DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejections of the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments appear wholly conclusory. They appear to amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references or otherwise not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Applicant appears to simply recite two amended limitations and state that Shelton does not disclose the limitations without further explanation, reasoning, evidence, support, etc.
More specifically, Applicant indicates that the limitation of “generate, for the second smart device, a second control signal to control the second smart device to perform the task suitable for autonomous performance based on the task data” or equivalent is not disclosed by Shelton. However, the previous rejection recited [0048] “The surgical hub 20006, alone or in communication with the cloud computing system, may use the surgeon biomarker measurement data and/or environmental sensing information to modify the control algorithms of hand-held instruments” and [0049] “The control program may instruct the instrument to alter operation to provide more control when control is needed” with respect to the previous version of this limitation which both clearly disclose control of a second device by the system without human intervention, which is therefore inherently autonomous in some manner. Applicant is silent with respect to these recitations, or any other particular portion of Shelton regarding autonomous control based on monitored task data.
With respect to the wholly new limitation of “generate, for the second smart device, a third control signal to control the second smart device to synchronize autonomous performance of the task by the second smart device with the action of the surgeon controlling the first smart device”, first, Applicant does not appear to have support for this limitation, particularly as claimed and intended (whereby “to” is a positive recitation of more than intended purpose). See the 112(a) rejection below. Second, due to the broad nature of most of the claim terms involved, and especially in light of the only related disclosure to “synchronize”, Shelton clearly teaches the limitation. See the updated rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments appear wholly reliant on those made with respect to 35 USC § 102. Furthermore, Applicant does not show how the other references do not correct any perceived deficiencies in Shelton.
Claim Interpretation
The limitations of “first”, “second”, “third”, etc. do not inherently impart any particular narrowing to a limitation and merely serve to provide potential distinction between terms that might be further claimed. For example, a “first” and “second” item are not inherently different/distinct unless specifically claimed as such.
The limitations in at least the independent claims of “generate” or “generating” a first control signal and a second control signal” have been interpreted as actual control of a given system/component/etc. Applicant’s disclosure appears to indicate that generation is equivalent or inclusive of actual control rather than merely determining a control value, etc. without any operation or performance based thereon. See for example [0075] of Applicant’s originally filed specification.
Examiner notes that Applicant has made frequent use of phrases such as “for” or “to”. In some cases, these terms may not amount to an actual positive recitation of a claim limitation and appear to only be provided for context of the actual limitations within the claim or otherwise indicate an intended result, use, or purpose of a preceding limitation. In the interest of compact prosecution Examiner has provided prior art where possible which Examiner believes teaches these recitations as positively recited limitations, regardless of if said interpretation are considered appropriate. This is especially evident wherein the same limitation in a method claim presented in all claims remains phrased in the method claim such that the “to” clause remains passively recited, i.e. does not simply actively state the portions following “to” as steps of the method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 9, 11 – 16, and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, the claims recite the limitation “generate, for the second smart device, a third control signal to control the second smart device to synchronize autonomous performance of the task by the second smart device with the action of the surgeon controlling the first smart device” or equivalent.
Based on Applicant’s Remarks filed 05/11/2026, it is understood that each “to” limitation is intended to be more than just an indication of intent or purpose. Applicant’s Remarks also provide [0071] of the Specification as support for these amendments. [0071], however, only recites:
“The interactions between smart devices may include the exchange of data originating from one device and used by another, allowing for synchronization of autonomous actions with actions under surgeon control”
In other words, no actual synchronized control is actually disclosed, only that “the exchange of data” provided may facilitate, or allow, “synchronization of autonomous actions with actions under surgeon control”.
Furthermore, even if considered as disclosing synchronized control, it still does not provide for the particular level of detail claimed, particularly in combination with all of the other limitations of the claims. In other words, how or in what manner synchronization is achieved is not disclosed.
Finally, the following sentences of [0071] strongly indicate that what may be meant by “synchronization” is simply that the use of exchanged information in a feedback control loop achieves synchronization, and that the term “synchronization” is only loosely applied and more particularly means to coordinate or is otherwise an inherent achieved result.
Examiner notes that [0071] appears to contain the only instance of the use of the word “synchronization” or other variations of the term.
Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 2, 4 – 7, 9, 11 – 14, 16, and 18 – 20, the claims depend from claim(s) rejected above and inherit the deficiencies of said claim(s) as described above. Therefore, Claims 2, 4 – 7, 9, 11 – 14, 16, and 18 – 20 are rejected under the same logic presented above.
owe
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.
Claims 1 – 2, 4, 6 – 9, 11, 13 – 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shelton et al. (US 20230372030 A1).
Examiner notes that Shelton et al. makes explicit incorporation by reference to many other patent documents to supplement the disclosure which are considered to be a part of the disclosure of Shelton and thus support an anticipation rejection (where noted). In the interest of compact prosecution, an alternative rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is also provided in the event that Applicant believes the incorporated disclosures to not be inherent to Shelton.
Regarding Claim 1, Shelton teaches:
A surgical system (See at least surgical system 20000), the surgical system comprising:
a processor (See at least [0030] “surgical system 20002 may include a surgical hub 20006 and/or computing device 20016 in communication with a cloud computing system 20008” and [0050] “The hub 20006 includes … a processor module 20057”. Cloud systems inherently include processors) configured to:
monitor an action of a surgeon controlling a first smart device during a surgical procedure (In the interest of compact prosecution, though not necessarily required for the present rejection, Examiner notes that the limitations of this claim appear especially broad. This limitation is directed towards monitoring an action and everything following “surgeon” appears circumstantial. The “action” need not be related to anything beyond the surgeon, and the most that later limitations appear to pull from this is data from the smart device, which similarly appears to only need to be present “during a surgical procedure” and not necessarily have any particular relation thereto
See at least [0070] “The cloud-based computing system 20064 may be used to monitor biomarkers associated with a surgeon”);
identify a pattern of the action based on monitoring the action (See at least [0048] “The HCP sensing systems 20020 may include sensing systems to monitor and detect a set of physical states and/or a set of physiological states of a healthcare personnel (HCP). An HCP may be a surgeon or one or more healthcare personnel assisting the surgeon or other healthcare service providers in general”, [0105] “FIG. 7 illustrates a diagram of a situationally aware surgical system 5100, in accordance with at least one aspect of the present disclosure. The data sources 5126 may include, for example, the modular devices 5102 (which can include sensors configured to detect parameters associated with the patient, HCPs and environment and/or the modular device itself) … HCP monitoring devices 35510, and/or environment monitoring devices 35512. The surgical hub 5104 can be configured to derive the contextual information pertaining to the surgical procedure from the data based upon, for example, the particular combination(s) of received data or the particular order in which the data is received from the data sources 5126”, and [0106] “The situational awareness system of the surgical hub 5104 can be configured to derive the contextual information from the data received from the data sources 5126 in a variety of different ways. For example, the situational awareness system can include a pattern recognition system, or machine learning system (e.g., an artificial neural network), that has been trained on training data to correlate various inputs (e.g., data from database(s) 5122, patient monitoring devices 5124, modular devices 5102, HCP monitoring devices 35510, and/or environment monitoring devices 35512) to corresponding contextual information regarding a surgical procedure”);
determine, based on the identified pattern, a task suitable for autonomous performance (See at least [0106] “In examples, the situational awareness system can include a further machine learning system, lookup table, or other such system, which generates or retrieves one or more control adjustments for one or more modular devices 5102 when provided the contextual information as input”) by a second smart device (See at least [0032] “The surgical hub 20006 may interact with one or more sensing systems 20011, one or more smart devices, and multiple displays” and may itself be considered a “smart device”, thus leaving a large body of potential “second” smart devices);
generate a first control signal indicating to perform the task suitable for autonomous performance using the second smart device (See again above and [0032] “The surgical hub 20006 may send and/or receive notification information or control information to audio, display and/or control information to various devices that are in communication with the surgical hub”);
receive, from the first smart device, task data associated with (In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes the nature of association is not claimed) the task suitable for autonomous performance, wherein the data comprises at least one of raw data, compiled data, aggregated data, or decision data (In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that the distinctions between these types of data does not appear disclosed, and therefore under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms there is clear overlap between terms. For example, there might be raw compiled data, or compiled data might also be considered aggregated data, etc.
See at least various discussions of real-time data collection, for example [0068] “One or more of the devices 1a-1n/2a-2m or the sensing systems 20069 coupled to the network huh 20061 or network switch 20062 may collect data in real-time and transfer the data to cloud computers for data processing and manipulation”);
send, to the second smart device, the task data (See how all devices appear to be networked in at least Figure 1. Furthermore, see [0119] “The computing system may generate selectively discriminated data (e.g., a data package, a data stream) for the target surgical system, for example, by decompiling the annotated surgical procedure data. The selectively discriminated data may include at least a portion of the annotated surgical procedure data (e.g., complete annotated surgical procedure data). The surgical computing system may send the selectively discriminated data to the target surgical system, for example, for the target surgical system to use in a subsequent task”); and
generate, for the second smart device, a second control signal (Various control signals are generated, see again preceding) to (Indication of purpose of the control signal) control the second smart device to (Even more likely to be just an indication of purpose of the preceding given its nested nature in another “to”) perform the task suitable for autonomous performance based on the task data (In the interest of compact prosecution, alternatively see at least [0048] “The surgical hub 20006, alone or in communication with the cloud computing system, may use the surgeon biomarker measurement data and/or environmental sensing information to modify the control algorithms of hand-held instruments” and [0049] “The control program may instruct the instrument to alter operation to provide more control when control is needed”),
and generate, for the second smart device, a third control signal to (Indication of purpose of the control signal) control the second smart device to (Even more likely to be just an indication of purpose of the preceding given its nested nature in another “to”) synchronize autonomous performance of the task by the second smart device with the action of the surgeon controlling the first smart device (Alternatively, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that the nature of “synchronize” is not claimed with any particularity. See at least [0037] “A human interface system, guided by the surgical hub 20006, may be configured to utilize the HIDs 20027, 20029, and 20023 to coordinate information flow to operators inside and outside the sterile field. In an example, the surgical hub 20006 may cause an HID (e.g., the primary HID 20023) to display a notification and/or information about the patient and/or a surgical procedure step. In an example, the surgical hub 20006 may prompt for and/or receive input from personnel in the sterile field or in the non-sterile area. In an example, the surgical hub 20006 may cause an HID to display a snapshot of a surgical site, as recorded by an imaging device 20030, on a non-sterile HID 20027 or 20029, while maintaining, a live feed of the surgical site on the primary IUD 20023. The snapshot on the non-sterile display 20027 or 20029 can permit a non-sterile operator to perform a diagnostic step relevant to the surgical procedure, for example” or [0039] “The hub 20006 may be configured to coordinate information flow to a display of the surgical instrument 20031. For example, in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019-0200844 A1 (U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/209,385), titled METHOD OF HUB COMMUNICATION, PROCESSING STORAGE AND DISPLAY, filed Dec. 4, 2018, the disclosure of which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety. A diagnostic input or feedback entered by a non-sterile operator at the visualization tower 20026 can be routed by the hub 20006 to the surgical instrument display within the sterile field, where it can be viewed by the operator of the surgical instrument 20031” or [0032] “A surgical hub 20006 may have cooperative interactions with one of more means of displaying the image from the laparoscopic scope and information from one or more other smart devices and one or more sensing systems 20011”
Furthermore, and again alternatively, as pointed out in the 112(a) rejection above, it appears that any in-the-loop control should read on this limitation under the possible meaning indicated for the term “synchronize” in Applicant’s disclosure. See e.g. [0068] “One or more of the devices 1a-1n/2a-2m or the sensing systems 20069 coupled to the network huh 20061 or network switch 20062 may collect data in real-time and transfer the data to cloud computers for data processing and manipulation” or [0116] wherein alerts may be generated for deviations from a surgical plan in real-time. Again, Applicant does not claim the nature of the devices, the control signals, etc. such that these claims are particularly broad.)
Regarding Claim 2, Shelton teaches:
Examiner notes that the claim is especially broad and the below rejection is non-exhaustive.
The surgical system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a behavior pattern of the surgeon action (In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that the term “behavior” appears to be particularly broad. Any kind of “pattern”, particularly when associated with an agent may be considered as a “behavior” under the plain English meaning) based on the monitored action (See interpretation above, wherein this limitation consequently already appears disclosed.
Alternatively, further see at least [0035] “The biomarkers may relate to physiologic systems, which may include, but are not limited to, behavior” and [0172] “The computing system may generate machine learning data associated with metadata relating to use biomarkers, procedure steps, staff interactions, user behavior”);
determine, based on the determined behavior pattern, an optional modification to the surgical procedure; and
generate a third control signal indicating the optional modification, wherein the first control signal is further generated based on the optional modification (Examiner notes that the term “optional” and verb “indicating” are particularly broad.
See at least [0107] “To return to a previous example, a situationally aware surgical hub 5104 could determine what type of tissue was being operated on; therefore, when an unexpectedly high force to close the surgical instrument's end effector is detected, the situationally aware surgical hub 5104 could correctly ramp up or ramp down the motor of the surgical instrument for the type of tissue” and [0117] “The surgical instruments (and other modular devices 5102) may be adjusted for the particular context of each surgical procedure (such as adjusting to different tissue types) and validating actions during a surgical procedure. Next steps, data, and display adjustments may be provided to surgical instruments (and other modular devices 5102) in the surgical theater according to the specific context of the procedure”
As an alternative, see also the procedure plans disclosed wherein a report is generated and may receive alteration from a surgeon during and after generation, and wherein alternative steps are provided as well as conditions of missing information, etc. Furthermore, there is no indication that the plan cannot change during surgery, and every indication from the context of the disclosure that it can (adaptive control, variances and deviations from an initial procedure plan (e.g. [0172]), missing information ([0210]), wherein it is understood in the art that missing information may be obtained intraoperative):
[0180] “Surgical procedures may use patient specific procedure plans in planning and executing a surgery”
[0194] “The patient-specific surgical steps may be associated with surgical tasks. Surgical procedures may be performed using one or more alternative surgical tasks. Surgical tasks may be performed using one or more alternative surgical instruments … Performing a surgical task in a surgical procedure step may affect subsequent surgical tasks and/or subsequent surgical procedure steps”
[0204] “The patient specific procedure plan may include alternative surgical steps for the recommended surgical tasks. The patient specific procedure plan may provide alternative options for HCPs to select and/or give feedback on”
[0208] “As shown at 50260, the generated patient specific procedure plan may be displayed. The patient-specific procedure plan may be displayed, for example, as a viewable report (e.g., single viewable report)”
[0209] “The surgical tasks may include a recommended surgical task and/or one or more alternative surgical tasks”
[0211] “The patient specific procedure plan report may be interacted with (e.g., by an HCP). For example, an HCP may select one or more surgical tasks for a surgical step. The selection may affect the subsequent surgical tasks/steps in the surgical procedure”).
Regarding Claim 4, Shelton teaches:
The surgical system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a variation associated with the identified pattern during the surgical procedure;
based on determining the variation, generate a third control signal (See at least [0116] “The situationally aware surgical hub 5104 could determine whether the surgeon (or other HCP(s)) was making an error or otherwise deviating from the expected course of action during the course of a surgical procedure. For example, the surgical hub 5104 can be configured to determine the type of surgical procedure being performed, retrieve the corresponding list of steps or order of equipment usage (e.g., from a memory), and then compare the steps being performed or the equipment being used during the course of the surgical procedure to the expected steps or equipment for the type of surgical procedure that the surgical hub 5104 determined is being performed. The surgical hub 5104 can provide an alert indicating that an unexpected action is being performed or an unexpected device is being utilized at the particular step in the surgical procedure”)
Shelton (US 20230372030 A1) does not directly teach, however via incorporation by reference of reference Shelton et al., US 20230377709 A1 (See [0001] and “Attorney Docket No. END9430USNP1, titled METHOD OF CONTROLLING AUTONOMOUS OPERATIONS IN A SURGICAL SYSTEM” of [0002]), discloses both the prior and remaining limitations. The below citations are made with respect to US 20230377709 A1:
[determine a variation associated with the identified pattern during the surgical procedure;
based on determining the variation, generate a third control signal] (See [0178] which appears identical or almost identical to prior cited [0116]) indicating a confirmation request for (The particular phrasing of “for” here indicates the following is not a required, positively recited limitation and only indicates an intended use or purpose) whether to proceed with the autonomous performance, to modify the autonomous performance, or to suspend the autonomous performance;
receive a response to the confirmation request; and
generate a fourth control signal in accordance with the received response (See at least [0565] During an unforeseen event, emergency, a healthcare professional may take full control of the automated steps (e.g., regardless of if it deviates from defined automated procedure steps). In an example, robotic arms may be reverted safely back to safe position(s). A system (e.g., a robotic system) may pause and may await direct command(s) from the healthcare professional.
[0566] Verification of the automation step operation or the healthcare professional initiation of the automated step may be performed by a healthcare professional (e.g., a surgeon). Verification of an out of sequence step may be performed to avoid triggering of any accidental request of the automated step. For example, the healthcare professional may partially clamp on a tissue and may accidentally initiate articulation or firing. The system may verify (e.g., with the healthcare professional) that the requested operation is intended before an automated set of steps is started”)
Regarding Claim 6, Shelton teaches:
The surgical system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine, based on the pattern, that the surgical procedure is being performed out of order (Examiner notes that “out of order” might mean that all steps/tasks of a procedure are still performed, but in a different order. However, the claim then recites a “task that has been omitted” and therefore indicates that the interpretation must be broader as the limitations as a whole are broad and not limited to only verifying after a procedure is complete
See at least [0116] “The situationally aware surgical hub 5104 could determine whether the surgeon (or other HCP(s)) was making an error or otherwise deviating from the expected course of action during the course of a surgical procedure”);
generate a third control signal indicating that the surgical procedure is being performed out of order;
determine a surgical task that has been omitted (Examiner notes that “omitted simply means left undone, included, etc. and may be considered from any point in time) based on the pattern and based on the determination that the surgical procedure is being performed out of order (See at least [0116] “For example, the surgical hub 5104 can be configured to determine the type of surgical procedure being performed, retrieve the corresponding list of steps or order of equipment usage (e.g., from a memory), and then compare the steps being performed or the equipment being used during the course of the surgical procedure to the expected steps or equipment for the type of surgical procedure that the surgical hub 5104 determined is being performed”), wherein the surgical task that has been omitted comprises the task suitable for autonomous performance (The tasks monitored are not indicated as being limited to any in particular and the claim similarly is not exclusive of other tasks (see use of “comprising”).
See at least [0208] “The patient-specific-procedure plan may be sent to a surgical control system. The surgical control system may instruct surgical instruments and/or surgical systems, for example to carry out surgical tasks autonomously (e.g., based on the patient-specific procedure plan). For example, the surgical control system may determine parameters for a surgical instrument to use during a surgical procedure based on the patient-specific procedure plan”); and
generate a fourth control signal indicating the surgical task that has been omitted (The surgical hub 5104 can provide an alert indicating that an unexpected action is being performed or an unexpected device is being utilized at the particular step in the surgical procedure”).
Regarding Claim 7, Shelton teaches:
The surgical system of claim 1,
Shelton (US 20230372030 A1) does not directly teach, however via incorporation by reference of reference of Shelton et al., US 20230377709 A1 (See [0001] and “Attorney Docket No. END9430USNP1, titled METHOD OF CONTROLLING AUTONOMOUS OPERATIONS IN A SURGICAL SYSTEM” of [0002]), discloses both the prior and remaining limitations. The below citations are made with respect to US 20230377709 A1:
wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine that the task suitable for autonomous performance is being performed by the second smart device operating at a first level of automation (See at least [0012] “The device may monitor a performance of the surgical task with the surgical instrument operating at a first level of automation associated with the levels of automation”);
detect a trigger event associated with the performance of the task (See at least [0012] “The device may detect a trigger event associated with the performance of the surgical task”); and
generate a third control signal that causes operation of the second smart device to switch from the first level of automation to a second level of automation based on the trigger event (See at least [0012] “The device may … switch operation of the surgical instrument from the first level of automation to a second level of automation associated with levels of automation, for example, based on the trigger event”).
Regarding Claims 8 – 9, 11 and 13 – 14, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 1 – 2, 4, and 6 – 7 with respect to the application of prior art, being directed towards a method which differs only in that it does not recite all of the structural items and is thus broader and effectively recites the same remaining limitations in method form. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 1 – 2, 4, and 6 – 7 above.
Regarding Claims 15 – 16, 18, and 20, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 1 – 2, 4, and 6 with respect to the application of prior art, being also directed towards a surgical system which differs only in that it lacks a limitation of Claim 1, in particular being configured to “monitor …”. The claims otherwise appear to mirror Claims 1 – 2, 4, and 6 and are thus broader with no additional or narrower limitations. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 1 – 2, 4, and 6 above.
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.
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 4, 7, 11, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Shelton et al. (US 20230372030 A1) as demonstrated above or, in the alternative (if Applicant disagrees with the characterization of the rejection above under incorporation by reference), under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over the reference(s) indicated in the rejection as being incorporated by reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention with the features of the incorporated reference(s) as taught by Shelton with a reasonable expectation of success, as Shelton explicitly recites such intended incorporated disclosure by the expressed intent to incorporate by reference and furthermore the disclosures are of a wholly compatible nature.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton et al. in view of Jin (US 20170103659 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Shelton teaches:
The surgical system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
generate a third control signal (See at least [0032] “The surgical hub 20006 may send and/or receive information including notification information to and/or from the human interface system 20012. The human interface system 20012 may include one or more human interface devices (HID.sub.S). The surgical hub 20006 may send and/or receive notification information or control information to audio, display and/or control information to various devices that are in communication with the surgical hub”)
Shelton is not presently believed to teach (the entire body of incorporated references has not been searched in their entirety), but in combination with Jin teaches:
indicating that the second smart device is prepared to perform the task suitable for autonomous performance (See at least [0032] “when the no-fly-zone indication/identification signal or the no-fly-zone definition message indicates that the no-fly zone has a super operator on duty, the on-board controller should automatically send a notification message through the transmitter to indicate that the drone is ready to be taken over by the super operator” and [0031] “Associated with the no-fly zone definition data that the drone 14 obtained, is the automated de-risk procedure, which instructs the drone 14 to fly away from a reference point 10”);
monitor for an input indicating inhibition performing the task suitable for autonomous performance; and
determine that the input has not been received within a time threshold, wherein the second control signal is generated based on the determination that the input has not been received within the time threshold (See at least [0032] “If the drone is not taken over by the super operator in response to the notification message, after a pre-determined period of time, the drone shall execute the automated de-risk procedures received or pre-stored”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate that the smart device is ready to perform a particular task, and to automatically perform said task if no alternative input has been received within a certain time period, as taught by Jin in combination with the system and methods of Shelton with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 12 and 19, the claims are directed to effectively the same or broader subject matter as Claim 5 with respect to the application of prior art. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 5 above.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bafasa et al. (US 11832910 B1) which discloses a co-manipulation robotic surgery assistant having varying levels of autonomy, context awareness, and other features that appear widely relevant to Applicant’s disclosure.
Other references of interest while identified are not presently provided as Applicant’s claims and disclosure appear to cover a wide variety of features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights