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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/11/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Ahmad, US 2016/0180743.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,455,900 in view of Ahmad, US 2016/0180743.
Claim 1 of the instant application possesses the same limitations as claim 1 of the patented case US 11,455,900. US 11,455,900 does not disclose emitting audio, captured from a microphone of the remote site system, from the speaker in the operating room. Ahmad discloses emitting audio, captured from a microphone of the remote site system, from the speaker in the operating room (paragraph 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stetson’s system with the teachings of Ahmad. This is standard in the art. The motivation would have been to listen to the persons in the remote site for the benefit of establishing a communication channel between locations.
Claims 1-16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,968,408 in view of Ahmad, US 2016/0180743.
Claim 1-16 of the instant application possesses the same limitations as claim 1-12 of the patented case US 11,968,408. US 11,968,408 does not disclose emitting audio, captured from a microphone of the remote site system, from the speaker in the operating room. Ahmad discloses emitting audio, captured from a microphone of the remote site system, from the speaker in the operating room (paragraph 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stetson’s system with the teachings of Ahmad. This is standard in the art. The motivation would have been to listen to the persons in the remote site for the benefit of establishing a communication channel between locations.
Claims 1-16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,289,479 in view of Ahmad, US 2016/0180743.
Claim 1-16 of the instant application possesses the same limitations as claim 1-14 of the patented case US 12,289,479. US 12,289,479 does not disclose emitting audio, captured from a microphone of the remote site system, from the speaker in the operating room. Ahmad discloses emitting audio, captured from a microphone of the remote site system, from the speaker in the operating room (paragraph 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stetson’s system with the teachings of Ahmad. This is standard in the art. The motivation would have been to listen to the persons in the remote site for the benefit of establishing a communication channel between locations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Nishino et al., US 2020/0162794 in view of Ahmad, US 2016/0180743.
Regarding claim 1, Nishino discloses a system for teaching a surgical procedure, the system comprising: a display in an operating room (5103a-d 5111, figures 22-23); a speaker in the operating room (paragraph 65, figures 22-23); a processor coupled to the display (5109 figures 22-23); a non-transitory computer readable storage medium coupled to the processor (figures 22-23); and a network adapter coupled to the processor (5107 figures 22-23), wherein the non-transitory computer readable storage medium has instructions therein which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to:
display, on the display in the operating room, a live video of at least one surgical instrument being used by a surgeon to perform a surgical procedure on a patient in the operating room (5187 paragraph 486);
transmit, via the network adapter, a signal to a remote site system outside of the operating room, the signal being configured to cause a display of the remote site system to display a graphical user interface (GUI) (video conference for remote practice paragraph 492); and
emit audio, captured from a microphone of the remote site system, from the speaker in the operating room (paragraph 492).
Although, Nishino teaches a GUI comprising a live broadcast video comprising a first video of the surgeon in the operating room performing the surgical procedure on the patient with the at least one surgical instrument (user can select any source of video for display (i.e. room camera) figure 23) and a second video of the surgical instrument during (user can select any source of video for display i.e. endoscope or arm camera figure 23) the surgical procedure (paragraph 495-500) and that the system is for a video conference to perform a remote medical practice (paragraph 92). Nishino is silent about presenting at the remote site a GUI with multiple videos of the operating room.
In an analogous art, Ahmad discloses presenting at the remote site a GUI with multiple videos of the operating room (520 530 540 figure 5, paragraph 57-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishino’s system with the teachings of Ahmad. The motivation would have been to properly present the media for the benefit of performing a successful surgery.
Regarding claim 11, Nishino and Ahmad disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to modify the live broadcast video to display only the first video, among the first video and the second video, in response to a user selection of a first camera icon on the GUI (Nishino figure 23 paragraph 497; Ahmad figure 5).
Regarding claim 12, Nishino and Ahmad disclose the system of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to modify the live broadcast video to display only the second video, among the first video and the second video, in response to a user selection of a second camera icon on the GUI (Nishino figure 23 paragraph 497; Ahmad figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, Nishino and Ahmad disclose the system of claim 12, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to display a split screen view of the first video and the second video in response to a user selection of a split screen icon on the GUI (Nishino figure 23 paragraph 497; Ahmad figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Nishino and Ahmad disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to change a zoom of the first video in response to a user selection of a zoom icon on the GUI (Nishino paragraph 498; Ahmad paragraph 57 and 59-61).
Regarding claim 15, Nishino and Ahmad disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to change a tilt of the first video in response to a user selection of a tilt icon on the GUI (Nishino paragraph 498).
Regarding claim 16, Nishino and Ahmad disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to change a pan of the first video in response to a user selection of a pan icon on the GUI (Nishino paragraph 498).
Claims 2- 3, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Nishino in view of Ahmad in view of Mentis, US 2016/0210411.
Regarding claim 2, Nishino and Ahmad disclose the system of claim 1.
Nishino and Amad are silent about the signal is further configured to cause the display of the remote site system to display a plurality of tool icons for annotating at least the second video.
In an analogous art, Mentis discloses cause the display of the remote site system to display a plurality of tool icons for annotating at least the second video (figures, paragraph 73-81 and 91-107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishino and Ahmad’s system with the teachings of Mentis. The motivation would have been to properly present the media for the benefit of performing a successful surgery.
Regarding claim 3, Nishino, Ahmad and Mentis disclose the system of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to: receive, via the network adapter, a signal from the remote site system in response to a user selecting and using a tool icon of the plurality of tool icons; and display, in response to receipt of the signal from the remote site system, at least one annotation on the live video of the at least one surgical instrument displayed on the display in the operating room (Nishino paragraph 485-500; Ahmad figure 5; Mentis paragraph 73-81 and 91-107).
Regarding claim 5, Nishino, Ahmad and Mentis disclose the system of claim 2, wherein the plurality of tool icons comprises a pen tool icon (Mentis paragraph 73-81 and 91-107).
Regarding claim 7, Nishino and Ahmad disclose the system of claim 1.
Nishino and Ahmad are silent about to display, on the GUI, a digital library comprising a plurality of archived videos.
In an analogous art, Mentis discloses to display, on the GUI, a digital library comprising a plurality of archived videos (figure 1, paragraph 15, 31 and 98-100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishino and Ahmad’s system with the teachings of Mentis. The motivation would have been to display previously performed procedures for the benefit of helping the surgeons to perform a successful operation.
Regarding claim 8, Nishino, Ahmad and Mentis disclose the system of claim 7, wherein at least one archived video of the plurality of archived videos comprising a first video of a surgeon in an operating room performing the surgical procedure on a patient with at least one surgical instrument and a second video of the surgical instrument during the surgical procedure (Nishino figure 23; Ahmad figure 5; Mentis figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Nishino, Ahmad and Mentis disclose the system of claim 8, wherein at least one archived video of the plurality of archived videos comprises a graphic depiction of a human figure and at least one indicium on the human figure indicating a location of the surgical procedure on the patient (Nishino figure 23; Ahmad figure 5, paragraph 13-14, 18, 39 and 44; Mentis figure 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Nishino in view of Ahmad in view of Mentis in view of Grimley, US 2015/0227694.
Regarding claim 4, Nishino, Ahmad and Mentis disclose the system of claim 2.
Nishino, Ahmad and Mentis are silent about the plurality of tool icons comprises a syringe tool icon.
In an analogous art, Grimley discloses the plurality of tool icons comprises a syringe tool icon (figure 8, paragraph 58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishino, Ahmad and Mentis’ system with the teachings of Grimley. The motivation would have been to properly present the media for the benefit of performing a successful surgery.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Nishino in view of Ahamd in view of Mentis in view of Smurro et al., US 2014/0176661.
Regarding claim 6, Nishino, Ahmad and Mentis disclose the system of claim 2.
Nishino, Ahamd and Mentis are silent about the plurality of tool icons comprises a scalpel tool icon.
In an analogous art, Smurro discloses the plurality of tool icons comprises a scalpel tool icon (paragraph 46-47 and 69-70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishino, Ahamd and Mentis’ system with the teachings of Smurro. The motivation would have been to properly present the media for the benefit of performing a successful surgery.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Nishino in view of Ahmad in view of Mentis in view of Aldaz et al., US 2018/0114288.
Regarding claim 10, Nishino, Ahmad and Mentis discloses the system of claim 9.
Nishino, Ahmad and Mentis are silent about to display a description associated with each archived video of the plurality of archived videos, the description comprising information selected from the group consisting of patient age, a mechanism of injury a prior treatment.
In an analogous art, Aldaz discloses the information comprises patient age, a mechanism of injury a prior treatment (figure 8; paragraph 88).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishino, Ahmad and Mentis’ system with the teachings of Aldaz. This is standard in the art. The motivation would have been to have the patient data for the benefit of performing a successful surgery.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
OSCHTA I. MONTOYA
Examiner
Art Unit 2421
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights