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 .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 28 February 2025. As directed by the amendment: Claims 14-17 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, Claims 1-17 are presently pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 have the same reference numbers starting from “1”, however, each of these figures/reference numbers are directed to different elements and components (i.e., reference numbers start from 1 in each figure, start again from 1 in the subsequent figure). Different parts/elements cannot be referred to by the same reference numbers.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is noted that Claims 1-17 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding Claims 1-17, the claims use both “consisting of” and “comprising” language. The transitional phrase “consisting of” excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim, as interpreted by the Examiner. See MPEP 2111.03 (II). Claim 1, recites “wherein said system consists of” in Line 8. However, a claim which depends from a claim which “consists of” the recited elements or steps cannot add an element or step. MPEP 2111.03 (II). It is noted that Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, and 12 adds additional elements and steps with “comprising” language. Therefore, these limitations are indefinite since it is unclear as to which elements are included and excluded by the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting all of these additional elements as included in the ‘consisting of’ language required by Claim 1, but excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claims. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 2-17 are rejected for depending on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, multiple elements lack proper antecedent basis in the claims, and it is unclear as to if these elements are referring to the same or different structures:
“the management of surgeries” in Line 2 should be “management of surgeries”
“the free hands and feet concept” in Line 3 should be “a free hands and feet concept”
“the execution” in Line 3 should be “execution”
“the peripherals” in Lines 6-7 should be “peripherals”
“screen” in Line 9 should be “a screen”
“voice recognition module and microprocessor” in Line 10 should be “a voice recognition module and a microprocessor”
“the central processing module” in Line 11 should be “a central processing module”
“the headset” in Line 15 should be “the headsets”
Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 2-17 are rejected for depending on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “for the management of surgeries in general, and ophthalmological surgeries in particular”. However, the phrases “in general… in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “for the management of ophthalmological surgeries”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 2-17 are rejected for depending on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “intervening in the peripherals and electronic devices existing in surgeries to automate them”. However, it is unclear and therefore indefinite as to which limitations/structures the term “them” is referring. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as, “intervening in said peripherals and said electronic devices”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 2-17 are rejected for depending on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites, “which is in charge of performing movements of structures that can hold different types of surgical instruments”. It is unclear and therefore indefinite as to which limitations/structures are “in charge of performing movements”, since it unclear as to what element “which” is referring. Furthermore, it is unclear as to what is intended by the limitation “in charge of”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as, “wherein the system is configured to employ the voice commands to perform movements of structures that can hold different types of surgical instruments”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 2-17 are rejected for depending on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “such as lenses attached to contactless viewing devices and cameras in ophthalmological surgery microscopes”. However, “the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “including lenses attached to contactless viewing devices and cameras in ophthalmological surgery microscopes”, since lenses and cameras are recited in other instances of the claims. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 2-17 are rejected for depending on Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, the claims contains the trademark/trade name “Airpods + iPhone”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the Apple Inc. smartphone and headphone products, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 2-9 and 11-17 are rejected for depending on Claims 1 and 10.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites, “headsets that include a microphone, speakers, screen, LED warnings, voice recognition module and microprocessor with WIFI function to send voice commands wirelessly to the central processing module, or that integrate "Airpods + Phone", with its own application developed to receive voice commands, process them and connect via WIFI system to the central processing module”. However, this limitation is narrative with nested ‘or’/alternative statements, and it is unclear as to which elements “its” and “them” are referring. Furthermore, it is unclear as to how a structure can have “LED warnings”, which is a function. Therefore, the limitation is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as, “headsets that each include a microphone, speakers, a screen, warning LEDs, a voice recognition module and a microprocessor with WIFI function configured to send voice commands wirelessly to a central processing module, wherein the headsets include headphones and smartphones comprising applications developed to receive said voice commands, process said voice commands, and connect via a WIFI system to the central processing module”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 2-17 are rejected for depending on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites, “a central processing module comprising a microprocessor with WIFI function to receive voice commands from the headset”. However, “a central processing module”, “a microprocessor”, and “voice commands” have already been previously recited in the claim. Furthermore, “the headset” lack antecedent basis, since the previous limitation recites “headsets”. Therefore, these limitations are indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as, “wherein the central processing module comprises a separate microprocessor with WIFI function configured to receive said voice commands from the headsets”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 2-17 are rejected for depending on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites, “medical equipment that must be automated”. However, “medical equipment that must be automated” is unclear and indefinite as to how ‘medical equipment’ may be configured to ‘must be automated’, since this appears to be claiming a functional requirement of medical equipment. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as, “medical equipment that is configured to be automated”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 2-17 are rejected for depending on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites, “inputs of end stroke and position sensors, and potentiometers, from the outside”. However, this limitation is unclear as to whether “position sensors, and potentiometers” are included in “inputs from”. Furthermore, it is unclear as to what “the outside” is referring, and also lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, these limitations are indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as, “inputs of end stroke sensors, position sensors, and potentiometers,
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites, “a video processing module with or without a camera for real-time adjustments selected from autofocus, autofield and measuring or controlling light toxicity”. However, it is unclear as to which elements are included in the alternative limitations. Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether or not a camera is required by the claim, since the system is recited as “consists of”. Therefore, these limitations are indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as, “a video processing module including a camera configured for real-time adjustments selected from autofocus, autofield, measuring light toxicity, or controlling light toxicity.” Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 2-17 are rejected for depending on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites, “voice command function to reduce mechanical movements of medical personnel in surgeries”. However, it is unclear as to how “voice command function” can be included in “said system consisting of”, since a “function” is not a physical structure. Furthermore, “surgeries” has been previously recited in the claim as “ophthalmological surgeries”. Therefore, these limitations are indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as, “wherein the central processing module is configured to apply the voice commands in order to reduce mechanical movements of medical personnel during the ophthalmological surgeries”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 2-17 are rejected for depending on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites, “wherein the wireless recognition module allows manipulating multi-peripherals and electronic equipment used in medical surgery rooms, under the hands-free concept”. Firstly, “the wireless recognition module” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Furthermore, it is unclear as to what is intended by the limitation “allows”, and whether “medical surgery rooms” is referring to the previously recited “the operating rooms”. Furthermore, “electronic equipment” has been previously recited in Claim 1. In addition, “the hands-free concept” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Therefore, these limitations are indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations as, “wherein the central processing module is configured to manipulate multi-peripherals and said electronic equipment used in the operating rooms, under the free hands and feet concept”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites “the movement” and “the lens system”. However, these elements lack antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations as, “movement” and “a lens system” respectively. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites “doctors’ headsets”. However, it is unclear and therefore indefinite as to whether these are the same “headsets” as recited in Claim 1. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as, “the headsets”, referring to the headsets recited in Claim 1. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites “activation of peripherals” and “activation of electronic devices used in operating rooms”. It is unclear as to whether these limitations are referring to the same or different elements as recited in Claim 1. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations as, “activation of the peripherals” and “activation of the electronic equipment used in the operating rooms.” Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “peripherals”, “other equipment”, and “an effective freehand”. Firstly, it is unclear as to whether “peripherals” is referring to the same or different elements as recited in Claim 1. Furthermore, it is unclear and therefore indefinite what is intended by the limitations “other equipment” and “an effective freehand”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations as, “the peripherals”, “the surgical equipment”, and “the free hands and feet concept” respectively. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites “such as a lens system with actuators”. However, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the elements after “such as” to be required by the claim. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “lenses and actuators”. It is unclear as to whether these limitations are referring to the same or different elements as recited in Claim 1. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations as, “the lenses and the actuators”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Regarding Claims 9 and 13, the claims recite, “the structure that can hold lenses”, “the patient” and “the medical staff”. However, these elements lack antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations as “the structures that can hold different types of surgical instruments”, “a patient” and “the medical personnel”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Regarding Claims 10-17, these claims recite “a surgical method which employs the integrated mechatronic system of claim 1”. However, many of the elements recited in Claims 10-17 are already recited in Claim 1, therefore causing indefiniteness issues due to antecedent basis (i.e., it is unclear as to which element is being referred to). For example, elements such as “a surgical microscope”, “headsets”, “a microphone”, “speakers”, “screen”, “LED warnings”, “voice recognition module”, “microprocessor”, “pedals”, “knobs”, “instruments”, “a microprocessor”, “actuators”, “a video processing module”, and “an actuator module” have been previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, these limitations are indefinite. For purposes of examination, these elements will be interpreted by the Examiner to be the same elements recited in Claim 1, and therefore interpreted as “the [element]”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 11-17 are rejected for depending on Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “drivers allowing manipulation of actuators and output electronic of signals to interact with the outside”. However, it is unclear as to what “the outside” is referring, and also lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, these limitations are indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as, “drivers allowing manipulation of actuators and output electronic of signals
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites several nested “alternatively” statements. It is unclear as to which elements are actually required by the claim, particularly due to the “consisting of” language recited in Claim 1 (from which Claim 10 depends). Therefore, these limitations are indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the method steps with “alternatively” as being required by the claim, since the steps refer to required interactions within the mechatronic system. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 11-17 are rejected for depending on Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites, “a video processing module with or without a camera for real-time adjustments selected from autofocus, autofield and measuring or controlling light toxicity”. However, it is unclear as to which elements are included in the alternative limitations. Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether or not a camera is required by the claim, since the system is recited as “consists of”, and further these limitations are repeated from Claim 1. Therefore, these limitations are indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as, “a video processing module including a camera configured for real-time adjustments selected from autofocus, autofield, measuring light toxicity, or controlling light toxicity.” Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Prior Art
The claims have been interpreted as best understood by the Examiner as described in detail above. Substantial indefiniteness/clarity corrections are required. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure:
Brant et al. (US Patent No. 5,970,457) discloses a medical surgical control system for ophthalmological surgeries (Abstract; Fig. 1; Col. 1, Lines 25-67) which utilizes headsets (16, 26, Fig. 1) to implement operator voice commands to control the medical equipment (Col. 4, Lines 5-67; Claims 1-8).
Savall et al. (US Publication No. 2018/0078034) discloses a user console for controlling a remote surgical robotic instrument (Abstract) including for ophthalmological surgeries (Paragraph 0003) comprising wireless components which implement a headset for input of voice commands to manipulate surgical equipment (Paragraph 0042, 0044, 0070, 0079).
Anderson et al. (US Publication No. 2018/0092706) discloses a robotic surgical system including video/optical systems (Paragraph 0009-0010, 0042) and a headset to received voice commands (Paragraph 0007, 0080-0081) to control a control system to implement surgical instructions (Paragraph 0092, 0083).
Thomas (US Publication No. 2018/0303558) discloses control systems for surgical procedures (Abstract) comprising a headset worn by a user (Paragraph 0040) which implements voice commands (Paragraph 0054, 0061) to control elements of the surgical equipment (Figs. 1, 5; Paragraphs 0066-0070; Claim 1, 14).
Fava et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0019514) discloses a voice control system for ophthalmologic laser treatment systems sets parameters for delivering laser energy based on voice commands (Abstract) including a headset with a microphone (Paragraph 0036-0037; Fig. 1) which utilizes a wireless interface (Paragraph 0035-0039) to control the surgical equipment (Paragraph 0051-0057; Claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA M BAYS whose telephone number is (571)270-7852. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm EST.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/PAMELA M. BAYS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796