DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 11/25/25. Claims 1 and 3-21 are pending. Claims 1 and 3-21 are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Title
The title is objected to. The title is not descriptive of the claimed invention; a new title is required. See MPEP §606.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 10-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172821 to Childs et al. (“Childs”) in view of US Patent 6,364,888 to Niemeyer et al. (“Niemeyer”) and US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143565 to Childs et al. (“ ‘565”).
Claim 1. A mobile medical platform system, comprising: a table with a base and a table top (Childs, Fig. 1 discloses a table with a base and a table top); one or more robotic arms that are coupled to the table (Childs does not disclose robotic arms, however such arms are well known in the prior art, as taught by Niemeyer, Fig. 1B; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the robotic arms of Niemeyer with the bed of Childs, since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results, and additionally, Niemeyer anticipates this type of use in column 12, lines 20-23); one or more wheel assemblies (Childs, Fig. 2, #69) that are coupled to the base to support and move the base in a physical environment, wherein a respective wheel assembly of the one or more wheel assemblies includes at least one motorized wheel (Childs discusses motors in paragraph [0029]); a first input device that is configured to receive user inputs of a first input type user inputs of a second input type, and user inputs of a third input type (Childs, Fig. 1, control panel, CP is seen on footboard); one or more processors (Childs, paragraph [0031]); and memory (Childs, paragraph [0031]) storing instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive a first user input of the first input type via the first input device; and in response to receiving the first user input of the first input type and in accordance with a determination that the first user input meets first criteria, initiate first movement of the at least one motorized wheel in accordance with the first user input of the first input type (Childs, paragraph [0065] discloses using the control panel to receive user input and in response the drive wheel is activated), receive a second user input of the second input type via the first input device; in response to receiving the second user input of the second input type and in accordance with a determination that the second user input meets second criteria, initiate second movement of the table top relative to the base in accordance with the second user input of the second input type receive a third user input of the third input type via the first input device and in response to receiving the third user input of the third input type and in accordance with a determination that the third user input meets third criteria, initiate third movement of the one or more robotic arms to a stowed position beneath the table top in accordance with the third user input of the third input type (Childs discloses a user interface, but does not provide details on this aspect as the reference is not directed toward these features; Childs ‘565 additionally discloses a user interface and provides additional details, including a second input type, which initiates a movement of the table top as seen in Fig. 2 at #70 through #90; regarding movement of robotic arms, a third input type is interpreted as one in which the position of robotic arms are manipulated by a user; the location of the robotic arms relative to the bed and the patient is discussed by Niemeyer in at least column 16, lines 19-54; additional discussion of how Niemeyer’s system determines a coordinate system of the robotic arms is found in columns 17-38; regarding the user interface providing the capability to control the table top and the robotic arms, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide additional icons on the user interface of Childs with which to control the table top and robotic arms since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results, and for the obvious benefit of being able to provide the additional movement capability of the bed of Childs ‘565 to the bed of Childs).
Claim 3. The mobile medical platform system of claim 1, wherein the first input device is a pendant that is coupled to the table (Childs paragraph [0035] discloses “The user input devices 52 may also be located remotely, such as on remote pendants”).
Claim 4. The mobile medical platform system of claim 1, wherein the first input device includes a first joystick and a second joystick (Niemeyer, Fig. 11, #622; Niemeyer discloses two master controls, or joysticks, in column 6, lines 4-6).
Claim 6. The mobile medical platform system of claim 4, including: a first visual indicator disposed adjacent to the first joystick, and a second visual indicator disposed adjacent to the second joystick, wherein: the first visual indicator is dynamically updated in accordance with characteristics of a movement input received via the first joystick, and the second visual indicator is dynamically updated in accordance with characteristics of a movement input received via the second joystick (Niemeyer teaches a viewer #202 in Fig. 7 which displays a three dimensional representation of the robotic arms on a two dimensional viewer; the two dimensions of the viewer are considered to be a first and a second visual indicator; Examiner notes that Applicant’s paragraphs [0162]-[0164] provide additional information regarding these visual indicators, however, the current claim language is broad and the teachings of Niemeyer currently read on the claim language).
Claim 10. The mobile medical platform system of claim 8, wherein the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in accordance with a determination the first input device is operating in the first mode, orienting the motorized wheels of the one or more wheel assemblies in a first predefined configuration to enable movement of the base in the physical environment; and in accordance with a determination the first input device is operating in the second mode, orienting the motorized wheels of the one or more wheel assemblies in a second predefined configuration to restrict movement of the base in the physical environment, wherein the second predefined configuration is different from the first predefined configuration (Applicant’s system to enable or disable the motorized wheels has been interpreted in accordance with specification paragraph [0010] which describes a system in which movement control of the robotic arms may be disabled; Childs and Niemeyer do not teach a system of disabling or enabling motion of the drive wheel or the robotic arms; however Kralicky teaches such a system in at least the abstract; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the robotic arms of Niemeyer and/or the drive wheel of Childs with the motion disablement system of Kralicky for the purpose discussed in the abstract, and in paragraph [0007], that being to reduce alignment error between the user controls and the robotic arms).
Claim 11. The mobile medical platform system of claim 1, wherein the first input device includes an accelerometer, and the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in response to detecting a falling motion of the first input device using the accelerometer, activate a lock-out mode in which user inputs directed to the first input device are ignored (Childs teaches the use of an accelerometer in paragraph [0062]-[0063] in which the accelerometer data may be used to disable the drive wheel in instances where the wheel skids, or the bed becomes unstable).
Claim 21. A mobile medical platform system, comprising: a table with a base and a table top (Childs, Fig. 1 discloses a table with a base and a table top); one or more robotic arms that are coupled to the table (Childs does not disclose robotic arms, however such arms are well known in the prior art, as taught by Niemeyer, Fig. 1B; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the robotic arms of Niemeyer with the bed of Childs, since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results, and additionally, Niemeyer anticipates this type of use in column 12, lines 20-23); one or more wheel assemblies (Childs, Fig. 2, #69) that are coupled to the base to support and move the base in a physical environment; a first input device that is configured to receive user inputs (Childs, Fig. 1, control panel, CP is seen on footboard); one or more processors (Childs, paragraph [0031]); and memory (Childs, paragraph [0031]) storing instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive a first user input via the first input device; in response to receiving the first user input and in accordance with a determination that the first user input meets first criteria (a first criteria is interpreted as one in which the position of robotic arms are manipulated by a user; the location of the robotic arms relative to the bed and the patient is discussed by Niemeyer in at least column 16, lines 19-54; additional discussion of how Niemeyer’s system determines a coordinate system of the robotic arms is found in columns 17-38), initiate first movement of the one or more robotic arms relative to the table top in accordance with the first user input; receive a second user input via the first input device; and in response to receiving the second user input and in accordance with a determination that the second user input meets second criteria, initiate second movement of the table top relative to the base in accordance with the second user input (Childs, paragraph [0065] discloses using the control panel to receive user input and in response the drive wheel is activated, user input regarding movement of the table top is considered to be a second user input).
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172821 to Childs et al. (“Childs”) in view of US Patent 6,364,888 to Niemeyer et al. (“Niemeyer”) and US Patent Application Publication 2018/0374577 to Bhimavarapu.
Claim 12. An input device (Childs, Fig. 1, control panel, CP is seen on footboard) for controlling a mobile medical platform (Childs, Fig. 1) system that includes a [[bed]] table top, a base (Childs, Fig. 1 discloses a bed with a base and a table top), and one or more robotic arms (Childs does not disclose robotic arms, however such arms are well known in the prior art, as taught by Niemeyer, Fig. 1B; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the robotic arms of Niemeyer with the bed of Childs, since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results, and additionally, Niemeyer anticipates this type of use in column 12, lines 20-23), the input device comprising: a first input interface that is configured to receive user inputs of a first input type (Childs, Fig. 1, control panel, CP is seen on footboard); a display (Childs, Fig. 1, CP); one or more processors (Childs, paragraph [0031]); and memory (Childs, paragraph [0031]) storing instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in accordance with a determination that the input device is operating in a first mode, display, via the display, a first view of a user interface that corresponds to the first mode, wherein the first view provides visual feedback regarding first movement of the base of the mobile medical platform system in a physical environment that is initiated in accordance with a first user input of the first input type received through the first input interface (Childs, paragraph [0065] discloses using the control panel to receive user input and in response the drive wheel is activated which reads on Applicant’s first mode that provides control and feedback regarding the drive wheel of the bed); detecting a transition event that transitions (a transition event is interpreted as the user pressing a button on the control panel in order to see information of a second type; the control panel of Childs inherently provides this capability at least because there are multiple buttons shown in Fig. 4) the input device from the first mode to a second mode distinct (a second mode is interpreted as one in which the position of robotic arms are manipulated by a user; the location of the robotic arms relative to the bed and the patient is discussed by Niemeyer in at least column 16, lines 19-54; additional discussion of how Niemeyer’s system determines a coordinate system of the robotic arms is found in columns 17-38) from the first mode; and in response to detecting the transition event that transitions the input device from the first mode to the second mode, display a second view of the user interface that corresponds to the second mode, wherein the second view provides visual feedback regarding a current positional status of the [[bed]] table top relative to the base and relative to the table top (Childs discloses a user interface, but does not provide details regarding providing a visual feedback regarding a current positional status of the table top; Bhimavarapu additionally discloses a user interface and provides additional details, including a visual feedback as seen in Fig. 11 at #136, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the graphical user interface of Bhimavarapu to provide a visual indication of the current position of the table top of Childs since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results, and for the obvious benefit of being able to provide the additional movement capability of the bed of Bhimavarapu to the bed of Childs).
Claim 13. The input device of claim 12, wherein: the first view of the user interface that corresponds to the first mode has a first orientation; and the second view of the user interface that corresponds to the second mode has a second orientation that is different from the first orientation (Applicant’s “orientation” has been interpreted as information or images relating to the position of the motor driven wheel, in the first view, or the position of the robotic arms, in the second view; Childs discloses a control panel that provides information on the motor driven wheel, and Niemeyer discloses a controller that provides information on the position of the robotic arms).
Claim 14. The input device of claim 12, further comprising: a first joystick and a second joystick (Niemeyer, Fig. 11, #622; Niemeyer discloses two master controls, or joysticks, in column 6, lines 4-6).
Claim 15. The input device of claim 14, further comprising: a first visual indicator disposed adjacent to the first joystick, and a second visual indicator disposed adjacent to the second joystick, wherein: the first visual indicator is dynamically updated in accordance with characteristics of a movement input received via the first joystick, and the second visual indicator is dynamically updated in accordance with characteristics of a movement input received via the second joystick (Niemeyer teaches a viewer #202 in Fig. 7 which displays a three dimensional representation of the robotic arms on a two dimensional viewer; the two dimensions of the viewer are considered to be a first and a second visual indicator; Examiner notes that Applicant’s paragraphs [0162]-[0164] provide additional information regarding these visual indicators, however, the current claim language is broad and the teachings of Niemeyer currently read on the claim language).
Claim 20. The input device of claim 12, further comprising: an accelerometer, wherein the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in response to detecting a falling motion of the input device, activate a lock-out mode of the input device in which user inputs directed to the input device are ignored (Childs teaches the use of an accelerometer in paragraph [0062]-[0063] in which the accelerometer data may be used to disable the drive wheel in instances where the wheel skids, or the bed becomes unstable).
Claims 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172821 to Childs et al. (“Childs”) US Patent 6,364,888 to Niemeyer et al. (“Niemeyer”), and US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143565 to Childs et al. (“ ‘565”), in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0271607 to Kralicky et al. (“Kralicky”).
Claim 5. The mobile medical platform system of claim 4, wherein the first input device includes a motion control affordance, and wherein the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in accordance with a determination that the motion control affordance is activated while user inputs are received by at least one of the first joystick and the second joystick, enable a movement control function of the first joystick and the second joystick; and in accordance with a determination that the motion control affordance is not activated while user inputs are received by at least one of the first joystick and the second joystick, disable the movement control function of the first joystick and the second joystick (Applicant’s “affordance” has been interpreted in accordance with specification paragraph [0010] which describes a system in which movement control of the robotic arms may be disabled; Childs and Niemeyer do not teach a system of disabling motion of the robotic arms; however Kralicky teaches such a system in at least the abstract; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the robotic arms of Niemeyer with the motion disablement system of Kralicky for the purpose discussed in the abstract, and in paragraph [0007], that being to reduce alignment error between the user controls and the robotic arms).
Claim 7. The mobile medical platform system of claim 1, wherein the first input device includes a touch sensitive display, and wherein the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in accordance with a determination that the first input device is in a first operation mode, present a first user interface for controlling mobility of the mobile medical platform system, including one or more affordances for controlling the at least one motorized wheel; and in accordance with a determination that the first input device is in a second operation mode, present a second user interface for interacting with the table top, including one or more affordances for changing a position of the table top relative to the base (Childs teaches the use of a touch screen in paragraph [0036]; in the proposed combination of Childs, Niemeyer, and Kralicky the it would have been obvious to provide a touch screen as a controller of the bed of Childs or of the robotic arms of Niemeyer).
Claim 8. The mobile medical platform system of claim 1, wherein the first input device includes a control affordance, and wherein the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in accordance with a determination that the control affordance is activated at a first time, transition from operating the first input device in a first mode to a second mode that is different from the first mode; and in accordance with a determination that the control affordance is activated at a second time after the first time, transition from operating the first input device from the second mode to the first mode (Childs discloses in paragraph [0032] that the actuators, i.e. wheel drive motor, may be placed in an on or off condition as determined from sensors; Childs further discloses in paragraphs [0061]-[0063] that motion of the drive wheel is disabled based on sensor inputs such that the wheel is only deployed when the bed is in motion; in other words, when the bed is stationary and robotic arms are being actively used for surgery, then the drive wheel of Childs would be disabled, which reads on Applicant’s first and second modes).
Claim 9. The mobile medical platform system of claim 8, wherein the first input device includes a display, the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in accordance with a determination that the first input device is operating in the first mode, display a first user interface with a first orientation on the display, wherein the first user interface includes one or more first affordances for controlling movement of the table; and in accordance with a determination that the first input device is operating in the second mode, display a second user interface via the display with a second orientation on the display, the second orientation being different from the first orientation, wherein the second user interface includes one or more second affordances for reviewing a status of the mobile medical platform system (Applicant’s “orientation” has been interpreted as information or images relating to the position of the motor driven wheel, in the first view, or the position of the robotic arms, in the second view; Childs discloses a control panel that provides information on the motor driven wheel, and Niemeyer discloses a controller that provides information on the position of the robotic arms; regarding “one or more first affordances”, see claim 5).
Claim 10. The mobile medical platform system of claim 8, wherein the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in accordance with a determination the first input device is operating in the first mode, orienting the at least one motorized wheel of the one or more wheel assemblies in a first predefined configuration to enable movement of the base in the physical environment; and in accordance with a determination the first input device is operating in the second mode, orienting the at least one motorized wheel of the one or more wheel assemblies in a second predefined configuration to restrict movement of the base in the physical environment, wherein the second predefined configuration is different from the first predefined configuration (Childs discloses in paragraph [0032] that the actuators, i.e. wheel drive motor, may be placed in an on or off condition as determined from sensors; Childs further discloses in paragraphs [0061]-[0063] that motion of the drive wheel is disabled based on sensor inputs such that the wheel is only deployed when the bed is in motion; in other words, when the bed is stationary and robotic arms are being actively used for surgery, then the drive wheel of Childs would be disabled, which reads on Applicant’s first and second modes).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172821 to Childs et al. (“Childs”), US Patent 6,364,888 to Niemeyer et al. (“Niemeyer”), and US Patent Application Publication 2018/0374577 to Bhimavarapu., in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0271607 to Kralicky et al. (“Kralicky”).
Claim 16. The input device of claim 14, further comprising: a first control affordance, wherein the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in accordance with a determination that the first control affordance is activated while user inputs are received by at least one of the first joystick and the second joystick, enable a movement control function of the first joystick and the second joystick; and in accordance with a determination that the first control affordance is not activated while user inputs are received by at least one of the first joystick and the second joystick, disable the movement control function of the first joystick and the second joystick (Applicant’s “affordance” has been interpreted in accordance with specification paragraph [0010] which describes a system in which movement control of the robotic arms may be disabled; Childs and Niemeyer do not teach a system of disabling motion of the robotic arms; however Kralicky teaches such a system in at least the abstract; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the robotic arms of Niemeyer with the motion disablement system of Kralicky for the purpose discussed in the abstract, and in paragraph [0007], that being to reduce alignment error between the user controls and the robotic arms).
Claim 17. The input device of claim 16, wherein the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in accordance with a determination that the first control affordance is activated while the input device is in the second mode, automatically transition the input device from the second mode to the first mode (Applicant’s invention transitions from a surgery mode to a driven wheel mode when the first control affordance is activated; Childs teaches a comparable system in paragraphs [0061]-[0062] in which the drive wheel is activated when movement of the bed is detected, i.e. when the bed is not in a surgery mode).
Claim 18. The input device of claim 12, further comprising: a second control affordance for transitioning the input device between the first mode and the second mode, wherein the transition event includes detection of a preset user input via the second control affordance of the input device (Applicant’s invention transitions from a surgery mode to a driven wheel mode when the first control affordance is activated; Childs teaches a comparable system in paragraphs [0061]-[0062] in which the drive wheel is activated when movement of the bed is detected, i.e. when the bed is not in a surgery mode; regarding a “preset user input”, Childs paragraph [0061] discloses “a predetermined speed threshold (e.g., at or above 0.5 mph, at or above 1.0 mph, at or above 2.0 mph, and the like,” which read on Applicant’s preset user input).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172821 to Childs et al. (“Childs”), US Patent 6,364,888 to Niemeyer et al. (“Niemeyer”), and US Patent Application Publication 2018/0374577 to Bhimavarapu, in view of US Patent Application Publication 2011/0277242 to Dionne et al. (“Dionne”).
Claim 19. The input device of claim 12, wherein: the mobile medical platform system further includes one or more wheel assemblies, a respective wheel assembly of the one or more wheel assemblies including at least one motorized wheel, and the memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processors to: in response to detecting the transition event that transitions the input device from the first mode to the second mode and in accordance with a determination the input device is in the second mode, orient motorized wheels of the one or more wheel assemblies in a predefined braking configuration to restrict movement of the mobile medical platform system; detect a second transition event that transitions the input device from the second mode to a first mode; and in response to detecting the second transition event that transitions the input device from the second mode to the first mode and in accordance with a determination the input device is in the first mode, orient the motorized wheels of the one or more wheel assemblies in a first predefined configuration to enable movement of the [[bed]] base, wherein the first predefined configuration is different from the predefined braking configuration (Childs does not disclose details of a braking system, however wheel brakes are well known in the art of hospital beds, such as taught by Dionne paragraph [0156]; Dionne teaches a brake state wherein the casters are locked, as well as a different state where the drive wheel mechanism is actuated; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bed of Childs with wheel brakes in order to ensure that the bed doesn’t inadvertently move when it is not desired to do so, such as during a medical or surgical procedure).
Discussion of allowable subject matter
While no claims are currently allowable over the prior art, claims 6 and 15 are directed toward a first and second visual indicator. As discussed in the above rejections, Niemeyer teaches a viewer which reads on Applicant’s visual indicators. However, Applicant’s paragraphs [0162]-[0164] provide additional information regarding these visual indicators and Applicant may be able to overcome the prior art of record by reciting additional structural details in the claims.
Response to Applicant's remarks and amendments
The following remarks refer to objections and rejections that were of record in a prior office action, and, unless otherwise noted, are not referring to any objections or rejections that are stated above in this office action.
Regarding objections to the Abstract and Title, Applicant argues that the Abstract and title describe the claimed invention. It is noted that the claimed invention of independent claims 1, 12, and 21 appears to be directed toward functionality of receiving user inputs that allow for movement of a motorized wheel, and a table top, and a robotic arm, and that these structures are described in the Abstract. Objections to the Abstract have been withdrawn.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 112(b) of claim 12, Applicant has amended the claim language, and the rejections have been withdrawn.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues on page 11 of Applicant’s remarks that the cited prior art does not disclose or teach limitations directed toward receiving “a second user input” and receiving “a third user input”, and further that there would be no motivation to modify Childs to provide these user input capabilities. Examiner respectfully disagrees. New rejections have been entered herein in this Office Action as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. The teachings of Childs ‘565 and/or Bhimavarapu provide teaching of additional bed functionalities and additionally provide details regarding a graphical user interface with user input icons to control various features of a bed.
Applicant further argues that the cited prior art does not provide “in response to detecting the transition event…”. However, as noted in the above rejections, a “transition event” is considered to be when a user selects a command on the user interface, and each of Childs, Childs ‘565 and/or Bhimavarapu provide this capability.
Moreover, the combined prior art of Childs, Childs ‘565 and/or Bhimavarapu provide multiple bed capabilities, including the use of a motorized drive wheel, the ability to adjust a tabletop in various ways, and the ability to use robotic arms, as well as an appropriate user interface to control each of these functions. These functions read on Applicant’s claimed first, second, and third user input types, as discussed in the above rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached on 571-272-8525. 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.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673