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 Application No. 18/833,570 filed 07/26/2024. Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/26/2024 was considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolf et al. (US 2020/0237452), herein Wolf.
Consider claim 1, Wolf clearly teaches a system comprising:
a memory device; and one or more processors coupled with the memory device, ([0187]) 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; (Figs. 6, 8A: Surgical video footage is analyzed to determine phases of the surgical procedure, [0115]-[0117], [0153]-[0158], [0167], [0188].)
identify one or more 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
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. (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].)
Consider claim 4, Wolf clearly teaches the video stream of the surgical procedure captured by an endoscopic camera from inside a body of a subject of the surgical procedure. (The video footage is captured by an endoscope from inside the body of the patient, [0152], [0298].)
Consider claim 6, Wolf clearly teaches a type of the one or more usages is selected from a group consisting of energy activation, reloading, firing, incision, clamping, dividing, and stapling. ([0267], [0353])
Consider claim 8, Wolf clearly teaches the one or more processors are further configured to playback the video stream of the surgical procedure, and wherein a user-interface element displays a timeline depicting one or more timepoints in the video stream at which the one or more usages are performed. (Fig. 4: Video playback region 410 is displayed with timeline 420 including event markers 432, 434, 436, [0109]-[0114].)
Consider claim 9, Wolf clearly teaches the one or more timepoints are rendered based on a type of the one or more usages respectively. (Markers 432, 434, 436 include an icon indicating the type of marker, [0112], [0118].)
Consider claim 10, Wolf clearly teaches audio data corresponding to the one or more usages is generated artificially during the playback of the video stream. (Playback of the video includes reproducing sounds, [0111].)
Consider claim 11, Wolf clearly teaches the one or more processors are further configured to: display 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 one or more usages performed for the first phase. (Fig. 23: A timeline of events 2315 is included in report 2301, [0107], [0413].)
Consider claim 12, Wolf clearly teaches the representation of each of the one or more usages indicates a user that performed the usage. (Fig. 23: Healthcare provider name 2314, [0141], [0177], [0322], [0413])
Consider claim 14, Wolf clearly teaches the representation of each of the one or more usages indicates an anatomical attribute of the subject of the surgical procedure, the anatomical attribute comprising a body mass index, a tissue thickness, and a gender. (Patient characteristics include BMI and gender, [0180])
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 2020/0237452) in view of Shelton, IV et al. (US 2018/0168622), herein Shelton.
Consider claim 2, Wolf clearly teaches the video stream of the surgical procedure is analyzed 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 further teaches the system includes electrical voltage and current sensors ([0093]). However, Wolf does not explicitly teach the one or more usages of the surgical instrument are identified by a second device based on electrical energy applied to the surgical instrument.
In an analogous art, Shelton, which discloses a surgical system, clearly teaches the one or more usages of the surgical instrument are identified by a second device based on electrical energy applied to the surgical instrument. (Fig. 84A: Usage of the surgical cutting and stapling instrument 4500 is 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 the one or more usages of the surgical instrument are identified by a second device based on electrical energy applied to the surgical instrument, as taught by Shelton, for the benefit of determining that the tool is properly functioning.
Consider claim 3, Wolf combined with Shelton clearly teaches the one or more usages are identified based on an amount of electrical energy provided to the surgical instrument. (Fig. 84A: Usage of the surgical cutting and stapling instrument 4500 is detected based on sensor 4631 indicating that current is being drawn by motor 4514, [0544], [0545] Shelton.)
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 2020/0237452) in view of Hares et al. (US 2020/0110936), herein Hares.
Consider claim 5, Wolf clearly teaches the representation of each of the one or more usages.
However, Wolf does not explicitly teach a visual attribute of the representation of each of the one or more usages is based on a type of the one or more usages.
In an analogous art, Hares, which discloses a surgical system, clearly teaches a visual attribute of the representation of each of the one or more usages is based on a type of the one or more usages. (Fig. 11: Bookmarks are presented in groups based on the type of event, [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 by a visual attribute of the representation of each of the one or more usages is based on a type of the one or more usages, as taught by Hares, for the benefit of enabling the user to easily access events of a desired type.
Consider claim 7, Wolf clearly teaches the chart is user-interactive. ([0414])
Wolf further teaches the report includes event-related footage 2326 ([0413]). However, Wolf does not explicitly teach an interaction with a first representation corresponding to a first usage displays a video segment of the surgical procedure comprising the first usage being performed.
In an analogous art, Hares, which discloses a surgical system, clearly teaches an interaction with a first representation corresponding to a first usage displays a video segment of the surgical procedure comprising the first usage being performed. (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 by an interaction with a first representation corresponding to a first usage displays a video segment of the surgical procedure comprising the first usage being performed, as taught by Hares, for the benefit of allowing the user to easily view desired events.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf. (US 2020/0237452) in view of Shelton (US 2018/0168622) in view of Hares (US 2020/0110936).
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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more usages of a surgical instrument used during the surgical procedure based on energy supplied to the surgical instrument.
In an analogous art, Shelton, which discloses a surgical system, clearly teaches identifying one or more usages of a surgical instrument used during the surgical procedure based on energy supplied to the surgical instrument. (Fig. 84A: Usage of the surgical cutting and stapling instrument 4500 is 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 one or more usages of a surgical instrument used during the surgical procedure based on 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 a user-interaction with a representation of each of the one or more usages causes a corresponding portion of the video stream to be played back.
In an analogous art, Hares, which discloses a surgical system, clearly teaches a user-interaction with a representation of each of the one or more usages 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 a user-interaction with a representation of each of the one or more usages 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 17, Wolf clearly teaches 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 ([0187]) comprising:
determining, autonomously, a stapling being performed 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 one or more usages of a surgical stapler 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 one or more usages of the surgical stapler. (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 one or more usages of a surgical stapler used during the surgical procedure based on energy supplied to the surgical stapler.
In an analogous art, Shelton, which discloses a surgical system, clearly teaches identifying one or more usages of a surgical stapler used during the surgical procedure based on energy supplied to the surgical stapler. (Fig. 84A: Usage of the surgical cutting and stapling instrument 4500 is 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 one or more usages of a surgical stapler used during the surgical procedure based on energy supplied to the surgical stapler, 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 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.
In an analogous art, Hares, which discloses a surgical system, clearly teaches 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. (Fig. 11: Video for the detected events is played in response to user selection of a bookmark, [0096], [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 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, as taught by Hares, for the benefit of allowing the user to easily view desired events.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
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