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 .
Response to Amendment
It is noted that several claims have been marked with “canceled” status identifiers while still presenting text (claims 5, 11, and 12). Applicant is respectfully referred to MPEP 714 which states that no claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.” In future, any canceled claims should be presented only with the claim number and “canceled” status identifier and without any text.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 13, 15-20, and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasser et al. (US 2007/0167701 A1, Jul. 19, 2007) (hereinafter “Hasser”) in view of Anderson et al. (US 2018/0092706 A1, Apr. 5, 2018) (hereinafter “Anderson”) and Temby et al. (US 2011/0213210 A1, Sep. 1, 2011) (hereinafter “Temby”).
Regarding claim 1: Hasser discloses a remote surgery support system comprising: a first manipulator arm placed in a first facility and holding a first surgical instrument (mechanism 121, [0034]-[0036], fig. 1); a second manipulator arm placed in the first facility and holding a second surgical instrument (mechanism 123, [0034]-[0036], fig. 1); a third manipulator arm placed in the first facility and holding an endoscope (mechanism 122, [0037], [0049], fig. 1); a doctor-side operating device placed in the first facility and configured to be operated by a doctor to operate the first to third manipulator arms (fig. 1, control station 151, [0034]); a mentor-side operating device placed in a second facility different from the first facility and configured to be operated by a mentor to operate the first to third manipulator arms via an external network (fig. 1, control station 131, [0034]); and one or more controllers ([0042], [0049]), wherein the doctor-side operating device includes a first display configured to display an endoscopic image acquired by the endoscope, and a first voice communication device (3D display 152, [0040], [0042]; [0039]), the mentor-side operating device includes: a second display configured to display the endoscopic image transmitted through the external network (3D display 132, [0039]-[0040]); a second voice communication device provided at a position that allows the mentor to perform voice communication with the first voice communication device while viewing the endoscopic image displayed on the second display ([0039], [0041] - "Preferably a duplex audio communication system (microphone and speaker pair) is built into each surgeon's master control station."); a touch panel display configured to display the endoscopic image transmitted through the external network and receive an instruction input for generating an annotation image (touch screen 135, [0040], [0051]); and the one or more controllers is configured to display on the first display the annotation image based on the instruction input received by the touch panel display with the annotation image being superimposed with the endoscopic image ([0051]-[0052], [0066]).
Hasser does not disclose that the first display is of a scope type including a pair of speakers and a microphone being provided integrally with the scope type first display, and the first voice communication device including the pair of speakers and the microphone is formed integrally with the scope type first display, such that the pair of speakers are provided on right and left sides of the scope type first display and the microphone is provided on a lower side of the scope type first display.
Anderson, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a scope type (“immersive”) display with a pair of speakers and a microphone formed integrally with the scope type display, such that the pair of speakers are provided on right and left sides of the scope type display and the microphone is provided on a lower side of the scope type display ([0043]-[0044], [0081], fig. 10, immersive display 1000). Anderson further teaches that conventional robotic surgical systems typically only have rigid, immovable displays that may lead to user strain, fatigue, and injury during use over long periods of time ([0004]) where as the disclosed immersive (“scope type”) display may display three-dimensional (3D) and/or two-dimensional (2D) information to a user in a manner that comfortably and ergonomically immerses the user into the display environment with reduced distractions from the user's peripheral field of view ([0043]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hasser by providing the first display as an immersive (“scope type”) display as taught by Anderson in order to reduce strain, fatigue and possible injury to the use in view of the further teachings of Anderson that such a display provides improved comfort and ergonomics.
Further regarding claim 1: Hasser and Anderson are silent on a third voice communication device provided at a position closer to the touch panel display than the second display and configured to perform voice communication with the first voice communication device.
Temby, in the analogous art of telemedicine, discloses a display having a touch panel with an integrated speaker and microphone ([0033], figs. 7A-8).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the touch screen of Hasser and Anderson to include a microphone and speaker (“third voice communication device”) as taught by Temby in order to provide continued communication when the mentor is using the touch pad rather looking through the console eyepieces adjacent to the second voice communication device.
Regarding claim 3: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the remote surgery support system according to claim 1. Hasser further discloses wherein the doctor-side operating device includes first operating handles configured to operate the first to third manipulator arms, and the mentor-side operating device includes second operating handles configured to operate the first to third manipulator arms ([0042] - input devices 203 and 204; [0043] "The mentor master control station 131 may be similarly constructed as the surgeon console 151").
Regarding claim 4: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the remote surgery support system according to claim 1. Hasser further discloses that all of the provided voice communication devices communicate with one another by a communication network ([0041]). It would be prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the third voice communication device in the communication network along with all of the other communication devices, which would result in the second voice communication device and the third voice communication device being “configured to perform voice communication with each other.”
Regarding claim 6: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the remote surgery support system according to claim 1, wherein the third voice communication device is integrally provided with the touch panel display (Temby - [0033], figs. 7A-8; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the remote surgery support system according to claim 1. Hasser further discloses wherein the mentor-side operating device includes an interface for connecting an external device, and at least one of the third voice communication device and the touch panel display is connected to the mentor-side operating device via the interface ([0040], [0051] - interface is implicitly disclosed by the description of the touch screen being coupled to the console).
Regarding claim 8: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the remote surgery support system according to claim 1, further comprising a surgical robot that supports the first to third manipulator arms (Hasser - fig. 1, cart 120, [0035]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 9: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the remote surgery support system according to claim 8. Hasser further discloses an information sharing device that is placed in the first facility and comprises a third display configured to display the endoscopic image acquired by the endoscope ([0040] - vision cart 141 with display 142), and a fourth voice communication device configured to perform voice communication with the first voice communication device of the doctor-side operating device ([0041] - assistant's communication system), wherein the information sharing device is located closer to the surgical robot than to the doctor-side operating device (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the remote surgery support system according to claim 9. Hasser further discloses wherein the fourth voice communication device is configured to perform voice communication with both of the second voice communication device and the third voice communication device ([0041] - all of the provided voice communication devices communicate with one another by a communication network, see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the remote surgery support system according to claim 1 wherein at least one controller of the one or more controllers is located in the first facility and is configured to generate the annotation image based on the instruction input received via the external network, and to display the endoscopic image and the annotation image superimposed with the endoscopic image on the scope type first display (Hasser - [0010], [0051]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 15: Hasser discloses a mentor-side operating device placed in a second facility different from a first facility in which a surgical system is placed, the surgical system of the first facility comprising a doctor-side operating device that comprises: a first manipulator arm holding a first surgical instrument (mechanism 121, [0034]-[0036], fig. 1); a second manipulator arm holding a second surgical instrument (mechanism 123, [0034]-[0036], fig. 1); a third manipulator arm holding an endoscope (mechanism 122, [0037], [0049], fig. 1); a first display configured to display an endoscopic image acquired by the endoscope (3D display 152, [0040], [0042]; [0039]); and a first voice communication device ([0039], [0041]), the mentor-side operating device being configured to operate via an external network from the second facility the first to third manipulator arms of the surgical system in the first facility (fig. 1, control station 131, [0034]), the mentor-side operating device comprising: a second display configured to display the endoscopic image transmitted through the external network (3D display 132, [0039]-[0040]); a second voice communication device provided at a position that allows a mentor to perform voice communication with the first voice communication device while viewing the endoscopic image displayed on the second display ([0039], [0041] - "Preferably a duplex audio communication system (microphone and speaker pair) is built into each surgeon's master control station."); a touch panel display configured to display the endoscopic image transmitted through the external network and to receive an instruction input for generating an annotation image (touch screen 135, [0040], [0051]); wherein the mentor-side operating device is configured to transmit via the external network to the doctor-side operating device the instruction input received by the touch panel display, for displaying on the first display the annotation image superimposed with the endoscopic image ([0051]-[0052], [0066]).
Hasser does not disclose that the second display is of a scope type including a pair of speakers and a microphone being provided integrally with the scope type second display, and the second voice communication device including the pair of speakers and the microphone is formed integrally with the scope type second display, such that the pair of speakers are provided on right and left sides of the scope type second display and the microphone is provided on a lower side of the scope type second display.
Anderson, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a scope type (“immersive”) display with a pair of speakers and a microphone formed integrally with the scope type display, such that the pair of speakers are provided on right and left sides of the scope type display and the microphone is provided on a lower side of the scope type display ([0043]-[0044], [0081], fig. 10, immersive display 1000). Anderson further teaches that conventional robotic surgical systems typically only have rigid, immovable displays that may lead to user strain, fatigue, and injury during use over long periods of time ([0004]) whereas the disclosed immersive (“scope type”) display may display three-dimensional (3D) and/or two-dimensional (2D) information to a user in a manner that comfortably and ergonomically immerses the user into the display environment with reduced distractions from the user's peripheral field of view ([0043]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hasser by providing the second display as an immersive (“scope type”) display as taught by Anderson in order to reduce strain, fatigue and possible injury to the use in view of the further teachings of Anderson that such a display provides improved comfort and ergonomics.
Further regarding claim 15: Hasser and Anderson are silent on a third voice communication device provided at a position closer to the touch panel display than the second display and configured to perform voice communication with the first voice communication device.
Temby, in the analogous art of telemedicine, discloses a display having a touch panel with an integrated speaker and microphone ([0033], figs. 7A-8).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the touch screen of Hasser and Anderson to include a microphone and speaker (“third voice communication device”) as taught by Temby in order to provide continued communication when the mentor is using the touch pad rather looking through the console eyepieces adjacent to the second voice communication device.
Regarding claim 16: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the mentor-side operating device according to claim 15. Hasser further discloses wherein the doctor-side operating device includes first operating handles configured to operate the first to third manipulator arms, and the mentor-side operating device includes second operating handles configured to be operated by the mentor to operate the first to third manipulator arms ([0042] - input devices 203 and 204; [0043] "The mentor master control station 131 may be similarly constructed as the surgeon console 151").
Regarding claim 17: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the mentor-side operating device according to claim 15. Hasser further discloses that all of the provided voice communication devices communicate with one another by a communication network ([0041]). It would be prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the third voice communication device in the communication network along with all of the other communication devices, which would result in the second voice communication device and the third voice communication device being “configured to perform voice communication with each other.”
Regarding claim 18: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the mentor-side operating device according to claim 15, wherein the third voice communication device is integrally provided with the touch panel display (Temby - [0033], figs. 7A-8; see rejection of claim 15 above).
Regarding claim 19: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the mentor-side operating device according to claim 15. Hasser further discloses wherein the mentor-side operating device includes an interface for connecting an external device, and at least one of the third voice communication device and the touch panel display is connected to the mentor-side operating device via the interface ([0040], [0051] - interface is implicitly disclosed by the description of the touch screen being coupled to the console).
Regarding claim 20: Hasser discloses a remote surgery support system comprising: a first manipulator arm placed in a first facility and holding a first surgical instrument (mechanism 121, [0034]-[0036], fig. 1); a second manipulator arm placed in the first facility and holding a second surgical instrument (mechanism 123, [0034]-[0036], fig. 1); a third manipulator arm placed in the first facility and holding an endoscope (mechanism 122, [0037], [0049], fig. 1); a doctor-side operating device placed in the first facility and configured to be operated by a doctor to operate the first to third manipulator arms (fig. 1, control station 151, [0034]); a mentor-side operating device placed in a second facility different from the first facility and configured to be operated by a mentor to operate via an external network the first to third manipulator arms (fig. 1, control station 131, [0034]); and one or more controllers ([0042], [0049]), wherein the doctor-side operating device includes a first display configured to display an endoscopic image acquired by the endoscope, and a first voice communication device (3D display 152, [0040], [0042]; [0039]), the mentor-side operating device includes: a second display configured to display the endoscopic image transmitted through the external network (3D display 132, [0039]-[0040]); a second voice communication device provided at a position that allows the mentor to perform voice communication with the first voice communication device while viewing the endoscopic image displayed on the second display ([0039], [0041] - "Preferably a duplex audio communication system (microphone and speaker pair) is built into each surgeon's master control station."); a touch panel display configured to display the endoscopic image transmitted through the external network and receive an instruction input for generating an annotation image (touch screen 135, [0040], [0051]); and the one or more controllers is configured to display on the first display the annotation image based on the instruction input received by the touch panel display with the annotation image being superimposed with the endoscopic image ([0051]-[0051], [0066]).
Hasser does not disclose that the first display is of a scope type including a pair of speakers and a microphone being provided integrally with the scope type first display, and the first voice communication device including the pair of speakers and the microphone is formed integrally with the scope type first display, such that the pair of speakers are provided on right and left sides of the scope type first display and the microphone is provided on a lower side of the scope type first display.
Anderson, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a scope type (“immersive”) display with a pair of speakers and a microphone formed integrally with the scope type display, such that the pair of speakers are provided on right and left sides of the scope type display and the microphone is provided on a lower side of the scope type display ([0043]-[0044], [0081], fig. 10, immersive display 1000). Anderson further teaches that conventional robotic surgical systems typically only have rigid, immovable displays that may lead to user strain, fatigue, and injury during use over long periods of time ([0004]) whereas the disclosed immersive (“scope type”) display may display three-dimensional (3D) and/or two-dimensional (2D) information to a user in a manner that comfortably and ergonomically immerses the user into the display environment with reduced distractions from the user's peripheral field of view ([0043]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hasser by providing the first display as an immersive (“scope type”) display as taught by Anderson in order to reduce strain, fatigue and possible injury to the use in view of the further teachings of Anderson that such a display provides improved comfort and ergonomics.
Further regarding claim 20: Hasser and Anderson are silent on a third voice communication device integrally with the touch panel display than the second display and configured to perform voice communication with the first voice communication device.
Temby, in the analogous art of telemedicine, discloses a display having a touch panel with an integrated speaker and microphone ([0033], figs. 7A-8).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the touch screen of Hasser and Anderson to include a microphone and speaker (“third voice communication device”) as taught by Temby in order to provide continued communication when the mentor is using the touch pad rather looking through the console eyepieces adjacent to the second voice communication device.
Regarding claim 22: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the remote surgery support system according to claim 1, wherein at least one controller of the one or more controllers is located in the first facility and is configured to generate the annotation image based on the instruction input received via the external network.
While Hasser, Anderson and Temby are silent on displaying the endoscopic image and the annotation image superimposed with the endoscopic image via the external network on the second display, it would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the superimposed image comprising the endoscopic image and the telestration graphic to the second display so that the Mentor surgeon can verify that the annotation (telestration) is correct and has been properly applied to the endoscopic image.
Regarding claim 23: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the remote surgery support system according to claim 22, further comprising: an information sharing device that is located in the first facility and comprises a third display (Hasser - [0040] - vision cart 141 with display 142) and a fourth voice communication device configured to perform voice communication with the first voice communication device of the doctor-side operating device (Hasser - [0041] - assistant's communication system), wherein the at least one controller is configured to display the endoscopic image and the annotation image superimposed with the endoscopic image on the first display (Hasser - [0051]-[0054] ). While Hasser discloses displaying images on the vision cart display so that the surgeons and assistances are able to view the surgical site ([0040], where the assistants assist the surgeon during the procedure – [0033]), Hasser is silent on the displayed image being the endoscopic image and the annotation image superimposed with the endoscopic image. However, it would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the endoscopic image and the annotation image superimposed with the endoscopic image to the vision cart so that the assistants are able to view the surgical site as the surgeon sees it in order to better assist the surgeon during the procedure.
Regarding claim 24: Hasser, Anderson and Temby the remote surgery support system according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein the second display is a scope type display, a second voice communication device includes a pair of speakers and a microphone, and the second voice communication device including the pair of speakers and the microphone is formed integrally with the scope type second display, such that the pair of speakers are provided on right and left sides of the scope type second display and the microphone is provided on a lower side of the scope type second display.
However, Hasser discloses that the mentor surgeon control station (131) which comprises the second display may be the same (“similarly constructed”) as the surgeon console 151 ([0043]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second display and second voice communication device as the immersive device of Anderson to be the same as the first display and first voice communication device (see claim 1 above, Anderson - [0043]-[0044], [0081], fig. 10, immersive display 1000) so that the mentor surgeon may gain the same comfort and ergonomic benefits, in view of Hasser’s explicit suggestion to do so.
Regarding claim 25: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the remote surgery support system according to claim 1. Anderson further discloses wherein the scope type first display comprises a pair of handles such that the pair of handles are provided on right and left sides of the scope type first display, respectively (fig. 6, handles 626, [0072]).
Regarding claim 26: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the remote surgery support system according to claim 1. Anderson further discloses wherein the doctor-side operating device includes a support arm such that the scope type first display is supported by and hangs down from the support arm (figs. 4A-4C, [0055]; figs. 16A-16B, [0058]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasser and Temby as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghodoussi et al. (US 2003/0144649 A1, Jul. 31, 2003) (hereinafter “Ghodoussi”)
Regarding claim 2: Hasser and Temby disclose the remote surgery support system according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein at least one of the doctor-side operating device and the mentor-side operating device comprises a first switching device configured to switch an operation authority for operating the first to third manipulator arms from the doctor-side operating device and the mentor-side operating device and the mentor-side operating device comprises a second switching device configured to switch an operation authority for operating the first to third manipulator arms to the mentor-side operating device from the doctor-side operating device.
Ghodoussi, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a remote surgery support system comprising a mentor control unit (MCU 50; “mentor-side operating device”) and a pupil control unit (PCU 52; “doctor-side operating device”) wherein at least one of the doctor-side operating device and the mentor-side operating device comprises a first switching device configured to switch an operation authority for operating the first to third manipulator arms from the doctor-side operating device and the mentor-side operating device and the mentor-side operating device comprises a second switching device configured to switch an operation authority for operating the first to third manipulator arms to the mentor-side operating device from the doctor-side operating device ([0071] – the consoles 50 or 52 are provided with a switch which can be actuated to give that console priority).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hasser, Anderson and Temby by providing a switching device as taught by Ghodoussi in order to allow either surgeon to take over control of the procedure if necessary (e.g. the mentor can take control if the pupil/local surgeon is having difficulty or the pupil/local surgeon can take control in order to perform an action after being instructed by the mentor).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasser, Anderson and Temby as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Itkowitz et al. (US 2022/0202515 A1, Jun. 30, 2022) (hereinafter “Itkowitz”).
Regarding claim 14: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the remote surgery support system according to claim 3. While Hasser discloses that the second console (131) comprising the second display may be configured the same as the first console (151) comprising the first display, Hasser is silent on wherein the second display is a scope type display.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hasser by providing the second display as an immersive (“scope type”) display as taught by Anderson in order to reduce strain, fatigue and possible injury to the use in view of the further teachings of Anderson that such a display provides improved comfort and ergonomics (see claim 1 above, Anderson [0043]-[0044], [0081], fig. 10, immersive display 1000; Hasser - [0043] - where "The mentor master control station 131 may be similarly constructed as the surgeon console 151").
Hasser, Anderson and Temby silent on the mentor-side operating device includes a sensor configured to detect whether or not the second scope type display is in a state of use in which the second scope type display is looked into, and the one or more controllers is configured, when the sensor does not detect the state of use, to prohibit the second operating handle from operating the first to third manipulator arms and configured, when the sensor detects the state of use, to permit the second operating handle to operate the first to third manipulator arms.
Itkowitz, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a surgical system comprising a scope type display (viewer 210 with eyepieces 212-L and 212-R), and an operating device that includes a sensor configured to detect whether or not the scope type display is in a state of use in which the scope type display is looked into ([0044], [0049], [0053], [0064]-[0065]), and one or more controllers configured, when the sensor does not detect the state of use, to prohibit the operating handle from operating the first to third manipulator arms and configured, when the sensor detects the state of use, to permit the operating handle to operate the first to third manipulator arms (fig. 13, [0129]-[0133]). Itkowitz further discloses that the sensor and use mode determination prevents unintentional and uncontrolled movement of the surgical instruments ([0003]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hasser, Anderson and Temby to include the sensor and use mode determination of Itkowitz in both operating consoles to prevent unintentional and uncontrolled movement of the instruments in view of the further teachings of Itkowitz.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasser, Anderson and Temby as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Savall et al. (US 2018/0078034 A1, Mar. 22, 2018) (hereinafter “Savall”) and Ghodoussi et al. (US 2003/0144649 A1, Jul. 31, 2003) (hereinafter “Ghodoussi”).
Regarding claim 21: Hasser, Anderson and Temby disclose the remote surgery support system according to claim 1. While at least Anderson depicts and armrest in the figures (see e.g. fig. 1b where an armrest is shown adjacent to interface device 126) and references an armrest with respect to the seat ([0056]), Hasser, Anderson and Temby do not provide any specific description of armrests corresponding to the consoles (“operating devices”).
Savall, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a robotic surgery console comprising an immersive display ([0105], [0107], fig. 19A) and an ergonomic seat having an armrest (fig. 1B, armrest 160, [0048]; fig. 12A, [0068]), where the console controls ([0087]-[0088]) may be permanently or releasably mounted to the armrest ([0089]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the doctor-side operating device and the mentor-side operating device with an ergonomic seat with armrest and controls as disclosed by Savall in order to improve the comfort and safety of the users.
Further regarding claim 21: Hasser, Anderson, Temby and Savall are silent on a first switching device configured to switch an operation authority for operating the first to third manipulator arms to the doctor-side operating device from the mentor-side operating device; and a second switching device configured to switch the operation authority for operating the first to third manipulator arms to the mentor-side operating device from the doctor-side operating device.
Ghodoussi, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a remote surgery support system comprising a mentor control unit (MCU 50; “mentor-side operating device”) and a pupil control unit (PCU 52; “doctor-side operating device”) wherein at least one of the doctor-side operating device and the mentor-side operating device comprises a first switching device configured to switch an operation authority for operating the first to third manipulator arms from the doctor-side operating device and the mentor-side operating device and the mentor-side operating device comprises a second switching device configured to switch an operation authority for operating the first to third manipulator arms to the mentor-side operating device from the doctor-side operating device ([0071] – the consoles 50 or 52 are provided with a switch which can be actuated to give that console priority).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hasser, Anderson, Temby and Savall by providing a switching device as taught by Ghodoussi in order to allow either surgeon to take over control of the procedure if necessary (e.g. the mentor can take control if the pupil/local surgeon is having difficulty or the pupil/local surgeon can take control in order to perform an action after being instructed by the mentor).
Finally, it would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the switches of Ghodoussi in the same location as the other controls (i.e. the armrest-mounted control interface as taught by Savall) so that the users can quickly and easily access the switch(es) during routine operation of the control devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection of claims 1-20, filed 11/10/2025, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
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 CAROLYN A PEHLKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3484. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm (Central Time), Monday - Friday.
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, Chris Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/CAROLYN A PEHLKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799