DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination received 29 October 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 61, 63-66, 68-81, and 83 amended 29 October 2025 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Claim Objections
Claim 63 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim depends from canceled Claim 62. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 68 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim depends from canceled Claim 67. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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.
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 61, 63-66, 68-71, 74-81, and 83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savall (US Pub. No. 2018/0078034) in view of Xue (US Pub. No. 2003/0075959), further in view of Phipps (US Pub. No. 2007/0102969).
As per Claim 61, Savall discloses a teleoperated surgery user control system (100, 112) (Fig. 1A; ¶42-49) comprises:
a first user control (100) (Fig. 1A; ¶42) comprising:
one or more manipulable input controls (104, 106) for teleoperation (as per “e.g., tele-operation” in ¶41) of one or more aspects of a surgical system (112) (Fig. 1A; ¶42-44); and
a plurality of body rests (102; 116, 224) configured to articulate (as per “The adjustable seat features may be manually adjustable by the user and/or motorized” in ¶45; as per “The armrest assembly 1222 may include an actuator for some or all of its articulated joints” in ¶69; as per “the headrest may be coupled to the seat back with a hinge joint, one or more longitudinal members, extendible bellows or accordion arrangement, extendable telescoping arrangement, etc.” in ¶78) and to support (as per “A user located in the seat 102” in ¶43; as per “seating profile associated with at least one user” in ¶51; as per “The arm rest may additionally include … other supporting structures passing over the arm of the user, which may help secure the user’s arms in place” in ¶65; as per “adjust height of a resting location for the user’s head” in ¶78) portions of a body of a clinical user (110) of the surgical system (112) (Figs. 1A, 2C, 3A-B, 12A-C; ¶43-45, 51, 65, 68-69, 78-80); and
a processor (as per “seat controller” in ¶45, as per “configuration controller” in ¶126, as per “robot controller” in ¶126) communicatively connected to the one or more manipulable input controls (104, 106), the processor (as per “seat controller” in ¶45, as per “configuration controller” in ¶126, as per “robot controller” in ¶126) configured to execute instructions to automatically articulate (as per “automatically … transitioning” in ¶127, as per “Actuators may periodically or intermittently command” in ¶69) during the course of a procedure (as per “the user console may dynamically improve ergo-nomics by tracking motions of the user … and in response to the user’s motions, automatically … transitioning to an optimum configuration for the user’s ergonomic, viewing, hardware, and/or other needs, such as for reducing fatigue or injury” in ¶127) by the clinical user (110) employing the teleoperated surgery user control system (100, 112) the plurality of body rests (102; 116, 224), wherein:
the automatic articulation (as per “automatically … transitioning” in ¶127, as per “Actuators may periodically or intermittently command” in ¶69) includes changing one or both of a location (as per “seat height, …, headrest height, in ¶45; as per “armrest height, anterior/posterior position …, and where separate left/right armrests are provided, each armrest may be independently configurable” in ¶45) and an orientation (as per “seat rotation, …, seat tilt, seat back tilt, …, headrest tilt” in ¶45; as per “medial/lateral rotation, and where separate left/right armrests are provided, each armrest may be independently configurable” in ¶45) of the plurality of body rests (102; 116, 224) continually in micro-increments (as per “the user console may dynamically improve ergo-nomics by tracking motions of the user … and in response to the user’s motions, automatically … transitioning to an optimum configuration for the user’s ergonomic, viewing, hardware, and/or other needs, such as for reducing fatigue or injury” in ¶127 and “Actuators may periodically or intermittently command the armrest assembly to move a prescribed amount (e.g., slightly with micro-movements)” in ¶69);
the plurality of body rests (102; 116, 224) comprises a pad (224) against which the clinical user (110) rests their head (as per “resting location for the user’s head” in ¶78) and an armrest (116) on which the clinical user (110) rests an arm (as per “reduce fatigue in the user’s arms” in ¶69); and
the processor (as per “seat controller” in ¶45, as per “configuration controller” in ¶126, as per “robot controller” in ¶126) is configured to execute the automatic articulation (as per “automatically … transitioning” in ¶127, as per “Actuators may periodically or intermittently command” in ¶69) as a first set of articulations of the pad (224) (as per “the height of the headrest may be adjusted … automatically, based on user configurations, profiles, and/or preferences” in ¶78) and execute a second set of articulations of the armrest (116) (as per “Actuators may periodically or intermittently command the armrest assembly to move a prescribed amount (e.g., slightly with micro-movements)” in ¶69).
Savall does not expressly disclose:
wherein the automatic articulation has a magnitude selected so that the automatic articulation is functionally imperceptible to the clinical user;
wherein the first set of articulations is one after another in a predefined first sequence of a plurality of articulations commencing at a first time; and
wherein the second set of articulations one after another in a predefined second sequence of a plurality of articulations commencing at a second time.
Xue discloses a lumbar support (10) having a flexible elastic support element having a body (14) and a positioning assembly (20) to selectively displace the body (14) (Fig. 1; ¶23). The supporting element (12) is positionable in a variety of degrees of curvature of body (14) each defining an apex (27) such that the apex (27) is displaceable in a first direction toward a seated occupant and in a second direction away from the seated occupant (Fig. 2; ¶24). The positioning assembly (20) is coupled to a supporting element (12) that selectively displaces the body (14) via an electric motor (22) (Fig. 1; ¶23) and the electric motor (22) is governed by a controller module (36) to displace the supporting element (12) according to a predetermined adjustment cycle (Fig. 3; ¶25-26). In one embodiment, the system (10) of Xue provides cycling according to the predetermined adjustment cycle involving oscillation of the supporting element (12) over a range that is small enough to be imperceptible to a seat occupant (¶27). In another embodiment, the system (10) of Xue provides cycling according to the predetermined adjustment cycle involving oscillation of the supporting element (12) over a range that is large enough to be felt as desirable massaging actions (¶27). According to Xue, such motion is beneficial to prevent fatigue whether perceived or not (¶7-8). Like Savall, Xue is concerned with control systems for seats.
Phipps discloses a seating system (30) designed to reduce user potential fatigue and includes various powered seat adjustment actuators (A1-A5) that are automatically activated, operated, and cycled in accordance with a control period by a controller (C) (Fig. 2; ¶19-21). Movement of the actuators (A1-A5) involves movement from a first position to a second position and cycling between the first position and the second position (¶20). In one embodiment, the control period for movement of the actuators (A1-A5) involves one continuous movement period in which the actuators (A1-A5) move simultaneously through different seating positions (Fig. 9; ¶25-26, 32). In another embodiment, the control period for movement of the actuators (A1-A5) involves various combinations of movement periods and stationary periods wherein the actuators move through different seating positions (Fig. 10; ¶25-26, 33-34). In this way, the controller (C) provides actuations in accordance with a movement profile as desired by a user (¶25, 33-34). Like Savall, Phipps is concerned with control systems for seats.
Therefore, from these teachings of Savall, Xue, and Phipps, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall since doing so would enhance the system by: providing actuations at a magnitude in accordance with user preferences; and providing actuations having a movement profile in accordance with user preferences. Applying the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the automatic articulation has a magnitude selected so that the automatic articulation is functionally imperceptible to the clinical user” in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible as per Xue;
“wherein the first set of articulation is one after another in a predefined first sequence of a plurality of articulations commencing at a first time” in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible as per Xue and that commence at specified time periods as per Phipps; and
“wherein the second set of articulations one after another in a predefined second sequence of a plurality of articulations commencing at a second time” in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible as per Xue and that commence at specified time periods as per Phipps.
As per Claim 63, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 61. Savall further discloses wherein the one or more manipulable input controls (104, 106) comprises at least one of a hand (as per 106), foot (as per 104), {head, finger, thumb, and tongue-manipulable} control (Fig. 1A; ¶42-44).
As per Claim 64, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 61. Savall further discloses wherein each of the one or more plurality of body rests (102; 116, 224) is configured to:
translate in one or more directions (as per “seat height, …, headrest height, in ¶45; as per “armrest height, anterior/posterior position …, and where separate left/right armrests are provided, each armrest may be independently configurable” in ¶45); and/or
rotate in one or more directions (as per “seat rotation, …, seat tilt, seat back tilt, …, headrest tilt” in ¶45; as per “medial/lateral rotation, and where separate left/right armrests are provided, each armrest may be independently configurable” in ¶45).
As per Claim 65, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 61. Savall further discloses wherein the first user control (100) comprises one or more actuators (as per “automatically … transitioning” in ¶127, as per “Actuators may periodically or intermittently command” in ¶69) configured to articulate the plurality of body rests (102; 116, 224).
As per Claim 66, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 65. Savall further discloses wherein the one or more actuators (as per “automatically … transitioning” in ¶127, as per “Actuators may periodically or intermittently command” in ¶69) comprises at least one of a motor (as per “adjustable seat features may be … motorized” in ¶45, as per “The joints of the armrest may comprise any of a variety of joints … One or more of the joitns may be controlled by on or more motors” in ¶67), {a linear and/or rotary actuator, one or more gears, one or more cams, one or more springs, and a kinematic linkage}.
As per Claim 68, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 67. Savall does not expressly disclose wherein the first time is different than the second time.
See rejection of Claim 61 for discussion of teachings of Xue and Phipps. In one embodiment of Phipps, the control period for movement of the actuators (A1-A5) involves various combinations of movement periods and stationary periods wherein the actuators move through different seating positions (Fig. 10; ¶25-26, 33-34).
Therefore, from these teachings of Savall, Xue, and Phipps, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall since doing so would enhance the system by: providing actuations at a magnitude in accordance with user preferences; and providing actuations having a movement profile in accordance with user preferences. Applying the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall would result in a system that operates “wherein the first time is different than the second time” in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible as per Xue and that commence at specified time periods as per Phipps.
As per Claim 69, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 61. Savall does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to: simultaneously articulate the pad at the first time and the arm rest at the second time.
See rejection of Claim 61 for discussion of teachings of Xue and Phipps. In one embodiment of Phipps, the control period for movement of the actuators (A1-A5) involves one continuous movement period in which the actuators (A1-A5) move simultaneously through different seating positions (Fig. 9; ¶25-26, 32).
Therefore, from these teachings of Savall, Xue, and Phipps, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall since doing so would enhance the system by: providing actuations at a magnitude in accordance with user preferences; and providing actuations having a movement profile in accordance with user preferences. Applying the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall would result in a system that operates “wherein the processor is configured to: simultaneously articulate the pad at the first time and the arm rest at the second time” in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible as per Xue and that commence at specified time periods as per Phipps.
As per Claim 70, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 61. Savall does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to: sequentially articulate the pad at the first time and the arm rest at the second time.
See rejection of Claim 61 for discussion of teachings of Xue and Phipps. In one embodiment of Phipps, the control period for movement of the actuators (A1-A5) involves various combinations of movement periods and stationary periods wherein the actuators move through different seating positions (Fig. 10; ¶25-26, 33-34).
Therefore, from these teachings of Savall, Xue, and Phipps, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall since doing so would enhance the system by: providing actuations at a magnitude in accordance with user preferences; and providing actuations having a movement profile in accordance with user preferences. Applying the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall would result in a system that operates “wherein the processor is configured to: sequentially articulate the pad at the first time and the arm rest at the second time” in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible as per Xue and that commence at specified time periods as per Phipps.
As per Claim 71, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 61. Savall does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to articulate at least one of the plurality of body rests periodically over time at a constant frequency.
See rejection of Claim 61 for discussion of teachings of Xue and Phipps. Xue further discloses embodiments wherein the duration of each movement is 5 seconds, embodiments wherein the duration of each movement is 25 seconds, and embodiments wherein the duration of each movement is 3 seconds (¶31).
Therefore, from these teachings of Savall, Xue, and Phipps, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall since doing so would enhance the system by: providing actuations at a magnitude in accordance with user preferences; and providing actuations having a movement profile in accordance with user preferences. Applying the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall would result in a system that operates “wherein the processor is configured to articulate at least one of the plurality of body rests periodically over time at a constant frequency” in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible and at a frequency as per Xue and that commence at specified time periods as per Phipps.
As per Claim 74, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 61. Savall does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to simultaneously articulate a plurality of the plurality of body rests.
See rejection of Claim 61 for discussion of teachings of Xue and Phipps. In one embodiment of Phipps, the control period for movement of the actuators (A1-A5) involves one continuous movement period in which the actuators (A1-A5) move simultaneously through different seating positions (Fig. 9; ¶25-26, 32).
