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 .
Remarks
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 5/7/2026. Claims 21-41 are presented for examination. Independent claims 21, 28, 35 were amended and dependent claims 36-41 were amended. Claims 1-20 were cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11 of the Applicant’s remarks, filed 5/7/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-41 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20190183591).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-41 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 21-25, 27-32, 34-39 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (U.S. Patent Application 20070184422) in view of Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20190183591).
In regards to claim 21, Takahashi teaches a method [Fig. 7; e.g. method for distributing information, 0051] comprising: interactively sharing information between a plurality of console systems within a computer-implemented interactive surgical system environment [Fig. 4; e.g. a plurality of persons on which mutually synchronized three-dimensional digital magnifying glasses are mounted respectively can share that image information by using communication means such as the internet or the intranet. The relevant images, which have been accumulated moving images though, are of a visual field of a surgical field obtained when a medical practitioner actually performed a surgical operation and so can be such as to have an extremely high degree of reality with a feeling of sensation, 0022], wherein interactively sharing the information comprises:
deploying the plurality of console systems within the computer-implemented interactive surgical system environment [Fig. 3; e.g. the three-dimensional digital magnifying glasses are positioned within the space of the surgical field, 0019, 0022];
communicatively coupling the plurality of console systems with each other [Fig. 3; e.g. the three-dimensional digital magnifying glasses are mutually synchronized using communication means such as the internet or the intranet, 0022];
generating the information by at least one console system among the plurality of console systems [e.g. obtaining the three-dimensional image information through image processing, 0019];
displaying the information on the at least one console system [e.g. displaying the three-dimensional image information on the three-dimensional digital magnifying glass, 0019];
transmitting the information from the at least one console system to at least another console system among the plurality of console systems [e.g. transmitting the three-dimensional image information to another three-dimensional digital magnifying glass by sharing the image information, 0022, 0046]; and
displaying the information on the at least another console system [e.g. displaying the writing or pointing instruction on the monitor of the medical practitioner from the instructor, 0046].
Takahashi does not explicitly teach
receiving touch user input on the at least one console system;
manipulating textual information displayed on the at least one console system in response to the touch user input; and
mirroring the manipulated textual information from the at least one console system on the at least another console system.
However, Johnson teaches
receiving touch user input on the at least one console system [e.g. the user console receives the input on a touchscreen, 0151];
manipulating textual information displayed on the at least one console system in response to the touch user input [e.g. An annotation tool may enable text labeling. Text labeling may be typed or dictated entries, and/or may include pre-determined template labeling (e.g., “Cut #1”). In other words, the text labeling is performed on a touchscreen, 0102, also see 0151]; and
mirroring the manipulated textual information from the at least one console system on the at least another console system [e.g. the second display may display the telestration with the mirrored annotations 1014 so the telestration application facilitates real-time collaboration with others during the surgical procedure, 0103].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Takahashi’s method with the features of
receiving touch user input on the at least one console system;
manipulating textual information displayed on the at least one console system in response to the touch user input; and
mirroring the manipulated textual information from the at least one console system on the at least another console system
in the same conventional manner as taught by Johnson because Johnson provides graphical user interfaces for robotic surgical systems that enables effective operation of robotic surgical systems [0004-0005].
In regards to claim 22, Takahashi teaches the method of claim 21, wherein communicatively coupling the plurality of console systems with each other comprises at least one of wirelessly communicating the plurality of console systems with each other [e.g. bilaterally communicating with the plurality of three-dimensional digital magnifying glasses using a communication satellite, 0066, also see 0022].
In regards to claim 23, Takahashi teaches the method of claim 21, wherein interactively sharing the information further comprises:
manipulating the information displayed on the at least one console system [e.g. manipulating the instrument within the visual field image displayed on the three-dimensional digital magnifying glass, 0042];
transmitting the manipulated information from the at least one console system to the at least another console system [e.g. transmitting the manipulations from the instructor’s three-dimensional digital magnifying glass to the medical practitioner’s three-dimensional digital magnifying glass, 0042, also see 0022, 0046]; and
displaying the manipulated information on the at least another console system [e.g. displaying the manipulations on the medical practitioner’s three-dimensional digital magnifying glass, 0042, also see 0022, 0046].
In regards to claim 24, Takahashi teaches the method of claim 23, wherein manipulating the information displayed on the at least one console system comprises prompting a user to manipulate the information displayed on the at least one console system via a graphical user interface of the at least one console system [e.g. The instructor gives visual instructions to the medical practitioner as a virtual three-dimensional instruction mark in order to manipulate the instrument displayed on the medical practitioner’s three-dimensional digital magnifying glass using an assistance and training/educational program, 0016, 0041-0042].
In regards to claim 25, Takahashi teaches the method of claim 23, wherein interactively sharing the information further comprises displaying the manipulated information on the at least one console system [e.g. displaying the shared medical practitioner's images among a plurality of instructors so that medical specialists may give an appropriate advice by including captions, 0045].
In regards to claim 27, Takahashi teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the information comprises at least one of an image stream [e.g. the three-dimensional image information, 0019].
In regards to claim 28, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 21, but in the form of a system comprising: a control circuit configured to perform the method of claim 21. Furthermore, Takahashi teaches a system [Fig. 3; e.g. system, 0016] comprising: a control circuit [e.g. integrated circuit having decoding functions, 0023] configured to perform the method of claim 21. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 21 is applied.
In regards to claims 29-32, 34, the claims recite similar limitations as claims 22-25, 27, respectively. Therefore, the claims 29-32, 34 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 22-25, 27, respectively.
In regards to claim 35, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 21, but in the form of a computer program product comprising: computer-executable instructions configured to be executed to cause a control circuit configured to perform the method of claim 21. Furthermore, Takahashi teaches a computer program product [e.g. assistance and training/educational program, 0016] comprising: computer-executable instructions [e.g. software, 0023] configured to be executed to cause a control circuit [e.g. integrated circuit having decoding functions, 0023] configured to perform the method of claim 21. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 21 is applied.
In regards to claims 36-39, 41, the claims recite similar limitations as claims 22-25, 27, respectively. Therefore, the claims 36-39, 41 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 22-25, 27, respectively.
Claim(s) 26, 33 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (U.S. Patent Application 20070184422) in view of Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20190183591) as applied to claims 21, 28, 35 above, and further in view of Geri et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20190080515).
In regards to claim 26, Takahashi as modified by Johnson does not explicitly teach the method of claim 21, wherein at least one of the at least one console system and the at least another console system comprises a touchscreen.
However, Geri teaches the method of claim 21, wherein at least one of the at least one console system [e.g. mobile cart mounted SNAP system, 0067, 0073] comprises a touchscreen [e.g. touchscreen monitor, 0067, 0073].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Takahashi’s method and the teachings of Johnson with the features of wherein at least one of the at least one console system comprises a touchscreen in the same conventional manner as taught by Geri because touchscreens are well known and commonly used in medical systems.
In regards to claim 33, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 26. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 26 is applied.
In regards to claim 40, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 26. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 26 is applied.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5764. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 11:00AM to 7:00PM EST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/ANDREW SHIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights