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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/04/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “said tracking volume” in lines 16 and 38 should be amended to recite “said predefined tracking volume” to be consistent with rest of the claim 1 and dependent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “said tracking volume” in in line 1 should be amended to recite “said predefined tracking volume” to be consistent with claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, and 3-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “said magnetic field generator” in line 37 is indefinite because it is unclear if this magnetic field generator is referring to the “field generator” that is already recited in claim 1 or a separate magnetic field generator.
Dependent claims 3-15 and 18-19, and 23 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the claim limitation “said surgical chair comprising a seating lower support portion fixed to said seating surface and located under said seating surface, said seating lower support portion comprising a magnetic field generator, and wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and a tracking volume ts vertically aligned with said seating surface” in lines 3-7 is indefinite because it is unclear how the structure of the surgical chair and the surgery chair comprising a magnetic field generator in below seating surface is related to the method of performing surgery. The claim 16 is directed to a method of performing surgery by sitting on the surgical chair, but the claim does not positively recite the surgical chair. Therefore, It is unclear how the structure of the surgical chair and the surgery chair comprising a magnetic field generator below seating surface is related to the method of performing surgery and if the structure of the chair and magnetitic field generator further limit the claim
Furthermore, for claim 16, the claim limitation “said seating surface” in line 4 lacks antecedent basis.
Furthermore, for claim 16, the claim limitation “a predefined tracking volume” in line 9 is indefinite because it is unclear if this predefined tracking volume is same as the tracking volumed that is already recited in line 6.
Furthermore, for claim 16, the claim limitation “a seating surface” in line 12 is indefinite because it is unclear if this seating surface is the same seating surface that is already recited in line 4.
Dependent claims 17, and 23 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, the claim limitation “said seat” is indefinite because it is unclear what seat the claim is referring to. Claim 1 limits that the field generator is fixed to the seating lower support portion of the surgical chair.
Regarding claim 21, the claim limitation “said seat” is indefinite because it is unclear what seat the claim is referring to. Claim 16 limits that the field generator is fixed to the seating lower support portion of the surgical chair.
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, 9-14, 18-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobles et al. (US 2018/0078319; hereinafter Nobles), in view of JP 3051342, hereinafter Jp305’, in view of Brock et al. (US 7,789,875; hereinafter Brock).
Regarding claim 1, Nobles discloses a user arm support for use in a robotic surgical system. Nobles shows master console for a robotic surgery system (see abstract), configured to detect a manual command, the master console comprising: at least one master input tool mechanically ungrounded and configured to be hand held by a surgeon during surgery (see fig. 2a; par. [0040]); at least one surgical chair comprising a seating surface to accommodate surgeon during surgery (see fig. 1A and 1C); a tracking system for detecting position and orientation of said at least one master input tool within a predefined tracking volume (see par. [0041], [0044]; fig. 10); at least one tool resting element providing a support for said at least one master input tool when the surgeon does not hand-hold said at least one master input tool (see par. [0066], [0067]); wherein: said at least one master input tool defines at least one first frame of reference attached thereto (see par. [0044], [0096); said tracking system comprises a field generator defining a second frame of reference attached thereto (see par. [0044], [0096); said tracking volume is integral with said field generator of the tracking system (see par. [0044], [0096]); the position and orientation detected by said tracking system is a position and orientation of said at least one first frame of reference with respect of the second frame of reference (see par. [0041]) so that a control unit of the robotic surgery system is configured to receive information about said position and orientation of said at least one master input tool within said predefined tracking volume for transmitting a command signal to a slave robot assembly to actuate said at least one surgical instrument (see par. [0038]-[0049]).
Furthermore, Nobels teaches wherein said seating surface of the surgical chair is pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis (see par. [0050], [0051]), and wherein said surgical chair comprises a seating lower support portion fixed to said seating surface and located under said seating surface (see fig. 1A and 1C), but fails to explicitly state that the field generator of the tracking system is fixed relative to a portion of the surgical chair, wherein the seating surface of the surgical chair is pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis during surgery, said field generator of the tracking system is fixed below to said seating surface so that the predefined tracking volume is rotationally fixed with the seating surface of the surgical chair during pivoting of the seating surface around the substantially vertical roll axis during surgery, and wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator, and wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface.
JP305’ discloses a chair with build in electromagnetic generator. JP305’ teaches that field generator is fixed relative to a portion of the surgical chair (see abstract and fig. 1), and field generator of the is fixed withing the seating surface (see abstract and fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the field generator is fixed relative to a portion of the surgical chair (see abstract and fig. 1), and field generator of the is fixed withing the seating surface in the invention of Nobels, as taught by JP305’, to provide a more accurate and better tracking system by being able to track combination of the user console and the chair. The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobles with the teaching of JP305’ would provide the predefined tracking volume is rotationally fixed with the seating surface of the surgical chair during pivoting of the seating surface around the substantially vertical roll axis during surgery since JP305’ teaches that the field generator is fixed to the seating surface of the chair.
But, combined invention of Nobles and JP305’ fails to explicitly state that wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator, and wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface. However, it would have been obvious and routine to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined invention of Nobles and JP305’ to have wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator instead of within seating surface of the chair since it has been held rearrangement of parts is obvious to one of ordinary skill in art. The examiner notes that rearrangement of the field generator to have it in the lower support portion won’t change the functionality of the tracking system since it is merely moving the field generator from within seating surface to several inches below it which would provide easy access to the field generator. Furthermore, the examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobles with the teaching of JP305’ and rearranging the field generator would provide wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface during surgery since JP305’ teaches that the field generator is fixed to the seating surface of the chair.
But, Nobels and JP305’ fail to explicitly state wherein the seating surface of the surgical chair is pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis during surgery.
Brock discloses a surgical instrument device. Brock teaches wherein the seating surface of the surgical chair is pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis during surgery (see fig. 1; the chair 4 has a base with rollers which is pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis during surgery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have modified the chair of Nobels and JP305’ to be able to be pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis during surgery, as taught by Brock, to provide the surgeon with more freedom of movements to perform the surgery.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobels to incorporate the teaching of prior arts JP305’ and Brock would provide having the predefined tracking volume is rotationally fixed with the seating surface of the surgical chair during pivoting of the seating surface around the substantially vertical roll axis during surgery.
Regarding the limitations of claim 1 “when the surgeon is seated on said seating surface of the surgical chair and hand-holds said at least one master input tool, said at least one master input tool is located within said predefined tracking volume, position and orientation of said at least one master tool being detectable by the tracking system" are directed to the intended use of the invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Therefore, as taught, the combined invention disclosed by Nobles, JP305’ and Brock is capable of performing the functions as set forth by applicant. Also, see MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 3, Nobles, JP305’ and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows said surgical chair comprises a chair base structure providing structural support to the seating lower support portion (see fig. 1c and 8); said seating lower support portion is pivotable around the substantially vertical roll axis with respect to the chair base structure (see fig. 1c and 8). Furthermore, the examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobels to incorporate the teaching of prior arts JP305’ and Brock would provide the predefined tracking volume is rotationally fixed with the seating surface of the surgical chair during rolling around the substantially vertical roll axis.
Regarding claim 5, Nobles, JP305’ and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows wherein the surgical chair comprises a seat adjustment device allowing the surgical chair and the seating lower support of the surgical chair to roll around the substantially vertical roll axis (see par. [0050], [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, Nobles, JP305’ and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows wherein the seating surface of the surgical chair is adjustable in height (see par. [0050], [0051]).
Regarding claim 7, Nobles, JP305’ and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Brock teaches wherein said chair base structure comprises at least one ground contacting wheel (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Nobles, JP305’ and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows wherein said surgical chair is movable in at least one direction substantially co-planar with the seating surface within an operating arena and/or in a direction in a horizontal or sub-horizontal plane (see fig. 1A, 1C, 8; the examiner notes that the surgical chair can be pushed or caried to move in a direction in a horizontal or sub-horizontal plane).
Regarding claim 10, Nobles, JP305’ and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows wherein said at least one master input tool is operatively connected to said surgical chair by a tool wired connection (see par. [0030], [0031], [0040], [0084]).
Regarding claim 11, Nobles, JP305’ and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows wherein at least one of said pair of armrest assemblies has a rounded shape (see fig. 4C).
Regarding claim 12, Nobles, JP305’ and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows a robotic surgery system (see abstract; fig. 1A), comprising: the master console (see fig. 1A and abstract); the slave robot assembly comprising at least one surgical instrument configured to operate on a patient anatomy (see fig. 1A and par. [0028]); the control unit for receiving information about said position and orientation of said at least one master input tool within said predefined tracking volume and for transmitting a command signal to the slave robot assembly to actuate said at least one surgical instrument (see fig. 10; par. [0081]-[0090]).
Regarding claim 13, Nobles, JP305’ and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows said surgical chair is operatively connected to said slave robot assembly by a chair wired connection (see par. [0030], [0031], [0040], [0084]).
Regarding claim 14, Nobles, JP305’ and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows an operating arena (see fig. 1A) comprising: the master console (see abstract; fig. 1A); the slave robot assembly comprising at least one surgical instrument configured to operate on a patient anatomy (see fig. 1A and par. [0028]); a patient supporting structure located within the operating area (see fig. 1A) and supporting the patient anatomy during surgery (see fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 18, Nobles, JP305’ and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Brock shows two master input tools (see 3 in fig. 1), including a first master input tool (see 3 in fig. 1) and a second master in put tool (see fig. 1) arranged opposite side of vertical roll axis of the seating surface of the chair (see fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of two master input tools, including a first master input tool and a second master in put tool (see fig. 1) arranged opposite side of vertical roll axis of the seating surface of the chair in the invention of Nobles and JP305’, as taught by Brock, to be able to independently control different surgical tools at the same time.
Regarding claim 19, Nobles, Salazar and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Nobles show a footswitch pedal detached from the field generator (see 120 in fig. 1C) and from the surgical chair (fig. 1C shows that the footswitch pedal 120 is detached from chair 110).
Regarding claims 20 and 22, as stated above for claim 1, that combined invention of Nobles and JP305’ fails to explicitly state that wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator, and wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface. However, it would have been obvious and routine to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined invention of Nobles and JP305’ to have wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator, and wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface instead within seating surface of the chair since it has been held rearrangement of parts is obvious to one of ordinary skill in art. The examiner notes that rearrangement of the field generator to have it in the lower support portion won’t change the functionality of the tracking system since it is merely moving the field generator from within seating surface to several inches below it which would provide easy access to the field generator. Therefore, the examiner notes that upon modification of combined invention of Nobles and JP305’ and rearranging the field generator would provide having the field generator of the tracking system to be directly fixed to said seat below said seating surface and the tracking volume to be vertically aligned with an area within a periphery of the search surface.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobles et al. (US 2018/0078319; hereinafter Nobles), in view of JP 3051342, hereinafter Jp305’, in view of Brock et al. (US 7,789,875; hereinafter Brock) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sela et al. (US 2016/0000515; hereinafter Sela).
Regarding claim 4, Nobles, JP305’ and Brock discloses the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Nobles shows a sterile drape for patient (see par. [0031]), but fails to explicitly state a sterile drape covering said seating surface of the surgical chair.
Sela discloses a surgical system. Sela teaches using a sterile drape for the patient and surrounding area (see par. [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of sterile drape for patient and the surrounding area in the invention of Nobles, JP305’ and Brock, as taught by Sela, to eliminate the passage of microorganisms. The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobles, JP305’ and Brock with prior art Sela to incorporate the sterile drape for surrounding area would provide the drape to also cover the surgical chair.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobles et al. (US 2018/0078319; hereinafter Nobles), in view of JP 3051342, hereinafter Jp305’, in view of Brock et al. (US 7,789,875; hereinafter Brock) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Savall et al. (US 2018/0078034; hereinafter Savall).
Regarding claim 8, Nobles, JP305’ and Brock disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state a locking device for selectively blocking at least one degree of freedom of motion provided by the at least one ground contacting wheel.
Savall discloses a surgical system. Savall teaches a locking device for selectively blocking at least one degree of freedom of motion provided by the at least one ground contacting wheel (see par. [0125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a locking device for selectively blocking at least one degree of freedom of motion provided by the at least one ground contacting wheel in the invention Nobles, JP305’ and Brock, as taught by Savall, to prevent unintentional repositioning.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobles et al. (US 2018/0078319; hereinafter Nobles), in view of JP 3051342, hereinafter Jp305’, in view of Brock et al. (US 7,789,875; hereinafter Brock) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sutherland et al. (US 2004/0111183; hereinafter Sutherland).
Regarding claim 15, Nobles, JP 305’ and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows a surgery vision assembly showing surgery to a surgeon (see fig. 1A), wherein said surgery vison assembly comprises at least one image acquisition device configured to acquire images of on going surgery (see par. [0030], [0031], [0052]); at least one image showing device including a display (see fig. 1A; par. [0030]), but fails to explicitly state a microscope acquisition device configured to acquire real time images.
Sutherland discloses a microsurgical robot system. Sutherland teaches a microscope acquisition device configured to acquire real time images (see par. [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a microscope acquisition device configured to acquire real time images in the invention of Nobles, JP305’ and Brock, as taught by Sutherland, to be able to perform microsurgery and be able to have real time status of the surgery.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-14, 18-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobles et al. (US 2018/0078319; hereinafter Nobles), in view of Salazar et al. (US 2018/0310886; hereinafter Salazar), in view of Brock et al. (US 7,789,875; hereinafter Brock).
Regarding claim 1, Nobles discloses a user arm support for use in a robotic surgical system. Nobles shows master console for a robotic surgery system (see abstract), configured to detect a manual command, the master console comprising: at least one master input tool mechanically ungrounded and configured to be hand held by a surgeon during surgery (see fig. 2a; par. [0040]); at least one surgical chair comprising a seating surface to accommodate surgeon during surgery (see fig. 1A and 1C); a tracking system for detecting position and orientation of said at least one master input tool within a predefined tracking volume (see par. [0041], [0044]; fig. 10); at least one tool resting element providing a support for said at least one master input tool when the surgeon does not hand-hold said at least one master input tool (see par. [0066], [0067]); wherein: said at least one master input tool defines at least one first frame of reference attached thereto (see par. [0044], [0096); said tracking system comprises a field generator defining a second frame of reference attached thereto (see par. [0044], [0096); said tracking volume is integral with said field generator of the tracking system (see par. [0044], [0096]); the position and orientation detected by said tracking system is a position and orientation of said at least one first frame of reference with respect of the second frame of reference (see par. [0041]) so that a control unit of the robotic surgery system is configured to receive information about said position and orientation of said at least one master input tool within said predefined tracking volume for transmitting a command signal to a slave robot assembly to actuate said at least one surgical instrument (see par. [0038]-[0049]).
Furthermore, Nobels teaches wherein said seating surface of the surgical chair is pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis (see par. [0050], [0051]), and wherein said surgical chair comprises a seating lower support portion fixed to said seating surface and located under said seating surface (see fig. 1A and 1C), but fails to explicitly state that the field generator of the tracking system is fixed relative to a portion of the surgical chair, wherein the seating surface of the surgical chair is pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis during surgery, said field generator of the tracking system is fixed below to said seating surface so that the predefined tracking volume is rotationally fixed with the seating surface of the surgical chair during pivoting of the seating surface around the substantially vertical roll axis during surgery, and wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator, and wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface.
Salazar discloses a surgical system. Salazar teaches that field generator is fixed relative to a portion of the surgical chair (see fig. 7; par. [0108]), and field generator of the is fixed to said seating surface (see fig. 7 and par. [0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the field generator is fixed relative to a portion of the surgical chair, and field generator of the is fixed to said seating surface in the invention of Nobels, as taught by Salazar, to provide a more accurate and better tracking system by being able to track combination of the user console and the chair. The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobles with the teaching of Salazar would provide the predefined tracking volume is rotationally fixed with the seating surface of the surgical chair during pivoting of the seating surface around the substantially vertical roll axis during surgery since Salazar teaches that the field generator is fixed to the seating surface of the chair.
But, combined invention of Nobles and Salazar fails to explicitly state that wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator, and wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface. However, it would have been obvious and routine to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined invention of Nobles and Salazar to have wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator since it has been held rearrangement of parts is obvious to one of ordinary skill in art. The examiner notes that rearrangement of the field generator to have it in the lower support portion won’t change the functionality of the tracking system since it is merely moving the field generator from within seating surface to several inches below it which would provide easy access to the field generator. Furthermore, the examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobles with the teaching of Salazar and rearranging the field generator would provide wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface.
But, Nobels and Salazar fail to explicitly state wherein the seating surface of the surgical chair is pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis during surgery.
Brock discloses a surgical instrument device. Brock teaches wherein the seating surface of the surgical chair is pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis during surgery (see fig. 1; the chair 4 has a base with rollers which is pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis during surgery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have modified the chair of Nobels and Salazar to be able to be pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis during surgery, as taught by Brock, to provide the surgeon with more freedom of movements to perform the surgery.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobels to incorporate the teaching of prior arts Salazar and Brock would provide having the predefined tracking volume is rotationally fixed with the seating surface of the surgical chair during pivoting of the seating surface around the substantially vertical roll axis during surgery.
Regarding the limitations of claim 1 “when the surgeon is seated on said seating surface of the surgical chair and hand-holds said at least one master input tool, said at least one master input tool is located within said predefined tracking volume, position and orientation of said at least one master tool being detectable by the tracking system" directed to the intended use of the invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Therefore, as taught, the combined invention disclosed by Nobles, Salazar and Brock is capable of performing the functions as set forth by applicant. Also, see MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 3, Nobles, Salazar and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows said surgical chair comprises a chair base structure providing structural support to the seating lower support portion (see fig. 1c and 8); said seating lower support portion is pivotable around the substantially vertical roll axis with respect to the chair base structure (see fig. 1c and 8). Furthermore, the examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobels to incorporate the teaching of prior arts Salazar and Brock would provide the predefined tracking volume is rotationally fixed with the seating surface of the surgical chair during rolling around the substantially vertical roll axis.
Regarding claim 5, Nobles, Salazar and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows wherein the surgical chair comprises a seat adjustment device allowing the surgical chair and the seating lower support of the surgical chair to roll around the substantially vertical roll axis (see par. [0050], [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, Nobles, Salazar and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows wherein the seating surface of the surgical chair is adjustable in height (see par. [0050], [0051]).
Regarding claim 7, Nobles, Salazar and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Brock teaches wherein said chair base structure comprises at least one ground contacting wheel (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Nobles, Salazar and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows wherein said surgical chair is movable in at least one direction substantially co-planar with the seating surface within an operating arena and/or in a direction in a horizontal or sub-horizontal plane (see fig. 1A, 1C, 8; the examiner notes that the surgical chair can be pushed or caried to move in a direction in a horizontal or sub-horizontal plane).
Regarding claim 10, Nobles, Salazar and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows wherein said at least one master input tool is operatively connected to said surgical chair by a tool wired connection (see par. [0030], [0031], [0040], [0084]).
Regarding claim 11, Nobles, Salazar and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows wherein at least one of said pair of armrest assemblies has a rounded shape (see fig. 4C).
Regarding claim 12, Nobles, Salazar and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows a robotic surgery system (see abstract; fig. 1A), comprising: the master console (see fig. 1A and abstract); the slave robot assembly comprising at least one surgical instrument configured to operate on a patient anatomy (see fig. 1A and par. [0028]); the control unit for receiving information about said position and orientation of said at least one master input tool within said predefined tracking volume and for transmitting a command signal to the slave robot assembly to actuate said at least one surgical instrument (see fig. 10; par. [0081]-[0090]).
Regarding claim 13, Nobles, Salazar and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows said surgical chair is operatively connected to said slave robot assembly by a chair wired connection (see par. [0030], [0031], [0040], [0084]).
Regarding claim 14, Nobles, Salazar and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows an operating arena (see fig. 1A) comprising: the master console (see abstract; fig. 1A); the slave robot assembly comprising at least one surgical instrument configured to operate on a patient anatomy (see fig. 1A and par. [0028]); a patient supporting structure located within the operating area (see fig. 1A) and supporting the patient anatomy during surgery (see fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 18, Nobles, Salazar, and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Brock shows two master input tools (see 3 in fig. 1), including a first master input tool (see 3 in fig. 1) and a second master in put tool (see fig. 1) arranged opposite side of vertical roll axis of the seating surface of the chair (see fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of two master input tools, including a first master input tool and a second master in put tool (see fig. 1) arranged opposite side of vertical roll axis of the seating surface of the chair in the invention of Nobles and Salazar, as taught by Brock, to be able to independently control different surgical tools at the same time.
Regarding claim 19, Nobles, Salazar and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Nobles show a footswitch pedal detached from the field generator (see 120 in fig. 1C) and from the surgical chair (fig. 1C shows that the footswitch pedal 120 is detached from chair 110).
Regarding claims 20 and 22, as stated above for claim 1, that combined invention of Nobles and Salazar fails to explicitly state that wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator, and wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface. However, it would have been obvious and routine to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined invention of Nobles and Salazar to have wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator, and wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface instead within seating surface of the chair since it has been held rearrangement of parts is obvious to one of ordinary skill in art. The examiner notes that rearrangement of the field generator to have it in the lower support portion won’t change the functionality of the tracking system since it is merely moving the field generator from within seating surface to several inches below it which would provide easy access to the field generator. Therefore, the examiner notes that upon modification of combined invention of Nobles and Salazar and rearranging the field generator would provide having the field generator of the tracking system to be directly fixed to said seat below said seating surface and the tracking volume to be vertically aligned with an area within a periphery of the search surface.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobles et al. (US 2018/0078319; hereinafter Nobles), in view of Salazar et al. (US 2018/0310886; hereinafter Salazar), in view of Brock et al. (US 7,789,875; hereinafter Brock) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sela et al. (US 2016/0000515; hereinafter Sela).
Regarding claim 4, Nobles, Salazar and Brock discloses the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Nobles shows a sterile drape for patient (see par. [0031]), but fails to explicitly state a sterile drape covering said seating surface of the surgical chair.
Sela discloses a surgical system. Sela teaches using a sterile drape for the patient and surrounding area (see par. [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of sterile drape for patient and the surrounding area in the invention of Nobles, Salazar and Brock, as taught by Sela, to eliminate the passage of microorganisms. The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobles, Salazar and Brock with prior art Sela to incorporate the sterile drape for surrounding area would provide the drape to also cover the surgical chair.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobles et al. (US 2018/0078319; hereinafter Nobles), in view of Salazar et al. (US 2018/0310886; hereinafter Salazar), in view of Brock et al. (US 7,789,875; hereinafter Brock) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Savall et al. (2018/0078034; hereinafter Savall).
Regarding claim 8, Nobles, Salazar and Brock disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state a locking device for selectively blocking at least one degree of freedom of motion provided by the at least one ground contacting wheel.
Savall discloses a surgical system. Savall teaches a locking device for selectively blocking at least one degree of freedom of motion provided by the at least one ground contacting wheel (see par. [0125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a locking device for selectively blocking at least one degree of freedom of motion provided by the at least one ground contacting wheel in the invention Nobles, Salazar and Brock, as taught by Savall, to prevent unintentional repositioning.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobles et al. (US 2018/0078319; hereinafter Nobles), in view of Salazar et al. (US 2018/0310886; hereinafter Salazar), in view of Brock et al. (US 7,789,875; hereinafter Brock) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sutherland et al. (US 2004/0111183; hereinafter Sutherland).
Regarding claim 15, Nobles, Salazar and Brock disclose the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobels shows a surgery vision assembly showing surgery to a surgeon (see fig. 1A), wherein said surgery vison assembly comprises at least one image acquisition device configured to acquire images of on going surgery (see par. [0030], [0031], [0052]); at least one image showing device including a display (see fig. 1A; par. [0030]), but fails to explicitly state a microscope acquisition device configured to acquire real time images.
Sutherland discloses a microsurgical robot system. Sutherland teaches a microscope acquisition device configured to acquire real time images (see par. [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a microscope acquisition device configured to acquire real time images in the invention of Nobles, Salazar and Brock, as taught by Sutherland, to be able to perform microsurgery and be able to have real time status of the surgery.
Claims 16, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobles et al. (US 2018/0078319; hereinafter Nobles), in view of JP 3051342, hereinafter Jp305’, in view of Brock et al. (US 7,789,875; hereinafter Brock).
Regarding claim 16, Nobles discloses a user arm support for use in a robotic surgical system. Nobles shows a method for performing surgery (see abstract; fig. 11) comprising: sitting on a surgical chair of a master console (see fig. 1A); hand holding a master input tool (see fig. 2a; par. [0040]); bringing said master input tool within a predefined tracking volume (see par. [0041], [0044]; fig. 10); sending a command to a control unit to activate a slave robot assembly (see par. [0038]-[0049]); controlling motion of said slave robot assembly by handling the master input tool (see fig. 10; par. [0081]-[0090]).
Furthermore, Nobels teaches wherein a seating surface of the surgical chair is pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis (see par. [0050], [0051]), said surgical chair comprising a seating lower support portion fixed to said seating surface and located under said seating surface (see fig. 1A and 1C), and a tracking volume (see par. [0041], [0044], [0096]; fig. 10), but fails to explicitly state that said seating lower support portion comprising a magnetic generator, and where said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and a tracking volume is aligned with said seating surface, and pivoting around the substantially vertical roll axis while sitting on the seating surface of the surgical chair during surgery.
JP305’ discloses a chair with build in electromagnetic generator. JP305’ teaches that field generator is fixed relative to a portion of the surgical chair (see abstract and fig. 1), and field generator of the is fixed withing the seating surface (see abstract and fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the field generator is fixed relative to a portion of the surgical chair (see abstract and fig. 1), and field generator of the is fixed withing the seating surface in the invention of Nobels, as taught by JP305’, to provide a more accurate and better tracking system by being able to track combination of the user console and the chair. The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobles with the teaching of JP305’ would provide to be vertically aligned with said seating surface since JP305’ teaches that the field generator is fixed to the seating surface of the chair.
But, combined invention of Nobles and JP305’ fails to explicitly state that wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator, and wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface. However, it would have been obvious and routine to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined invention of Nobles and JP305’ to have wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator since it has been held rearrangement of parts is obvious to one of ordinary skill in art. The examiner notes that rearrangement of the field generator to have it in the lower support portion won’t change the functionality of the tracking system since it is merely moving the field generator from within seating surface to several inches below it which would provide easy access to the field generator. Furthermore, the examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobles with the teaching of JP305’ and rearranging the field generator would provide wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface.
But, Nobels and JP305’ fail to explicitly state wherein the seating surface of the surgical chair is pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis during surgery.
Brock discloses a surgical instrument device. Brock teaches pivoting around substantially vertical roll axis while sitting on the seating surface of the surgical chair during surgery (see fig. 1; the chair 4 has a base with rollers which is pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis during surgery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have modified the chair of Nobels and JP305’ to be able to be pivotable around the substantially vertical roll axis while sitting on the seating surface of the surgical chair during surgery, as taught by Brock, to provide the surgeon with more freedom of movements to perform the surgery.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobels to incorporate the teaching of prior art Brock would provide pivoting the predefined tracking volume rotatably fixed with the seating surface around the substantially vertical roll axis.
Regarding claims 21 and 23, as stated above for claim 16, that combined invention of Nobles and JP305’ fails to explicitly state that wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator, and wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface. However, it would have been obvious and routine to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined invention of Nobles and JP305’ to have wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator, and wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface instead within seating surface of the chair since it has been held rearrangement of parts is obvious to one of ordinary skill in art. The examiner notes that rearrangement of the field generator to have it in the lower support portion won’t change the functionality of the tracking system since it is merely moving the field generator from within seating surface to several inches below it which would provide easy access to the field generator. Therefore, the examiner notes that upon modification of combined invention of Nobles and JP305’ and rearranging the field generator would provide having the field generator of the tracking system to be directly fixed to said seat below said seating surface and the tracking volume to be vertically aligned with an area within a periphery of the search surface.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobles et al. (US 2018/0078319; hereinafter Nobles), in view of JP 3051342, hereinafter Jp305’, in view of Brock et al. (US 7,789,875; hereinafter Brock) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sela et al. (US 2016/0000515; hereinafter Sela).
Regarding claim 17, Nobles, JP305’and Brock discloses the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Nobles shows a sterile drape for patient (see par. [0031]), but fails to explicitly state covering the seating surface of the surgical chair with a sterile drape.
Sela discloses a surgical system. Sela teaches using a sterile drape for the patient and surrounding area (see par. [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of sterile drape for patient and the surrounding area in the invention of Nobles, JP305’ and Brock, as taught by Sela, to eliminate the passage of microorganisms. The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobles with prior art Sela to incorporate the sterile drape for surrounding area would provide the drape to also cover the surgical chair.
Claims 16, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobles et al. (US 2018/0078319; hereinafter Nobles), in view of Salazar et al. (US 2018/0310886; hereinafter Salazar), in view of Brock et al. (US 7,789,875; hereinafter Brock).
Regarding claim 16, Nobles discloses a user arm support for use in a robotic surgical system. Nobles shows a method for performing surgery (see abstract; fig. 11) comprising: sitting on a surgical chair of a master console (see fig. 1A); hand holding a master input tool (see fig. 2a; par. [0040]); bringing said master input tool within a predefined tracking volume (see par. [0041], [0044]; fig. 10); sending a command to a control unit to activate a slave robot assembly (see par. [0038]-[0049]); controlling motion of said slave robot assembly by handling the master input tool (see fig. 10; par. [0081]-[0090]).
Furthermore, Nobels teaches wherein a seating surface of the surgical chair is pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis (see par. [0050], [0051]), said surgical chair comprising a seating lower support portion fixed to said seating surface and located under said seating surface (see fig. 1A and 1C), and a tracking volume (see par. [0041], [0044], [0096]; fig. 10), but fails to explicitly state that said seating lower support portion comprising a magnetic generator, and where said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and a tracking volume is aligned with said seating surface, and pivoting around the substantially vertical roll axis while sitting on the seating surface of the surgical chair during surgery.
Salazar discloses a surgical system. Salazar teaches that field generator is fixed relative to a portion of the surgical chair (see fig. 7; par. [0108]), and field generator of the is fixed to said seating surface (see fig. 7 and par. [0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the field generator is fixed relative to a portion of the surgical chair, and field generator of the is fixed withing the seating surface in the invention of Nobels, as taught by Salazar’, to provide a more accurate and better tracking system by being able to track combination of the user console and the chair. The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobles with the teaching of Salazar would provide to be vertically aligned with said seating surface since Salazar teaches that the field generator is fixed to the seating surface of the chair.
But, combined invention of Nobles and Salazar fails to explicitly state that wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator, and wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface. However, it would have been obvious and routine to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined invention of Nobles and Salazar to have wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator since it has been held rearrangement of parts is obvious to one of ordinary skill in art. The examiner notes that rearrangement of the field generator to have it in the lower support portion won’t change the functionality of the tracking system since it is merely moving the field generator from within seating surface to several inches below it which would provide easy access to the field generator. Furthermore, the examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobles with the teaching of Salazar and rearranging the field generator would provide wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface.
But, Nobels and Salazar fail to explicitly state wherein the seating surface of the surgical chair is pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis during surgery.
Brock discloses a surgical instrument device. Brock teaches pivoting around substantially vertical roll axis while sitting on the seating surface of the surgical chair during surgery (see fig. 1; the chair 4 has a base with rollers which is pivotable about a substantially vertical roll axis during surgery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have modified the chair of Nobels and Salazar to be able to be pivotable around the substantially vertical roll axis while sitting on the seating surface of the surgical chair during surgery, as taught by Brock, to provide the surgeon with more freedom of movements to perform the surgery.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobels to incorporate the teaching of prior art Brock would provide pivoting the predefined tracking volume rotatably fixed with the seating surface around the substantially vertical roll axis.
Regarding claims 21 and 23, as stated above for claim 16, that combined invention of Nobles and Salazar fails to explicitly state that wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator, and wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface. However, it would have been obvious and routine to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined invention of Nobles and Salazar to have wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator, and wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface instead within seating surface of the chair since it has been held rearrangement of parts is obvious to one of ordinary skill in art. The examiner notes that rearrangement of the field generator to have it in the lower support portion won’t change the functionality of the tracking system since it is merely moving the field generator from within seating surface to several inches below it which would provide easy access to the field generator. Therefore, the examiner notes that upon modification of combined invention of Nobles and Salazar and rearranging the field generator would provide having the field generator of the tracking system to be directly fixed to said seat below said seating surface and the tracking volume to be vertically aligned with an area within a periphery of the search surface.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobles et al. (US 2018/0078319; hereinafter Nobles), in view of Salazar et al. (US 2018/0310886; hereinafter Salazar), in view of Brock et al. (US 7,789,875; hereinafter Brock) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sela et al. (US 2016/0000515; hereinafter Sela).
Regarding claim 17, Nobles, Salazar and Brock discloses the invention substantially in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Nobles shows a sterile drape for patient (see par. [0031]), but fails to explicitly state covering the seating surface of the surgical chair with a sterile drape.
Sela discloses a surgical system. Sela teaches using a sterile drape for the patient and surrounding area (see par. [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of sterile drape for patient and the surrounding area in the invention of Nobles, Salazar and Brock, as taught by Sela, to eliminate the passage of microorganisms. The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobles with prior art Sela to incorporate the sterile drape for surrounding area would provide the drape to also cover the surgical chair.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 (a) to claim 1 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection of claims 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection applied in the prior office action of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner notes that Nobels teaches wherein said surgical chair comprises a seating lower support portion fixed to said seating surface and located under said seating surface (see fig. 1A and 1C). The examiner notes that prior art JP305’ teaches that field generator is fixed relative to a portion of the surgical chair (see abstract and fig. 1), and field generator of the is fixed withing the seating surface (see abstract and fig. 1). The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobles with the teaching of JP305’ would provide the predefined tracking volume is rotationally fixed with the seating surface of the surgical chair during pivoting of the seating surface around the substantially vertical roll axis during surgery since JP305’ teaches that the field generator is fixed to the seating surface of the chair.
However, combined invention of Nobles and JP305’ fails to explicitly state that wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator, and wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface. However, it would have been obvious and routine to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined invention of Nobles and JP305’ to have wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator instead of within seating surface of the chair since it has been held rearrangement of parts is obvious to one of ordinary skill in art. The examiner notes that rearrangement of the field generator to have it in the lower support portion won’t change the functionality of the tracking system since it is merely moving the field generator from within seating surface to several inches below it which would provide easy access to the field generator. Furthermore , the examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobles with the teaching of JP305’ and rearranging the field generator would provide wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface during surgery since JP305’ teaches that the field generator is fixed to the seating surface of the chair.
With regards to prior art Salazar, the examiner further notes that Salazar also teaches that field generator is fixed relative to a portion of the surgical chair (see fig. 7; par. [0108]), and field generator of the is fixed to said seating surface (see fig. 7 and par. [0108]).
The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobles with the teaching of Salazar would provide the predefined tracking volume is rotationally fixed with the seating surface of the surgical chair during pivoting of the seating surface around the substantially vertical roll axis during surgery since Salazar teaches that the field generator is fixed to the seating surface of the chair.
However, combined invention of Nobles and Salazar fails to explicitly state that wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator, and wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface. However, it would have been obvious and routine to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined invention of Nobles and Salazar to have wherein the seating lower support portion comprising said magnetic file generator since it has been held rearrangement of parts is obvious to one of ordinary skill in art. The examiner notes that rearrangement of the field generator to have it in the lower support portion won’t change the functionality of the tracking system since it is merely moving the field generator from within seating surface to several inches below it which would provide easy access to the field generator. Furthermore, the examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Nobles with the teaching of Salazar and rearranging the field generator would provide wherein said magnetic field generator is integral with said seat lower support portion below the seating surface, and said tracking volume is vertically aligned with said seating surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Peine (US 2020/170718) disclose system and method for detection of object within a field of view of image capture device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797