DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 08/22/2024. Claims 1-30 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 11, and 21 are independent claims.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretations/Examiner’s Notes
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. Further, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow (see In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Also, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). The following is provided to aid the reader in understanding how at least some claim elements (also commonly referred to as claim limitations), as a whole, have been considered in the rejections below:
“in response to” [e.g. lines 13-14 of claim 1] = Even though the prior art rejection included below does not depend on the following technicality, it is nonetheless respectfully noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Therefore, as currently claimed, functionalities that currently depend on the “in response to” condition being true may not be narrowing the claims to the extent it may have been intended since, for purposes of prior art analysis, any prior art scenario showing at least one mappable instance wherein the contingency/triggering condition is not met/true (i.e. a scenario wherein “the surgical device” is not communicatively coupled to the second external device) would suffice to anticipate or teach these aspects. See “Contingent Limitations” in MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II and/or MPEP § 2143.03.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
Line 6 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a GUI layout database” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in lines 1-2 of the same claim).
Lines 6-7 recite “the external device” where “the first external device” was apparently intended.
Line 8 improperly reintroduces the limitation “GUI layout information” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 3 of the same claim).
Line 14 recites “the surgical device,” which lacks proper antecedent basis (it does not accurately represent its apparent closest antecedent basis, the “one or more surgical devices” in line 4).
Line 15 recites “the GUI is rendered” where “the one or more GUIs [[is]]are rendered” was apparently intended.
Claim 3:
Line 3 recites “a surgical device,” which conflicts with and/or introduces even further uncertainty with the “the surgical device” issue of parent claim 1.
Claim 10:
Line 2 recites “one or more surgical device,” which:
Would have more accurately been referred to as “one or more surgical devices”, and
Was an improperly reintroduced limitation (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 4 of parent claim 1)
Claim 11:
Line 10 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a GUI layout database” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in lines 1-2 of the same claim).
Lines 10-11 recite “the external device” where “the first external device” was apparently intended.
Line 12 improperly reintroduces the limitation “GUI layout information” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 7 of the same claim).
Line 18 recites “the surgical device,” which lacks proper antecedent basis (it does not accurately represent its apparent closest antecedent basis, the “one or more surgical devices” in line 8).
Line 19 recites “the GUI is rendered” where “the one or more GUIs [[is]]are rendered” was apparently intended.
Claim 13:
Line 3 recites “a surgical device,” which conflicts with and/or introduces even further uncertainty with the “the surgical device” issue of parent claim 11.
Claim 20:
Line 2 recites “one or more surgical device,” which:
Would have more accurately been referred to as “one or more surgical devices”, and
Was an improperly reintroduced limitation (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 8 of parent claim 11)
Claim 21:
Line 8 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a GUI layout database” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 2 of the same claim).
Lines 8-9 recite “the external device” where “the first external device” was apparently intended.
Line 10 improperly reintroduces the limitation “GUI layout information” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 5 of the same claim).
Line 16 recites “the surgical device,” which lacks proper antecedent basis (it does not accurately represent its apparent closest antecedent basis, the “one or more surgical devices” in line 6).
Line 17 recites “the GUI is rendered” where “the one or more GUIs [[is]]are rendered” was apparently intended.
Claim 23:
Line 3 recites “a surgical device,” which conflicts with and/or introduces even further uncertainty with the “the surgical device” issue of parent claim 21.
Claim 30:
Lines 2-3 recite “one or more surgical device,” which:
Would have more accurately been referred to as “one or more surgical devices”, and
Was an improperly reintroduced limitation (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 6 of parent claim 21)
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-14, 16, 17, 19-24, 26, 27, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Pub. No. 2003/0141987 (hereinafter “Hayes”) in view of US Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0206560 (hereinafter “Hanajima”).
As to independent claims 1, 11, and 21, Hayes shows a method [¶ 02], a system [¶ 02], and a concomitant non-transitory computer readable storage medium [¶ 26] for operating and maintaining a graphical user interface (GUI) layout database [¶ 80], comprising:
receiving GUI layout information from a first external device, wherein the GUI layout information comprises identification data that identifies one or more [GUI layout information comprising identification data that identifies one or more devices associated with the GUI layout information may be received from a first external device (¶¶ 48, 80-85, & 93)];
updating a GUI layout database with the received GUI layout information from the external device [the received GUI layout information may be used to update a GUI layout database (¶¶ 76 & 91)];
receiving a request for GUI layout information from a second external device, wherein the received request includes [a second external device/universal remote control may request GUI layout information via device identifying information, which is matched one or more entries in the GUI layout database to be transmitted to the second external device/universal remote control (¶¶ 04, 30, 48, 55, 79-85, & 104)],
wherein the second external device is configured to render one or more GUIs in response to determining that it is communicatively coupled to the [the second external device is configured to render one or more GUIs in response to determining that it is communicatively coupled to the device, wherein the one or more GUIs are rendered based on the transmitted one or more matching entries in the GUI layout database (¶¶ 25, 79-85, 92, 97, & 104)].
Hayes does not appear to explicitly recite its universal devices/layouts being applied to a “surgical device” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Hanajima shows analogous identification data and corresponding GUI layout teachings in the field of use of one or more surgical devices (Hanajima: ¶¶ 121, 215, 232, 558, 563, & 591).
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hayes and Hanajima before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to apply Hayes’ application-agnostic device layout functionalities to surgical devices as taught by Hanajima. The rationale for doing so would have been that Hayes already intended to apply its “universal” GUI/layout teachings to “various types of devices” (Hayes: ¶ 03), and doing so for surgical devices specifically would have merely amounted to applying these universally-applicable teachings to a particular field of use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hayes and Hanajima (hereinafter, the “Hayes-Hanajima” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claims 1, 11, and 21.
As to dependent claims 2, 12, and 22, Hayes-Hanajima further shows:
wherein the GUI layout information is received from the first external device over a network interface [the GUI layout information is received from the first external device over a network interface (Hayes: fig. 21; ¶¶ 04, 20-22, & 76-82 | Hanajima: figs. 26 & 41; ¶¶ 122-123 & 203-208)].
As to dependent claims 3, 13, and 23, Hayes-Hanajima further shows:
wherein the GUI layout information comprises information associated with one or more graphical features configured to accept input from a user of a surgical device associated with the GUI layout information [the GUI layout information comprises information associated with one or more graphical features configured to accept input from a user of a surgical device associated with the GUI layout information (Hayes: ¶ 76 | Hanajima: ¶¶ 128 & 274)].
As to dependent claims 4, 14, and 24, Hayes-Hanajima further shows:
wherein the GUI layout information includes a layout file [the GUI layout information includes a layout file (Hayes: ¶¶ 80, 85, 91-94, & 104 | Hanajima: ¶¶ 215, 558, 563, & 591)].
As to dependent claims 6, 16, and 26, Hayes-Hanajima further shows:
wherein the layout file is implemented using Extensible Markup Language (XML) format [the layout file is implemented using Extensible Markup Language (XML) format (Hayes: ¶ 85)].
As to dependent claims 7, 17, and 27, Hayes-Hanajima further shows:
wherein the GUI layout information includes a library file [the GUI layout information includes a library file (Hayes: ¶¶ 30, 84, 91, 99 & 103-104)].
As to dependent claims 9, 19, and 29, Hayes-Hanajima further shows:
wherein the library file is implemented using a statically linked library [the library file is implemented using a statically linked library (Hayes: ¶¶ 30, 84, 91, 99 & 103-104)].
As to dependent claims 10, 20, and 30, Hayes-Hanajima further shows:
wherein the second external device comprises a controller configured to control and coordinate one or more surgical device used during a surgical procedure [the second external device comprises a controller configured to control and coordinate one or more surgical device used during a surgical procedure (Hayes: ¶¶ 04, 26, 73-76, & 104 | Hanajima: ¶¶ 121, 126-127, & 201-202].
Claims 5, 15, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes-Hanajima in further view of US Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0208381 (hereinafter “Hirakawa”).
As to dependent claims 5, 15, and 25, Hayes-Hanajima further shows many alternatives of implementing a layout file, including one based on XML (Hayes: ¶ 85). Nonetheless, Hayes-Hanajima does not appear to explicitly recite “wherein the layout file is implemented using JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Hirakawa shows:
wherein the layout file is implemented using JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format [Hirakawa shows the operability to a layout file “in another format such as JavaScript (registered trademark) object notation (JSON) instead of XML” (Hirakawa: ¶ 56)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hayes, Hanajima and Hirakawa before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Hirakawa’s JSON teachings into the Hayes-Hanajima combination. Doing so would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (implementing a layout file in any other format, including an XML-based file) for another (a functionally equivalent JSON file) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additionally/alternatively, doing so would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” 1 Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hayes, Hanajima and Hirakawa in order to obtain the invention as recited in claims 5, 15, and 25.
Claims 8, 18, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes-Hanajima in further view of US Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0122057 (hereinafter “Maloney”).
As to dependent claims 8, 18, and 28, Hayes-Hanajima further shows many alternatives of implementing a library file (Hayes: ¶¶ 30, 84, 91, 99 & 103-104). Nonetheless, Hayes-Hanajima does not appear to explicitly recite “wherein the library file is implemented using a Dynamic-link library (DLL)” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Maloney shows:
wherein the library file is implemented using a Dynamic-link library (DLL) [Maloney shows how an analogous library file may be implemented using a Dynamic-link library/DLL (Maloney: ¶¶ 34, 41, & 80).].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hayes, Hanajima and Maloney before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Maloney’s DLL teachings into the Hayes-Hanajima combination. Doing so would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (implementing a library file in any other format) for another (a DLL format) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additionally/alternatively, doing so would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” 2 Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hayes, Hanajima and Hirakawa in order to obtain the invention as recited in claims 8, 18, and 28.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Inventor
Document ID
Relevance
KUDO; Yuya et al.
US 20160092637 A1
“receiving GUI layout information from a first external device, wherein the GUI layout information comprises identification data that identifies one or more surgical devices associated with the GUI layout information”
Mukasa; Shinya et al.
US 20190274640 A1
“receiving GUI layout information from a first external device, wherein the GUI layout information comprises identification data that identifies one or more surgical devices associated with the GUI layout information”
Katsushima; Kazuhiko
US 20100157155 A1
“receiving GUI layout information from a first external device, wherein the GUI layout information comprises identification data that identifies one or more surgical devices associated with the GUI layout information”
Dominick; Lutz et al.
US 20120215838 A1
“receiving GUI layout information from a first external device, wherein the GUI layout information comprises identification data that identifies one or more surgical devices associated with the GUI layout information”
Sako, Tsukasa
US 20040109008 A1
“receiving GUI layout information from a first external device, wherein the GUI layout information comprises identification data that identifies one or more surgical devices associated with the GUI layout information”
Shelton, IV; Frederick E. et al.
US 20220104814 A1
“receiving GUI layout information from a first external device, wherein the GUI layout information comprises identification data that identifies one or more surgical devices associated with the GUI layout information”
NAKANO; Takahito et al.
US 20200279644 A1
“receiving GUI layout information from a first external device, wherein the GUI layout information comprises identification data that identifies one or more surgical devices associated with the GUI layout information”
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571) 272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 5pm).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R CALDERON IV/
Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.—, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
2 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.—, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Prosecution Insights