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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 05/12/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
While not necessarily unclear, it is conceivable that the following terms could be interpreted in ways other than the manner in which they are interpreted herein. Accordingly, Examiner makes note of the following interpretations for the record.
For examination purposes, based on Applicants specification (FIG. 16, [0016]), the limitations “a first end” and “a second end” are being interpreted as follows: a first end being a top end (like 411, shown in FIG. 16) of the first lever member and a second end being a bottom end (like 412, shown in FIG. 16) of the first lever member.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 34-37, 39-41, 44-46, and 48 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 2020/027598).
PNG
media_image1.png
637
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 34, Thompson discloses an operator-side apparatus (FIG. 1: 140; shown in greater detail in Examiner FIG. 1) operable to operate a patient-side apparatus (102) including a patient-side arm (109) having a tip end (end having 110) to which a surgical instrument (110) is attached, the operator-side apparatus comprising:
an operation arm (906);
a support member (middle rod extending between 908) connected to a proximal end (P1) of the operation arm;
a first lever member (908/FIG. 6: combination of 608 and 618; [0131]) attached to the support member (Examiner FIG. 1) so as to rotate with respect to the support member [0133];
a first switch (642) attached to the first lever member (FIG. 6; [0131]) to perform a predetermined function ([0115]: “642 can control camera function”); and
an inclined switch (640) attached to the first lever member (FIG. 6; [0131]) and inclined with respect to the first switch (FIG. 6).
Thompson does not disclose the inclined switch being
attached to and aligned with the first switch along a longitudinal direction of the first lever member and inclined with respect to the first switch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first switch such that it is located in front of the inclined switch, as opposed to the side, given that the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only routine still in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient (See MPEP 2144.04-VI-C). Examiner additionally notes that Thompson does not exclude rearrangement of parts as Thompson explicitly states that different types of controls (buttons, switch, dials , knobs, sliders, trackpads, etc.) are not restricted/limited to one specific location [0087]. Accordingly, such a modification would yield an inclined switch attached to the first lever member “and aligned with the first switch along a longitudinal direction of the first lever member”.
In re claim 35, Thompson discloses, wherein
a distal end (D2) of the support member is connected to the proximal end of the operation arm (Examiner FIG. 1) so as to rotate about a first axis (914) parallel to a longitudinal direction (imaginary line drawn across the top of the support member) of the support member (Examiner FIG. 1); and
a proximal end of the first lever member (P2) is attached to the support member (Examiner FIG. 1) so as to rotate about a second axis (912) perpendicular to the first axis with respect to the support member (Examiner FIG. 1).
In re claim 36, Thompson discloses, wherein the inclined switch is arranged closer to a distal end (end of 908 closest to D2 (also shown in FIG. 6 i.e., end closest to marker 618)) of the first lever member than the first switch (FIG. 6; see modification above (In re claim 1)).
In re claim 37, Thompson discloses,
wherein the first switch and the inclined switch are arranged at at least one of
*a first end or
*a second end (FIG. 6: support member 628 attaches at a bottom of the first lever member)
of the first lever member in **a direction parallel to the second axis (FIG. 6; Regarding the limitations “a first end” and “a second end” see above section Claim Interpretation).
*Although the limitations a first end” and “a second end” are being interpreted as a top end of the first lever member and a bottom end of the first lever member respectfully (see above section Claim Interpretaion), Examiner asserts that under the broadest reasonably interpretation, any two end points of the first lever member would be sufficient to satisfy the limitations “a first end” and “a second end”.
**Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first switch and the inclined switch are arranged in “a direction parallel to the second axis”, as an imaginary line in the direction of the second axis could be drawn directly through both switches (see FIG. 9, FIG. 6).
In re claim 39, Thompson discloses further comprising:
a second lever member (908/(combination of 602 and 622)) facing the first lever member (Examiner FIG. 1) via the support member; and
a second switch (634 or 638) attached to the second lever member (FIG. 6) to perform the predetermined function ([0113]: “buttons 634 and 638 can control energy functions”);
wherein a distal end (D2) of the support member is connected to the proximal end of the operation arm (Examiner FIG. 1) so as to rotate about a first axis (914) parallel to a longitudinal direction (Examiner FIG. 1: imaginary line drawn across the top of the support member) of the support member (Examiner FIG. 1); and
a proximal end of the second lever member (P2) is attached to the support member so as to rotate about a third axis (912) perpendicular to the first axis with respect to the support member (Examiner FIG. 1).
In re claim 40, Thompson discloses, wherein
the first switch is a clutch switch ([0115]: “various functions can be associated with activation of these input controls”; [0142, 0172]) to perform a clutch function [0142] of preventing an operation of an operator from being transmitted to the patient-side apparatus [0145]; and
the inclined switch is a customized switch ([0115]: “various functions can be associated with activation of these input controls”; [0146, 0172] in which a function to be performed by the customized switch is customized by function assignment to the customized switch ([0146]: “particular functions can be mapped to the activation of the finger controls”);
Examiner asserts that Thompson discloses the above limitations given that Thompson (i) states that in various implementations, various functions can be associated with the first switch and the inclined switch [0115, 0171], (ii) lists a clutch function as an example of functions executed via activation of various finger controls [0146], and (iii) discloses that particular functions can be mapped to activation of specific finger controls [0146]. However, should it be deemed that Thompson does not explicitly disclose the above limitations, claim 40 is alternatively rejected under 35 USC 103 as follows:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to (i) modify the first switch of Thompson to be a clutch switch and (ii) modify the inclined switch of Thompson to be a customized switch. One would have been motivated to make this modification because assigning specific functions to switches in a robotic surgical system is known in the art (Thompson, [0146]). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to map each switch with a function that would best meet their needs.
In re claim 41, Thompson discloses wherein,
the first switch is a button switch; and
the inclined switch is a rocker switch.
Thompson lacks wherein:
the first switch is a roller switch; and
the inclined switch is a push-button switch.
As discussed in Thompson, the first lever member (see above In re claim 1) can include any type of input control described within reference to FIGS. 2-7 [0131]. Examples of such input controls include but are not limited to buttons, rocker switches [0115], wheels, switches, presence sensors, joysticks, trackballs, knobs, and trackpads ([0139]; Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), a “roller switch” is any switch that includes a rotatory body capable of being operated by a finger. Therefore, Examiner asserts that under BRI both a “trackball” and “wheel” are examples of roller switches.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first switch to be a roller switch and modify the inclined switch to be a push-button switch, as taught by Thompson. One would have been motivated to make these modifications because roller switches and push-button switches are known in the art (Thompson, [0139]) and the result of the modifications (i.e., actuation of a controlled device) are reasonably predictable. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to choose the type of switch that would best meet their needs. Accordingly, such a modification would yield “wherein the first switch is a roller switch; and the inclined switch is a push-button switch”.
In re claim 44, Thompson discloses wherein
the first switch is a button switch; and
the inclined switch is a rocker switch.
Thompson does not disclose wherein
the first switch is a seesaw switch; and
the inclined switch is a push-button switch
For substantially the same reasons as described above it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and inclined switch of Thompson to be a seesaw switch and a push button switch respectively, as taught by Thompson. Accordingly, such a modification would yield “wherein the first switch is a seesaw switch; and the inclined switch is a push button switch”.
In re claim 45, Thompson discloses, wherein
the first lever member includes
a plate-shaped attachment member (628) having an attached surface (right side of 628 that attaches to 608) parallel to an opposing surface (inside surface of 608) of the first lever member facing the support member (FIG. 6) and
a support surface (combination of top surface of 628 supporting 642 and top surface of 628 supporting 640) perpendicular to the attached surface (FIG. 6); and
the support surface supports the first switch and the inclined switch (FIG. 6).
In re claim 46, Thompson discloses, wherein
the first lever member includes
a plate-shaped attachment member (628) having an attached surface (right side of 628 that attaches to 608) parallel to an opposing surface (inside surface of 608) of the first lever member facing the support member,
a first support surface (628 supporting 640) perpendicular to the attached surface (FIG. 6) and
a second support surface (628 supporting 642; additionally see modification above In re claim 1) perpendicular to the attached surface (FIG. 6); and
each of the first and second support surface supports the first switch and the inclined switch (FIG. 6; Examiner notes that the support surfaces are connected and work together to support the first switch and the inclined switch).
In re claim 48, Thompson discloses, further comprising:
a housing (628) in which the first switch and the inclined switch are arranged (FIG. 6);
wherein the housing includes a finger rest (top surface of 628 not occupied by switches 640 and 642) on which a finger of an operator is placed (FIG. 6; apparent as an operator could place a finger on the top surface of 628 not occupied by switches 640 and 642).
Claims 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 2020/027598), in view of Verner et al. (US 2022/0382364).
In re claim 38, Thompson discloses, wherein
the first switch and the inclined switch form a first switch arrangement (apparent; FIG. 6),
the first switch arrangement is arranged at *a second end (FIG. 6: support member 628 attaches at a bottom of the first lever member) of the first lever member in a direction parallel to the **second axis (FIG. 6; Regarding the limitation “a second end” see above section Claim Interpretation).
Thompson does not disclose wherein:
the first switch arrangement is duplicated to form a second switch arrangement, and
the first switch arrangement is arranged at *a first end and the second switch is arranged at *a second end of the first lever member in a direction parallel to the second axis.
Verner discloses an analogous operator side apparatus (FIG. 3) that has a duplicated switch arrangement [0065]. Specifically, the operator side apparatus includes two control switches (350) that are positioned on opposite sides of axis 312 [0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operator side apparatus of Thompson to have a duplicated switch arrangement, as taught by Verner. One would have been motivated to make this modification both because it is known in the art and doing so would provide additional control switches (Verner, [0065]). Accordingly, such a modification would yield “the first switch arrangement is duplicated to form a second switch arrangement” and two switch arrangements, that is, one arranged at “a first end” and one arranged at “a second end”.
*Although the limitations “a first end” and “a second end” are being interpreted as a top end of the first lever member and a bottom end of the first lever member respectfully (see above section Claim Interpretation), Examiner asserts that under the broadest reasonably interpretation, any two end points of the first lever member would be sufficient to satisfy the limitations “a first end” and “a second end”.
**Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first switch and the inclined switch are arranged in “a direction parallel to the second axis”, as an imaginary line in the direction of the second axis could be drawn directly through both switches (see FIG. 9, FIG. 6).
Claims 42 and 43 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 2020/027598), in view of Hagn et al. (US 2015/0150636).
In re claim 42, Thompson discloses, wherein
the roller switch includes
a rotary body rotationally operated by an operator (inherent; part of “roller switch” manipulated by an operator, [0131, 0139]; see above (In re claim 41)), and
a first sensor to detect movement of the rotary body (inherent, as actuation of the roller switch is associated with a function of the patient side apparatus);
the push-button switch includes
an operation body operated by being pressed by a finger of the operator (inherent; part of push-button switch manipulated by an operator, [0131, 0139]; see modification above (In re claim 41)),
a second urging portion to urge the operation body to an initial position (inherent, as a push button maintains its initial position (i.e., unpressed)), and
a second sensor to detect movement of the operation body (inherent, as actuation of the button is associated with a function of the patient side apparatus; [0115]); and
the operation body is operable to move in an inclination direction (FIG. 6; Imaginary line extending across surface 640) inclined with respect to a longitudinal direction (FIG. 6: imaginary line extending along an operators finger 620) of the first lever member (FIG. 6; Examiner asserts that the modification of switch 640 to a push-button switch (see above In re claim 41) would not change its inclination direction only the means in which the switch is actuated (i.e., pressed instead of rocked)).
Thompson lacks wherein:
the roller switch includes a first urging portion to urge the rotary body to an initial position.
Hagn discloses a robotic surgical system that includes a user side apparatus (FIG. 5) for controlling a minimally invasive surgical instrument (abstract). As shown in FIG. 5, the user side apparatus includes an operation element (18; [0045]: “lever”) and an urging portion (28). As discussed in Hagn, the urging portion functions to keep the operation element in an initial position [0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roller switch of Thompson to include a first urging portion to urge the rotary body in an initial position, as taught by Hagn. One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would retain the roller switch in a location desired by the operator without the operator having to apply pressure to the switch (Hagn, [0045]).
In re claim 43, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Thompson), further comprising:
a housing (628) in which the first switch and the inclined switch are arranged (FIG. 6);
wherein an operation surface (top surface of 640; see modification above (In re claim 42)) of the operation body protrudes in an inclination direction from an opening (location where 640 protrudes out) of the housing (FIG. 6).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 2020/027598), in view of Kelly et al. (US 2020/0129248).
In re claim 47, Thompson discloses further comprising: a position sensor [0090] to detect a position of the first lever member [0090, 0091].
Thompson lacks:
an angle sensor to detect an angle of the first lever member with respect to the support member;
an FPC in which the angle sensor and the first switch are arranged; and
a reinforcing plate arranged at a position of the angle sensor of the FPC.
As disclosed by Thompson, position sensors [0090] can be placed at various locations on or in the housing of the hand controller [0091]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the position sensor of Thompson, to be located next to the first switch, as suggested by Thompson. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider positioning the position sensor next to the first switch, since there are a finite number of locations on the first support member that the position sensor could be placed.
Regarding the limitations
an angle sensor to detect an angle of the first lever member with respect to the support member;
an FPC in which the angle sensor and the first switch are arranged; and
a reinforcing plate arranged at a position of the angle sensor of the FPC.
Kelly discloses an operator side apparatus (FIG. 1: 122; shown in greater detail in FIG. 3B), that like Thompson, is used to control a robotic surgical system (100, abstract). As discussed in paragraph [0116] of Kelly, the operator side apparatus includes a first lever member (308) attached to a main body (305) and a control switch (306a). The operator side apparatus also includes an angle sensor ([0135]: “angle detector”) to measure an angle (θ) of the first lever member relative to the main body (FIG. 3A, [0135]). The angle sensor attaches to a printed circuit board (FIG. 10: 350) supported by a holder (340; [0135]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the position sensor of Thompson, to be an angle sensor as taught by Kelly. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it is known in the art to use either a position sensor or an angle sensor, in order to more precisely control the movements of the robotic surgical system (Kelly, [0137]). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to choose the type of sensor (angle, or position) that would best meet their needs. Accordingly, such a modification would yield “an angle sensor to detect an angle of the first lever member with respect to the support member; a PCB in which the angle sensor and the first switch are arranged; and a reinforcing plate arranged at a position of the angle sensor of the PCB” . Moreover, Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art looking to incorporate an angle sensor into an operator side apparatus would turn to Kelly for inspiration on how/what is required to incorporate the angle sensor.
Regarding the limitation “FPC”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the printed circuit board (PCB) of the proposed combination to be a flexible printed circuit board (FPC), since it has been held within the general skill of a worked to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use or purpose. Accordingly, such a modification would yield “an FPC in which the angle sensor and the first switch are arranged; and a reinforcing plate arranged at a position of the angle sensor of the FPC.”
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-4pm CT.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)-270-5625. 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.
/OLIVIA WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights