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 .
Response to Amendment
This correspondence is in response to amendments filed on June 2, 2026. Claims 1, 13, and 20-21 are amended. Claims 3-12 and 14-19 are filed as previously or originally presented. Claim 2 is cancelled. Amendments to claims 1 and 20 obviate the previous claim objection and as such the objection has been withdrawn. Amendments to claims 1, 13, and 20 obviate the 112b rejection set forth in the previous rejection and as such the rejection has been withdrawn. Examiner responds to Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the combination of Shelton and Intuitive Surgical do not result in the claimed invention because Intuitive Surgical does not teach a system monitor state machine performing a shutdown sequence (Pages 10-12 of Remarks), the shutdown sequence of Intuitive Surgical is not reliant on power dependencies (Pages 10-12 of Remarks), and Shelton does not supply the missing power-dependency-based shutdown sequence (Page 12 of Remarks). In a conclusionary remark, Applicant further determines that the rejection relies upon an unsupported transformation of the User Guide’s (Intuitive Surgical) user-performed shutdown-preparation instruction into a system-monitor-controlled-power-dependency sequence (Page 12 of Remarks).
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Shelton and Intuitive Surgical does not teach the claimed invention because the teachings of Intuitive Surgical does not include a shutdown sequence performed by the system monitor state machine, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Examiner relies only upon the sequence which is described by Intuitive Surgical in shutting down a surgical robotic system. That is, Examiner does not allege that Intuitive Surgical teaches a system monitor state machine. Instead, Examiner ascertains that Shelton teaches a shutdown sequence initiated by a system monitor state machine, but does not teach the specific sequence of this automated shutdown procedure. Intuitive Surgical is merely exemplary of the order in which components are shutdown for successful power management and data logging procedures.
In response to applicant’s argument that Intuitive Surgical does not teach the sequence for the shutdown to be based on a power dependency, Examiner will define what exactly is meant by a shutdown and power dependency by its broadest reasonable interpretation. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, power is merely “a source or means of supplying energy, i.e., electricity” (see definition 6a, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power) while dependency is merely “something that is dependent on something else” (see definition 2, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dependency). Thus, a power dependency of sub-components at its broadest is merely “a sub-component that is dependent on a source or means of supplying energy”. Additionally, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, shutdown is merely “the cessation or suspension of an operation or activity” (see definition 1 of 2 (noun), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shutdown). Thus, although Intuitive Surgical teaches a manual “shutdown” which first suspends the operation of any instrument by user detachment, before stowing the surgical arms to suspend functional use of the arms by user manipulation, the sequence is still directed to the cessation or suspension of the operation or activity of the surgical system. The order in which the instruments are detached before the surgical arms are stowed indicates an order based on a power dependency because the system relies on power supplied from the arm cart to the arms which then supplies power from the arms to the instrument. That is, the instrument is dependent on the arms for supplying energy, the arms are dependent on the moveable cart for supplying energy, and the moveable cart is dependent on the power console for supplying energy. Therefore, as stated in the rejection, Intuitive Surgical teaches a deactivation according to a sub-component shutdown sequence based on power dependencies between a plurality of sub-components, which include at least one sub-component of the surgical arm (instrument) and at least one sub-component of the moveable cart (surgical arm), wherein the shutdown sequence defines an order in which the at least one sub-component of the surgical arm (instrument) is shut down prior to the at least one sub-component of the moveable cart (surgical arm).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., power dependencies and shutdown sequence) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) in a manner which limits the Examiner’s current interpretation of the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As such, Examiner reminds Applicant of the Graham v. Deere, Test for Obviousness:
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.
In the rejection, Examiner determines the scope and contents of the prior art, Shelton. Shelton teaches a deactivation sequence being initiated and performed by a system monitor state machine. Examiner then ascertains that Shelton does not explicitly teach the deactivation performed as a shutdown sequence based on power dependencies for a plurality of sub-components and subsequently does not teach any further order of this shutdown sequence. Provided that Shelton is merely absent the specific order in which the sub-components of the surgical system are shutdown, Examiner then relies upon the teachings of Intuitive Surgical, as a pertinent art, which would render one of ordinary skill in the art to desirably shutdown the sub-components of the surgical system in the specified order such that the sub-components of the system are not damaged in the process of removing power from the system, and additionally data from the operation may be accurately logged upon the termination of operational procedures. Such rationale are supported as objective evidence which indicates obviousness, not mere over-generalizations as alleged by Applicant.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is NOT PERSUASIVE. Examiner maintains the previous rejection as included below.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al. (US 2019/0200863 A1; hereinafter “Shelton”) in view of Intuitive Surgical (“da Vinci Si Surgical System: User Manual”, 2012).
Regarding claim 1, Shelton teaches a surgical robotic system (“Referring to Fig. 1, a computer-implemented interactive surgical system 100 includes one or more surgical systems 102” [0103]. “A robotic system 110 is used in the surgical procedure as a part of the surgical system 102” [0104]. Thus, there is a robotic system which is a part of the surgical system 102 thereby determining a surgical robotic system.) comprising:
a surgical console including a user input device configured to generate a user input (“The robotic system 110 includes a surgeon's console 118” [0104]. “A user enters commands or information into the computer system 210 through input device(s) coupled to the I/O interface 251” [0165]. Thus, a surgeon’s console which allows a surgeon to view and command a surgical site comprises a computer system which allows computer input commands through an input device.);
a movable cart; and a surgical robotic arm disposed on the movable cart (“The robotic system 110 includes … a patient side cart 120 (surgical robot)” [0104]. See Fig. 2 for positioning of cart with respect to patient as well as the plurality of robot arms disposed on the cart. The side cart may be “manipulated” and thus is “moveable”.),
the surgical robotic arm including
a surgical instrument configured to treat tissue and being actuatable in response to the user input (“The patient side cart 120 can manipulate at least one removably coupled surgical tool 117 through a minimally invasive incision in the body of the patient while the surgeon views the surgical site through the surgeon's console 118” [0104]. Thus, the surgical tool 117 is actuatable in response to the surgeon’s console which is operated by means of a computer system and/or robotic hub.); and
a control tower coupled to the surgical console and the movable cart (“The robotic system 110 … a surgical robotic hub 122” [0104]. In Fig. 2, we can see that the surgical robotic hub 122 connects the surgeon’s console 118 to the patient side cart 120. “A robot hub 222 also may be connected to the modular control tower 236 and to the cloud computing resources” [0156]. Thus, through the robot hub 222, the console and cart are connected to the control tower 236.), the control tower including
a controller, the controller having a system monitor configured to synchronize activation or deactivation of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm (“The non-isolated stage 804 may further comprise a controller 838 for monitoring input devices (e.g., a capacitive touch sensor used for turning the generator 800 on and off, a capacitive touch screen)… In one form, for example, the controller 838 may comprise a processor (e.g., a Meg168 8-bit controller available from Atmel) configured to monitor user input provided via one or more capacitive touch sensors.” [0265]. Thus, the controller comprises a system monitor which synchronizes power provided by the generator, i.e., activation or deactivation of the surgical system as listed in the claim, based on an activation of an input switch.) the system monitor including:
a communication interface coupled to the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm (“In certain forms, the controller 838 may cause the generator 800 to provide audible or other sensory feedback for alerting the user that a power on or power off sequence has been initiated. Such an alert may be provided at the beginning of a power on or power off sequence and prior to the commencement of other processes associated with the sequence” [0267]. The feedback system thus acts as a communication interface which is coupled directly to the generator and communicably coupled to the greater surgical robotic system.); and
a system monitor state machine operably coupled to the communication interface,
the system monitor state machine configured to interact with the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm to monitor a status and to activate or deactivate at least one of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, or the surgical robotic arm (“The UI processor 836 may communicate with the DSP processor 822 and the logic device 816 (e.g., via SPI buses). Although the UI processor 836 may primarily support UI functionality, it may also coordinate with the DSP processor 822 to implement hazard mitigation in certain forms. For example, the UI processor 836 may be programmed to monitor various aspects of user input and/or other inputs (e.g., touch screen inputs, foot switch inputs, temperature sensor inputs) and may disable the drive output of the generator 800 when an erroneous condition is detected” [0263]. “The respective DSP and UI processors 822, 836 may independently maintain the current operating state of the generator 800 and recognize and evaluate possible transitions out of the current operating state. The DSP processor 822 may function as the master in this relationship and determine when transitions between operating states are to occur. The UI processor 836 may be aware of valid transitions between operating states and may confirm if a particular transition is appropriate” [0264]. In this case, the UI Processor and DSP processor coordinate with each other and a logic device to perform the functions of the system monitor state machine. The two processors together monitor the operating state, i.e., status, of the system. The UI processor specifically is coupled to the communication interface as indicated above, but the two processors and the logic device together perform the sequence for controlling the activation/deactivation of the generator which supplies energy, i.e., power, to the surgical system through its power supply. ),
wherein each of the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm includes at least one sub-component (According to [0104] and Fig. 3 which describes and shows the surgical system 102 and robotic system 110, the console has a display sub-component, the cart has a plurality of robot arms as sub-components, and the arm includes a surgical tool 117 as its sub-component. ), and
wherein the deactivation is performed by the system monitor state machine (As stated above, the deactivation is performed by the combination of the UI Processor, DSP Processor, and logic device which comprise the defined monitor state machine.)…
However, Shelton does not explicitly teach …wherein the deactivation is performed … according to a sub-component shutdown sequence based on power dependencies between a plurality of subcomponents, the plurality of sub-components including at least one sub-component of the surgical robotic arm and at least one sub-component of the moveable cart, and
wherein the shutdown sequence defines an order in which the at least one sub-component of the surgical robotic arm is shut down prior to the at least one sub-component of the moveable cart.
Intuitive Surgical, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …wherein the deactivation is performed … according to a sub-component shutdown sequence based on power dependencies between a plurality of subcomponents (Section 11.1 and Section 11.3 detail steps taken to shut down the sub-components of the surgical system in a predetermined order. This order is based on a power dependency which requires specific subprocesses before power down fully occurs so as to not damage the system sub-components which are sensitive to specific power cycles.), the plurality of sub-components including at least one sub-component of the surgical robotic arm and at least one sub-component of the moveable cart (Section 2.1 shows that sub-components which make up the surgical system (and further are included in Chapter 11 when detailing system shutdown) are inclusive of at least a moveable cart and robotic arm.), and
wherein the shutdown sequence defines an order in which the at least one sub-component of the surgical robotic arm is shut down prior to the at least one sub-component of the moveable cart (In the shutdown process, the user is instructed to first disassemble and deactivate the instruments which are part of the surgical robotic arm (11.1 steps 1-3), before disassembling, deactivating, and stowing the arms of the surgical cart (11.3 step 1) during the shutdown sequence of the system.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the automated deactivation system of Shelton to include the shutdown sequence as described by Intuitive Surgical with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because improper shutdown sequence of complex surgical systems could lead to inaccurate data collection following the procedure (see Intuitive Surgical Section 11.2 and Notes on Page 11-4 regarding usage decrementing), unsafe disconnections from the power source (see Intuitive Surgical Section 11.3 Step 3), and/or improper battery charge in the surgical system. Additionally, it would have been obvious to power down the subcomponents of the robotic arms before the sub-components of the moveable cart because the subcomponents of the cart are the arms themselves, and thus would need to shut down all subcomponents of the arms before powering down the cart itself. This is not explicitly determined but heavily implied according to both Shelton and Intuitive Surgical references.
Regarding claim 3, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical (references made to Shelton) teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 1,
wherein each of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm, or the at least one sub-component thereof are coupled to one of at least an uninterruptible power supply or a tower power supply chassis (“In certain forms, the non-isolated stage 804 may comprise a power supply 854 for delivering DC power at a suitable voltage and current. The power supply may comprise, for example, a 400 W power supply for delivering a 48 VDC system voltage. The power supply 854 may further comprise one or more DC/DC voltage converters 856 for receiving the output of the power supply to generate DC outputs at the voltages and currents required by the various components of the generator 800” [0277]. As depicted in Fig. 20, the power supply provides system voltages for powering the surgical system. The generator may thus be considered as a tower power supply chassis.).
Regarding claim 4, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical (references made to Shelton) teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 3,
wherein the system monitor state machine is further configured to monitor a load status of each of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm, or the at least one sub-component thereof (“Voltage and current feedback data output by the ADC circuits 826, 828 may be received and processed (e.g., first-in-first-out (FIFO) buffer, multiplexer) by the logic device 816 and stored in data memory for subsequent retrieval by, for example, the DSP processor 822” [0260]. Thus, voltage and current feedback data is logged in the system and processed for future retrievals.) and
command a power state of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm (“In certain forms, the voltage and current feedback data may be used to control the frequency and/or amplitude (e.g., current amplitude) of the drive signals. In one form, for example, voltage and current feedback data may be used to determine impedance phase. The frequency of the drive signal may then be controlled to minimize or reduce the difference between the determined impedance phase and an impedance phase setpoint (e.g., 0°), thereby minimizing or reducing the effects of harmonic distortion and correspondingly enhancing impedance phase measurement accuracy” [0261]. Thus, based on the feedback data, the power level delivered to the surgical system (frequency and amplitude of the drive signal) is controlled by the processor.).
Regarding claim 5, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical (references made to Shelton) teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 1,
wherein in receiving the status of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm, the system monitor aggregates a current status of the at least one sub-component thereof (“For example, the UI processor 836 may be programmed to monitor various aspects of user input and/or other inputs (e.g., touch screen inputs, foot switch inputs, temperature sensor inputs) and may disable the drive output of the generator 800 when an erroneous condition is detected” [0264]. “For the UI processor 836, the operating state of the generator 800 may dictate, for example, which elements of a UI (e.g., display screens, sounds) are presented to a user” [0264]. Thus, the operating status determines the drive output which is supplied to the surgical system as well as the display output which the user may be able to view during operation, which directly aggregates the current status of the sub-components of the system.).
Regarding claim 6, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical (references made to Shelton) teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 1,
wherein the system monitor state machine includes at least one of an undefined state (A process in which the surgical hub pings the operating room to determine the size and mapping of the surgical theater which allows the robot to then define the procedure which will be performed in the space (Fig. 24 and [0309-0314]). The beginning of such a process is assessed as an undefined state, as no such activation/deactivation is determined at this time.), a deactivated state (“power off state”; [0266]), an activated state (“power on state”; [0266]), an activating state (“When the generator 800 is in the power off state, the controller 838 may wake the power supply (e.g., enable operation of one or more DC/DC voltage converters 856 of the power supply 854) if activation of the “on/off” input device by a user is detected” [0266]. Thus, the process of waking the power supply may be an “activating” state. See also the pairing process described in [0308] and shown in Fig. 23 which discusses waking the surgical hub in a different aspect which may also be considered as the “activating” state.), a shutdown state (The initial activation of the “power off state” through a user interaction with an input device (see [0266]).), or a malfunction state (“failure mode”; [0264]).
Regarding claim 7, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical (references made to Shelton) teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 6,
wherein the system monitor, based on the system monitor state machine and the user input, the system monitor activates or deactivates at least one of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, or the surgical robotic arm (“The UI processor 836 may be aware of valid transitions between operating states and may confirm if a particular transition is appropriate. For example, when the DSP processor 822 instructs the UI processor 836 to transition to a specific state, the UI processor 836 may verify that requested transition is valid.” [0264]. “When the generator 800 is in the power off state, the controller 838 may wake the power supply (e.g., enable operation of one or more DC/DC voltage converters 856 of the power supply 854) if activation of the “on/off” input device by a user is detected. The controller 838 may therefore initiate a sequence for transitioning the generator 800 to a “power on” state. Conversely, the controller 838 may initiate a sequence for transitioning the generator 800 to the power off state if activation of the “on/off” input device is detected when the generator 800 is in the power on state” [0266]. Thus, in response to user input for activating an ”on/off” device and the UI processor determining the transition as valid, the controller, i.e., system monitor initiates the activation/deactivation of the system.).
Regarding claim 8, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical (references made to Shelton) teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 7,
wherein upon receiving a command to activate at least one of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, or the surgical robotic arm, the system monitor state machine monitors load status of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, or the surgical robotic arm and commands the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm to startup (In paragraph [0264] it is exemplified that the DSP processor and UI processor, i.e., system monitor state machine, monitor the operating state of the generator, i.e., load status of each component of the surgical system, in order to verify transitions and valid transition states such that the transition may be performed, i.e., startup transition, upon receiving the command for such a transition.).
Regarding claim 9, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical (references made to Shelton) teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 7,
wherein upon receiving a command to deactivate at least one of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, or the surgical robotic arm, the system monitor state machine monitors load status of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, or the surgical robotic arm and commands the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm to shut down (In paragraph [0264] it is exemplified that the DSP processor and UI processor, i.e., system monitor state machine, monitor the operating state of the generator, i.e., load status of each component of the surgical system, in order to verify transitions and valid transition states such that the transition may be performed, i.e., shutdown transition, upon receiving the command for such a transition.).
Regarding claim 10, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 9.
However, Shelton does not explicitly teach wherein upon receiving a command to shut down the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, or the surgical robotic arm, the system monitor receives a configuration file, the configuration file includes a shutdown order of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm and an appropriate delay between the shutdown of each of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm
It will be noted, however, that Shelton does teach that the shutdown of the generator occurs in a “sequence”, although nothing explicitly determines a shutdown order or delay between the shutdown of each component in the surgical system (see [0266-0267]).
Intuitive Surgical further teaches a shutdown order of a surgical system and an appropriate delay between the shutdown of each of (For the shutdown of each of the surgical console, the moveable cart, and the surgical robotic arm, the system issues a delay of 10 seconds to complete the shutdown sequence of the powered components (Page 11-4).).
Although the control tower is not specifically referred to in Intuitive Surgical, Shelton teaches “In certain forms, the first data circuit may store information pertaining to the particular surgical instrument with which it is associated. Such information may include, for example, a model number, a serial number, a number of operations in which the surgical instrument has been used, and/or any other type of information. This information may be read by the instrument interface circuit 840 (e.g., by the logic circuit 842), transferred to a component of the non-isolated stage 804 (e.g., to logic device 816, DSP processor 822, and/or UI processor 836) for presentation to a user via an output device and/or for controlling a function or operation of the generator 800. Additionally, any type of information may be communicated to the first data circuit for storage therein via the first data circuit interface 846 (e.g., using the logic circuit 842). Such information may comprise, for example, an updated number of operations in which the surgical instrument has been used and/or dates and/or times of its usage” [0271]. In the same respect, “If the system is not restarted within ten minutes after power down, the system will view any restart as a new procedure and instrument uses will be decremented accordingly” (Page 11-4). Thus, according to Intuitive Surgical the official usage logging for the procedure occurs 10 minutes after the shutdown has been initiated. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in combining the teachings of Shelton and Intuitive Surgical, that the control tower would remain on standby for at least 10 minutes before the UI Processor, DSP Processor, and logic device (i.e., subcomponents of the control tower) a complete shutdown has occurred.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified sequential process for shutting down the surgical system as taught by Shelton to have included the predetermined order and delay of the shutdown process as taught by Intuitive Surgical with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the safety processor which initiates the timed and sequenced shutdown process allows the system to perform appropriate power cycles before disconnecting power cables, and additionally log all appropriate information such that usage information for each instrument and procedure accurately.
However, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical does not explicitly teach the system monitor receives a configuration file, the configuration file includes a shutdown order… and an appropriate delay between the shutdown of components.
Despite Intuitive Surgical not having the specific teaching that such shutdown commands are located within a configuration file, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the order and delay sequence for placing the system into a sleep mode in an autonomous fashion would be embedded in some type of script/code/configuration file such that direct human intervention at the time of the shutdown would not be necessary in order to facilitate the ordered delay sequence. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the controller, i.e., system monitor, of Shelton would receive the appropriate configuration file to initiate the shutdown sequence as was previously modified by Intuitive Surgical.
Regarding claim 11, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical (references made to Shelton) teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a data storage coupled to the system monitor state machine, the data storage is configured to store communication between the system monitor state machine and the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, or the surgical robotic arm (“Voltage and current feedback data output by the ADC circuits 826, 828 may be received and processed (e.g., first-in-first-out (FIFO) buffer, multiplexer) by the logic device 816 and stored in data memory for subsequent retrieval by, for example, the DSP processor 822” [0260]. Thus, the logic device, i.e., system state monitor, receives communications regarding the power supply/power use of the surgical system and stores such communication in a data memory.).
Regarding claim 12, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical (references made to Shelton) teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a notification handler coupled to the system monitor state machine, the notification handler is configured to provide notification of errors based on communication between the system monitor state machine and the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, or the surgical robotic arm (“Examples of UI functionality supported by the UI processor 836 may include audible and visual user feedback, communication with peripheral devices (e.g., via a USB interface), communication with a foot switch, communication with an input device (e.g., a touch screen display) and communication with an output device (e.g., a speaker). The UI processor 836 may communicate with the DSP processor 822 and the logic device 816 (e.g., via SPI buses). Although the UI processor 836 may primarily support UI functionality, it may also coordinate with the DSP processor 822 to implement hazard mitigation in certain forms. For example, the UI processor 836 may be programmed to monitor various aspects of user input and/or other inputs (e.g., touch screen inputs, foot switch inputs, temperature sensor inputs) and may disable the drive output of the generator 800 when an erroneous condition is detected” [0263]. “In the event that a requested transition between states is determined to be invalid by the UI processor 836, the UI processor 836 may cause the generator 800 to enter a failure mode” [0264]. Thus, the UI processor is coupled to different audio and visual systems which indicate erroneous conditions/failure modes based on detections between various aspects of the surgical system.).
Regarding claim 13, Shelton teaches a method of synchronizing activation or deactivation of a surgical robotic system (See [0266] regarding stepped transitions between activation and deactivation states of a power supply which powers the surgical system 102.), the method comprising:
receiving, at a system monitor of the surgical robotic system, a load status of a power supply coupled to a control tower, a surgical console, a movable cart, and a surgical robotic arm of the surgical robotic system; determining, based on the received load status, a state of the surgical robotic system (“In certain forms, when the generator 800 is in a “power off” state, the controller 838 may continue to receive operating power (e.g., via a line from a power supply of the generator 800, such as the power supply 854 discussed below). In this way, the controller 838 may continue to monitor an input device (e.g., a capacitive touch sensor located on a front panel of the generator 800) for turning the generator 800 on and off” [0266]. Thus, the controller, i.e., system monitor, monitors a load status of the input device for the generator, which thus determines whether or not the generator is in an activated, i.e., “on”, or deactivated, “off”, state. The generator powers the surgical system through the control tower in order to activate all aspects of the surgical system.); and
synchronizing, based on the state of the surgical robotic system, activation and deactivation of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm of the surgical robotic system (“When the generator 800 is in the power off state, the controller 838 may wake the power supply (e.g., enable operation of one or more DC/DC voltage converters 856 of the power supply 854) if activation of the “on/off” input device by a user is detected. The controller 838 may therefore initiate a sequence for transitioning the generator 800 to a “power on” state. Conversely, the controller 838 may initiate a sequence for transitioning the generator 800 to the power off state if activation of the “on/off” input device is detected when the generator 800 is in the power on state” [0266]. Thus, based on the determination as discussed above, the controller initiates a sequence for powering the system both on and off depending on the designated transition.),
wherein each of the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm includes at least one sub-component (According to [0104] and Fig. 3 which describes and shows the surgical system 102 and robotic system 110, the console has a display sub-component, the cart has a plurality of robot arms as sub-components, and the arm includes a surgical tool 117 as its sub-component. )…
However, Shelton does not teach … wherein the deactivation is performed according to a sub-component shutdown sequence based on power dependencies between a plurality of sub-components, the plurality of sub-components including at least one sub-component of the surgical robotic arm and at least one sub-component of the moveable cart, and
wherein the shutdown sequence defines an order in which the at least one sub-component of the surgical robotic arm is shut down prior to the at least one sub-component of the movable cart.
Intuitive Surgical, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …wherein the deactivation is performed according to a sub-component shutdown sequence based on power dependencies between a plurality of subcomponents (Section 11.1 and Section 11.3 detail steps taken to shut down the sub-components of the surgical system in a predetermined order. This order is based on a power dependency which requires specific subprocesses before power down fully occurs so as to not damage the system sub-components which are sensitive to specific power cycles.), the plurality of sub-components including at least one sub-component of the surgical robotic arm and at least one sub-component of the moveable cart (Section 2.1 shows that sub-components which make up the surgical system (and further are included in Chapter 11 when detailing system shutdown) are inclusive of each of a moveable cart and a robotic arm.), and
wherein the shutdown sequence defines an order in which the at least one sub-component of the surgical robotic arm is shut down prior to the at least one sub-component of the moveable cart (In the shutdown process, the user is instructed to first disassemble and deactivate the instruments which are part of the surgical robotic arm (11.1 steps 1-3), before disassembling, deactivating, and stowing the arms of the surgical cart (11.3 step 1) during the shutdown sequence of the system.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the automated deactivation system of Shelton to include the shutdown sequence as described by Intuitive Surgical with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because improper shutdown sequence of complex surgical systems could lead to inaccurate data collection following the procedure (see Intuitive Surgical Section 11.2 and Notes on Page 11-4 regarding usage decrementing), unsafe disconnections from the power source (see Intuitive Surgical Section 11.3 Step 3), and/or improper battery charge in the surgical system. Additionally, it would have been obvious to power down the subcomponents of the robotic arms before the sub-components of the moveable cart because the subcomponents of the cart are the arms themselves, and thus would need to shut down all subcomponents of the arms before powering down the cart itself. This is not explicitly determined but heavily implied according to both Shelton and Intuitive Surgical references.
Regarding claim 14, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical (references made to Shelton) teaches the method according to claim 13,
wherein the state of the surgical robotic system is set to a deactivated state if the load status is not running (If input device is not activated, i.e., not running, then the generator and system are consequently in the “power off”, i.e., deactivated, state (see [0266].) and the state of the surgical robotic system is set to an activated state if the load status is running (If input device is activated, i.e., running, then the generator and system are consequently in the “power on”, i.e., activated, state (see [0266].).
Regarding claim 15, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical (references made to Shelton) teaches the method according to claim 14, further comprising:
receiving, when the state of the surgical robotic system is the deactivated state, the load status of a power supply coupled to a control tower, a surgical console, a movable cart, or a surgical robotic arm (“In certain forms, when the generator 800 is in a “power off” state, the controller 838 may continue to receive operating power (e.g., via a line from a power supply of the generator 800, such as the power supply 854 discussed below). In this way, the controller 838 may continue to monitor an input device (e.g., a capacitive touch sensor located on a front panel of the generator 800) for turning the generator 800 on and off” [0266]. Thus, the controller continues to monitor the system in the deactivated, i.e., “off”, state to determine when the load status of the power supply, i.e., the activation of the “on/off” switch, is initiated.); and
transitioning, when the load status is running, the state of the surgical robotic system to the activated state (“When the generator 800 is in the power off state, the controller 838 may wake the power supply (e.g., enable operation of one or more DC/DC voltage converters 856 of the power supply 854) if activation of the “on/off” input device by a user is detected. The controller 838 may therefore initiate a sequence for transitioning the generator 800 to a “power on” state” [0266]. Thus, if the input device is activated while in the deactivated state, i.e., load status changes to “running”, then the state of the system transitions to the “power on”, i.e., activated, state.).
Regarding claim 16, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical (references made to Shelton) teaches the method according to claim 15, further comprising:
receiving, when the state of the surgical robotic system is the deactivated state, user input to activate the surgical robotic system (As described in [0266], a user input device is monitored in order to activate the power supply, and consequently the robotic system.); and
transitioning the state of the surgical robotic system to the activated state (As described in [0266], upon activation of the user regulated “on/off” switch, the state of the surgical system transitions from a “power off”, i.e., deactivated, state to a “power on”, i.e., activated, state.).
Regarding claim 17, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical (references made to Shelton) teaches the method according to claim 16, further comprising:
transmitting a command to the surgical robotic system to startup the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, or the surgical robotic arm; and transitioning, based on whether the startup is successful, the state of the surgical robotic system to the activated state or a malfunction state (“The UI processor 836 may be aware of valid transitions between operating states and may confirm if a particular transition is appropriate. For example, when the DSP processor 822 instructs the UI processor 836 to transition to a specific state, the UI processor 836 may verify that requested transition is valid. In the event that a requested transition between states is determined to be invalid by the UI processor 836, the UI processor 836 may cause the generator 800 to enter a failure mode” [0265]. “When the generator 800 is in the power off state, the controller 838 may wake the power supply (e.g., enable operation of one or more DC/DC voltage converters 856 of the power supply 854) if activation of the “on/off” input device by a user is detected. The controller 838 may therefore initiate a sequence for transitioning the generator 800 to a “power on” state” [0266]. Thus, in the event that the input device is activated, the controller wakes, i.e., starts up, the power supply which powers the surgical system and initiates a transition to the “power on” state. The UI processor then will determine whether or not the transition is valid. If the transition is valid, the system successfully enters a “power on”, i.e., activated state. If the transition is not valid, the system enters a “failure mode”, i.e., malfunction state.).
Regarding claim 18, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical teaches the method according to claim 14.
Shelton further teaches …receiving, when the state of the surgical robotic system is the activated state, a status of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm (“In certain forms, both the DSP processor 822 and the UI processor 836, for example, may determine and monitor the operating state of the generator 800. For the DSP processor 822, the operating state of the generator 800 may dictate, for example, which control and/or diagnostic processes are implemented by the DSP processor 822. For the UI processor 836, the operating state of the generator 800 may dictate, for example, which elements of a UI (e.g., display screens, sounds) are presented to a user. The respective DSP and UI processors 822, 836 may independently maintain the current operating state of the generator 800 and recognize and evaluate possible transitions out of the current operating state” [0264]. Thus, by monitoring an operating state of the generator, the surgical system status is consistently being received and interpreted as being active/inactive, as well as the possible transitions out of the current system status.);
receiving user input to shut down the surgical robotic system (“Conversely, the controller 838 may initiate a sequence for transitioning the generator 800 to the power off state if activation of the “on/off” input device is detected when the generator 800 is in the power on state” [0266]. Thus, the activation of the “on/off” input device, i.e., user input, is received to initiate the process of generating the “power off” state, i.e., a shutdown of the surgical robotic system.); and
shutting down the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm (“In certain forms, for example, the controller 838 may report activation of the “on/off” input device to the UI processor 836, which in turn implements the necessary process sequence for transitioning the generator 800 to the power off state” [0266]. Thus, the UI processor shuts down the generator, i.e., power supply for the surgical system and its components.)…
However, Shelton does not teach shutting down…in a predetermined sequence with a predetermined delay between each of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm.
Intuitive Surgical further teaches shutting down…in a predetermined sequence with a predetermined delay between each of (For the shutdown of each of the surgical console, the moveable cart, and the surgical robotic arm, the system issues a delay of 10 seconds to complete the shutdown sequence of the powered components (Page 11-4).).
Although the control tower is not specifically referred to in Intuitive Surgical, Shelton teaches “In certain forms, the first data circuit may store information pertaining to the particular surgical instrument with which it is associated. Such information may include, for example, a model number, a serial number, a number of operations in which the surgical instrument has been used, and/or any other type of information. This information may be read by the instrument interface circuit 840 (e.g., by the logic circuit 842), transferred to a component of the non-isolated stage 804 (e.g., to logic device 816, DSP processor 822, and/or UI processor 836) for presentation to a user via an output device and/or for controlling a function or operation of the generator 800. Additionally, any type of information may be communicated to the first data circuit for storage therein via the first data circuit interface 846 (e.g., using the logic circuit 842). Such information may comprise, for example, an updated number of operations in which the surgical instrument has been used and/or dates and/or times of its usage” [0271]. In the same respect, “If the system is not restarted within ten minutes after power down, the system will view any restart as a new procedure and instrument uses will be decremented accordingly” (Page 11-4). Thus, according to Intuitive Surgical the official usage logging for the procedure occurs 10 minutes after the shutdown has been initiated. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in combining the teachings of Shelton and Intuitive Surgical, that the control tower would remain on standby for at least 10 minutes before the UI Processor, DSP Processor, and logic device (i.e., subcomponents of the control tower) a complete shutdown has occurred.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified sequential process for shutting down the surgical system as taught by Shelton to have included the predetermined order and delay of the shutdown process as taught by Intuitive Surgical with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the safety processor which initiates the timed and sequenced shutdown process allows the system to perform appropriate power cycles before disconnecting power cables, and additionally log all appropriate information such that usage information for each instrument and procedure accurately.
Regarding claim 19, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical teaches the method according to claim 17.
Shelton further teaches …shutting down, when the state of the surgical console is in the malfunction state, the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm (“For example, the UI processor 836 may be programmed to monitor various aspects of user input and/or other inputs (e.g., touch screen inputs, foot switch inputs, temperature sensor inputs) and may disable the drive output of the generator 800 when an erroneous condition is detected” [0263]. Thus, the UI processor shuts down the generator which powers the surgical system and its devices when an erroneous condition is detected. Such an erroneous condition could be that of the invalid transition which causes the system to enter “failure mode”, i.e., malfunction state.)…
However, Shelton does not further teach shutting down…in a predetermined sequence with a predetermined delay between each of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm.
Intuitive Surgical further teaches shutting down…in a predetermined sequence with a predetermined delay between each of cart, and the surgical robotic arm (For the shutdown of each of the surgical console, the moveable cart, and the surgical robotic arm, the system issues a delay of 10 seconds to complete the shutdown sequence of the powered components (Page 11-4).).
Although the control tower is not specifically referred to in Intuitive Surgical, Shelton teaches “In certain forms, the first data circuit may store information pertaining to the particular surgical instrument with which it is associated. Such information may include, for example, a model number, a serial number, a number of operations in which the surgical instrument has been used, and/or any other type of information. This information may be read by the instrument interface circuit 840 (e.g., by the logic circuit 842), transferred to a component of the non-isolated stage 804 (e.g., to logic device 816, DSP processor 822, and/or UI processor 836) for presentation to a user via an output device and/or for controlling a function or operation of the generator 800. Additionally, any type of information may be communicated to the first data circuit for storage therein via the first data circuit interface 846 (e.g., using the logic circuit 842). Such information may comprise, for example, an updated number of operations in which the surgical instrument has been used and/or dates and/or times of its usage” [0271]. In the same respect, “If the system is not restarted within ten minutes after power down, the system will view any restart as a new procedure and instrument uses will be decremented accordingly” (Page 11-4). Thus, according to Intuitive Surgical the official usage logging for the procedure occurs 10 minutes after the shutdown has been initiated. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in combining the teachings of Shelton and Intuitive Surgical, that the control tower would remain on standby for at least 10 minutes before the UI Processor, DSP Processor, and logic device (i.e., subcomponents of the control tower) a complete shutdown has occurred.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified sequential process for shutting down the surgical system as taught by Shelton to have included the predetermined order and delay of the shutdown process as taught by Intuitive Surgical with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the safety processor which initiates the timed and sequenced shutdown process allows the system to perform appropriate power cycles before disconnecting power cables, and additionally log all appropriate information such that usage information for each instrument and procedure accurately.
Regarding claim 20, Shelton teaches a surgical robotic system (“Referring to Fig. 1, a computer-implemented interactive surgical system 100 includes one or more surgical systems 102” [0103]. “A robotic system 110 is used in the surgical procedure as a part of the surgical system 102” [0104]. Thus, there is a robotic system which is a part of the surgical system 102 thereby determining a surgical robotic system.) comprising:
a surgical console including a user input device configured to generate a user input(“The robotic system 110 includes a surgeon's console 118” [0104]. “A user enters commands or information into the computer system 210 through input device(s) coupled to the I/O interface 251” [0165]. Thus, a surgeon’s console which allows a surgeon to view and command a surgical site comprises a computer system which allows computer input commands through an input device.);
a movable cart (“patient side cart 120” which “manipulates a surgical tool” and thus is moveable; [0104]);
a control tower (“modular control tower 236”; [0156]);
a surgical robotic arm disposed on the movable cart (See Fig. 2 for positioning of cart with respect to patient as well as the plurality of robot arms disposed on the cart.), the surgical robotic arm including a surgical instrument configured to treat tissue and being actuatable in response to the user input (“The patient side cart 120 can manipulate at least one removably coupled surgical tool 117 through a minimally invasive incision in the body of the patient while the surgeon views the surgical site through the surgeon's console 118” [0104]. Thus, the surgical tool 117 is actuatable in response to the surgeon’s console which is operated by means of a computer system and/or robotic hub.); and
a system monitor coupled to the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm, the system monitor configured to synchronously activate or deactivate at least one of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm (“The non-isolated stage 804 may further comprise a controller 838 for monitoring input devices (e.g., a capacitive touch sensor used for turning the generator 800 on and off, a capacitive touch screen)… In one form, for example, the controller 838 may comprise a processor (e.g., a Meg168 8-bit controller available from Atmel) configured to monitor user input provided via one or more capacitive touch sensors.” [0265]. Thus, the controller is a system monitor which synchronizes power provided by the generator, i.e., activation or deactivation of the surgical system as listed in the claim, based on an activation of an input switch.) the system monitor including:
a communication interface configured to monitor communication between the system monitor and the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, or the surgical robotic arm (“In certain forms, the controller 838 may cause the generator 800 to provide audible or other sensory feedback for alerting the user that a power on or power off sequence has been initiated. Such an alert may be provided at the beginning of a power on or power off sequence and prior to the commencement of other processes associated with the sequence” [0267]. The feedback system thus acts as a communication interface which is monitors a communication between the controller and the user input initialization which initializes the power supply allowing operations of the surgical system.); and
a system monitor state machine operably coupled to the communication interface and configured to activate or deactivate at least one of the control tower, the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm (“The UI processor 836 may communicate with the DSP processor 822 and the logic device 816 (e.g., via SPI buses). Although the UI processor 836 may primarily support UI functionality, it may also coordinate with the DSP processor 822 to implement hazard mitigation in certain forms. For example, the UI processor 836 may be programmed to monitor various aspects of user input and/or other inputs (e.g., touch screen inputs, foot switch inputs, temperature sensor inputs) and may disable the drive output of the generator 800 when an erroneous condition is detected” [0263]. “The respective DSP and UI processors 822, 836 may independently maintain the current operating state of the generator 800 and recognize and evaluate possible transitions out of the current operating state. The DSP processor 822 may function as the master in this relationship and determine when transitions between operating states are to occur. The UI processor 836 may be aware of valid transitions between operating states and may confirm if a particular transition is appropriate” [0264]. In this case, the UI Processor and DSP processor coordinate with each other and a logic device to perform the functions of the system monitor state machine. The two processors together monitor the operating state, i.e., status, of the system. The UI processor specifically is coupled to the communication interface as indicated above, but the two processors and the logic device together perform the sequence for controlling the activation/deactivation of the generator which supplies energy, i.e., power, to the surgical system through its power supply.) ,
wherein each of the surgical console, the movable cart, and the surgical robotic arm includes at least one sub-component (According to [0104] and Fig. 3 which describes and shows the surgical system 102 and robotic system 110, the console has a display sub-component, the cart has a plurality of robot arms as sub-components, and the arm includes a surgical tool 117 as its sub-component. ), and
wherein the deactivation is performed by the system monitor state machine (As stated above, the deactivation is performed by the combination of the UI Processor, DSP Processor, and logic device which comprise the defined monitor state machine.)…
However, Shelton does not explicitly teach …wherein the deactivation is performed … according to a sub-component shutdown sequence based on power dependencies between a plurality of subcomponents, the plurality of sub-components including at least one sub-component of the surgical robotic arm and at least one sub-component of the moveable cart, and
wherein the shutdown sequence defines an order in which the at least one sub-component of the surgical robotic arm is shut down prior to the at least one sub-component of the moveable cart.
Intuitive Surgical, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …wherein the deactivation is performed … according to a sub-component shutdown sequence based on power dependencies between a plurality of subcomponents (Section 11.1 and Section 11.3 detail steps taken to shut down the sub-components of the surgical system in a predetermined order. This order is based on a power dependency which requires specific subprocesses before power down fully occurs so as to not damage the system sub-components which are sensitive to specific power cycles.), the plurality of sub-components including at least one sub-component of the surgical robotic arm and at least one sub-component of the moveable cart (Section 2.1 shows that sub-components which make up the surgical system (and further are included in Chapter 11 when detailing system shutdown) are inclusive of each of a moveable cart and a robotic arm.), and
wherein the shutdown sequence defines an order in which the at least one sub-component of the surgical robotic arm is shut down prior to the at least one sub-component of the moveable cart (In the shutdown process, the user is instructed to first disassemble and deactivate the instruments which are part of the surgical robotic arm (11.1 steps 1-3), before disassembling, deactivating, and stowing the arms of the surgical cart (11.3 step 1) during the shutdown sequence of the system.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the automated deactivation system of Shelton to include the shutdown sequence as described by Intuitive Surgical with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because improper shutdown sequence of complex surgical systems could lead to inaccurate data collection following the procedure (see Intuitive Surgical Section 11.2 and Notes on Page 11-4 regarding usage decrementing), unsafe disconnections from the power source (see Intuitive Surgical Section 11.3 Step 3), and/or improper battery charge in the surgical system. Additionally, it would have been obvious to power down the subcomponents of the robotic arms before the sub-components of the moveable cart because the subcomponents of the cart are the arms themselves, and thus would need to shut down all subcomponents of the arms before powering down the cart itself. This is not explicitly determined but heavily implied according to both Shelton and Intuitive Surgical references.
Regarding claim 21, Shelton as modified by Intuitive Surgical (references made to Intuitive Surgical) teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 1, wherein the shutdown sequence comprises shutting down at least one-subcomponent of the surgical robotic arm prior to shutting down at least one sub-component of the movable cart (In the shutdown process, the user is instructed to first disassemble and deactivate the instruments which are part of the surgical robotic arm (11.1 steps 1-3), before disassembling, deactivating, and stowing the arms of the surgical cart (11.3 step 1) during the shutdown sequence of the system.)...
Shelton as modified does not explicitly teach…shutting down at least one sub-component of the movable cart prior to shutting down at least one sub-component of the control tower.
Shelton does however recite, “Conversely, the controller 838 may initiate a sequence for transitioning the generator 800 to the power off state if activation of the “on/off” input device is detected when the generator 800 is in the power on state. In certain forms, for example, the controller 838 may report activation of the “on/off” input device to the UI processor 836, which in turn implements the necessary process sequence for transitioning the generator 800 to the power off state” [0266]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that with the UI Processor as part of the control tower, each sub-component of peripheral devices would need to be shut down before the implementation of the transition sequence would be complete, thereby shutting down the UI Processor and subsequently the control tower last. In addition to this, the UI Processor is additionally responsible for logging usage data of the surgical instruments (Shelton, [0271]). According to Intuitive Surgical, this procedure and usage data is not logged until 10 minutes after the shutdown sequence initial shuts down the rest of the surgical system (see Page 11-4). Therefore, it would additionally be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that given the modification of Shelton to include the shutdown sequence of Intuitive Surgical the UI processor would not complete the processing requirements until this delay has completed, thereby once again shutting down components of the control tower after all other components of the system have been turned off.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 9 A.M. to 4 P.M. EST Monday-Friday.
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, Jonathan (Wade) Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/S.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights