increasing demand from emerging economies”).
Regarding claim 12, Roh discloses the method, further comprising:
in response to validation of the first input suggestion by the second user input, at least one of automatically setting a parameter of the medical apparatus on the basis of the user information, or automatically controlling the medical apparatus on the basis of the user information to perform a measurement automatically (Roh [0185]: “In step 1020, the action module 626 performs the action sequence with the parameters approved by the surgeon”).
Regarding claim 13, Roh discloses a data processing apparatus having at least one computing unit, the at least one computing unit configured to perform the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1 (Roh [0088]: “The computer system 300 can include one or more central processing units (“processors”) 302, main memory 306, non-volatile memory 310, network adapters 312 (e.g., network interface), video displays 318, input/output devices 320, control devices 322 (e.g., keyboard and pointing devices), drive units 324 including a storage medium 326, and a signal generation device 320 that are communicatively connected to a bus 316”).
Regarding claim 14, Roh discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a data processing apparatus, cause the data processing apparatus to perform the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1 (Roh [0090]: “While the main memory 306, non-volatile memory 310, and storage medium 326 (also called a “machine-readable medium”) are shown to be a single medium, the term “machine-readable medium” and “storage medium” should be taken to include a single medium or multiple media (e.g., a centralized/distributed database and/or associated caches and servers) that store one or more sets of instructions 328. The term “machine-readable medium” and “storage medium” shall also be taken to include any medium that is capable of storing, encoding, or carrying a set of instructions for execution by the computer system 300”).
Regarding claim 15, Roh discloses the method, further comprising:
outputting source information relating to the user information (Roh [0101]: “The viewer 430 can display at least a portion of a surgical plan, including past and future surgical steps, patient monitor readings (e.g., vitals), surgical room information (e.g., available team members, available surgical equipment, surgical robot status, or the like), images (e.g., pre-operative images, images from simulations, real-time images, instructional images, etc.), and other surgical assist information. In some embodiments, the viewer 430 can be a VR/AR headset, display, or the like. The robotic surgical system 400, illustrated and described in more detail with reference to FIG. 4A, can further include multiple viewers 430 so that multiple members of a surgical team can view the surgical procedure. The number and configuration of the viewers 430 can be selected based on the configuration and number of surgical robots”).
Regarding claim 16, Roh discloses the method, wherein
the source information includes at least one of a textual or pictorial representation of at least one extract from an information source for the user information (Roh [0101]: “The viewer 430 can display at least a portion of a surgical plan, including past and future surgical steps, patient monitor readings (e.g., vitals), surgical room information (e.g., available team members, available surgical equipment, surgical robot status, or the like), images (e.g., pre-operative images, images from simulations, real-time images, instructional images, etc.), and other surgical assist information. In some embodiments, the viewer 430 can be a VR/AR headset, display, or the like. The robotic surgical system 400, illustrated and described in more detail with reference to FIG. 4A, can further include multiple viewers 430 so that multiple members of a surgical team can view the surgical procedure. The number and configuration of the viewers 430 can be selected based on the configuration and number of surgical robots”), and
the computer-implemented method includes displaying the at least one of the textual or pictorial representation on a display device, wherein a part of the at least one of the textual or pictorial representation that is relevant to the user information is highlighted visually (Roh [0101]: “The viewer 430 can display at least a portion of a surgical plan, including past and future surgical steps, patient monitor readings (e.g., vitals), surgical room information (e.g., available team members, available surgical equipment, surgical robot status, or the like), images (e.g., pre-operative images, images from simulations, real-time images, instructional images, etc.), and other surgical assist information. In some embodiments, the viewer 430 can be a VR/AR headset, display, or the like. The robotic surgical system 400, illustrated and described in more detail with reference to FIG. 4A, can further include multiple viewers 430 so that multiple members of a surgical team can view the surgical procedure. The number and configuration of the viewers 430 can be selected based on the configuration and number of surgical robots”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Etemadi (U.S. Patent Publication No 2023/0274818, hereinafter “Etemadi”).
Regarding claim 4, Roh does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the trained artificial neural network is a generative pre-trained transformer.
However, Etemadi teaches the method wherein the trained artificial neural network is a generative pre-trained transformer (Etemadi [0019]: “In at least some embodiments, the report may be generated utilizing an encoder/decoder framework, such as through a transformer model including, but not limited to, a Bidirectional and Auto-Regressive (BART) model, a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) model, or a large transformer-based language model such as a Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) model”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the generative pre-trained transformer as taught by Etemadi with the method of Roh because it is a substitution of one known ann for another known ann and it would improve the method as generative pre-trained transformers excel at understanding language. This motivation for the combination of Roh and Etemadi is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and rationale (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready from improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDAN KEUP whose telephone number is (703)756-4578. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/AIDAN KEUP/ Examiner, Art Unit 2666 /Molly Wilburn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights