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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to Applicants communication filed on June 4, 2025.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/04/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application
No. EP22216696.9 filed on 12/27/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "104" and "102" have both been used to designate the server (see spec. page 10). 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
120 in figure 1
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Reference character 118; first mentioned on page 10. Examiner further notes that 118 is also used for various labels throughout the specification (i.e., printer, surgical instruments, etc.).
Reference character 100; first mentioned on page 9.
Reference character 202; first mentioned on page 9.
Reference character 204; first mentioned on page 11.
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(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 fails to further limit independent claim 9. Claim 9 recites the following limitations: “identifying, using the processing unit, an alternative surgical instrument if a desired surgical instrument is not matched with an available surgical instrument". Claim 13 recites: "identify an alternative surgical instrument if a desired surgical instrument is not matched with an available surgical instrument." Which fails to further limit the limitations recite in claim 9.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1, 9 and 15 are directed to a method, a system and a manufacture respectively and therefore all fall into one of the four statutory categories. (Step 1: Yes, the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories).
Step 2A analysis - Prong one:
The substantially similar independent method, system, and computer readable media claims, taking claim 1 as exemplary, recite the following limitations: A computer implemented method for automatically generating a tray instrument layout for a surgical procedure, wherein the method comprises:
receiving (S1), at a processing unit, a request for generating the tray instrument layout, wherein the request comprises an indication of the surgical procedure,
acquiring (S2), using the processing unit, a desired set of surgical instruments for performing the surgical procedure,
acquiring (S3), using the processing unit, an available set of surgical instruments,
forming (S4), using the processing unit, a matching set of surgical instruments by matching the desired set of surgical instruments with the available set of surgical instruments,
identifying, using the processing unit, an alternative surgical instrument if a desired surgical instrument is not matched with an available surgical instrument,
forming (S5), using the processing unit and based on the surgical procedure, a sequence of the matching set of and alternative surgical instruments, wherein the sequence is formed based on procedural steps predefined for the surgical procedure,
acquiring (S6), using the processing unit and based on the surgical procedure, instrument defining information for at least a portion of the matching set of surgical instruments, and
forming (S7), using the processing unit, a graphical representation of the sequence of the surgical instruments, wherein the graphical representation further comprises the instrument defining information arranged adjacent to the respective surgical instrument.
The examiner is interpreting the above bolded limitations as additional elements as further discussed below. The remaining un-bolded limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a method implemented by a processor (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the additional elements identified/bolded above, this claim encompasses a person requesting appropriate surgical instruments for a particular procedure, a second person then determines what the desired surgical instruments are, whether the desired instruments are available for use and determines alternative instruments if necessary, and then presenting a representation of the surgical instruments for the requestor based on the particular procedure in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract).
Step 2A analysis - Prong two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite a processing unit (claims 1, 9, 15), a computer system (claims 9, 15), a computer program product comprising non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 15), a computer program and code (claim 15) (Examiner interprets as purely software) which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component. For example, Applicant’s specification explains that the processing unit reads computer programs, analyzes data, receives electrical inputs, executes control functions, etc. (see Applicant’s specification pages 2, 4 and 8). The identified additional elements equate to saying “apply it.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application.
Accordingly, this/these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it/they does/do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1, 9 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processing unit, a computer system, a computer program product comprising non-transitory computer readable medium, a computer program and code to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Further, the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
Applicant describes embodiments of the disclosure at a very high level to include the use of a wide variety of processors, memories, networks, machine-readable media, electronic devices/mobile phones, etc. (see Applicants specification pages 6, 12). For example, the present invention may be implemented using any existing computer processors (see page 12), any form of mobile electronic device (see page 8) and any computer readable medium known in the art (see pages 8, 12).
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
In summary, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). The claims do not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2B: No, the claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 2-8 and 10-14 further define the abstract idea that is presented in the independent Claims, and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above. Further, Claims 6, 8, 10 and 14 recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Claims 6 and 14 recite using a server. Claim 8 recites uploading an image to the server. Claim 10 recites a network and an electronic user device. Claim 11 recites using a printer. This/these additional element(s) is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For example, as noted above, the Applicant’s specification indicates the use of known servers, networks, user devices, etc.
Accordingly, this/these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin (US 20140249515).
Regarding claim 1, Martin discloses the following limitations:
A computer implemented method for automatically generating a tray instrument layout for a surgical procedure, (Martin discloses methods and systems for preparing and providing a customizable surgical template. More specifically, the disclosed surgical template coordinates the arrangement of surgical instruments used for a particular surgical procedure (generating a tray instrument layout for a surgical procedure) in the order preferred by a particular surgeon or other entity. – abstract; paras 2, 6)
wherein the method comprises: receiving (S1), at a processing unit, a request for generating the tray instrument layout, wherein the request comprises an indication of the surgical procedure, (Martin discloses that the user may provide information such as the name of the surgical procedure (an indication of the surgical procedure) or the name of the surgeon for whom the surgical template is being prepared (a request for generating the tray instrument layout). – para 28)
acquiring (S2), using the processing unit, a desired set of surgical instruments for performing the surgical procedure, (Martin discloses that the surgical template (a desired set of surgical instruments) includes identifying information indicating the procedure it is designed for (performing the surgical procedure) and the surgeon who will carry out the procedure. – paras 6, 18)
acquiring (S3), using the processing unit, an available set of surgical instruments, forming (S4), using the processing unit, a matching set of surgical instruments by matching the desired set of surgical instruments with the available set of surgical instruments, (Martin discloses that the user may access an instrumentation database (acquiring an available set of surgical instruments) in order to customize and select the surgical instruments for a surgical template (forming a matching set of surgical instruments by matching the desired set of surgical instruments with the available set of surgical instruments). – paras 6, 18, 24)
identifying, using the processing unit, an alternative surgical instrument if a desired surgical instrument is not matched with an available surgical instrument, (Martin discloses that a specific step in a given procedure may be accomplished, for example, using one of three different surgical instruments. Users may replace (identifying an alternative surgical instrument) pre-selected surgical instruments with preferred alternative surgical instruments (if a desired surgical instrument is not matched with an available surgical instrument) in the instrumentation database. – paras 24, 27)
forming (S5), using the processing unit and based on the surgical procedure, a sequence of the matching set of and alternative surgical instruments, wherein the sequence is formed based on procedural steps predefined for the surgical procedure, (Martin discloses the use of multiple surgical instruments in particular orders based on the procedure type and the surgeons preferences (wherein the sequence is formed based on procedural steps predefined for the surgical procedure). Creating a surgical template record includes each selected surgical instrument record arranged in a defined order (a sequence of the matching set of and alternative surgical instruments). – paras 2-4, 7, 27)
acquiring (S6), using the processing unit and based on the surgical procedure, instrument defining information for at least a portion of the matching set of surgical instruments, and (Martin discloses that a surgical template may include additional text, collectively referred to as identifying information (acquiring instrument defining information). Each graphical representation of each surgical instrument is accompanied by its own identifying information (for at least a portion of the matching set of surgical instruments). – paras 21-23; FIGs. 4-5)
forming (S7), using the processing unit, a graphical representation of the sequence of the surgical instruments, wherein the graphical representation further comprises the instrument defining information arranged adjacent to the respective surgical instrument. (Martin discloses that the surgical template is a graphical representation of the instruments (forming a graphical representation of the sequence of the surgical instruments), such as silhouettes of the instruments and the accompanying identifying information (wherein the graphical representation further comprises the instrument defining information arranged adjacent to the respective surgical instrument). Figures 4 and 5 show that the steps of the procedure may be outlined (the sequence of the surgical instruments) as well as identifying information next to each surgical instrument silhouette. – paras 21-23; FIGs. 4-5)
Regarding claim 2, Martin discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising: producing a physical copy of the graphical representation. (Martin discloses that the customized surgical template is printed from a customized surgical template record and that users with access to suitable printing facilities may instead access surgical template records and print their own surgical templates locally (a physical copy of the graphical representation). – paras 5, 32; FIG. 6B)
Regarding claim 3, Martin discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the instrument defining information comprises a computer readable element. (Martin discloses that the identifying information may include the name of the surgeon or procedure and in certain embodiments, the sheet includes a machine-readable code that may provide data such as the surgeons name, a product code or name of the procedure. – paras 5, 21-22, 36) (Examiner notes that Martin therefore indicates that the identifying information may be provided in the form of machine-readable code (a computer readable element).)
Regarding claim 4, Martin discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the request further comprises an additional set of surgical instruments, and the matching set of surgical instruments is further based on the additional set of surgical instruments. (Martin discloses that a surgical template may be customized (the matching set of surgical instruments is further based on the additional set of surgical instruments) by a user. A specific step in a given procedure may be accomplished using one of three different surgical instruments, one of which is more comfortable than the others for operation by a left-handed surgeon. The user may select a pre-made surgical template for a given surgical procedure and replace pre-selected surgical instruments with preferred alternative surgical instruments (an additional set of surgical instruments) in the instrumentation database. – paras 24, 27)
Regarding claim 5, Martin discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the alternative surgical instrument is selected from a predefined list of alternative surgical instruments. (Martin discloses that the user may replace pre-selected surgical instruments with preferred alternative surgical instruments in the instrumentation database (a predefined list of alternative surgical instruments). – para 27)
Regarding claim 6, Martin discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising: establishing, using the processing unit, a connection with a server storing graphical illustrations of surgical instruments, and (Martin discloses that the instrumentation database is a computer database maintained on a computer (which may be used as a server (establishing a connection with a server), client, resource, interface components and the like). The instrumentation database stores a plurality of surgical instrument records where each record includes a graphical representation of a surgical instrument (storing graphical illustrations of surgical instruments). A computer utilized in conjunction with embodiments described herein will typically include a processor in communication with memory, and a network interface. – paras 6, 25)
requesting, using the processing unit, a graphical illustration for each of the surgical instruments in the sequence of the surgical instruments to be comprised in the graphical representation. (Martin discloses that the graphical representation includes a silhouette, outline or image of surgical instruments (a graphical illustration for each of the surgical instruments) specific for that procedure arranged in a predetermined pattern corresponding to the steps in the surgical procedure (in the sequence of the surgical instruments to be comprised in the graphical representation). – paras 4, 22-23; FIGs.4-5)
Regarding claim 7, Martin discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following:
The method according to claim 6, wherein each graphical illustration comprises an outline of the corresponding surgical instrument. (Martin discloses that the graphical representation may include an outline of surgical instruments (each graphical illustration comprises an outline of the corresponding surgical instrument) specific for that procedure arranged in a predetermined pattern corresponding to the steps in the surgical procedure (in the sequence of the surgical instruments to be comprised in the graphical representation). – paras 4, 22-23; FIGs.4-5)
Regarding claim 8, Martin discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following:
The method according to claim 6, further comprising: uploading, using the processing unit, an image of a further surgical instrument to the server, and automatically forming, using the server, an outline of the further surgical instrument. (Martin discloses that the instrumentation database (using the server) includes records for surgical instruments. Each surgical instrument record includes at least the name of the instrument and a graphical representation of the surgical instrument, such as an outline, silhouette, or image (an image of a further surgical instrument) of the instrument. Surgical instrument records may be added to the instrumentation database (uploading an image of a further surgical instrument to the server) as new instruments are developed and may be removed as instruments become obsolete or are no longer used (automatically forming, using the server, an outline of the further surgical instrument). – paras 26, 28) (Examiner notes that Martin indicates that new outlines or images of surgical instruments may be added to the instrumentation database which further indicates that an outline of the instrument would be created (automatically formed) upon adding the new surgical instrument record to the database)
Regarding claim 9, Martin discloses the following limitations:
A computer system adapted to automatically generate a tray instrument layout for a surgical procedure, (Martin discloses methods and systems for preparing and providing a customizable surgical template. More specifically, the disclosed surgical template coordinates the arrangement of surgical instruments used for a particular surgical procedure (generating a tray instrument layout for a surgical procedure) in the order preferred by a particular surgeon or other entity. – abstract; paras 2, 6)
wherein the computer system comprises a processing unit adapted to: receive a request for generating the tray instrument layout, wherein the request comprises an indication of the surgical procedure, (Martin discloses a system comprising a computer including a processor (the computer system comprises a processing unit) and a memory. The user may provide information such as the name of the surgical procedure (an indication of the surgical procedure) or the name of the surgeon for whom the surgical template is being prepared (a request for generating the tray instrument layout). – paras 6, 28)
acquire a desired set of surgical instruments for performing the surgical procedure, (Martin discloses that the surgical template (a desired set of surgical instruments) includes identifying information indicating the procedure it is designed for (for performing the surgical procedure) and the surgeon who will carry out the procedure. – paras 6, 18)
acquire an available set of surgical instruments, form a matching set of surgical instruments by matching the desired set of surgical instruments with the available set of surgical instruments, (Martin discloses that the user may access an instrumentation database (acquire an available set of surgical instruments) in order to customize and select the surgical instruments for a surgical template (form a matching set of surgical instruments by matching the desired set of surgical instruments with the available set of surgical instruments). – paras 6, 18, 24)
identify an alternative surgical instrument if a desired surgical instrument is not matched with an available surgical instrument, (Martin discloses that a specific step in a given procedure may be accomplished, for example, using one of three different surgical instruments. Users may replace (identify an alternative surgical instrument) pre-selected surgical instruments with preferred alternative surgical instruments (if a desired surgical instrument is not matched with an available surgical instrument) in the instrumentation database. – paras 24, 27)
form, based on the surgical procedure, a sequence of the matching set of and alternative surgical instruments, wherein the sequence is formed based on procedural steps predefined for the surgical procedure, (Martin discloses the use of multiple surgical instruments in particular orders based on the procedure type and the surgeons preferences (wherein the sequence is formed based on procedural steps predefined for the surgical procedure). Creating a surgical template record includes each selected surgical instrument record arranged in a defined order (a sequence of the matching set of and alternative surgical instruments). – paras 2-4, 7, 27)
acquire, based on the surgical procedure, instrument defining information for at least a portion of the matching set of surgical instruments, and (Martin discloses that a surgical template may include additional text, collectively referred to as identifying information (acquire instrument defining information). Each graphical representation of each surgical instrument is accompanied by its own identifying information (for at least a portion of the matching set of surgical instruments). – paras 21-23; FIGs. 4-5)
form a graphical representation of the sequence of the surgical instruments, wherein the graphical representation further comprises the instrument defining information arranged adjacent to the respective surgical instrument. (Martin discloses that the surgical template is a graphical representation of the instruments (form a graphical representation of the sequence of the surgical instruments), such as silhouettes of the instruments and the accompanying identifying information (wherein the graphical representation further comprises the instrument defining information arranged adjacent to the respective surgical instrument). Figures 4 and 5 show that the steps of the procedure may be outlined (the sequence of the surgical instruments) as well as identifying information next to each surgical instrument silhouette. – paras 21-23; FIGs. 4-5)
Regarding claim 10, Martin discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following:
The computer system according to claim 9, wherein: the system further comprises a network interface for communication with an electronic user device, and the electronic user device is adapted to form the request for generating the tray instrument layout. (Martin discloses utilizing a computer (an electronic user device) including a processor in communication with memory and a network interface (a network interface for communication with an electronic user device) to perform the disclosed method for preparing and using customizable surgical templates (the electronic user device is adapted to form the request for generating the tray instrument layout). – para 25; FIG. 6A)
Regarding claim 11, Martin discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following:
The computer system according to claim 10, wherein the system is adapted to establish a communication with a printer, using the network interface, for producing a physical copy of the graphical representation. (Martin discloses that the system further comprises a printer in electronic communication with the server (a communication with a printer, using the network interface), for printing a surgical template including the graphical representations each user-selected surgical instrument (for producing a physical copy of the graphical representation). – paras 6, 30)
Regarding claim 12, Martin discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following:
The computer system according to claim 10, wherein the request further comprises an additional set of surgical instruments, and the matching set of surgical instruments is further based on the additional set of surgical instruments. (Martin discloses that a surgical template may be customized (the matching set of surgical instruments is further based on the additional set of surgical instruments) by a user. A specific step in a given procedure may be accomplished using one of three different surgical instruments, one of which is more comfortable than the others for operation by a left-handed surgeon. The user may select a pre-made surgical template for a given surgical procedure and replace pre-selected surgical instruments with preferred alternative surgical instruments (an additional set of surgical instruments) in the instrumentation database. – paras 24, 27)
Regarding claim 13, Martin discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following:
The computer system according to claim 9, wherein the processing unit is further adapted to: identify an alternative surgical instrument if a desired surgical instrument is not matched with an available surgical instrument. (Martin discloses that a specific step in a given procedure may be accomplished, for example, using one of three different surgical instruments. Users may replace (identify an alternative surgical instrument) pre-selected surgical instruments with preferred alternative surgical instruments (if a desired surgical instrument is not matched with an available surgical instrument) in the instrumentation database. – paras 24, 27)
Regarding claim 14, Martin discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following:
The computer system according to claim 10, wherein the processing unit is further adapted to: establish, using the network interface, a connection with a server storing graphical illustrations of surgical instruments, (Martin discloses that the instrumentation database is a computer database maintained on a computer (which may be used as a server (establish a connection with a server), client, resource, interface components and the like). The instrumentation database stores a plurality of surgical instrument records where each record includes a graphical representation of a surgical instrument (storing graphical illustrations of surgical instruments). A computer utilized in conjunction with embodiments described herein will typically include a processor in communication with memory, and a network interface (using the network interface). – para 25)
and request a graphical illustration for each of the surgical instruments in the sequence of the surgical instruments to be comprised in the graphical representation. (Martin discloses that the graphical representation includes a silhouette, outline or image of surgical instruments (a graphical illustration for each of the surgical instruments) specific for that procedure arranged in a predetermined pattern corresponding to the steps in the surgical procedure (in the sequence of the surgical instruments to be comprised in the graphical representation). – paras 4, 22-23; FIGs.4-5)
Regarding claim 15, Martin discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following:
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer program means for controlling a computer system adapted to automatically generate a tray instrument layout for a surgical procedure, (Martin discloses methods and systems for preparing and providing a customizable surgical template including computer-readable, non-transient storage media (A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer program means for controlling a computer system). More specifically, the disclosed surgical template coordinates the arrangement of surgical instruments used for a particular surgical procedure (generate a tray instrument layout for a surgical procedure) in the order preferred by a particular surgeon or other entity. – abstract; paras 2, 6, 25)
wherein the computer system comprises a processing unit and the computer program product comprises: code for receiving, at a processing unit, a request for generating the tray instrument layout, wherein the request comprises an indication of the surgical procedure, (Martin discloses that the user may provide information such as the name of the surgical procedure (an indication of the surgical procedure) or the name of the surgeon for whom the surgical template is being prepared (a request for generating the tray instrument layout). – para 28)
code for acquiring, using the processing unit, a desired set of surgical instruments for performing the surgical procedure, (Martin discloses that the surgical template (a desired set of surgical instruments) includes identifying information indicating the procedure it is designed for (performing the surgical procedure) and the surgeon who will carry out the procedure. – paras 6, 18)
code for acquiring, using the processing unit, an available set of surgical instruments, code for forming, using the processing unit, a matching set of surgical instruments by matching the desired set of surgical instruments with the available set of surgical instruments, (Martin discloses that the user may access an instrumentation database (code for acquiring an available set of surgical instruments) in order to customize and select the surgical instruments for a surgical template (forming a matching set of surgical instruments by matching the desired set of surgical instruments with the available set of surgical instruments). – paras 6, 18, 24)
code for identifying, using the processing unit, an alternative surgical instrument if a desired surgical instrument is not matched with an available surgical instrument, (Martin discloses that a specific step in a given procedure may be accomplished, for example, using one of three different surgical instruments. Users may replace (identifying an alternative surgical instrument) pre-selected surgical instruments with preferred alternative surgical instruments (if a desired surgical instrument is not matched with an available surgical instrument) in the instrumentation database. – paras 24, 27)
code for forming, using the processing unit and based on the surgical procedure, a sequence of the matching set of and alternative surgical instruments, wherein the sequence is formed based on procedural steps predefined for the surgical procedure, (Martin discloses the use of multiple surgical instruments in particular orders based on the procedure type and the surgeons preferences (wherein the sequence is formed based on procedural steps predefined for the surgical procedure). Creating a surgical template record includes each selected surgical instrument record arranged in a defined order (forming a sequence of the matching set of and alternative surgical instruments). – paras 2-4, 7, 27)
code for acquiring, using the processing unit and based on the surgical procedure, instrument defining information for at least a portion of the matching set of surgical instruments, and (Martin discloses that a surgical template may include additional text, collectively referred to as identifying information (acquiring instrument defining information). Each graphical representation of each surgical instrument is accompanied by its own identifying information (for at least a portion of the matching set of surgical instruments). – paras 21-23; FIGs. 4-5)
code for forming, using the processing unit, a graphical representation of the sequence of the surgical instruments, wherein the graphical representation further comprises the instrument defining information arranged adjacent to the respective surgical instrument. (Martin discloses that the surgical template is a graphical representation of the instruments (forming a graphical representation of the sequence of the surgical instruments), such as silhouettes of the instruments and the accompanying identifying information (wherein the graphical representation further comprises the instrument defining information arranged adjacent to the respective surgical instrument). Figures 4 and 5 show that the steps of the procedure may be outlined (the sequence of the surgical instruments) as well as identifying information next to each surgical instrument silhouette. – paras 21-23; FIGs. 4-5)
Relevant Prior Art of Record Not Currently Being Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Foster (US 10617478) discloses a surgical implement selection process that is used in conjunction with a first surgical implement tray having a plurality of first surgical implements therein.
Foster (US 9847044) discloses a surgical implement training process that includes teaching an identity of a plurality of first surgical implements in a first surgical implement tray, a location of the plurality of first surgical implements in the first surgical implement tray and an actual order in which each of the first surgical implements are used when performing a surgical procedure.
Vagley (US 6158437 ) discloses a method of performing a surgical procedure includes providing an instrument supporting tray having a plurality of surgical instruments positioned thereon adjacent to a plurality of instrument-identifying indicia disposed in predetermined relative positions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY VANDER WOUDE whose telephone number is (703)756-4684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5 PM.
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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/K.E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights