DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination received 4 March 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-5 and 17-31 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 allowance. 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 March 2026 (IDS) has been entered. After further consideration, the allowability of Claims 1-5 and 17-31 is withdrawn in view of the materials submitted with the 4 March 2026 IDS. Corresponding rejections are set forth as follows.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1, 17-18, and 20-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moll (US Pub. No. 2003/0013949) in view of Nakazawa (US Pub. No. 2003/0135091).
As per Claim 1, Moll discloses a medical method (as per operation of surgical network 10) (Fig. 1; ¶70), comprising:
receiving instructions (via 406) to control movement of one or more first instrument (306a) in response to first user input (402) via a master console (200) (Figs. 1, 11, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 115-119, 238);
electronically controlling (via 410) a first robotic arm (as per “robotic arms of slave cart 300” in ¶70 with instrument 306a in Fig. 25A-B) to manipulate the first instrument (306a) through a first opening (as per aperture through which 306a extends into patient in Fig. 25A-B) of a patient (P) (Figs. 1, 11, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 115-119, 238);
displaying (via 800) one or more images from the first instrument (306a) on a display (202) of the master console (200) (Figs. 1-2, 20, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 75, 191-194, 234, 238);
electronically controlling (via 410) the movement of the one or more first instruments (306a) in response to the first user input (402) based on the first user input (402) synchronized (as per “derive the desired coordinate transformations so as to provide the desired level of substantial connectedness” in ¶107; as per “the processor can reconfigure the coordinate transformations between the masters and the end effectors when changing between two different image capture devices to re-establish an at least substantially connected relationship” in ¶264) relative to a coordinate frame of the one or more images from the first instrument (306a) (Figs. 1, 10-11, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 105-108, 111-114, 238, 264);
receiving instructions (via 406) to control movement of one or more rigid (as per “Most current laparoscopic tools have rigid shafts” in ¶5) instruments (306b) in response to second user input (as per other of “left and right input devices” in ¶70) via the master console (200), the one or more rigid instruments (306b) comprising a rigid (as per “Most current laparoscopic tools have rigid shafts” in ¶5) laparoscope (Figs. 1, 11, 25A-B; ¶5, 70-71, 115-119, 238);
electronically controlling (via 410) a second robotic arm (as per “robotic arms of slave cart 300” in ¶70 with instrument 306b in Fig. 25A-B) to manipulate the rigid laparoscope (306b) through a second opening (as per aperture through which 306b extends into patient in Figs. 25A-B) of the patient (P) (Figs. 1, 11, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 115-119, 238);
displaying (via 800) one or more images from the rigid laparoscope (306b) on the display (202) of the master console (200) (Figs. 1-2, 20, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 75, 191-194, 234, 238); and,
electronically controlling (via 410) the movement of one or more rigid instruments (306b) in response to the second user input (as per other of “left and right input devices” in ¶70) based on the second user input (as per other of “left and right input devices” in ¶70) synchronized (as per “derive the desired coordinate transformations so as to provide the desired level of substantial connectedness” in ¶107; as per “the processor can reconfigure the coordinate transformations between the masters and the end effectors when changing between two different image capture devices to re-establish an at least substantially connected relationship” in ¶264) relative to a coordinate frame of the one or more images from the rigid laparoscope (306b) (Figs. 1, 10-11, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 105-108, 111-114, 238, 264),
wherein the first opening (as per aperture through which 306a extends into patient in Fig. 25A-B) and the second opening (as per aperture through which 306b extends into patient in Figs. 25A-B) are positioned at two different anatomical regions (as per “anterior and posterior relative to the patient” in ¶238) of the patient (P) (Figs. 25A-B; ¶238).
Moll does not expressly disclose:
wherein the one or more first instruments include one or more flexible instruments; and
wherein the one of more first instruments include a flexible endoscope.
Nakazawa discloses a treatment apparatus in which a first flexible endoscope (11) is inserted, second flexible endoscope (22) is inserted, and a third endoscope (33) is inserted (Fig. 20; ¶, 75, 190-193). The first and second endoscopes (11, 22) are flexible (¶190) and the third endoscope (33) is rigid (¶196). According to Nakazawa, implementing flexible endoscopes can improve operability of the treatment apparatus (¶197). Like Moll, Nakazawa is concerned with surgical systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Moll and Nakazawa, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Nakazawa to the system of Moll since doing so would enhance the system by improving operability. Applying the teachings of Nakazawa to the system of Moll would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the one or more first instruments include one or more flexible instruments” in that the system of Moll would be adapted to include a flexible instrument as per Nakazawa;
“wherein the one of more first instruments include a flexible endoscope” in that the system of Moll would be adapted to include a flexible endoscope as per Nakazawa.
As per Claim 17, the combination of Moll and Nakazawa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Moll further discloses:
receiving first user input (402) via a pendant (as per “master controls” in ¶75) of the master console (200) (Figs. 1-2; ¶70, 75-76); and
receiving the second user input (as per other of “left and right input devices” in ¶70) via a gimbal (210B) attached to a positioning platform (210) of the master console (200) (Figs. 1, 3A-C; ¶70, 76).
As per Claim 18, the combination of Moll and Nakazawa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Moll further discloses:
controlling the first robotic arm (as per “robotic arms of slave cart 300” in ¶70 with instrument 306a in Fig. 25A-B) to perform a first medical procedure (as per “select images provided by … a first scope 306a … for showing on display 800 of workstation” in ¶234); and
controlling the second robotic arm (as per “robotic arms of slave cart 300” in ¶70 with instrument 306b in Fig. 25A-B) to perform a second medical procedure (as per “select images provided by … a second scope 306b for showing on display 800 of workstation” in ¶234) different (as per “appropriate images” in ¶234) from the first medical procedure (as per “select images provided by … a first scope 306a … for showing on display 800 of workstation” in ¶234).
As per Claim 20, the combination of Moll and Nakazawa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 18. Moll further discloses wherein the first medical procedure (as per “select images provided by … a first scope 306a … for showing on display 800 of workstation” in ¶234) and the second medical procedure (as per “select images provided by … a second scope 306b for showing on display 800 of workstation” in ¶234) are performed concomitantly (as per “the operator may sequentially select” in ¶234) during a single medical episode (as per “an exemplary surgical procedure” in ¶234).
As per Claim 21, the combination of Moll and Nakazawa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Moll further discloses:
receiving the first user input (as per signals from 402 to 404 “Left” in Fig. 11A) via a first handle (as per “Master Manipulator Left” in Fig. 11A) of the master console (200) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A; ¶70, 115-118, 134); and
receiving the second user input (as per signals from 402 to 404 “Right” in Fig. 11A) via a second handle (as per “Master Manipulator Right” in Fig. 11A) of the master console (200) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A; ¶70, 115-118, 134),
wherein one of the first handle (as per “Master Manipulator Left” in Fig. 11A) or {the second handle} is configured to be controlled by a left hand (as per “left … hand inputs” in ¶144) of a user (402) of the master console (200), and the other of {the first handle} or the second handle (as per “Master Manipulator Right” in Fig. 11A) is configured to be controlled by a right hand (as per “right hand inputs” in ¶144) of the user (402) of the master console (200) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A; ¶70, 115-118, 134, 144).
As per Claim 22, the combination of Moll and Nakazawa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Moll further discloses:
receiving the first user input (as per signals from 402 to 404 “Left” in Fig. 11A) via the master console (200) while the master console (200) is operated in a first mode (as per connections prior to 925; as per connections prior to 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B; ¶70, 115-118, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221); and
receiving the second user input (as per signals from 402 to 404 “Right” in Fig. 11A) via the master console (200) while the master console (200) is operated in a second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B; ¶70, 115-118, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221).
As per Claim 23, the combination of Moll and Nakazawa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 22. Moll further discloses receiving third user input via a foot pedal (208) of the master console (200) to switch the master console (200) between the first mode (as per connections prior to 925; as per connections prior to 910) and the second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910) (Figs. 1-2, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B; ¶70, 115-118, 134, 153-154, 199, 204-210, 214-221).
As per Claim 24, the combination of Moll and Nakazawa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 23. Moll further discloses:
receiving the first user input (as per signals from 402 to 404 “Left” in Fig. 11A) via a pair of handles (as per “Master Manipulator Left” in Fig. 11A, as per “Master Manipulator Right” in Fig. 11A) of the master console (200) while the master console (200) is operated in the first mode (as per connections prior to 925; as per connections prior to 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B; ¶70, 115-118, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221); and
receiving the second user input (as per signals from 402 to 404 “Right” in Fig. 11A) via the pair of handles (as per “Master Manipulator Left” in Fig. 11A, as per “Master Manipulator Right” in Fig. 11A) of the master console (200) while the master console (200) is operated in the second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B; ¶70, 115-118, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221).
As per Claim 25, Moll discloses a medical method (as per operation of surgical network 10) (Fig. 1; ¶70), comprising:
receiving instructions (via 406) to control movement of one or more first instruments (306a) in response to first user input (402) via a master console (200) while the master console (200) is operated in a first mode (as per connections prior to 925; as per connections prior to 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70, 115-118, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 238);
electronically controlling (via 410) a first robotic arm (as per “robotic arms of slave cart 300” in ¶70 with instrument 306a in Fig. 25A-B) to manipulate the first instrument (306a) through a first opening (as per aperture through which 306a extends into patient in Fig. 25A-B) of a patient (P) while the master console (200) is operated in the first mode (as per connections prior to 925; as per connections prior to 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70, 115-118, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 238);
displaying (via 800) an endoscopic view from the first instrument (306a) on a display (800) of the master console (200) while the master console (200) is operated in the first mode (as per connections prior to 925; as per connections prior to 910) (Figs. 1-2, 11, 11A, 20, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 75, 115-118, 134, 191-194, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 234, 238);
electronically controlling (via 410) the movement of the one or more first instruments (306a) based on the first user input (402) synchronized (as per “derive the desired coordinate transformations so as to provide the desired level of substantial connectedness” in ¶107; as per “the processor can reconfigure the coordinate transformations between the masters and the end effectors when changing between two different image capture devices to re-establish an at least substantially connected relationship” in ¶264) relative to a coordinate frame of the endoscopic view (as per 306a) while the master console (200) is operated in the first mode (as per connections prior to 925; as per connections prior to 910) (Figs. 1-2, 10-11, 11A, 20, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 75, 105-108, 115-118, 134, 191-194, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 234, 238, 264);
receiving instructions (via 406) to control movement of one or more laparoscopic instruments (306b) in response to second user input (as per other of “left and right input devices” in ¶70) via the master console (200) while the master console (200) is operated in a second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910), the one or more laparoscopic instruments (306b) comprising a rigid (as per “Most current laparoscopic tools have rigid shafts” in ¶5) laparoscope (306b) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70, 115-119, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 238);
electronically controlling (via 410) a second robotic arm (as per “robotic arms of slave cart 300” in ¶70 with instrument 306b in Fig. 25A-B) to manipulate the rigid laparoscope (306b) through an incision (as per aperture through which 306b extends into patient in Figs. 25A-B) on the patient (P) while the master console (200) is operated in the second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 115-119, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 238);
displaying (via 800) a laparoscopic view from the rigid laparoscope (306b) on the display (202) of the master console (200) while the master console (200) is operated in the second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910) (Figs. 1-2, 11, 11A, 20, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 75, 115-118, 134, 191-194, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 234, 238);
electronically controlling (via 410) the movement of the one or more laparoscopic instruments (306b) based on the second user input (as per other of “left and right input devices” in ¶70) synchronized (as per “derive the desired coordinate transformations so as to provide the desired level of substantial connectedness” in ¶107; as per “the processor can reconfigure the coordinate transformations between the masters and the end effectors when changing between two different image capture devices to re-establish an at least substantially connected relationship” in ¶264) relative to a coordinate frame of the laparoscopic view (as per 306b) while the master console (200) is operated in the second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910) (Figs. 1-2, 10-11, 11A, 20, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 75, 105-108, 115-118, 134, 191-194, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 234, 238, 264); and
receiving instructions to toggle (as per “the operator may sequentially select images provided by either a first scope 306a or a second scope 306b for showing on display 800” in ¶234) between the first mode (as per connections prior to 925; as per connections prior to 910) and the second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910) via the master console (200) (Figs. 1-2, 11, 11A, 20, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 75, 115-118, 134, 191-194, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 234, 238).
Moll does not expressly disclose:
wherein the one or more first instruments include one or more flexible instruments;
wherein the one or more first instruments include a flexible endoscope; and
wherein the first opening is a natural orifice.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Nakazawa. Nakazawa further discloses wherein an endoscope (22) is orally inserted into the patient’s stomach (2) (Fig. 20; ¶75, 190-193).
Therefore, from these teachings of Moll and Nakazawa, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Nakazawa to the system of Moll since doing so would enhance the system by improving operability. Applying the teachings of Nakazawa to the system of Moll would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the one or more first instruments include one or more flexible instruments” in that the system of Moll would be adapted to include a flexible instrument as per Nakazawa;
“wherein the one of more first instruments include a flexible endoscope” in that the system of Moll would be adapted to include a flexible endoscope as per Nakazawa; and
“wherein the first opening is a natural orifice” in that in that the system of Moll would be adapted to include oral insertion of a flexible endoscope as per Nakazawa.
As per Claim 26, Moll discloses a medical method (as per operation of surgical network 10) (Fig. 1; ¶70), comprising:
receiving instructions (via 406) to control movement of one or more first instruments (306a) via at least one handle (as per one of “Master Manipulator Left” in Fig. 11A, “Master Manipulator Right” in Fig. 11A) of a pair of handles (as per “Master Manipulator Left” in Fig. 11A, as per “Master Manipulator Right” in Fig. 11A) of a master console (200) while the master console (200) is operated in a first mode (as per connections prior to 925; as per connections prior to 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70, 115-118, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 238);
electronically controlling (via 410) a first robotic arm (as per “robotic arms of slave cart 300” in ¶70 with instrument 306a in Fig. 25A-B) to manipulate the first instrument (306a) through a first opening (as per aperture through which 306a extends into patient in Fig. 25A-B) of a patient (P) while the master console (200) is operated in the first mode (as per connections prior to 925; as per connections prior to 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70, 115-118, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 238);
displaying (via 800) an endoscopic view from the first instrument (306a) as a primary view on a display (800) of the master console (200) while the master console (200) is operated in the first mode (as per connections prior to 925; as per connections prior to 910) (Figs. 1-2, 11, 11A, 20, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 75, 115-118, 134, 191-194, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 234, 238);
receiving instructions (via 410) to control movement of one or more laparoscopic instruments (306b) via at least one handle (as per one of “Master Manipulator Left” in Fig. 11A, “Master Manipulator Right” in Fig. 11A) of a pair of handles (as per “Master Manipulator Left” in Fig. 11A, as per “Master Manipulator Right” in Fig. 11A) of the master console (200) while the master console (200) is operated in a second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910), the one or more laparoscopic instruments (306b), the one or more laparoscopic instruments (306b) comprising a rigid (as per “Most current laparoscopic tools have rigid shafts” in ¶5) laparoscope (306b) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70, 115-119, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 238);
electronically controlling (via 410) a second robotic arm (as per “robotic arms of slave cart 300” in ¶70 with instrument 306b in Fig. 25A-B) to manipulate the rigid laparoscope (306b) through an incision (as per aperture through which 306b extends into patient in Figs. 25A-B) on the patient (P) while the master console (200) is operated in the second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 115-119, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 238);
displaying (via 800) a laparoscopic view from the rigid laparoscope (306b) as the primary view on the display (202) of the master console (200) while the master console (200) is operated in the second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910) (Figs. 1-2, 11, 11A, 20, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 75, 115-118, 134, 191-194, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 234, 238); and
receiving instructions to toggle (as per “the operator may sequentially select images provided by either a first scope 306a or a second scope 306b for showing on display 800” in ¶234) from the first mode (as per connections prior to 925; as per connections prior to 910) to the second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910) via a foot pedal (208) of the master console (200), wherein, in response to the instructions to toggle (as per “the operator may sequentially select images provided by either a first scope 306a or a second scope 306b for showing on display 800” in ¶234) from the first mode (as per connections prior to 925; as per connections prior to 910) to the second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910), the primary view is transitioned from the endoscopic view (as per 306a) to the laparoscopic view (as per 306b), and the pair of handles (as per “Master Manipulator Left” in Fig. 11A, as per “Master Manipulator Right” in Fig. 11A) are transitioned from controlling the one or more first instruments (306a) with control synchronized (as per “derive the desired coordinate transformations so as to provide the desired level of substantial connectedness” in ¶107; as per “the processor can reconfigure the coordinate transformations between the masters and the end effectors when changing between two different image capture devices to re-establish an at least substantially connected relationship” in ¶264) relative to a coordinate frame of the endoscopic view (306a) to controlling the one or more laparoscopic instruments (306b) with control synchronized (as per “derive the desired coordinate transformations so as to provide the desired level of substantial connectedness” in ¶107; as per “the processor can reconfigure the coordinate transformations between the masters and the end effectors when changing between two different image capture devices to re-establish an at least substantially connected relationship” in ¶264) relative to a coordinate frame of the laparoscopic view (306b) (Figs. 1-2, 11, 11A, 20, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 75, 115-118, 134, 191-194, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 234, 238).
Moll does not expressly disclose:
wherein the one or more first instruments include one or more flexible instruments;
the one or more flexible instruments comprising a flexible endoscope;
wherein the first opening is a natural orifice.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Nakazawa. Nakazawa further discloses wherein an endoscope (22) is orally inserted into the patient’s stomach (2) (Fig. 20; ¶75, 190-193).
Therefore, from these teachings of Moll and Nakazawa, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Nakazawa to the system of Moll since doing so would enhance the system by improving operability. Applying the teachings of Nakazawa to the system of Moll would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the one or more first instruments include one or more flexible instruments” in that the system of Moll would be adapted to include a flexible instrument as per Nakazawa;
“wherein the one of more first instruments include a flexible endoscope” in that the system of Moll would be adapted to include a flexible endoscope as per Nakazawa; and
“wherein the first opening is a natural orifice” in that in that the system of Moll would be adapted to include oral insertion of a flexible endoscope as per Nakazawa.
As per Claim 27, the combination of Moll and Nakazawa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 25. Moll further discloses:
receiving instructions (via 406) to control movement of the one or more laparoscopic instruments (306b) in response to third user input (as per third user operation in series of user operations) via a master console (200) while the master console (200) is operated in the first mode (as per connections prior to 925; as per connections prior to 910) (Figs. 1-2, 11, 11A, 20, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 75, 115-118, 134, 191-194, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 234, 238); and
electronically controlling (via 410) the movement of the one or more laparoscopic instruments (306b) based on third user input (as per third user operation in series of user operations) synchronized (as per “derive the desired coordinate transformations so as to provide the desired level of substantial connectedness” in ¶107; as per “the processor can reconfigure the coordinate transformations between the masters and the end effectors when changing between two different image capture devices to re-establish an at least substantially connected relationship” in ¶264) relative to the coordinate frame of the endoscopic view (as per 306a) while the master console (200) is operated in the first mode (as per connections prior to 925; as per connections prior to 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70, 115-118, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 238).
As per Claim 28, the combination of Moll and Nakazawa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 25. Moll further discloses:
receiving instructions (via 406) to control movement of the one or more first instruments (406a) in response to fourth user input (as per fourth user operation in series of user operations) via a master console (200) while the master console (200) is operated in the second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70, 115-119, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 238); and
electronically controlling (via 410) the movement of the one or more first instruments (406a) based on the fourth user input (as per fourth user operation in series of user operations) relative (as per “derive the desired coordinate transformations so as to provide the desired level of substantial connectedness” in ¶107; as per “the processor can reconfigure the coordinate transformations between the masters and the end effectors when changing between two different image capture devices to re-establish an at least substantially connected relationship” in ¶264) to the coordinate frame of the laparoscopic view (306b) while the master console (200) is operated in the second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70, 115-119, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 238).
Moll does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more first instruments include one or more flexible instruments.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Nakazawa.
Therefore, from these teachings of Moll and Nakazawa, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Nakazawa to the system of Moll since doing so would enhance the system by improving operability. Applying the teachings of Nakazawa to the system of Moll would result in a system that operates: “wherein the one or more first instruments include one or more flexible instruments” in that the system of Moll would be adapted to include a flexible instrument as per Nakazawa.
As per Claim 29, the combination of Moll and Nakazawa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 25. Moll further discloses overlaying a graphical or virtual representation (as per Fig. 21) of the first instrument (406a) on the laparoscopic view (as per 406b) while the master console (200) is operated in the second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 21, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70, 115-119, 134, 194, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 238).
Moll does not expressly disclose wherein the first instrument is a flexible endoscope.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Nakazawa.
Therefore, from these teachings of Moll and Nakazawa, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Nakazawa to the system of Moll since doing so would enhance the system by improving operability. Applying the teachings of Nakazawa to the system of Moll would result in a system that operates: “wherein the one or more first instruments include one or more flexible instruments” in that the system of Moll would be adapted to include a flexible instrument as per Nakazawa.
As per Claim 30, the combination of Moll and Nakazawa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 25. Moll further discloses overlaying (as per indications in Fig. 21) the endoscopic view (as per 306a) from the first instrument (306a) on the laparoscopic view (as per 306b) while the master console (800) is operated in the second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 21, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70, 115-119, 134, 194, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 238).
Moll does not expressly disclose wherein the first instrument is a flexible endoscope.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Nakazawa.
Therefore, from these teachings of Moll and Nakazawa, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Nakazawa to the system of Moll since doing so would enhance the system by improving operability. Applying the teachings of Nakazawa to the system of Moll would result in a system that operates: “wherein the one or more first instruments include one or more flexible instruments” in that the system of Moll would be adapted to include a flexible instrument as per Nakazawa.
As per Claim 31, the combination of Moll and Nakazawa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 24. Moll further discloses:
a first handle (as per one of “Master Manipulator Left” in Fig. 11A, “Master Manipulator Right” in Fig. 11A) of the pair of handles (as per “Master Manipulator Left” in Fig. 11A, as per “Master Manipulator Right” in Fig. 11A) controlling insertion or retraction of the one or more first instruments (306a) while the master console (200) is operated in the first mode (as per connections prior to 925; as per connections prior to 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70, 82-83, 115-118, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 238);
a second handle (as per other of “Master Manipulator Left” in Fig. 11A, “Master Manipulator Right” in Fig. 11A) of the pair of handles (as per “Master Manipulator Left” in Fig. 11A, as per “Master Manipulator Right” in Fig. 11A) controlling articulation or roll of the one or more first instruments (306a) while the master console (200) is operated in the first mode (as per connections prior to 925; as per connections prior to 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70, 82-83, 115-118, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 238, 267);
the first handle (as per one of “Master Manipulator Left” in Fig. 11A, “Master Manipulator Right” in Fig. 11A) controlling a first laparoscopic instrument (306b) of the one or more laparoscopic instruments (306b) while the master console (200) is operated in the second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 115-119, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 238); and
the second handle (as per other of “Master Manipulator Left” in Fig. 11A, “Master Manipulator Right” in Fig. 11A) controlling a second laparoscopic instrument (as per “corresponding slaves” in ¶267) of the one or more laparoscopic instruments (306b) while the master console (200) is operated in the second mode (as per connections after 933; as per connections after 910) (Figs. 1, 11, 11A, 22B, 22C, 23B, 25A-B; ¶70-71, 115-119, 134, 199, 204-210, 215-221, 238, 267).
Moll does not expressly disclose:
wherein the one or more first instruments include one or more flexible instruments.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Nakazawa.
Therefore, from these teachings of Moll and Nakazawa, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Nakazawa to the system of Moll since doing so would enhance the system by improving operability. Applying the teachings of Nakazawa to the system of Moll would result in a system that operates: “wherein the one or more first instruments include one or more flexible instruments” in that the system of Moll would be adapted to include a flexible instrument as per Nakazawa.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moll (US Pub. No. 2003/0013949) in view of Nakazawa (US Pub. No. 2003/0135091), further in view of Lee (US Pub. No. 2016/0331613).
As per Claim 2, the combination of Moll and Nakazawa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Moll does not expressly disclose wherein the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm are coupled to a first vertically movable robotic arm support.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Nakazawa.
Lee discloses a surgical robotic system (100) that includes a table (101), column (102), and base (103) (Fig. 1; ¶61). The column (102) includes rings (305A, 305B) that translate vertically along an axis (331) of the column (102) (Figs. 3A-B; ¶84-91). In this way, the system accommodates a range of surgical procedures (¶5). Like Moll, Lee is concerned with surgical systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Moll, Nakazawa, and Lee, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Nakazawa and Lee to the system of Moll since doing so would enhance the system by: improving operability; and accommodating a range of surgical procedures. Applying the teachings of Nakazawa and Lee to the system of Moll would result in a system that operates “wherein the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm are coupled to a first vertically movable robotic arm support” in that the arms of slave cart of Moll would be adapted to connect with vertically movable rings as per Lee.
As per Claim 3, the combination of Moll, Nakazawa, and Lee teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 2. Moll does not expressly disclose electronically controlling the first vertically movable robotic arm support to robotically move in a vertical plane.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Nakazawa.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Lee. Lee further discloses wherein the surgical robotics system (700B) raises the column rings (405B, 405C) toward the table (401B) and lowers another column ring (705C) (Figs. 7C-D, 8D; ¶122, 128).
Therefore, from these teachings of Moll, Nakazawa, and Lee, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Nakazawa and Lee to the system of Moll since doing so would enhance the system by: improving operability; and accommodating a range of surgical procedures. Applying the teachings of Nakazawa and Lee to the system of Moll would result in a system that operates “electronically controlling the first vertically movable robotic arm support to robotically move in a vertical plane” in that the arms of slave cart of Moll would be adapted to connect with vertically movable rings as per Lee.
As per Claim 4, the combination of Moll, Nakazawa, and Lee teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 2. Moll does not expressly disclose wherein the first vertically movable robotic arm support is attached to a table support structure of an operating table.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Nakazawa.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Lee. Lee further discloses wherein the first vertically movable robotic arm support (705A) is attached to a table support structure (102/702) of an operating table (101/701) (Fig. 3A-3B, 7A; ¶84-91, 115-117).
Therefore, from these teachings of Moll, Nakazawa, and Lee, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Nakazawa and Lee to the system of Moll since doing so would enhance the system by: improving operability; and accommodating a range of surgical procedures. Applying the teachings of Nakazawa and Lee to the system of Moll would result in a system that operates “wherein the first vertically movable robotic arm support is attached to a table support structure of an operating table” in that the arms of slave cart of Moll would be adapted to connect with vertically movable rings as per Lee.
As per Claim 5, the combination of Moll, Nakazawa, and Lee teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 4. Moll does not expressly disclose electronically controlling the first robotic arm to robotically move in a horizontal plane along the first vertically movable robotic arm support and relative to the second robotic arm.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Nakazawa.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Lee. Lee further discloses electronically controlling the first robotic arm (770E) to robotically move (as per telescoping rail 526) in a horizontal plane along the first vertically movable robotic arm support (305A/510/705A) and relative to a longitudinal length of the operating table (101/701) (Fig. 3A-3B, 5A-5E, 7A; ¶84-91, 97-105, 115-117).
Therefore, from these teachings of Moll, Nakazawa, and Lee, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Nakazawa and Lee to the system of Moll since doing so would enhance the system by: improving operability; and accommodating a range of surgical procedures. Applying the teachings of Nakazawa and Lee to the system of Moll would result in a system that operates “electronically controlling the first robotic arm to robotically move in a horizontal plane along the first vertically movable robotic arm support and relative to the second robotic arm” in that the arms of slave cart of Moll would be adapted to connect with rings as per Lee.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moll (US Pub. No. 2003/0013949) in view of Nakazawa (US Pub. No. 2003/0135091), further in view of Edwards (US Patent No. 6,044,846).
As per Claim 19, the combination of Moll and Nakazawa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 18. Moll does not expressly disclose in response to a determination that the first medical procedure has failed to fully treat a medical condition of the patient, performing the second medical procedure.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Nakazawa.
Edwards discloses a treatment apparatus (10) having an energy delivery device (22) that delivers energy to a target tissue site (12) (Fig. 1; 4:52-5:2). In operation, the apparatus (10) is introduced adjacent tissue, diagnosis is performed, energy is delivered, and a second diagnostic phase is performed (Fig. 10; 7:15-65). If the second diagnostic phase does not indicate treatment success, a second phase of treatment to all or only a portion of the tissue may be performed immediately (Fig. 10; 7:43-65). In this way, operation of the apparatus (10) is suitably adjusted during treatment view of diagnostic data. Like Moll, Edwards is concerned with surgical instrument systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Moll, Nakazawa, and Edwards, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Nakazawa and Edwards to the system of Moll since doing so would enhance the system by: improving operability; and adjusting operation of the apparatus during treatment in view of diagnostic data. Applying the teachings of Nakazawa and Edwards to the system of Moll would result in a system that operates “in response to a determination that the first medical procedure has failed to fully treat a medical condition of the patient, performing the second medical procedure” in that the system of Moll be informed by Edwards to provide a second medical procedure in response to a determination as per Edwards that the first medical procedure has failed to fully treat the medical condition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights