DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments submitted 8 December 2026 with respect to claim 1 (and by dependency claims 2, 3, 6, 7-15, and 21) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claims 1- 3, 5, 7-10, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saglam (US 2014/0243849 A1, hereinafter Saglam’849) in view of Diolaiti (US 2012/0059392 A1, hereinafter Diolaiti’392), or alternatively as unpatentable over Saglam’849 in view of Diolaiti’392 and further in view of Savall et al. (US 2018/0078034 A1, hereinafter Savall’034).
Regarding claim 1, Saglam’849 discloses a control console (e.g. control unit 32) for controlling at least one surgical mechanical arm (e.g. robotic manipulator 31), comprising: a base (e.g. base 32 supporting seat 41 with vertical lifting column 39); one or more input devices (e.g. control handles 44a and 44b, wheel 71) coupled to said base (e.g. by separate vertical lifting column 39 for console 40) for controlling movement of said at least one surgical mechanical arm (e.g. [0159]); a processor (e.g. controller 80) which generates signals for controlling actuation of said at least one surgical mechanical arm in response to manipulation of said one or more input devices by the user (e.g. [0157] indicates that sensor in input devices 44 communicate with controller 80 which then communicates with the controller of the robotic manipulator see also Fig 21); and a display (e.g. video monitor 42) coupled to said base, said display positioned across from the user and places their hands in contact with said one or more input devices (e.g. shown in Figs. 1, 6; [0166] indicates that 42 can be in front of the surgeon); said display presenting at least one of images and instructions related to a position of said at least one surgical mechanical arm (e.g. [0028] indicates that the position of the manipulator can be displayed on the video monitor see also [0009; 0166; 0208]). Saglam’849 discloses wherein the input device(s) comprise one or more input arms attached to the base via an adjustable stand (e.g. each of control handles 44a and 44b reasonably are considered an “input arm”), wherein each of said one or more input arms comprises two or more elongated segments sequentially coupled by one or more joints configured to allow rotation and/or flexion of each said one or more arms (e.g., 44a/44b relied upon as the recited one or more arms each have multiple degrees of freedom about a flexion joint as illustrated in Figs. 1 and 6, and further rotation in Fig. 9, and as described in paragraphs [0059], [0159], [0160], [0170], and [0180]. Fig. 9 shows, as stated in paragraphs [0159] and [0160], that lever 44c is separately articulable from handle 44a, and therefore reasonably reads on a second sequentially coupled segment of the input arm.), wherein at least one segment distal to the stand is configured for being gripped by the user (e.g. element 44a).
Further regarding claim 1, Saglam’849 discloses the invention substantially as claimed including wherein each of said one or more input arms comprises three or more elongated segments, sequentially connected by joints (e.g., 44a is connected by a joint to 44b, which is connected by a joint to 44c), but does not expressly disclose wherein the rotation and/or flexion accomplished through said coupling results in a corresponding shape of the surgical arm, and wherein it is specifically the end segment that is sized and shaped to be gripped by a user’s hand. In the same field of endeavor, Diolaiti’392 teaches that it is known to provide a surgeon console with left and right input devices (41, 42) which are graspable on their end segment with left and right hand respectively (e.g., paragraph [0052]). The input devices (41, 42) comprise at least three sequentially coupled and articulable elongated segments (e.g., as seen in Fig. 6) to provide at least four and preferably six degrees-of-freedom movement that correspond to the same movement in the surgical arm/end effectors (e.g., Fig. 5; paragraph [0048]). Diolaiti’392 teaches that the input devices (41, 42) operate in a tool following mode where the manipulation of the input devices causes “corresponding movement of their respectively associated surgical tools” (e.g., paragraph [0054]). This corresponding movement provides the surgeon with the benefit of telepresence, wherein the surgeon has the perception that the movement of the input devices is “integral with the tools” such that the surgeon has a “strong sense of directly controlling the tools” (e.g., paragraphs [0055]-[0058]). Corresponding movement and telepresence is considered to reasonably read on the rotation and/or flexion (relating to the six degrees of freedom movement) resulting in the input arms resulting in a corresponding shape of the surgical arm as now claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Saglam’849, with the at least three-segment arm with six degrees of freedom as taught by Diolaiti’392, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of allowing a tool follow mode where the movement of the input arm segments translates to a corresponding movement of the surgical arm and tool to enhance telepresence that gives the surgeon a strong sense of directly controlling the tools through a corresponding movement and positioning of the input arm.
Further regarding claim 1, Saglam’849 does not explicitly teach a footprint area of said control console is smaller than 2 m2. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the footprint area of the console taught by Saglam’849 can be optimized in order to best ergonomically fit the user in the console and fit the surgical unit within the surgical area (e.g. Saglam’849 paragraphs [0050], [0210]). Additionally, Savall’034 teaches that it is known to dimension a user console for robotic surgery to have a width of about 90-100cm and a length of 150-200cm or 160-180cm (i.e. a footprint area smaller than 2 m2) in order to facilitate positioning of the user console in a surgical or procedure suite, or through the door(s) of such a suite or room (e.g. paragraph [0153]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Saglam’849, with the footprint smaller than 2 m2 as taught by Savall’034, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a compact user console configuration that facilitates positioning of the console in the surgical suite and providing access through doors.
Further regarding claim 1, Saglam’849 discloses wherein both the seat and console are height adjustable, and further that the distance between the surgeon’s knees and console 40 can be adjusted for ergonomic use of the controls (e.g. paragraphs [0166], [0181]). This appears to represent adjustments relative to the base in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions to meet the claim recitation “wherein the one or more input devices are attached to said base via one or more adjustable stands, said adjustable stands are configured to be adjusted in more than one axis.”
It is unclear whether the claim requires that each/all stands be configured to adjust in more than one axis, or if the combined functionality of the stands to provide the relative vertical and horizontal movement (i.e. adjustment along more than one axis) is sufficient. Therefore, the claim is alternately rejected in view of Savall’034, which teaches that it is known to utilize customizable ergonomic user profiles for a user console system in which each of the seat, inputs, and displays are adjustable with multiple degrees of freedom, such as by adjusting touchscreen/display height and tilt; tilt and horizontal positioning of foot pedal inputs; and seat height, swivel, tilt and recline (e.g. paragraphs [0127]-[0131]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Saglam’849, with the seat and control console having multiple degrees of freedom, i.e. adjustment in more than one axis, as taught by Savall’034, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of reducing set-up time for each user and between users and optimizing the ergonomic arrangement of the console system.
Regarding claim 2, Saglam’849 as modified teaches the control console according to claim 1, but Saglam’849 does not explicitly teach said base is elongate, comprising a width between 5- 30 cm, and a length between 0.5-2 m. However, the applicant does not indicate any criticality to these particular ranges. The applicant only mentions the width or length ranges of the base on page 6 ll. 12-15. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the taught by Saglam’849 can be optimized in order to comfortably fit the user in the console and best fit the surgical unit within the surgical area (Saglam’849 [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Saglam’849 as modified discloses the control console according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a weight of said console is less than 150 Kg. However, the applicant does not indicate any criticality to these particular ranges. The applicant’s specification p. 27 ll. 6-9 indicate a variety of ranges can be used including “lower or higher or intermediate weights” can be used for the console weight beyond what is claimed further indicating a lack of criticality to the claimed range. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the weight of the console taught by Saglam’849 can be optimized in order to make easier to position and/or move the console around surgical area (Saglam’849 [0056]).
Regarding claim 5, Saglam’849 discloses the control console according to claim 1, comprising a set of wheels are mounted to said base (Fig 1 shows that the console has wheels).
Regarding claim 7, Saglam’849 shows wherein the control console is configured to fit between the legs of an adult patient when the legs are spread apart and held by stirrups in position for surgical operation (e.g. Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 8, Saglam’849 as modified discloses the control console according to claim 1, but Saglam’849 does not explicitly teach a height of said console is less than 1.5 m. However, the applicant does not indicate any criticality to these particular ranges of height of the console. The applicant’s specification does not even discuss the claimed console height range beyond the difference between the height of the seat and the display. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the height of the console taught by Saglam’849 can be optimized in order to best ergonomically fit the user in the console (Saglam’849 [0050]).
Regarding claim 9, Saglam’849 as modified teaches the control console according to claim 1, but Saglam’849 does not explicitly teach a distance between a front edge of said control console and a center of said base is shorter than 1m. However, the applicant does not indicate any criticality to these particular ranges. The applicant’s specification p. 27 ll.23-26 indicate a variety of ranges can be used including “lower or higher or intermediate distances and ranges” can be used for the distance beyond what is claimed further indicating a lack of criticality to the claimed range. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the distance between the front edge of the console and the center of the base taught by Saglam’849 can be optimized in order to best ergonomically fit the user in the console and fit the surgical unit within the surgical area (Saglam’849 [0050]).
Regarding claim 10, Saglam’849 as modified teaches the control console according to claim 1, Saglam’849 does not explicitly teach a distance between a side edge of said control console and a center of said base is shorter than 0.5m. However, the applicant does not indicate any criticality to these particular ranges. The applicant’s specification p. 27 ll.23-26 indicate a variety of ranges can be used including “lower or higher or intermediate distances and ranges” can be used for the distance beyond what is claimed further indicating a lack of criticality to the claimed range. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the distance between the front edge of the console and the center of the base taught by Saglam’849 can be optimized in order to best ergonomically fit the user in the console and fit the surgical unit within the surgical area (Saglam’849 [0050]).
Regarding claim 16, Saglam’849 as modified teaches the control console according to claim 1, wherein said user interface is configured for selection of a surgical configuration which sets a position of said one or more input arms according to the selected surgical configuration (e.g. [0181] teaches that the height of the control console 40 which input arms 44a/b are attached can have its position adjusted. The desired positions for particular surgeons can be stored and reloaded from memory. [0166] indicates the position adjustment can be performed using the touch panel, a user interface).
Regarding claim 21, Saglam’849 discloses wherein said base comprises a user seat (e.g. base 32 supporting seat 41 with vertical lifting column 39).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saglam’849 in view of Diolaiti’392or alternatively Saglam’849 in view of Diolaiti’392 and further in view of Savall’034 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Putman (US 5,184,601, hereinafter Putman’601).
Regarding claim 11, Saglam’849 as modified teaches the control console according to claim 1 but does not explicitly teach a storage compartment located at a front end of said base and extending substantially perpendicularly to said base. In the same problem-solving area, Putman’601 does teach a control console (e.g. portable console 16. Control switch 72 and 74 are used control the robotic/articulated arm making it the equivalent of a control console see col 7 ll. 29-35) comprising a storage compartment located at a front end of said base and extending substantially perpendicularly to said base (The examiner notes that the applicant never defines the front end with respect to any other elements of the control console therefore any end/side could be considered the front end. Putman’601 Fig. 1 shows a storage compartment in the area of glass doors 170 and 172. The annotated figure shows the perpendicular relationship to the base). In view of the teachings of Putman’601, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the storage compartment as is disclosed by Putman’601 to the control console taught by Saglam’849 in order to allow for the storage of equipment associated with the surgical robot unit (Putman’601 col 9 ll. 46-59).
PNG
media_image1.png
640
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Saglam’849 as modified teaches the control console according to claim 11, wherein said display is mounted onto said storage compartment (e.g. Putman’601 further teaches that storage unit can include a display/ monitor screen 62). In view of the teachings of Putman’601, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the storage compartment that supports the display as is disclosed by Putman’601 to the control console display unit taught by Saglam’849 in order to allow for the storage of equipment associated with the surgical robot unit (see Putman’601 col 9 ll. 46-59) and to efficiently use space within the area of the console unit by combining both storage, control functions and the display into a single unit.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saglam’849 in view of Diolaiti’392 and further in view of Savall’034.
Regarding claim 13, Saglam’849 as modified teaches the control console according to claim 1, comprising one more arm rest (Arm rest 75. In addition to the arm rest 75, Fig 1 shows that the chair 41 itself has arm rests) coupled to said base (The examiner would note that claim 1 indicates that base comprises a chair therefore the chair is part of the base and the arm rests coupled to the chair would be considered coupled to the base). Saglam’849 does not explicitly teach said arm rests adjustable in one or both of a height and a lateral position relative to said base (e.g. Saglam’849 [0112] state that 75 is an adjustable arm rest but does not indicate and directions of the adjustment). However, as it modifies Saglam’849 Savall’034 does teach a surgical control console (see abstract) with arm rests (508) coupled to the base and adjustable in one or both of a height and a lateral position relative to said base ([0152] teaches that arm rest can be adjusted both latterly/horizontally or height/vertically in addition to rotational adjustments with respect to the chair/base). In view of the teachings of Savall’064, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the adjustable arm rests as is disclosed by Savall’064 to control console taught by Saglam’849 in order to provide ergonomic and other mechanical customizations for a particular user or user type (Savall’064 [0082]).
Claims 14-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saglam’849 in view of Diolaiti’392 or alternatively Saglam’849 in view of Diolaiti’392 and further in view of Savall’034 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Goldberg (US 2010/0225209, hereinafter Goldberg’209).
Regarding claim 14, Saglam’849 as modified teaches the control console according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach an electrosurgical generator for supplying electrosurgical power to said at least one surgical mechanical arm (Saglam’849 does teach the application of laser energy to the tissue but does not teach a generator unit for that laser energy). Goldberg’209 does teach a control console (Fig 16: 1600) with an electrosurgical generator (102A and 102B) for supplying electrosurgical power to said at least one surgical mechanical arm (e.g. Energy cables 1626A and 1626B provide power/energy from electrosurgical units 102A and 102B to the robotic electrosurgical tools 101A and 101B). In view of the teachings of Goldberg’209, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include electrosurgical unit as is disclosed by Goldberg’209 to the control console taught by Saglam’849 in order to generate the energy need for the surgical robot arm to apply energy such as the laser energy taught by Saglam’849 to the tissue of the patient (e.g. Goldberg’209 [0002]).
Regarding claim 15, Saglam’849 as modified teaches the control console according to claim 14, comprising a foot pedal (43) for controlling said supply of electrosurgical power by said electrosurgical generator (e.g. Saglam’849 [0166] teaches that foot pedal 43 can use used to control a laser which Goldberg’209 [0002] indicates is a type of electrosurgical power. In addition, Goldberg’209 teaches the use of foot pedals 704L-704R, 706L-706R, 708L-708R can be used to control electrosurgical unit see [0262-0263]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A FLORY whose telephone number is (571)270-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, 8:30am-4:30pm (PST).
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at (571) 270-5213. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A FLORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
22 January 2026