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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because the following reference characters are not mentioned in the description.
In FIG. 1, reference character “11”
In FIG. 2, reference character “125”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
In re claim 9, the feature “an inertial measurement unit” must be shown or canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
In re claim 11,
the feature “a central server” must be shown or canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
the feature “a server control unit” must be shown or canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
In FIG. 6, reference character “126” appears to be pointed to a surgeon’s arm [0062]. However, “126” is described in the specification as being a “storage unit” [0059]. As best understood, based on Applicants’ specification, Examiner believes that reference character “125” (FIG. 2; Examiner notes 125 is not mentioned in the description as discussed above), should be used to reference the “storage unit” not reference character “126”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In re claim 1, the limitation “a second degree of freedom about at least one pivot axis perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the actuating button” fails to comply with the written description requirement, specifically because Applicant fails to provide support for how the actuating button illustrated in Fig. 1 would achieve “a second degree of freedom about at least one pivot axis perpendicular to a longitudinal axis”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re claim 5, the limitation “wherein the medical remote control has a display” when viewed in combination with FIG. 1 raises a clarity concern. Specifically, it is unclear how the medical remote control (identified by Applicant as reference character “1”) would have a display given that the entire surface of the medical remote control is directed to an actuation button. As best understood, based on Applicants specification [0053], the limitation “wherein the medical remote control has a display” will be interpreted as requiring the medical remote control to be connected to a display.
In re claim 13, the limitation “wherein the at least one medical remote control comprises at least two medical remote controls”, is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how a one (singular) remote control would be able to comprise two of itself. For examination purposes, as best understood, the limitation “wherein the at least one medical remote control comprises at least two medical remote controls” is being interpreted as requiring the medical control system to have a second remote control in addition to the “at least one remote control” required by claim 10.
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 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14 and 15 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Köhler et al. (US 2017/0163972) in view of Kelly et al. (US 2020/0129248).
In re claim 1, Köhler discloses a medical remote control (Fig. 17: 22) for wirelessly controlling a medical instrument or a medical, digitally controllable device (12; [0107]: “optical instrument”; shown in greater detail in Figs. 2-3), the medical remote control comprising:
a housing (Fig. 17) having a fastening portion (228) for fastening to an object (222; [0171]);
an actuating button (52; shown in greater detail in Figs. 4-5) arranged in or on the housing (Fig. 17) for generating an input signal via manual actuation of the actuating button [0127];
a wireless data interface (74) for establishing a wireless data connection to an external data interface (Fig. 1: 44) and for transmitting data ([0127]: “communication interface”); and
a control unit (22) adapted
to process the input signal of the actuating button and to determine a control signal based on the input signal [0127] and
to transmit the control signal via the wireless data interface [0116]
the control unit being adapted
to determine and transmit the control signal [0116].
Köhler does not disclose the control unit being adapted to detect a temporal length and/or a number of actuations within a defined time interval of the actuating button as the input signal .
Kelly discloses an analogous medical remote control (FIG. 1: 122/124) with a button (FIG. 3: 326a; [0199]: “capacitive button”) used to wirelessly [0108, 0109] control a camera on a robotic surgical system (abstract). Kelly further discloses the medical remote control having the ability to associate the number of times a button is pressed to a specific function ([0199]: “…perform different functions based on single or multiple click”). Several examples of different camera functions available to the operator via the button including panning, tilting, and zooming in and out [0020].
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 control unit, of Köhler, to detect a number of actuations within a defined time interval of the actuating button as the input signal, as taught by Kelly. One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would increase the number of functions available to the operator without having to increase the structural complexity of the medical remote control.
In re claim 3, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Kelly)
the control unit has a storage unit in which a *current control state ([0199]: function associated with “single click”) of the medical remote control is stored ([0199]; apparent as different functions are performed based on the number of times the button is clicked) and
the control unit is adapted to determine the control signal based on the current control state and the input signal ([0199]; Examiner notes that the “input signal” would be an additional click performed by an operator).
*Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation “a current control state” is being interpreted as a function/command/action associated with the current (or most recent) actuation of a button.
In re claim 4, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Kelly)
wherein
a relation of control states is stored in the storage unit ([0199]; apparent as different functions are performed based on the number of times the button is clicked) and
the control unit proceeds to a subsequent different control state ([0199]: function associated with “multiple click”) corresponding to the relation of control states based on the relation of control states and an input signal ([0199]; Examiner notes that “an input signal” would be the additional click performed by the operator) selected for the relation of control states.
In re claim 5, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Köhler)
wherein
the medical remote control has a display (16; regarding the limitations “has a display” see above section Claim Rejections 112(b) (In re claim 5)), and
the control unit is adapted to show the current control state of the medical remote control on the display (FIG. 13, FIG. 14; [0153, 0154]).
In re claim 6, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Köhler) wherein the actuating button (Fig. 5; [0128]) is adapted to have
a first degree of freedom (80) for actuation that is translational and rectilinear, and
a second degree of freedom (98) about at least one pivot axis (Y) perpendicular to a longitudinal axis (Z) of the actuating button and/or
a third degree of freedom (82) of rotation about the longitudinal axis of the actuating button (Fig. 5)
in order to increase a number of actuation alternatives for input signals (apparent, as having additional degrees of freedom increases the number of possible actuations).
In re claim 8, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Köhler),
wherein the medical remote control is configured to be sterilizable and has a fluid tight sheathing (FIG. 18: 240) made out of sterilizable materials ([0173]; Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation a “fluid tight sheathing” is being interpreted as a cover that protects an object from fluids).
In re claim 10, see above (In re claim 1).
In re claim 14, see above (In re claim 1).
In re claim 15, see above (In re claim 14).
The proposed combination also yields (all mapping directed to Köhler) a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions [0116, 0127].
Claim 7 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Köhler et al. (US 2017/0163975), in view of Kelly et al. (US 2020/0129248), in view of Cummings-Kralik et al. (US 2020/0375681).
In re claim 7, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Köhler)
wherein the fastening portion has a surface (226) in order to firmly bond the medical remote control to the object [0171].
The proposed combination does not yield wherein the fastening portion has an adhesive surface in order to firmly bond the medical remote control to the object.
Cummings-Kralik discloses an analogous medical remote control (FIG. 2: 10) used to wirelessly control a surgical device (18). Cummings-Kralik further discloses attaching the medical remote control to the surgical device via an attachment mechanism (24). Cummings-Kralik discloses the attachment mechanism optionally being a band, adhesive, snap on attachment, or any other appropriate structure that facilitates removable attachment [0018].
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 fastening portion, of the proposed combination, to have an adhesive surface, as taught by Cummings-Kralik. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the fastening portion and adhesive surface are functionally equivalent, as they both serve to attach the medical remote control to an object in a removable manner. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to choose the type of fastener that would best meet their needs.
Claim 9 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Köhler et al. (US 2017/0163975), in view of Kelly et al. (US 2020/0129248), in view of Tekiela et al. (US 2020/0046439).
In re claim 9, the proposed combination does not yield further comprising an inertial measurement unit to detect a spatial movement, the control unit being adapted to determine a corresponding control signal based on at least the input signal and the spatial movement.
Tekiela discloses an analogous remote controller (FIG. 2) for wirelessly controlling a robotic surgical system [0034]. As discussed in Tekiela, the remote controller includes an inertial sensor (273 which includes one or more of 287, 289, 291) used to capture data about user movement [0037].
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 medical remote control, of the proposed combination, to include an inertial measurement unit, as taught by Tekiela. One would have been motivated to make this modification to have the ability to detect abrupt changes in motion, as such changes could indicate that the remote control has been dropped or damaged [0004].
Claim 11 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Köhler et al. (US 2017/0163975), in view of Kelly et al. (US 2020/0129248), in view of Jaramaz et al. (US 2023/0404684).
In re claim 11, the proposed combination does not yield further comprising, a central server with a server control unit, wherein the at least one digitally controllable medical instrument or device and the at least one medical remote control are connected to the central server as a client.
Jaramaz discloses an analogous medical remote-control system (Fig. 1: 100) that includes a medical remote control (105B) used by a surgeon (111) to control a robotic arm (105A). Jaramaz further discloses the system comprising a server (FIG. 5C: 180, which includes database 185) connected to both the medical remote control and robotic arm (FIG. 5B) via a surgical computer (150). Examiner notes that it is apparent that the server disclosed by Jaramaz has a “server control unit”, as evidenced by its architecture (FIG. 5C) and processing capabilities [0110-0112].
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 medical control system, of the proposed combination, to include a central server with a server control unit, as taught by Jaramaz. One would have been motivated to make this modification to have the ability to store data and execute computationally expensive processing tasks (Jaramaz, [0055]).
Claims 12 and 13 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Köhler et al. (US 2017/0163975), in view of Kelly et al. (US 2020/0129248), in view of Schrader et al. (US 11, 981,035).
In re claim 12, the proposed combination does not yield
wherein the at least one digitally controllable medical instrument or device comprises a surgical robot with a robot arm, and
wherein the medical remote control sends a translational movement command and/or a rotational movement command of the robot arm as the control signal in order to control and move the robot arm and an end effector attached to the robot arm.
Schrader discloses an analogous medical remote control (Fig. 5: 50) used to manipulate a robotic surgical system (10, abstract). The medical remote control, like the medical remote control of the proposed combination, is adapted to have multiple degrees of freedom (166, 164, 160, 158, 156, 162). Schrader further discloses the robotic surgical system including a base frame (68), a robotic arm (34), and an observational instrument (38) attached to an end effector (40). Schrader specifically discloses the medical remote control being adapted to control both the robotic arm and the observational instrument (col. 14, lines 32-36).
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 medical control system, of the proposed combination, to have the at least one digitally controllable medical instrument or device comprise a surgical robot with a robotic arm, as taught by Schrader. One would have been motivated to make this modification both because the use of medical remote controls in the context of surgical robots is well known and because the result of the modification, i.e., remote control of the robot arm, is reasonably predictable. Accordingly, such a modification would yield “wherein the medical remote control sends a translational and/or rotational movement command of the robot arm as the control signal in order to move the robot arm and an end effector attached to the robot arm” as evidenced by Schrader.
In re claim 13, the proposed combination does not yield,
wherein the at least one medical remote control comprises at least two medical remote controls that control the at least one digitally controllable medical instrument or device (regarding the limitations “the at least one medical remote control comprises at least two medical remote controls”, see above section Claim Rejections 112(b) (In re claim 13)).
Schrader further discloses the robotic surgical system optionally including two medical remote controls (Fig. 8: 244, 252; col. 24, lines 53-67).
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 medical remote-control system, of the proposed combination, to include at least two medical remote controls, as taught by Schrader. One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would allow the robotic surgical system to be manipulated by different operators (Schrader: col. 24, lines 61-63).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kostrzewski (US 2016/0081753) discloses a wireless remote control (FIG. 1: 102) used to manipulate a robotic surgical system [0070-0072].
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