DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to arguments concerning 35 U.S.C. 112
Applicant argues that interpretation of the claims under 112(f), and the subsequent rejections under 112(a) and (b) are improper. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would understand each of the claimed "units" to be structural control modules, circuitry, hardware, software executing hardware, and/or associated control components. Upon review of the specification, Examiner agrees that "input device" is described in a non-limiting way as a joystick (spec [40], assuming "input device unit" is the same as "master input device unit"). However, the other terms highlighted in the rejection lack structural limitation.
The specification describes each unit only in terms of its functionality, but fails to disclose specifically what each unit is. Each of the screen magnification control unit, operation scale control unit, end effector driving unit, operation command generation unit, input device operation scale adjustment unit, input device operation scale change unit, operation mode control unit, and change ratio setting unit are described as being sub-parts of either a local place slave unit or a remote place master unit (see spec [37-38] and fig. 1). However, the specification fails to describe the corresponding structures of the local place slave unit and the remote place master unit. Paragraph 38 of the specification states that the local place slave unit and the remote place master unit include an additional feature for controlling the surgical robot, but it is unclear what this feature is.
The claimed "units" do not have a customary established meaning in the art and could easily be interpreted as any number of means for effecting the claimed functions. For this reason, the invocation of 112(f) is maintained. Similarly, the rejections under 112(a) and (b) are maintained because the specification fails to adequately describe the screen magnification control unit, operation scale control unit, end effector driving unit, operation command generation unit, input device operation scale adjustment unit, input device operation scale change unit, operation mode control unit, and change ratio setting unit.
In response to arguments concerning prior art rejections
Applicant argues on page 11 that Denlinger fails to teach the newly amended limitations of claim 1. However, as shown in the rejection below, the combination of Denlinger and Peine suggest these new limitations. Both Denlinger and Peine recognize the problems associated with manually adjusting magnification, and Peine suggests altering motion scaling when magnification is adjusted.
Applicant argues on page 12 that Denlinger fails to teach a change ratio setting unit configured to set a change ratio of the first operation scale to a magnification adjustment value and a screen change ratio to the first operation scale adjustment value as set forth in claim 5. Examiner has augmented the rejection of the other limitations to illustrate that Denlinger's system shares the same functionality as the claimed "units," including the change ratio setting unit.
Applicant further argues on page 12 that the cited references fail to teach a first operation mode. However, Denlinger's motion scaling profiles may be interpreted as operation modes. When modified via Peine as proposed in the rejection of claim 1, any operation mode may be a mode in which a change in the magnification of the screen causes the first operation scale to be adjusted in conjunction with the change in the magnification of the screen.
Applicant argues on page 13 that the cited references fail to teach the operation modes of claim 3. However, Denlinger's scaling profiles teach the aspect of multiple operation modes, and Peine illustrates the benefit of controlling screen magnification to be adjusted in conjunction with increase or decrease of an operation scale in any operation mode.
Applicant argues on page 14 that the cited references fail to teach the limitations of claim 4 wherein the first operation mode control unit transmitting a magnification adjustment value according to the first operation mode and the second operation control unit transmitting a first operation scale adjustment value according to the second operation mode. However, Denlinger's user profiles each have their own linear relationships. Once again, Peine teaches the aspect of controlling screen magnification to be adjusted in conjunction with increase or decrease of an operation scale in any operation mode.
Continuing on page 14, Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach the aspects of claim 7 wherein the decreasing or increasing of the screen magnification is performed in a second operation mode in which a change in the first operation scale causes the screen magnification to be adjusted in conjunction with the change in the first operation scale. Denlinger teaches a linear relationship between magnification and scaling according to a selected scaling profile (operation mode), and Peine teaches the aspect of altering screen magnification as a result of altering scaling.
The above points are elaborated in the rejections to follow.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “screen magnification control unit” (claim 1), “operation scale control unit” (claim 1), “end effector driving unit” (claims 1-2), “operation command generation unit” (claim 2), “an input device operation scale adjustment unit” (claim 2), “input device operation scale change unit” (claim 2), “operation mode control unit” (claims 3-4, 11-12, 15-16), “change ratio setting unit” (claim 5, 13, 17), and “priority mode setting unit” (claims 8, 18-20). The specification provides no corresponding structure for these limitations. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets these limitations as hardware and/or instructions executed on generic computing hardware.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As noted above with respect to claim interpretation under 112(f), each of the claimed elements lacks corresponding structure in the specification.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11-13, and 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: “screen magnification control unit” (claim 1), “operation scale control unit” (claim 1), “end effector driving unit” (claims 1-2), “operation command generation unit” (claim 2), “an input device operation scale adjustment unit” (claim 2), “input device operation scale change unit” (claim 2), “operation mode control unit” (claims 3-4, 11-12, 15-16), “change ratio setting unit” (claim 5, 13, 17), and “priority mode setting unit” (claims 8, 18-20). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denlinger ( Us-20200289222-A1) in view of Peine (US-20180014897-A1).
Claim 1
Denlinger teaches
an input device unit configured to generate an operation command of the end effector according to an operation of a user in a remote place;
(Denlinger - [0003] In various embodiments, a robotic surgical system for treating a patient is disclosed. The robotic surgical system includes a surgical tool movable relative to the patient and a user input device including a base and a controller movable relative to the base to effect a motion of the surgical tool in response to a user input force.)
(Denlinger - [0094] … However, the surgeon 118 can be located in a different room, a completely different building, or other remote location from the patient 112 allowing for remote surgical procedures.)
EXAMINER NOTE: For the following limitations, Examiner refers to the following excerpt of Denlinger - [0259] (cited below) to demonstrate the functionality of the screen magnification unit, operation scale control unit, end effector driving unit. See Examiner notes below each limitation.
(Denlinger - [0259] Accordingly, the control circuit 1532 scales 2504 the movement of the robotic surgical system component based on the actual or estimated visualization system magnification. In one aspect, the control circuit 1532 can scale 2504 the robotic surgical system component movement by applying a scale factor that is applied to the generated control signals for controlling the movement of the various components of the robotic surgical system component to produce the robotic surgical system output motion. The relationship between the visualization system magnification and the scaling applied to the robotic surgical system component movement can be defined algorithmically (which can be computed at run-time or pre-calculated for particular values), represented by a series of movement scale factors stored in a (e.g., prefetched) lookup table or other storage that are indexed according to magnification values, and so on. In various aspects, the control circuit 1532 can continue monitoring the visualization system magnification and adjusting the output movement of the robotic surgical system component accordingly throughout a surgical procedure.)
In the above passage, Denlinger further teaches
a screen magnification control unit configured to increase or decrease a screen magnification of a captured image in conjunction with adjustment of a first operation scale of the end effector according to a screen magnification change input or an operation mode change;
EXAMINER NOTE: See Denlinger [0259]. The control circuit "can continue monitoring the visualization system magnification and adjusting the output movement of the robotic surgical system. The control circuit functions as a screen magnification control unit.
an operation scale control unit configured to adjust the first operation scale of the end effector in conjunction with increase or decrease of a screen magnification,
EXAMINER NOTE: The control circuit "scales 2504 the movement of the robotic surgical system component based on the actual or estimated visualization system magnification." The control circuit therefore adjusts the operation scale of the end effector and thus functions as an operation scale control unit.
and transmit the first operation scale of the end effector, which is converted according to an operation scale change input or an operation mode change, to the screen magnification control unit; and
(Denlinger - [0259] … In one aspect, the control circuit 1532 can scale 2504 the robotic surgical system component movement by applying a scale factor that is applied to the generated control signals for controlling the movement of the various components of the robotic surgical system component to produce the robotic surgical system output motion. The relationship between the visualization system magnification and the scaling applied to the robotic surgical system component movement can be defined algorithmically (which can be computed at run-time or pre-calculated for particular values), represented by a series of movement scale factors )
EXAMINER NOTE: The control circuit applies a scaling factor to the robot algorithmically in conjunction with the magnification
an end effector driving unit configured to change a movement distance of the end effector according to the first operation scale,
(Denlinger - [0116] An input control device, such as the input control device 1000, for example, can be configured to control the translation and rotation of the end effector 1052.
[0130] In certain instances, the rolling, yawing, and pitching motions of the input control device 1000 are translatable motions that define corresponding input control motions for the related end effector. In various instances, the input control device 1000 can utilize adjustable scaling and/or gains such that the motion of the end effector is scalable in relationship to the control motions delivered at the wrist 1010.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Alternatively, returning to [0259] cited above, the control circuit can "scale 2504 the robotic surgical system component movement by applying a scale factor that is applied to the generated control signals for controlling the movement of the various components of the robotic surgical system component to produce the robotic surgical system output motion." The control circuit thus changes a movement distance of the end effector according to the scale factor applied to the control signals.
Denlinger alone may not explicitly teach the following limitations in the claimed combination. However, Peine teaches
wherein when the first operation scale of the end effector is converted according to the operation scale change input or the operation mode change, …
increase or decrease the screen magnification of the captured image based on the converted first operation scale received from the operation scale control unit.
(Peine -[0071] The processing unit 30 may be operatively associated with the imaging arm 52 such that as the scaling factor S.sub.F is increased or decreased the processing unit 30 zooms the imaging device 56 in and out from the surgical site “S” to match the movement of the input handles 42 within the predefined workspace “W” to the movement of the tools 20 within the surgical site “S” as viewed by the clinician on the display 44.)
Denlinger states that it is desirable for magnification to scale automatically as needed by the surgeon.
(Denlinger - [0238] Many robotic surgical systems force users to manually adjust the magnification or FOV of the visualization system during the course of a surgical procedure. However, this can force users to divert their attention from the surgical task at hand, which can cause mistakes during the surgical procedure and force surgeons to reorient themselves each time the magnification is changed, which can take up time during the surgical procedure. Therefore, it can be desirable for the visualization system 1500 associated with a robotic surgical system 150 to automatically adjust or scale its magnification depending upon the needs of the surgeon during the surgical procedure.)
Denlinger does not specifically mention altering the magnification when the scaling factor changes. However, Peine appears to also recognize the issue of distraction and suggests altering the magnification when scaling factor changes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Denlinger's system with Peine's suggestion to adjust magnification as a result of scaling factor in order to match the input with the viewing area in order to prevent undue clutching after scaling adjustment, thus saving time and reducing distractions.
(Peine - [0003] … Since the input device handle has a fixed range of motion, this meant that for larger scaling factors the surgeon may have reached an end of the range of motion of an input handle more often. The surgeon then had to “clutch” the handle to decouple the motion of the input handles from the end effector so that the surgeon could move the handles to a new position within the workspace of the user interface away from the end of the range motion while the instruments remain stationary. ... This clutching process is time consuming and distracting to surgeons.)
Claim 2
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Denlinger further teaches
wherein the input device unit comprises:
an operation command generation unit configured to generate an operation command for the end effector;
(Denlinger - [0284] The process 3100 further includes causing 3106 the surgical tool 1050 to be moved in response to the motion control signal in accordance with the first motion scaling profile or the second motion scaling profile based on the user selection signal. Moving the surgical tool 1050 can be accomplished using one or more motors, for example, as described above in connection with FIGS. 1-6, for example.)
an input device operation scale adjustment unit configured to adjust a second operation scale of the end effector; and
(Denlinger - [0135] In various aspects, the actuation buttons 1026 and 1028 are used to select between different motion scaling modes of the surgical tool 1050. For example, the actuation buttons 1026 and 1028 can be assigned to a gross motion mode and fine motion mode of the surgical tool 1050. The motion scaling of the surgical tool 1050 can be selectably adjusted to user input forces received by the input control device 1000, for example.)
EXAMINER NOTE: In addition to the types of automatic scaling described above in [0259], the user may also adjust the scaling. User-adjusted scaling corresponds to second operation scale.
an input device operation scale change unit configured to change an operation scale of the end effector limited according to the first operation scale according to the second operation scale, and to transmit the changed operation scale to an end effector driving unit.
(Denlinger - [0286] As described above, a user may select from a number of available profiles of motion scaling using the motion-scaling profile selector 3014, but the user-selected motion scaling profiles can be further tweaked or adjusted by the control circuit 1532 based upon certain factors such as, for example, the direction of motion of the surgical tool 1050. Other factors are also considered such as, for example, whether the input control device 1000 is in a gross motion mode or a fine motion mode. In various examples, certain motion scaling profiles are only available to the user in only one of the gross motion mode and the fine motion mode.)
Claim 3
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 2 as outlined above. As shown above, the cited combination also teaches
an operation mode control unit including:
a first operation mode control unit configured to control the first operation scale to be adjusted in conjunction with the increase or decrease of the screen magnification while increasing/decreasing the screen magnification according to a first operation mode when a screen magnification change is operated; and
(Denlinger - [0259] Accordingly, the control circuit 1532 scales 2504 the movement of the robotic surgical system component based on the actual or estimated visualization system magnification. … The relationship between the visualization system magnification and the scaling applied to the robotic surgical system component movement can be defined algorithmically (which can be computed at run-time or pre-calculated for particular values), represented by a series of movement scale factors stored in a (e.g., prefetched) lookup table or other storage that are indexed according to magnification values, and so on. In various aspects, the control circuit 1532 can continue monitoring the visualization system magnification and adjusting the output movement of the robotic surgical system component accordingly throughout a surgical procedure.
[0260] FIG. 24 is a graph 2550 of the magnification of the camera assembly versus the distance between the robotic surgical system component and the patient according to prophetic implementations of the process 2500 illustrated in FIG. 23. The vertical axis 2552 represents the movement scale factor μ and the horizontal axis 2554 represents the magnification of the visualization system 1500. As represented in this particular graph 2550, as the magnitude of the scale factor μ increases vertically along the vertical axis 2552, the relative output movement of the robotic surgical system is decreased, requiring more input motion by the user to move the surgical tools 1050 a smaller distance. The first line 2560 and the second line 2562 represent examples of the relationship between the movement scale factor μ and the visualization system magnification in different implementations of the process 2550.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Denlinger's control circuit includes the functionality of the operation mode control units. The scaling is caried out according to the linear relationship shown in Fig. 24, which shows how scaling increases/decreases as magnification increases/decreases.
As shown above, Denlinger's control unit offers the functionality of an operation mode control unit. Denlinger's control unit increases/decreases the scale when magnification is increased/decreased according to the relationship in Fig. 24. As shown in the rejection of claim 2, Denlinger also teaches multiple scaling profiles, which may be interpreted as alternative operation modes. The modification proposed in the rejection of claim 1 demonstrates the obvious improvement to control screen magnification to be adjusted in conjunction with increase or decrease of an operation scale in any operation mode. Through this, the cited combination also teaches
a second operation mode control unit configured to control the screen magnification to be adjusted in conjunction with the increase or decrease of the first operation scale according to a second operation mode when an operation scale change is operated.
(Peine -[0071] The processing unit 30 may be operatively associated with the imaging arm 52 such that as the scaling factor S.sub.F is increased or decreased the processing unit 30 zooms the imaging device 56 in and out from the surgical site “S” to match the movement of the input handles 42 within the predefined workspace “W” to the movement of the tools 20 within the surgical site “S” as viewed by the clinician on the display 44.)
Claim 4
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 3 as outlined above. The cited combination further teaches
wherein the first operation mode control unit controls the first operation scale to be adjusted in conjunction with the increase or decrease of the screen magnification by transmitting a magnification adjustment value according to the first operation mode, and
(Denlinger - [0256] Accordingly, the control circuit 1532 executing the process 2500 determines 2502 the current magnification of the visualization system 1500. In one aspect, the visualization system 1500, the camera 1520, or a control system thereof is configured to continually update a memory or database with the current magnification value at which the visualization system 1500 is set. In such an aspect, the control circuit 1532 can determine 2502 the visualization system 1500 magnification by retrieving the magnification value reflecting the current magnification of the visualization system 1500 from the memory or database
[0259] Accordingly, the control circuit 1532 scales 2504 the movement of the robotic surgical system component based on the actual or estimated visualization system magnification.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Updating a memory or database with the current magnification value corresponds to transmitting a magnification adjustment value. The motion scaling is set based on this transmission.
the second operation mode control unit controls the screen magnification to be adjusted in conjunction with the increase or decrease of the first operation scale by transmitting a first operation scale adjustment value according to the second operation mode.
(Denlinger - [0286] As described above, a user may select from a number of available profiles of motion scaling using the motion-scaling profile selector 3014, but the user-selected motion scaling profiles can be further tweaked or adjusted by the control circuit 1532 based upon certain factors such as, for example, the direction of motion of the surgical tool 1050. Other factors are also considered such as, for example, whether the input control device 1000 is in a gross motion mode or a fine motion mode. In various examples, certain motion scaling profiles are only available to the user in only one of the gross motion mode and the fine motion mode.)
(Peine -[0071] The processing unit 30 may be operatively associated with the imaging arm 52 such that as the scaling factor S.sub.F is increased or decreased the processing unit 30 zooms the imaging device 56 in and out from the surgical site “S” to match the movement of the input handles 42 within the predefined workspace “W” to the movement of the tools 20 within the surgical site “S” as viewed by the clinician on the display 44.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Denlinger's control circuit functions as operation mode control unit. Denlinger teaches the adjustment of the effector movement scale with a change in magnification, while Peine teaches the adjustment of magnification with a change in movement scale. Denlinger facilitates their change through transmitting a value to a database. Denlinger's profile selection (operation mode selection) provides the desired relationship between magnification and scaling. In light of Denlinger transmitting this value to facilitate scale adjustment, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to also facilitate magnification adjustment in a similar manner.
Claim 5
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Denlinger further teaches
a change ratio setting unit configured to set a change ratio of the first operation scale to a magnification adjustment value and a screen change ratio to the first operation scale adjustment value
(Denlinger - [0259] Accordingly, the control circuit 1532 scales 2504 the movement of the robotic surgical system component based on the actual or estimated visualization system magnification. In one aspect, the control circuit 1532 can scale 2504 the robotic surgical system component movement by applying a scale factor that is applied to the generated control signals for controlling the movement of the various components of the robotic surgical system component to produce the robotic surgical system output motion. The relationship between the visualization system magnification and the scaling applied to the robotic surgical system component movement can be defined algorithmically (which can be computed at run-time or pre-calculated for particular values), represented by a series of movement scale factors stored in a (e.g., prefetched) lookup table or other storage that are indexed according to magnification values, and so on.
[0261] … In another aspect, represented by the second line 2562, there is a linear relationship between the movement scale factor μ and the visualization system magnification. In this aspect, the magnitude of scaling of the robotic surgical system component movement decreases as the robotic surgical system component, for example, the camera 1520, approaches the tissue and/or critical structure. )
EXAMINER NOTE: Because the control circuit sets the scaling factor, and the scaling factor is based on the linear relationship represented in Fig. 24, the control circuit thus acts as a change ratio setting unit. See Fig. 24. Because the relationship is linear, there are necessarily two ratios defined for relating magnification to scale adjustment. The slope of line 2562 (Δµ/Δmagnification) corresponds to the claimed change ratio, and the inverse of this slope (Δmagnification/Δµ) corresponds to the screen change ratio.
Claim 18
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Denlinger further teaches
further comprising a priority mode setting unit configured to set one of a plurality of operation modes as a priority mode.
