Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/383,186

SURGICAL ROBOTIC SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USING INSTRUMENTS IN TRAINING AND SURGICAL MODES

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Oct 24, 2023
Examiner
MANUEL, GEORGE C
Art Unit
3792
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Covidien LP
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
1154 granted / 1291 resolved
+19.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
1318
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
§103
35.1%
-4.9% vs TC avg
§102
28.3%
-11.7% vs TC avg
§112
9.0%
-31.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1291 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . DETAILED ACTION Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 2 and 5-8 under35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and claims 3 and 4 under35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior art reference. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dachs, II et al (US 2012/0150192). Regarding claim 1, Dachs discloses a surgical robotic system 10 comprising: a surgical instrument 432; a robotic arm 436 including an instrument drive unit 500 configured to couple to and to actuate the surgical instrument 432; and a controller configured 416 to: access usage data pertaining the surgical instrument 432; compare the usage data to a usage threshold corresponding to an instrument operational mode of the surgical robotic system, the instrument operational mode being one of a surgical mode or a training mode. Dachs discloses the comparison of usage data to a usage threshold to comprise, “the main shaft drive 504 may have a back-driving torque threshold such that the main shaft/end effector assembly 502 back drives the main shaft drive when the main shaft/end effector assembly 502 is subject to a net torque (including any torque necessary to overcome friction induced restraint) over the back-driving torque threshold and does not back drive the main shaft drive when the main shaft/end effector assembly 502 is subject to a net torque under the back-driving torque threshold.” See paragraph [0151]. Use of the surgical instrument 432 is prevented in response to the usage data being below the usage threshold. Dachs teaches it is “desirable to avoid the use of certain mechanisms that prevent rotational driving (also known as back driving) of the main shaft drive 504 by the main shaft 508,” see paragraph [0151]. Operation is enabled for the surgical instrument by the instrument drive unit in response to the usage data being above the usage threshold which comprises the torque threshold. Dachs discloses, enablement where the “magnitude of the counteracting torque differs from the magnitude of the torque(s) transmitted into the main shaft/end effector assembly 502 by the first and second output links 530, 536 by a net torque magnitude that is less than the back-driving torque threshold for the main shaft drive 504 even when the torque transmitted into the main shaft/end effector assembly 502 by the first and second output links 530, 536 exceeds the back-driving torque threshold.” See paragraph [0160]. Regarding claims 2, 10 and 16, Dachs discloses in the surgical mode, the controller 416 is further configured to fully power the instrument drive unit, see paragraph [0171]. Regarding claims 3, 11 and 17, Dachs discloses in the training mode the instrument drive unit is partially powered, see paragraph [0171]. Regarding claims 5, 13 and 19, Dachs discloses the controller 416 is further configured to update the usage data in subsystem 422 following the use of the surgical instrument, see paragraph [0141]. Regarding claims 6, 14 and 20, Dachs discloses the controller 416 is further configured to receive a system operational mode, the system operational mode being one of the surgical mode or the training mode, see paragraph [0142]. Regarding claim 8, Dachs discloses the usage data includes at least one of number of activations, number of uses, total force, total torque, time used, or a mode indicator, see paragraph [0160]. Regarding claim 9, Dachs discloses a surgical robotic system 10 comprising: a surgical instrument 432; a robotic arm 436 including an instrument drive unit 500 configured to couple to and to actuate the surgical instrument 432; and a controller configured to 416: set a system operational mode of the robotic arm in one of a surgical mode or a demonstration mode, Dachs discloses the differential 118 can be configured to a “desired operational characteristic of the surgical instrument,” see paragraph [0096]; access usage data pertaining the surgical instrument 432; compare the usage data to a usage threshold corresponding to an instrument operational mode, the instrument operational mode being one of the surgical mode or the demonstration mode. Dachs discloses the comparison of usage data to a usage threshold to comprise, “the main shaft drive 504 may have a back-driving torque threshold such that the main shaft/end effector assembly 502 back drives the main shaft drive when the main shaft/end effector assembly 502 is subject to a net torque (including any torque necessary to overcome friction induced restraint) over the back-driving torque threshold and does not back drive the main shaft drive when the main shaft/end effector assembly 502 is subject to a net torque under the back-driving torque threshold.” See paragraph [0151]. Use of the surgical instrument 432 is prevented in response to the usage data being below the usage threshold. Dachs teaches it is “desirable to avoid the use of certain mechanisms that prevent rotational driving (also known as back driving) of the main shaft drive 504 by the main shaft 508,” see paragraph [0151]. Operation is enabled for the surgical instrument 432 by the instrument drive unit in response to the usage data being above the usage threshold which comprises the torque threshold. Dachs discloses, enablement where the “magnitude of the counteracting torque differs from the magnitude of the torque(s) transmitted into the main shaft/end effector assembly 502 by the first and second output links 530, 536 by a net torque magnitude that is less than the back-driving torque threshold for the main shaft drive 504 even when the torque transmitted into the main shaft/end effector assembly 502 by the first and second output links 530, 536 exceeds the back-driving torque threshold.” See paragraph [0160]. The surgical instrument 432 is enabled in response to: the usage data being above the usage threshold, and the system 10 operational mode corresponding to the instrument 432 operational mode. Regarding claim 15, Dachs discloses a method for enabling use of a surgical instrument 432, the method comprising: accessing usage data of the surgical instrument 432; Dachs discloses the comparison of usage data to a usage threshold to comprise, “the main shaft drive 504 may have a back-driving torque threshold such that the main shaft/end effector assembly 502 back drives the main shaft drive when the main shaft/end effector assembly 502 is subject to a net torque (including any torque necessary to overcome friction induced restraint) over the back-driving torque threshold and does not back drive the main shaft drive when the main shaft/end effector assembly 502 is subject to a net torque under the back-driving torque threshold.” See paragraph [0151]. Use of the surgical instrument 432 is prevented in response to the usage data being below the usage threshold. Dachs teaches it is “desirable to avoid the use of certain mechanisms that prevent rotational driving (also known as back driving) of the main shaft drive 504 by the main shaft 508,” see paragraph [0151]. Operation is enabled for the surgical instrument by the instrument drive unit in response to the usage data being above the usage threshold which comprises the torque threshold. Dachs discloses, enablement where the “magnitude of the counteracting torque differs from the magnitude of the torque(s) transmitted into the main shaft/end effector assembly 502 by the first and second output links 530, 536 by a net torque magnitude that is less than the back-driving torque threshold for the main shaft drive 504 even when the torque transmitted into the main shaft/end effector assembly 502 by the first and second output links 530, 536 exceeds the back-driving torque threshold.” See paragraph [0160]. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 12 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George Manuel whose telephone number is (571) 272-4952. The examiner can normally be reached on regular business days. 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, Benjamin Klein can be reached on (571) 270-5213. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /George Manuel/ Primary Examiner Art Unit: 3792 1/8/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 24, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Dec 15, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Mar 31, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588853
IDENTIFYING CARDIAC ABNORMALITIES IN MULTI-LEAD ECGS USING HYBRID NEURAL NETWORK WITH FULCRUM BASED DATA RE-BALANCING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575777
ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY PATCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569286
ACCURACY OF ABLATION MODEL THROUGH SYNCHRONIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569205
IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE DATA AND DIAGNOSTICS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM METHOD USING MACHINE-LEARNING ARCHITECTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12562269
BODY-CONDITION-DEPENDENT STIMULATION WITH REAL-TIME COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AN ACTION MODULE AND A CAPTURE MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+5.6%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1291 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month