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
In response to the amendment filed on 11/10/2025, Claims 2 has been cancelled, and Claims 1, 3-13, 18-23, and 25 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 15-17, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-2, under USC 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 applicant's amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 16-22, “in response to receiving the first control input, the surgical robotic system changing a position and/or an orientation of:
at least a portion of the camera assembly with respect to the pivot center,
at least a portion of the robotic arm assembly, the portion of the robotic arm assembly comprising at least the pivot center, with respect to the camera assembly,
or both, while maintaining a stationary position of instrument tips of end effectors disposed at distal ends of the robotic arms.”
Examiner understands the intention that maintaining a stationary position of instrument tips of end effectors disposed at distal ends of the robotic arms is required when changing a position and/or orientation of at least a portion of the camera assembly with respect to the pivot center, or changing a position and/or orientation of at least a portion of the robotic arm assembly, the portion of the robotic arm assembly comprising at least the pivot center, with respect to the camera assembly, or changing the position and/or orientation of both the camera assembly with respect to the pivot center and at least a portion of the robotic assembly, the portion of the robotic arm assembly comprising at least the pivot center, with respect to the camera assembly. However, as the limitation is currently written, it could be interpreted as unclear whether maintaining the stationary position of instruments tips is only required when changing the position and/or orientation of both the camera assembly and robotic arm assembly. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 18-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210145526 A1 Robinson et al. (hereinafter Robinson) in view of US 20170181802 A1 Sachs et al. (hereinafter Sachs) and further in view of US 20180080841 A1 Cordoba et al. (hereinafter Cordoba).
Regarding claim 1, Robinson discloses a method for controlling a robotic assembly of a surgical robotic system (paragraph 47-49, 59), the surgical robotic system comprising an image display (paragraph 53-54), hand controllers configured to sense a movement of an operator's hands (paragraph 47, The input devices, or input controllers, could, for example, be manually operable mechanical input devices such as control handles or joysticks, touch-operable inputs such as touchscreens, or contactless input devices such as optical gesture sensors or voice sensors. The input devices might monitor eye movement to receive an input. The input devices could, for example, be some combination of these types of input devices. Commands input by the input devices can include movement commands, for example to move the instrument in a particular way, such as a lateral movement and/or a rotation. Such commands can include end effector commands, for example to control an end effector coupled to a distal end of the instrument to operate the end effector, such as to open/close gripper jaws or to operate (turn on or off) an electrosurgical end effector; paragraph 49, input devices may be associated with one of a left-hand control and a right-hand control), the robotic assembly including a camera assembly and a robotic arm assembly including a first robotic arm and a second robotic arm (paragraph 51, robotic surgical system 300 comprises a surgical robot which comprises a plurality of robot arms 302, the robot arms 302 are provided with surgical instruments, and/or other implements, 320 such as grippers, cutters, cauterisers, needles, imaging devices (for example a camera such as an endoscope)); the method comprising:
while at least a portion of the robotic assembly is disposed in an interior cavity of a subject, receiving a first control mode selection input from the operator and changing a current control mode of the surgical robotic system to a first control mode in response to the first control mode selection input (paragraph 174-175, the imaging device, such as an endoscope, is controllable by control inputs on both of the left-hand input device and the right-hand input device…where the right-hand input device enters a selection mode, and the left-hand input device remains operably coupled to an instrument, the left-hand input device is suitably still able to control the imaging device. In the example above, the left-hand input device is used to control the zoom and/or roll of the imaging device. Hence, this control of the imaging device is still possible during instrument selection using the right-hand input device);
while the surgical robotic system is in the first control mode, receiving a first control input from hand controllers (paragraph 175).
Robinson is silent on the robotic assembly including a virtual chest defined by a chest plane extending between: (i) a first pivot point of a most proximal joint of the first robotic arm, (ii) a second pivot point of a most proximal joint of the second robotic arm, and (iii) a camera imaging center point of the camera assembly; wherein a pivot center of the virtual chest lies midway along a central axis of the chest plane; and in response to receiving the first control input, the surgical robotic system changing a position and/or an orientation of:
at least a portion of the camera assembly with respect to the pivot center,
at least a portion of the robotic arm assembly, the portion of the robotic arm assembly comprising at least the pivot center, with respect to the camera assembly, or
both, while maintaining a stationary position of instrument tips of end effectors disposed at distal ends of the robotic arms.
However, Sachs teaches a surgical system having a robotic assembly (Fig. 1a-b) including a camera assembly (102), a robotic arm assembly including a first robotic arm (103) and a second robotic arm (104), the robotic assembly including a virtual chest defined by a chest plane (paragraph 72-73, 75, see annotated Fig. 1b below) extending between: (i) a first pivot point of a most proximal joint of the first robotic arm (103) (ii) a second pivot point of a most proximal joint of the second robotic arm (104), and (iii) a camera imaging center point of the camera assembly (102); wherein a pivot center of the virtual chest lies midway along a central axis of the chest plane (see annotated Fig. 1b below);
PNG
media_image1.png
371
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and in response to receiving a first control input, the surgical robotic system changing a position and/or an orientation (paragraph 101-114) of:
at least a portion of the camera assembly with respect to the pivot center (paragraph 75, 92-94, 109),
at least a portion of the robotic arm assembly, the portion of the robotic arm assembly comprising at least the pivot center, with respect to the camera assembly (paragraph 105-106), or
both (paragraph 78, 101-114).
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 Robinson with the teachings of Sachs to have the robotic assembly including a virtual chest defined by a chest plane extending between: (i) a first pivot point of a most proximal joint of the first robotic arm, (ii) a second pivot point of a most proximal joint of the second robotic arm, and (iii) a camera imaging center point of the camera assembly; wherein a pivot center of the virtual chest lies midway along a central axis of the chest plane; and in response to receiving the first control input, the surgical robotic system changing a position and/or an orientation of:
at least a portion of the camera assembly with respect to the pivot center, at least a portion of the robotic arm assembly, the portion of the robotic arm assembly comprising at least the pivot center, with respect to the camera assembly, or both, in order to gain better dexterity and visualization during robotic surgical procedures.
Furthermore, Cordoba similarly teaches a method for controlling a surgical robotic system while maintaining a stationary position of instrument tips of end effectors disposed at distal ends of the robotic arms (paragraph 146).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modification of Robinson with Sachs with the teachings of Cordoba to achieve while maintaining a stationary position of instrument tips of end effectors disposed at distal ends of the robotic arms, in order to allow a user to reposition the robotic arms without affecting the position/orientation of the mechanical RCM and end effector as disclosed by Cordoba (paragraph 146-147).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Robinson, Sachs and Cordoba teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Robinson further teaches wherein the first control mode selection input is received via an input mechanism on one or both of the hand controllers (paragraph 84, a button or other control of the input device 304 is configured to cause the surgeon console to output the mode change signal).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Robinson, Sachs and Cordoba teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Robinson further teaches wherein the first control mode selection input is received via a control on an operator console (paragraph 84, Fig. 3a, The control system 308 is suitably configured to control a change of mode to the selection mode in response to receiving a mode change signal…a surgeon at the surgeon console can choose to enter the selection mode by pressing the button or operating the other control. The surgeon at the surgeon console is able to enter a command at the surgeon console to cause the output by the surgeon console of the mode change signal).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Robinson, Sachs and Cordoba teaches the limitations of claim 19, and Robinson further teaches wherein the first control mode selection input is received via a foot pedal 430 (Fig 4, paragraph 89).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Robinson, Sachs and Cordoba teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Robinson further teaches further comprising receiving a second mode selection input and changing a current control mode of the surgical robotic system to a second control mode (paragraph 84).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Robinson, Sachs and Cordoba teaches the limitations of claim 21, and Robinson further teaches wherein the first control mode is a travel arm control mode (abstract, paragraph 7, 21, 76, manipulation mode corresponds to travel arm control mode) and the second control mode is a camera control mode (paragraph 174-175, the imaging device, such as an endoscope, is controllable by control inputs on both of the left-hand input device and the right-hand input device…where the right-hand input device enters a selection mode, and the left-hand input device remains operably coupled to an instrument, the left-hand input device is suitably still able to control the imaging device. In the example above, the left-hand input device is used to control the zoom and/or roll of the imaging device. Hence, this control of the imaging device is still possible during instrument selection using the right-hand input device).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Robinson, Sachs and Cordoba teaches the limitations of claim 21, and the combination further teaches wherein the first control mode is a travel arm control mode (Robinson: abstract, paragraph 7, 21, 76) and the second control mode is a different travel arm control mode (Cordoba: paragraph 132-150, Fig. 18, multiple switchable modes control the positioning and behavior of the robotic arms).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Robinson, Sachs and Cordoba teaches the limitations of claim 21, and Cordoba further teaches wherein when in the second control mode, the surgical robotic system maintains the robotic assembly in a stationary position and a static configuration regardless of the hand controller movement (paragraph 150, a post-operative mode may include triggering a complete power off cycle, and since it is powered off, the robotic assembly would not move and stay stationary regardless of hand controller movement).
Claims 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson in view of Sachs and Cordoba as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200261172 A1 Romo et al. (hereinafter Romo).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Robinson, Sachs and Cordoba teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination is silent on wherein the first control mode is a travel arm control mode or a camera control mode; and
where the first control mode is a camera control mode, in response to receiving the first control input, the surgical robotic system changing an orientation and/or a position of at least one camera of the camera assembly with respect to a current viewing direction of the camera assembly while keeping the robotic arm assembly stationary; and
where the first control mode is a travel arm control mode, in response to receiving the first control input, the surgical robotic system moving at least a portion of the robotic arm assembly to change a location of the virtual chest pivot center and/or an orientation of the virtual chest with respect to the current viewing direction.
However, Romo similarly teaches a method for controlling a surgical robotic system that comprises a virtual chest of a robotic assembly that is defined by a first robotic arm and a second robotic arm (paragraph 121-122) and a camera assembly (paragraph 14, 246-249, 256), wherein a first control mode is a travel arm control mode or a camera control mode (paragraph 287, 317-320); and
where the first control mode is a camera control mode, in response to receiving a first control input, the surgical robotic system changing an orientation and/or a position of at least one camera of the camera assembly with respect to a current viewing direction of the camera assembly while keeping the robotic arm assembly stationary (paragraph 259-262, 268-269, 277, 304); and
where the first control mode is a travel arm control mode, in response to receiving the first control input, the surgical robotic system moving at least a portion of the robotic arm assembly to change a location of the virtual chest pivot center and/or an orientation of the virtual chest with respect to the current viewing direction (paragraph 121-122, 246-249, 325, 331-334).
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 modification of Robinson with the teachings of Sachs and Cordoba with the teachings of Romo to have wherein the first control mode is a travel arm control mode or a camera control mode; and where the first control mode is a camera control mode, in response to receiving the first control input, the surgical robotic system changing an orientation and/or a position of at least one camera of the camera assembly with respect to a current viewing direction of the camera assembly while keeping the robotic arm assembly stationary; and where the first control mode is a travel arm control mode, in response to receiving the first control input, the surgical robotic system moving at least a portion of the robotic arm assembly to change a location of the virtual chest pivot center and/or an orientation of the virtual chest with respect to the current viewing direction, in order to provide improved ergonomics, usability, navigation and flexibility for performing surgical robotic procedures as disclosed by Romo (paragraph 7, 119).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Robinson, Sachs and Cordoba teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Cordoba further teaches maintaining a stationary position of the instrument tips of the end effectors (paragraph 146).
The combination is silent on wherein the first control mode is a travel gestural arm control mode; and
wherein the first control input corresponds to one of a plurality of gestural translation inputs or one of a plurality of gestural rotation inputs;
where the first control input corresponds to one of the plurality of gestural translation inputs, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to change the location of the virtual chest pivot center while maintaining the stationary position of the instrument tips of the end effectors in response to the first control input; and
where the first control input corresponds to one of the plurality of gestural rotation inputs, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to change the orientation of the virtual chest with respect to a current viewing direction while maintaining the stationary position of the instrument tips of the end effectors.
However, Romo similarly teaches a method for controlling a surgical robotic system that comprises a virtual chest of a robotic assembly that is defined by a first robotic arm and a second robotic arm (paragraph 121-122) and a camera assembly (paragraph 14, 246-249, 256), wherein a first control mode is a travel gestural arm control mode (paragraph 287, 317-320, 339); and
wherein the first control input corresponds to one of a plurality of gestural translation inputs or one of a plurality of gestural rotation inputs (paragraph 339); where the first control input corresponds to one of the plurality of gestural translation inputs, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to change the location of the virtual chest pivot center while maintaining the stationary position of the instrument tips of the end effectors in response to the first control input (paragraph 259-262, 268-269, 277, 304, 339); and
where the first control input corresponds to one of the plurality of gestural rotation inputs, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to change the orientation of the virtual chest with respect to a current viewing direction while maintaining the stationary position of the instrument tips of the end effectors (paragraph 339, 259-262, 268-269, 277, 304).
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 modification of Robinson with the teachings of Sachs and Cordoba with the teachings of Romo to have wherein the first control mode is a travel gestural arm control mode; and wherein the first control input corresponds to one of a plurality of gestural translation inputs or one of a plurality of gestural rotation inputs; where the first control input corresponds to one of the plurality of gestural translation inputs, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to change the location of the virtual chest pivot center while maintaining the stationary position of the instrument tips of the end effectors in response to the first control input; and
where the first control input corresponds to one of the plurality of gestural rotation inputs, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to change the orientation of the virtual chest with respect to a current viewing direction while maintaining the stationary position of the instrument tips of the end effectors, in order to provide improved ergonomics, usability, navigation and flexibility for performing surgical robotic procedures as disclosed by Romo (paragraph 7, 119).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Robinson, Sachs, Cordoba and Romo teaches the limitations of claim 4, and Romo further teaches wherein the plurality of gestural translation inputs comprises:
a pullback input in which the sensed movement of the hand controllers corresponds to the operator's hands moving back toward the operator's body, and where, when in the gestural arm control mode, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to move the location of the virtual chest pivot center forward in the current viewing direction in response to the pullback input (paragraph 336-339, 342-346); and
a push forward input in which the sensed movement of the hand controllers corresponds to operator's hands moving forward away from the operator's body, and where, when in the gestural arm control mode, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to move the location of the virtual chest pivot center back away from the current viewing direction in response to the push forward input (paragraph 121-122, 246-249, 325, 331-334, 336-339, 342-346).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Robinson, Sachs, Cordoba and Romo teaches the limitations of claim 4, and Romo further teaches wherein the plurality of gestural translation inputs comprises:
a horizontal input, in which the sensed movement of the hand controllers corresponds to operator's hands moving in a horizontal direction with respect to the operator's body, and where, when in the gestural arm control mode (paragraph 121-122, 246-249, 325, 331-334, 336-339, 342-346), the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to move the location of the virtual chest pivot center in a corresponding horizontal direction with respect to a current field of view of a current image displayed, and wherein the corresponding horizontal direction is a horizontal direction to the left or a horizontal direction to the right with respect to the current field of view of the current image displayed in response to the horizontal input (paragraph 121-122, 246-249, 325, 331-334, 336-339, 342-346).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Robinson, Sachs, Cordoba and Romo teaches the limitations of claim 4, and Romo further teaches wherein the plurality of gestural translation inputs comprises:
a vertical input, in which the sensed movement of the hand controllers corresponds to operator's hands moving in a vertical direction with respect to the operator's body, and where, when in the gestural arm control mode (paragraph 121-122, 246-249, 325, 331-334, 336-339, 342-346), the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to move the location of the virtual chest pivot center in a corresponding vertical direction with respect to a current field of view of a current image displayed, and wherein the corresponding vertical direction is a vertical up direction or a vertical down direction with respect to the current field of view of the current image displayed in response to the vertical input (paragraph 121-122, 246-249, 325, 331-334, 336-339, 342-346).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Robinson, Sachs, Cordoba and Romo teaches the limitations of claim 4, and Romo further teaches wherein the plurality of gestural rotation inputs comprises:
a right yaw input, in which a sensed movement of a left hand controller corresponds to a left hand of the operator moving forward away from the operator's body and a sensed movement of a right hand controller corresponds to a right hand of the operator moving back toward the operator's body (paragraph 269-271, 286), and where, when in the gestural arm control mode, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to yaw an orientation of the chest plane to the right about the virtual chest pivot center with respect to a current field of view of a current image displayed in response to the right yaw input (paragraph 269-271, 286); and
a left yaw input, in which the sensed movement of the left hand controller corresponds to the operator's left hand moving back toward the operator's body and the sensed movement of the right hand controller corresponds to the operator's right hand moving forward away from the operator's body (paragraph 269-271, 286), and where, when in the gestural arm control mode, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to yaw an orientation of the chest plane to the left about the virtual chest pivot center with respect to the current field of view in response to the left yaw input (paragraph 269-271, 286).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Robinson, Sachs, Cordoba and Romo teaches the limitations of claim 4, and Romo further teaches wherein the plurality of gestural rotation inputs comprises:
a pitch down input, in which the sensed movement of the hand controllers corresponds to the operator's hands tilting forward, and where, when in the gestural arm control mode, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to pitch the orientation of the chest plane downward about the virtual chest pivot center with respect to a current field of view of a current image displayed in response to the pitch down input (paragraph 269-271, 286); and
a pitch up input in which the sensed movement of the hand controllers and the sensed movement of the operator's hands corresponds to the operator's hands tilting backward, and where, when in the gestural arm control mode, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to pitch the orientation of the chest plane upward about the virtual chest pivot center with respect to the current field of view in response to the pitch up input (paragraph 269-271, 286).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Robinson, Sachs, Cordoba and Romo teaches the limitations of claim 4, and Romo further teaches wherein the plurality of gestural rotation inputs comprises:
a clockwise roll input, in which a sensed movement of a left hand controller corresponds to a left hand of the operator moving vertically up and a sensed movement of the right hand controller corresponds to a right hand of the operator moving vertically down, and where, when in the gestural arm control mode, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to rotate the robotic arm assembly clockwise about an axis parallel to the current viewing direction that passes through the virtual chest pivot center with respect to a current field of view of a current image displayed in response to the clockwise roll input (paragraph 15, 151, 269-271, 286, 325-327, 336-339, 342-346); and
a counter-clockwise roll input, in which the sensed movement of the left hand controller corresponds to the operator's left hand moving vertically down and the sensed movement of the right hand controller corresponds to the operator's right hand moving vertically up, and where, when in the gestural arm control mode, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to rotate the robotic arm assembly counter-clockwise about an axis parallel to the current viewing direction that passes through the virtual chest pivot center with respect to the current field of view in response to the counter-clockwise roll input (paragraph 15, 151, 269-271, 286, 325-327, 336-339, 342-346).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Robinson, Sachs and Cordoba teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination is silent on wherein the first control mode is a physical activity arm control mode, in which one or more of: a magnitude of a translation of at least a portion of the robot arm assembly, a direction of the translation of at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly, a magnitude of a rotation of at least the portion of the robot arm assembly, and an axis of the rotation of at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly, depend, at least in part, on one or more of: a magnitude of the sensed movement of the hand controllers; a magnitude of a sensed change in separation between the hand controllers; a magnitude of a sensed change in lateral separation between the hand controllers; a direction of a movement of the hand controllers, and a sensed change in orientation of a line connecting the hand controllers in the first control input; and
wherein the first control input corresponds to one of a plurality of different types of physical activity control inputs.
However, Romo similarly teaches a method for controlling a surgical robotic system that comprises a virtual chest of a robotic assembly that is defined by a first robotic arm and a second robotic arm (paragraph 121-122) and a camera assembly (paragraph 14, 246-249, 256) wherein a first control mode is a physical activity arm control mode, in which one or more of: a magnitude of a translation of at least a portion of the robot arm assembly, a direction of the translation of at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly, a magnitude of a rotation of at least the portion of the robot arm assembly, and an axis of the rotation of at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly (paragraph 15, 325-326, 336-339, 342-346), depend, at least in part, on one or more of: a magnitude of the sensed movement of the hand controllers (paragraph 15, 325-332); a magnitude of a sensed change in separation between the hand controllers; a magnitude of a sensed change in lateral separation between the hand controllers (paragraph 15, 336-339, 342-346); a direction of a movement of the hand controllers, and a sensed change in orientation of a line connecting the hand controllers in the first control input (paragraph 336-339, 342-346); and
wherein the first control input corresponds to one of a plurality of different types of physical activity control inputs (paragraph 336-339, 342-346).
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 modification of Robinson with the teachings of Sachs and Cordoba with the teachings of Romo to have wherein the first control mode is a physical activity arm control mode, in which one or more of: a magnitude of a translation of at least a portion of the robot arm assembly, a direction of the translation of at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly, a magnitude of a rotation of at least the portion of the robot arm assembly, and an axis of the rotation of at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly, depend, at least in part, on one or more of: a magnitude of the sensed movement of the hand controllers; a magnitude of a sensed change in separation between the hand controllers; a magnitude of a sensed change in lateral separation between the hand controllers; a direction of a movement of the hand controllers, and a sensed change in orientation of a line connecting the hand controllers in the first control input; and wherein the first control input corresponds to one of a plurality of different types of physical activity control inputs, in order to provide improved ergonomics, usability, navigation and flexibility for performing surgical robotic procedures as disclosed by Romo (paragraph 7, 119).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Robinson, Sachs, Cordoba and Romo teaches the limitations of claim 11, and Romo further teaches wherein the plurality of different types of physical activity control inputs comprises:
a zoom input, in which the sensed movement hand controllers corresponds to a change in lateral separation between the hand controllers (paragraph 247-249),
where the lateral separation between the hand controllers increases, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to move the location of the virtual chest pivot center forward in a current viewing direction with a magnitude of a displacement of the virtual chest pivot center depending on a magnitude of the change in lateral separation in response to the zoom input (paragraph 15, 247-249, 325-326, 336-339, 342-346), and
where the lateral separation between the hand controllers decreases, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to move the location of the virtual chest pivot center backward with respect to the current viewing direction with the magnitude of a displacement of the virtual chest pivot depending on the magnitude of the change in lateral separation in response to the zoom input (paragraph 15, 247-249, 325-326, 336-339, 342-346).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Robinson, Sachs, Cordoba and Romo teaches the limitations of claim 11, and Romo further teaches wherein the plurality of different types of physical activity control inputs comprises:
a wheel input, in which the sensed movement of the hand controllers correspond to an angular change in an orientation of a line connecting the hand controllers in a vertical plane,
where the change in orientation corresponds to clockwise rotation, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to rotate the orientation of the virtual chest to the right with respect to a current field of view of a current image displayed with a magnitude of the angular rotation of the virtual chest depending on a magnitude of the angular change in the orientation of the line in response to the wheel input (paragraph 15, 301-304, 325-327, 336-339, 342-346), and
where the change in orientation corresponds to a counter-clockwise rotation, the surgical robotic system moves at least the portion of the robotic arm assembly to rotate the orientation of the virtual chest to the left with respect to the current field of view with the magnitude of the angular rotation of the virtual chest depending on the magnitude of the angular change in the orientation of the line in response to the wheel input (paragraph 15, 301-304, 325-327, 336-339, 342-346).
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 KHOA TAN LE whose telephone number is (703)756-1252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:30pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached 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 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.
/KHOA TAN LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/MOHAMED G GABR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771