DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 4/17/2026 in which claims 1-26, 28, 33, and 37 have been canceled, claims 27, 29-32, 34-36, 39, and 41 have been amended. Thus, the claims 27, 29-32, 34-36, and 38-41 are pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 27, line 19, Examiner reads “a command vale” to be “a command value”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 27, 29-32, 34-36, 38-39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jhaveri et al., US Patent Application No. 2022/0249198.
Regarding claim 27, Jhaveri discloses a surgical robot system, comprising
a surgical robot including (Fig. 2, abstract, [0003]):
an arm device including (Fig. 2, abstract, [0003]),
an arm, to which a surgical instrument is removably attached, having a motor to move the surgical instrument attached to the arm, the surgical instrument being usable up to a predetermined usage limit and comprising a memory storing an identification information individually identifying the surgical instrument and a cumulative number of times of usage or a time length of usage of the identified surgical instrument (Fig. 2, [0003], tool identification information; [0034], [0062]),
a reader configured to read the identification information from the surgical instrument attached to the arm ([0005], NFC reader), and
a detector configured to detect an attachment of the surgical instrument to the arm ([0005], [0018]), and
an operation device including a hand controller that is operated by an operator of the surgical robot to remotely move the surgical instrument attached to the arm (Fig. 1, [0034]-[0037]), wherein
the arm is configured to drive the motor to move the surgical instrument in accordance with a command vale derived from a movement of the hand controller operated by the operator (Fig. 1, [0034]-[0037]); and
an information processing device, operably connected to the surgical robot, including a processor and a storage, the information processing device programmed to (Fig. 1, user console 120, computer system, Fig. 8, computer system 800, [0084]-]0086], [0035], a remote location in a different building, city; remotely manipulate implies placed separately, [0062], [0089]):
obtain, from the surgical robot, the identification information read by the reader from a target surgical instrument attached to the arm and store the obtained identification in the storage (Fig. 1, [0003], [0034]-[0036]),
receive, for the target surgical instrument for which the cumulative number of times of usage or the time length of usage has not reached the predetermined usage limit and detached from the arm, a disablement instruction to disable a use of the detached target surgical instrument ([0061]-[0066], tool 220 can be removed from robotic system 100), and
in response to receiving the disablement instruction, store a flag indicating that the detached target surgical instrument is unusable, in associated with the stored identification information, in the storage ([0061]-[0066], tool 220 can be removed from robotic system 100), wherein
in response to a detection of re-attachment of the detached target surgical instrument to the arm by the detector, the surgical robot queries the information processing device whether the flag is stored in associated with the identification information of the re-attached target surgical instrument in the storage ([0061]-[0066]), and
in response to the flag being stored in the storage, the surgical robot system disables a use of the re-attached target surgical instrument ([0062]-[0066], previously used/attached in the same surgical procedure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine different disclosure of Jhaveri in order to treat a patient.
Regarding claim 29, Jhaveri discloses wherein the viewing terminal is programmed to:
display a screen to receive the disablement instruction on the display, receive the disablement instruction thorough the screen (Fig. 1, 2), and
in response to receiving the disablement instruction, send the disablement instruction to the information processing device (Fig. 1, 2, [0062]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 30, Jhaveri discloses wherein the viewing terminal is programmed to:
receive a comment regarding disablement of the use of the target surgical instrument (Fig. 1, [0062]-[0066], [0089]), and
in response to receiving the comment, send the comment to the information processing device, and the information processing device is programmed to: (Fig. 1, [0062]-[0066], [0089])
receive the comment from the viewing terminal (Fig. 1, [0062]-[0066], [0089]), and
store, for the target surgical instrument for which the cumulative number of times of usage or the time length of usage has not reached the predetermined usage limit and for which the disablement instruction has been received, the comment in association with the identification information of the target surgical instrument and the flag in the storage (Fig. 1-2, [0062]-[0066], [0089]).
Regarding claim 31, Jhaveri discloses wherein
the arm further includes an encoder configured to output a driving amount derived from a rotation of the motor ([0039], [0048]),
the surgical robot is configured to send the command value and the driving amount outputted from the encoder to the information processing device ([0039], [0048], [0089]), and
the information processing device is programmed to:
receive the command value and the driving amount from the surgical robot ([0039], [0048], [0062]-[0066], [0089]), and
judge, for the target surgical instrument for which the cumulative number of times of usage or the time length of usage has not reached the predetermined usage limit, whether the target surgical instrument is usable based on the received command value and the driving amount ([0039], [0048], [0062]-[0066], [0089]).
Regarding claim 32, Jhaveri discloses wherein the information processing device is programmed to (Fig. 1):
determine, for the target surgical instrument for which the cumulative number of times of usage or the time length of usage has not reached the predetermined usage limit, that the target surgical instrument is unusable in response to a difference between the command value and the driving amount exceeding a threshold ([0049], not working if beyond this distance; [0050], [0062]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 34, Jhaveri discloses wherein
the viewing terminal is programmed to:
display a second screen showing that the disablement instruction has been received for the target surgical instrument distinguishably from a third screen showing that the cumulative number of times of usage or the time length of usage of the target surgical instrument has reached to the predetermined usage limit (Fig. 1, [0062]-[0066], [0089]).
Regarding claim 35, Jhaveri discloses wherein
the memory of the surgical instrument further stores information indicating that the target surgical instrument is unusable (Fig. 1),
the reader of the surgical robot is configured to read information stored in the memory (Fig. 1, [0062]-[0066], [0089]), and
in response to the reader reading the information indicating that the target surgical instrument is unusable from the memory, the surgical robot outputs an alert (Fig. 1, [0062]-[0066], [0089]).
Regarding claim 36, Jhaveri discloses wherein
in response to the reader reading the information indicating that the target surgical instrument is unusable from the memory, the surgical robot prohibits an operation of the surgical robot ([0062]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 38, Jhaveri discloses wherein
the cumulative usage number of times is a cumulative number of surgeries using the target surgical instrument ([0062]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 39, Jhaveri discloses a viewing terminal, operably connected to the information processing device, including a second processor and a display, wherein
the information processing device is programmed to:
in response to receiving the disablement instruction, send information for a fourth screen showing that the target surgical instrument is unusable to the viewing terminal ([0039], [0048], [0062]-[0066], [0089]), and
in response to judging that the target surgical instrument is unusable due to the difference between the command value and the driving amount exceeding the threshold, send information for a fifth screen showing that the target surgical instrument is unusable to the viewing terminal (Fig. 1, 2, [0049], not working if beyond this distance; [0050], [0062]-[0066], [0089]) and
wherein the fourth screen is different from the fifth screen (Fig. 1, [0089]).
Regarding claim 41, Jhaveri discloses
the storage of the information processing device stores information on a plurality of surgical instruments that comprises, for each of the plurality of surgical instruments, the cumulative number of times of usage or the time length of usage of the surgical instrument, the predetermined usage limit of the surgical instrument, and the flag if the disablement instruction is received, in association with the identification information of the surgical instrument ([0003], [0062]-[0068]).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jhaveri et al., US Patent Application No. 2022/0249198 in view of Ichii et al., US Patent Application No. 2022/0409317.
Regarding claim 40, Jhaveri does not specifically disclose wherein the surgical instrument includes a forceps.
However, Ichii discloses wherein the surgical instrument includes a forceps ([0072], [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Jhaveri with the above-noted disclosure of Ichii. The motivation for combining these references would have been to treat a patient.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 27-32, 34-40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant states that Jhaveri fails to disclose an arrangement in which the surgical robotic system 100 queries an information processing device different from the surgical tool having the memory storing the identification information when the surgical tool is re-attached to the surgical robot.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that storing identification information in the memory of an information processing device instead of surgical tool is within the capability of a person having ordinary skills in the art. Jhaveri discloses each and every element of claim 27 and modifying different disclosure of Jhaveri would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made. The motivation for modifying the disclosure would have been to identify the surgical tool when the tool does not have enough memory space.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding Ichii, Examiner notes that the office action does not rely on Ichii for disclosing the limitations of claim 27. The office action relies on Ichii for disclosing the surgical instrument includes a forceps. Thus, these arguments are moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights