DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed 10/20/2022, as well as the Response to Restriction Requirement filed 12/05/25. Claims 1-11 are pending in the application. As noted below, the 10/08/25 Restriction Requirement is hereby withdrawn. As such, claims 1-11 have been examined on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 12/05/25 is acknowledged, but is moot in view of the following remarks.
Independent claim 1 would be allowable if amended to overcome the claim objections set forth herein. Independent claim 11, previously indicated as lacking unity of invention with claim 1, requires the allowable limitations of claim 1. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between the inventions of Group I (claims 1-10) and Group II (claim 11), as set forth in the Office Action mailed 10/08/25, is hereby withdrawn, and claim 11 hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or non-statutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 6, 9, & 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In claim 1, line 7, the recitation of “the impedance measurement circuit comprising g:” should instead recite -- the impedance measurement circuit comprising:--.
b. In claim 1, line 9, the recitation of “a magnitude corresponding to the value of a contact impedance” should instead recite --a magnitude corresponding to a value of a contact impedance--.
c. In claim 1, lines 22-23, the recitation of “a second switch circuit configured to for commutate between a connection and a disconnection” should instead recite --a second switch circuit configured to commutate between a connection and a disconnection--.
d. In claim 1, line 31, the recitation of “the processor further configured to to convert the signal” should instead recite --the processor further configured to convert the signal--.
e. In claim 1, line 33, the recitation of “the vector” should instead recite --the force vector--.
f. In claim 1, line 34, the recitation of “the vector” should instead recite --the force vector--.
g. In claim 6, lines 4-6, the recitation of “the control elements cooperatively configured to control ach of the impedance measurement circuit and the electrocautery radiofrequency signal generator” should instead recite --the control elements cooperatively configured to control each of the impedance measurement circuit and the electrocautery radiofrequency signal generator--.
h. In claim 9, line 4, the recitation of “configured to allow the opening or closing” should instead recite --configured to allow opening or closing--.
i. In claim 11, the positively-recited components of the “sensory perception surgical system” in lines 6-14 should be moved up to the preamble to avoid the recitation of multiple transitional phrases in the claim (i.e., “the sensory perception surgical system comprising:” in line 5, and “the method comprising:” in line 15). The Examiner suggests an amendment to the preamble similar to the following:
11. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program code instructions that when executed by a processing unit a sensory perception surgical system that includes the processing unit,
j. In claim 11, lines 16-17, the recitation of “a magnitude corresponding to the value of a contact impedance” should instead recite --a magnitude corresponding to a value of a contact impedance--.
k. In claim 11, line 19, the recitation of “the vector” should recite --the force vector--
l. In claim 11, line 20, the recitation of “the vector” should recite --the force vector--
m. In claim 11, lines 21-22, the recitation of “a trajectory followed by the surgical tool follows in the moment of contact” should instead recite --a trajectory followed by the surgical tool in the moment of contact--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 10 & 11 are 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.
7. Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the set of pulleys are disposed on three parallel shafts” in lines 1-3. This recitation renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear whether the “there parallel shafts” include the “articulation shaft” of claim 9 (from which claim 10 depends), or whether they are provided in addition to the “articulation shaft.” As such, the structure required by the claim is not clear. Clarification is required.
8. Claim 11 recites the limitation “an impedance measurement circuit” in line 8. This recitation renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear whether the recited “an impedance measurement circuit” is intended to be the same “an impedance measurement circuit” previously recited in lines 6-7 of the claim, or a separate/additional impedance measurement circuit. As such, the structure required by the claim is not clear. Clarification is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Independent Claim 1 would be allowable if amended to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a sensory perception surgical system for robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery comprising, inter alia, an electrosurgical forceps coupled to a surgical tool, and an electrocautery radiofrequency signal generator electrically coupled to an impedance measurement circuit and configured to supply energy to the electrosurgical forceps.
The impedance measurement circuit of independent claim 1 requires:
a measurement sensor configured to measure a signal indicative of a magnitude corresponding to the value of a contact impedance between the electrosurgical forceps and a patient's tissue;
an oscillator configured to provide a power signal to the measurement sensor;
a first electrical circuit comprising one or more resistors and a voltage limiter configured to protect the measurement sensor and the oscillator, the measurement sensor and the oscillator being connected to the electrosurgical forceps by a power cable of the surgical tool; and
a second electronic circuit comprising a first switch circuit configured to commutate between a connection and a disconnection of a power cabling of the electrocautery radiofrequency signal generator with respect to the power cable of the surgical tool, and a second switch circuit configured to for commutate between a connection and a disconnection of the electrocautery radiofrequency signal generator and the measurement sensor; and
a radiofrequency detector comprising at least one capacitive or inductive sensor disposed on the power cabling and configured to automatically commutate the first switch circuit and the second switch circuit while supplying energy.
In addition to the foregoing, claim 1 further requires:
a processor operatively connected to the impedance measurement circuit and configured to receive the signal measured by the measurement sensor, the processor further configured to convert the signal into a force vector, the force vector being estimated as a reflected vector of the received signal, a modulus of the vector being a function of the contact impedance and an argument of the vector being defined by a trajectory followed by the surgical tool in the moment of contact.
Emphasis added.
The claimed invention allows for obtaining the sensory return of the force exerted by a surgeon on a patient's tissue/tissues during a surgical intervention performed remotely based on an estimate of the force vector exerted by detecting the contact impedance with the tissue/tissues and on the trajectory taken.
While systems for improving force sensing and feedback to a surgeon performing telerobotic surgery are generally known [see, e.g., U.S. 2013/0165869 to Blumenkranz et al. (Blumenkranz”)], along with the use of impedance measurements to determine the magnitude and direction of applied forces during a procedure [see, e.g., U.S. 2021/0068916 to Hu et al. (“Hu”)], the references of record, either alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest receiving a signal indicative of a magnitude corresponding to the value of a contact impedance between the electrosurgical forceps and a patient's tissue, and converting the signal into a force vector, the force vector being estimated as a reflected vector of the received signal, a modulus of the vector being a function of the contact impedance and an argument of the vector being defined by a trajectory followed by the surgical tool in the moment of contact, in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claim 1. As such, independent claim 1 is patentable over the references of record.
10. Independent claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Independent claim 11 includes limitations similar to those addressed above in the discussion of independent claim 1, and would therefore be allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradford C. Blaise whose telephone number is (571)272-5617. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linda Dvorak can be reached on 571-272-4764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bradford C. Blaise/Examiner, Art Unit 3794