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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds the length requirements. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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: “input device” (claims 1-2), “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), and “change ratio setting unit” (claim 5). 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 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 and 7 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: “input device” (claims 1-2), “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), and “change ratio setting unit” (claim 5). 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.
In addition to the above, claims 4, 5 and 7 refer to certain “features,” which are unclear.
Claim 4 recites, in relevant part,
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, as a feature.
It is unclear how performing the above operations “as a feature” provides any additional limitation on the claim. The written description provides no insight as to what a “feature” may refer to. Examiner proceeds on the assumption that “a feature” is simply a quality or attribute of the second operation control unit performing the claimed operations.
Claim 5 recites, in relevant part,
and a screen change ratio to the first operation scale adjustment value, wherein the feature is set as a change ratio setting unit.
As in claim 4, it is unclear what is meant by this limitation. The claim lacks antecedent basis for “the feature,” and the specification does not provide a definition for a “feature.” Examiner is unable to discern how a “feature” is set as the claimed change ratio setting unit, or what this passage is intended to claim.
Claim 7 recites, in relevant part,
wherein the adjustment of the first operation scale and the adjustment of the second operation scale are features.
As in claim 4, Examiner proceeds on the assumption that a feature is simply a quality or attribute of the claimed method being performed.
For the above reasons, claims 1-5 and 7 are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Denlinger (US-20200289222-A1).
Claim 1
Denlinger teaches
an input device unit configured to generate an operation command of the end effector according to an operation
(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.)
of a user in a remote place;
(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.)
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;
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,
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 a screen magnification control unit; and
an end effector driving unit configured to change a movement distance of the end effector according to the first operation scale.
(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.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Denlinger's system includes the functionality of each of these units.
Claim 2
Denlinger 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.
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 5
Denlinger 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, wherein the feature is set as a change ratio setting unit.
(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_image1.png
469
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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_image1.png
469
546
media_image1.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.
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) 3-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denlinger in view of Peine (US-20180014897-A1).
Claim 3
Denlinger teaches the limitations of claim 2 as outlined above. Denlinger further 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.)
Denlinger may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination. However, Peine 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.)
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 4
The combination of Denlinger and Peine teaches the limitations of claim 3 as outlined above. Denlinger 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.
Denlinger alone may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination. However, as shown above, Peine also teaches
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, as a feature.
(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.)
As shown above with respect to claim 3, 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. 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 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.
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_image1.png
469
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitations of
wherein the adjustment of the first operation scale and the adjustment of the second operation scale are features.
The proposed combination would obviously include the above features.
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 by incorporating 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.)
Additionally, 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. 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.
Conclusion
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