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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2, 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 10 of Jaramaz U.S. Patent No. 12,156,700 and in view of Amanatullah US 20170312032. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 2: Claim 1 of the ‘700 patent provide a teaching of A method for utilizing robotic surgical data for enhancing surgical workflow in a closed digital ecosystem, the method comprising:
collecting, by the computing device, a plurality of data related to a surgical episode of care for a patient, the plurality of data comprising a set of pre-operative data associated with the patient, a set of intraoperative data associated with a surgical procedure and collected from one or more components of a computer-assisted surgical system, and a set of post-operative data for the patient; (see col. 86:60-64);
generating, by the computing device, a graphical depiction of the surgical process based on the set of intraoperative data collected from the one or more components of a computer-assisted surgical system and the set of preoperative patient data; (see col. 86:6 - 87:4)
linking, by the computing device, one or more complications, identified from the set of post-operative data, to one or more intraoperative events identified from the set of intraoperative data (see col. 87:10-15); and
The ‘700 patent is silent on the teaching of enhancing the graphical depiction of the surgical process with one or more visual elements highlighting the one or more intraoperative events in association with the one or more complications.
However, the Amanatullah reference provides a teaching of enhancing the graphical depiction of the surgical process with one or more visual elements highlighting the one or more intraoperative events in association with the one or more complications (see paragraph 157 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘700 patent with the feature of enhancing the graphical depiction of the surgical process with one or more visual elements highlighting the one or more intraoperative events in association with the one or more complications, as taught by Amanatullah reference, in order to provide an intuitive interface for the surgeon (see paragraph 19).
Claim 4: Claim 8 of the ‘700 patent provides a teaching of wherein the one or more components of the computer assisted surgical system comprises one or more robotically controlled surgical devices.
Claim 5: Claim 10 of the ‘700 patent provide a teaching of comprising robotically controlling, by the computing device, the one or more robotically controlled surgical devices.
Claim 15: Claim 1 of the ‘700 patent provides a teaching of a surgical computing device comprising:
collect, a plurality of data related to a surgical episode of care for a patient, the plurality of data comprising a set of pre-operative data associated with the patient, a set of intraoperative data associated with a surgical procedure and collected from one or more components of a computer-assisted surgical system, and a set of post-operative data for the patient (see col. 86:60-64);
generate, a graphical depiction of the surgical process based on the set of intraoperative data collected from the one or more components of a computer- assisted surgical system and the set of preoperative patient data; (see col. 86:6 - 87:4)
link one or more complications, identified from the set of post-operative data, to one or more intraoperative events identified from the set of intraoperative data (see col. 87:10-15) and
The ‘700 patent is silent on the teaching of a memory comprising programmed instructions thereon for utilizing robotic surgical data for providing an enhanced surgical workflow in a closed digital ecosystem; one or more processors coupled to the memory and enhance the graphical depiction of the surgical process with one or more visual elements highlighting the one or more intraoperative events in association with the one or more complications
However the Amanatullah reference provides a teaching of a memory comprising programmed instructions thereon for utilizing robotic surgical data for providing an enhanced surgical workflow in a closed digital ecosystem (see paragraph 159); one or more processors coupled to the memory (see FIG 3A item S120); and enhance the graphical depiction of the surgical process with one or more visual elements highlighting the one or more intraoperative events in association with the one or more complications (see paragraph 157).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘700 patent with the feature of a memory comprising programmed instructions thereon for utilizing robotic surgical data for providing an enhanced surgical workflow in a closed digital ecosystem; one or more processors coupled to the memory and enhance the graphical depiction of the surgical process with one or more visual elements highlighting the one or more intraoperative events in association with the one or more complications, as taught by Amanatullah reference, in order to provide an intuitive interface for the surgeon (see paragraph 19).
Claim 16: Claim 10 of the ‘700 patent provides a teaching of wherein the one or more components of the computer assisted surgical system comprises one or more robotically controlled surgical devices, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to robotically control the one or more robotically controlled surgical devices.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of Jaramaz U.S. Patent No. 12,156,700; and in view of Amanatullah US 20170312032 and in view of Wolf US 20180366231
Claim 3: The ‘700 patent is silent on the teaching of linking the one or more complications to the one or more intraoperative events comprises performing, by the computing device, a regression analysis of the plurality of data related to the surgical episode of care.
However, the Wolf reference provides a teaching of linking the one or more complications to the one or more intraoperative events comprises performing, by the computing device, a regression analysis of the plurality of data related to the surgical episode of care (see paragraph 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘700 patent with the feature of linking the one or more complications to the one or more intraoperative events comprises performing, by the computing device, a regression analysis of the plurality of data related to the surgical episode of care; as taught by the Wolf, in order to identify pre-operative issues from action taken during the surgery (see paragraph 6).
Claims 6-14 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 4, 8- 10 of Jaramaz U.S. Patent No. 12,156,700 and in view of Amanatullah US 20170312032 and further in view of Poltaretskyi US 20190380792
Claim 6: The ‘700 patent is silent on the teaching of generating one or more timestamps for the set of intraoperative data collected from one or more components of a computer-assisted surgical system.
However, the Poltaretskyi reference provides a teaching of generating one or more timestamps for the set of intraoperative data collected from one or more components of a computer-assisted surgical system (see paragraph 558).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Jaramaz reference with the feature of generating one or more timestamps for the set of intraoperative data collected from one or more components of a computer-assisted surgical system, as taught by the Poltaretskyi reference, in order to
Claim 7: The ‘700 patent is silent on the teaching of timestamping the one or more intraoperative events based on the one or more timestamps generated for the set of intraoperative data.
However, the Poltaretskyi reference provides a teaching of timestamping the one or more intraoperative events based on the one or more timestamps generated for the set of intraoperative data (see paragraph 591).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘700 patent with the feature of timestamping the one or more intraoperative events based on the one or more timestamps generated for the set of intraoperative data, as taught by the Poltaretskyi reference, in order to identify important milestone of the surgery (see paragraph 559).
Claim 8: Claim 9 of the ‘700 patent provides a teaching of generating a playback video of the surgical process with the one or more visual elements highlighting the one or more intraoperative events in association with the one or more complications.
Claim 9: Claim 4 of the ‘700 patent provides a teaching of wherein the one or ore visual elements are
overlaid on the playback video at time points corresponding to the one or more intraoperative events.
Claim 10: Claim 9 of the ‘700 patent provides a teaching of wherein the playback video further comprises color-coding the one or more visual elements based on one or more types of complications.
Claim 11: The ‘700 patent is silent on the teaching of wherein one or more of the playback video and the plurality of data related to the surgical episode of care for the patient are stored in a database.
However, the Poltaretskyi reference provides a teahcihng of wherein one or more of the playback video and the plurality of data related to the surgical episode of care for the patient are stored in a database (see paragraph 755).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘700 patent with the feature of wherein one or more of the playback video and the plurality of data related to the surgical episode of care for the patient are stored in a database, as taught by the Poltaretskyi reference, in order to identify important milestone of the surgery (see paragraph 559).
Claim 12: The ‘700 patent is silent on the teaching of wherein the database stores a plurality of playback videos and a plurality of data records associated with a surgical episode care data records for each of a plurality of patients.
However, the Poltaretskyi reference provide a teaching of wherein the database stores a plurality of playback videos and a plurality of data records associated with a surgical episode care data records for each of a plurality of patients (see paragraph 233).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘700 patent with the feature of wherein the database stores a plurality of playback videos and a plurality of data records associated with a surgical episode care data records for each of a plurality of patients, as taught by the Poltaretskyi reference, in order to identify important milestone of the surgery (see paragraph 559).
Claim 13: The ‘700 patent is silent on the teaching of comprising comparing the surgical episode care data records across the plurality of patients to generate one or more predictive models of surgical outcomes.
However, the Poltaretskyi reference provide a teaching of wherein comparing the surgical episode care data records across the plurality of patients to generate one or more predictive models of surgical outcomes (see paragraph 617).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘700 patent with the feature of comparing the surgical episode care data records across the plurality of patients to generate one or more predictive models of surgical outcomes, as taught by the Poltaretskyi reference, in order to identify important milestone of the surgery (see paragraph 559).
Claim 14: The ‘700 patent is silent on the teaching of aggregating one or more visual elements highlighting one or more complications, from the plurality of surgical episode of care data associated with the plurality of patients.
However, the Poltaretskyi reference provide a teaching of wherein aggregating one or more visual elements highlighting one or more complications, from the plurality of surgical episode of care data associated with the plurality of patients (see paragraph 1079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the feature of wherein aggregating one or more visual elements highlighting one or more complications, from the plurality of surgical episode of care data associated with the plurality of patients, as taught by the Poltaretskyi reference, in order to identify important milestone of the surgery (see paragraph 559).
Claim 17: The ‘700 patent is silent on the teaching of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to: generate one or more timestamps for the set of intraoperative data collected from one or more components of a computer-assisted surgical system, and timestamp the one or more intraoperative events based on the one or more timestamps generated for the set of intraoperative data.
However, the Poltaretskyi provides a teaching of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to: generate one or more timestamps for the set of intraoperative data collected from one or more components of a computer-assisted surgical system, and timestamp the one or more intraoperative events based on the one or more timestamps generated for the set of intraoperative data (see paragraph 591).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘700 patent with the feature of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to: generate one or more timestamps for the set of intraoperative data collected from one or more components of a computer-assisted surgical system, and timestamp the one or more intraoperative events based on the one or more timestamps generated for the set of intraoperative data, as taught by the Poltaretskyi reference, in order to identify important milestone of the surgery (see paragraph 559).
Claim 18: The ‘700 patent is silent on the teaching of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to generate a playback video of the surgical process with the one or more visual elements highlighting the one or more intraoperative events in association with the one or more complications.
However, the Poltaretskyi reference provides a teaching wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to generate a playback video of the surgical process with the one or more visual elements highlighting the one or more intraoperative events in association with the one or more complications (see paragraph 240).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘700 patent with the feature of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to generate a playback video of the surgical process with the one or more visual elements highlighting the one or more intraoperative events in association with the one or more complications, as taught by the Poltaretskyi reference, in order to identify important milestone of the surgery (see paragraph 559).
Claim 19: The ‘700 patent is silent on the teaching of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to store one or more of the playback video and the plurality of data, related to the surgical episode of care for the patient, in a database, wherein the database comprises a plurality of playback videos and a plurality of data records associated with a surgical episode of care data for each of a plurality of patients.
However, the Poltaretskyi reference provides a teaching of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to store one or more of the playback video and the plurality of data, related to the surgical episode of care for the patient, in a database, wherein the database comprises a plurality of playback videos and a plurality of data records associated with a surgical episode of care data for each of a plurality of patients (see paragraph 601).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘700 patent with the feature of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to store one or more of the playback video and the plurality of data, related to the surgical episode of care for the patient, in a database, wherein the database comprises a plurality of playback videos and a plurality of data records associated with a surgical episode of care data for each of a plurality of patients, as taught by the Poltaretskyi reference, in order to identify important milestone of the surgery (see paragraph 559).
Claim 20: The ‘700 patent is silent on the teaching of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to: compare the surgical episode care data across the plurality of patients; and aggregate one or more visual elements highlighting one or more complications, from a plurality of surgical episode of care data associated with the plurality of patients.
However, the Poltaretskyi provides a teaching of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to: compare the surgical episode care data across the plurality of patients; and aggregate one or more visual elements highlighting one or more complications, from a plurality of surgical episode of care data associated with the plurality of patients (see paragraph 189 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘700 patent with the feature of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to: compare the surgical episode care data across the plurality of patients; and aggregate one or more visual elements highlighting one or more complications, from a plurality of surgical episode of care data associated with the plurality of patients, as taught by the Poltaretskyi reference, in order to identify important milestone of the surgery (see paragraph 559).
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Jaramaz U.S. Patent No. 12,426,953 and in view of Amanatullah US 20170312032.
Claim 2: Claim 1 of the ‘953 patent provide a teaching of A method for utilizing robotic surgical data for enhancing surgical workflow in a closed digital ecosystem, the method comprising:
collecting, by the computing device, a plurality of data related to a surgical episode of care for a patient, the plurality of data comprising a set of pre-operative data associated with the patient, a set of intraoperative data associated with a surgical procedure and collected from one or more components of a computer-assisted surgical system, and a set of post-operative data for the patient (see col. 86:56-63);
generating, by the computing device, a graphical depiction of the surgical process based on the set of intraoperative data collected from the one or more components of a computer-assisted surgical system and the set of preoperative patient data (see col. 87:11-15);
linking, by the computing device, one or more complications, identified from the set of post-operative data, to one or more intraoperative events identified from the set of intraoperative data (see col. 87:1-7)
The ‘953 patent is silent on the teaching of enhancing the graphical depiction of the surgical process with one or more visual elements highlighting the one or more intraoperative events in association with the one or more complications.
However, the Amanatullah reference provides a teaching of enhancing the graphical depiction of the surgical process with one or more visual elements highlighting the one or more intraoperative events in association with the one or more complications (see paragraph 157 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘953 patent with the feature of enhancing the graphical depiction of the surgical process with one or more visual elements highlighting the one or more intraoperative events in association with the one or more complications, as taught by Amanatullah reference, in order to provide an intuitive interface for the surgeon (see paragraph 19).
Claim 15: Claim 1 of the ‘953 patent provides a teaching of a surgical computing device comprising:
collect, a plurality of data related to a surgical episode of care for a patient (see col. 86:56-63)the plurality of data comprising a set of pre-operative data associated with the patient, a set of intraoperative data associated with a surgical procedure and collected from one or more components of a computer-assisted surgical system, and a set of post-operative data for the patient (see col. 86:56-63);
generate, a graphical depiction of the surgical process based on the set of intraoperative data collected from the one or more components of a computer- assisted surgical system and the set of preoperative patient data (see col. 87:11-15);
link one or more complications, identified from the set of post-operative data, to one or more intraoperative events identified from the set of intraoperative data (see col. 87:1-7).
The ‘953 patent is silent on the teaching of a memory comprising programmed instructions thereon for utilizing robotic surgical data for providing an enhanced surgical workflow in a closed digital ecosystem and; one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to: enhance the graphical depiction of the surgical process with one or more visual elements highlighting the one or more intraoperative events in association with the one or more complications.
However the Amanatullah reference provides a teaching of a memory comprising programmed instructions thereon for utilizing robotic surgical data for providing an enhanced surgical workflow in a closed digital ecosystem (see paragraph 159); one or more processors coupled to the memory (see FIG 3A item S120); and enhance the graphical depiction of the surgical process with one or more visual elements highlighting the one or more intraoperative events in association with the one or more complications (see paragraph 157).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘953 patent with the feature of a memory comprising programmed instructions thereon for utilizing robotic surgical data for providing an enhanced surgical workflow in a closed digital ecosystem; one or more processors coupled to the memory and enhance the graphical depiction of the surgical process with one or more visual elements highlighting the one or more intraoperative events in association with the one or more complications, as taught by Amanatullah reference, in order to provide an intuitive interface for the surgeon (see paragraph 19).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights