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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/1/2025 has been entered.
Status Of Claims
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 12/1/2025 in which Applicant lists claim 19 as being cancelled, claims 2-12, 15-18, 21 as being previously presented, and claims 1, 13-14, 20 as being currently amended. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 1-18, 20-21 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11 of the remarks, filed 12/1/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 20 in view of Luber et al. (US 5,345,087), Anderson et al. (US 2018/0092706 A1) and Lee (US 2007/0164756 A1), have been fully considered and are traversed in view of the new rejections set forth below in view of Luber, Anderson, Lee and Solomon et al. (US 12,426,976 B2). While Luber, Anderson and Lee do not individually disclose the newly added limitations set forth in independent claims 1 and 20, the combination of Luber, Anderson, Lee and Solomon does teach the newly added limitations set forth in independent claims 1 and 20.
For instance, the primary reference, Luber, does further teach defining a normal position of the head relative to the instrument during a one-time docking phase (col. 5, line 45 through col. 6, line 15; col. 6, line 51 through col. 7, line 14), wherein this teaching of Luber is interpreted as being equivalent to the sensor system capturing a reference value position of the head with respect to the optical viewing unit.
Solomon teaches that a surgeon may control an enabled function of a surgical system with one or more head motions tracked by a head tracker, and that the head motions may be considered in process while the head is moving, or for a predetermined time period after head movement has ceased (col. 20, lines 9-54). Therefore, Solomon teaches a boundary condition wherein head tracker motion values of a control system are tracked over a predetermined time period, and wherein it is interpreted that head movement has ceased after a tracking value is constant over that predetermined period of time. Solomon further teaches that a robotic arm in a surgery system may be slaved to head motions in a predefined way, such as changing only the distance of the camera head unit from the surgical field without changing the viewing direction, changing the viewing direction of the camera head unit such that the cameras’ center of FOV is locked to a point in the surgical field, XY motion without changing the distance and/or the viewing direction, slaving both position and orientation of the camera head unit to head motions (Solomon, col. 20, lines 9-54).
Additionally, Anderson further teaches that sensors may be used to detect movement by a user for at least a predetermined period of time (Anderson, para. [0076]), and that the controller may distinguish between head movements intended as intentional or unintentional gestures based on the amount and/or velocity of motion and may choose to not track the head gesture motion based on a perceived user intent (i.e. the controller may decide whether to track a gesture based on whether a detected movement satisfies a boundary condition(s); Anderson, paras. [0100]-[0103]).
Finally, Lee further teaches that a switching controller may determine whether to actuate a touchless switch based on a sensor signal wherein the switching decision can require a specified number of consecutive detections of the required value of the sensor signal, or the satisfaction of certain criteria, before deciding to actuate the touchless switch (i.e. the switching controller makes a switching decision based on a predetermined time period of sensor values in a predetermined range; Lee, paras. [0055], [0057], [0059]).
Therefore, the combined teachings of Luber, Anderson, Lee and Solomon teach that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the robotic control arts to have the control circuitry be configured to determine a boundary condition representative of an intention of a user for movement of the robotic microscope based on a determined at least one capacitance value being substantially constant over a predetermined period of time and/or within a predetermined range of capacitance values over the predetermined period of time, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to selectively actuate the at least one actuator based on determining the boundary condition and based on comparing the at least one capacitance value with at least one reference value for the capacitance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amended limitations of claims 1 and 20 introduce new matter since the amended limitations state that "the control circuitry is configured to determine a boundary condition representative of an intention of a user" and "the control circuitry is further configured to selectively actuate the at least one actuator based on determining the boundary condition", whereas at least paragraph [0035] of the specification of the instant application states that the control circuitry compares the capacitance value with at least one reference value to determine whether a boundary condition is met (i.e. the control circuitry does not determine the boundary condition, but compares values to determine if the boundary condition is met). Therefore, the originally filed disclosure does not provide support for amended limitation(s) “wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine a boundary condition representative of an intention of a user for movement of the robotic microscope based on the determined at least one capacitance value being substantially constant over a predetermined period of time and/or within a predetermined range of capacitance values over the predetermined period of time, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to selectively actuate the at least one actuator based on determining the boundary condition and based on comparing the at least one capacitance value with at least one reference value for the capacitance”. For the purpose of this examination the amended limitation(s) have been interpreted as “wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine whether a boundary condition is met, representative of an intention of a user, for movement of the robotic microscope based on the determined at least one capacitance value being substantially constant over a predetermined period of time and/or within a predetermined range of capacitance values over the predetermined period of time, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to selectively actuate the at least one actuator based on determining whether a boundary condition is met, and based on comparing the at least one capacitance value with at least one reference value for the capacitance”.
Claims 2-18 and 21 are rejected for inheriting the same new matter of the claim 1, from which they depend.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The amended limitations of claims 1 and 20 introduce new matter since the amended limitations state that "the control circuitry is configured to determine a boundary condition representative of an intention of a user" and "the control circuitry is further configured to selectively actuate the at least one actuator based on determining the boundary condition", whereas at least paragraph [0035] of the specification of the instant application states that the control circuitry compares the capacitance value with at least one reference value to determine whether a boundary condition is met (i.e. the control circuitry does not determine the boundary condition, but compares values to determine if the boundary condition is met). Therefore, the originally filed disclosure does not provide support for the newly added amended limitations of claims 1 and 20.
Other Related Art
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar optical elements to what is claimed and/or disclosed in the instant application:
Sivan, US 2019/0182415 A1, discloses a user gaze detector wherein a camera may track how long a user looks at a given area of a scene, and if a time threshold is exceeded, the camera may zoom in on the gaze target (para. [0283]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luber et al., U.S. Patent Number 5,345,087 (of record, hereafter Luber) in view of Anderson et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0092706 A1 (of record, hereafter Anderson), Lee, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0164756 A1 (of record, hereafter Lee), and Solomon et al., U.S. Patent Number 12,426,976 B2 (hereafter Solomon; It is noted that the portions of Solomon relied upon appear to be fully supported by priority document 62/957341 filed on 1/6/2020).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Luber discloses a robotic microscope/method of operating a robotic microscope (see at least figures 1-3 and the abstract), the robotic microscope comprising: an optical system (see at least element 2) being movable in one or more spatial directions (see at least column 1, line 47 through column 2, line 14);
at least one actuator configured to move the optical system in the one or more spatial directions (col. 4, lines 60-68, “motorized positioning support 1”; It is noted that with respect to “configured to” language, a system or element capable of performing the recited limitations is considered to be “configured to”);
a sensor for positioning of the optical system (see at least element 7 and/or 6, and column 4, line 60 through column 5, line 44); and
a control circuitry configured to determine, based on processing the sensor signal, at least one value for the sensor (see at least element 10, and col. 5, lines 45-64);
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to actuate the at least one actuator to move the optical system, such that at least one of a distance between a head of a user and the at least part of the optical system and/or an orientation of the head of the user and the at least part of the optical system is substantially constant (see at least element 10, and col. 5, lines 45-64).
Luber does not disclose that the sensor is a capacitive sensor with at least one electrode coupled to at least a part of the optical system, wherein the capacitive sensor is configured to provide a sensor signal indicative of a capacitance in a vicinity of the at least one electrode; or that the control circuitry is further configured to actuate the actuator based on comparing the at least one capacitance value with at least one reference value for the capacitance.
However, Anderson is related to Luber in that both Luber and Anderson are drawn to using sensors for tracking a position of a head of a user of a surgical apparatus (see at least the abstracts of Luber and Anderson), and Anderson further teaches that capacitive sensors (see at least element 224, paras. [0068]-[0069]), with at least one electrode (para. [0068], “one or more sensors” 224; figures 15A-15B, para. [0070], “one or more sensors” 1522, 1532), may be coupled to at least a part of an optical system (see at least figure 2A, elements 224 and 200), wherein the capacitive sensor is configured to provide a sensor signal indicative of a capacitance in a vicinity of the at least one electrode (see at least paragraph [0068]).
Further, Lee is related to Luber in that both Luber and Lee are drawn to using sensors to measure/interact with a user (Luber, col. 3, lines 33-68; Lee, abstract, fig. 1), and further teaches capacitive sensors (fig. 1, element 100), which may include a plurality of electrodes in a three-dimensional configuration (figs. 6a-6d), wherein at least one capacitance value from a sensor is compared to at least one reference value (fig. 8a, para. [0055], reference signal; fig. 9a, para. [0057], reference signal; fig. 10a, para. [0059], reference signal; as well as paragraphs [0011], [0016]-[0021], [0043]-[0052] wherein comparing the capacitance values of neighboring capacitive sensors is interpreted as comparing the capacitance value of one sensor to at least one reference value (i.e. another sensors capacitance being the reference value)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber to include the teachings of Anderson and Lee so that the sensor is a capacitive sensor with at least one electrode coupled to at least a part of the optical system, wherein the capacitive sensor is configured to provide a sensor signal indicative of a capacitance in a vicinity of the at least one electrode, and so that the control circuitry is further configured to actuate the actuator based on comparing the at least one capacitance value with at least one reference value for the capacitance, for the purpose of substituting one known type of proximity sensor (e.g. optical, Luber) for another known type of proximity sensor (e.g. capacitive, Anderson & Lee) so that the robotic microscope may respond to movements and positioning of the user without the user having to wear or use any special equipment to activate the sensors.
Luber additionally discloses defining a normal position of the head relative to the instrument during a one-time docking phase (i.e. capturing a reference value position of the head with respect to the optical viewing unit; Luber col. 5, line 45 through col. 6, line 15; col. 6, line 51 through col. 7, line 14).
Luber does not specifically disclose that the control circuitry is configured to determine whether a boundary condition is met, representative of an intention of a user, for movement of the robotic microscope based on the determined at least one capacitance value being substantially constant over a predetermined period of time and/or within a predetermined range of capacitance values over the predetermined period of time, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to selectively actuate the at least one actuator based on determining whether a boundary condition is met, and based on comparing the at least one capacitance value with at least one reference value for the capacitance, to move the optical system.
However, Solomon is related to Luber in that both Luber and Solomon are drawn to using sensors for tracking a position of a head of a user of a surgical apparatus (see at least the abstracts of Luber and Solomon), and Solomon further teaches that a robotic arm in a surgery system may be slaved to head motions in a predefined way, such as changing only the distance of the camera head unit from the surgical field without changing the viewing direction, changing the viewing direction of the camera head unit such that the cameras’ center of FOV is locked to a point in the surgical field, XY motion without changing the distance and/or the viewing direction, slaving both position and orientation of the camera head unit to head motions (Solomon, col. 20, lines 9-54). Additionally, Solomon teaches that the surgeon may control an enabled function with one or more head motions tracked by a head tracker, and that the head motions may be considered in process while the head is moving, or for a predetermined time period after head movement has ceased (i.e. a control system will track head motions until a predetermined time period has passed with no additional motion after head movement has ceased; Solomon, col. 20, lines 9-54).
Additionally, Anderson further teaches that at least one sensor may detect a misalignment or non-optimal positioning and may trigger an automatic adjustment until the misalignment is corrected (Anderson, paras. [0068], [0096]), that sensors may be used to detect movement by a user for at least a predetermined period of time (Anderson, para. [0076]), and that the controller may distinguish between head movements intended as intentional or unintentional gestures based on the amount and/or velocity of motion and may choose to not track the head gesture motion based on a perceived user intent (i.e. the controller may decide whether to track a gesture based on whether a detected movement satisfies a boundary condition(s); Anderson, paras. [0100]-[0103]).
Further, Lee further teaches that a switching controller may determine whether to actuate a touchless switch based on a sensor signal wherein the switching decision can require a specified number of consecutive detections of the required value of the sensor signal, or the satisfaction of certain criteria, before deciding to actuate the touchless switch (i.e. the switching controller makes a switching decision based on a predetermined time period of sensor values in a predetermined range; Lee, paras. [0055], [0057], [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson and Lee to include the teachings of Solomon and/or the further teachings of Luber, Anderson and Lee so that the control circuitry is configured to determine whether a boundary condition is met, representative of an intention of a user, for movement of the robotic microscope based on the determined at least one capacitance value being substantially constant over a predetermined period of time and/or within a predetermined range of capacitance values over the predetermined period of time, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to selectively actuate the at least one actuator based on determining whether a boundary condition is met, and based on comparing the at least one capacitance value with at least one reference value for the capacitance, to move the optical system, for the purpose of allowing the robotic microscope to only respond to specific movements and positioning of the user with a tracking system to maintain/achieve a desired position of the robotic microscope while ignoring movements of the user not intended to be inputs to the tracking system.
Regarding claim 2, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon discloses a robotic microscope of claim 1, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine a deviation of the at least one capacitance value and the at least one reference value (see at least the combination set forth above with the teachings of Lee wherein the capacitive sensor circuits of Lee provide an output based on a sensed capacitance and a reference value, and/or wherein comparing the capacitance values of neighboring capacitive sensors is interpreted as comparing the capacitance value of one sensor to at least one reference value); and wherein the control circuitry is configured to actuate the at least one actuator to move the optical system (see at least element 10, and col. 5, lines 45-64 of Luber), thereby keeping the at least one of the distance between the head of the user and the at least part of the optical system and/or the orientation of the head of the user and the at least part of the optical system substantially constant (see at least element 10, and col. 5, lines 45-64 of Luber, paragraph [0068] of Anderson, as well as the combination set forth above).
Luber does not specifically disclose that the deviation of the at least one capacitance value and the at least one reference value is minimized.
However, Lee further teaches employing differential signal measurement techniques such that a sensor switches when a sensor’s electrode exceeds a preset threshold (paras. [0011], [0017]-[0019] of Lee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the further teachings of Lee so that the deviation of the at least one capacitance value and the at least one reference value is minimized, for the purpose of using a known technique to control and actuate the movement of the optical system with respect to the position of the user based on a known technique for evaluating the sensor signal of the capacitive sensor.
Regarding claim 3, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon discloses a robotic microscope of claim 1, and wherein the at least one capacitance value is indicative of a capacitance between at least one of the at least one electrode and the head of the user or the at least one electrode and ground (see at least element 224, paras. [0068]-[0069] of Anderson, wherein the limitation is disclosed by the combination of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon as set forth above with respect to claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon discloses a robotic microscope of claim 1. Luber does not specifically disclose that the capacitive sensor comprises a plurality of electrodes; and wherein the at least one capacitance value is indicative of a capacitance between at least two electrodes of the plurality of electrodes.
However, Lee further teaches a capacitive sensor comprising a plurality of electrodes (see at least figures 6a-6d of Lee); and wherein the at least one capacitance value is indicative of a capacitance between at least two electrodes of the plurality of electrodes (see at least paragraphs [0051]-[0052] of Lee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the further teachings of Lee so that the capacitive sensor comprises a plurality of electrodes; and wherein the at least one capacitance value is indicative of a capacitance between at least two electrodes of the plurality of electrodes, for the purpose of using a known capacitive sensor array and known technique to control and actuate the movement of the optical system with respect to the position of the user based on a known technique for evaluating the sensor signal of the capacitive sensor(s).
Regarding claim 5, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon discloses a robotic microscope of claim 4, and Luber further discloses that a plurality of sensors may be arranged neighboring each other (see at least figure 2a, elements 14a-14c of Luber), and Lee further teaches that at least two electrodes may be at least one of arranged adjacent to each other and/or arranged directly neighboring each other (see at least figures 6a-6d of Lee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the further teachings of Lee so that the at least two electrodes are at least one of arranged adjacent to each other or arranged directly neighboring each other, for the purpose of making the design choice of using a known capacitive sensor array layout for sensing the position of a user while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claim 6, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon discloses a robotic microscope of claim 1, and Luber further discloses that a plurality of sensors may be arranged neighboring each other (see at least figure 2a, elements 14a-14c of Luber), and Lee further teaches that the capacitive sensor may comprise a plurality of electrodes; and wherein the control circuitry may be configured to determine a plurality of capacitance values, each capacitance value being indicative of a capacitance between a pair of electrodes of the plurality of electrodes (see at least figures 6a-6d and paragraphs [0051]-[0052] of Lee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the further teachings of Lee so that the capacitive sensor may comprises a plurality of electrodes; and wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine a plurality of capacitance values, each capacitance value being indicative of a capacitance between a pair of electrodes of the plurality of electrodes, for the purpose of using a known capacitive sensor array and known technique to control and actuate the movement of the optical system with respect to the position of the user based on a known technique for evaluating the sensor signal of the capacitive sensor(s).
Regarding claim 7, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon discloses a robotic microscope of claim 1, and Luber further discloses that a plurality of sensors may be arranged neighboring each other (see at least figure 2a, elements 14a-14c of Luber), and Lee further teaches that the capacitive sensor may comprise a plurality of electrodes arranged in a three-dimensional configuration (see at least figures 6a-6d and paragraphs [0051]-[0052] of Lee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the further teachings of Lee so that the capacitive sensor comprises a plurality of electrodes arranged in a three-dimensional configuration, for the purpose of making the design choice of using a known capacitive sensor array layout for sensing the position of a user while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claim 10, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon discloses a robotic microscope of claim 7, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine a deviation of the at least one capacitance value and the at least one reference value (see at least the combination set forth above with the teachings of Lee wherein the capacitive sensor circuits of Lee provide an output based on a sensed capacitance and a reference value, and/or wherein comparing the capacitance values of neighboring capacitive sensors is interpreted as comparing the capacitance value of one sensor to at least one reference value); and wherein the control circuitry is configured to actuate the at least one actuator to move the optical system (see at least element 10, and col. 5, lines 45-64 of Luber), thereby keeping at least one of the distance between the head of the user and the at least part of the optical system or the orientation of the head of the user and the at least part of the optical system substantially constant (see at least element 10, and col. 5, lines 45-64 of Luber, paragraph [0068] of Anderson, as well as the combination set forth above).
Luber does not specifically disclose that the deviation of the at least one capacitance value and the at least one reference value is minimized.
However, Lee further teaches employing differential signal measurement techniques such that a sensor switches when a sensor’s electrode exceeds a preset threshold (paras. [0011], [0017]-[0019] of Lee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the further teachings of Lee so that the deviation of the at least one capacitance value and the at least one reference value is minimized, for the purpose of using a known technique to control and actuate the movement of the optical system with respect to the position of the user based on a known technique for evaluating the sensor signal of the capacitive sensor.
Luber further discloses that a plurality of sensors may be arranged neighboring each other (see at least figure 2a, elements 14a-14c of Luber), and Lee further teaches that the capacitive sensor may comprise a plurality of electrodes; and wherein the control circuitry may be configured to determine a plurality of capacitance values, each capacitance value being indicative of a capacitance in the vicinity of at least one of the electrodes (see at least figures 6a-6d and paragraphs [0051]-[0052] of Lee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the further teachings of Lee so that the control circuitry is configured to: determine a plurality of capacitance values, each capacitance value being indicative of the capacitance in the vicinity of at least one of the electrodes; compare each of the plurality of determined capacitance values with at least one reference value; and actuate the at least one actuator to move the optical system, such that at least one of the orientation of the head of the user and the at least part of the optical system and/or the relative position of the head of the user and the at least part of the optical system is substantially constant, and/or such that at least one of a relative velocity of the head of the user and the at least part of the optical system and a relative acceleration of the head of the user and the at least part of the optical system is minimized, for the purpose of using a known capacitive sensor array and known technique to control and actuate the movement of the optical system with respect to the position of the user based on a known technique for evaluating the sensor signal of the capacitive sensor(s).
Regarding claim 8, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon discloses a robotic microscope of claim 1, and Luber further discloses that a plurality of sensors may be arranged neighboring each other (see at least figure 2a, elements 14a-14c of Luber), and Lee further teaches that the capacitive sensor may comprise a plurality of electrodes arranged in at least one of a semi-spherical configuration, a spherical configuration and an arc-shaped configuration (see at least figures 6a-6d and paragraphs [0051]-[0052] of Lee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the further teachings of Lee so that the capacitive sensor comprises a plurality of electrodes arranged in at least one of a semi-spherical configuration, a spherical configuration and an arc-shaped configuration, for the purpose of making the design choice of using a known capacitive sensor array layout for sensing the position of a user while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claim 9, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon discloses a robotic microscope of claim 1, and Luber further discloses that a plurality of sensors may be arranged neighboring each other (see at least figure 2a, elements 14a-14c of Luber), and Anderson further teaches that the capacitive sensor may comprise an arc-shaped array of electrodes and at least one further arc-shaped array of electrodes; and wherein the arc-shaped array and the at least one further arc-shaped array are at least one of directed in different directions and/or extend in different directions (see at least figures 15A-15B, elements 1522 and 1532 of Anderson).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the further teachings of Anderson so that the capacitive sensor comprises an arc-shaped array of electrodes and at least one further arc-shaped array of electrodes; and wherein the arc-shaped array and the at least one further arc-shaped array are at least one of directed in different directions and/or extend in different directions, for the purpose of making the design choice of using a known capacitive sensor array layout for sensing the position of a user while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claim 11, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon discloses a robotic microscope of claim 1, and Luber, Lee and Solomon teaches that the control circuitry is configured to determine a sequence of time-related capacitance values (see at least column 3, lines 56-68 of Luber, paragraphs [0015], [0017]-[0019], [0043]-[0049] of Lee, col. 20, lines 9-54 of Solomon, as well as the combination set forth above with respect to claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the further teachings of Luber and/or Lee and/or Solomon so that the control circuitry is configured to determine a sequence of time-related capacitance values, for the purpose of using a known technique to control and actuate the movement of the optical system with respect to the position of the user based on a known technique for evaluating the sensor signal of the capacitive sensor(s).
Regarding claim 12, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon discloses a robotic microscope of claim 11, and Luber, Anderson and Solomon teaches that the control circuitry is configured to determine, based on the determined sequence of time related capacitance values, at least one of a velocity of the head of the user, an acceleration of the head of the user, a movement of the head of the user, a positional change of the head of the user, a time period during which the head of the user moves, and/or a time period during which the head of the user is static (see at least column 3, lines 56-68 of Luber, paragraphs [0068]-[0070] of Anderson, col. 20, lines 9-54 of Solomon, as well as the combination set forth above with respect to claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the further teachings of Luber and/or Anderson and/or Solomon so that the control circuitry is configured to determine, based on the determined sequence of time related capacitance values, at least one of a velocity of the head of the user, an acceleration of the head of the user, a movement of the head of the user, a positional change of the head of the user, a time period during which the head of the user moves, and/or a time period during which the head of the user is static, for the purpose of using a known technique to control and actuate the movement of the optical system with respect to the position of the user so that the user can have convenient control and use of the robotic microscope.
Regarding claim 13, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon discloses a robotic microscope of claim 1, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine a deviation of the at least one capacitance value and the at least one reference value (see at least the combination set forth above with the teachings of Lee wherein the capacitive sensor circuits of Lee provide an output based on a sensed capacitance and a reference value, and/or wherein comparing the capacitance values of neighboring capacitive sensors is interpreted as comparing the capacitance value of one sensor to at least one reference value); and wherein the control circuitry is configured to actuate the at least one actuator to move the optical system (see at least element 10, and col. 5, lines 45-64 of Luber), thereby keeping at least one of the distance between the head of the user and the at least part of the optical system or the orientation of the head of the user and the at least part of the optical system substantially constant (see at least element 10, and col. 5, lines 45-64 of Luber, paragraph [0068] of Anderson, as well as the combination set forth above).
Luber does not specifically disclose comparing the at least one capacitance value with the at least one reference value to determining whether at least one further boundary condition is fulfilled.
However, Lee further teaches employing differential signal measurement techniques such that a sensor switches when a sensor’s electrode exceeds a preset threshold (paras. [0011], [0017]-[0019] of Lee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the further teachings of Lee so that the at least one capacitance value with the at least one reference value are compared to determining whether at least one further boundary condition is fulfilled, for the purpose of using a known technique to control and actuate the movement of the optical system with respect to the position of the user based on a known technique for evaluating the sensor signal of the capacitive sensor.
Regarding claim 14, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon discloses a robotic microscope of claim 13, and Luber further discloses tracking the head position of the user (see at least col. 3, lines 56-68 of Luber), and Anderson further teaches detecting misalignment of the optical system with the head of the user and automatically triggering adjustment of the support arm and/or using one or more proximity sensors to trigger actuation of a dampened or slowed “soft landing” effect of a face frame and the user’s face based on movement of the user’s face (see at least paragraph [0068] of Anderson).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the further teachings of Luber and/or Anderson and/or the teachings of Solomon as set forth above with respect to claim 1, so that the at least one further boundary condition comprises at least one of: a minimum deviation between the determined at least one capacitance value and the at least one reference value; a maximum deviation between the determined at least one capacitance value and the at least one reference value; a minimum relative velocity between the head of the user and the at least part of the optical system; a maximum relative velocity between the head of the user and the at least part of the optical system; a minimum relative acceleration between the head of the user and the at least part of the optical system; a maximum relative acceleration between the head of the user and the at least part of the optical system; a minimum time period during which a determined sequence of time-related capacitance values is substantially constant; and a maximum time period during which a determined sequence of time-related capacitance values is substantially constant, for the purpose of using a known technique to control and actuate the movement of the optical system with respect to the position of the user based on a known technique for evaluating the sensor signal of the capacitive sensor.
Regarding claim 15, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon discloses a robotic microscope of claim 1, and Anderson further teaches that one or more capacitive sensors may be used to detect user interactions which may be used to change controls in the system, adjust configurations, etc. (see at least paragraph [0069] of Anderson).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the further teachings of Anderson so that the control circuitry is configured to determine a sequence of time-related capacitance values; and wherein the control circuitry is configured to actuate the at least one actuator to move the optical system only if the time-related capacitance values determined over a predetermined period of time are at least one of substantially constant and/or are within a predetermined range of capacitance values, for the purpose of using a known technique to control and actuate the movement of the optical system, or to change control settings of the system, with respect to the position of the user based on a known technique for evaluating the sensor signal of the capacitive sensor.
Regarding claim 16, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon discloses a robotic microscope of claim 1, and Anderson further teaches that one or more capacitive sensors may be used to detect user interactions which may be used to change controls in the system, adjust configurations, etc. (see at least paragraph [0069] of Anderson).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the further teachings of Anderson so that the control circuitry is configured to: determine a sequence of time-related capacitance values; determine at least one predefined pattern of at least a subset of the determined capacitance values; determine a head movement associated with the at least one predefined pattern; and control at least one function of the robotic microscope in accordance with the determined head movement, for the purpose of using a known technique to control and actuate the movement of the optical system, or to change control settings of the system, with respect to the position of the user based on a known technique for evaluating the sensor signal of the capacitive sensor.
Regarding claim 17, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon discloses a robotic microscope of claim 16, and Anderson further teaches that one or more capacitive sensors may be used to detect user interactions which may be used to change controls in the system, adjust configurations, etc. (see at least paragraph [0069] of Anderson).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the further teachings of Anderson so that the at least one function of the robotic microscope comprises at least one of activating an augmentation feature of the robotic microscope, deactivating an augmentation feature of the robotic microscope, actuating a zoom of the optical system, capturing at least one image with the robotic microscope, activating a set of reference values for the capacitance, and/or generating a control signal for controlling a tracking system coupled to the robotic microscope to activate or deactivate the tracking system, for the purpose of using a known technique to control and actuate the movement of the optical system, and/or to change any desired settings of the system, with respect to the position of the user based on a known technique for evaluating the sensor signal of the capacitive sensor.
Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luber et al., U.S. Patent Number 5,345,087 (of record, hereafter Luber) in view of Anderson et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0092706 A1 (of record, hereafter Anderson), Lee, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0164756 A1 (of record, hereafter Lee), and Solomon et al., U.S. Patent Number 12,426,976 B2 (hereafter Solomon; It is noted that the portions of Solomon relied upon appear to be fully supported by priority document 62/957341 filed on 1/6/2020) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Themelis, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0049811 A1 (of record, hereafter Themelis).
Regarding claim 18, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon does not specifically disclose that the control circuitry is further configured to process tracking data of a tracking system for tracking a surgical instrument and to activate the capacitive sensor based on the surgical instrument being located in a field of view of the optical system.
However, Themelis is related to Luber in that both Luber and Themelis are drawn to using sensors for tracking a position of a head of a user of a surgical apparatus (see at least the abstracts of Luber and Themelis), and Themelis further teaches detecting movement of an object or surgical tool in a field of view of an optical system such that the optical system may be controlled, or configuration altered, depending on the detected movement (see at least the abstract, figures 2, 4, 5, paragraphs [0032], [0034], [0114], [0123]-[0135] of Themelis).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the teachings of Themelis so that the control circuitry is further configured to process tracking data of a tracking system for tracking a surgical instrument and to activate the capacitive sensor if the surgical instrument is located in a field of view of the optical system, for the purpose of using a known technique to control and actuate the movement of the optical system, and/or to change any desired settings of the system, with respect to the position of a user or tool based on a known technique for evaluating the sensor signal of the capacitive sensor.
Regarding claim 21, Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon does not specifically disclose that the control circuitry is configured to process image data of the optical system, determine a state of a surgical procedure and activate the capacitive sensor in dependence of the determined state of the surgical procedure.
However, Themelis is related to Luber in that both Luber and Themelis are drawn to using sensors for tracking a position of a head of a user of a surgical apparatus (see at least the abstracts of Luber and Themelis), and Themelis further teaches detecting movement of an object or surgical tool in a field of view of an optical system such that the optical system may be controlled, or configuration altered, depending on the detected movement (see at least the abstract, figures 2, 4, 5, paragraphs [0032], [0034], [0114], [0123]-[0135] of Themelis).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic microscope of Luber in view of Anderson, Lee and Solomon to include the teachings of Themelis so that the control circuitry is configured to process image data of the optical system, determine a state of a surgical procedure and activate the capacitive sensor in dependence of the determined state of the surgical procedure, for the purpose of using a known technique to control and actuate the movement of the optical system, and/or to change any desired settings of the system, with respect to the position of a user or tool based on a known technique for evaluating the sensor signal of the capacitive sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Stephone B. Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 2/2/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872