DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/24/2026 has been entered.
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 17-21 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) with at least one mechanically ungrounded master tool (see fig. 2a; par. [0040]) and a control unit (see fig. 1 and 10), the method 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 the least master input tool within the tracking volume (see fig. 2a; par. [0040]), the control unit detection position and orientation of the at least one master input tool (see abstract; par. 0036], [0041], [0043], [0044], [0089]; fig. 1, 10 and 11); the control unit 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 that the control unit defining a safety sub-volume outside of the operation 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 detected 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 detected 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.
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 detected 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 detected 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 and 10); 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]); a sensing device connected to the control unit (see fig. 10), the sensing device configured to detect the tracking volume generated by the filed generator (see par. [0041], [0043], [0044], [0082], [0096]); wherein the control unit is adapted to detect a position of the mechanically ungrounded master input tool (see par. [0038]-[0049]); 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 robot (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 outside of the operation 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 detected 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 preventing the actuation of the surgical instrument when is detected that the input tool the is detected within the safety sub-volume.
Savall discloses a user interface device for use in robotic surgery. Savall teaches automatically preventing the actuation of the surgical instrument when is detected that the input tool the is detected 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 preventing the actuation of the surgical instrument when is detected that the input tool the is detected 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]).
Regarding claim 20, Nobles and Savall disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Savall teaches interrupting communication toward the slave robot (see par. [0006], [0009], [0077])
Regarding claim 21, Nobles and Savall disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Savall teaches interrupting communication toward the slave robot (see par. [0006], [0009], [0077])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on page 6-8, with respect to prior art rejection of claims 6 and 14, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant argues that combined invention of Nobles and Savall does not disclose all the claim limitation set forth in claims 6 and 14, particularly the control unit automatically uncouples the slave robot when its detected that the master input is within the safety sub-volume and out of the operation sub-volume (claim 6) and automatically preventing the actuation of the surgical instrument when is detected that the input tool the is detected within the safety sub-volume (claim 14).
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 detected 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 detected 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.
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 detected within the safety sub-volume(see par. [0006], [0009], [0077]), and 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]). In par. [0077], Savall clearly states triggers a suspension of communication between the user interface and control of the robotic system when it’s detected that the master tool is detected within the safety sub-volume and out of the operation sub-volume. The examiner notes that suspension of communication between the master input tool and control of the robotic system would preventing the actuation of the surgical instrument when is detected that the input tool the is detected within the safety sub-volume
On page 7, the Applicant argues that none of the prior art in records teaching uncoupling of the slave robot itself as a system-level operation, however, the claims 6 and 14 do not limit uncoupling of the slave robot itself as a system-level operation. Claim 6 merely limits automatically uncoupling of the slave robot from the master input tool, but does not further limit the uncoupling and that the uncoupling of the slave robot itself as a system-level operation. In par. [0077], Savall teaches the trigger suspension of communications between the user interface device and control of the robotic system, thereby avoiding inadvertent or unintentional commands to the robotic system reads on uncoupling between the slave robot and master input tool recited in claim 6.
Furthermore, on page 7, the Applicant argues that Nobels does not teach or suggest automatic uncoupling based on user input conditions, however, claims 6 and 14 do not limit any limitation directed to uncoupling based on any input conditions.
Furthermore, on page 8, on page 8, the Applicant argues that automatic uncoupling feature requires a control unit configured for supervisory decision-making, logic for determining a trigger condition and then execution automatic decoupling of the slave robot from the master device, however, claims 6 and 14 do not limit any supervisory decision-making, logic for determining a trigger condition.
In response to applicant's argument on page 8 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). 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 detected 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. Turner (US 2018/0214223) discloses detecting uncontrolled movement (see abstract) and a teleoperated surgical system includes component such as master control or multi-jointed mechanical system, and configured to analyze movement of the component and detect uncontrolled movement of the component (see abstract).
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
Prosecution Insights