DETAILED ACTION
Notices to Applicant
This communication is a First Action Non-Final on the merits. Claims 1-14 as filed 08/07/2026, are currently pending and have been considered below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 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.
Claim 14 is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to “a computer-program product.” Independent claim 14, as well as the Application Specification, fails to exclude the claimed computer program product from being transitory. See Application Specification at [0056] (“computer program and the computer-readable storage medium are respective computer program products including the instructions”); however, tangibility is not sufficient to exclude the concept of a transitory signal.
When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to a computer-readable storage medium that covers signal per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer-readable storage medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C.§101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals- Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signal per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Claims 1-13 are drawn to a method/system for remote assistance of a medical intervention, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. method/machine/manufacture). The claims do not recite a judicial exception (e.g. an abstract idea) under Step 2A, Prong One, therefore, the claims 1-13 recite patent eligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0067011 A1 (hereinafter “Kaula et al.”) in view of U.S. 2022/0189074 A1 (hereinafter “Hernandez et al.”).
RE: Claim 1 Kaula et al. teaches the claimed:
1. A method for remote assistance of a medical intervention, the method comprising: receiving, by a data processing system, an input specifying a proposed medical device ((Kaula et al., [0039]) (the scanned data is used to configure a user interface for the programmer 160. For example, images of the medical devices, IPG 120 and the lead 140, are graphically represented on the display 157. In one embodiment, only the identified medical devices will be displayed on the display));
generating, by the data processing system, representation data depending on the input ((Kaula et al., [0039]) (the scanned data is used to configure a user interface for the programmer 160. For example, images of the medical devices, IPG 120 and the lead 140, are graphically represented on the display 157. In one embodiment, only the identified medical devices will be displayed on the display));
transmitting the representation data by the data processing system to a display device located remotely from the data processing system ((Kaula et al., [0037]) (Portions of the identified information may be displayed on the display 157, output to a printer 112 for printing a patient record, or transmitted to other networked computers or cloud servers for record keeping. The identified information may be stored in the programmer 106. In one embodiment, the identified information may be stored for later display rather than for immediate display)); and
displaying, by the display device, […], or (2) a further visual representation of a reference object and the visual representation true to scale ((Kaula et al., [0039]) (The image of the medical device may be rotated or linearly translated on the display 157 to correspond to the actual position and orientation of the implanted medical device. Thus, the display 157 graphically represents the spatial location and orientation of the actual medical device relative to the section of human spine)).
Kaula et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Hernandez et al. teaches the claimed:
displaying, by the display device, (1) a visual representation depending on the representation data and depending on a display size of the display device such that a size of the displayed visual representation corresponds to a real size of the proposed medical device ((Hernandez, [0045]) (The desired material in the FIG. 14 example comprises a liquid medicine, or drug, located within a syringe 1487 displayed on the screen. The size of the syringe 1487 and the correct volume 1488 displayed on the screen 1489 may comprise an actual size, enabling a provider to place the actual syringe, used by the provider to give the drug to a patient, next to the syringe 1487 on the screen 1489 to verify the size of the syringe the provider is using is the correct size of syringe and to also verity that the correct volume is the same size as the volume 1488 displayed on the screen 1489)).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the display of the correct size of the syringe on the screen such that a provider is enabled to place the actual syringe next to the syringe on the screen to verify correctness as taught by Hernandez et al. within the method and system for the identification and association of medical devices as taught by Kaula et al. with the motivation of providing a reliable way to confirm the correct amount of a solution or suspension to use for particular tasks across a variety of fields and industries (Hernandez et al., [0008]).
RE: Claim 2 Kaula et al. and Hernandez et al. teach the claimed:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the reference object is an anatomic object or a further medical device ((Kaula et al., [0039]) (The image of the medical device may be rotated or linearly translated on the display 157 to correspond to the actual position and orientation of the implanted medical device. Thus, the display 157 graphically represents the spatial location and orientation of the actual medical device relative to the section of human spine)).
RE: Claim 3 Kaula et al. and Hernandez et al. teach the claimed:
3. The method of claim 1, wherein a size and/or a shape property of the proposed medical device is displayed in real size or true to scale by displaying the visual representation ((Hernandez, [0045]) (The desired material in the FIG. 14 example comprises a liquid medicine, or drug, located within a syringe 1487 displayed on the screen. The size of the syringe 1487 and the correct volume 1488 displayed on the screen 1489 may comprise an actual size, enabling a provider to place the actual syringe, used by the provider to give the drug to a patient, next to the syringe 1487 on the screen 1489 to verify the size of the syringe the provider is using is the correct size of syringe and to also verity that the correct volume is the same size as the volume 1488 displayed on the screen 1489)).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the display of the correct size of the syringe on the screen such that a provider is enabled to place the actual syringe next to the syringe on the screen to verify correctness as taught by Hernandez et al. within the method and system for the identification and association of medical devices as taught by Kaula et al. with the motivation of providing a reliable way to confirm the correct amount of a solution or suspension to use for particular tasks across a variety of fields and industries (Hernandez et al., [0008]).
RE: Claim 4 Kaula et al. and Hernandez et al. teach the claimed:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein a medical device is selected from a plurality of medical devices according to the displayed visual representation or a generic medical device is modified according to the displayed visual representation, wherein sensor data representing the selected or modified medical device is generated by a sensor system, and wherein the selection or modification of the medical device is validated depending on the sensor data ((Kaula et al., [0028], [0032], [0039]) (Additional data about the IPG may be included in the machine-readable representation of data or may be accessed from a related product database. Such additional information may include physical information about the IPG such as size and shape; The scanning system 158 may include an illumination system a sensor, a decoder, and other hardware and software for scanning, recognizing, and interpreting a machine-readable representation of data. The scanning system may include a barcode reader, an OCR device, a camera, and other decoding equipment and software; the scanned data is used to configure a user interface for the programmer 160. For example, images of the medical devices, IPG 120 and the lead 140, are graphically represented on the display 157. In one embodiment, only the identified medical devices will be displayed on the display 157. In alternative embodiments, the identified medical devices may be displayed with other medical devices, but the identified medical devices may be graphically emphasized to indicate to a viewer, which graphically displayed medical devices correspond to the scanned medical devices)).
RE: Claim 5 Kaula et al. and Hernandez et al. teach the claimed:
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the sensor data is transmitted to the data processing system, wherein a validation output is generated by the data processing system depending on the sensor data, and wherein the selection or modification of the medical device is validated in response to the validation output ((Hernandez et al., [0045], [0073], [0074]) (The size of the syringe 1487 and the correct volume 1488 displayed on the screen 1489 may comprise an actual size, enabling a provider to place the actual syringe, used by the provider to give the drug to a patient, next to the syringe 1487 on the screen 1489 to verify the size of the syringe the provider is using is the correct size of syringe; Then, on additional fifth screen 315, the provider may select the appropriate size syringe (in this example, 3 ml), and the screen may display a visualization 319 of the correct volume of phenobarbital as it should appear in the syringe; a sixth screen 316 may be automatically displayed, where the sixth screen shows photographs of multiple syringe options for the identified desired material, concentration, use case scenario, and variables. A recommended syringe for the dosage displayed in FIG. 3b is with the correct volume is highlighted or otherwise identified as the correct syringe to use in the FIG. 3c display. Screen 316 is exemplary of the types of measurement-tool-size recommendations that may be made according to the embodiments disclosed herein. These calculations and visualizations may be systematized for a specific industry, company, hospital, insurance, etc., and automated, allowing a user of the application to calculate and acquire a proper dosage of drugs quickly and accurately, even in high-pressure situations)).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the display of a recommended syringe with the correct size of the syringe on the screen such that a provider is enabled to place the actual syringe next to the syringe on the screen to verify correctness as taught by Hernandez et al. within the method and system for the identification and association of medical devices as taught by Kaula et al. with the motivation of providing a reliable way to confirm the correct amount of a solution or suspension to use for particular tasks across a variety of fields and industries (Hernandez et al., [0008]).
RE: Claim 7 Kaula et al. and Hernandez et al. teach the claimed:
7. The method of claim 4, wherein a size and/or a shape property of the proposed medical device is displayed in real size or true to scale by displaying the visual representation, wherein the size and/or the shape property of the selected or modified medical device is measured by the sensor system for the generating of the sensor data, and wherein the selection or modification of the medical device is validated depending on the size and/or the shape property ((Hernandez, [0045]) (The desired material in the FIG. 14 example comprises a liquid medicine, or drug, located within a syringe 1487 displayed on the screen. The size of the syringe 1487 and the correct volume 1488 displayed on the screen 1489 may comprise an actual size, enabling a provider to place the actual syringe, used by the provider to give the drug to a patient, next to the syringe 1487 on the screen 1489 to verify the size of the syringe the provider is using is the correct size of syringe and to also verity that the correct volume is the same size as the volume 1488 displayed on the screen 1489)).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the display of the correct size of the syringe on the screen such that a provider is enabled to place the actual syringe next to the syringe on the screen to verify correctness as taught by Hernandez et al. within the method and system for the identification and association of medical devices as taught by Kaula et al. with the motivation of providing a reliable way to confirm the correct amount of a solution or suspension to use for particular tasks across a variety of fields and industries (Hernandez et al., [0008]).
RE: Claim 8 Kaula et al. and Hernandez et al. teach the claimed:
8. The method of claim 4, wherein a size and/or a shape property of the proposed medical device is displayed in real size or true to scale by displaying the visual representation, wherein a camera image or a video of the selected or modified medical device is generated by at least one camera for the generating of the sensor data, and wherein the selection or modification of the medical device is validated depending on the camera image or the video ((Hernandez, [0045]) (an imaging device such as, but not limited, to, a camera and software may capture an image and utilize machine learning and/or artificial intelligence techniques to obtain the name, concentration, volume, etc. of the desired material within the container, Such information from the label of the desired material container may also be used in other modules, such as, but not limited to, the calculation module; The desired material in the FIG. 14 example comprises a liquid medicine, or drug, located within a syringe 1487 displayed on the screen. The size of the syringe 1487 and the correct volume 1488 displayed on the screen 1489 may comprise an actual size, enabling a provider to place the actual syringe, used by the provider to give the drug to a patient, next to the syringe 1487 on the screen 1489 to verify the size of the syringe the provider is using is the correct size of syringe and to also verity that the correct volume is the same size as the volume 1488 displayed on the screen 1489)).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the display of the correct size of the syringe on the screen such that a provider is enabled to place the actual syringe next to the syringe on the screen to verify correctness as taught by Hernandez et al. within the method and system for the identification and association of medical devices as taught by Kaula et al. with the motivation of providing a reliable way to confirm the correct amount of a solution or suspension to use for particular tasks across a variety of fields and industries (Hernandez et al., [0008]).
RE: Claim 10 Kaula et al. and Hernandez et al. teach the claimed:
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating further sensor data representing the proposed medical device by a further sensor system, and wherein the input comprises the further sensor data or is generated based on the further sensor data ((Kaula et al., [0032]) (The scanning system 158 may include an illumination system a sensor, a decoder, and other hardware and software for scanning, recognizing, and interpreting a machine-readable representation of data. The scanning system may include a barcode reader, an OCR device, a camera, and other decoding equipment and software)).
RE: Claim 12 Kaula et al. teaches the claimed:
12. A system comprising: a data processing system; and a display device located remotely from the data processing system, wherein the data processing system is configured to: receive an input specifying a proposed medical device ((Kaula et al., [0039]) (the scanned data is used to configure a user interface for the programmer 160. For example, images of the medical devices, IPG 120 and the lead 140, are graphically represented on the display 157. In one embodiment, only the identified medical devices will be displayed on the display));
generate representation data depending on the input ((Kaula et al., [0039]) (the scanned data is used to configure a user interface for the programmer 160. For example, images of the medical devices, IPG 120 and the lead 140, are graphically represented on the display 157. In one embodiment, only the identified medical devices will be displayed on the display)); and
transmit the representation data to the display device ((Kaula et al., [0037]) (Portions of the identified information may be displayed on the display 157, output to a printer 112 for printing a patient record, or transmitted to other networked computers or cloud servers for record keeping. The identified information may be stored in the programmer 106. In one embodiment, the identified information may be stored for later display rather than for immediate display)),
wherein the display device is configured to: […]; or (2) display a further visual representation of a reference object and the visual representation true to scale ((Kaula et al., [0039]) (The image of the medical device may be rotated or linearly translated on the display 157 to correspond to the actual position and orientation of the implanted medical device. Thus, the display 157 graphically represents the spatial location and orientation of the actual medical device relative to the section of human spine)).
Kaula et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Hernandez et al. teaches the claimed:
wherein the display device is configured to: (1) display a visual representation depending on the representation data and depending on a display size of the display device such that a size of the displayed visual representation corresponds to a real size of the proposed medical device ((Hernandez, [0045]) (The desired material in the FIG. 14 example comprises a liquid medicine, or drug, located within a syringe 1487 displayed on the screen. The size of the syringe 1487 and the correct volume 1488 displayed on the screen 1489 may comprise an actual size, enabling a provider to place the actual syringe, used by the provider to give the drug to a patient, next to the syringe 1487 on the screen 1489 to verify the size of the syringe the provider is using is the correct size of syringe and to also verity that the correct volume is the same size as the volume 1488 displayed on the screen 1489)).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the display of the correct size of the syringe on the screen such that a provider is enabled to place the actual syringe next to the syringe on the screen to verify correctness as taught by Hernandez et al. within the method and system for the identification and association of medical devices as taught by Kaula et al. with the motivation of providing a reliable way to confirm the correct amount of a solution or suspension to use for particular tasks across a variety of fields and industries ([0008]).
RE: Claim 14 Kaula et al. teaches the claimed:
14. A computer program product comprising instructions, which, when executed by a system, cause the system to: receive, by a data processing system of the system, an input specifying a proposed medical device ((Kaula et al., [0039]) (the scanned data is used to configure a user interface for the programmer 160. For example, images of the medical devices, IPG 120 and the lead 140, are graphically represented on the display 157. In one embodiment, only the identified medical devices will be displayed on the display));
generate, by the data processing system, representation data depending on the input; ((Kaula et al., [0039]) (the scanned data is used to configure a user interface for the programmer 160. For example, images of the medical devices, IPG 120 and the lead 140, are graphically represented on the display 157. In one embodiment, only the identified medical devices will be displayed on the display));
transmit the representation data by the data processing system to a display device of the system located remotely from the data processing system ((Kaula et al., [0037]) (Portions of the identified information may be displayed on the display 157, output to a printer 112 for printing a patient record, or transmitted to other networked computers or cloud servers for record keeping. The identified information may be stored in the programmer 106. In one embodiment, the identified information may be stored for later display rather than for immediate display)); and
display, by the display device, […], or (2) a further visual representation of a reference object and the visual representation true to scale ((Kaula et al., [0039]) (The image of the medical device may be rotated or linearly translated on the display 157 to correspond to the actual position and orientation of the implanted medical device. Thus, the display 157 graphically represents the spatial location and orientation of the actual medical device relative to the section of human spine)).
Kaula et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Hernandez et al. teaches the claimed:
display, by the display device, (1) a visual representation depending on the representation data and depending on a display size of the display device such that a size of the displayed visual representation corresponds to a real size of the proposed medical device ((Hernandez, [0045]) (The desired material in the FIG. 14 example comprises a liquid medicine, or drug, located within a syringe 1487 displayed on the screen. The size of the syringe 1487 and the correct volume 1488 displayed on the screen 1489 may comprise an actual size, enabling a provider to place the actual syringe, used by the provider to give the drug to a patient, next to the syringe 1487 on the screen 1489 to verify the size of the syringe the provider is using is the correct size of syringe and to also verity that the correct volume is the same size as the volume 1488 displayed on the screen 1489)).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the display of the correct size of the syringe on the screen such that a provider is enabled to place the actual syringe next to the syringe on the screen to verify correctness as taught by Hernandez et al. within the method and system for the identification and association of medical devices as taught by Kaula et al. with the motivation of providing a reliable way to confirm the correct amount of a solution or suspension to use for particular tasks across a variety of fields and industries (Hernandez et al. [0008]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0067011 A1 (hereinafter “Kaula et al.”) in view of U.S. 2022/0189074 A1 (hereinafter “Hernandez et al.”), and further in view of U.S. 20130339044 A1 (hereinafter “Sheehan et al.”).
RE: Claim 6 Kaula et al. and Hernandez et al. teach the claimed:
6. The method of claim 5, wherein a further input confirming or rejecting the selection or modification of the medical device is received by the data processing system in response to the validation output ((Kaula et al., [00040], [0044]) (One or both of the images of the identified medical devices may be selected, for example by touching a touch screen, and moved to hover over the spinal section; The model selection window 610 includes a series of implants such as paddle leads 612 and 616, along with percutaneous leads 614 and 618. As explained above, if more implanted devices are associated with window 610 than can be displayed, the displayed objects may be presented in a carousel manner with the user able to spin the carousel to view different implants)).
Kaula et al. and Hernandez et al. fail to explicitly teach, but Sheehan et al. teaches the claimed:
wherein a confirmation message is transmitted from the data processing system to the display device or to a further output device when the further input confirms the selection or modification of the medical device ((Sheehan et al., [0113]) (a confirmation may then be transmitted to the healthcare professional's device to indicate that the healthcare professional is authorized for the selected product; If, however, the received information cannot be matched to any stored information, then a failure message may be transmitted back to the healthcare professional's device)).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the confirmation message when a medical device is authorized or failed to be matched as taught by Sheehan et al. within the method and system for the identification and association of medical devices as taught by Kaula et al. and the display of the correct size of the syringe on the screen such that a provider is enabled to place the actual syringe next to the syringe on the screen to verify correctness as taught by Hernandez et al. with the motivation of enhancing risk evaluation and mitigation strategies through mobile applications for information gathering and provision (Sheehan et al. [0003], [0005], [0006]]).
Claim 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0067011 A1 (hereinafter “Kaula et al.”) in view of U.S. 2022/0189074 A1 (hereinafter “Hernandez et al.”), and further in view of U.S. 2010/00736809 A1 (hereinafter “Pless”).
RE: Claim 9 Kaula et al. and Hernandez et al. teach the claimed:
9. The method of claim 4, wherein a size and/or a shape property of the proposed medical device is displayed in real size or true to scale by displaying the visual representation ((Kaula et al., [0039]) (The image of the medical device may be rotated or linearly translated on the display 157 to correspond to the actual position and orientation of the implanted medical device. Thus, the display 157 graphically represents the spatial location and orientation of the actual medical device relative to the section of human spine)).
Kaula et al. and Hernandez et al. fail to explicitly teach, but Pless teaches the claimed:
wherein a three-dimensional scan of the selected or modified medical device is generated by a laser scanner for the generating of the sensor data, and wherein the selection or modification of the medical device is validated depending on the three-dimensional scan ((Pless, [0014], [0015]) (variations may be introduced in a manufacturing process to distinguish devices from each other. Such identification may be performed with respect to distinguishing a device from other devices of the same type. In an embodiment, an energy beam, such as a coherent light source or laser, may be directed towards a device. The device may cause the energy beam to be scattered resulting in a spatially distributed interference pattern, also known as a speckle pattern. Microscopic and/or other variations in material composition of each device may cause the scattering to differ for each device)).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine laser scanning of medical devices for identification as taught by Pless within the method and system for the identification and association of medical devices as taught by Kaula et al. and the display of the correct size of the syringe on the screen such that a provider is enabled to place the actual syringe next to the syringe on the screen to verify correctness as taught by Hernandez et al. with the motivation of providing a simple and inexpensive process for performing medical device identification (Pless [0008]-[0010]).
RE: Claim 11 Kaula et al. and Hernandez et al. teach the claimed:
11. The method of claim 1.
Kaula et al. and Hernandez et al. fail to explicitly teach, but Pless teaches the claimed:
wherein the proposed medical device is a stent, a vessel prosthesis, a vessel catheter, or a guidewire for guiding a further medical device in a vessel structure ((Pless, [0032]) (The device may include, for example and without limitation, a medical device, such as a stent, a pacing lead, a neurological lead, a catheter and the like, a bone screw, a manipulate, a suture sleeve, a semiconductor device or the like)).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine identification of medical devices such as a tent and a catheter as taught by Pless within the method and system for the identification and association of medical devices as taught by Kaula et al. and the display of the correct size of the syringe on the screen such that a provider is enabled to place the actual syringe next to the syringe on the screen to verify correctness as taught by Hernandez et al. with the motivation of providing a simple and inexpensive process for performing medical device identification (Pless [0008]-[0010]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0067011 A1 (hereinafter “Kaula et al.”) in view of U.S. 2022/0189074 A1 (hereinafter “Hernandez et al.”), and further in view of U.S. 2010/0228249 A1 (hereinafter “Mohr et al.”).
RE: Claim 13 Kaula et al. and Hernandez et al. teach the claimed:
13. The system of claim 12.
Kaula et al. and Hernandez et al. fail to explicitly teach, but Mohr et al. teaches the claimed:
further comprising: a robotic manipulator configured to select a medical device from a plurality of medical devices according to the displayed visual representation or to modify a generic medical device according to the displayed visual representation ((robotic surgical tools many be catheters; The user selects which of one or more robotic surgical tools mounted to the robotic arms is to be active (selects the handedness) to receive a supply from the remote controlled equipment under control of one or more foot pedals in the surgeon's console.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine surgical tools such as catheters being selected as active for a surgical robotic arm as taught by Mohr et al. within the method and system for the identification and association of medical devices as taught by Kaula et al. and the display of the correct size of the syringe on the screen such that a provider is enabled to place the actual syringe next to the syringe on the screen to verify correctness as taught by Hernandez et al. with the motivation of improving surgeon control of desired instruments in robotic surgery (Mohr et al. [0003], [0005], [0006]]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0301702 A1 teaches a validation system for the assignment of at least one medical device to a patient ([0008]); and
US 2024/0257697 A1 teaches the information 632 on the size of the actual object displayed through the display 210 may be set based on the information 631 on the size of the display 210. For example, as the size of the display 210 is larger, the size of the actual object displayed on the display 210 having the same resolution may also be displayed larger ([0129]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY BALAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-8181. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/A.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights