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 . Claims 16-35 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16, 25, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 16-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,007,017 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the instant application are transparently found in U.S. Patent No. 11,007,017 B2 with obvious wording variation. Take a look the table below:
Table 1: Comparison of claims in Instant Application No. 17/307,514 vs. U.S. Patent No. 11,007,017 B2.
Claims of Instant Application 17/307,514
Claims of U.S. Patent 11,007,017 B2
Claim 16: A method of estimating a pose of a surgical table comprising:
Claim 1: A method for implementing multi-cell services on a base station device
in a wireless network, wherein the base station device comprises:
reading one or more fiducial markers on a base of the surgical table with a camera mounted to a manipulator assembly adjacent the surgical table,
reading one or more fiducial markers on a base of the surgical table with a sensor associated with a manipulator assembly adjacent the surgical table,
wherein the manipulator assembly supports a surgical instrument and
the surgical table including a substrate and a support structure supporting the substrate, the substrate having a support surface,
wherein the surgical table comprises a substrate having a support surface and a support structure supporting the substrate,
wherein the support structure is movable such that the support surface of the substrate is positionable along one or more degrees of freedom (DOF).
the support structure being movable such that the support surface is positionable along one or more degrees of freedom (DOF) and
the base of the surgical table being disposed on a side of the substrate opposite the support surface; and
localizing the surgical table relative to the manipulator assembly on a common plane based on the reading of the one or more fiducial markers.
Claim 17: The method of claim 16, further comprising:
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, further comprising
affixing the one or more fiducial markers to the surgical table or forming the one or more fiducial markers in the surgical table at select locations in a particular orientation relative to the surgical table,
one or more of
affixing the one or more fiducial markers to the surgical table or forming the one or more fiducial markers in the surgical table at select locations in a particular orientation relative the surgical table.
4. The method of claim 3,
wherein forming the one or more fiducial markers in the surgical table comprises etching, engraving, and/or embossing the one or more fiducial markers in the surgical table.
wherein forming the one or more fiducial markers in the surgical table comprises one or more of etching, engraving, or embossing the one or more fiducial markers in the surgical table.
Claim 18: The method of claim 16, further comprising
Claim 1: A method of estimating a pose of a surgical table comprising: reading one or more fiducial markers on a base of the surgical table with a sensor associated with a manipulator assembly adjacent the surgical table, wherein the manipulator assembly supports a surgical instrument and wherein the surgical table comprises a substrate having a support surface and a support structure supporting the substrate,
the support structure being movable such that the support surface is positionable along one or more degrees of freedom (DOF) and the base of the surgical table being disposed on a side of the substrate opposite the support surface; and
localizing the surgical table relative to the manipulator assembly on a common plane based on the reading of the one or more fiducial markers.
localizing the surgical table relative to the manipulator assembly on a common plane based on the reading of the one or more fiducial markers.
Claim 19. The method of claim 18,
Claim 6. The method of claim 1
wherein the common plane is a ground plane on which the surgical table and the manipulator assembly are disposed.
wherein the common plane is a ground plane on which the surgical table and the manipulator assembly are disposed.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the surgical table is positionable along one or more degrees of freedom (DOF).
Claim 20. The method of claim 18, further comprising:
translating a 6 DOF 3D pose of the surgical table to a 3DOF 2D pose on the common plane; or
Claim 8. The method of claim 7, further comprising
translating a 6 DOF 3D pose of the surgical table to a 3DOF 2D pose on the common plane.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising
estimating a 3D pose of the surgical table relative to the manipulator assembly based on localization of the surgical table relative to the manipulator assembly on the common plane.
estimating a 3D pose of the surgical table relative the manipulator assembly based on localization of the surgical table relative to the manipulator assembly on the common plane.
Claim 21. The method of claim 18, wherein
the one or more fiducial markers are disposed at multiple locations on the surgical table and
Claim 13. The method of claim 1, wherein
the one or more fiducial markers are disposed at multiple locations on the surgical table.
14. The method of claim 13,
wherein reading the one or more fiducial markers comprises reading at least one of the one or more fiducial markers.
wherein reading the one or more fiducial markers comprises reading a single marker of the one or more fiducial markers and
wherein localization of the surgical table is based on the reading of the single marker.
Claim 22: The method of claim 18,
Claim 14. The method of claim 13,
wherein reading the one or more fiducial markers comprises reading a single fiducial marker of the one or more fiducial markers and
wherein reading the one or more fiducial markers comprises reading a single marker of the one or more fiducial markers and
wherein localization of the surgical table is based on the reading of the single fiducial marker.
wherein localization of the surgical table is based on the reading of the single marker.
Claim 23: The method of claim 16, further comprising:
Claim 10. The method of claim 1, further comprising
extracting locations of the surgical table within a visual image obtained with the camera and
extracting locations of the surgical table within a visual image obtained with a camera and
providing a representation or indication of the surgical table with respect to a camera view of the camera.
providing a representation or indication of the surgical table with respect to a camera view of the camera.
Claim 24: The method of claim 16, further comprising:
Claim 11. The method of claim 1, further comprising
identifying a type, model, or make of the surgical table based on reading of the one or more fiducial markers, and
identifying one or more of a type, model, or make of the surgical table based on reading of the one or more fiducial markers.
12. The method of claim 11, further comprising
checking a compatibility aspect between the surgical table and the manipulator assembly or granting permissions for use of the manipulator assembly with the surgical table.
checking a compatibility aspect between the surgical table and the manipulator assembly and/or granting permissions for use of the manipulator assembly with the surgical table.
Claims 25-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,258,414 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are coextensive in scope to the allowed claims and would be fully encompassed and/or anticipated by the issued U.S. Patent.
Specifically wherein:
Regarding claim 25, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claims 2 and 8 of the issued U.S. patent, wherein both of the respective claims include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A tele-surgical system comprising:
a manipulator assembly;
a surgical table disposed in proximity to the manipulator assembly, the surgical table having one or more fiducial markers on a base of the surgical table,
the surgical table further including a substrate and a support structure supporting the substrate, the substrate having a support surface, wherein the support structure is movable such that the support surface (the surgical table) is positionable along one or more degrees of freedom (DOF);
a camera mounted to the manipulator assembly (associated with a manipulator assembly) that is configured to read the one or more fiducial markers of the surgical table when the surgical table is positioned within close proximity of the manipulator assembly; and
a processor configured to read the one or more fiducial markers using (with) the camera.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claims 25-32, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided at least throughout the limitations found in claims 1-13 of the issued U.S. Patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claim 33, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claims 15 and 18 of the issued U.S. patent, wherein both of the respective claims include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A surgical table, comprising:
a base;
a substrate having a patient support surface;
a support structure supporting the substrate, the support structure being movable such that the patient support surface is positionable along one or more DOF; and
one or more fiducial markers disposed on the base of the surgical table at select locations and/or orientations such that the one or more fiducial markers are readable using a camera (a sensor that is configured to read the one or more fiducial markers of the surgical table, wherein the sensor comprises a photo-sensitive detector or camera) when the surgical table is positioned and being communicatively coupled with a tele-surgical system having a manipulator assembly, wherein the camera has a known position relative to the manipulator assembly (a pose of the surgical table relative to a ground plane is determinable by reading of the one or more fiducial markers).
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claims 34-35, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided at least throughout the limitations found in claims 16 and 19 of the issued U.S. Patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO ICHIKAWA VISCARRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-12 & 2-4 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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/RICARDO I VISCARRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights