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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment After Non-Final Rejection filed 05/22/2026. Claims 1-12, 14-17 and 19-22 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the claimed chart does not include tabs) are not recited in the rejected claim. 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 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that Shelton (US 2018/0168622) does not disclose “identifying a plurality of usages of a surgical instrument used during the surgical procedure based on an amount of electrical energy supplied to the surgical instrument”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Shelton explicitly discloses a Hall effect sensor 4631 measuring the amount of current drawn by motor 4514 to determine usages of the instrument 4500 ([0544], [0545]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 1-12 and 14 are allowable because the prior art fails to teach or suggest a system comprising: a memory device; and one or more processors coupled with the memory device, the one or more processors configured to: determine, autonomously, one or more phases in a surgical procedure based on a video stream of the surgical procedure; identify one or more usages of a surgical instrument used during the surgical procedure; and display a chart of the one or more usages, wherein the chart divides the one or more usages according to the one or more phases respectively, and a representation of each of the one or more usages indicates a duration of each usage, wherein the representation depicts a comparison of usages performed by a first user and a second user, as recited in the claims.
The closest prior art, Wolf et al. (US 2020/0237452), discloses determining phases in a surgical procedure based on a video stream, identifying surgical instrument usages and displaying a chart of the usages during each phase. However, Wolf et al. does not disclose the chart depicts a comparison of usages between first and second users as claimed. Wolf et al. either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render the above limitations obvious.
Claims 17, 21 and 22 are allowable because the prior art fails to teach or suggest a computer program product comprising a memory device with computer-readable instructions stored thereon, wherein executing the computer-readable instructions by one or more processing units causes the one or more processing units to perform a method comprising: determining, autonomously, a stapling being performed in a surgical procedure based on a video stream of the surgical procedure; identifying one or more usages of a surgical stapler used during the surgical procedure based on energy supplied to the surgical stapler; and displaying a chart of the one or more usages of the surgical stapler, wherein a user-interaction with a representation of each of the one or more usages causes a corresponding portion of the video stream with the use of the surgical stapler to be played back, wherein the chart displays an amount of energy used during each of the one or more usages of the surgical stapler, as recited in the claims.
The closest prior art, Wolf et al. (US 2020/0237452), discloses determining phases in a surgical procedure based on a video stream, identifying surgical instrument usages and displaying a chart of the usages during each phase. However, Wolf et al. does not disclose the chart depicts an amount of energy used during each usage of a surgical stapler users as claimed. Wolf et al. either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render the above limitations obvious.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
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.
Claims 15, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. (US 2020/0237452), in view of Wolf, in view of Shelton, IV et al. (US 2018/0168622), herein Shelton, in view of Hares et al. (US 2020/0110936), herein Hares.
Consider claim 15, Wolf clearly teaches a method comprising:
determining, autonomously, one or more phases in a surgical procedure based on a video stream of the surgical procedure; (Figs. 6, 8A: Surgical video footage is analyzed to determine phases of the surgical procedure, [0115]-[0117], [0153]-[0158], [0167], [0188].)
identifying a plurality of usages of a surgical instrument used during the surgical procedure; (Characteristic events, including usage of tools, are identified during the phases, [0097], [0195], [0199], [0202], [0267]-[0269], [0353], [0354], [0524], [0696].) and
displaying a chart of the plurality of usages. (Fig. 23: Report 2301 includes phases 2316, events 2320 occurring during each phase, and the starting time 2321A and ending time 2321B of the events, [0413].)
Wolf further teaches the system includes electrical voltage and current sensors ([0093]). However, Wolf does not explicitly teach identifying a plurality of usages of a surgical instrument used during the surgical procedure based on an amount of electrical energy supplied to the surgical instrument.
In an analogous art, Shelton, which discloses a surgical system, clearly teaches identifying a plurality of usages of a surgical instrument used during the surgical procedure based on an amount of electrical energy supplied to the surgical instrument. (Fig. 84A: Usages of the surgical cutting and stapling instrument 4500 are detected based on sensor 4631 indicating that current is being drawn by motor 4514, [0544], [0545].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wolf by identifying a plurality of usages of a surgical instrument used during the surgical procedure based on an amount of electrical energy supplied to the surgical instrument, as taught by Shelton, for the benefit of determining that the tool is properly functioning.
Wolf further teaches the report includes event-related footage 2326 ([0413]). However, Wolf combined with Shelton does not explicitly teach detecting a user-interaction with a representation of each of the plurality of causes a corresponding portion of the video stream to be played back.
In an analogous art, Hares, which discloses a surgical system, clearly teaches detecting a user-interaction with a representation of each of the plurality of causes a corresponding portion of the video stream to be played back. (Fig. 11: Video for the detected events is played in response to user selection of a bookmark, [0137], [0138].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wolf combined with Shelton by detecting a user-interaction with a representation of each of the plurality of causes a corresponding portion of the video stream to be played back, as taught by Hares, for the benefit of allowing the user to easily view desired events.
Consider claim 16, Wolf combined with Shelton and Hares clearly teaches the chart groups the one or more usages according to the one or more phases respectively. (Fig. 23: Report 2301 includes phases 2316 and corresponding events 2320 occurring during each phase, [0413] Wolf.)
Consider claim 19, Wolf combined with Shelton and Hares clearly teaches analyzing the video stream of the surgical procedure by a first device to determine and output the one or more phases in the surgical procedure; (Figs. 6, 8A: Surgical video footage is analyzed to determine phases of the surgical procedure, [0115]-[0117], [0153]-[0158], [0167], [0188] Wolf.) and identifying the plurality of usages of the surgical instrument by a second device based on electrical energy applied to the surgical instrument. (Fig. 84A: Usages of the surgical cutting and stapling instrument 4500 are detected based on sensor 4631 indicating that current is being drawn by motor 4514, [0544], [0545] Shelton.)
Consider claim 20, Wolf combined with Shelton and Hares clearly teaches displaying a list of the one or more phases in the surgical procedure, wherein an entry corresponding to a first phase from the one or more phases includes a user-interface element comprising a timeline depicting the plurality of usages performed for the first phase. (Fig. 23: A timeline of events 2315 is included in report 2301, [0107], [0413] Wolf.)
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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 JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights