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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for priority to the following application(s):
* 63602040 filed 11/22/2023
* 63602028 filed 11/22/2023
* 63601998 filed 11/22/2023
* 63602003 filed 11/22/2023
* 63602006 filed 11/22/2023
* 63602011 filed 11/22/2023
* 63602013 filed 11/22/2023
* 63602037 filed 11/22/2023
* 63602007 filed 11/22/2023
* 63603031 filed 11/27/2023
* 63603033 filed 11/27/2023
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18954195 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claims 1-14 are anticipated by reference claims 1-17.
All limitations of application claims 1-14 may be found in reference claims 1-17, with the exception that reference claims 1-17 recite additional limitations not found in application claims 1-14. Therefore reference claims 1-17 are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claims 1-14. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for controlling multi-system interaction, comprising:
receiving a data stream;
selecting a surgical option associated with a surgical instrument based on the data stream;
generating a control signal associated with the surgical instrument based on the selected surgical option.
Step 1:
The claim as a whole falls within at least one statutory category, i.e. a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong One:
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Mental processes”.
The steps of selecting and generating may be performed, without any hardware, in the human mind either mentally or with pen and paper.
Accordingly, these limitations have been found to be directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The different categories of abstract ideas are being considered together as one single abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(II)(B)
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim(s) 2-14 reciting limitations further defining the abstract idea, which may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components, and/or may be a method of managing relationship or interactions between people).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s), if any:
receiving a data stream.
The additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se.
The step of receiving data merely add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated). MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which amount to limitation(s) consistent with the additional element(s) in the independent claims (such as claim(s) 2 reciting generating a visual indication (i.e. displaying data), additional limitation(s) which add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to post-solution display, claim(s) 3-14 reciting generating control signals, additional limitation(s) which amount(s) to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea; these claims also recite transmitting/receiving data in a manner similar to limitation(s) addressed with respect to parent claim 1, and incorporated herein, additional limitation(s) which add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The additional elements, as discussed above and incorporated herein, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking to a particular technological environment using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Receiving the step receiving data, this limitation amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity in particular fields (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claim(s) 2 reciting generating a visual indication (i.e. displaying data); Esterberg (20220168059) discloses that a video display is WURC (page 11 paragraph 0148), and also receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii))
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Esterberg.
Claim 1: Esterberg discloses:
A method (Abstract illustrating a method) for controlling multi-system interaction (Figure 1A illustrating controlling data communications for a plurality of systems 114, 116, 118, 120), comprising:
receiving a data stream (Figure 1A label 102 illustrating receiving a plurality of data in real time from the plurality of systems [considered to be a form of “stream”]);
selecting a surgical option associated with a surgical instrument based on the data stream (Figure 2A illustrating providing surgical tool guidance based on the data received by the processor);
generating a control signal associated with the surgical instrument based on the selected surgical option (page 5 paragraph 0065 illustrating controlling a surgical robot).
Claim 2: Esterberg discloses:
The method of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Esterberg further discloses:
wherein the data stream is an external data stream from a source external to a surgical system (page 1 paragraph 0007 illustrating that any component may be considered an “external” component), and the method further comprises:
deriving, based at least on the external data stream, decision contextual information, wherein the surgical option associated with the surgical instrument is selected based on the decision context information (page 7 paragraph 0089 illustrating retrieving the patient’s data for clinical decision support); and
generating a visual indication of the decision context information associated with selecting the surgical option (page 7 paragraph 0089 illustrating generating display of the patient’s intended surgical plan).
Claim 3: Esterberg discloses:
The method of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Esterberg further discloses:
wherein the surgical instrument is a first surgical instrument, and the method further comprises:
receiving an indication of a surgical procedure that involves the first surgical instrument cooperating with a second surgical instrument, wherein the surgical procedure comprises a plurality of surgical steps (page 4 paragraph 0059 illustrating a surgical procedure comprising a plurality of steps of actions taken during the recommended surgery);
determining a first candidate action and a second candidate action associated with the first surgical instrument, wherein the first candidate action and the second candidate action allow the first surgical instrument to complete a first step of the plurality of the surgical steps (page 5 paragraph 0075 illustrating selecting a plurality of surgical procedures with high success rates);
determining a first effect, caused by the first candidate action, on the second surgical instrument’s ability to perform a second step of the plurality of surgical steps (page 9 paragraph 0118 illustrating determining the outcomes of all the procedures with the highest success rates);
determining a second effect, caused by the second candidate action, on the second surgical instrument’s ability to perform the second step of the plurality of surgical steps (page 9 paragraph 0118 illustrating determining the outcomes of all the procedures with the highest success rates); and
selecting, based on the first effect and the second effect, an action, from the first candidate action and the second candidate action, for the first surgical instrument to perform, wherein the control signal associated with the first surgical instrument is configured to indicate the selected action (page 9 paragraph 0118 illustrating the physician selecting the procedure fitting the desired outcome and risk profile for the patient, and generating a profile to control the surgical robot).
Claim 4: Esterberg discloses:
The method of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Esterberg further discloses:
wherein the surgical instrument is associated with a first robotic arm (page 7 paragraph 0092 illustrating a robotic arm), and the method further comprises:
receiving an indication of a plurality of steps of a surgical procedure, wherein one or more steps in the plurality of steps of the surgical procedure involve use of at least one of the first robotic arm attached to a first base, or a second robotic arm attached to a second base (page 7 paragraph 0092 illustrating a robotic arm);
determining a fixed position of the first base (page 5 paragraph 0066 illustrating determining the position of the robotic system);
determining, based on the plurality of steps of the surgical procedure and the fixed position of the first base, that a first candidate position of the second base is associated with a first number of interactions in which the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm will co-occupy space during the surgical procedure (page 8 paragraph 0104 illustrating determining a plurality of positions of the robot and associated surgical tools);
determining, based on the plurality of steps of the surgical procedure and the fixed position of the first base, that a second candidate position of the second base is associated with a second number of interactions in which the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm will co-occupy space during the surgical procedure (page 8 paragraph 0104 illustrating determining a plurality of positions of the robot and associated surgical tools);
selecting a candidate position for the second base, from the first candidate position and the second candidate position, based on the first number of interactions and the second number of interactions (page 8 paragraph 0104 illustrating determining a plurality of positions of the robot and associated surgical tools); and
generating a control signal configured to indicate the selected candidate position for the second base (page 8 paragraph 0104 illustrating controlling the robotic arm with respect to the position of the robotic arm and surgical arm).
Claim(s) 5 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 4 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
Claim 6: Esterberg discloses:
The method of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Esterberg further discloses:
wherein the surgical instrument comprises a surgical device, the data stream is a first data stream, and the method further comprises:
receiving a first biomarker value associated with a first biomarker in the first data stream and a second biomarker value associated a second biomarker in a second data stream (page 5 paragraph 0070-0071 illustrating tracking a vital artery and muscle [considered to be forms of “biomarkers”]);
determining, based on the first biomarker value and the second biomarker value, that a close-loop control condition associated with a control parameter for the surgical device is satisfied (page 11 paragraph 0148 illustrating a feedback loop control for the surgical robot);
based on determining that the close-loop control condition is satisfied, determining a control parameter value associated with the surgical device based on the first biomarker value and the second biomarker value (page 5 paragraph 0070-0071 illustrating a threshold value for approaching the surgical tool to the organ of interest);
generating a control signal for the surgical device based on the determined control parameter value ((page 5 paragraph 0070-0071 illustrating generating a haptic feedback when the tool approaches the threshold relative to the organ of interest);
receiving a third biomarker value associated with the first biomarker in the first data stream and a fourth biomarker value associated with the second biomarker in the second data stream (page 5 paragraph 0070-0071 illustrating additional types of organs may be monitored);
determining, based on the third biomarker value and the fourth biomarker value, that the close-loop control condition associated with the control parameter for the surgical device is failed (page 5 paragraph 0070-0071 illustrating breaching the threshold distance to the organ);
based on determining that the close-loop control condition is failed, identifying an intraoperative metric associated with the first data stream and the second data stream (page 5 paragraph 0070-0071 illustrating determining which organ threshold has been breached); and
generating a second control signal configured to display a value associated with the intraoperative metric ((page 5 paragraph 0070-0071 illustrating generating a haptic feedback and subsequent “hard” stop to the surgical tool to prevent damage to the patient’s critical organ).
Claim 7: Esterberg discloses:
The method of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Esterberg further discloses:
wherein control signal is associated with optimizing a selection of a control loop for surgical elements during a medical procedure to achieve safe and reliable outcomes for patients (page 4 paragraph 0063 illustrating monitoring the position of a surgical tool and a vital organ to provide haptic and hard barrier to prevent injury of a patient when the surgical tool is operated), and the method further comprises:
receiving a user input indicating a selection of a procedure from a plurality of procedures, and a selection of a tactical domain target, wherein the procedure and the tactical domain target are associated with a parameter of a patient (page 4 paragraph 0063 illustrating selecting a region of the patient to generate a surgical procedure);
filtering, based on the selection of the procedure, a plurality of surgical elements to obtain a primary surgical element and a secondary surgical element associated with the procedure, wherein the primary surgical element comprises a plurality of primary control loops associated with an output characteristic of the primary surgical element, and the secondary surgical element comprises a plurality of secondary control loops associated with an output characteristic of the secondary surgical element (page 4 paragraph 0063 illustrating retrieving a plurality of surgical procedures for the patient’s selected organ);
determining a tactical domain data for the procedure, wherein the tactical domain data comprises one or more relationships associated with the primary surgical element, the secondary surgical element, the parameter of the patient, and the tactical domain target (page 4 paragraph 0063 illustrating identifying levels of cautiousness based on the selected tissue area);
receiving a primary control data from the primary surgical element based on a primary control loop from the plurality of primary control loops, wherein the primary control data comprises the output characteristic associated with the primary surgical element (page 4 paragraph 0063 illustrating retrieving a plurality of surgical procedures for the patient’s selected organ);
receiving a secondary control data from the secondary surgical element based on a secondary control loop from the plurality of secondary control loops, wherein the secondary control data comprises the output characteristic associated with the secondary surgical element; (page 4 paragraph 0063 illustrating retrieving a plurality of surgical procedures for the patient’s selected organ)
generating a recommendation based on the tactical domain data, the primary control data, and the secondary control data, wherein the recommendation comprises an indication of an optimized control loop for the primary surgical element during the procedure, wherein the optimized control loop adjusts the output characteristic associated with the primary surgical element to achieve the tactical domain target (page 4 paragraph 0063 illustrating suggesting a threshold tolerance and allowing the physician to set their own threshold tolerances);
sending the recommendation to the primary surgical element (as discussed above and incorporated herein); and
causing the primary surgical element to adjust the output characteristic associated with the primary surgical element based on the optimized control loop, wherein the primary surgical element adjusts the output characteristic during the procedure to achieve the tactical domain target (page 4 paragraph 0063 illustrating monitoring the position of a surgical tool and a vital organ to provide haptic and hard barrier to prevent injury of a patient when the surgical tool is operated).
Claim 8: Esterberg discloses:
The method of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Esterberg further discloses:
wherein control signal is associated with optimizing a selection of a control loop for surgical elements during a medical procedure to achieve safe and reliable outcomes for patients (page 4 paragraph 0063 illustrating monitoring the position of a surgical tool and a vital organ to provide haptic and hard barrier to prevent injury of a patient when the surgical tool is operated), and the method further comprises:
receiving a first dataflow from a first surgical element, wherein the first dataflow is associated with a physiological parameter of a patient (as discussed above and incorporated herein);
determining that the first dataflow from the first surgical element is erroneous (page 10 paragraph 131 illustrating determining an error);
determining a second dataflow associated with a second surgical element, wherein the determination of the second dataflow is based on an indication of a relational link associated with the second dataflow of the second surgical element, control data for the first surgical element, and the physiological parameter of the patient (page 10 paragraph 131 illustrating identifying a different surgical path or procedure to accommodate for the error in the patient’s readings);
transmitting, to the second surgical element, a configuration message, wherein the configuration message comprises an indication that the first dataflow is erroneous and a request to configure the second surgical element to send the second dataflow (page 10 paragraph 131 illustrating recommending an updated surgical procedure);
receiving, from the second surgical element, a configuration response comprising the second dataflow (page 10 paragraph 131 illustrating recommending an updated surgical procedure);
generating the control data for the first surgical element based on the second dataflow, wherein the control data indicates an adjustment to an output characteristic associated with the first surgical element (page 10 paragraph 131 illustrating recommending an updated surgical procedure); and
causing the output characteristic associated with the first surgical element to be adjusted based on the control data (page 10 paragraph 131 illustrating recommending an updated surgical procedure).
Claim(s) 9 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 8 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
In particular, Esterberg discloses determining that the tolerance threshold for the surgical tool when approaching a vital organ (page 10 paragraph 0131, for example, and considered to be a form of “safety threshold” for the patient).
Claim 10: Esterberg discloses:
The method of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Esterberg further discloses:
wherein the data stream is a first data stream associated with a measurement, the first data stream is associated with a first control loop of the surgical system (page 5 paragraph 0070 illustrating determining a tolerance threshold for an artery), and the method further comprises:
obtaining a second data stream associated with the measurement, wherein the second data stream is associated with a second control loop of the surgical system (page 5 paragraph 0071 illustrating determining a tolerance threshold for a muscle);
determining that the first control loop and the second control loop are diverging (page 5 paragraph 0070-0071 illustrating determining that each organ may be breached); and
generating a control signal based on the first and second data streams (page 5 paragraph 0070-0071 illustrating generating messages to extend the tolerance threshold and/or adjust the organ for the patient).
Claim 11: Esterberg discloses:
The method of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Esterberg further discloses:
further comprising:
obtaining an input control data stream associated with a measurement, wherein the input control data stream is associated with a control loop of the surgical system (as discussed above and incorporated herein);
determining an importance factor of a condition associated with a patient (page 8 paragraph 0107 illustrating determining a priority for the patient’s organ);
generating a response reaction based on the input control data stream and the importance factor of the condition associated with the patient (page 8 paragraph 0107 illustrating adjusting the tolerance and reaction of the system based on the priority of the patient’s organ);
determining a reaction time between an instant of the input control data stream causes a response reaction to be generated (page 8 paragraph 0105 illustrating determining a time to present data to the surgeon); and
modifying the response reaction based on the generated response reaction (page 8 paragraph 0105 illustrating adjusting the presentation time as needed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esterberg in view of Shusterman (20190159733).
Claim 12: Esterberg discloses:
The method of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Esterberg further discloses:
wherein the data stream is a first data stream (as discussed above and incorporated herein), and the method further comprises
determining a first control parameter based at least in part on the first data stream (as discussed above and incorporated herein);
Esterberg does not disclose:
Shusterman discloses:
obtaining a second data stream associated with a same measurement as the first data stream (column 28 line 8-13 illustrating a plurality of channels of ECG leads);
determining a second control parameter based at least in part on a second data stream (as discussed above with respect to Esterberg, and incorporated herein);
comparing the first control parameter and the second parameter (column 28 line 20-21 illustrating determining the same data for other channels);
selecting a data stream between the first data stream and the second data stream based on the comparing (column 28 line 20-21 illustrating selecting a channel with the best data); and
generating a control signal based on the selected data stream (column 28 line 20-21 illustrating using the channel with the best data).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the channel selection of Shusterman within the system of Esterberg with the motivation of improving patient care by maximizing the quality of patient data (Shusterman; column 4 line 12-18).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esterberg in view of Jepson (20220361778).
Claim 13: Esterberg discloses:
The method of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Esterberg further discloses:
wherein the data stream is associated with a measurement from a surgical device (page 5 paragraph 0070 illustrating determining a tolerance threshold for an artery for use when operating the surgical instrument), and the method further comprises:
generating a first control signal associated with the surgical instrument based on the data stream (page 5 paragraph 0070 illustrating determining a tolerance threshold for an artery for setting haptic and hard limits);
Esterberg does not disclose:
detecting that the data stream is invalid;
upon detecting that that the data stream is invalid, determining an approximation factor associated with the data stream; and
generating a second control signal associated with the surgical instrument based on the determined approximation factor.
Jepson discloses:
detecting that the data stream is invalid (page 6 paragraph 0046 illustrating determining that a glucose sensor is otherwise inoperable/invalid);
upon detecting that that the data stream is invalid, determining an approximation factor associated with the data stream (page 6 paragraph 0046 illustrating estimating the patient’s glucose level from available data); and
generating a second control signal associated with the surgical instrument based on the determined approximation factor (page 6 paragraph 0046 illustrating using the estimated glucose level to operate a medical device).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the data estimation of Jepson within the system of Esterberg with the motivation of improving patient care by continuing to provide patient treatment while the sensor is either malfunctioning or otherwise is not being operated properly by the patient (Jepson; column 4 line 12-18).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esterberg in view of Shelton (20220104889).
Claim 14: Esterberg discloses:
The method of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Esterberg further discloses:
wherein control signal is associated with optimizing a selection of a control loop for surgical elements during a medical procedure to achieve safe and reliable outcomes for patients (page 4 paragraph 0063 illustrating monitoring the position of a surgical tool and a vital organ to provide haptic and hard barrier to prevent injury of a patient when the surgical tool is operated), and the method further comprises:
Esterberg does not disclose:
determining that a first dataflow from a first surgical element is erroneous;
determining a second dataflow based on a relational link associated with the first surgical element and a physiological parameter of a patient;
transmitting, to a second surgical element, a configuration message including a request to configure the second surgical element to send the second dataflow;
receiving, from the second surgical element, a configuration response comprising the second dataflow; and
causing an output characteristic associated with the first surgical element to be adjusted based on control data associated with the second dataflow, wherein the control data indicates an adjustment to the output characteristic associated with the first surgical element.
Shelton discloses:
determining that a first dataflow from a first surgical element is erroneous (page 17-18 paragraph 0148 illustrating determining that a particular surgical instrument has a highest than expected error rate);
determining a second dataflow based on a relational link associated with the first surgical element and a physiological parameter of a patient (page 17-18 paragraph 0148 illustrating recommending an improved version of the surgical instrument);
transmitting, to a second surgical element, a configuration message including a request to configure the second surgical element to send the second dataflow (page 17-18 paragraph 0148 illustrating setting up the improved surgical instrument for use);
receiving, from the second surgical element, a configuration response comprising the second dataflow (page 17-18 paragraph 0148 suggesting that the improved surgical instrument be configured for use); and
causing an output characteristic associated with the first surgical element to be adjusted based on control data associated with the second dataflow, wherein the control data indicates an adjustment to the output characteristic associated with the first surgical element (page 17-18 paragraph 0148 suggesting setting up the improved surgical instrument in a manner that is consistent with Esterberg, as discussed above and incorporated herein).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the replacement recommendation of Shelton within the system of Esterberg with the motivation of improving patient care by continuing to provide patient treatment while the surgical instrument is either malfunctioning or otherwise is not providing the best care for the patient (Shelton; age 17-18 paragraph 0148).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Qian (20220218420) discloses a virtual display with patient data for use in surgery and planning therefor (Abstract) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
Ida (20210298854) discloses a surgical device (Abstract) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM Eastern.
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, KAMBIZ ABDI can be reached on (571)272-6702. 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.
/T.N.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 3685 /KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685