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 .
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 6, 8-9, 11, 14, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobles et al. (US 2018/0078319; hereinafter Nobles), in view of Savall et al. (US 2018/0161108; hereinafter Savall).
Regarding claim 6, Nobles discloses a user arm support for use in a robotic surgical system. Nobles shows a method for master-slave robotic surgery (see abstract and fig. 11) comprising: seating on a seating surface of a chair of a master console (see fig. 1), the chair comprising at least one field generator generating a tracking volume (see par. [0043], [0044], [0082], [0096]); hand-holding at least one mechanically ungrounded master input tool within the tracking volume (see fig. 2a; par. [0040]), to enable detection of position and orientation of the at least one master input tool (see abstract; par. 0036], [0041], [0043], [0044], [0089]; fig. 1, 10 and 11); defining within the tracking volume an operation sub-volume (see abstract; par. 0036], [0041], [0043], [0044], [0089]; fig. 1, 10 and 11); and sending command signals to control a slave robot (see abstract; par. 0036], [0041], [0043], [0044], [0089]; fig. 1, 10 and 11).
Furthermore, Nobles shows defining a safety sub-volume out of the sub-volume (see par. [0006], [0066]; the examiner has interpreted the docking station comprising recess or cradle to docket the master tool as the safety sub-volume) and within said tracking volume (see par. [0043], [0044], [0066], [0082], [0096]) and detecting when the master tool is within the safety sub-volume (see par. [0066]). In par. [0066], Nobles states that when the surgeon needs to take a break or finish with the surgery procedure, the surgeon can docket the master tool in the docking station, but does not explicitly state automatically uncoupling the slave tool from the master input tool if the master tool is detecting within the safety sub-volume.
Savall discloses a user interface device for use in robotic surgery. Savall teaches automatically uncoupling the slave tool from the master input tool if the master tool is detecting within the safety sub-volume (see par. [0006], [0009], [0077]), and teaches uncoupling automatically the slave robot, if the at least one master input tool is detected out of the operation sub-volume (see par. [0006], [0009], [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of automatically uncoupling the slave tool from the master input tool if the master tool is detecting within the safety sub-volume and uncoupling automatically the slave robot, if the at least one master input tool is detected out of the operation sub-volume in the invention of Nobles, as taught by Savall, to provide safety net by not causing motion of the slave surgical tool when the slave surgical tools are not in use.
Regarding claim 8, Nobles and Savall disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobles shows moving the at least one ungrounded master input tool to the operation sub-volume (see par. 0036], [0041], [0043], [0044], [0089]; fig. 1, 10 and 11).
Regarding claim 9, Nobles and Savall disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, furthermore, Nobles shows dropping the at least one master tool within a tool supporting element located out of the operation sub-volume (see abstract; par. 0036], [0041], [0043], [0044], [0066], [0089]; fig. 1, 10 and 11).
Regarding claim 11, Nobles and Savall disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobles shows moving the master input tool to the operation sub volume (see par. 0036], [0041], [0043], [0044], [0089]; fig. 1, 10 and 11).
Regarding claim 14, Nobles discloses a user arm support for use in a robotic surgical system. Nobles shows a master console for controlling a slave robot having a surgical instrument (see abstract) comprising: a control unit (see fig. 1); a chair comprising a seating surface for a surgeon to sit thereon during surgery (see fig. 1); at least one mechanically ungrounded master input tool (see fig. 2a; par. [0040]); and at least one field generator, integral with a portion of the chair, for generating a tracking volume to detect position and orientation of the at least one master input tool (see par. [0043], [0044], [0082], [0096]); wherein the control unit defines an operation sub-volume within the tracking volume (see par. 0036], [0041], [0043], [0044], [0089]; fig. 1, 10 and 11), and sending command signals to actuate the slave surgical instrument (see abstract; par. 0036], [0041], [0043], [0044], [0089]; fig. 1, 10 and 11).
Furthermore, Nobles shows the control unit further defines a safety sub-volume out of the sub-volume (see par. [0006], [0066]; the examiner has interpreted the docking station comprising recess or cradle to docket the master tool as the safety sub-volume) and within said tracking volume (see par. [0043], [0044], [0066], [0082], [0096]) and detecting when the master tool is within the safety sub-volume (see par. [0066]). In par. [0066], Nobles states that when the surgeon needs to take a break or finish with the surgery procedure, the surgeon can docket the master tool in the docking station, but does not explicitly state automatically uncoupling the slave tool from the master input tool if the master tool is detecting within the safety sub-volume.
Savall discloses a user interface device for use in robotic surgery. Savall teaches automatically uncoupling the slave tool from the master input tool if the master tool is detecting within the safety sub-volume (see par. [0006], [0009], [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of automatically uncoupling the slave tool from the master input tool if the master tool is detecting within the safety sub-volume in the invention of Nobles, as taught by Savall, to provide safety net by not causing motion of the slave surgical tool when the slave surgical tools are not in use.
Regarding claim 15, Nobles and Savall disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobles shows wherein the control unit defines the operation sub-volume within the tracking volume (see par. 0036], [0041], [0043], [0044], [0066], [0089]; fig. 1, 10 and 11), and sending command signals to actuate the slave surgical instrument (see abstract; par. 0036], [0041], [0043], [0044], [0089]; fig. 1, 10 and 11).
Regarding claim 17, Nobles and Savall disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobles shows at least one tool supporting element comprising a cup (see fig. 4A-C and 9), wherein said at least one tool supporting element is located within the safety sub-volume (see par. 0036], [0041], [0043], [0044], [0066], [0089]; fig. 1, 10 and 11). The claim limitation “...to support the at least one mechanically ungrounded master input tool when not hand-held” directed to the intended use of the invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Therefore, as taught, the combined invention disclosed by Nobles and Savall is capable of performing the functions as set forth by applicant. Also, see MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 18, Nobles and Savall disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobles shows that the safety sub-volume is located proximate the edges of the tracking volume (see par. [0066]).
Regarding claim 19, Nobles and Savall disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Nobles shows that the safety sub-volume is located proximate the edges of the tracking volume (see par. [0066]).
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 (b) has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on page 6-9, with respect to prior art rejection of claims 6 and 14, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that Nobles was aware of the option of automatically uncoupling the slave robot (Applicant pointed to par. [0048] of Nobles), but Nobles chose not to use the automatic uncoupling based on the position of the master controller withing the tracking volume, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that par. [0048] of Nobles disclose a different embodiment and discloses different sensors to detect if the user interface device 200 is fallen off the user’s hand. The examiner notes that Nobles shows defining a safety sub-volume out of the sub-volume (see par. [0006], [0066]; the examiner has interpreted the docking station comprising recess or cradle to docket the master tool as the safety sub-volume) and within said tracking volume (see par. [0043], [0044], [0066], [0082], [0096]) and detecting when the master tool is within the safety sub-volume (see par. [0066]). As stated in previous office action, in par. [0066], Nobles states that when the surgeon needs to take a break or finish with the surgery procedure, the surgeon can docket the master tool in the docking station, but does not explicitly state automatically uncoupling the slave tool from the master input tool if the master tool is detecting within the safety sub-volume. The examiner has relied on prior art Savall to teach automatically uncoupling the slave tool from the master input tool if the master tool is detecting within the safety sub-volume (see par. [0006], [0009], [0077]). Furthermore, Savall teaches uncoupling automatically the slave robot, if the at least one master input tool is detected out of the operation sub-volume (see par. [0006], [0009], [0077]). Therefore, the examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have utilized the teaching of automatically uncoupling the slave tool from the master input tool if the master tool is detecting within the safety sub-volume and uncoupling automatically the slave robot, if the at least one master input tool is detected out of the operation sub-volume in the invention of Nobles, as taught by Savall, to provide safety net by not causing motion of the slave surgical tool when the slave surgical tools are not in use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shelton (US 2020/0405417) disclose cooperative operation of robotic arms.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797