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 11/4/2025 in which claims 1-26 and 33 have bene canceled, claims 27-28, 30, 34, and 39 have been amended and new claim 41 has been added. Thus, the claims 27-32 and 34-41 are pending in the application.
Drawings
Drawings filed dated December 26, 2023 have been accepted.
Priority Claim
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim for priority and the certified copies of the priority documents have bene received.
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 27-32, 34-39, 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 having an identification information individually identifying the 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]),
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]), and
an arm control device configured to receive a driving instruction derived from a movement of the hand controller operated by the operator and send a command value to the arm device to drive the motor of the arm to move the surgical instrument (Fig. 1, [0034]-[0037]); and
an information processing device, operably connected to the surgical robot and placed separately from the arm device and the surgical instrument, 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, the target surgical instrument being the surgical instrument under management by the information processing device (Fig. 1, [0003], [0034]-[0036]),
obtain information on usage of the target surgical instrument corresponding to the obtained identification information based on a detection result of the attachment of the target surgical instrument to the arm detected by the detector, the information on usage representing cumulative usage number of times or cumulative usage time length of the target surgical instrument ([0061]-[0062], use count and usability flags, [0065]),
obtain a first judgement result indicating whether the target surgical instrument has been used to the predetermined usage limit based on the information on usage and the predetermined usage limit ([0062]-[0065]),
obtain, for the target surgical instrument that has not been used to the predetermined usage limit, a second judgement result indicating whether the surgical instrument is usable ([0062-[0065]), and
flag the target surgical instrument as being unusable by storing a flag in association with the identification information of the target surgical instrument in the storage in response to the second judgement result indicating that the target surgical instrument is unusable ([0062]-[0065]); and
a viewing terminal operably connected to the information processing device, including a second processor and a display (Fig. 1, 2), wherein
the information processing device is programmed to (Fig. 1 and 2):
send information for a second screen showing the first and the second judgement result of the target surgical instrument to the viewing terminal ([0017], one or more processors; [0038], one or more displays within operating room and remote; [0062]-[0066], [0089]).
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 28, Jhaveri discloses
wherein the information processing device is programmed to (Fig. 1, 2):
receive, for the target surgical instrument that has not been used to the predetermined usage limit, a disablement instruction to disable a use of the target surgical instrument from the viewing terminal ([0062-[0066], tool 220 can be removed from robotic system 100), and
in response to receiving the disablement instruction, obtain, for the target surgical instrument that has not been used to the predetermined usage limit, the second judgement result indicating that the target surgical instrument is unusable ([0062]-[0063], is not usable because the specific tool type is not compatible or supported by robotic system 100, [0064]-[0066]).
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 that has not been used to the predetermined usage limit and the second judgement result indicates that the target surgical instrument is unusable, 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 arm control device 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
obtain, for the target surgical instrument that has not been used to the predetermined usage limit, the second judgement result 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):
obtain, for the target surgical instrument that has not been used to the predetermined usage limit, the second judgement result indicating that the target surgical instrument is unusable in response to a different 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 second screen for the target surgical instrument that has been used to the predetermined usage limit is different from the second screen for the target surgical instrument that has not been used to the predetermined usage limit and the second judgement result indicates that the target surgical instrument is unusable (Fig. 1, [0062]-[0066], [0089]).
Regarding claim 35, Jhaveri discloses wherein
the surgical instrument includes a second storage capable of storing 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 second storage (Fig. 1, [0062]-[0066], [0089]), and
in response to the reader reading the information indicating that the target surgical instrument is unusable from the second storage, 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 second storage, the surgical robot prohibits an operation of the surgical robot ([0062]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 37, Jhaveri discloses wherein the information processing device is programmed to: send the information indicating that the target surgical instrument is unusable to the surgical robot in response to the target surgical instrument that has not been used to the predetermined usage limit and the second judgement result indicates that the target surgical instrument is unusable being attached to the arm ([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
the arm further includes an encoder configured to output a driving amount derived from a rotation of the motor ([0039], [0048], [0089]),
the arm control device is configured to send the command value and the driving amount outputted from the encoder to the information processing device (Fig. 1, [0039], [0048], [0089]), and
the information processing device is programmed to:
receive, for the target surgical instrument that has not been used to the predetermined usage limit, a disablement instruction to disable a use of the target surgical instrument from the viewing terminal ([0039], [0048], [0062]-[0066], [0089]),
in response to receiving the disablement instruction, obtain, for the target surgical instrument that has not been used to the predetermined usage limit, the second judgement result indicating that the target surgical instrument is unusable ([0062]-[0063], is not usable because the specific tool type is not compatible or supported by robotic system 100, [0064]-[0066]),
receive the command value and the driving amount from the surgical robot ([0039], [0048], [0062]-[0066], [0089]), and
obtain, for the target surgical instrument that has not been used to the predetermined usage limit, the second judgement result indicating that the target surgical instrument is unusable in response to a different between the command value and the driving amount exceeding a threshold ([0049], not working if beyond this distance; [0050], [0062]-[0066]), and
send information for a third screen showing the first and the second judgement result of the target surgical instrument to the viewing terminal, wherein the third screen for the target surgical instrument in which the second judgement result indicates that the target surgical instrument is unusable based on the disablement instruction is different from the third screen for the target surgical instrument in which the second judgement result indicates that the target surgical instrument is unusable based on the difference (Fig. 1, 2, [0062]-[0066], [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 information on usage of the surgical instrument, the predetermined usage limit of the surgical instrument, and the flag indicating whether the surgical instrument that has not been used to the predetermined usage limit is allowed to use or not, in association with the identification information of the surgical instrument ([0003], [0062]-[0065]).
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 11/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 27-40 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant states that the Jhaveri necessarily fails to disclose that the NFC tag 402 and the NFC reader 412 are provided separately from the surgical tool 220 and the robotic arm 112.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the office action relies on computer system presented in Fig. 1 (user console 120, computer system, Fig. 8, computer system 800, [0084]-]0086]) to represent an information processing device which is located separately from the surgical tool 220 and the robotic arm 112.
Applicant states that Jhaveri cannot achieve an advantageous effect of the claimed invention, that is, the operator can check the second judgement result indicating whether the surgical instrument that has not been used to the predetermined usage limit is allowed to use or not can be checked via the viewing terminal 400 at any time.
Examiner notes that this argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action based on Jhaveri which displays second judgement result on a second display.
With respect to the rejection of claims 28-32 and 34-40, Examiner relies on response presented above for claim 27 for maintaining the rejection of these claims.
With respect to the newly added claim 41, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above in this office action.
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 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