Therefore, from these teachings of Savall, Xue, and Phipps, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall since doing so would enhance the system by: providing actuations at a magnitude in accordance with user preferences; and providing actuations having a movement profile in accordance with user preferences. Applying the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall would result in a system that operates “wherein the processor is configured to simultaneously articulate a plurality of the plurality of body rests” in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible as per Xue and that commence at specified time periods as per Phipps.
As per Claim 75, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 61. Savall does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to sequentially articulate a plurality of the one or more plurality of body rests.
See rejection of Claim 61 for discussion of teachings of Xue and Phipps. In one embodiment of Phipps, the control period for movement of the actuators (A1-A5) involves various combinations of movement periods and stationary periods wherein the actuators move through different seating positions (Fig. 10; ¶25-26, 33-34).
Therefore, from these teachings of Savall, Xue, and Phipps, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall since doing so would enhance the system by: providing actuations at a magnitude in accordance with user preferences; and providing actuations having a movement profile in accordance with user preferences. Applying the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall would result in a system that operates “wherein the processor is configured to sequentially articulate a plurality of the one or more plurality of body rests” in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible as per Xue and that commence at specified time periods as per Phipps.
As per Claim 76, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 61. Savall further discloses wherein the processor is configured to articulate at least one of the plurality of body rests at a speed functionally imperceptible to the clinical user.
See rejection of Claim 61 for discussion of teachings of Xue and Phipps. Xue further discloses embodiments wherein the duration of each movement is 5 seconds, embodiments wherein the duration of each movement is 25 seconds, and embodiments wherein the duration of each movement is 3 seconds (¶31).
Therefore, from these teachings of Savall, Xue, and Phipps, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall since doing so would enhance the system by: providing actuations at a magnitude in accordance with user preferences; and providing actuations having a movement profile in accordance with user preferences. Applying the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall would result in a system that operates “wherein the processor is configured to articulate at least one of the plurality of body rests at a speed functionally imperceptible to the clinical user” in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible and at a speed as per Xue and that commence at specified time periods as per Phipps.
As per Claim 77, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 61. Savall does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to articulate at least one of the plurality of body rests at a frequency functionally imperceptible to the clinical user.
See rejection of Claim 61 for discussion of teachings of Xue and Phipps. Xue further discloses embodiments wherein a movement occurs every 5 seconds, embodiments wherein a movement occurs every 25 seconds, and embodiments wherein a movement occurs every 3 seconds (¶31, 33).
Therefore, from these teachings of Savall, Xue, and Phipps, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall since doing so would enhance the system by: providing actuations at a magnitude in accordance with user preferences; and providing actuations having a movement profile in accordance with user preferences. Applying the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall would result in a system that operates “wherein the processor is configured to articulate at least one of the plurality of body rests at a frequency functionally imperceptible to the clinical user” in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible and at a frequency as per Xue and that commence at specified time periods as per Phipps.
As per Claim 78, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 61. Savall further discloses wherein the processor (as per “seat controller” in ¶45, as per “configuration controller” in ¶126, as per “robot controller” in ¶126) is configured to articulate at least one of the plurality of body rests (102; 116, 224) on a predefined schedule (as per “automatically … transitioning to an optimum configuration for the user’s ergonomic, viewing, hardware, and/or other needs” in ¶127, as per “Actuators may periodically or intermittently command the armrest assembly to move a prescribed amount (e.g., slightly with micro-movements)” in ¶69).
As per Claim 79, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 78. Savall does not expressly disclose wherein:
the predefined schedule comprises at least one of:
articulation of the at least one of the plurality of body rests continually;
articulation of the at least one of the plurality of body rests at a constant frequency;
articulation of the at least one of the plurality of body rests at a variable frequency; and
articulation of the at least one of the plurality of body rests at a random frequency.
See rejection of Claim 61 for discussion of teachings of Xue and Phipps. Xue further discloses embodiments wherein a movement occurs every 5 seconds, embodiments wherein a movement occurs every 25 seconds, and embodiments wherein a movement occurs every 3 seconds (¶31, 33).
Therefore, from these teachings of Savall, Xue, and Phipps, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall since doing so would enhance the system by: providing actuations at a magnitude in accordance with user preferences; and providing actuations having a movement profile in accordance with user preferences. Applying the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall would result in a system that operates “wherein:
the predefined schedule comprises at least one of:
articulation of the at least one of the plurality of body rests continually;
articulation of the at least one of the plurality of body rests at a constant frequency;
articulation of the at least one of the plurality of body rests at a variable frequency; and
articulation of the at least one of the plurality of body rests at a random frequency”
in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible and at a frequency as per Xue and that commence at specified time periods as per Phipps.
As per Claim 80, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 61. Savall further discloses wherein the plurality of body rests (102; 116, 224) comprise at least one of:
a seat (102) on which the clinical user (110) sits during use of the first user control (100) (Fig. 1A; ¶43, 46);
{a foot rest on which the clinical user rests a foot during use of the first user control;
a viewing system having a pad against which the clinical user is configured to rest their head during use of the first user control;
a hand-operated control input with which the clinical user controls movement of an instrument of the surgical system via the first user control}.
As per Claim 81, Savall discloses a telesurgical system control unit (100, 112) (Fig. 1A; ¶42-49) comprising:
a plurality of movable components (102; 116, 224) each of which is contacted (as per “A user located in the seat 102” in ¶43; as per “seating profile associated with at least one user” in ¶51; as per “The arm rest may additionally include … other supporting structures passing over the arm of the user, which may help secure the user’s arms in place” in ¶65; as per “adjust height of a resting location for the user’s head” in ¶78) by a clinical user (110) during an operation of the control unit (100, 112) by the clinical user to perform a medical procedure (as per “end effectors or surgical tools are attached to the distal ends of the robotic arms 114 for executing a surgical procedure” in ¶42) (Figs. 1A, 2C, 3A-B, 12A-C; ¶43-45, 51, 65, 68-69, 78-80);
one or more actuators (as per “automatically … transitioning” in ¶127, as per “Actuators may periodically or intermittently command” in ¶69) coupled to move (as per “The adjustable seat features may be manually adjustable by the user and/or motorized” in ¶45; as per “The armrest assembly 1222 may include an actuator for some or all of its articulated joints” in ¶69; as per “the headrest may be coupled to the seat back with a hinge joint, one or more longitudinal members, extendible bellows or accordion arrangement, extendable telescoping arrangement, etc.” in ¶78) the plurality of movable components (102; 116, 224); and
a control system (as per “seat controller” in ¶45, as per “configuration controller” in ¶126, as per “robot controller” in ¶126) coupled to control the one or more actuators (as per “automatically … transitioning” in ¶127, as per “Actuators may periodically or intermittently command” in ¶69);
wherein the control system (as per “seat controller” in ¶45, as per “configuration controller” in ¶126, as per “robot controller” in ¶126) comprises coded instructions to automatically activate the one or more actuators (as per “automatically … transitioning” in ¶127, as per “Actuators may periodically or intermittently command” in ¶69) to move (as per “The adjustable seat features may be manually adjustable by the user and/or motorized” in ¶45; as per “The armrest assembly 1222 may include an actuator for some or all of its articulated joints” in ¶69; as per “the headrest may be coupled to the seat back with a hinge joint, one or more longitudinal members, extendible bellows or accordion arrangement, extendable telescoping arrangement, etc.” in ¶78) the plurality of movable components (102; 116, 224) during the operation of the control unit (100, 112) by the clinical user (110), wherein:
the one or more actuators (as per “automatically … transitioning” in ¶127, as per “Actuators may periodically or intermittently command” in ¶69) moves the plurality of movable components (102; 116, 224) by changing one or both of a location (as per “seat height, …, headrest height, in ¶45; as per “armrest height, anterior/posterior position …, and where separate left/right armrests are provided, each armrest may be independently configurable” in ¶45) and an orientation (as per “seat rotation, …, seat tilt, seat back tilt, …, headrest tilt” in ¶45; as per “medial/lateral rotation, and where separate left/right armrests are provided, each armrest may be independently configurable” in ¶45) thereof (102, 116) continually in micro-increments (as per “the user console may dynamically improve ergo-nomics by tracking motions of the user … and in response to the user’s motions, automatically … transitioning to an optimum configuration for the user’s ergonomic, viewing, hardware, and/or other needs, such as for reducing fatigue or injury” in ¶127 and “Actuators may periodically or intermittently command the armrest assembly to move a prescribed amount (e.g., slightly with micro-movements)” in ¶69);
the plurality of movable components (102; 116, 224) comprises a pad (224) against which the clinical user (110) rests their head (as per “resting location for the user’s head” in ¶78) and an armrest (116) on which the clinical user (110) rests an arm (as per “reduce fatigue in the user’s arms” in ¶69); and
the one or more actuators (as per “automatically … transitioning” in ¶127, as per “Actuators may periodically or intermittently command” in ¶69) move the pad (224) through a first set of movements (as per “the height of the headrest may be adjusted … automatically, based on user configurations, profiles, and/or preferences” in ¶78) move the armrest (116) through a second set of movements (as per “Actuators may periodically or intermittently command the armrest assembly to move a prescribed amount (e.g., slightly with micro-movements)” in ¶69).
Savall does not expressly disclose:
wherein the actuators provide movements each of which has a magnitude selected so that the automatic articulation is functionally imperceptible to the clinical user;
wherein the first set of movements is one after another in a predefined first sequence of a plurality of movements commencing at a first time; and
wherein the second set of movements is one after another in a predefined second sequence of a plurality of movements commencing at a second time.
See rejection of Claim 61 for discussion of teachings of Xue and Phipps.
Therefore, from these teachings of Savall, Xue, and Phipps, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall since doing so would enhance the system by: providing actuations at a magnitude in accordance with user preferences; and providing actuations having a movement profile in accordance with user preferences. Applying the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the actuators provide movements each of which has a magnitude selected so that the automatic articulation is functionally imperceptible to the clinical user” in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible as per Xue;
“wherein the first set of movements is one after another in a predefined first sequence of a plurality of movements commencing at a first time” in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible as per Xue and that commence at specified time periods as per Phipps; and
“wherein the second set of movements is one after another in a predefined second sequence of a plurality of movements commencing at a second time” in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible as per Xue and that commence at specified time periods as per Phipps.
As per Claim 83, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 81. Savall does not expressly disclose wherein: the one or more actuators moves the plurality of movable components at a speed functionally imperceptible to the clinical user.
See rejection of Claim 61 for discussion of teachings of Xue and Phipps. Xue further discloses embodiments wherein the duration of each movement is 5 seconds, embodiments wherein the duration of each movement is 25 seconds, and embodiments wherein the duration of each movement is 3 seconds (¶31).
Therefore, from these teachings of Savall, Xue, and Phipps, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall since doing so would enhance the system by: providing actuations at a magnitude in accordance with user preferences; and providing actuations having a movement profile in accordance with user preferences. Applying the teachings of Xue and Phipps to the system of Savall would result in a system that operates “wherein: the one or more actuators moves the plurality of movable components at a speed functionally imperceptible to the clinical user” in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible and at a speed as per Xue and that commence at specified time periods as per Phipps.
Claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savall (US Pub. No. 2018/0078034) in view of Xue (US Pub. No. 2003/0075959), further in view of Phipps (US Pub. No. 2007/0102969), further in view of Udo (US Patent No. 6,033,021).
As per Claim 72, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 71. Savall further discloses wherein the processor is configured to articulate at least one of the plurality of body rests periodically over time at a variable frequency.
See rejection of Claim 61 for discussion of teachings of Xue and Phipps. Xue further discloses embodiments wherein a movement occurs every 5 seconds, embodiments wherein a movement occurs every 25 seconds, and embodiments wherein a movement occurs every 3 seconds (¶31, 33).
Udo discloses a chair (1) that includes a seat (6) and further includes a forward/backward inclination driving device (10) that mechanically drives the seat (6) by continuously changing its angle of inclination (Fig. 1-4; 4:61-5:15). A control system governs the driving system (10) in accordance with an inclining frequency (6:1-32). The inclining frequency is adjustable in a range of a minimum of from about one cycle per five minutes to a maximum of about one cycle per five seconds (6:3-6). In one embodiment, the inclining frequency is set so that it linearly increases from 1 cycle per 8 seconds to 1 cycle per 5 seconds over a specified period (6:8-24). In this way, the system helps alleviate back pain (6:41-43). Like Savall, Udo is concerned with control systems for seats.
Therefore, from these teachings of Savall, Xue, Phipps, and Udo one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Xue, Phipp, and Udo to the system of Savall since doing so would enhance the system by: providing actuations at a magnitude in accordance with user preferences; providing actuations having a movement profile in accordance with user preferences; and helping alleviate back pain. Applying the teachings of Xue, Phipps, and Udo to the system of Savall would result in a system that operates “wherein the processor is configured to articulate at least one of the plurality of body rests periodically over time at a variable frequency” in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible and at a frequency as per Xue, that commence at specified time periods as per Phipps, and that involve a linearly increasing frequency as per Udo.
Claim 73 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savall (US Pub. No. 2018/0078034) in view of Xue (US Pub. No. 2003/0075959), further in view of Phipps (US Pub. No. 2007/0102969), further in view of Fujita (US Patent No. 7,090,300).
As per Claim 73, the combination of Savall, Xue, and Phipps teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 61. Savall does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to articulate at least one of the plurality of body rests periodically over time at a random frequency.
See rejection of Claim 61 for discussion of teachings of Xue and Phipps. Xue further discloses embodiments wherein a movement occurs every 5 seconds, embodiments wherein a movement occurs every 25 seconds, and embodiments wherein a movement occurs every 3 seconds (¶31, 33).
Fujita discloses a seat (10) that includes a spring mechanism (50) that forms a vibration control section to generate low frequency vibration in the seat (10) (Fig. 1; 6:47-7:24). In one embodiment, the spring mechanism (50) generates a random wave having a specified amplitude and a frequency that varies between 0.5 Hz and 15Hz (12:14-37). A person seated in the seat (10) experiences less discomfort over time as a result of the random vibrations compared with a seat that does not vibrate (Fig. 15; 2:14-26, 15:25-64). Like Savall, Fujita is concerned with control systems for seats.
Therefore, from these teachings of Savall, Xue, Phipps, and Fujita one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Xue, Phipp, and Fujita to the system of Savall since doing so would enhance the system by: providing actuations at a magnitude in accordance with user preferences; providing actuations having a movement profile in accordance with user preferences; and providing less discomfort. Applying the teachings of Xue, Phipps, and Fujita to the system of Savall would result in a system that operates “wherein the processor is configured to articulate at least one of the plurality of body rests periodically over time at a variable frequency” in that the system of Savall would be adapted to provide actuations for the armrest (116) and headrest (224) that are imperceptible and at a frequency as per Xue, that commence at specified time periods as per Phipps, and that involves random movements as per Fujita.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 October 2025 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 112 should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 7 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive. Therefore, rejections under 35 USC 112 are not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “The configurations/seating profiles of Savall are for configuring the user control system prior to surgery and are not for actively moving parts of the user control system during surgery” (page 9 of Amendment). Savall does disclose embodiments in which the configuration/seating profiles are used for configuring the user control system prior to surgery (see, e.g., ¶50-51). However, Savall also discloses embodiments in which actuator control to reduce fatigue occurs during a surgical procedure (see, e.g., ¶69, 78, 127-128). Accordingly, Applicant’s assertion is not well-founded. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “Xue is directed to addressing low back fatigue during operation of vehicles” (page 9 of Amendment). Xue does disclose embodiments directed to motor-vehicle seats (see, e.g., ¶8, 12). However, Xue also discloses embodiments more generally directed to persons who have to remain seated for relatively long period of time (¶4, 6). Accordingly, Applicant’s assertion is not well-founded. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “the references fail to disclose or suggest a user control system in which a surgeon or other user sits to operate a teleoperated surgical system and which automatically articulates a pad against which the user rests their head and an armrest on which the user rests an arm in continual micro-increments, where the automatic articulation includes a first set of articulations one after another in a predefined first sequence of a plurality of articulations of the pad commencing at a first time and execute a second set of articulations one after another in a predefined second sequence of a plurality of articulations of the armrest commencing at a second time, in accordance Applicant's amended claims 61 and 81” (page 9 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Savall and Xue and the claim language as amended, rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Savall and Xue are not maintained. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “Udo and Fujita fail to provide disclosure sufficient to cure the deficiencies in Savall and Xue identified above” (page 9 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Udo and Fujita teach or suggest the concepts in the amended claim language. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656