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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/23/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 20-25 and 27-28 are allowed. Claims 29-32 are rejected. Claims 1-19 and 26 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The previous claim objection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant asserts that the claim limitations of claims 20-31 are common terms and are readily understood from their ordinary meaning and the disclosure as originally filed. Some of the previous claim interpretations have been withdrawn. Control unit in claim 30 is the only remaining claim interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112(a) rejection of claims 20-32 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/23/26, with respect to claims 20-25 and 27-32 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 20-25 and 27-32 has been withdrawn. See the Examiner’s Note section below for further details.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
While the specification discloses “a magnetic field” (¶78), the specification does not disclose “a magnetic tracking field” as recited in the claims 1 and 30; and
While the specification discloses “the angle between said first elongated element of surgical grip device 142 and said second elongated element of surgical grip device 143 is equal to the paired, along a master-slave pair, master gripping angle a+y” (¶117), the specification does not disclose “wherein an angle between said first elongated element and said second elongated element of the surgical grip device of the slave surgical instrument is equal to an angle between said first elongated element and said second elongated element of the master input tool of the master controller” as recited in claim 31.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
control unit in claim 30.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For the control unit in claim 30, the specification discloses “robotic surgery system 101 comprises a control unit 105, suitable for receiving a first command signal 162 containing information about said manual command 161 and to transmit a second command signal 163 containing information about said manual command 161 to the slave robot assembly 103 in order to actuate said slave surgical instrument 104” (¶52). In addition, see 105 in Figs. 22-23. Therefore, the Examiner is interpreting the control unit to be a generic controller of a robotic surgery system, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 29-32 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.
In claim 29, the limitation of “wherein said force detector comprises a trigger elastically loaded in a cantilevered position between said first elongated body and said second elongated body, to contrast said pressure action” seems unclear. While the specification discloses “at least one joint spring 120 biasing at least said first element cantilevered portion 122 of said first element elongated body 114 away from said second element cantilevered portion 123 of said second element elongated body 116 , along said single degree of freedom of motion” (¶106), “said joint spring 120 exerts an elastic bias action directed to increase the master gripping angle α+γ” (¶113), and “at least one trigger” (¶123), the specification does not disclose “wherein said force detector comprises a trigger elastically loaded in a cantilevered position between said first elongated body and said second elongated body, to contrast said pressure action” as recited in claim 29. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the trigger to be a joint spring.
In claim 30, the limitations of “said/the first elongated element” and “said/the second elongated element” in lines 17-18, 21-24, and 29-31 seem unclear. It remains unclear whether these limitations are referring to “a first elongated element” in lines 6-7 or line 15 and “a second elongated element” in line 7 or lines 15-16. Applicant is encouraged to further distinguish the multiple uses of the first and second elongated elements between the surgical grip device and the ungrounded master input tool to help clarify the record. For the purpose of examination of claim 30, the Examiner is interpreting lines 17-18, 21-24, and 29 to be referring to the ungrounded master input tool and lines 30-31 to be referring to the surgical grip device. Dependent claims 31-32 are rejected for the same deficiency in claim 30. For the purpose of examination of claim 31, the Examiner is interpreting line 2 to be referring to the surgical grip device and lines 3-4 to be referring to the master input tool. For the purpose of examination of claim 32, the Examiner is interpreting lines 2-3 to be referring to the master input tool.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the surgical gripper" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. ¶122 of the specification discloses “determines a paired grip force increase exerted by said surgical grip device 117 . In this way, the surgeon is allowed to be aware when the slave surgical grip device 117 is cutting at least a portion of a patient anatomy by mechanical force feedback.” Therefore, the Examiner thinks Applicant meant to recite “the surgical grip device.” For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting “the surgical gripper” to be “the surgical grip device.”
Examiner’s Note
Claims 20-25 and 27-28 are allowed.
Claims 29-32 distinguish over the prior art. Claim 30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claims 20 and 30, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of overcoming the prior art:
Applicant asserts that Wang ‘102 does not teach placement of tracking sensors in the master controller; instead, Wang ‘102 teaches putting tracking sensors in the slave. This was found to be persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Simi does not disclose or suggest providing the claimed arrangement of a single pair of tracking sensors. This was found to be persuasive.
The scope of a magnetic field generator generating a magnetic tracking field, and wherein said ungrounded master input tool comprises: wherein said ungrounded master input tool comprises: a first elongated element having a rigid body, and a second elongated element having a rigid body, and a joint connecting and articulating said first elongated element and said second elongated element; and wherein: a first sensor of said single pair of tracking sensors is integral with the rigid body of the first elongated element and a second sensor of said single pair of tracking sensors is integral with the rigid body of the second elongated element, said single pair of tracking sensors detects mutual position and orientation of the first elongated element and the second elongated element within the tracking field, and said single pair of tracking sensors detects position and orientation of the master input tool within the tracking field were not found in the prior art alone or in combination with one another to be obvious over the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Wang ‘102 (US 20180221102); however it fails to recite a magnetic field generator generating a magnetic tracking field, and wherein: a first sensor of said single pair of tracking sensors is integral with the rigid body of the first elongated element and a second sensor of said single pair of tracking sensors is integral with the rigid body of the second elongated element, said single pair of tracking sensors detects mutual position and orientation of the first elongated element and the second elongated element within the tracking field, and said single pair of tracking sensors detects position and orientation of the master input tool within the tracking field.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9186796 (claim 1-a first detection sensor configured to detect a value of a rotation amount, a displacement amount, or both of the plurality of master-input-device-side joints as a first type of physical quantity representing a position, an orientation, or both of the grip unit; and a second detection sensor configured to detect a value of a second type of physical quantity representing the position, the orientation, or both of the grip unit)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA HODGE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7101. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, UNSU JUNG can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/LAURA HODGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights