DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 16 December 2025. Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 15 and 17 - 20 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1 – 2, 6 – 8, 14 – 15, 17, and 19 - 20, as well as the cancellation of claims 4 and 16.
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
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 10, 12 – 15, 17 and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messerly et al (US 20190201040 A1, hereinafter “Messerly”) and Malis et al (US 5318563 A, hereinafter “Malis”).
Regarding claim 1, Messerly teaches a surgical robotic system (“robotic system 110”, [0228] – [0229], Figure 2) comprising:
at least one movable cart including a robotic arm having a surgical instrument (“patient side cart 120”, [0229], Figure 2); and
a control tower including a power supply system having a plurality of power supplies(“surgical system 102”, [0228] – [0230], Figure 3; cables are disclosed in Fig. 2; Examiner interprets there are several power supplies in Figure 2.), the power supply system including:
a first power supply (“an energy device 241”, [0281], Figures 9 and 20) of the plurality of power supplies coupled to the at least one movable cart via a cable (“surgical system 102”, [0228] – [0230], Figure 3; cables are disclosed in Figure 2) and configured to output a voltage signal to power the at least one movable cart and at least one status signal (Figure 21; "presence", "sensors" are providing status signals, [0380] - [0383]);
a cable state detection circuit configured to detect a connection signal indicative of a connection status of the cable ("the main processor 3214 is configured to sense the presence of ultrasonic drive circuitry and/or RF; and drive circuitry to enable appropriate software and user interface functionality." [0468]);
a controller coupled to the cable state detection circuit and the first power supply, the controller configured to control the first power supply based on the connection status of the cable and the at least one status signal (“the main processor 3214 is configured to sense the presence of ultrasonic drive circuitry and/or RF drive circuitry to enable appropriate software and user interface functionality.” [0468]); and
a plurality of isolation barriers (Messerly: “isolation transformers 916, 928, 922”, [0381], Figure 21),
wherein a first isolation barrier of the plurality of isolation barriers galvanically isolates the first power supply from the controller (Messerly: “isolation transformers 916, 928, 922”, [0381], Figure 21).
Messerly does not explicitly teach isolating the first power supply from the other power supplies of the plurality of power supplies such that an output of the first power supply is floating relative to the other power supplies.
However, Malis discloses “an electrosurgical cutter/coagulator system” (column 1, line 6) and teaches isolating a first power supply from other power supplies of a plurality of power supplies such that an output of the first power supply is floating relative to the other power supplies (“A trio of floating or isolated power supplies 320 (FIG. 15a)” column 19, lines 45 - 48, Figure 15a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Messerly to isolate the first power supply from the other power supplies of the plurality of power supplies such that an output of the first power supply is floating relative to the other power supplies, as taught by Malis, for the benefit of provid[ing] safety to patients regarding power usage of medical devices.
Regarding claim 2, Messerly and Malis teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Messerly and Malis teaches the first power supply includes a power supply connector (Messerly: cables are disclosed in Fig. 2) and a communication connector (Messerly: cables are disclosed in Fig. 2), each of which is coupled to the controller (Messerly: [0380] - [0383], Figures 2 and 21).
Regarding claim 3, Messerly and Malis teaches all limitations of claim 2. Messerly teaches the power supply system includes a power supply isolator coupled to the power supply connector and a communication isolator coupled to the communication connector (Messerly: “power transformer 908”, [0380], Figure 21).
Regarding claim 6, Messerly and Malis teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Messerly and Malis teaches the controller is further configured to terminate the voltage signal of the first power supply in response to termination of the connection signal (Messerly: in particular "the combination logic circuit may implement a deenergization sequence”, [0554]).
Regarding claim 7, Messerly and Malis teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Messerly and Malis teaches the controller is further configured to terminate the voltage signal of the first power supply in response to the at least one status signal being outside a predetermined parameter (in particular "Sensors are provided that measure, at the end effector, a clamping force value (existing within a known range) and, based upon the received clamping force value, the processor 3302 varies the motional voltage VM." [0477]).
Regarding claim 8, Messerly teaches a surgical robotic system (“a computer-implemented interactive surgical system 100”, [0228] Figures 1 and 2) comprising:
a plurality of movable carts (Figures 1 and 2) each including a robotic arm (“patient side cart 120”, [0229], Figure 2) having a surgical instrument (Figures 1 and 2); and
a control tower including a power supply system (“surgical system 102”, [0228] – [0230], Figure 3; cables are disclosed in Fig. 2; Examiner interprets there are several power supplies in Figure 2.) including:
a plurality of power supplies each of which is coupled via a cable to one movable cart of the plurality of movable carts ([0228] – [0230], Figure 3; cables are disclosed in Fig. 2; Examiner interprets there are several power supplies in Figure 2.) and is configured to output a voltage signal to power the one movable cart and at least one status signal (Figure 21; "presence", "sensors" are providing status signals, [0380] - [0383]);
a cable state detection circuit each of which is configured to detect a connection signal indicative of a connection status of the cable ("the main processor 3214 is configured to sense the presence of ultrasonic drive circuitry and/or RF; and drive circuitry to enable appropriate software and user interface functionality." [0468]);
a plurality of controllers ([0318], [0468]) coupled to one cable state detection circuit of the plurality of the cable state detection circuits and one power supply of the plurality of power supplies (“the main processor 3214 is configured to sense the presence of ultrasonic drive circuitry and/or RF drive circuitry to enable appropriate software and user interface functionality.” [0468]),
the controller configured to control the one power supply based on the connection status of the cable and the at least one status signal; and
a plurality of isolation barriers galvanically isolating each of the power supplies from each other and from each of the controllers (Messerly: “isolation transformers 916, 928, 922”, [0381], Figure 21).
Messerly does not explicitly teach a plurality of cable state detection circuits and an output of the first power supply is floating relative to the other power supplies.
Additionally, although the reference did not disclose a plurality of cable state detection circuits, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
The modified invention of Messerly does not explicitly teach such that an output of the first power supply is floating relative to the other power supplies.
However, Malis discloses “an electrosurgical cutter/coagulator system” (column 1, line 6) and teaches such that an output of the first power supply is floating relative to the other power supplies (“A trio of floating or isolated power supplies 320 (FIG. 15a)” column 19, lines 45 - 48, Figure 15a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Messerly such that an output of the first power supply is floating relative to the other power supplies, as taught by Malis, for the benefit of provid[ing] safety to patients regarding power usage of medical devices.
Regarding claim 9, Messerly and Malis teach all limitations of claim 8. The modified invention of Messerly and Malis teaches each of the power supplies includes a power supply connector (Messerly: cables are disclosed in Fig. 2) and a communication connector (Messerly: cables are disclosed in Fig. 2), each of which is coupled to the corresponding controller (Messerly: [0380] - [0383], Figures 2 and 21).
Regarding claim 10, Messerly and Malis teach all limitations of claim 9. The modified invention of Messerly and Malis teaches each of the isolation barriers includes a power supply isolator coupled to power supply connector and a communication isolator coupled to the communication connector (Messerly: “power transformer 908”, [0380], Figure 21).
Regarding claim 12, Messerly and Malis teach all limitations of claim 8. The modified invention of Messerly and Malis teaches each of the controllers is configured to terminate the voltage signal of the corresponding power supply in response to termination of the connection signal (Messerly: in particular "the combination logic circuit may implement a deenergization sequence”, [0554]).
Regarding claim 13, Messerly and Malis teach all limitations of claim 8. The modified invention of Messerly and Malis teaches each of the controllers is configured to terminate the voltage signal of the corresponding power supply in response to the at least one status signal being outside a predetermined parameter (in particular "Sensors are provided that measure, at the end effector, a clamping force value (existing within a known range) and, based upon the received clamping force value, the processor 3302 varies the motional voltage VM." [0477]).
Regarding claim 14, Messerly teaches a method for controlling a surgical robotic system, the method comprising:
outputting a voltage signal from a power supply to power a movable cart including a robotic arm having a surgical instrument (“The main processor 3214 also may provide RF drive”, [0468]);
transmitting a connection signal indicative of a connection status of a cable connecting a movable cart to the power supply ("the main processor 3214 is configured to sense the presence of ultrasonic drive circuitry and/or RF drive circuitry to enable appropriate software and user interface functionality.", [0468]);
transmitting at least one status signal from the first power supply (“the main processor 3214 is configured to sense the presence of ultrasonic drive circuitry and/or RF drive circuitry to enable appropriate software and user interface functionality.”, [0468]);
controlling, at a controller, the power supply based on the connection status of the cable and the at least one status signal (“the main processor 3214 is configured to sense the presence of ultrasonic drive circuitry and/or RF drive circuitry to enable appropriate software and user interface functionality.”, [0468]); and
galvanically isolating the first power supply from the controller and from the other power supplies of the plurality of power supplies via an isolation barrier (Messerly: “isolation transformers 916, 928, 922”, [0381], Figure 21).
Messerly does not explicitly teach such that an output of the first power supply is floating relative to the other power supplies.
However, Malis discloses “an electrosurgical cutter/coagulator system” (column 1, line 6) and teaches such that an output of the first power supply is floating relative to the other power supplies (“A trio of floating or isolated power supplies 320 (FIG. 15a)” column 19, lines 45 - 48, Figure 15a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Messerly such that an output of the first power supply is floating relative to the other power supplies, as taught by Malis, for the benefit of provid[ing] safety to patients regarding power usage of medical devices.
Regarding claim 15, Messerly and Malis teach all limitations of claim 14. The modified invention of Messerly and Malis teaches the method comprising coupling the first power supply to the controller through a power supply connector and a communication connector (Messerly: [0380] - [0383], Figures 2 and 21).
Regarding claim 17, Messerly and Malis teach all limitations of claim 14. The modified invention of Messerly and Malis teaches galvanically isolating further includes coupling a power supply isolator to the power supply connector and a communication isolator to the communication connector (Messerly: “isolation transformers 916, 928, 922”, [0381], Figure 21).
Regarding claim 19, Messerly and Malis teach all limitations of claim 14. The modified invention of Messerly and Malis teaches the method terminating the voltage signal of the first power supply in response to termination of the connection signal (Messerly: in particular "the combination logic circuit may implement a deenergization sequence”, [0554]).
Regarding claim 20, Messerly and Malis teach all limitations of claim 14. The modified invention of Messerly and Malis teaches the method terminating the voltage signal of the first power supply in response to the at least one status signal being outside a predetermined parameter (in particular "Sensors are provided that measure, at the end effector, a clamping force value (existing within a known range) and, based upon the received clamping force value, the processor 3302 varies the motional voltage VM." [0477]).
Claims 5, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messerly and Malis, as applied in claims 1, 8, and 14, in view of Leimbach et al (EP 2923661 A2, hereinafter “Leimbach”).
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 18, Messerly and Malis teach all limitations of claims 1, 8 and 14. The modified invention of Messerly and Malis teaches the cable state detection circuit but does not teach a debouncer.
However, Leimbach discloses an invention relates to surgical instruments (abstract) and teaches a debouncer (“a switch debouncer circuit which utilizes a capacitor to filter out any quick changes of signal response”, [0212]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Messerly and Malis to incorporate a debouncer, as taught by Leimbach, for the benefit of eliminating unwanted quick on/off cycles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 15 and 17 - 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brichard et al (US 20140135579 A1) discloses “Isolated power supply 565 is further coupled to power transmission line 520 and to floating ground 525.” (Brichard et al: [0063]).
Kapadia et al (US 20200129250 A1) discloses “a robotic surgical system for minimally invasive surgery” (Kapadia et al: [0001]).
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 JULIE T TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JULIE THI TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791