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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barral et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0378610, hereinafter “Barral”) in view of Labib et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0125606, hereinafter “Labib”).
Claim 1:
Barral discloses a surgical robot system (Fig. 1, Element 110) comprising:
a robot arm to which a surgical tool is mounted (§ 0035, Lines 10-11; A surgical robot 134 may have one or more articulating arms connected to a base); and
a storage circuit that stores information associated with motion control of the robot arm (§ 0027, Lines 5-7; The surgical robot system authenticates the code, and, if the surgery information has already been synced to the robotic surgery device, the surgery team is provided access to it) (§ 0037, Lines 4-6; The controller 130 may require that a user authenticate herself before allowing access to or control of the surgical robot 134), the information including usage state information (§ 0031, Lines 9-11; The case code provides a way to uniquely identify the surgery procedure and a way to provide access to the surgical robot); and
control circuitry configured to perform an authentication process of whether to allow using the surgical robot system or not based on the usage state information (§ 0025, Lines 4-6; Generate a case code for the surgery and associates the case code with the information used to create the surgery as discussed above in § 0023) (§ 0023, Lines 12-19; Select an operating room, the corresponding surgical robot, and a date and time for the surgery. Identify the patient to be operated on, the type of surgery to be performed, and the team of doctors, nurses, and other personnel who will participate in the surgery) (§ 0027, Lines 5-7; The surgical robot system authenticates the (case) code, and, if the surgery information has already been synced to the robotic surgery device, the surgery team is provided access to it).
Barral does not appear to disclose:
the usage state information indicating whether the surgical robot system has been used or not or whether the surgical tool has been used or not; and
prohibit using the surgical robot system in a case where the usage state information indicates at least one of the surgical robot system or the surgical tool has been used.
Labib discloses:
the usage state information indicating whether the surgical robot system has been used or not or whether the surgical tool has been used or not (§ 0069, Lines 2-5; Assess the cleanliness of an endoscope, such as to verify or certify that an endoscope is safe for upcoming use on a patient in a medical procedure); and
prohibit using the surgical robot system in a case where the usage state information indicates at least one of the surgical robot system or the surgical tool has been used (See citation above. Verifying or certifying that an endoscope is safe for upcoming use on a patient in a medical procedure infers prohibiting use of the endoscope in the case where the endoscope is not clean).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Barral’s usage state information with Labib’s cleanliness assessment in order to minimize the risk of patient infection (Labib, § 0005, Lines 1-2). This modification adds Labib’s cleanliness assessment to Barral’s case code authentication process.
Claim 2:
Barral in view of Labib further discloses wherein the storage circuit stores at least one of a robot ID for identifying an individual or a model of the surgical robot, configuration information of the robot arm (Barral, § 0027, Lines 5-7; The surgical robot system authenticates the code, and, if the surgery information has already been synced to the robotic surgery device, the surgery team is provided access to it. Authentication information corresponds to configuration information), or calibration information for when controlling the motion of the robot arm.
Claim 3:
Barral in view of Labib further discloses wherein the storage circuit is writable (Barral, § 0036, Lines 2-3; Controller 130 may be configured to record (write) data during a surgical procedure) and stores information identifying operation used (Barral, § 0102, Lines 11-14; The information about the surgical robot is checked against the selected surgical procedure to determine whether the surgical robot can be used with the selected surgery).
Claim 4:
Barral in view of Labib further discloses wherein the surgical tool is loaded with a second storage circuit, and the control circuitry is configured to perform reading or writing on the second storage circuit loaded in the surgical tool (Barral, § 0036, Lines 2-3; Controller 130 may be configured to record (write) data during a surgical procedure) (Barral, § 0027, Lines 5-7; The surgical robot system authenticates (read) the code, and, if the surgery information has already been synced to the robotic surgery device, the surgery team is provided access to it).
Claim 5:
Barral in view of Labib further discloses wherein the second storage circuit loaded in the surgical tool stores at least one of a surgical tool ID for identifying an individual or a model of the surgical tool or calibration information for when operating the surgical tool (Barral, § 0025, Lines 4-6; Generate a case code for the surgery and associates the case code with the information used to create the surgery as discussed above in Barral, § 0023) (Barral, § 0023, Lines 12-19; Select an operating room, the corresponding surgical robot, and a date and time for the surgery. Identify the patient to be operated on, the type of surgery to be performed, and the team of doctors, nurses, and other personnel who will participate in the surgery) (Barral, § 0038, Lines 1-2 and 16-17; The controller 130 has a case code interface 132 attached to it. The case code interface 132 may be provided on the surgical robot) (Barral, § 0039, Lines 1-3; The case code interface 132 can read or otherwise accept a case code and provide it to the controller 130).
Claim 6:
Barral in view of Labib further discloses wherein the second storage circuit loaded in the surgical tool is writable (Barral, § 0036, Lines 2-3; Controller 130 may be configured to record (write) data during a surgical procedure) and stores at least one of presence or absence of use, information for specifying a patient to whom the surgical tool is used, or information for identifying operation using the surgical tool (Barral, § 0025, Lines 4-6; Generate a case code for the surgery and associates the case code with the information used to create the surgery as discussed above in Barral, § 0023) (Barral, § 0023, Lines 12-19; Select an operating room, the corresponding surgical robot, and a date and time for the surgery. Identify the patient to be operated on, the type of surgery to be performed, and the team of doctors, nurses, and other personnel who will participate in the surgery).
Claim 7:
Barral in view of Labib further discloses wherein the storage circuit is accessible from the outside of the surgical robot by a predetermined system (Barral, § 0034, Lines 1-4; The robotic surgical system 110 includes a station 136 usable by personnel in the OR, such as to view surgery information, video, etc. from the surgical robot 134).
Claim 10:
Barral in view of Labib further discloses wherein the control circuitry performs another authentication process of the surgical tool or the surgical robot on a basis of identification information of the surgical tool read from a second storage circuit loaded in the surgical tool or identification information of the surgical robot read from the storage circuit (Barral, § 0025, Lines 4-6; Generate a case code for the surgery and associates the case code with the information used to create the surgery as discussed above in Barral, § 0023) (Barral, § 0023, Lines 12-19; Select an operating room, the corresponding surgical robot, and a date and time for the surgery. Identify the patient to be operated on, the type of surgery to be performed, and the team of doctors, nurses, and other personnel who will participate in the surgery) (Barral, § 0027, Lines 5-7; The surgical robot system authenticates the (case) code, and, if the surgery information has already been synced to the robotic surgery device, the surgery team is provided access to it).
Claim 12:
Barral in view of Labib further discloses wherein the control circuitry controls an operation of the surgical tool by the surgical robot on a basis of calibration information of the surgical tool read from a second storage circuit loaded in the surgical tool (Barral, § 0102, Lines 1-3 and 11-19; Determine the suitability of a surgical robot associated with the selected location for the surgery. The information about the surgical robot is then checked against the selected surgical procedure to determine whether the surgical robot can be used with the selected surgery. If the surgical robot is unsuitable, e.g., the surgical robot is an older version of a type of surgical robot or is simply the wrong kind of surgical robot for the selected type of surgery, then a notification is transmitted indicating that the selected location for the surgery has an incompatible surgical robot).
Claim 13:
Barral in view of Labib discloses the system as recited in claim 1, wherein the control circuitry configured to output an instruction to replace the surgical robot system in a case where the usage state information indicates the surgical robot system is unsuitable (Barral, § 0102, Lines 16-21).
Barral does not appear to disclose where the usage state information indicates the surgical robot system has been used.
Labib discloses where the usage state information indicates the surgical robot system has been used (§ 0069, Lines 2-5; Assess the cleanliness of an endoscope, such as to verify or certify that an endoscope is safe for upcoming use on a patient in a medical procedure).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Barral’s usage state information with Labib’s cleanliness assessment in order to minimize the risk of patient infection (Labib, § 0005, Lines 1-2). This modification adds Labib’s cleanliness assessment to Barral’s usage state information as another indicator of unsuitability.
Claim 14:
Barral in view of Labib discloses the system as recited in claim 1, wherein the control circuitry configured to output an instruction to replace the surgical tool in a case where the usage state information indicates the surgical robot tool is unsuitable (Barral, § 0102, Lines 16-21).
Barral does not appear to disclose where the usage state information indicates the surgical tool has been used.
Labib discloses where the usage state information indicates the surgical robot tool has been used (§ 0069, Lines 2-5; Assess the cleanliness of an endoscope, such as to verify or certify that an endoscope is safe for upcoming use on a patient in a medical procedure).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Barral’s usage state information with Labib’s cleanliness assessment in order to minimize the risk of patient infection (Labib, § 0005, Lines 1-2). This modification adds Labib’s cleanliness assessment to Barral’s usage state information as another indicator of unsuitability.
Claim 15:
Barral in view of Labib further discloses wherein the usage state information (Barral, § 0031, Lines 9-11; The case code provides a way to uniquely identify the surgery procedure and a way to provide access to the surgical robot) indicates whether the surgical robot system has been used or not, and whether the surgical tool has been used or not (Labib, § 0069, Lines 2-5; Assess the cleanliness of an endoscope, such as to verify or certify that an endoscope is safe for upcoming use on a patient in a medical procedure), and
the control circuitry is configured to allow using the surgical robot system in a case where the usage state information indicates the surgical robot system has not been used and the surgical tool has not been used (See Labib citation above. Verifying or certifying that an endoscope is safe for upcoming use on a patient in a medical procedure infers prohibiting use of the endoscope in the case where the endoscope is not clean and conversely allowing use of the endoscope in the case where the endoscope is clean).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barral et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0378610, hereinafter “Barral”) in view of Labib et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0125606, hereinafter “Labib”); further in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0008894, hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Claim 8:
Barral in view of Labib discloses the surgical robot as recited in claim 1, wherein different surgical robots may be configured for particular types of surgeries (Barral, § 0035, Lines 10-11).
Barral in view of Labib does not appear to disclose wherein the surgical tool is used for ophthalmic operation.
Suzuki discloses wherein the surgical tool is used for ophthalmic operation (§ 0058, Lines 1-4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Barral and Labib’s surgical robot to be configured for ophthalmic operation, as taught by Suzuki, in order to extend operation and usage of Barral’s surgical robot to other types of surgeries.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 08/29/2025, with respect to the interpretation of claims 9-12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 9-12 under 35 USC 112(b) and the interpretation of claims 9-12 under 35 USC 112(f) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, and 9-12 under 35 USC 102(a) and 35 USC 102(b) on pages 7-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Labib discloses assessing the cleanliness of an endoscope (i.e., whether it has been used or not), such as to verify or certify that an endoscope is safe for upcoming use on a patient in a medical procedure.
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 NAM T TRAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7553. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM EST.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/NAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455