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 argues that “Figs. 1 and 13 of Hannaford disclose two different embodiments of a surgical system” (page 6 of remarks).
This is incorrect. Paragraphs [0080-81] of Hannaford explicitly state that
[0080] The following discussion is directed to an exemplary individual input device 34, namely a robotic arm 20.
[0081] Turning to FIGS. 10-13, the master input device 34 is a multi degree of freedom (DOF) haptic device including two subsystems: (a) an articulated haptic arm 62 and (b) a three fingers haptic hand 64…
That is, where Fig. 1 illustrates a generic “input device 34”, FIGS. 10-13 illustrate an example(s) of what the input device 34 might be. Indeed, any of FIGS. 10-13 are clearly intended to be incorporated into the system of Fig. 1 as a single embodiment.
Applicant argues that “Hannaford fails to disclose a single system in which the controllers are configured for assuming two different orientations/configurations as defined in Claim 1 of the present application” (page 7 of remarks).
This argument mischaracterizes the rejection and is not persuasive. The input device shown in Hannaford’s FIG. 13, which is an example of the input device 34 shown in Fig. 1, suggests the capability of operating in (1) a configuration that is more proximal to the user than the input arm support and (2) a configuration that is more distal to the user than the input arm support, by virtue of the unlabeled support joint (annotated in the figure below). The only deficiency in Hannaford is that Hannaford does not explicitly disclose that this is a rotating joint.
PNG
media_image1.png
1034
1481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the rejection relies on Kraft (which also discloses a multi-jointed articulated input device arm) to explicitly teach a handle section configured to rotate about a vertical axis of a support joint such that the handle may be more proximal to the user than the support joint or more distal to the user than the support joint. Kraft’s input device would be equally usable in either configuration due to the complementary rotational joint 39 which would allow the handle 21 to be properly oriented for use regardless of the angle of rotation at joint 16.
PNG
media_image2.png
1021
1521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While applicant has not challenged the combination of references, Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to use the handle of Kraft in the invention of Hannaford in order for the hand grip to rotate without the hand grip or the user hitting another part of the controller. Such a substitution of one known input device for another would be within the level of routine skill in the art and have predictable results.
Applicant argues that “[Kraft] also fails to disclose the above feature regarding two different configurations of the system” (page 8 of remarks).
This is not persuasive as already explained above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 13 are similar to those regarding claim 1 and are addressed by the responses above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannaford et al., (US 20110238079) in view of Kraft (US 20080033597).
Regarding claim 1, Hannaford discloses a control console for control of a surgical arm (see Hannaford at least fig. 1, par. 55, and par. 78; "Cockpit 2 comprises a surgical console 25"; "interfaces can include two robotic arms 20 and eight foot pedals 28 in two groups or sets of four. The surgeon controls all the specific functions of the surgical robot through these controls") comprising:
a control console base defining a distal end and a proximal end (see Hannaford at least fig. 1; base [6]);
at least one user support coupled to said base between said distal end and said proximal end of said base (see Hannaford at least fig. 1; seat [8] is coupled to base [6]);
at least one input arm support coupled to said base distally to said at least one user support (see Hannaford at least fig. 1; frame [4] which supports robotic arms [20] is coupled to base [6] at a location away from the location of seat [8]), said at least one input arm support defining a vertical long axis (see Hannaford at least fig. 1, par. 80; interface [32] has a vertical component and supports input device [34] and robot arm [20]); and
at least one input arm comprising a plurality of sections sequentially coupled by joints and extending between a first input arm end which is coupled to said input arm support and a second input arm end which includes [a handle section] (see Hannaford at least fig. 1, fig. 13, and par. 81; "master input device [34 in fig. 1] is a multi degree of freedom (DOF) haptic device including two subsystems: (a) an articulated haptic arm [62 in fig. 13] and (b) a three fingers haptic hand [64 in fig. 13]"); wherein an orientation of said plurality of sections relative to said at least one input arm support is adjustable on a plane that is perpendicular to said vertical long axis of said input arm support, such that [the handle section] may assume at least a first position more proximal to the user support than said input arm support, and at least a second position, more distal to the user support than said input arm support (see Hannaford at least fig. 1, fig. 13, par. 80, and par. 81; articulated haptic arm [62 in fig. 13] which is part of robotic arm [20 in fig. 1] can rotate with interface [32 in fig. 1] which is perpendicular to the vertical part of frame [4 in fig. 1]);
Hannaford does not explicitly teach a handle section or
wherein during manipulation of said input arm by a user for controlling movement of the surgical arm, said handle section is configured to remain directed towards said at least one user support under all adjustments, including said first position and said second position.
However, Kraft, who discloses a robotic master controller, teaches
at least one input arm comprising a plurality of sections sequentially coupled by joints and extending between a first input arm end which is coupled to said input arm support and a second input arm end which includes a handle section (see Kraft at least fig. 1, par. 45, and par. 46; controller [1] has members [16-20] which rotate at joints [25, 28, 33, 36, 39, and 42] between a hand grip [21] and a base [15] which is attached to a support [4]); wherein an orientation of said plurality of sections relative to said at least one input arm support is adjustable on a plane that is perpendicular to said vertical long axis of said input arm support (see Kraft at least fig. 1, fig. 2, and par. 46; "base 15 is attached to the support 4 and does not move relative to the support 4 during use. The first member 16 has a first end 24 that rotates about an axis A relative to the base 15 at a joint 25"; ), such that the handle section may assume at least a first position in which the handle section is more proximal to the user support than said input arm support, and at least a second position, in which the handle section ismore distal to the user support than said input arm support (see Kraft at least fig. 1, fig. 2, and fig. 5; rotation about axis A and alternatively rotation about axes B, C, and D would allow hand grip [21] to a more proximal and a more distal position to the user relative to support [4])
wherein during manipulation of said input arm by a user for controlling movement of the surgical arm, said handle section is configured to remain directed towards said at least one user support under all adjustments, including said first position and said second position (see Kraft at least fig. 5, fig. 8, and par. 48; "rotation about the axis D determines or controls pitch at the wrist 50. Rotation about the axes B, C and D controls pitch relative to the user's upper arm 9, as well as extension or distance of the hand grip 21 relative to the base 15"; examiner note: joints [28, 33, and 36] allow rotation about axes B, C, and D which would allow the hand grip [21] to more proximal and more distal to the user relative to the support [4] while maintaining the orientation of the hand grip [21]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hannaford to use a handle as is done in Kraft in order for the "hand grip to be allowed to rotate… without the hand grip or the user hitting another part of the controller" (Kraft par. 6).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hannaford already teaches the control console according to claim 1, wherein
Additionally, Hannaford teaches said input arm is attached to said input arm support via a joint which enables said adjustment in orientation (see Hannaford at least fig. 1, fig. 13, par. 80, and par. 81; articulated haptic arm [62 in fig. 13] which is part of robotic arm [20 in fig. 1] can rotate with interface [32 in fig. 1] which is perpendicular to the vertical part of frame [4 in fig. 1]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hannaford already teaches the control console according to claim 1, wherein
Additionally, Hannaford teaches said input arm is configured to extend at an angle of between 90-270 degrees relative to said vertical long axis of said input arm support (see Hannaford at least fig. 1; robotic arm [20 in fig. 1] can rotate with interface [32 in fig. 1] which is perpendicular to the vertical part of frame [4 in fig. 1]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hannaford already teaches the control console according to claim 1, wherein
Additionally, Hannaford teaches said at least one user support comprises one or more of an arm rest and a user seat (see Hannaford at least fig. 1; armrest [18] and seat [8]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hannaford already teaches the control console according to claim 1, wherein
Hannaford does not explicitly teach said handle section is shaped and sized for gripping by a user's hand and comprises one or more user interfaces including buttons, switches, levers, dials.
However, Kraft teaches said handle section is shaped and sized for gripping by a user's hand and comprises one or more user interfaces including buttons, switches, levers, dials (see Kraft at least par. 53; "hand grip 21 can be variously equipped with push buttons 90, depress controls 91, rocker switches 92 and the like that correspond to certain elements that are to be controlled in the robotic arm slaved to the controller 1").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hannaford by using a hand grip with buttons, switches, and the like as is done in Kraft in order to control the robotic arm (Kraft par. 53).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hannaford already teaches the control console according to claim 1, wherein
Hannaford does not explicitly teach said handle section is connected to one of said plurality of input arm sections via one or both of a bendable joint and a rotational joint.
However, Kraft teaches said handle section is connected to one of said plurality of input arm sections via one or both of a bendable joint and a rotational joint (see Kraft at least par. 46, par. 48, and fig. 2; "fifth member 20 has a second end 41 that is pivotally connected to the hand grip 21 and rotates about an axis E at pivot joint 42"; "Rotation about the axis F controls roll of the hand grip 21 relative to the base 15").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hannaford by using a hand grip that rotates is done in Kraft in order to control the robotic arm (Kraft par. 53).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hannaford already teaches the control console according to claim 1, wherein
Additionally, Hannaford teaches said input arm comprises a discrete number of orientations relative to said input arm support (see Hannaford at least fig. 1; robotic arm [20 in fig. 1] can rotate with interface [32 in fig. 1] relative to frame [4 in fig. 1]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hannaford already teaches the control console according to claim 1, comprising
Additionally, Hannaford teaches a screen display configured to one or both of provide input to a user and receive input from the user (see Hannaford at least fig. 1 and par. 69; "monitors 24 present information acquired by imaging modalities along with an overview of the operating room or other information as desired") .
Regarding claim 12, modified Hannaford already teaches the control console according to Claim 1, wherein
Hannaford does not explicitly teach said handle section comprises at least one sensor configured to detect contact of a user's hand.
However, Kraft teaches said handle section comprises at least one sensor configured to detect contact of a user's hand (see Kraft at least par. 53; "hand grip 21 can be variously equipped with push buttons 90, depress controls 91, rocker switches 92 and the like that correspond to certain elements that are to be controlled in the robotic arm slaved to the controller 1").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hannaford by using a hand grip with buttons, switches, and the like which can detect contact from a user's hand as is done in Kraft in order to control the robotic arm (Kraft par. 53).
10. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannaford in view of Kraft, and further in view of Sanchez et al., (US 20030109857).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hannaford already teaches the control console according to claim 1, wherein
Hannaford does not explicitly teach said handle section is rotatable about a handle section long axis.
However, Sanchez, who discloses a mircowrist system for surgical procedures, teaches said handle section is rotatable about a handle section long axis (see Sanchez at least fig. 4 and par. 30; "handle [32] can rotate about a wrist axis [94]"; the wrist axis [94] is the long axis of the handle [32]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hannaford by having a handle rotate about the long axis as is done in Sanchez in order to "improve the ergonomics of the wrist/handle assembly" (Sanchez par. 30).
11. Claim(s) 10, 13, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannaford in view of Kraft, and further in view of Diolaiti et al., (US 20120059391; hereinafter '391).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hannaford already teaches the control console according to claim 1, comprising
Hannaford does not explicitly teach a processor configured to receive data regarding a selected surgical configuration of said surgical arm and to set said orientation of said input arm relative to said input arm support to match said selected surgical configuration.
However, '391, who discloses a medical robotic system with instruments controlled by an input device, teaches a processor (see '391 at least fig. 1; processor [102]) configured to receive data regarding a selected surgical configuration of said surgical arm (see '391 at least par. 76 and fig. 7; "preferred pose (i.e., regardless of their values, the camera instrument may be placed in a "cobra" pose as shown in FIG. 7)") and to set said orientation of said input arm relative to said input arm support to match said selected surgical configuration (see '391 at least par. 76, fig. 1, and fig. 13; "In block [1303 in fig. 13], the modified difference (XERR', VERR') generated in block [1302 in fig. 13] is converted to generate a force command that would result in one or more forces being applied to the input device [108 in fig. 1] so that the Surgeon is urged to command the camera instrument [211 in fig. 1] to the preferred pose").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hannaford by applying forces to the input device urging the surgeon to move the instrument to a preferred pose as is done in '391 in order to "best accomplish tasks" ('391 par. 56).
Regarding claim 13, Hannaford teaches a method of setting an orientation of an input arm which controls a surgical arm (see Hannaford at least fig. 1 and par. 78; "interfaces can include two robotic arms 20 and eight foot pedals 28 in two groups or sets of four. The surgeon controls all the specific functions of the surgical robot through these controls"), the input arm attached to and extending from an input arm support (see Hannaford at least fig. 1; robotic arms [20] which are supported by frame [4]), the input arm configured for manipulation by a user (see Hannaford at least par. 34; "robotic input arms can be configured to be manipulated by at least one surgeon operating the local surgical console"), the method comprising:
Hannaford does not explicitly teach selecting a surgical configuration for said surgical arm;
based on said selected surgical configuration of said surgical arm, adjusting the orientation of said input arm relative to said input arm support, while under all of said adjustments a handle section of said input arm remains directed towards said user when said user is using a user support located at a fixed position relative to said input arm support.
However, '391, who discloses a medical robotic system with instruments controlled by an input device, teaches selecting a surgical configuration for said surgical arm (see '391 at least par. 76 and fig. 7; "preferred pose (i.e., regardless of their values, the camera instrument may be placed in a "cobra" pose as shown in FIG. 7)";
based on said selected surgical configuration of said surgical arm, adjusting the orientation of said input arm relative to said input arm support (see '391 at least par. 76, fig. 1, and fig. 13; "generate a force command that would result in one or more forces being applied to the input device [108 in fig. 1] so that the Surgeon is urged to command the camera instrument 211 to the preferred pose"),,
Additionally, Kraft, who discloses a robotic master controller, teaches while under all of said adjustments a handle section of said input arm remains directed towards said user when said user is using a user support located at a fixed position relative to said input arm support t o assume either a first position, in which a handle section of the input arm is more proximal to the user support than said input arm support, or a second position, in which the handle section is more distal to the user support than said input arm support (see Kraft at least fig. 2, fig. 5, and fig. 8; rotation about axis [A and E in fig. 2] and axes [B, C, and D in fig. 5] would allow hand grip [21] to make adjustments while maintaining the orientation of the hand grip [21] relative to user [5]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hannaford by applying forces to the input device urging the surgeon to move the instrument to a preferred pose as is done in '391 and to use the hand grip and controller configuration in Kraft in order to "best accomplish tasks" ('391 par. 56) and for the "hand grip to be allowed to rotate… without the hand grip or the user hitting another part of the controller" (Kraft par. 6).
Regarding claim 18, Hannaford already teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein
Hannaford does not explicitly teach said setting an orientation of said input arm comprises positioning at least a portion of said input arm to extend towards said user or positioning at least a portion of said input arm to extend away from said user; said at least a portion of said input arm including a plurality of input arm segments extending between said input arm support and said handle section.
However, '391 teaches said setting an orientation of said input arm comprises positioning at least a portion of said input arm to extend towards said user or positioning at least a portion of said input arm to extend away from said user (see '391 at least par. 76, fig. 1, and fig. 13; "generate a force command that would result in one or more forces being applied to the input device [108 in fig. 1]");
Additionally, Kraft teaches said at least a portion of said input arm including a plurality of input arm segments extending between said input arm support and said handle section (see Kraft at least fig. 1, par. 45, and par. 46; controller [1] has members [16-20] between a hand grip [21] and a base [15] which is attached to a support [4]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hannaford by applying forces to the input device as is done in '391 and by using a controller with a hand grip and members connected to a support as is done in Kraft in order to urge the Surgeon to command an instrument to a preferred pose ('391 par. 76) and for the "hand grip to be allowed to rotate… without the hand grip or the user hitting another part of the controller" (Kraft par. 6).
Regarding claim 19, modified Hannaford teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein
Hannaford does not explicitly teach said setting an orientation of said input arm comprises adjusting an angle of extension of said input arm relative to a vertical long axis of said input arm support.
However, '391 teaches said setting an orientation of said input arm comprises adjusting an angle of extension of said input arm relative to a vertical long axis of said input arm support (see '391 at least par. 76, fig. 1, and fig. 13; "generate a force command that would result in one or more forces being applied to the input device [108 in fig. 1]"; "six degree-of-freedom force that would be applied to corresponding degrees-of-freedom of the input device [108 in fig. 1]"; Examiner note: six degree-of-freedom force would include rotation by an angle and would cause an adjustment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hannaford by applying forces to the input device as is done in '391 in order to urge the Surgeon to command an instrument to a preferred pose ('391 par. 76).
12. Claim(s) 11, 14-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannaford, Kraft, '391, and further in view of Diolaiti et al., (US 20120059392).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hannaford already teaches the control console according to claim 10, wherein
Hannaford does not explicitly teach said selected surgical configuration includes a location of at least one insertion point of said surgical arm into the body, and a direction of extension of said surgical arm relative to a field of view of a camera.
However, '392, who discloses a medical robotic system with instruments controlled by an input device, teaches said selected surgical configuration includes a location of at least one insertion point of said surgical arm into the body (see '392 at least par. 43, par. 54, and fig. 7; "instruments are inserted in a Patient through a single entry aperture through an entry guide"; "entry guide [2000] has articulated instruments such as articulated surgical tool instruments [231], [241] and an articulated stereo camera instrument [211]"), and a direction of extension of said surgical arm relative to a field of view of a camera (see '392 at least par. 56, fig. 6, and fig. 7; "the perspective image being shown on the stereo viewer [45 in fig. 6] is the image that the Surgeon would see if the Surgeon was located directly behind the end effectors [331 in fig. 7], [341 in fig. 7]"; manipulations of the end effectors [331 in fig. 7] and [341 in fig. 7] of the tools [231 in fig. 7] and [241 in fig. 7] would be done with respect to the field of view of camera instrument [211 in fig. 7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hannaford with a location to insert surgical instruments and to have surgical instruments within the field of view of a camera as is done in '392 in order to "perform certain medical procedures" ('392 par. 7).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hannaford already teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein
Hannaford does not explicitly teach said selecting a surgical configuration includes selecting a location of at least one insertion point of said surgical arm into a patient body.
However, '392, who discloses a medical robotic system with instruments controlled by input devices, teaches said selecting a surgical configuration includes selecting a location of at least one insertion point of said surgical arm into a patient body (see '392 at least par. 64 and fig. 12; "arm [2514] and platform [2512] are positioned so that entry guide [2508] enters the Patient's abdomen at the umbilicus.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hannaford with a location to insert surgical instruments as is done in '392 in order to "perform certain medical procedures" ('392 par. 7).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hannaford already teaches the method according to claim 14, wherein
Hannaford does not explicitly teach said at least one insertion point comprises an abdominal insertion point or a vaginal insertion point.
However, '392 teaches said at least one insertion point comprises an abdominal insertion point or a vaginal insertion point (see '392 at least par. 64 and fig. 12; "arm [2514] and platform [2512] are positioned so that entry guide [2508] enters the Patient's abdomen at the umbilicus. This entry is illustrative of various natural orifice and incision entries, including percutaneous and transluminal (e.g., transgastric, transcolonic, transrectal, transvaginal, transrectouterine (Douglas pouch), etc.) incisions").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hannaford with specific locations to insert surgical instruments as is done in '392 in order to "perform certain medical procedures" ('392 par. 7).
Regarding claim 16, modified Hannaford already teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein
Hannaford does not explicitly teach said selecting a surgical configuration includes selecting a direction of extension of said surgical arm with respect to a field of view of a camera.
However, '392 teaches said selecting a surgical configuration includes selecting a direction of extension of said surgical arm with respect to a field of view of a camera (see '392 at least par. 56, fig. 6, and fig. 7; "the perspective image being shown on the stereo viewer [45 in fig. 6] is the image that the Surgeon would see if the Surgeon was located directly behind the end effectors [331 in fig. 7], [341 in fig. 7]"; manipulations of the end effectors [331 in fig. 7] and [341 in fig. 7] of the tools [231 in fig. 7] and [241 in fig. 7] would be done with respect to the field of view of camera instrument [211 in fig. 7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hannaford to have the surgical instruments within the field of view of a camera as is done in '392 in order to give the Surgeon a strong sense of directly controlling the tools ('392 par. 55).
Regarding claim 17, modified Hannaford already teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein
Hannaford does not explicitly teach said surgical configuration includes one of: a surgical configuration in which said camera and said surgical arm are inserted into a patient body in a same direction through a single insertion point; and a surgical configuration in which said camera and said surgical arm are inserted in different direction through different insertion points.
However, '392 teaches said surgical configuration includes one of: a surgical configuration in which said camera and said surgical arm are inserted into a patient body in a same direction through a single insertion point (see '392 at least par. 43, par. 54, and fig. 7; "instruments are inserted in a Patient through a single entry aperture through an entry guide"; "entry guide [2000] has articulated instruments such as articulated surgical tool instruments [231], [241] and an articulated stereo camera instrument [211]"); and a surgical configuration in which said camera and said surgical arm are inserted in different direction through different insertion points (see '392 at least par. 6; "Each of the medical devices is inserted through its own minimally invasive incision into the Patient and positioned to perform a medical procedure at the surgical site.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hannaford with location(s) to insert surgical instruments as is done in '392 in order to "perform certain medical procedures" ('392 par. 7).
Regarding claim 20, modified Hannaford already teaches the method according to claim 19, wherein
Hannaford does not explicitly teach said angle of extension of said input arm relative to said vertical long axis of said input arm support is selected to provide a user view of said input arm which corresponds to a camera view of said surgical arm.
However, '392 teaches said angle of extension of said input arm relative to said vertical long axis of said input arm support is selected to provide a user view of said input arm which corresponds to a camera view of said surgical arm (see '392 at least par. 56, fig. 6, and fig. 7; "the perspective image being shown on the stereo viewer [45 in fig. 6] is the image that the Surgeon would see if the Surgeon was located directly behind the end effectors [331 in fig. 7], [341 in fig. 7]"; manipulations of the end effectors [331 in fig. 7] and [341 in fig. 7] of the tools [231 in fig. 7] and [241 in fig. 7] would be done with respect to the field of view of camera instrument [211 in fig. 7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hannaford to have the surgical instruments within the field of view of a camera as is done in '392 in order to give the Surgeon a strong sense of directly controlling the tools ('392 par. 55).
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 ADAM R MOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5:30.
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, James Trammell can be reached at (571) 272-6712. 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.
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657