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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner has identified many instances in which the applicant provides direct quotations and paragraph numbers from the references, however many quotations provided do no properly align with the paragraph numbers cited. Furthermore, as for the quotation provided from para [0076] of Kostrzewski, the quotation stated by the applicant cannot be located in the reference. Due to this, the examiner is respectfully requesting that the Applicant provide further clarification as to which paragraphs contain the quoted subject matter stated in the remarks/arguments dated January 22, 2026.
Amongst Applicant’s first arguments, applicant states on page 10 of the remarks that Hares does not teach wherein the sensor data is used to determine whether the instrument is installed properly, but rather teaches whether the instrument is “properly attached” by check both the wireless receiver to detect the instrument and the proximity sensor to detect the instrument. Furthermore, Applicant states that Hares does not measure a physical characteristic(s) of the instrument that could indicate proper or improper attachment. Respectfully, the examiner partially disagrees with this statement.
Although the proximity sensor presented in Hares is not a force, torque, acceleration, or vector sensor, the proximity sensor in Hares does verify whether the instrument is “installed properly” (which could be synonymous with being “properly attached”) due to the proximity sensor/ Hall sensor only sensing the instrument when the instrument interface is properly docked to the robotic arm interface as explained in para [0048] of Hares: “The threshold of the Hall sensor and the strength of the magnetic tag may both be predetermined to cause the Hall sensor (when located on the robot arm) to only detect the magnetic tag when the instrument is engaged with the robot arm. In this case, if the instrument interface is misaligned with the robot arm interface, or otherwise not properly docked to the robot arm interface, the Hall sensor does not sense the required threshold magnetic flux density, and hence does not generate the output voltage indicating that the magnetic tag has been detected.”, and in para [0054]: “Data store 413 may store an indication of whether the instrument is docked in the arm or not as determined from the output of the proximity sensor 407.” Furthermore, because the proximity sensor/hall sensor can only measure the threshold for the magnetic flux density from the magnetic tag only when the instrument is properly engaged with the robotic arm, the sensor introduced by Hares does measure a physical characteristic of the instrument to indicate it is properly attached/installed to the robotic arm.
In regard to Applicant’s second argument, Applicant states that Kostrzewski does not teach the claimed “first data” and “second data”, and referenced para [0078] and para [0010] - [0011]. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the paragraphs referenced from Kostrzewski.
After thorough analysis of the paragraphs provided by the Applicant, the paragraph numbers referenced (excluding para [0011]) with the direct quotes from each paragraph do not match what has been presented in the arguments. Below are the actual exerts from the Kostrzewski based on the paragraph numbers presented by the applicant:
[0078] In some implementations, the mobile cart includes a power source for powering the robotic system, including, for example, the actuator. The power source may include a battery and/or a battery backup. In some implementations, the mobile cart is charged and/or powered by an electrical socket in the operating room. The mobile cart may be capable of being powered by a battery on the cart and/or via an electrical outlet. In some implementations, power is provided via an electrical outlet during the surgical procedure. A battery may be used to provide power to the system when the system is being moved or in case of a power cut.
[0010] A mobile cart houses a robot arm with an end effector that holds various standard surgical tools/implants, such as a drill or screw. Positioning such surgical tools with precision is critical. The robot arm provides more precise, stable placement of such tools than can be achieved manually, where placement is guided, yet intuitive. The mobile cart permits easy set-up and use of the system. Once stabilization is engaged, the mobile cart is secured in place on the operating room floor and cannot move. In certain embodiments, the robot cart houses the robot, robot controller, supervisor interlock system, power system, riding system, and interface to the navigation system.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that although Kostrzewski teaches a force sensor, the force sensor is exclusively used for controlling the movement of the robotic arm, not for determining instrument presence or validating proper installation, and further provides support by referencing para [0104], para [0113], para [0095], para [0013], and para [0076]. The examiner partially disagrees with this assertion.
As stated previously, the paragraph text when compared to the paragraph reference number is incorrect (excluding para [0095] and para [0013]). Below is the proper paragraph number based on the paragraph number provided by the applicant:
[0104] “In some implementations, for example, in some embodiments, the operator must activate switch 322 in order to place the robot arm 310 into force control mode. Once surgical robot 304 is placed in force control mode, the robot actuator 318 will allow controlled movement of the end effector 314 in response to a force applied on the robotic manipulator 320 or on the end effector 314.”
[0113] “In some implementations, computing system 302 controls the actuator to place the end effector in force control mode or in an active holding position, for example using force control 332. When surgical robot 304 is placed in force control mode, the actuator 318 is allowed to translate the end-effector 314 an identified distance in an identified direction (e.g., move the end-effector by 1 mm in a given direction) and to adjust an angle of rotation of the end-effector (e.g., adjust the roll, yaw, or pitch by 0.1 degree). However, in some implementations, when surgical robot 304 is placed in an active holding position, force control 332 activates lock 316 and prevents the actuator from moving the end effector regardless of the amount of force applied to manipulator 320 or any other part of the surgical robot 304. In some implementations, the active holding position does not activate a lock and instead the robot controller monitors the position of the end effector and instructs the actuator to compensate actively (e.g., using axis motors) for movement's out of the pre-defined position. This improves rigidity as active motors are used instead of passive brakes. Once force control 332 places surgical robot 304 in active holding position, the tool guide attached to the end effector will be held in position and the surgeon can manipulate the tool within the tool guide that is fixed in position to prevent the surgeon from accidentally straying off the optimum patient position for the surgical procedure.”
[0076] “ In some implementations, the surgical system includes a surgical robot 102, a tracking detector 108 that captures the position of the patient and different components of the surgical robot 102, and a display screen 110 that displays, for example, real time patient data and/or real time surgical robot trajectories.”
Aside from the improper referencing of the paragraphs specified above, the other arguments concerning Kostrzewski have been found to be persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s third arguments, Applicant states that according to both the abstract and para [0001] (which contains the incorrect text in the written remarks/arguments when compared to the actual reference of Malackowski as previously stated for the other references above), Malackowski primary focus is to address inventory management, not real-time validation of instrument installation during surgery. Respectfully, the examiner disagrees with this assertion.
Although the system of Malackowski is presented as an inventory management method (which was already previously stated in the office action dated October 23, 2025), the teachings in Malackowski were not used to determine the “real-time validation” of the instrument installation during surgery, and instead relied on Tierney. The teachings in Malackowski were used to explicitly teach the first and second data being used to verify the presence of at least one instrument/accessory being used in real time during the surgical procedure, which is presented in the claimed language by the applicant. Therefore, the argument’s claiming Malackowski does not teach installation validation are rendered moot.
Furthermore, as previously stated above, the applicant provided direct quotations from para [0009]-[0010] on page 16 of the remarks, however the cited paragraphs are not accurately quoted. The correct direct quotation referring back to para [0009]-[0010] are provided below:
[0009] “There have been some efforts at providing cutting accessories with type-identifying indicators, typically magnets. The handpieces to which these accessories are attached are provided with sensors. These sensors detect the presence/absence of the magnets and generate signals representative of what was sensed back to the control console. The processor in the control console, based on the signals from the handpiece sensors, then configures the system.”
[0010] “The above system, while of some utility, only provides a limited amount of data about the cutting accessory attached to the system handpiece. This is because, due to space considerations, only a limited number of indicators can be mounted to a cutting accessory and only a limited number of sensors can be fitted in the head end of the handpiece designed to actuate the accessory. For example, known commercial systems of this design have handpieces with two sensors. Each sensor is designed to detect the presence/absence of a separate cutting accessory-mounted magnet. Thus, these systems simply provide 2 bits of data. Even if it were possible for the number of magnets in the cutting accessories and the number of complementary handpiece sensors to be doubled, the resultant system would only be able to provide 4 bits of accessory specific data.”
Therefore, after examining the correctly identified para [0009]-[0010], Malackowski does teach and disclose receiving second data regarding a sensor, and determining based upon this second data a presence of the instrument mounted on the end effector.
Furthermore, Applicant states that the office action mischaracterizes the teachings of Malackowski regarding determining the presence based on sensor data and first data and stored data. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The system of Malackowski as stated in para [0009]-[0010], para [0045] and further in fig. 5, para [0017] and para [0072]-[0076], Malackowski does not only teach managing inventory components, but also teaches instrument identification based on the data previously mentioned above, and therefore is not a mischaracterization of the art.
In regard to the argument stating that Malackowski does not teach the force, torque, acceleration, or vector sensor data, this argument has been found to be persuasive.
Applicant next argues that Tierney does not teach the amended claim language wherein a second sensor comprises one of a force, torque, acceleration, or vector sensor data, and further provides support by citing para [0016]-[0017] and para [0048] from the office action. As previously mentioned, although para [0016]-[0017] are cited correctly, para [0048] is cited incorrectly. However, upon examining the previously presented paragraphs, applicant’s arguments have been found to be persuasive.
Regarding all other arguments for independent claims 14 and 19, although the examiner does not completely agree with all of the applicant’s arguments, the arguments have been found to be persuasive solely based on the amendments. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection have been made in view of Applicant’s amendments as can be further seen below.
Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0360520 A1 to Hares in view of US 2020/0375672 A1 to Penny.
Regarding claim 1, Hares teaches:
A robotic surgical system (see abstract, line 1 and figs. 1 and 3) comprising:
a robotic arm connected to a base (see abstract, line 1, fig. 1-102 and 108, and para 0001, lines 1-3); an end effector connected to a distal end of the robotic arm (see para 0001, last 3 sentences and fig. 1-103 and 106);
at least one instrument or accessory configured to mount to the end effector (see fig. 1-105 and 106, and para 0001);
a data storage device/data store and memory (fig. 4, 412 and 413);
a data reading device/transceiver (fig. 4, 402 and para 0043, lines 1-3);
a sensor (abstract and para 0006);
and processing circuitry/ processor (fig. 4, 411), but does not disclose wherein a sensor comprises at least one of a force, torque, acceleration and vector sensor coupled to the instrument or the accessory, and does not disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
receive a first data from the data reading device regarding the data storage device;
determine based upon the first data an identity of the at least one instrument or accessory;
and, in response to such determination, load calibration data corresponding to the least one instrument or accessory or issue a warning regarding the at least one instrument or accessory;
receive a second data regarding the sensor wherein the second data is indicative of at least one of the force, the torque, the acceleration and the vector of the instrument or accessory;
determine based upon the second data at least a presence of the at least one instrument or accessory mounted on the end effector;
and wherein in response to the second data, the processing circuitry proceeds to determine based upon the first data the identity of the at least one instrument or accessory, wherein based upon the second data, the processing circuitry determines if the at least one instrument or accessory is installed properly.
However, Penny teaches a robotic surgical system configured to determine whether or not a surgical instrument is properly mounted on the surgical robotic arm (see abstract, lines 1-3). The system (figs. 1-2) teach wherein the force sensor (see fig. 2, 30 and para [0022]) is positioned on at least one instrument or accessory/surgical device assembly (see fig. 1-2 and para [0012]), and teaches wherein:
the processing circuitry is configured to:
receive a first data from the data reading device regarding the data storage device/memory (see fig. 3- 38, para [0016]- “The system may receive input concerning the relevant parameters in a number of different ways. As one example, the system can read from a memory device, bar code, RFID tag etc. on the instrument the parameters themselves or information identifying the instrument or type of instrument so that the system can use that information to obtain the relevant parameters from system memory. As another example, the user input device can be used to input to the system information specifying the relevant parameters from system memory.”, and para [0025]);
determine based upon the first data (data stored in memory) an identity of the at least one instrument or accessory (see para [0016] sentence stated above);
and, in response to such determination, load calibration data corresponding to the least one instrument or accessory or issue a warning/alert regarding the at least one instrument or accessory (see para [0028]);
receive a second data (second data being the time-based measurements from the force/torque sensor and the IMU-see the annotated fig. 5 below) regarding the sensor wherein the second data is indicative of at least one of the force, the torque, the acceleration and the vector of the instrument or accessory (see abstract, annotated fig. 5 below, para [0027], and para [0028] emphasis on the following sentence: “The system further reviews time-based measurements from the force/torque sensor and the IMU, and the user is alerted as to whether engagement was successful. In one embodiment, the user will be alerted of an unsuccessful engagement if either the force or acceleration profile indicates an error.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
467
980
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determine based upon the second data at least a presence of the at least one instrument or accessory mounted on the end effector (see references stated above and para [0024]);
and wherein in response to the second data, the processing circuitry proceeds to determine based upon the first data the identity of the at least one instrument or accessory, wherein based upon the second data, the processing circuitry determines if the at least one instrument or accessory is installed properly (see para [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hares with the teachings of Penny to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would lead to a reasonable expectation for success, since Penny explicitly shows successful implementation of first and second data for the verification of the instrument installation, ultimately preserving the health and safety of the patient during the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 4, Hares teaches The robotic surgical system of claim 1 (figs. 1 and 3), wherein the data storage device/data store comprises one or more indicia/detectable tag affixed to or embedded in the at least one instrument or accessory (para 0046), and wherein the data reading device comprises an optical device/optical sensor configured to perform image acquisition on the one or more indicia indicative of the first data (para 0046).
Regarding claim 5, Hares teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 1 (fig. 1 and fig. 3) wherein the data reading device/receiver (fig. 5, 503) and the data storage device/data store (fig. 5, 505) are attached to or positioned onboard the at least one instrument or accessory or the end effector (para 0040 and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Hares teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 5 (fig. 1 and 3), wherein data reading device/receiver communicates with the data storage device/data store to read and write information thereto (para 0091 and fig. 10).
Regarding claim 7, Hares teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 1 (figs. 1 and 3), wherein the data storage device/data store carries additional data including one or more of an authentication, a serial number, calibration data, usage data, sterilization data or operation data associated with the at least one instrument or accessory (para 0012).
Regarding claim 8, Hare teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 1 (figs. 1-3), wherein the data storage device/data store is attached to or positioned within the at least one instrument or accessory (fig. 5 and para 0040) and comprises a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag (fig. 5, 504, para 0042, and para 0046).
Regarding claim 9, Hares teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 1 (figs. 1 and 3), wherein the data storage device/data store is attached to or positioned within the at least one instrument or accessory and the data storage device (fig. 5 and para 0040) and the data storage device/data store and data reading device/receiver are configured to communicate through one of a wireless communication or an electric contact reading system (fig. 5-502 and 505, and para 0043-0044).
Regarding claim 10, Hares teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 1 (figs. 1 and 3), wherein the data reading device/receiver is located at one or more of a remote cloud-based location, onboard the base, onboard the end effector, onboard the at least one instrument or accessory, or a memory electronically communicating with the processing circuitry (fig. 5, 503 and para 0040).
Regarding claim 13, Hares as modified teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 1, wherein the at least one instrument or accessory comprises one or more instruments and one or more accessories (See Hares - fig. 3, 305 and 306 and para 0036) containing a first data/first signal and a processing circuitry/processor for determining if the one or more surgical instruments are properly mounted on the surgical arm (Hares - para 0069-0070), wherein based upon the first data (See Penny – The data stored in memory) the processing circuitry determines if the one or more instruments are properly mounted on the one or more accessories, and issues the warning if the one or more instruments are not properly mounted on the one or more accessories (See Penny - abstract and para [0028]- “After a period of time following placement of the instrument, the force/torque values are compared with stored values for the instrument that is identified. The user is alerted as to whether engagement was successful or unsuccessful, the latter being the conclusion if the determined force/torque deviates substantially from the stored values.”).
Regarding claim 14, Hares teaches a robotic surgical system comprising:
a robotic arm connected to a base (see abstract, line 1, fig. 1-102 and 108, and para 0001, lines 1-3);
an end effector connected to a distal end of the robotic arm (see para 0001, last 3 sentences and fig. 1-103 and 106);
at least one instrument or accessory configured to mount to the end effector (see fig. 1-105 and 106, and para 0001);
a data storage device/data store and memory (fig. 4, 412 and 413);
a sensor (fig. 4, 404);
a data reading device/transceiver (fig. 4, 402 and para 0043, lines 1-3);
and processing circuitry/processor (fig. 4- 411, which is located in the controller), but does not explicitly disclose the following:
a sensor configured to sense a weight of at least one of the end effector, the instrument, or the accessory,
and processing circuitry configured to:
receive a first data from the sensor indicative of the weight of the end effector, the instrument, or the accessory, a second data from the data reading device regarding the data storage device;
determine based upon the first data a presence of the at least one instrument or accessory mounted on the end effector,
in response to such a determination, further determine based upon the second data an identity of the at least one instrument or accessory,
one of load calibration data corresponding to the at least one instrument or accessory or issue a warning regarding the at least one instrument or accessory, and
receive a third data regarding the sensor,
wherein based upon the third data, the processing circuitry determines if the at least one instrument or accessory is installed properly.
However, Penney teaches:
a sensor (the first force sensor) configured to sense a weight of at least one of the end effector, the instrument, or the accessory (see annotated fig. 5 below and para [0028]),
and processing circuitry configured to:
receive a first data from the sensor indicative of the weight of the end effector, the instrument, or the accessory (see abstract and para [0028]-force measurements for the instrument are collected and compared to the stored values for the instrument that has been identified), a second data (instrument data stored in memory) from the data reading device/reader regarding the data storage device/memory (see para [0016] – “As one example, the system can read from a memory device, bar code, RFID tag etc. on the instrument the parameters themselves or information identifying the instrument or type of instrument so that the system can use that information to obtain the relevant parameters from system memory. As another example, the user input device can be used to input to the system information specifying the relevant parameters or information identifying the instrument allowing the system to look up the parameters from system memory.”, and para [0028]);
determine based upon the first data (generated by the first force sensor in annotated fig. 5) a presence of the at least one instrument or accessory mounted on the end effector (see para [0028] – “As force/torque is continuously monitored, an instrument is mounted to the terminal portion of the robotic arm (LIA). The presence of the proximal housing (“adapter”) on the terminal portion is sensed using the inductive sensors, and the instrument is identified by the system as described above.”),
in response to such a determination, further determine based upon the second data (data stored in memory) an identity of the at least one instrument or accessory (see para [0016] stated above and para [0028] stated above),
one of load calibration data corresponding to the at least one instrument or accessory or issue a warning regarding the at least one instrument or accessory (see annotated fig. 5 below and para [0028]), and
receive a third data regarding the sensor,
wherein based upon the third data (force/torque sensor and IMU data indicated on annotated fig. 5 below and para [0028]), the processing circuitry determines if the at least one instrument or accessory is installed properly (see abstract, annotated fig. 5 below, and para [0028]- last two sentences).
PNG
media_image2.png
557
1494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hares with the teachings of Penny to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would Such modification would lead to a reasonable expectation for success, since Penny explicitly shows successful implementation of first, second, and third data for the verification of the instrument installation, ultimately preserving the health and safety of the patient during the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 15, Hares teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 14 (figs. 1 and 3), wherein the data storage device/data store comprise one or more indicia/detectable tag affixed to or embedded in the at least one instrument or accessory (para 0046), and wherein the data reading device/receiver comprises an optical device/optical sensor configured to perform image acquisition on the one or more indicia indicative of the first data (fig. 4, 406 and para 0046).
Regarding claim 16, Hares teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 14 (figs. 1 and 3), wherein the data reading device/receiver (fig. 5, 503) and the data storage device/data store (fig. 5, 505) are attached to or positioned onboard the at least one instrument or accessory or the end effector (para 0040 and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Hares teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 14 (fig. 1 and 3), wherein data reading device/receiver communicates with the data storage device/data store to read and write information thereto (para 0091 and fig. 10).
Regarding claim 18, Hares teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 14 (figs. 1 and 3), one or more of an authentication, a serial number, calibration data, usage data, sterilization data or operation data associated with the at least one instrument or accessory (para 0012).
Regarding claim 19, Hares teaches a method of validating one or more of an instrument or accessory for use during a robotically performed surgical procedure (para 0029 and para 0066-0067), the method comprising:
coupling the one or more of the instrument or the accessory to an end effector of a robotic arm connected to a base (para 0001, fig. 1-102, 106, and 108, and fig. 3-301, 302, and 306);
communicating via a data reading device/receiver with a data storage system/data store affixed to or embedded in the one or more of the instrument or the accessory (para 0066);
identifying the one or more of the instrument or the accessory based upon data from the data storage system/data store (para 0066);
and based upon the identifying the one or more of the instrument or the accessory, loading a calibration associated with the one or more of the instrument or the accessory or issuing a warning/alert regarding the one or more of the instrument or the accessory (para 0067), but does not explicitly disclose
receiving sensor data from a sensor coupled to the end effector, the instrument or the accessory, wherein the sensor is at least one of a force, torque, acceleration, and vector sensor,
wherein the sensor data is indicative of at least one of the force, the torque, the acceleration, and the vector of the end effector, the instrument, or the accessory,
determining from the sensor data a presence of the one or more of the instrument or the accessory mounted on the end effector,
and,
in response to the determining from the sensor data the presence of the one or more of the instrument or the accessory mounted on the end effector, identifying the one or more of the instrument or the accessory based upon the data from the data storage system.
However, Penny teaches:
receiving sensor data from a sensor coupled to the end effector, the instrument or the accessory, wherein the sensor is at least one of a force, torque, acceleration, and vector sensor,
wherein the sensor data is indicative of at least one of the force, the torque, the acceleration, and the vector of the end effector, the instrument, or the accessory (see annotated fig. 5 and para [0028]),
determining from the sensor data a presence of the one or more of the instrument or the accessory mounted on the end effector (see para [0026] and para [0028]),
and,
in response to the determining from the sensor data the presence of the one or more of the instrument or the accessory mounted on the end effector, identifying the one or more of the instrument or the accessory based upon the data from the data storage system/memory (see para [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hares with the teachings of Penny to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would lead to a reasonable expectation for success, since Penny explicitly shows successful implementation of first and second data for the verification of the instrument installation, ultimately preserving the health and safety of the patient during the surgical procedure.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hares in view of Penny, and further in view of US 2020/0405403 A1 to Shelton, IV et al. (hereinafter “Shelton’403”).
Regarding claim 11, Hares as modified teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 1 (figs. 1 and 3), wherein the at least one instrument or accessory comprises one or more instruments and one or more accessories/attachment (fig. 3, 305 and 306 and para 0036),
But does not disclose wherein based upon the first data the processing circuitry determines if the one or more accessories are configured for use with the one or more instruments and issues the warning if the one or more accessories/interface elements (or instrument interface elements) are not configured for use with the one or more instruments.
However, Shelton’403 discloses a method for using a surgical robotic assembly (abstract, line 1). The system (fig. 1) contains a processing circuitry/ processor that scans a barcode/instrument element via an image sensor located on the surgical instrument attached to the surgical system. Furthermore, if the optical sensor is unable to detect the barcode (making the barcode unidentifiable due to improper attachment of the surgical instrument), an alert/warning is sent to the surgeon’s console display (para 0729).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Hares with the teachings of Shelton’403 to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would improve the system by ensuring that each interface element used for securing the instrument are properly attached to the surgical system, guaranteeing the surgical instrument is attached properly to maintain patient safety.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hares in view of Penny, and further in view of US 2019/0125459 A1 to Shelton, IV et al. (hereinafter “Shelton’549”).
Regarding claim 12, Hares as modified teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 1 (figs. 1 and 3), wherein the at least one instrument or accessory comprises one or more instruments and one or more accessories (fig. 3, 305 and 306 and para 0036), but does not disclose wherein based upon the first data/signal the processing circuitry/processor determines if the one or more instruments are authentic and issues the warning if the one or more instruments are counterfeit.
However, Shelton’549 discloses a method for hub communication and adjusting the operation of a surgical instrument using machine learning (abstract, lines 1-2). The system (fig. 1) utilizes a cloud-based system that is in wireless communication with one or more inventory items/intelligent surgical instruments. Furthermore, the cloud-based system may be configured to include a list of items/instruments that are not authorized to perform surgical procedures using one or more system-defined constraints, and if the system’s serial number or unique ID does not match the associated inventory items authorized for the medical procedures (suggesting the inventory item is a counterfeit or is defective), a warning or alert may be sent to a user interface/display (para
1642).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system Hares with the teachings of Shelton’549 to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would improve the system by ensuring that the proper medical instrument is used during a specific step of the surgical procedure, guaranteeing the correct surgical instrument is used to maintain patient safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crawford et al. (US 2013/0345718 A1) discloses teaches a medical robot system.
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 KARMEL J WEBSTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5960. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights