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
The Amendment filed 01/12/26 has been entered. Claim 1 and 16-17 has been amended, and claim 15 has been cancelled. Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are addressed in the following office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savall et al. (US 2020/0237467) in view of Jones et al. (US 2016/0114418), both cited in previous office action, and Simaan et al. (US 2010/0010504).
Regarding claim 1, an invention relating to surgical robots, Savall discloses (Figs. 1-4) apparatus (100) capable of performing a procedure on an eye of a patient using at least one tool that includes a tip (Par. 0017, 0020-0021, 0028), the apparatus comprising: a robotic unit (121) configured to move the tool through six degrees-of-freedom (Par. 0027 & 0033); and a control component (120) that comprises: a control-component tool (126) that defines a tip (210) and that is configured to be moved by a user [i.e. the tip which is part of element 204 can articulated via linkage and pivoted support relative to element 302] (Par. 0031-0033 & 0043); a control-component arm (308) extending from base and coupled to the control-component tool (Par. 0043), the control- component arm comprising at least three joints (406; Par. 0051); three rotary encoders, each of the three rotary encoders coupled to a respective one of the joints and configured to detect movement of the respective joint and to generate rotary-encoder data indicative of an XYZ location of the tip of the control-component tool [i.e. the tip is part of element 204, and the relative position between wearable base 302 and device body 204 (both rotational and translational) can be determined through the kinematics of the linkage system as described by the encoder information. Hence, rotary-encoder data indicative of the XYZ location of the tip of the control-component tool] (Par. 0062), in response thereto; and an inertial measurement unit (214) disposed on the control-component tool and comprising at least one of sensor selected from the group consisting of: a three-axis accelerometer, a three-axis gyroscope, and a three-axis magnetometer, the inertial measurement unit being configured to generate inertial- measurement-unit data indicative of an orientation of the tip of control- component tool [i.e. tracking sensor located within element 204, can detect orientation of element 204 which comprises the tip. Hence, data indicative of the orientation of the tip of the control-component tool] (Par. 0032-0033 & 0062); and a computer processor (110) configured to: receive the rotary-encoder data and the inertial-measurement-unit data, move the robotic unit in response thereto, to thereby drive the robotic unit to perform at least a portion of the procedure on the patient by moving the tip of the tool with respect to the patient such as to perform the portion of the procedure, while driving the robotic unit to maintain entry of the tool into the patient fixed at an incision point (Par. 0027, 0063, 0062, 0066). Also, Savall discloses an advantage of the apparatus is high dexterity and natural feel to the user (Par. 0005-0006 & 0020). However, Savall fails to disclose the procedure the computer processor is configured to perform is a procedure on the patient’s eye.
In the analogous art of surgical robots, Simaan teaches a procedure a computer processor is configured to perform is a procedure on a patient’s eye that demands a level of accuracy and bimanual dexterity not common to other surgical fields (Par. 0003-0004, 0029, 0041, 0044). Also, in the alternative, Simaan teaches (Fig. 1) a robotic unit (300) configured to move a tool (520) through six degrees-of-freedom (Par. 0036, 0041, 0049).
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 Savall to have the procedure the computer processor is configured to perform is a procedure on the patient’s eye; and a robotic unit configured to move a tool through six degrees-of-freedom. Doing so would provide intra-ocular dexterity while the parallel robot can provide global high precision positioning of the eye and any surgical tool inside the eye (Par. 0036), as taught by Simaan.
In the alternative and in the analogous art of surgical robots, Jones teaches (Figs. 1A & 3A) a computer processor (18) configured to: receive inertial-measurement-unit data [i.e. data from gyroscopes or accelerometers], determine the orientation of a tip of a control-component tool (28) based upon the inertial-measurement-unit data (Par. 0021-0022 & 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the computer processor of Savall that is configured to determine the orientation of the tip of the control-component tool based upon a combination of the rotary-encoder data and the inertial-measurement-unit data, for the computer processor of Jones that is configured to determine the orientation of a tip of a control-component tool based upon the inertial-measurement-unit data since these computer processors perform the same function of determining the orientation of a tip of a control-component tool. Simply substituting one computer processor for another would yield the predicable result of allowing the determination of the orientation of the tip of the control-component tool. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 2, Savall, as modified by Simaan and Jones in the alternative, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. Savall further discloses (Fig. 3) wherein the control component comprises one or more wrist-support elements (306) configured to support a wrist of the user during movement of the control-component arm (Par. 0040).
Regarding claim 4, Savall, as modified by Simaan and Jones in the alternative, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. Savall further discloses wherein: the apparatus is for use with at least first and second tools [i.e. end effectors]; the robotic unit comprises a first portion configured to move the first tool through six degrees-of-freedom, and a second portion configured to move the second tool through six degrees-of-freedom; the at least one control-component arm comprises two control-component arms, a first one of the control-component arms being configured to be moved by a right hand of the user and a second one of the control-component arms being configured to be moved by a left hand of the user, and wherein the computer processor is configured to control the first portion of the robotic unit in response to movement of the first one of the control-component arms, and to control the second portion of the robotic unit in response to movement of the second one of the control-component arms (Par. 0027-0028 & 0033).
Regarding claim 5, Savall, as modified by Simaan and Jones in the alternative, discloses the apparatus according to claim 4. Savall further discloses wherein the first and second control- component arms are asymmetric with respect to each other [i.e. control-component arms are custom molded to left and right hands which are not identical hence the first and second control-component arms would be asymmetric with respect to each other. Furthermore, page 30, lines 24-26 applicant’s original disclosure divulges “the left and right control-component arms 70 are designed asymmetrically, such that the user is able to grip and move the arms with their left and right hands in a comfortable manner”. Savall details custom-fit hand attachments which can be adjusted such that they are comfortable (Par. 0036, 0042)].
Regarding claim 8, Savall, as modified by Simaan and Jones in the alternative, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. Savall further discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the robotic unit comprises: a tool mount [i.e. means by which end effector is mounted to element 112] configured to securely hold the one or more tools thereupon (Par. 0022); at least one multi-jointed arm [i.e. moving linkages, gears, etc.] disposed on a side of the tool mount and configured to moveably support the tool mount (Par. 0027-0028); a plurality of arm-motors [i.e. actuators] associated with the at least one multi-jointed arm, the plurality of arm-motors being configured to move the tool mount through at least five degrees-of-freedom; one or more mount-motors associated with the tool mount [i.e. actuators that control surgical tool] and configured to move the tool with respect to the tool mount through a sixth degree-of-freedom (Par. 0027-0028, 0035, 0051).
Regarding claim 9, Savall, as modified by Simaan and Jones in the alternative, discloses the apparatus according to claim 8. Savall further discloses wherein the plurality of arm-motors are configured to move the tool mount along x-, y-, and z-axes, as well as through pitch and yaw angular rotations (Par. 0027-0028, 0035, 0051).
Regarding claim 10, Savall, as modified by Simaan and Jones in the alternative, discloses the apparatus according to claim 8. Savall discloses further comprising two or more tools, each of the two or more tools having respective circumferences that differ from each other, and wherein the tool mount is configured to securely hold each of the two or more tools thereupon [i.e. compatible endoscopic instruments and accessories for use with the surgical robotic system are intended for endoscopic manipulation of tissue including grasping, cutting, blunt, and sharp dissection, approximation, ligation, electrocautery, and suturing, all of which can differ in circumference, are structured to be coupled to the tool mount, and an endoscope which is old and well-known in the art to comprise multiple tools of various diameters can also be coupled to the tool mount (Par. 0021)]
Regarding claim 11, Savall, as modified by Simaan and Jones in the alternative, discloses the apparatus according to claim 8. Savall further discloses wherein the one or more mount-motors associated with the tool mount are configured to move the tool with respect to the tool mount through a further degree-of-freedom (Par. 0028).
Regarding claim 12, Savall, as modified by Simaan and Jones in the alternative, discloses the apparatus according to claim 11. Savall further discloses wherein the one or more mount-motors associated with the tool mount are configured to move the tool with respect to the tool mount to control injection of a substance into the patient's eye (Par. 0021 & 0028).
Regarding claim 13, Savall, as modified by Simaan and Jones in the alternative, discloses the apparatus according to claim 8. Savall further discloses wherein the tool mount is configured to securely hold the one or more tools thereupon, while allowing the one or more tools to be rolled with respect to the tool mount (Par. 0035 & 0061).
Regarding claim 14, Savall, as modified by Simaan and Jones in the alternative, discloses the apparatus according to claim 13. Savall further discloses wherein the tool mount is configured to allow the one or more tools to be rolled through a range of plus/minus 80 degrees from a central position (Par. 0035 & 0061).
Regarding claim 16, Savall, as modified by Simaan and Jones in the alternative, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. Savall further discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the robotic unit comprises a tool mount [i.e. means by which end effector is mounted to element 112] configured to securely hold the one or more tools thereupon (Par. 0022), and one or more multi- jointed arms [i.e. moving linkages, gears, etc.] that configured to move the tool mount along x-, y-, and z-axes, as well as through pitch and yaw angular rotations, and wherein the computer processor is configured to drive the one or more multi-jointed arms to move the tool mount along x-, y-, and z-axes, as well as through pitch and yaw angular rotations, while driving the robotic unit to maintain entry of the one or more tools into the patient's eye fixed at the incision point (Par. 0027-0028, 0035, 0051, 0053).
Regarding claim 17, Savall, as modified by Simaan and Jones in the alternative, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. Savall further discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the robotic unit comprises a tool mount [i.e. means by which end effector is mounted to element 112] configured to securely hold the one or more tools thereupon, and one or more multi- jointed arms that configured to move the tool mount along x-, y-, and z-axes, as well as through pitch and yaw angular rotations, and wherein the computer processor is configured to drive the tool to roll with respect to the tool mount, while driving the robotic unit to maintain entry of the tool into the patient's eye fixed at the incision point (Par. 0027-0028, 0035, 0051, 0053).
Regarding claim 18, Savall, as modified by Simaan and Jones in the alternative, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. Savall further discloses wherein the computer processor is configured to determine the XYZ location and the orientation of the tip of the control-component tool based solely upon a combination of the rotary-encoder data and the inertial-measurement- unit data (Par. 0027, 0063, 0066).
Claims 3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Savall et al. (US 2020/0237467) in view of Simaan et al. (US 2010/0010504) and Jones et al. (US 2016/0114418) in the alternative, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Green (US 2006/0142897), cited in previous office action.
Regarding claim 3, Savall, as modified by Wang and Jones in the alternative, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. Wang fails to disclose wherein the control component comprises an in-built stereoscopic display that is configured to display real-time stereoscopic images of the portion of the patient's body and the one or more tools to the user.
In the same field of endeavor, which is surgical robots, Green teaches wherein the control component comprises an in-built stereoscopic display that is configured to display real-time stereoscopic images of the portion of the patient's body and the one or more tools to the user (Par. 0029-0031).
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 Savall, in view of Wang and Jones in the alternative, to have wherein the control component comprises an in-built stereoscopic display that is configured to display real-time stereoscopic images of the portion of the patient's body and the one or more tools to the user. Doing so would enhance the operator's sense of presence at remote manipulators controlled by the operator from a remote location (Par. 0008 & 0011), as taught by Green.
Regarding claims 6-7, Savall, as modified by Wang and Jones in the alternative, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. Savall discloses a head-mounted display (Par. 0069). However, Savall fails to disclose [claim 6] further comprising a head-mounted display that is configured to display real-time images of the portion of the patient's body and the one or more tools to the user; and [claim 7] wherein the head-mounted display comprises a stereoscopic head-mounted display that is configured to display real-time stereoscopic images of the portion of the patient's body and the one or more tools to the user.
In the same field of endeavor, which is surgical robots, Green teaches further comprising a head-mounted display that is configured to display real-time images of the portion of the patient's body and the one or more tools to the user; and wherein the head-mounted display comprises a stereoscopic head-mounted display [i.e. stereoscopic glasses] that is configured to display real-time stereoscopic images of the portion of the patient's body and the one or more tools to the user (Par. 0029-0031).
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 Savall, in view of Wang and Jones in the alternative, to have [claim 6] further comprising a head-mounted display that is configured to display real-time images of the portion of the patient's body and the one or more tools to the user; and [claim 7] wherein the head-mounted display comprises a stereoscopic head-mounted display that is configured to display real-time stereoscopic images of the portion of the patient's body and the one or more tools to the user. Doing so would enhance the operator's sense of presence at remote manipulators controlled by the operator from a remote location (Par. 0008 & 0011), as taught by Green.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 01/12/26, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 USC § 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of newly cited prior art.
Conclusion
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 Examiner Chima Igboko whose telephone number is (571)272-8422. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho, at (571) 272-4696. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.U.I/ Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/ASHLEY L FISHBACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771 May 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights