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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-18 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein. Claim 5 is cancelled.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the non-final rejection dated 27 June 2025.
All objections to the claims from the prior office action have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments, filed 25 September 2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of Claim 18 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The claim does not have a reasonable degree of clarity to one of ordinary skill in the art because, as mentioned in the prior office action, one of ordinary skill would not know which components of the system are necessary to infringe on the method claim. Support for this rejection comes from MPEP 2173.05(p)(II): “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite”.
Applicant's arguments filed 25 September 2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and the rejection is withdrawn in view of applicant putting on the record that the manipulator is claiming an apparatus operable by a human and not the human operator (Examiner recommends Applicant reviews the figures for reference number 102, as Applicant states “FIGs. 11 and 12 (manipulator 102 and release button 102A)”, but in those figures, and other figures, reference number 102 is called is pointing to a box labeled “OPERATOR”).
Applicant's arguments filed 25 September 2025 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner finds that Wilk in view of Polley teaches the limitations of the amended independent claims. As shown in FIG. 2 of Wilk, there are two isolated portions of the vehicle 10, a first space (compartment or chamber 12) and a third space (the cab portion of the truck closer to the engine 11 with the door). Furthermore, Wilk discloses the second space apart from the moving body (see at least [0021]: “The device is operated under direct control of the signal transmitted from a physician at the remote location”). The deficiency of Wilk not disclosing a robot hand was already addressed with the addition of the Polley reference. Polley does not teach a mobile body with a first and third space and a second space isolated from a moving body, but is not used for those teachings, so the point is moot.
Due to amendments, Examiner has withdrawn the means of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for Claims 7 and 8 from the prior office action, and issued a new means of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for Claims 7 and 8 (see below). The new means of rejection was necessitated by the amendments to Claim 1, 7, and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. While the use of a negative limitation is not always improper, it can be improper if the specification lacks written description support for the exclusions provided by the negative limitations and/or if the language makes it ambiguous as to what the inventor or a joint inventor invented compared to what the inventor or a joint inventor did not invent. See MPEP 2173.05(i): “Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure”. Examiner found no support for the newly amended limitation “the robot cannot move into the second space”. This particular negative limitation is not a circumstance where it can be established that a skilled artisan would understand that this negative limitation is necessarily present in this disclosure (i.e., inherent to the disclosure even if not explicitly mentioned). No limits were placed on locations the robot cannot move in the specification, and with wheels and a system including a helicopter (see at least Figures 1 and 3) one of ordinary skill would not have concluded that the robot cannot move into the second space is necessarily present.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 18 is rejected for being indefinite because it is introduced as a method but is written such that lines 2-13 appear to be drawn to a system. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know if the limitations related to the medical movable body system are necessary to infringe on this method claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner has found all of these limitations as they are similar to other claims (note: antecedent basis should be carefully reviewed when amending the claim). 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 12, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0060808 (hereinafter, Wilk) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0331701 (Polley et al., hereinafter, Polley).
Regarding Claim 1, Wilk discloses A medical movable body system (see at least [0011] and [0013]: “a mobile medical facility such as a surgical operating room”; “The mobile medical facility is carried on a vehicle such as a truck, a ship or and aircraft”) comprising:
a medical movable body that accommodates patients of various diseases (see at least [0014]: “The present invention facilitates the provision of medical care particularly where patients are in practically inaccessible locations or where there is a dearth of qualified practitioners to adequately service the relevant populace. The system enables an improved matching of medical care to patients. Physician specialists are capable of treating more patients scattered over a wider area, in fact, over the entire world and beyond”; “A scanner disposed in the cargo compartment and connected to a transmitter for sending images from the cargo compartment to the remote location may include a camera mounted to a movable support such as an endoscopic (laparoscopic, arthroscopic, thoracoscopic, colonoscopic, etc.) instrument”; it is inherent with all of these movable supports accommodated that the medical movable body accommodates patients of various diseases because procedures are not done unless necessary), the movable body comprising a first space and a third space (see at least FIG. 2: compartment or chamber 12 is a first space, the cab of the truck with the door and engine is a third space);
a second space isolated from the moveable body (see at least [0021]: “The device is operated under direct control of the signal transmitted from a physician at the remote location”);
a robot including an arm… (see at least FIG. 1: in FIG. 1, robot 22 is shown to have an arm);
a manipulator that manipulates the robot (see at least [0044] and [0062]: “In response to control signals arriving from the remote physician via satellite dish 24, cable 36 or telephone line 38, computer 30 actuates robot mechanisms 18, 20, and 22”; “Command inputs 272 include a microphone 350 and actuator sensors 352 and 354 representing the input from different manually operated controls, including, for instance, buttons, levers, slidable switches, joysticks, and other input devices enabling remote control of a medical instrument which is, for example, pivotable about a plurality of rotation axes and translatable along three coordinate axes, and which has one or more operable appendages including jaws (scissors, graspers, forceps, clamps), cauterization elements, injectors, etc.”); and
a controller (see at least [0047]: computer 30 / control module 56), wherein:
the third space is isolated from the first space and the second space (see at least [0021] and FIG. 2: the compartment or chamber 12 is shown isolated from the cab of the truck, the surgeon is at a remote location and therefore also isolated from this);
the robot is in the first space in the medical movable body (see at least FIG. 2: robot mechanisms 18, 20, and 22 are in compartment or chamber 12);
a medical practice is performed in the first space (see at least [0024] and FIG. 2: “Where the medical procedure is a surgical procedure and the medical device includes a medical instrument and a robot mechanism, the operating of the medical device includes actuating the robot mechanism to move the medical instrument relative to the patient.”; this occurs in compartment or chamber 12);
the manipulator is in the second space (see at least [0016], [0021], and [0041]: “Thus, a physician at one location is empowered to operate diagnostic and treatment instrumentalities at another location, wherever the patient is located”; “The remote physician may be located in a different part of the same city, town, municipality or other geopolitical unit, or even on a different continent”; “The device is operated under direct control of the signal transmitted from a physician at the remote location.”); and
the second space being isolated from the first space and located outside the medical moveable body such that the robot cannot move into the second space (see at least [0016], [0021], and [0041]: “Thus, a physician at one location is empowered to operate diagnostic and treatment instrumentalities at another location, wherever the patient is located”; “The remote physician may be located in a different part of the same city, town, municipality or other geopolitical unit, or even on a different continent”; “The device is operated under direct control of the signal transmitted from a physician at the remote location.”); and
the controller executes
(A) making the robot…approach a patient in the first space, (see at least [0041]: “at least several steps in the medical procedure, including the shifting of medical instruments relative to the patient PT, are carried out automatically by robot mechanisms 18, 20 , 22 under control of a physician at a remote location outside of the vehicle 10”) and after the (A), (B) operating one of the arm and the hand based on manipulation command information of the one of: the arm and the hand input from the manipulator (see at least [0024], [0029], [0047], and [0053]: “in response to control information in the signal, to perform a surgical procedure on the patient disposed on the operating table”; “Control information in the incoming signal is detected and interpreted by parser and router 60 and robot actuation control module 56. In response to the control information, module 56 automatically operates at least one medical device in compartment or chamber 12 to perform a medical procedure on the patient PT. The medical device may be a diagnostic device such a camera 28 or scanner 26 or a treatment device such as an endoscopic or laparoscopic surgical instrument 44, 48”; “Control module 56 is operatively tied to robot mechanisms 18, 20, 22 via robot drivers 58 and controls the directions, rates, and degrees of operation of the robot mechanisms in response to control signals received from a remote physician via receiver 40 (FIG. 2)”; “medical device includes a medical instrument and a robot mechanism, the operating of the medical device includes actuating the robot mechanism to move the medical instrument relative to the patient”).
Wilk does not explicitly disclose a robot including an arm including a hand that holds one of: a medical inspection tool and a medical examination tool and (A) making the robot self-travel to approach a patient in the first space.
Polley, in the same field of robots in medical settings, and therefore analogous art, teaches a robot including an arm including a hand that holds one of: a medical inspection tool and a medical examination tool (see at least [0056], [0062], and FIG. 3: robot 300, includes robotic arm 306, robotic arm 310, end effector 308, and end effector 312; the end effectors are hands; “In embodiments and as discussed above, a robot, such as robot 200 or robot 300, may be configured with various sampling and/or monitoring equipment in order to sample and monitor numerous things (e.g., air, surfaces, water, humans, hospital equipment) within a particular environment”; “For example, a surface may be swabbed by the robot using one or more robotic arms”; the swab is a medical inspection tool and a medical examination tool) and (A) making the robot self-travel to approach a patient in the first space (see at least [0063]: “The sampling and/or monitoring may be fully automated by the robot. In other words, environment personnel do not have to intervene in carrying out the sampling and/or monitoring process”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the disclosures of Wilk and Polley because “in a healthcare environment, such as a hospital, dirty surfaces and unclean equipment (medical or otherwise) may rapidly cause microbial contamination, which can lead to the infection of patients and/or healthcare personnel in the environment” (see at least Polley [0005]) and “robots may be used to automate certain processes” (see at least Polley [0008]).
Regarding Claim 2, the Wilk and Polley combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Wilk further discloses further comprising:
a first imager (see at least [0063]: “a video signal is generated by cameras 290 and/or ultrasonic scanner 292”); and
a first display that displays image information of an image taken by the first imager and/or video information of a video taken by the first imager (see at least [0063]: “The video signal is transmitted essentially simultaneously as a first, second, and third signal over transmission paths or communications pathways 248, 250, and 252 to the physician location. At that receiving location, the image of the patient is produced on the image-reproduction video monitor 342 from at least one of the first, second, and third signals.”), wherein
the controller executes the (B) in a state where the first display displays the image information of the image taken by the first imager and/or the video information of the video taken by the first imager (see at least [0024], [0026], and [0063]: “In response to the image production, an operator (physician) manipulates input devices, that manipulation being detected and encoded by actuator sensors 352 and/or 354 in a control or command signal which is transmitted essentially simultaneously as a fourth, fifth, and sixth signal over parallel transmission paths or communications pathways 248, 250, 252 to the mobile medical facility or vehicle. A medical instrument in the vehicle is automatically moved to conduct a medical operation on the patient in response to at least one of the fourth, fifth and sixth signals”; “medical device includes a medical instrument and a robot mechanism, the operating of the medical device includes actuating the robot mechanism to move the medical instrument relative to the patient”; “In accordance with another feature of the present invention, a scanner disposed in the enclosed space of the mobile medical facility is operated to garnish images of the patient. The images are transmitted from the medical facility to the remote location for providing, to a remotely located physician or surgeon, real-time information pertaining to the patient.”).
Regarding Claim 4, the Wilk and Polley combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Polley further teaches wherein the robot further includes a housing that houses at least one of conveyed articles that are a medicine, a meal, an inspection reagent, a specimen, a medical inspection tool, and a medical examination tool (see at least [0057] and FIG. 3: “For example, robot 300 may be equipped with various laboratory equipment, such as various types of sample processing, sample testing, and/or sample analytics equipment, so that it can analyze in real-time (and on-the-spot) the collected samples in order to determine whether the environment contains a contamination. RODAC plates 322 stored in the incubator 304, for instance, or other collected samples, may be reviewed and analyzed by the robot 300 in real-time or near-real-time as soon as possible after sampling and/or arrival in a laboratory”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to further combine the disclosures of Wilk and Polley “so that [the robot] can analyze in real-time (and on-the-spot) the collected samples in order to determine whether the environment contains a contamination” (see at least Polley [0057]).
Regarding Claim 6, the Wilk and Polley combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Polley further teaches wherein the robot disinfects the robot itself (see at least [0052]: “robots may have built in self-sanitizing devices, products, or cleansers”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to further combine the disclosures of Wilk and Polley because “in a healthcare environment, such as a hospital, dirty surfaces and unclean equipment (medical or otherwise) may rapidly cause microbial contamination, which can lead to the infection of patients and/or healthcare personnel in the environment” (see at least Polley [0005]).
Regarding Claim 12, the Wilk and Polley combination teaches the limitations of Claim 2. Additionally, Wilk further discloses wherein the first imager is at the robot (see at least [0044]: “These robot mechanisms 18, 20, and 22 determine the positioning and operation of medical diagnostic and/or treatment devices such as endoscopic or laparoscopic instruments 44, 48 and cameras 28, 46 (FIG. 3)”; in order for the robot to determining the positioning of the cameras, they must (at least sometimes) be at the robot).
Regarding Claim 15, the Wilk and Polley combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Wilk further discloses wherein the manipulator includes a manipulation switch that instructs (see at least [0062]: “Command inputs 272 include a microphone 350 and actuator sensors 352 and 354 representing the input from different manually operated controls, including, for instance, buttons, levers, slidable switches, joysticks, and other input devices enabling remote control of a medical instrument which is, for example, pivotable about a plurality of rotation axes and translatable along three coordinate axes, and which has one or more operable appendages including jaws (scissors, graspers, forceps, clamps), cauterization elements, injectors, etc.”) and Polley further teaches unholding of the medical inspection tool and/or the medical examination tool (see at least [0100]: “A swab may be used by the robot to collect samples from an area of a surface. The robot may insert the swab into a swab tube, where a liquid reagent can be released into the tube. The swab tube may then be inserted into the ATP measurement device, where it will measure the amount of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) from the swab.”; in order to complete those steps, the robot would “unhold” the swab (i.e., tool)).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to further combine the disclosures of Wilk and Polley “for performing remotely executed medical procedures” (see at least Wilk [0006]) and to “collect various samples” (see at least Polley [0026]).
Regarding Claim 17, the Wilk and Polley combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Wilk further discloses wherein the medical movable body is a hospital ship (see at least [0022]: “It is contemplated that the medical facility is provided with a propulsion apparatus or engine, so that the moving of the medical facility is undertaken in part by activating the propulsion apparatus. More specifically, the medical facility may be on a truck or other wheeled land vehicle so that the moving of the medical facility includes rolling of the wheels. Alternatively, the mobile medical facility may be provided on an aircraft (helicopter, airplane, balloon, spacecraft, etc.) or water-going craft (ship, barge, submarine, etc.)”).
Regarding Claim 18, most limitations are similar to Claim 1 and the rejection for Claim 1 can be referenced. Furthermore, Wilken further discloses (A) automatically moving the robot to a vicinity of a patient in the first space based on positional information of the patient which is input from the manipulator (see at least [0041]: “at least several steps in the medical procedure, including the shifting of medical instruments relative to the patient PT, are carried out automatically by robot mechanisms 18, 20 , 22 under control of a physician at a remote location outside of the vehicle 10”); and
after the (A), (B) operating one of: the arm and the hand based on manipulation command information of the one of: the arm; and the hand, input from the manipulator (see at least [0024], [0029], [0047], and [0053]: “in response to control information in the signal, to perform a surgical procedure on the patient disposed on the operating table”; “Control information in the incoming signal is detected and interpreted by parser and router 60 and robot actuation control module 56. In response to the control information, module 56 automatically operates at least one medical device in compartment or chamber 12 to perform a medical procedure on the patient PT. The medical device may be a diagnostic device such a camera 28 or scanner 26 or a treatment device such as an endoscopic or laparoscopic surgical instrument 44, 48”; “Control module 56 is operatively tied to robot mechanisms 18, 20, 22 via robot drivers 58 and controls the directions, rates, and degrees of operation of the robot mechanisms in response to control signals received from a remote physician via receiver 40 (FIG. 2)”; “medical device includes a medical instrument and a robot mechanism, the operating of the medical device includes actuating the robot mechanism to move the medical instrument relative to the patient”).
Claims 3 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilk in view of Polley in further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0050841 (Wang et al., hereinafter Wang).
Regarding Claim 3, the Wilk and Polley combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Wilk further discloses wherein:
the robot further includes a first sound inputter (see at least FIG. 5: microphone 280)…;
a second sound inputter and a second sound outputter are further located in the second space (see at least FIG. 6: speaker 348, microphone 350).
The Wilk and Polley combination does not teach the robot further includes…a first sound outputter and the controller outputs voice information, which is input to the first sound inputter, to the second sound outputter and outputs voice information, which is input to the second sound inputter, to the first sound outputter.
Wang, in the same field of medical care when a medical provider is not in the same location, and therefore analogous art, teaches the robot further includes…a first sound outputter (see at least [0012]: “The robot face includes a robot monitor, a robot camera, a robot speaker and a robot microphone”) and the controller outputs voice information, which is input to the first sound inputter, to the second sound outputter and outputs voice information, which is input to the second sound inputter, to the first sound outputter (see at least [0016]-[0017]: “The microphones 28 and 54, and speakers 30 and 56, allow for audible communication between the system operator and the patient and/or EMT”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the Wilk and Polley combination with the teachings of Wang because “The system 10 allows a system user such as a physician to view a patient in the ambulance and provide remote medical consultation through the remote station 14 and the robot face 12. Personnel such as the EMT can transmit questions and responses through the system back to the physician” (see at least Wang [0017]).
Regarding Claim 9, the Wilk and Polley combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Polley further teaches the robot further includes a second display (see at least [0058] and FIG. 3: display interface 316).
The Wilk and Polley combination does not disclose wherein:
a second imager is further located in the second space; and in the (B), the controller displays on the second display, image information of an image taken by the second imager and/or video information of a video taken by the second imager.
Wang, in the same field of medical care when a medical provider is not in the same location, and therefore analogous art, teaches a second imager is further located in the second space (see at least [0014]: “The remote control station 14 may include a computer 22 that has a monitor 24, a camera 26, a microphone 28 and a speaker 30”); and in the (B), the controller displays on the second display, image information of an image taken by the second imager and/or video information of a video taken by the second imager (see at least [0015]-[0016]: “As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, the portable robot face 12 may be attached to a platform 34. The platform 34 may extend from the ceiling (not shown) of the ambulance 20. The platform 34 may include articulate joints 36 and 38 that provide at least two degrees of freedom and allow a user to move the robot face 12 to different positions to view a patient and an EMT within the ambulance”; “Each robot face 12 includes a camera(s) 50, a monitor 52, a microphone(s) 54 and a speaker(s) 56 that are all attached to a housing 58. The robot camera 50 is coupled to the remote monitor 24 so that a user at the remote station 14 can view the patient and/or EMT. Likewise, the robot monitor 52 is coupled to the remote camera 26 so the patient and EMT may view the user of the remote station 14.”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the Wilk and Polley combination with the teachings of Wang because “The robot monitor 52 can display the physician to provide a feeling of presence in the ambulance” (see at least Wang [0017]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilk in view of Polley in further in view of Medecins sans Frontieres / Doctors without Borders UK article “Inside the 'MUST': The mobile unit surgical trailer” (hereinafter, Doctors without Borders).
Regarding Claim 7, the Wilk and Polley combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Polley further teaches a disinfector that disinfects the robot… (see at least [0052]: “the robots or cobots could also have equipment to de-contaminate each other”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to further combine the disclosures of Wilk and Polley because “in a healthcare environment, such as a hospital, dirty surfaces and unclean equipment (medical or otherwise) may rapidly cause microbial contamination, which can lead to the infection of patients and/or healthcare personnel in the environment” (see at least Polley [0005]).
The Wilk and Polley combination does not explicitly teach wherein a disinfector … is in the third space that is part of the medical moveable body. Doctors without Borders teaches wherein a disinfector…is in the third space that is part of the medical moveable body (see at least “Inside the ‘MUST’” subsection and associated figures: a mobile unit surgical trailer includes both an operating room (8) and a scrubbing and preparation room (7); the surgical procedure is performed in the operating room area and the disinfecting is performed in the scrubbing and preparation area).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the teachings of Wilk and Polley with the teachings of Doctors without Borders to provide infection prevent and control protocols on a mobile unit surgical trailer (see at least Doctors without Borders “Inside the ‘MUST’” subsection).
Regarding Claim 8, the Wilk and Polley combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Polley further teaches wherein after the (B), the controller further executes (C) making the robot self-travel to a different location and disinfecting the robot (see at least [0052] and [0092]: “For example, if there is a contaminant detected, the robot or cobot or personnel may be further instructed to eradicate the contamination (if equipped with cleaning agents or cleaning equipment), or the robot or cobot may be further instructed to find the closest environment personnel and warn the personnel of the contamination, or it may be further instructed to display the warning or alert on a display interface (if the robot or cobot has a display interface or on another device), etc.”; “robots may have built in self-sanitizing devices, products, or cleansers”; it is obvious that in order to “eradicate” the contaminant on the robot, it would have to move out of the contaminated space and disinfect itself because the following option is described “For example, a robot tasked with taking samples from the infectious disease isolation room would transfer samples to another robot, cobot, or personnel without leaving the isolation room and causing any potential contamination”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to further combine the disclosures of Wilk and Polley “so that the contaminant can be eliminated or contained” (see at least Polley [0011]).
Doctors without Borders teaches a different location may be the third space on a medical movable body (see at least “Inside the ‘MUST’” subsection and associated figures: a mobile unit surgical trailer includes both an operating room (8) and a scrubbing and preparation room (7); the surgical procedure is performed in the operating room area and the disinfecting is performed in the scrubbing and preparation area).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the teachings of Wilk and Polley with the teachings of Doctors without Borders to provide infection prevent and control protocols on a mobile surgical unit (see at least Doctors without Borders “Inside the ‘MUST’” subsection).
Claims 10, 13, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilk in view of Polley in further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0275760 (Lee et al., hereinafter, Lee).
Regarding Claim 10, the Wilk and Polley combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. The Wilk and Polley combination does not explicitly teach wherein the robot and the manipulator operate in a master-slave mode.
Lee, in the same field of medical robots, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein the robot and the manipulator operate in a master-slave mode (see at least [0012]: “a surgical robot system includes a slave system performing a surgical operation upon a patient (or object), a master system controlling the surgical operation of the slave system”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the Wilk and Polley combination with the teachings of Lee because “The master device may generate a control signal in accordance with manipulation of a doctor and transmit the control signal to the slave device. The slave device may receive the control signal from the master device and performs manipulation required for surgery upon a patient” (see at least Lee [0007]).
Regarding Claim 13, the Wilk and Polley combination teaches the limitations of Claim 2. The Wilk and Polley combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first display displays a virtual model showing positional information of the medical inspection tool and/or positional information of the medical examination tool.
Lee, in the same field of medical robots, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein the first display displays a virtual model showing positional information of the medical inspection tool and/or positional information of the medical examination tool (see at least [0068], [0093], [0097], [0100], and [0102]: “the controller 240 may transmit the calculated coordinate values of the position of the surgical tool 230 to an augmented reality image display system 400”; “the augmented reality image generator 430 may receive current position information of the surgical tool from the slave system 200 to generate a virtual surgical tool at a matching region of the augmented reality image”; “Alternatively, or additionally, the augmented reality image may be transmitted to the master system 100 and displayed via display unit 120 of the master system 100”; “According to an embodiment, the assistant A who may directly observe the patient P may use the augmented reality image display system 400”; “Furthermore, the augmented reality image may be transmitted to the operator S who may supervise or observe the tasks performed by the assistant A”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the Wilk and Polley combination with the teachings of Lee because “assistant tasks such as retooling of the robot arm 210 may be more quickly and more safely performed” (see at least Lee [0102]).
Regarding Claim 14, the Wilk and Polley combination teaches the limitations of Claim 2. The Wilk and Polley combination does not teach wherein the first display displays a virtual model of a medical practice target part of the patient.
Lee, in the same field of medical robots, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein the first display displays a virtual model of a medical practice target part of the patient (see at least [0076], [0094], [0100], and [0102]-[0103]: “According to the illustrated embodiment, the augmented reality image display system 400 may include a camera 410 that captures a real image including a plurality of markers attached to the patient's body or a human body model, an augmented reality image generator 430 that detects the plurality of markers in the real image acquired by the camera 410, estimates position and gaze direction of the camera 410 using the detected markers, and generates an augmented reality image by overlaying a virtual image of a corresponding region over the real image, and a display 420 that displays the augmented reality image, as illustrated in FIG. 2”; “according to the present embodiment during laparoscopic surgery, the real image of the region of the patient's body viewed by the operator S is displayed, and thus the surgical region covered by skin may be more efficiently observed”; “Alternatively, or additionally, the augmented reality image may be transmitted to the master system 100 and displayed via display unit 120 of the master system 100”; “According to an embodiment, the assistant A who may directly observe the patient P may use the augmented reality image display system 400”; “Furthermore, the augmented reality image may be transmitted to the operator S who may supervise or observe the tasks performed by the assistant A”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the Wilk and Polley combination with the teachings of Lee to “provide detailed information by observing regions that are missed by the operator S positioned far away from the operating room, thereby improving surgery quality” (see at least Lee [0102]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilk in view of Polley in further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0261155 (Popovic et al., hereinafter Popovic).
Regarding Claim 11, the Wilk and Polley combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. The Wilk and Polley combination does not teach wherein a pair of laser beam indicators are at the hand such that light beams emitted from each indicator of the pair of laser beam indicators intersect with each other.
Popovic, in the same field of robotic medical devices, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein a pair of laser beam indicators are at the hand such that light beams emitted from each indicator of the pair of laser beam indicators intersect with each other (see at least [0059] and FIG. 3: “First and second lasers 512 and 514 project corresponding RCM laser beams 513 and 515 in such a way that they intersect at RCM 342”; “In an embodiment with a concentric arc system as illustrated in FIG. 3, first and second lasers 512 and 514 may be located anywhere along the arcs”; in FIG. 3, the laser beams are shown near end-effector 360 (i.e., “at the hand”)).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the Wilk and Polley combination with the teachings of Popovic “to provide a system and a method for image-based guidance of a multi-axis robot” (see at least Popovic [0007]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilk in view of Polley in further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0013692 (hereinafter, Maschke).
Regarding Claim 16, most limitations are similar to Claim 1 and the rejection for Claim 1 can be referenced. The additional limitation in Claim 16 is a first imager is at the hand. The Wilk and Polley combination does not explicitly teach a first imager is at the hand.
Maschke, in the same field of medical robots, and therefore analogous art, teaches a first imager is at the hand (see at least [0026] and FIG. 5: “FIG. 5 shows a further x-ray system in accordance with the invention, with an industrial robot 20 arranged on a device trolley 12, where an x-ray source 10 is arranged, so that it can rotate, on the mounting element 6 of the hand 5”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the Wilk and Polley combination with the teachings of Maschke so the imaging system has “especially good access to the patient” (see at least Maschke [0005]).
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 ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658