(Denlinger - [0284] The process 3100 further includes causing 3106 the surgical tool 1050 to be moved in response to the motion control signal in accordance with the first motion scaling profile or the second motion scaling profile based on the user selection signal. Moving the surgical tool 1050 can be accomplished using one or more motors, for example, as described above in connection with FIGS. 1-6, for example.[0135] In various aspects, the actuation buttons 1026 and 1028 are used to select between different motion scaling modes of the surgical tool 1050. For example, the actuation buttons 1026 and 1028 can be assigned to a gross motion mode and fine motion mode of the surgical tool 1050. The motion scaling of the surgical tool 1050 can be selectably adjusted to user input forces received by the input control device 1000, for example.)
EXAMINER NOTE; Each motion scaling profile corresponds to an operation mode. The actuation buttons are configured to set a scaling profile as a selected profile (set as a priority mode).
Claim 19
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 18 as outlined above. Denlinger further teaches
wherein the priority mode setting unit is configured to adjust at least one of the screen magnification and the first operation scale according to the priority mode.
(Denlinger - [0277] Referring now to FIG. 28, a graph 3001 represents four motion scaling profiles 3002, 3004, 3006, 3008 of the motion of a surgical tool 1050 (FIG. 7) with respect to a user input force 3010. The X-axis represents the user input force 3010 and the Y-axis represents corresponding rates of motion 3012 of the surgical tool 1050 in response to the user input force 3010 for each of the motion scaling profiles 3002, 3004, 3006, 3008.)
PNG
media_image1.png
292
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
EXAMINER NOTE: Denlinger's motion scaling profiles correspond to operation modes. The chosen profile corresponds to a priority mode. The scaling/magnification relationship will change depending on the chosen profile (screen magnification or operation scale is adjusted according to the priority mode).
Claim 6
Denlinger teaches
adjusting an increase/decrease in a magnification of a screen;
(Denlinger - [0262] In effect, a control circuit 1532 executing the process 2500 causes the movement of the robotic surgical system component to decrease in response to input from an input control device 1000 (i.e., become more precise) as the magnification of the visualization system 1500 increases. …Therefore, the output movement of the robotic surgical system is intuitively scaled to the perceived on-screen motion of the robotic surgical system component. )
decreasing a first operation scale by interworking with a change ratio when the magnification of the screen is increased, and increasing the first operation scale by interworking with the change ratio when the magnification of the screen is decreased;
(Denlinger - [0261] … In another aspect, represented by the second line 2562, there is a linear relationship between the movement scale factor μ and the visualization system magnification. In this aspect, the magnitude of scaling of the robotic surgical system component movement decreases as the robotic surgical system component, for example, the camera 1520, approaches the tissue and/or critical structure. )
EXAMINER NOTE: See Fig. 24. Because the relationship is linear, there are necessarily two ratios defined for relating magnification to scale adjustment. The slope of line 2562 (Δµ/Δmagnification) corresponds to the claimed change ratio, and the inverse of this slope (Δmagnification/Δµ) corresponds to the screen change ratio.
PNG
media_image2.png
304
353
media_image2.png
Greyscale
primarily changing an operation distance of the end effector according to the increase/decrease in the first operation scale; and secondarily changing the operating distance of the end effector by changing a limited operating scale of the end effector according to the first operation scale according to the increase/decrease in a second operation scale,
(Denlinger - [0286] As described above, a user may select from a number of available profiles of motion scaling using the motion-scaling profile selector 3014, but the user-selected motion scaling profiles can be further tweaked or adjusted by the control circuit 1532 based upon certain factors such as, for example, the direction of motion of the surgical tool 1050. Other factors are also considered such as, for example, whether the input control device 1000 is in a gross motion mode or a fine motion mode. In various examples, certain motion scaling profiles are only available to the user in only one of the gross motion mode and the fine motion mode.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The scaling may be set by the user as well as by the control circuit.
wherein the increasing or decreasing of the first operation scale is performed in a first operation mode …
EXAMINER NOTE: Each profile may be considered an operation mode.
Denlinger alone may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination. However, Peine teaches
… operation mode in which a change in the magnification of the screen causes the first operation scale to be adjusted in conjunction with the change in the magnification of the screen.
(Peine -[0071] The processing unit 30 may be operatively associated with the imaging arm 52 such that as the scaling factor S.sub.F is increased or decreased the processing unit 30 zooms the imaging device 56 in and out from the surgical site “S” to match the movement of the input handles 42 within the predefined workspace “W” to the movement of the tools 20 within the surgical site “S” as viewed by the clinician on the display 44.)
Denlinger states that it is desirable for magnification to scale automatically as needed by the surgeon.
(Denlinger - [0238] Many robotic surgical systems force users to manually adjust the magnification or FOV of the visualization system during the course of a surgical procedure. However, this can force users to divert their attention from the surgical task at hand, which can cause mistakes during the surgical procedure and force surgeons to reorient themselves each time the magnification is changed, which can take up time during the surgical procedure. Therefore, it can be desirable for the visualization system 1500 associated with a robotic surgical system 150 to automatically adjust or scale its magnification depending upon the needs of the surgeon during the surgical procedure.)
Denlinger does not specifically mention altering the magnification when the scaling factor changes. However, Peine appears to also recognize the issue of distraction and suggests altering the magnification when scaling factor changes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Denlinger's system with Peine's suggestion to adjust magnification as a result of scaling factor in order to match the input with the viewing area in order to prevent undue clutching after scaling adjustment, thus saving time and reducing distractions.
(Peine - [0003] … Since the input device handle has a fixed range of motion, this meant that for larger scaling factors the surgeon may have reached an end of the range of motion of an input handle more often. The surgeon then had to “clutch” the handle to decouple the motion of the input handles from the end effector so that the surgeon could move the handles to a new position within the workspace of the user interface away from the end of the range motion while the instruments remain stationary. ... This clutching process is time consuming and distracting to surgeons.)
Claim 10
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 6 as outlined above. Denlinger further teaches
further comprising adjusting the second operation scale by an input device unit.
(Denlinger - [0280] FIG. 29 illustrates an example motion-scaling profile selector 3014 in the form of a dial that includes four settings corresponding to the four motion scaling profiles 3002, 3004, 3006, 3008. A user may select a desired motion scaling profile through the selector 3014. Other forms of the selector 3014 are contemplated by the present disclosure. The selector 3014 can be integrated with the input control device 1000. For example, the actuation buttons 1026, 1028 (FIG. 6) of the input control device 1000 can be assigned to motion scaling profiles.)
Claim 11
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 6 as outlined above. Denlinger further teaches
further comprising controlling, by an operation mode control unit, adjustment of at least one of the first operation scale and the screen magnification according to an operation mode.
(Denlinger - [0277] Referring now to FIG. 28, a graph 3001 represents four motion scaling profiles 3002, 3004, 3006, 3008 of the motion of a surgical tool 1050 (FIG. 7) with respect to a user input force 3010. The X-axis represents the user input force 3010 and the Y-axis represents corresponding rates of motion 3012 of the surgical tool 1050 in response to the user input force 3010 for each of the motion scaling profiles 3002, 3004, 3006, 3008.)
PNG
media_image1.png
292
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
EXAMINER NOTE: Denlinger's motion scaling profiles correspond to operation modes. The chosen profile corresponds to a priority mode. The scaling/magnification relationship will change depending on the chosen profile (screen magnification or operation scale is adjusted according to the priority mode).
Claim 12
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 11 as outlined above. Denlinger further teaches
wherein the operation mode control unit transmits at least one adjustment value for adjusting the first operation scale or the screen magnification.
(Denlinger - [0259] … In one aspect, the control circuit 1532 can scale 2504 the robotic surgical system component movement by applying a scale factor that is applied to the generated control signals for controlling the movement of the various components of the robotic surgical system component to produce the robotic surgical system output motion. The relationship between the visualization system magnification and the scaling applied to the robotic surgical system component movement can be defined algorithmically (which can be computed at run-time or pre-calculated for particular values), represented by a series of movement scale factors )
Claim 13
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 6 as outlined above. Denlinger further teaches
setting, by a change ratio setting unit, at least one change ratio for adjusting the first operation scale or the screen magnification.
(Denlinger - [0259] Accordingly, the control circuit 1532 scales 2504 the movement of the robotic surgical system component based on the actual or estimated visualization system magnification. In one aspect, the control circuit 1532 can scale 2504 the robotic surgical system component movement by applying a scale factor that is applied to the generated control signals for controlling the movement of the various components of the robotic surgical system component to produce the robotic surgical system output motion. The relationship between the visualization system magnification and the scaling applied to the robotic surgical system component movement can be defined algorithmically (which can be computed at run-time or pre-calculated for particular values), represented by a series of movement scale factors stored in a (e.g., prefetched) lookup table or other storage that are indexed according to magnification values, and so on.
[0261] … In another aspect, represented by the second line 2562, there is a linear relationship between the movement scale factor μ and the visualization system magnification. In this aspect, the magnitude of scaling of the robotic surgical system component movement decreases as the robotic surgical system component, for example, the camera 1520, approaches the tissue and/or critical structure. )
EXAMINER NOTE: Because the control circuit sets the scaling factor, and the scaling factor is based on the linear relationship represented in Fig. 24, the control circuit thus acts as a change ratio setting unit. See Fig. 24. Because the relationship is linear, there are necessarily two ratios defined for relating magnification to scale adjustment. The slope of line 2562 (Δµ/Δmagnification) corresponds to the claimed change ratio, and the inverse of this slope (Δmagnification/Δµ) corresponds to the screen change ratio.
Claim 20
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 6 as outlined above. Denlinger further teaches
further comprising setting, by a priority mode setting unit, one of a plurality of operation modes as a priority mode.
(Denlinger - [0284] The process 3100 further includes causing 3106 the surgical tool 1050 to be moved in response to the motion control signal in accordance with the first motion scaling profile or the second motion scaling profile based on the user selection signal. Moving the surgical tool 1050 can be accomplished using one or more motors, for example, as described above in connection with FIGS. 1-6, for example.[0135] In various aspects, the actuation buttons 1026 and 1028 are used to select between different motion scaling modes of the surgical tool 1050. For example, the actuation buttons 1026 and 1028 can be assigned to a gross motion mode and fine motion mode of the surgical tool 1050. The motion scaling of the surgical tool 1050 can be selectably adjusted to user input forces received by the input control device 1000, for example.)
EXAMINER NOTE; Each motion scaling profile corresponds to an operation mode. The actuation buttons are configured to set a scaling profile as a selected profile (set as a priority mode).
Claim 7
Denlinger teaches adjusting a movement scale as a result of adjusting a screen magnification
(Denlinger - [0259] Accordingly, the control circuit 1532 scales 2504 the movement of the robotic surgical system component based on the actual or estimated visualization system magnification.)
In Denlinger's teachings, the scale may be adjusted by both the user and the control circuit (first/second operation scales). Through this, Denlinger teaches
primarily changing an operation distance of the end effector according to the increase/decrease of the first operation scale; and
secondarily changing the operating distance of the end effector by changing a limited operating scale of the end effector according to the first operation scale when the increase/decrease of a second operation scale is adjusted,
(Denlinger - [0286] As described above, a user may select from a number of available profiles of motion scaling using the motion-scaling profile selector 3014, but the user-selected motion scaling profiles can be further tweaked or adjusted by the control circuit 1532 based upon certain factors such as, for example, the direction of motion of the surgical tool 1050. Other factors are also considered such as, for example, whether the input control device 1000 is in a gross motion mode or a fine motion mode. In various examples, certain motion scaling profiles are only available to the user in only one of the gross motion mode and the fine motion mode.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The scaling may be set by the user as well as by the control circuit (primarily as well as secondarily).
Denlinger may not explicitly teach the adjustment of the magnification as a result of adjusting the movement scale, but Peine teaches
adjusting an increase/decrease of a first operation scale;
decreasing a screen magnification … when the first operation scale increases, and increasing the screen magnification … when the first operation scale decreases;
(Peine -[0071] The processing unit 30 may be operatively associated with the imaging arm 52 such that as the scaling factor S.sub.F is increased or decreased the processing unit 30 zooms the imaging device 56 in and out from the surgical site “S” to match the movement of the input handles 42 within the predefined workspace “W” to the movement of the tools 20 within the surgical site “S” as viewed by the clinician on the display 44.)
While Peine may not state that the increase/decrease of the screen magnification is linked to a change ratio of an increase/decrease in movement scale, Denlinger teaches this aspect with reference to Fig. 24.
(Denlinger - [0261] … In another aspect, represented by the second line 2562, there is a linear relationship between the movement scale factor μ and the visualization system magnification. In this aspect, the magnitude of scaling of the robotic surgical system component movement decreases as the robotic surgical system component, for example, the camera 1520, approaches the tissue and/or critical structure. )
EXAMINER NOTE: See Fig. 24. Because the relationship is linear, there are necessarily two ratios defined for relating magnification to scale adjustment. The slope of line 2562 (Δµ/Δmagnification) corresponds to the claimed change ratio, and the inverse of this slope (Δmagnification/Δµ) corresponds to the screen change ratio.
PNG
media_image3.png
281
327
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitations of
wherein the decreasing or increasing of the screen magnification is performed in a second operation mode in which a change in the first operation scale causes the screen magnification to be adjusted in conjunction with the change in the first operation scale.
It has been shown above that Denlinger teaches selectable motion scaling profiles, which may be considered respective operation modes. Additionally, it was shown that Peine demonstrates the benefit of automatically changing magnification when scaling is increased or decreased. This rationale applies regardless of the chosen operation mode. Denlinger states that it is desirable for magnification to scale automatically as needed by the surgeon.
(Denlinger - [0238] Many robotic surgical systems force users to manually adjust the magnification or FOV of the visualization system during the course of a surgical procedure. However, this can force users to divert their attention from the surgical task at hand, which can cause mistakes during the surgical procedure and force surgeons to reorient themselves each time the magnification is changed, which can take up time during the surgical procedure. Therefore, it can be desirable for the visualization system 1500 associated with a robotic surgical system 150 to automatically adjust or scale its magnification depending upon the needs of the surgeon during the surgical procedure.)
Denlinger does not specifically mention altering the magnification when the scaling factor changes. However, Peine appears to also recognize the issue of distraction and suggests altering the magnification when scaling factor changes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Denlinger's system with Peine's suggestion to adjust magnification as a result of scaling factor in order to match the input with the viewing area in order to prevent undue clutching after scaling adjustment, thus saving time and reducing distractions.
(Peine - [0003] … Since the input device handle has a fixed range of motion, this meant that for larger scaling factors the surgeon may have reached an end of the range of motion of an input handle more often. The surgeon then had to “clutch” the handle to decouple the motion of the input handles from the end effector so that the surgeon could move the handles to a new position within the workspace of the user interface away from the end of the range motion while the instruments remain stationary. ... This clutching process is time consuming and distracting to surgeons.)
Claim 8
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 7 as outlined above. Denlinger further teaches
further comprising setting, by a priority mode setting unit, one of a first operation mode and the second operation mode as a priority mode.
EXAMINER NOTE: See rejection of claim 7 above. Denlinger's motion scaling profiles correspond to operation modes. The chosen profile corresponds to a priority mode
Claim 9
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 8 as outlined above. Denlinger further teaches
when a screen magnification change and an operation scale change are input, the screen magnification or the first operation scale is adjusted according to the priority mode.
(Denlinger - [0277] Referring now to FIG. 28, a graph 3001 represents four motion scaling profiles 3002, 3004, 3006, 3008 of the motion of a surgical tool 1050 (FIG. 7) with respect to a user input force 3010. The X-axis represents the user input force 3010 and the Y-axis represents corresponding rates of motion 3012 of the surgical tool 1050 in response to the user input force 3010 for each of the motion scaling profiles 3002, 3004, 3006, 3008.)
PNG
media_image1.png
292
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
EXAMINER NOTE: Denlinger's motion scaling profiles correspond to operation modes. The chosen profile corresponds to a priority mode. The scaling/magnification relationship will change depending on the chosen profile (screen magnification or operation scale is adjusted according to the priority mode).
Claim 14
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 7 as outlined above. Denlinger further teaches
adjusting the second operation scale by an input device unit.
(Denlinger - [0280] FIG. 29 illustrates an example motion-scaling profile selector 3014 in the form of a dial that includes four settings corresponding to the four motion scaling profiles 3002, 3004, 3006, 3008. A user may select a desired motion scaling profile through the selector 3014. Other forms of the selector 3014 are contemplated by the present disclosure. The selector 3014 can be integrated with the input control device 1000. For example, the actuation buttons 1026, 1028 (FIG. 6) of the input control device 1000 can be assigned to motion scaling profiles.)
Claim 15
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 7 as outlined above. Denlinger further teaches
controlling, by an operation mode control unit, adjustment of at least one of the first operation scale and the screen magnification according to an operation mode.
(Denlinger - [0277] Referring now to FIG. 28, a graph 3001 represents four motion scaling profiles 3002, 3004, 3006, 3008 of the motion of a surgical tool 1050 (FIG. 7) with respect to a user input force 3010. The X-axis represents the user input force 3010 and the Y-axis represents corresponding rates of motion 3012 of the surgical tool 1050 in response to the user input force 3010 for each of the motion scaling profiles 3002, 3004, 3006, 3008.)
PNG
media_image4.png
292
372
media_image4.png
Greyscale
EXAMINER NOTE: Denlinger's motion scaling profiles correspond to operation modes. The chosen profile corresponds to a priority mode. The scaling/magnification relationship will change depending on the chosen profile (screen magnification or operation scale is adjusted according to the priority mode).
Claim 16
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 15 as outlined above. Denlinger further teaches
wherein the operation mode control unit transmits at least one adjustment value for adjusting the first operation scale or the screen magnification.
(Denlinger - [0259] … In one aspect, the control circuit 1532 can scale 2504 the robotic surgical system component movement by applying a scale factor that is applied to the generated control signals for controlling the movement of the various components of the robotic surgical system component to produce the robotic surgical system output motion. The relationship between the visualization system magnification and the scaling applied to the robotic surgical system component movement can be defined algorithmically (which can be computed at run-time or pre-calculated for particular values), represented by a series of movement scale factors )
Claim 17
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 7 as outlined above. Denlinger further teaches
further comprising setting, by a change ratio setting unit, at least one change ratio for adjusting the first operation scale or the screen magnification.
(Denlinger - [0259] Accordingly, the control circuit 1532 scales 2504 the movement of the robotic surgical system component based on the actual or estimated visualization system magnification. In one aspect, the control circuit 1532 can scale 2504 the robotic surgical system component movement by applying a scale factor that is applied to the generated control signals for controlling the movement of the various components of the robotic surgical system component to produce the robotic surgical system output motion. The relationship between the visualization system magnification and the scaling applied to the robotic surgical system component movement can be defined algorithmically (which can be computed at run-time or pre-calculated for particular values), represented by a series of movement scale factors stored in a (e.g., prefetched) lookup table or other storage that are indexed according to magnification values, and so on.
[0261] … In another aspect, represented by the second line 2562, there is a linear relationship between the movement scale factor μ and the visualization system magnification. In this aspect, the magnitude of scaling of the robotic surgical system component movement decreases as the robotic surgical system component, for example, the camera 1520, approaches the tissue and/or critical structure. )
EXAMINER NOTE: Because the control circuit sets the scaling factor, and the scaling factor is based on the linear relationship represented in Fig. 24, the control circuit thus acts as a change ratio setting unit. See Fig. 24. Because the relationship is linear, there are necessarily two ratios defined for relating magnification to scale adjustment. The slope of line 2562 (Δµ/Δmagnification) corresponds to the claimed change ratio, and the inverse of this slope (Δmagnification/Δµ) corresponds to the screen change ratio.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES MILLER WATTS whose telephone number is (703)756-1249. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-TH.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571-270-5376. 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.
/JAMES MILLER WATTS III/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights