DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to claims 1 – 26 filed in this application Woolford et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 18/968,934 (Filed December 4, 2024) claiming priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. (12/5/2023) (“Woolford”).
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 1 – 8, 14 – 16, 18 - 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanDyken et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0142520 (Published May 16, 2019, filed November 12, 2018) (“VanDyken”) in view of Elgarat et al., United States Patent No. 9,734,042 (Patented August 15, 2017, filed May 22, 2014) (“Elgarat”) and Shapiro et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0100595 (Published March 31, 2022, filed October 11, 2021) (“Shapiro”).
Claims 1, 25, and 26
With respect to claims 1, 25, and 26, VanDyken teaches the invention as claimed a method for providing a plurality of surgical software applications, comprising:
receiving, by one or more operating system programs of a device, one or more user inputs indicative of one or more surgical software applications of a plurality of surgical software applications of the device, wherein the plurality of surgical software applications include … corresponding to the plurality of surgical software applications; … corresponding to the one or more surgical software applications… executing, by one or more processors of the device, …the one or more surgical software applications in a simulated environment;… the execution of the one or more surgical software applications; …surgical {A surgical planning program may be executed within a “preoperative surgical simulation” which receive input data for evaluating the application such as simulated user input parameters, image/video data on the position of a virtual surgical tool, gesture, touch, text input from a keyboard, and patient image and anatomy data. VanDyken at Abstract; id. ¶¶ 0080 – 0088; id at ¶¶ 0022, 0023, 0033.}
However, VanDyken doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
a plurality of sample input datasets… retrieving, by the one or more operating system programs of the device, one or more sample input datasets… from the plurality of sample input datasets; … based on the one or more sample input datasets, evaluating, by the one or more operating system programs of the device, {Elgarat does teach this limitation. Elgarat teaches that testing surgical applications in simulation environments using input data from users, as taught in VanDyken, may include where the input data for the application under test may include a variety of pre-recorded user event data such as keyboard inputs, mouse movement, and also screenshots which are replayed into the application under test to evaluate the performance of the application. Elgarat at Abstract; id. at col. 1 ll. 38 – 59; id. at col. 3 ll. 9 – 35 (recording input dataset); id. at col. 3 ll. 35 – 58 (text inputs as parameters); id. at col. 3 ln. 64 – col. 4 ln. 26 (testing using the recorded inputs).
VanDyken and Elgarat are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software testing, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to specify software test input.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine application testing using input data from users, as taught in VanDyken, with using pre-recorded datasets, as taught in Elgarat. Elgarat teaches application testing often requires reproducing specific application execution flow. Id. at col. 1 ll. 22 – 32. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine application testing using input data from users, as taught in VanDyken, with using pre-recorded datasets, as taught in Elgarat, for the purpose of using a known application testing dataset method with an application testing method that requires using data as input for the tests.}
However, VanDyken and Elgarat doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
and outputting a recommendation related to the one or more [surgical] software applications. {Shapiro does teach this limitation. Shapiro teaches that testing surgical applications in simulation environments using input data from users, as taught in VanDyken and Elgarat, may include where a parameter may be supplied to the surgical device which specifies an operating condition for the device such as temperature and/or a fan speed. Shapiro at Abstract; id. at ¶ 0079 (use API to communicate with devices); id. at ¶ 0002, 0045, 0159; id. at ¶ 0063 (temperatures).
VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software monitoring, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to monitor software output.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine testing surgical applications in simulation environments using input data from users, as taught in VanDyken and Elgarat, with specifying operating parameters, as taught in Shapiro. Elgarat teaches application testing often requires reproducing specific application execution flow. Id. at col. 1 ll. 22 – 32. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine testing surgical applications in simulation environments using input data from users, as taught in VanDyken and Elgarat, with specifying operating parameters, as taught in Shapiro, for the purpose of using a known application test monitoring method with a method that can respond to detected result conditions.}
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein a sample input dataset of the plurality of sample input datasets comprises: image data, textual data, audio data, simulated user input data, or any combination thereof. {The input data for the application under test may include a variety of pre-recorded user event data such as keyboard inputs, mouse movement, and also screenshots which are replayed into the application under test to evaluate the performance of the application. Elgarat at Abstract; id. at col. 1 ll. 38 – 59; id. at col. 3 ll. 9 – 35 (recording input dataset); id. at col. 3 ll. 35 – 58 (text inputs as parameters); id. at col. 3 ln. 64 – col. 4 ln. 26 (testing using the recorded inputs).}
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the sample input dataset of the plurality of sample input datasets comprises: surgical video data, medical record data, case file data, speech data, or any combination thereof. {A surgical planning program may be executed within a “preoperative surgical simulation” which receive input data for evaluating the application such as simulated user input parameters, image/video data on the position of a virtual surgical tool, gesture, touch, text input from a keyboard, and patient image and anatomy data. VanDyken at Abstract; id. ¶¶ 0080 – 0088; id at ¶¶ 0022, 0023, 0033.}
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein evaluating the execution of the one or more surgical software applications comprises: identifying a software crash event, a software hang event, a software lag event, a failure-to-launch event, an error, or any combination thereof. {Tests may fail or result in an error. Elgarat at Abstract; id. at col. 8 ll. 1 – 20.}
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein evaluating the execution of the one or more surgical software applications comprises: evaluating usage of one or more memories of the device or the one or more processors of the device. {A surgical planning program may be executed within a “preoperative surgical simulation” which receive input data for evaluating the application such as simulated user input parameters, image/video data on the position of a virtual surgical tool, gesture, touch, text input from a keyboard, and patient image and anatomy data. VanDyken at Abstract; id. ¶¶ 0080 – 0088; id at ¶¶ 0022, 0023, 0033; id. at ¶ 0072 (memory and multi-core processor).}
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
further comprising: receiving a user request to launch a surgical software application of the plurality of surgical software applications; …associated with the surgical software application,{A surgical planning program may be executed within a “preoperative surgical simulation” which receive input data for evaluating the application such as simulated user input parameters, image/video data on the position of a virtual surgical tool, gesture, touch, text input from a keyboard, and patient image and anatomy data. VanDyken at Abstract; id. ¶¶ 0080 – 0088; id at ¶¶ 0022, 0023, 0033; id. at ¶ 0072 (memory and multi-core processor).}
retrieving one or more contract files… wherein the one or more contract files comprise one or more parameters; comparing a current state of the device with the one or more parameters in the one or more contract files; and determining, based on the comparison between the current state of the device with the one or more parameters in the one or more contract files, whether to launch the surgical software application. {A parameter may be supplied to the surgical device which specifies an operating condition for the device such as temperature and/or a fan speed. Shapiro at Abstract; id. at ¶ 0079 (use API to communicate with devices); id. at ¶ 0002, 0045, 0159; id. at ¶ 0063 (temperatures).}
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
comprising: in accordance with a determination to not launch the surgical software application, outputting a user notification. {Shapiro at ¶ 0017.}
Claim 8
With respect to claim 8, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the one or more parameters in the one or more contract files comprise a first set of parameters specifying an amount of resource required to execute the surgical software application. {A parameter may be supplied to the surgical device which specifies an operating condition for the device such as temperature and/or a fan speed. Shapiro at Abstract; id. at ¶ 0079 (use API to communicate with devices); id. at ¶ 0002, 0045, 0159; id. at ¶ 0063 (temperatures).}
Claim 14
With respect to claim 14, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the one or more parameters in the one or more contract files comprise a fourth set of parameters specifying a relative priority of the surgical software application. {Priority of the application may be high such that the testing is performed quickly. Elgarat at col. 4 ll. 20 – 31.}
Claim 15
With respect to claim 15, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the relative priority is determined based on a relative risk level associated with a surgical procedure. {A surgical planning program may be executed within a “preoperative surgical simulation” which receive input data for evaluating the application such as simulated user input parameters, image/video data on the position of a virtual surgical tool, gesture, touch, text input from a keyboard, and patient image and anatomy data. VanDyken at Abstract; id. ¶¶ 0080 – 0088; id at ¶¶ 0022, 0023, 0033; id. at ¶¶ 0068 & 0139 (risk).}
Claim 16
With respect to claim 16, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the fourth set of parameters is indicative of: a priority value of the surgical software application and/or whether the surgical software application can run without a displayed graphical user interface. {Priority of the application may be high such that the testing is performed quickly. Elgarat at col. 4 ll. 20 – 31.}
Claim 18
With respect to claim 18, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the device further comprises a chassis and a temperature sensor inside the chassis, the method further comprising: obtaining, via the temperature sensor, a temperature associated with the device; if the temperature exceeds a predefined temperature threshold, reducing an amount of power provided to the one or more processors. {A parameter may be supplied to the surgical device which specifies an operating condition for the device such as temperature and/or reduction of a fan speed. Shapiro at Abstract; id. at ¶ 0079 (use API to communicate with devices); id. at ¶ 0002, 0045, 0159; id. at ¶ 0063 (temperatures).}
Claim 19
With respect to claim 19, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
further comprising: if the temperature exceeds the predefined temperature threshold, terminating an active surgical software application being executed by the one or more processors. {A parameter may be supplied to the surgical device which specifies an operating condition for the device such as temperature and/or reduction of a fan speed. Shapiro at Abstract; id. at ¶ 0079 (use API to communicate with devices); id. at ¶ 0002, 0045, 0159; id. at ¶ 0063 (temperatures).}
Claim 20
With respect to claim 20, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the active surgical software application is selected based on a priority value associated with the active surgical software application and/or a last-used time associated with the active surgical software application. {Priority of the application may be high such that the testing is performed quickly. Elgarat at col. 4 ll. 20 – 31.}
Claim 21
With respect to claim 21, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the device comprises a fan, the method further comprising: if the temperature exceeds the predefined temperature threshold, increasing a speed of the fan. {A parameter may be supplied to the surgical device which specifies an operating condition for the device such as temperature and/or reduction of a fan speed. Shapiro at Abstract; id. at ¶ 0079 (use API to communicate with devices); id. at ¶ 0002, 0045, 0159; id. at ¶ 0063 (temperatures).}
Claim 22
With respect to claim 22, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
receiving a user input indicative of a user identity; retrieving a user profile associated with the user identity; and configuring the device based on the user profile. {The tested and parameterized surgical application which has been customized by surgeon may be stored and later executed with the stored customizations. VanDyken at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0024 & 0027.}
Claim 23
With respect to claim 23, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the plurality of surgical software applications for processing surgical data are stored in one or more memories of the device. {The tested and parameterized surgical application which has been customized by surgeon may be stored and later executed with the stored customizations. VanDyken at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0024 & 0027.}
Claim 24
With respect to claim 24, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the plurality of surgical software applications for processing surgical data are stored in one or more remote devices. {The determined parameters may be stored a remote computing system. Shapiro at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0012.}
Claims 9 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanDyken in view of Elgarat, Shapiro, and Thornley et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0257828 (Published September 11, 2014, filed March 8, 2013) (“Thornley”).
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the first set of parameters is indicative of: {A parameter may be supplied to the surgical device which specifies an operating condition for the device such as temperature and/or a fan speed. Shapiro at Abstract; id. at ¶ 0079 (use API to communicate with devices); id. at ¶ 0002, 0045, 0159; id. at ¶ 0063 (temperatures); VanDyken at ¶ 0072 (memory and multi-core processor).}
However, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
a minimum memory requirement, a minimum core requirement, a minimum usage percentage, or any combination thereof. {Thornley does teach this limitation. Thornley teaches testing surgical applications using input data from users and specifying parameters for application configuration, as taught in VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro, may include where there are hardware and software operational requirements and where the system is monitored, sounding an alert when thresholds are reached, including monitoring temperature, memory usage and compatibility errors, and cpu usage. Thornley at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0003, 0040 – 0045.
VanDyken, Elgarat, Shapiro, and Thornley are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software development, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to create customized program code.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine testing surgical applications using input data from users and specifying parameters for application configuration, as taught in VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro, with monitoring hardware and software parameters, as taught in Thornley. Thornley teaches monitoring helps reduce components from failing unexpectedly. ¶ 0010. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine testing surgical applications using input data from users and specifying parameters for application configuration, as taught in VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro, with monitoring hardware and software parameters, as taught in Thornley, for the purpose of using a known component monitoring system with a testing and monitoring method that requires monitoring components.}
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the one or more parameters in the one or more contract files comprise a second set of parameters {A parameter may be supplied to the surgical device which specifies an operating condition for the device such as temperature and/or a fan speed. Shapiro at Abstract; id. at ¶ 0079 (use API to communicate with devices); id. at ¶ 0002, 0045, 0159; id. at ¶ 0063 (temperatures); VanDyken at ¶ 0072 (memory and multi-core processor).}
However, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
specifying one or more hardware components required to execute the surgical software application. {Thornley does teach this limitation. Thornley teaches testing surgical applications using input data from users and specifying parameters for application configuration, as taught in VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro, may include where there are hardware and software operational requirements and where the system is monitored, sounding an alert when thresholds are reached, including monitoring temperature, memory usage and compatibility errors, and cpu usage. Thornley at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0003, 0040 – 0045.
VanDyken, Elgarat, Shapiro, and Thornley are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software development, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to create customized program code.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine testing surgical applications using input data from users and specifying parameters for application configuration, as taught in VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro, with monitoring hardware and software parameters, as taught in Thornley. Thornley teaches monitoring helps reduce components from failing unexpectedly. ¶ 0010. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine testing surgical applications using input data from users and specifying parameters for application configuration, as taught in VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro, with monitoring hardware and software parameters, as taught in Thornley, for the purpose of using a known component monitoring system with a testing and monitoring method that requires monitoring components.}
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11, VanDyken, Elgarat, Shapiro, and Thornley teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the one or more hardware components comprise: a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a capture card, an isolation port, a USB port, or any combination thereof. {Hardware and software operational requirements including for and where the system is monitored, sounding an alert when thresholds are reached, including monitoring temperature, memory usage and compatibility errors, and cpu usage. Thornley at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0003, 0040 – 0045.}
Claim 12
With respect to claim 12, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the one or more parameters in the one or more contract files comprise a third set of parameters {A parameter may be supplied to the surgical device which specifies an operating condition for the device such as temperature and/or a fan speed. Shapiro at Abstract; id. at ¶ 0079 (use API to communicate with devices); id. at ¶ 0002, 0045, 0159; id. at ¶ 0063 (temperatures); VanDyken at ¶ 0072 (memory and multi-core processor).}
However, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
specifying compatibility constraints of the surgical software application. {Thornley does teach this limitation. Thornley teaches testing surgical applications using input data from users and specifying parameters for application configuration, as taught in VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro, may include where there are hardware and software operational requirements and where the system is monitored, sounding an alert when thresholds are reached, including monitoring temperature, memory usage and compatibility errors, and cpu usage. Thornley at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0003, 0040 – 0045.
VanDyken, Elgarat, Shapiro, and Thornley are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software development, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to create customized program code.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine testing surgical applications using input data from users and specifying parameters for application configuration, as taught in VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro, with monitoring hardware and software parameters, as taught in Thornley. Thornley teaches monitoring helps reduce components from failing unexpectedly. ¶ 0010. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine testing surgical applications using input data from users and specifying parameters for application configuration, as taught in VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro, with monitoring hardware and software parameters, as taught in Thornley, for the purpose of using a known component monitoring system with a testing and monitoring method that requires monitoring components.}
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, VanDyken, Elgarat, Shapiro, and Thornley teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the third set of parameters is indicative of: one or more software environments that the surgical software application is compatible with. {Hardware and software operational requirements may be enforced, where the system is monitored, sounding an alert when thresholds are reached, including monitoring temperature, memory usage and compatibility errors, and cpu usage. Thornley at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0002, 0003, 0040 – 0045.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanDyken in view of Elgarat, Shapiro, and Khalife et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0022785 (Published January 26, 2023, filed July 19, 2022) (“Khalife”).
Claim 17
With respect to claim 17, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein at least one surgical software application of the plurality of surgical software applications {A parameter may be supplied to the surgical device which specifies an operating condition for the device such as temperature and/or a fan speed. Shapiro at Abstract; id. at ¶ 0079 (use API to communicate with devices); id. at ¶ 0002, 0045, 0159; id. at ¶ 0063 (temperatures); VanDyken at ¶ 0072 (memory and multi-core processor).}
However, VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
is subscription-based. {Khalife does teach this limitation. Khalife teaches using surgical applications, as taught in VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro, may include where the surgical application is subscription based. Khalife at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0003, 0046, 0125, 0129, 0130.
VanDyken, Elgarat, Shapiro, and Khalife are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software development, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to make the software available.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine using surgical applications, as taught in VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro, with where the surgical application is subscription based, as taught in Khalife. Thornley teaches monitoring helps reduce components from failing unexpectedly. ¶ 0010. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine using surgical applications, as taught in VanDyken, Elgarat, and Shapiro, with where the surgical application is subscription based, as taught in Khalife, for the purpose of using a known method to obtain a surgical application with a method that requires using a surgical application.}
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE E HEBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1409. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m..
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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 application s 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.H./ September 30, 2026
Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights