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 .
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.
Claims 35-41 recite a program per se or depend on a rejected base claim and therefore do not qualify as a statutory subject matter according to MPEP.
“Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory.
Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical "things." They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized.” (MPEP 2106)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 38-41 are rejected 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.
Claims 38-41 recites “The method” in line 1. However, the claims are dependent on at least claim 35 which is a “computer program product”. Therefore, the Examiner suggests amending the limitation to read as “The computer program product” instead of “The method”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 21-25, 27-32, 34-39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (U.S. Patent Application 20070184422).
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].
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 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) 26, 33 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (U.S. Patent Application 20070184422) 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 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 Takahashi’s method 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
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