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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “the Office has cited para. [0107] of Hulford et al. as purportedly teaching robotic arms that display a different number of ring indicators. There is nothing in that passage that constitutes a teaching or suggestion that different robotic arms would have different respective numbers of indicators. At best, the passage merely indicates that the system as a whole (i.e., the entirety of all robotic arms together) may have one or more light features. There is certainly nothing inherent in para. [0107] of Hulford et al. where different robotic arms would necessarily have different respective numbers of indicators, for it is still clearly possible, even in view of para. [0107] of Hulford et al., that the robotic arms may all have the same number of indicators. In other words, the above-noted subject matter of claim 14 is certainly not inherent in Hulford et al. in accordance with the strict standards set forth in MPEP 2112.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hulford teaches different robotic arms having different respective numbers of indicators. For instance, Hulford teaches that robotic arm 113 (fig. 1B) comprising of indicators (fig. 1B: 140, 138, and 136) while robotic arm 110 (fig. 1B) only shows indicators 138 and 140 (fig. 1B).
Applicant argues, “amended independent claim 1 recites two link indicators that are each arranged such that the link indicators extend from one end of their respective link to the other end of their respective link, wrapping around the ends of their respective link. The combined art of record fails to disclose these features.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hulford teaches
a second link indicator (fig. 6A: 606; [0232]: arm 204 may include a link 604; [0396]: examples may be used in combination with each other; [0234]: light ring feature may be surround handle 602 such as within perimeter region 606A) on the second link (fig. 6A: 606 located on link 604, which would be on link 904 in fig. 9A; [0396]: aspects of examples may be used in combination with each other),
the second link having a first end (fig. 9A: first end goes from 920 to middle of link 938) and a second end (fig. 9A: second end goes from middle of link 938 to 750) defining the length of the second link (fig. 9A),
the second link indicator having a second arrangement (fig. 6A: 606) on the second link (fig. 6A) of the first robotic arm (fig. 9A),
the second arrangement on the second link extending from the first end of the second link to the second end of the second link (fig. 6A: 606 goes from top of link 604 to second half of link 604, which would include the second end of the second link),
the second arrangement on the second link wrapping around the first end of the second link and wrapping around the second end of the second link (fig. 6A and see above, where 606 includes portions of the first and second end of the second link).
Additionally, although under broadest reasonable interpretation, the first end and second end are interpreted as portions of the second link, even if Hulford fails to disclose the above recited limitations, at the time the instant application was filed it would be obvious to try to provide the second arrangement on the second link extending from the first end of the second link to the second end of the second link and wherein the second arrangement on the second link wrapping around the first end of the second link and wrapping around the second end of the second link.
Furthermore, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397, especially since the claimed feature is not disclosed as being crucial or unexpected, and there are a finite number lengths for the second arrangement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hulford et al. (US 2020/0253678).
Hulford discloses a medical robotic system (fig. 1B: 100) comprising:
a plurality of robotic arms (combination of 110-113), the plurality of robotic arms including:
a first robotic arm (110),
the first robotic arm having a first non-zero number of ring indicators ([0107]: 100 may include one or more light features 136, 138, 140, 142, 144, 146 on the manipulator arms 110-113; fig. 1B) positioned about a circumference of the first robotic arm (fig. 1B: each of the light features 136, 138, 140, 142, 144, 146 are about a circumference i.e. around an outer surface of arm 113; [0107]) such that the first non-zero number of ring indicators of the first robotic arm are configured to move unitarily with the first robotic arm (fig. 1B: each of the ring indicators would be attached to a corresponding arm and would therefore move unitarily with the corresponding arm; [0107]), and
a second robotic arm (111),
the second robotic arm having a second non-zero number of ring indicators ([0107]: 100 may include one or more light features 136, 138, 140, 142, 144, 146 on the manipulator arms 110-113; fig. 1B) positioned about a circumference of the second robotic arm such that the second non-zero number of ring indicators of the second robotic arm are configured to move unitarily with the second robotic arm (fig. 1B: each of the ring indicators would be attached to a corresponding arm and would therefore move unitarily with the corresponding arm; [0107]),
the second non-zero number being different from the first non-zero number ([0107]: each of the manipulator arms may include one or more of the light features, therefore one arm may have one ring indicator, one arm may have two ring indicators, one arm may have three ring indicators, and one arm may have four ring indicators; fig. 1: robotic arm 113 comprises three indicators 136, 138, and 140 while robotic arm 110 only comprises two indicators),
the first robotic arm being configured to display to a user the first non-zero number of ring indicators ([0303]: each of the light features may display a color), and
the second robotic arm being configured to display to the user the second non-zero number of more ring indicators ([0303]: each of the light features may display a color), to thereby visually differentiate the first robotic arm from the second robotic arm ([0328]: color coding can be used for identification between arms; [0303]: each of the light features may display a color which would inherently differentiate the robotic arm that the light feature is on from another robotic arm; [0196]).
In re claim 15, Hulford discloses wherein the one or more ring indicators comprise a number of ring indicators ([0303]: LEDs of each light feature that emit a color) equal to half a number of the plurality of robotic arms ([0303]: each light feature may emit different colors therefore, if one light feature had a portion that was blue and another portion that was red, then the light feature would have two ring indicators which is equal to half a number of the plurality of robotic arms).
In re claim 16, Hulford discloses
wherein the one or more ring indicators are configured to display multiple colors [0201], and
wherein the one or more ring indicators of each of the plurality of robotic arms are configured to display a different color ([0201]: light features may change color; [0319]: green identification light feature may be distinguished from a blue identification light feature).
In re claim 17, Hulford discloses
wherein the plurality of robotic arms comprises a first set of robotic arms (fig. 11: bases 1116 and 1120 are a set and would each comprise of a robotic arm (see fig. 2A; [0118]); [0396]: aspects of examples may be used in combination with each other) positioned on a first side (fig. 11: right side of 1108) of a bed (fig. 11: 1108; [0144]), and
wherein the plurality of robotic arms comprises a second set of robotic arms (fig. 11: bases 1122 and 1110 make another set; see above, where bases include a robotic arm) positioned on a second side ([0145]: base 1122 may be moved to a side opposite of base 1120; fig. 11: second side is left side of 1108) of the bed (fig. 11; [0145]: once base 1122 is moved to the opposite side, 1122 and 1110 would both be on the left side of the bed).
In re claim 18, Hulford discloses
wherein the one or more ring indicators of each of the first set of robotic arms are configured to display a first color ([0201]: light features of the first set of robotic arms may be configured to display a color such as blue; [0303]: each of the light features include LEDs which can be configured to display a color),
wherein the one or more ring indicators of each of the second set of robotic arms are configured to display a second color ([0201]: light features of the first set of robotic arms may be configured to display a color such as red; [0303]),
the second color different from the first color ([0201]: if the ring indicators of the first set are configured to be blue and the ring indicators of the second set are configured to be red, then they would be different).
In re claim 20, Hulford discloses wherein the one or more ring indicators of each of the plurality of robotic arms are configured to be programmed by a user (0197]: light features may light up or change color and can be triggered by a system event or a user request, i.e. the light features are programmed; [0201]: light features can be programmed to change color to indicate a state).
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 1-2, 5-6, 9, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulford et al. (US 2020/0253678).
Hulford discloses a medical robotic system (fig. 1B: 100) comprising:
a first robotic arm (fig. 9A: 904) comprising:
a first link (930),
a second link (986) coupled with the first link (fig. 9A) of the first robotic arm (fig. 9A) by a first joint (934),
the second link defining a length (fig. 9A: from 920 to 750) extending from the first joint to a second joint (fig. 9A: 938 goes from the first joint 934 to second joint 750),
the second link having a first end (fig. 9A: first end goes from 920 to middle of link 938) and a second end (fig. 9A: second end goes from middle of link 938 to 750) defining the length of the second link (fig. 9A),
a first set of indicators (918; [0303]: each light has multiple diodes),
the first set of indicators having a first arrangement (fig. 9A: ring 918 has a first arrangement) on the first robotic arm (fig. 9A),
the first set of indicators comprising two or more bands of light (fig. 1B: 138 and 140; [0396]: aspects of examples may be used in combination with each other) positioned about a circumference (fig. 9A: around circumference of 904 which goes from 916 to 942; fig. 1B) of the first robotic arm (fig. 9A), and
a second link indicator (fig. 6A: 606; [0232]: arm 204 may include a link 604; [0396]: examples may be used in combination with each other; [0234]: light ring feature may be surround handle 602 such as within perimeter region 606A) on the second link (fig. 6A: 606 located on link 604, which would be on link 904 in fig. 9A; [0396]: aspects of examples may be used in combination with each other),
the second link indicator having a second arrangement (fig. 6A: 606) on the second link (fig. 6A) of the first robotic arm (fig. 9A),
the second arrangement on the second link
being configured to illuminate ([0234]: includes light feature which would illuminate) and
being different from the first arrangement on the first robotic arm fig. 6A and fig. 9A),
the second arrangement on the second link (see above)
being elongate (fig. 6A) and
extending (fig. 6A)
along at least a portion of the length of the second link (fig. 6A) without extending about circumference of the second link (fig. 6A: 606 goes up and down the second link rather than around a circumference of the second link),
*the second arrangement on the second link extending from the first end of the second link to the second end of the second link (fig. 6A: 606 goes from top of link 604 to second half of link 604, which would include the second end of the second link),
the second arrangement on the second link wrapping around the first end of the second link and wrapping around the second end of the second link (fig. 6A and see above, where 606 includes portions of the first and second end of the second link); and
a second robotic arm (fig. 9C: 905);
wherein actuation ([0303]: light feature displaying a color) of the first set of indicators [0303] or the second set of indicators [0303] differentiates the first robotic arm from the second robotic arm ([0328]: color coding can be used for identification between arms; [0303]).
Regarding the limitations,
“a second robotic arm comprising:
a third link,
a fourth link coupled with the first link of the second robotic arm by a third joint,
the fourth link defining a length extending from the third joint to a fourth joint,
the fourth link having a first end and a second end defining the length of the fourth link
a second set of indicators,
the second set of indicators having a first arrangement on the second robotic arm,
the second set of indicators comprising two or more bands of light positioned about a circumference of the second robotic arm, and
a fourth link indicator on the fourth link,
the fourth link indicator having a second arrangement on the fourth link,
the second arrangement on the fourth link being configured to illuminate and being different from the first arrangement on the second robotic arm,
the second arrangement on the fourth link being elongate and extending along at least a portion of the length of the fourth link without extending about circumference of the fourth link, the second arrangement on the fourth link extending from the first end of the fourth link to the second end of the fourth link,
the second arrangement on the fourth link wrapping around the first end of the fourth link and wrapping around the second end of the fourth link”,
Hulford discloses that a manipulating system [0388] may include one or more arms [0388], as well as two or more arms [0388] based on a preferred configuration [0388-0389], and that a preferred number of light features (fig. 1B: 136, 138, 140, 142, 144, 146; [0107]) may be located at a variety of locations on the arms [0107].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the robotic medical system of Hulford, to provide a second robotic arm comprising: a third link, a fourth link coupled with the first link of the second robotic arm by a third joint, the fourth link defining a length extending from the third joint to a fourth joint, the fourth link having a first end and a second end defining the length of the fourth link, a second set of indicators, the second set of indicators having a first arrangement on the second robotic arm, the second set of indicators comprising two or more bands of light positioned about a circumference of the second robotic arm, and a fourth link indicator on the fourth link, the fourth link indicator having a second arrangement on the fourth link, the second arrangement on the fourth link being configured to illuminate and being different from the first arrangement on the second robotic arm, the second arrangement on the fourth link being elongate and extending along at least a portion of the length of the fourth link without extending about circumference of the fourth link, the second arrangement on the fourth link extending from the first end of the fourth link to the second end of the fourth link, the second arrangement on the fourth link wrapping around the first end of the fourth link and wrapping around the second end of the fourth link, as taught by Hulford, because a manipulating system may include a preferred number of arms each comprising a number of light features based on a preferred configuration, and also because it would be a duplication of parts, as shown in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
*Regarding the limitations,
“the second arrangement on the second link extending from the first end of the second link to the second end of the second link,
the second arrangement on the second link wrapping around the first end of the second link and wrapping around the second end of the second link”
although under broadest reasonable interpretation, the first end and second end are interpreted as portions of the second link, even if Hulford fails to disclose the above recited limitations, at the time the instant application was filed it would be obvious to try to provide the second arrangement on the second link extending from the first end of the second link to the second end of the second link and wherein the second arrangement on the second link wrapping around the first end of the second link and wrapping around the second end of the second link.
Furthermore, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397, especially since the claimed feature is not disclosed as being crucial or unexpected, and there are a finite number lengths for the second arrangement.
In re claim 2, the proposed combination (all mapping directed to Hulford unless otherwise stated) yields wherein the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm comprise an equal number of degrees of freedom (since the robotic mounting arm of Hulford is duplicated, the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm would comprise an equal number of degrees of freedom).
In re claim 5, the proposed combination (all mapping directed to Hulford unless otherwise stated) yields wherein the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm are supported on an arm support (fig. 1B: manipulator arms 110-113 are located on arm support 146).
In re claim 6, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Hulford unless otherwise stated) wherein
the first link is positioned at a distal end (fig. 9A: bottom half of 900) of the first robotic arm (fig. 9A) such that the first set of indicators are positioned at the distal end (fig. 9A: first set of indicators would be located on the bottom half of 900) of the first robotic arm (fig. 9A) and
the third link is positioned at a distal end of the second robotic arm such that the second set of indicators are positioned at a distal end of the second robotic arm (second robotic arm is the first robotic arm duplicated so it would also yield the second set of indicators on the third link being positioned at a distal end of the second robotic arm).
In re claim 9, the proposed combination in re claim 1 (all mapping directed to Hulford unless otherwise stated) yields wherein each band of light is visible at 360 degrees about its respective
first link (fig. 9A: each band of light of the first set of indicators is visible at 360 degrees about the first link since the first set of indicators would go around the circumference of the arm 904) and/or
the third link (each band of light of the second set of indicators is visible at 360 degrees about the third link since the second set of indicators would go around the circumference of the arm 905).
In re claim 23, the proposed combination (all mapping directed to Hulford unless otherwise stated) yields the second arrangement on the second link including:
a first straight segment (fig. 6A: left side of 610),
the first straight segment including a first end (fig. 6A: top straight portion of left side of 610) and a second end (fig. 6A: bottom straight portion of left side of 610),
a second straight segment (fig. 6A: right side of 610),
the second straight segment including a first end (fig. 6A: top straight portion of right side of 610) and a second end (fig. 6A: bottom straight portion of right side of 610),
a first curved segment (fig. 6A: top portion of 610),
the first curved segment joining the first end of the first straight segment with the first end of the second straight segment (fig. 6A), and
a second curved segment (fig. 6A: bottom portion of 610),
the second curved segment joining the second end of the first straight segment with the second end of the second straight segment (fig. 6A).
Regarding the limitations, “the second arrangement on the fourth link including:
a third straight segment,
the third straight segment including a first end and a second end,
a fourth straight segment,
the fourth straight segment including a first end and a second end,
a third curved segment,
the first curved segment joining the first end of the third straight segment with the first end of the third straight segment, and
a fourth curved segment,
the fourth curved segment joining the second end of the third straight segment with the second end of the fourth straight segment”,
the proposed combination yielded in re claim 1 above directed to the second robotic arm would yield the above recited limitations (features of the first robotic arm would be duplicated to yield a second arrangement identical to the first arrangement).
Claims 3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulford et al. (US 2020/0253678) in view of Tsuboi et al (US 2017/0007336).
In re claim 3, the proposed combination fails to yield wherein the equal number of degrees of freedom comprises at least 7 degrees of freedom.
Tsuboi teaches an analogous medical robotic system [0060-0061] wherein a robotic arm (fig. 19: arm unit 470; [0407]) comprises of at least 7 degrees of freedom [0408].
Tsuboi further teaches that it’s preferable to have more than 6 degrees of freedom, because “degrees of freedom after the 6 degrees of freedom can be used as redundant degrees of freedom” [0405]. Additionally, Tsuboi teaches that redundant degrees of freedom allow the arm unit to be driven in a way that avoids contact with staff or other devices [0410]. Tsuboi also teaches that having redundant degrees of freedom enables safer continuance of medical procedure [0199].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the equal number of degrees of freedom of the first robotic arm and the second robotic yielded by the proposed combination, to comprise of at least 7 degrees of freedom, as taught by the arm unit in Tsuboi, because doing so will allow for a redundant degree of freedom, which will allow the robotic arms to be driven in a way that avoids staff and other devices, as well as enable safer continuance of medical procedure.
In re claim 11, the proposed combination fails to yield wherein the first robotic arm comprises six links and six joints.
Tsuboi teaches an analogous medical robotic system [0060-0061] wherein a robotic arm (fig. 19: arm unit 470; [0407]) comprises six links (see Examiner Fig. 1 below for links L1-L6) and six joints (fig. 19: joints 471a, 471b, 471c, 471d, 471e, 471f, and 471g are at least 6 joints; [0409]).
PNG
media_image1.png
618
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Fig. 1 – Annotated Fig. 19 (Tsuboi)
For substantially the same reason as discussed in claim 3 above, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the first robotic arm yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the first robotic arm comprises six links and seven joints (and thus will comprise of 6 joints), as taught by Tsuboi, because doing so will allow for a redundant degree of freedom, which will allow the first robotic arm to be driven in a way that avoids staff and other devices, as well as enable safer continuance of medical procedure.
In re claim 12, the proposed combination (all mapping directed to Hulford unless otherwise stated) yields
the six links including a distal-most link (fig. 9A: distal most link is 906 which comprises indicators 912 and 916; [0252]) and a second-to-distal-most link (930),
wherein the first link is the second- to-distal-most link (fig. 9A: 930 is the second- to-distal-most link) such that the first set of indicators are positioned on the second-to-distal-most link (fig. 9A).
Additionally, at the time the instant application was filed it would be obvious to try to provide wherein the first link is the second- to-distal-most link such that the first set of indicators are positioned on the second-to-distal-most link. Furthermore, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397, especially since the claimed position of the first set of indicators is not disclosed as being crucial or unexpected. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider a position to place the first set of indicators, and since there are a finite number of locations to place the first set of indicators on the first link, it would be obvious to try to place the first set of indicators on the second-to-distal-most link.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulford et al. (US 2020/0253678) in view of Gonenc et al. (US 2021/0330405).
In re claim 10, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Hulford unless otherwise stated) wherein, on the first link, the two or more bands of lights are positioned between the first joint (934) and a connector (fig. 9A: part where 916 and 914 meet).
The proposed combination fails to yield wherein, on the first link, the two or more bands of lights are positioned between a roll joint and a pitch joint.
Gonenc teaches an analogous robotic medical system [0001] wherein a surgical robotic manipulator (fig. 2: 122) may include joint modules (J1-J8) of various types of joints, such as a pitch joint or a roll joint [0028].
Gonenc further teaches that the different types of joints “may substantially constrain the movement of the adjacent links around certain axes relative to others” [0028], and that different configurations and combinations of links and joints may be used for the surgical robotic manipulator, such as different parts having different types of movements [0076].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the first robotic arm yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein, on the first robotic arm, the two or more bands of lights are positioned between a roll joint and a pitch joint, as taught by the roll and pitch joints of Gonenc, because the first robotic arm can comprise of various different types of joints that substantially constrain movement of the corresponding links around certain axes relative to others, and different configurations and combinations could be made for the different types of movements needed by the first robotic arm.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulford et al. (US 2020/0253678) in view of Mintz et al. (US 2007/0005045).
In re claim 21, the proposed combination (all mapping is directed to Hulford unless otherwise stated) yields further comprising a display (fig. 1C: 165; [0108]) configured to render an image [0108] that includes: a surgical site [0108].
The proposed combination fails to yield further comprising a display configured to render an image that includes:
a plurality of overlays representing a plurality of robotic arms,
the plurality of robotic arms including the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm,
a first indicator corresponding to the first set of indicators on the first link of the first robotic arm, thereby identifying the first robotic arm in relation to the plurality of overlays, and
a second indicator corresponding to the second set of indicators on the third link of the second robotic arm, thereby identifying the second robotic arm in relation to the plurality of overlays.
Mintz teaches a robotic surgical system (fig. 1: 1), comprising a display (12; [0045]) configured to render an image [0045] that includes:
a surgical site [0041],
a plurality of overlays ([0047]: graphical indicator of signal is superimposed on the image) representing a plurality of robotic arms (fig. 8: Manipulator A and Manipulator B; [0051]: each arm supports an associated manipulator 32, 34),
the plurality of robotic arms including a first robotic arm (fig. 8: Manipulator A) and a second robotic arm (fig. 8: Manipulator B),
a first indicator ([0021]: superimposing a flashing color on a first end effector of the first robotic arm) corresponding to a first set of indicators (fig. 5: first set of indicators 20; [0052]: indicator 20 includes LEDs 56; fig. 8: LED A corresponds to Manipulator A; [0021, 0057]) on a first link of the first robotic arm (fig. 5: indicator 20 is on tool holder 52 on manipulator 32; [0052]), thereby identifying the first robotic arm in relation to the plurality of overlays ([0047]: corresponding graphical indicator of the visibly identifiable signal associated with the first manipulator assembly is shown on display 12; [0018]), and
a second indicator ([0021]: superimposing a flashing color on a second end effector of the second robotic arm) corresponding to a second set of indicators (fig. 5: first set of indicators 20 for the second robotic arm) on a third link (fig. 5: second arm would have a link) of the second robotic arm (fig. 5: first set of indicators 20 for the second robotic arm; fig. 8: LED B corresponds to Manipulator B; [0021, 0052, 0057]), thereby identifying the second robotic arm in relation to the plurality of overlays ([0047]: corresponding graphical indicator of the visibly identifiable signal associated with the second manipulator assembly is shown on display 12; [0018]).
Mintz further teaches that a system operator may benefit from having the same identifiable signal such as a flashing of an indicator appear on his or her display [0021], allowing the system operator to maintain his or her concentration on the internal surgical site [0060].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the robotic medical system yielded by the proposed combination, to provide comprising a display configured to render an image that includes: a surgical site, a plurality of overlays representing a plurality of robotic arms, the plurality of robotic arms including a first robotic arm and a second robotic arm, a first indicator corresponding to a first set of indicators on a first link of the first robotic arm, thereby identifying the first robotic arm in relation to the plurality of overlays, and a second indicator corresponding to the second set of indicators on the third link of the second robotic arm, thereby identifying the second robotic arm in relation to the plurality of overlays, as taught by Mintz, because a system operator may benefit from having the same identifiable signal such as a flashing of an indicator appear on his or her display, allowing the system operator to maintain his or her concentration on the surgical site.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUMAISA R BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-0175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am- 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, David Hamaoui can be reached on (571) 270-5625. 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.
/RUMAISA RASHID BAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796