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 .
This communication is in response to communication on 02-FEB-2026. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-8 have been rejected as follows.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02-FEB-2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02-FEB-2026, with respect to the rejections of independent claim 1, 7, and 8 under 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 112(f) rejection.
On page 12, Applicant argues that MOLL is silent to any exclusive and simultaneous operation that is a preset allocation based on association information, stored in a memory of the robot and fixed for an operation of the self-propelled robot. Firstly, the broadest reasonable of “based on” includes any dependence of the allocation/pairing on association stored in a memory, which is taught by the rejection’s citation of the prestored “pairing” in a memory. Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an operation” includes any action taken by the robot. The “preset allocation” is inherent to the operation and control of the arms, which is taught by the prior art MOLL. The original prior art combination is maintained, and a new rejection has been made in light of the amendments, which can be seen below.
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.
Claim 1-3, and 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moll et al. (US 2002/0082612 A1) in view of Hashimoto (US 2023/0134949 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moll ‘612 discloses A robot system, comprising a travelable carriage (300) (P.0067 “…The cart 300 typically has wheels or castors to render it mobile….”, Fig 1 & 4) and at least one robotic arm mounted on the carriage (P .0067 “…The cart 300 carries three robotic arm assemblies or manipulators that move a surgical instrument during a surgical procedure…” Fig 1 & 4); and a plurality of manipulators, each including at least a processor and a memory, that manipulate the robot (Fig 1 Control stations 200 & 200A, Fig. 26 control stations at 950, 952), the plurality of manipulators including at least: a first manipulator (200 or 950) that operates some of a plurality of to-be-operated parts of the movable robot (Fig. 1 - P.0057 “…Operator O works at master control station 200. Operator O views a display provided by the workstation and manipulates left and right input devices. The tele-surgical system moves surgical instruments mounted on robotic arms of slave cart 300 in response to movement of the input devices….” ), the plurality of to-be-operated parts including at least the carriage (as previously mapped to element 300) and the at least one robotic arm (element 302, 312) and a second manipulator (200A or 952) that operates some or all of the remainder of the plurality of to-be-operated parts simultaneously with the operations of the first manipulator(P.0060 “…master control station 200, assistant controller 200A, cart 300, …may allow complex surgeries to be performed by selectively handing-off control of one or more robotic arms between operator O and one or more assistants…”; This paragraph discloses that the second control console 200A can control some or all of the robotic arms when there is a hand-off from the first control console 200. This also teaches that whichever robot arms that are not being controlled by the first control console 200, they can be controlled by the second control console 200A to aid surgeon “O” in difficult or complex surgical procedure), wherein the simultaneous operation by the first manipulator and the second manipulator (Paragraph [221-222], “For a system having multiple master controls, the system may be arranged so that two operators can operate the same surgical system at the same time by controlling different slave manipulators and swapping manipulators as previously described”; It is also noted that the claim limitations do not limit the robotic system to just one carriage, and still includes the interpretation of two carriages as taught by Figure 25) is a preset allocation based on association information stored in a memory of the self-propelled robot that associates each of the plurality of to-be-operated parts with the respective manipulator, the preset allocation being fixed for an operation of the self-propelled robot (Paragraph [132], “In the embodiment of FIG. 11A, servo timing generator STG includes a memory storing the master/slave pair assignments 1016. These pair assignments are communicated to the pre- and post-processors SCI, SCO, so that the information transferred to and from the control processor CTP is appropriate for the controller, and so that the commands from the appropriate controller are properly understood and transmitted to the drive system for the appropriate joints.”)
Moll ‘612 does not explicitly contain the term “exclusively operates”. However, Moll ‘612 discloses that the robot arms being controlled by surgeon “O” can only be controlled by the second control console with a hand-off or when they are not in used by the first control console. This clearly teaches exclusive control of some of the robotic arms by the first control console 200 or 950. The term hand-off means that the first control console relinquishes the control of the robot arms to the second control console. This clearly teaches exclusive control of some or all of the robotic arms by the second control console.While Moll ‘612 discloses that the robot carriage is mobile via wheels or casters, it does not mention that the carriage is self-propelled.
Hashimoto ‘949 discloses a surgical robot having robotic surgical arms mounted on a self-propelled carriage (Fig. 1 & 2 - P. 0018 “… The medical robot 10A includes: a robotic arm 11A; an end effector 12A at a tip of the robotic arm 11A; a traveling structure 13A that supports the robotic arm 11A and causes the robotic arm 11A to travel; and an interface. The medical robot 10A may be supplied with electric power from an external commercial power supply, may include a storage battery as an electric power source, or may have both of these configurations….”, “…the traveling structure 13A may be an AGV (Automated Guided Vehicle) …”. Hashimoto teaches that surgical robot arms mounted on movable carriage could be an AGV so that remote control console could direct it to patient’s operating location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Moll’ 612 robot carriage to an AGV so that the robotic surgical arms could be controlled to move toward patient’s operating location to facilitate subsequent surgical procedures as taught by Hashimoto ‘949.
Regarding claim 2, Moll ‘612 further teaches: The robot system of claim 1, wherein the at least one robotic arm includes a first robotic arm operated by the first manipulator (200 or 950; Fig. 1 - P.0057 “…Operator O works at master control station 200. Operator O views a display provided by the workstation and manipulates left and right input devices. The tele-surgical system moves surgical instruments mounted on robotic arms of slave cart 300 in response to movement of the input devices….”) and a second robotic arm operated by the second manipulator (200A or 952; P.0060 “…master control station 200, assistant controller 200A, cart 300, …may allow complex surgeries to be performed by selectively handing-off control of one or more robotic arms between operator O and one or more assistants…”This paragraph discloses that the second control console 200A can control some or all of the robotic arms when there is a hand-off from the first control console 200. This also teaches that whichever robot arms that are not being controlled by the first control console 200, they can be controlled by the second control console 200A to aid surgeon “O” in difficult or complex surgical procedure).
Moll ‘612 does not explicitly contain the term “exclusively operated”. However, Moll ‘612 discloses that the robot arms being controlled by surgeon “O” can only be controlled by the second control console with a hand-off or when they are not in used by the first control console. This clearly teaches exclusive control of some of the robotic arms by the first control console 200 or 950. The term hand-off means that the first control console relinquishes the control of the robot arms to the second control console. This clearly teaches exclusive control of some or all of the robotic arms by the second control console.
Regarding claim 3, Moll ‘612 and Hashimoto ‘949 teach the limitations as stated above, including a robot system with manipulator consoles that control respective robotic arms. Moll ‘612 further teaches: The robot system of claim 1, wherein the at least one robotic arm includes a first robotic arm and a second robotic arm (P .0067 “…The cart 300 carries three robotic arm assemblies or manipulators that move a surgical instrument during a surgical procedure…” Fig 1 & 4), and wherein two of the first robotic arm, and the second robotic arm are operated by one of the first manipulator (200 or 950) ([Fig. 1 - P.0057 “…Operator O works at master control station 200. Operator O views a display provided by the workstation and manipulates left and right input devices. The tele-surgical system moves surgical instruments mounted on robotic arms of slave cart 300 in response to movement of the input devices…”; Interpreting this limitation with respect to the alternative in reference to “two of the…” and “one of…”).
Moll ‘612 does not explicitly contain the term “exclusively operated”. However, Moll ‘612 discloses that the robot arms being controlled by surgeon “O” can only be controlled by the second control console with a hand-off or when they are not in used by the first control console. This clearly teaches exclusive control of some of the robotic arms by the first control console 200 or 950. The term hand-off means that the first control console relinquishes the control of the robot arms to the second control console. This clearly teaches exclusive control of some or all of the robotic arms by the first control console.
Regarding claim 4, Moll ‘612 teaches: The robot system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of manipulators include a manual operator that allows an operator to manually operate the plurality of to-be-operated parts (element 200).
While Moll ‘612 discloses the manual control station, it does not mention an automatic operation console.
However, Hashimoto ‘949 teaches: and an automatic operator that automatically operates the plurality of to- be-operated parts (element 1602; Paragraph [57]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the manual control stations for the robotic surgical arms of Moll’ 612, to include the autonomous manipulation command unit that can function in an autonomous manipulation mode, as taught by Hashimoto ‘949. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including control stations for robotic surgical arms, including a manual control station, and a control station with autonomous manipulation command unit that can function in an autonomous manipulation mode.
Regarding claim 5, Moll ‘612 teaches: The robot system of any one of claim 1, wherein the self- propelled robot has association circuitry including a processor and memory, the association circuitry being adapted to, by the processor executing a given program stored in the memory (Figure 11; element 420): acquire from each of the plurality of manipulators, to-be- operated part specifying information that specifies an operation target among the plurality of to-be-operated parts (Paragraph [207-209]); and generate the association information in which each of the plurality of to-be- operated parts is associated with any one of the plurality of manipulators (Paragraph [246, 219]), and store the association information (Paragraph [132, 128], "The information on both the master and slave linkages in structure may be based on a model of these linkage and support structures, on design specifications for the linkage and support structures, and/or on measurements of individual linkages, which may be stored in a non-volatile memory of the slave and/or master control, such as by burning calibration information into a memory of the appropriate structure")
Regarding claim 6, Moll ‘612 teaches: The robot system of claim 5, wherein the self-propelled robot has a robot controller that controls operation of the self-propelled robot, wherein the association circuitry is adapted to, by the processor executing a given program stored in the memory (Figure 11; element 420): acquire a manipulation signal for a first to-be-operated part among the plurality of to-be-operated parts (Figure 23B; element 916, 918), and an identification symbol of the manipulator that outputted the manipulation signal (Figure 22A-22B; element Left Side, Right Side; Paragraph [192]); refer to the association information, and check that the identification symbol corresponds to that of the manipulator associated with the first to-be-operated part (Paragraph [246, 219]); and when the check is positive, send the manipulation signal to the robot controller as a checked manipulation signal for the first to-be-operated part (Figure 23B; element 918), and when the check is negative, discard the manipulation signal (element 919; Paragraph [193], "The step at 919 involves making a comparison between the allocated left and right hand positions with a previous left and right hand allocation. Should these allocations be the same, the association between masters and slaves stays as it was as indicated at 921. Should the allocation not be the same, the step indicated at 923 is performed."), wherein the robot controller is adapted to operate the first to-be- operated part according to the checked manipulation signal received (Figure 23B; element "CONNECT SELECTED MASTER/TOOL”).
Regarding claim 7, Moll ‘612 teaches: A robot working method using a robot having a travelable carriage (300) (P.0067 “…The cart 300 typically has wheels or castors to render it mobile….”, Fig 1 & 4) and at least one robotic arm mounted on the carriage (P .0067 “…The cart 300 carries three robotic arm assemblies or manipulators that move a surgical instrument during a surgical procedure…” Fig 1 & 4), and a plurality of manipulators each including at least a processor and a memory, that manipulate the robot (Fig 1 Control stations 200 & 200A, Fig. 26 control stations at 950, 952), the plurality of manipulators including at least a first manipulator (200 or 950) and a second manipulator (200A or 952), the method comprising: operating, by the first manipulator (200 or 950), some of a plurality of to-be-operated parts of the robot (Fig. 1 - P.0057 “…Operator O works at master control station 200. Operator O views a display provided by the workstation and manipulates left and right input devices. The tele-surgical system moves surgical instruments mounted on robotic arms of slave cart 300 in response to movement of the input devices….”), the plurality of to-be-operated parts including at least the carriage (as previously mapped to element 300) and the at least one robotic arm (element 302, 312); and operating, by the second manipulator (200A or 952), some or all of the remainder of the plurality of to-be-operated parts simultaneously with the operations of the first manipulator (P.0060 “…master control station 200, assistant controller 200A, cart 300, …may allow complex surgeries to be performed by selectively handing-off control of one or more robotic arms between operator O and one or more assistants…” This paragraph discloses that the second control console 200A can control some or all of the robotic arms when there is a hand-off from the first control console 200. This also teaches that whichever robot arms that are not being controlled by the first control console 200, they can be controlled by the second control console 200A to aid surgeon “O” in difficult or complex surgical procedure), wherein the simultaneous operation by the first manipulator and the second manipulator (Paragraph [221-222], “For a system having multiple master controls, the system may be arranged so that two operators can operate the same surgical system at the same time by controlling different slave manipulators and swapping manipulators as previously described”; It is also noted that the claim limitations do not limit the robotic system to just one carriage, and still includes the interpretation of two carriages as taught by Figure 25) is a preset allocation based on association information stored in a memory of the self-propelled robot that associates each of the plurality of to-be-operated parts with the respective manipulator, the preset allocation being fixed for an operation of the robot (Paragraph [132], “In the embodiment of FIG. 11A, servo timing generator STG includes a memory storing the master/slave pair assignments 1016. These pair assignments are communicated to the pre- and post-processors SCI, SCO, so that the information transferred to and from the control processor CTP is appropriate for the controller, and so that the commands from the appropriate controller are properly understood and transmitted to the drive system for the appropriate joints.”)
Moll ‘612 does not explicitly contain the term “exclusively operating”. However, Moll ‘612 discloses that the robot arms being controlled by surgeon “O” can only be controlled by the second control console with a hand-off or when they are not in used by the first control console. This clearly teaches exclusive control of some of the robotic arms by the first control console 200 or 950. The term hand-off means that the first control console relinquishes the control of the robot arms to the second control console. This clearly teaches exclusive control of some or all of the robotic arms by the second control console.
While Moll ‘612 discloses that the robot carriage is mobile via wheels or casters, it does not mention that the carriage is self-propelled.
Hashimoto ‘949 discloses a surgical robot having robotic surgical arms mounted on a self-propelled carriage (Fig. 1 & 2 - P. 0018 “… The medical robot 10A includes: a robotic arm 11A; an end effector 12A at a tip of the robotic arm 11A; a traveling structure 13A that supports the robotic arm 11A and causes the robotic arm 11A to travel; and an interface. The medical robot 10A may be supplied with electric power from an external commercial power supply, may include a storage battery as an electric power source, or may have both of these configurations….”, “…the traveling structure 13A may be an AGV (Automated Guided Vehicle) …”. Hashimoto teaches that surgical robot arms mounted on movable carriage could be an AGV so that remote control console could direct it to patient’s operating location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Moll’ 612 robot carriage to an AGV so that the robotic surgical arms could be controlled to move toward patient’s operating location to facilitate subsequent surgical procedures as taught by Hashimoto ‘949.
Regarding claim 8, Moll ‘612 teaches: A robot system, comprising: a robot having a travelable carriage (300) (P.0067 “…The cart 300 typically has wheels or castors to render it mobile….”, Fig 1 & 4) and at least one robotic arm mounted on the carriage (P .0067 “…The cart 300 carries three robotic arm assemblies or manipulators that move a surgical instrument during a surgical procedure…” Fig 1 & 4); and a plurality of manipulators each including at least a processor and a memory, that manipulate the robot (Fig 1 Control stations 200 & 200A, Fig. 26 control stations at 950, 952), the plurality of manipulators including at least: a first manipulator (200 or 950) that operates the at least one robotic arm (Fig. 1 - P.0057 “…Operator O works at master control station 200. Operator O views a display provided by the workstation and manipulates left and right input devices. The tele-surgical system moves surgical instruments mounted on robotic arms of slave cart 300 in response to movement of the input devices….”) and a second manipulator that operates (200A or 952) simultaneously with the operations of the first manipulator (P.0060 “…master control station 200, assistant controller 200A, cart 300, …may allow complex surgeries to be performed by selectively handing-off control of one or more robotic arms between operator O and one or more assistants…”; This paragraph discloses that the second control console 200A can control some or all of the robotic arms when there is a hand-off from the first control console 200. This also teaches that whichever robot arms that are not being controlled by the first control console 200, they can be controlled by the second control console 200A to aid surgeon “O” in difficult or complex surgical procedure), wherein the simultaneous operation by the first manipulator and the second manipulator (Paragraph [221-222], “For a system having multiple master controls, the system may be arranged so that two operators can operate the same surgical system at the same time by controlling different slave manipulators and swapping manipulators as previously described”; It is also noted that the claim limitations do not limit the robotic system to just one carriage, and still includes the interpretation of two carriages as taught by Figure 25) is a preset allocation based on association information stored in a memory of the self-propelled robot that associates each of the plurality of to-be-operated parts with the respective manipulator, the preset allocation being fixed for an operation of the self-propelled robot (Paragraph [132], “In the embodiment of FIG. 11A, servo timing generator STG includes a memory storing the master/slave pair assignments 1016. These pair assignments are communicated to the pre- and post-processors SCI, SCO, so that the information transferred to and from the control processor CTP is appropriate for the controller, and so that the commands from the appropriate controller are properly understood and transmitted to the drive system for the appropriate joints.”)
Moll ‘612 does not explicitly contain the term “exclusively operates”. However, Moll ‘612 discloses that the robot arms being controlled by surgeon “O” can only be controlled by the second control console with a hand-off or when they are not in used by the first control console. This clearly teaches exclusive control of some of the robotic arms by the first control console 200 or 950. The term hand-off means that the first control console relinquishes the control of the robot arms to the second control console. This clearly teaches exclusive control of some or all of the robotic arms by the second control console.
While Moll ‘612 discloses that the robot carriage is mobile via wheels or casters, it does not mention that a manipulator that operates the autonomously travelable carriage
Hashimoto ‘949 discloses: a manipulator (element 30; Paragraph [56] "a manual manipulation mode in which the medical support robot 100 performs an operation corresponding to a manipulation command received from the manipulation inputter 30 in accordance with the manipulation command", Paragraph [56] " an autonomous manipulation mode in which the medical support robot 100 automatically, i.e., autonomously performs a predetermined operation in accordance with the program”, Paragraph [26], “The controller 106 controls operations of the… the traveling structure 104, and the like”, Paragraph [76] "For example, the controller 106 can perform control of causing the traveling structure 104 to move to the medical robots 10A and 10B. In this case, the controller 106 can perform such control in both the autonomous manipulation mode and the manual manipulation mode") that operates the travelable carriage of surgical robot having robotic surgical arms mounted on the carriage (Fig. 1 & 2; Paragraph [18], “… The medical robot 1+0A includes: a robotic arm 11A; an end effector 12A at a tip of the robotic arm 11A; a traveling structure 13A that supports the robotic arm 11A and causes the robotic arm 11A to travel; and an interface. The medical robot 10A may be supplied with electric power from an external commercial power supply, may include a storage battery as an electric power source, or may have both of these configurations….”, “…the traveling structure 13A may be an AGV (Automated Guided Vehicle) …”; Paragraph [59] "In the manual manipulation mode, the traveling command unit 1604 outputs an operation command by which the traveling structure 104 travels based on, for example, the movement direction, orientation, speed, and acceleration of the base 101 corresponding to the manipulation command", Paragraph [59] "In the autonomous manipulation mode, the traveling command unit 1604 outputs an operation command by which the traveling structure 104 autonomously travels along a route set in the program").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Moll’ 612 robot with different stations controlling different robotic arms and a carriage, to the carriage being an AGV so that the robotic surgical arms could be controlled to move by a manipulation inputter toward patient’s operating location to facilitate subsequent surgical procedures as taught by Hashimoto ‘949. Exclusive control of the carriage with one of the plurality of stations of taught by the prior art because a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when the travelling structure is being controlled to move, as taught by Hashimoto, this requires manipulation command received from only manipulation inputter/control stations being utilized.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSE TRAMANH TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5879. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm 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, 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.
/A.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656