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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 18, and 32-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/05/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III (Claims 23-29) in the reply filed on 05/05/2026 is acknowledged. It is noted that Applicant added new claims 34-43 that depend from claim 23. Claims 23-29 and 34-43 are examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 01/15/2024, 04/29/2025, and 08/31/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 4: “of the input” should be changed to “of the input arm”.
Claim 35 objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 2-3: “is contact with the user’s hand” should be changed to “is in contact with the user’s hand”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 34-43 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.
Claims 34-43 all recite the limitation “A method according to …” in line 1, whereas a method was already introduced in a claim that claims 34-43 depends from (claim 23). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different method. Consider changing to “The method according to …”. In other words, please match the “The method according to …” structure as shown in claims 24-29.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “pause mode” in line 1, whereas a pause mode was already introduced in a claim that claim 39 depends from (claim 38). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different pause mode. Consider changing to “the pause mode”.
The limitation “wherein exiting said pause mode” renders claim 41 (line 1) indefinite. This limitation is written as if “exiting said pause mode” was introduced in a claim in which claim 41 depends from. This is not the case. The Examiner believes claim 41 was intended to depend from claim 40 instead of claim 39.
The limitation “said pause mode” renders claim 41 indefinite. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the pause mode initiated by the user (claim 39) or the pause mode entered in claim 23 based on comparing. This issue would be resolved in claim 41 was amended to depend from claim 40 instead of claim 39.
The limitation “an interface” renders claim 41 indefinite. It is unclear if this interface is the same as “a first interface” introduced in claim 39. This issue would be resolved in claim 41 was amended to depend from claim 40 instead of claim 39.
The limitation “said pause mode” renders claim 42 indefinite. It is unclear whether this pause mode refers to the pause mode initiated by the user (claim 39) or the pause mode entered in claim 23 based on comparing. Consider changing this limitation to “said pause mode initiated by the user”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Examiner notes that claims 23-29 and 34-43 are not presently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. This is because even if the claimed invention of claims 23-29 and 34-43 recites an abstract idea (e.g., determining undesired release of an input arm, assessing one or more parameters of at least one joint of the input, comparing the assessed joint parameters to a set of stored samples, scoring said assessed joint parameters based on their correlation of said stored samples), it nonetheless integrates any abstract idea into a practical application and/or recites significantly more than an abstract idea. Claim 23 recites a plurality of structural and functional limitations that are implemented by an input arm for controlling movement of a surgical mechanical arm, wherein the input arm is understood to be embodied by a plurality of rigid segments (Page 1, lines 10-13 of Applicant’s Specification), and is not merely a generic computer. That is, the invention recited in claim 23 implements any abstract idea with, or in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)), and/or results in an inventive concept by virtue of reciting significantly more than an abstract idea because it applies an abstract idea with, or by use of a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(I)). Therefore, claims 23-29 and 34-43 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 23-27, 34-37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Turner (WO2016/025440 – cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 23, Turner teaches (Fig. 6, # 600) a method of determining undesired release of an input arm which controls movement of a surgical mechanical arm (Pars. [0028-0029] – Fig. 6 is a flow diagram of a process 600 that detects uncontrolled movement of a component of a robotic medical system), (Fig. 5, # 500 – master control, i.e. input arm, 510/520/530/540 – i.e. rigid segments) the input arm comprising a plurality of rigid segments coupled to each other by joints (Par. [0027] – Fig. 5 schematically illustrates one implementation of a master control 500 having multiple joints that permit manipulation of the location, orientation, and grip angle of a control tip 510), the method comprising:
- (Fig. 6, # 610) assessing one or more parameters of at least one joint of the input (Par. [0028] – Process 600 begins with execution of a block 610 that measures movement of a manually operated component of a robotic medical system. The manually operated component generally has multiple degrees of freedom of motion, and in one implementation that manually operated component is a master control such as master control 500 of Fig. 5. Movement measurement 610 generally includes detection or measurement of coordinates or changes in multiple degrees of freedom of the component, e.g., measurement of current rotation angles for multiple joints of a master control);
- (Fig. 6, # 620) comparing the assessed joint parameters to a set of stored samples, the stored samples being indicative of undesired release patterns of the joint; wherein said comparing comprises scoring said assessed joint parameters based on their correlation to said stored samples (Par. [0029] – If movement occurs on one or more of the gravity joints but none of the non-gravity joints, block 620 may consider the movement to be uncontrolled, and a block 640 can change the operating mode of the medical system, e.g., to shift the medical system to a locked mode or otherwise prevent movement of the master or prevent movement of the slave in response to the movement of the master.; the stored classification of non-gravity joints and gravity joints may be considered stored samples, and the scoring may be compared with identified movement of the respective joints);
- (Fig. 6, # 640) based on said comparing, determining undesired release and entering a pause mode in which said at least one joint locks to prevent relative movement of said rigid segments (Par. [0029] – If movement occurs on one or more of the gravity joints but none of the non-gravity joints, block 620 may consider the movement to be uncontrolled, and a block 640 can change the operating mode of the medical system, e.g., to shift the medical system to a locked mode or otherwise prevent movement of the master or prevent movement of the slave in response to the movement of the master.).
Therefore, claim 23 is unpatentable over Turner.
Regarding claim 24, Turner teaches the method according to claim 23, wherein said one or more parameters include: a position of the joint, a velocity of movement of the joint, acceleration of the joint (Par. [0028] – Movement measurement 610 generally includes detection or measurement of coordinates or changes in multiple degrees of freedom of the component, e.g., measurement of current rotation angles for multiple joints of a master control; Par. [0030] – More generally, definitive input can be logically or mathematically identified by a control system through evaluation of relationships for or among the positions, orientations, velocities, or accelerations of degrees of freedom of a master control, particularly for relationships that are indicative of input from the user's hand.).
Therefore, claim 24 is unpatentable over Turner.
Regarding claim 25, Turner teaches the method according to claim 23, comprising assessing and comparing said one or more parameters for all input arm joints (Par. [0028] – Movement measurement 610 generally includes detection or measurement of coordinates or changes in multiple degrees of freedom of the component, e.g., measurement of current rotation angles for multiple joints of a master control; Par. [0029] – decision block 620 may determine that movement is uncontrolled if movement occurs on specific gravity joints or degrees of freedom and no movement occurs on non-gravity joints; subsets of “gravity” and “non-gravity” input joints combine to include all input joints).
Therefore, claim 25 is unpatentable over Turner.
Regarding claim 26, Turner teaches the method according to claim 23, wherein (Fig. 5, # 551, 552, 553, 554 – sensors, i.e. encoders; Fig. 6, # 610) said assessing comprises receiving position data from at least one encoder of said at least one joint (Par. [0027] – sensors 551, 552, 553, 554 measuring rotations; Par. [0028] – Movement measurement 610 generally includes detection or measurement of coordinates or changes in multiple degrees of freedom of the component, e.g., measurement of current rotation angles for multiple joints of a master control.).
Therefore, claim 26 is unpatentable over Turner.
Regarding claim 27, Turner teaches the method according to claim 23, wherein (Fig. 6, # 640) said determining is finalized within a time period shorter than a time delay between control signals generated by said input arm and actual movement of said surgical mechanical arm (Par. [0029] – If movement occurs on one or more of the gravity joints but none of the non-gravity joints, block 620 may consider the movement to be uncontrolled, and a block 640 can change the operating mode of the medical system, e.g., to shift the medical system to a locked mode or otherwise prevent movement of the master or prevent movement of the slave in response to the movement of the master.; Turner necessarily teaches this limitation. In order to prevent movement of the slave in response to the movement of the master, the determining must be finalized within a time period shorter than a time delay between control signals generated by said input arm and actual movement of said surgical mechanical arm).
Therefore, claim 27 is unpatentable over Turner.
Regarding claim 34, Turner teaches a method according to Claim 23, wherein (Fig. 6, # 640) locking of the joints prevents corresponding movement of the surgical arm controlled by the input arm (Par. [0029] – If movement occurs on one or more of the gravity joints but none of the non-gravity joints, block 620 may consider the movement to be uncontrolled, and a block 640 can change the operating mode of the medical system, e.g., to shift the medical system to a locked mode or otherwise prevent movement of the master or prevent movement of the slave in response to the movement of the master.).
Therefore, claim 34 is unpatentable over Turner.
Regarding claim 35, Turner teaches a method according to Claim 23, wherein (Fig. 5, # 510, 550) one of said joint parameters is contact with the user's hand (Par. [0027] – Control tip 510 includes a grip angle sensor 550. For example, a user may insert fingers into loops movably mounted on control tip 510, and sensor 550 can measure a separation 514 between the finger loops.; Par. [0031] – More generally, definitive input can be logically or mathematically identified by a control system through evaluation of relationships for or among the positions, orientations, velocities, or accelerations of degrees of freedom of a master control, particularly for relationships that are indicative of input from the user's hand.).
Therefore, claim 35 is unpatentable over Turner.
Regarding claim 36, Turner teaches a method according to Claim 23, wherein (Fig. 6, # 620) the method is used for detecting a drop of the input arm as a result of undesired release thereof (Par. [0003] – However, after a physician has taken a medical system out of the locked mode, the physician might release a master control while remaining in position to use the medical instrument. Releasing the master control under such circumstances may create the risk of the master control moving without physician input, resulting in uncontrolled motion of the medical instrument; Par. [0029] – If movement occurs on one or more of the gravity joints but none of the non-gravity joints, block 620 may consider the movement to be uncontrolled, and a block 640 can change the operating mode of the medical system, e.g., to shift the medical system to a locked mode or otherwise prevent movement of the master or prevent movement of the slave in response to the movement of the master.).
Therefore, claim 36 is unpatentable over Turner.
Regarding claim 37, Turner teaches a method according to Claim 23, wherein (Fig. 6, # 640) the locking of the joints is sufficient for supporting a weight of at least one segment of the input arm connected to that joint (Par. [0004] – When autonomous movement is detected, the medical system may be placed in a locked mode in which movement of the master control is decoupled from movement of an instrument or in which one or more axes of the master control are locked in their current positions [i.e., supporting weight of segment of input arm connected to that joint]; Par. [0029] – a block 640 can change the operating mode of the medical system, e.g., to shift the medical system to a locked mode or otherwise prevent movement of the master or prevent movement of the slave in response to the movement of the master).
Therefore, claim 37 is unpatentable over Turner.
Regarding claim 40, Turner teaches a method according to Claim 23, wherein the method further includes a step of exiting said pause mode (Par. [0003] – In particular, the system may default to the locked mode unless sensors detect that a physician is in the proper position for use of the system including, for example, being in position to view any movement of an end effector of the medical instrument.).
Therefore, claim 40 is unpatentable over Turner.
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.
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 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (WO2016/025440 – cited on IDS) in view of Whitney, et al. (US 2015/0185837).
Regarding claim 28, Turner teaches the method according to claim 23, as indicated hereinabove. Turner does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 28, that is wherein said comparing comprises implementing a time warping algorithm to which said assessed one or more parameters are inputted.
Whitney teaches a gesture-based walking and control system for wearable devices (Title, Abstract). Whitney also teaches the limitation of instant claim 28, that is wherein said comparing comprises implementing a time warping algorithm to which said assessed one or more parameters are inputted (Par. [0035] – The touch sensor data, a touch intensity map, centroid coordinates, and direction of the centroid's movement can be utilized to train the sensor processor logic with a gesture recognition system (e.g., Finite State Machine (FSM), Hidden Markov Model (HMM), Dynamic Time Warping (DTW), etc.). In one embodiment, the sensor processing logic is trained to detect a pattern of sensor data that corresponds with an intentional user gesture, and disregards random, unintentional input that may be detected by the sensors. This allows the sensor logic to determine if an actual gesture occurred, or if the sensor input data pattern is a false positive.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Whitney’s time warping algorithm for distinguishing between intentional and unintentional user gestures into Turner’s method of comparing movement/location parameters of a joint for determining undesired release of an input arm, because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have desired implementing such a gesture recognition system such as Dynamic Time Warping in order to allow for determining if an actual gesture or unintentional gesture occurred in order to avoid incurring false positives (Par. [0035] of Whitney).
Therefore, claim 28 is unpatentable over Turner and Whitney, et al.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (WO2016/025440 – cited on IDS) in view of DiMaio, et al. (US 2021/0338354).
Regarding claim 29, Turner teaches the method according to claim 23, as indicated hereinabove. Turner also teaches the limitation of instant claim 29, that is wherein said scoring takes into account acceleration (Par. [0031] – definitive input can be logically or mathematically identified by a control system through evaluation of relationships for or among the positions, orientations, velocities, or accelerations of degrees of freedom of a master control, particularly for relationships that are indicative of input from the user's hand.). Turner does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 29, that is wherein said input arm comprises at least one inertial measurement unit embedded within said input arm or mounted on it, and wherein the acceleration is measured by said inertial measurement unit.
DiMaio, directed to analogous art, teaches systems and methods for controlling a robotic manipulator or associated tool (Title, Abstract). DiMaio teaches the limitation of instant claim 29, that is wherein (Fig. 7, # 702, 704) said input arm comprises at least one inertial measurement unit embedded within said input arm or mounted on it, and wherein the acceleration is measured by said inertial measurement unit (Par. [0055] – In the example of FIG. 7, the operator input system 700 may include a local sensor system 704 located at the input device 702. The local sensor system 704 may include one or more sensors including, for example, an inertial measurement unit (IMU), an electromagnetic sensor, a hybrid sensor system incorporating two or more sensing technologies, other suitable sensor systems, and a combination thereof. In some examples, the IMU may include an accelerometer configured to measure the linear acceleration of the input device 702, and a gyroscope configured to measure the angular velocity of the input device 702. The local sensor system 704 may provide local measurement data of the input device (e.g., pose data, acceleration data, and angular velocity data of input device 702) to the control system.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the inertial measurement unit of DiMaio’s input device into Turner’s input arm, because doing so would be an example of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Turner teaches (Figs. 5 and 6) measuring movement of a manually operated component of a robotic medical system (Pars. [0027-0028]). Turner teaches (Fig. 5, # 551-554) several sensors for measuring rotation of rigid elements (Par. [0027]). Turner further teaches that definitive input can be logically or mathematically identified by a control system through evaluation of relationships for or among the positions, orientations, velocities, or accelerations of degrees of freedom of a master control, particularly for relationships that are indicative of input from the user's hand (Par. [0031]). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to implement such an inertial measurement unit of DiMaio’s input device to acquire the movement measurements that Turner is already measuring for in step 610 (Fig. 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would have desired implementing the IMU of DiMaio’s input device into Turner’s input arm in order to provide accurate motion measurement data (e.g., acceleration, angular velocity) of the input device with low latency (see Par. [0057] of DiMaio).
Therefore, claim 29 is unpatentable over Turner and DiMaio, et al.
Claims 38-39 and 41-43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (WO2016/025440 – cited on IDS) in view of Klingbeil, et al. (US 2020/0352663).
Regarding claim 38, Turner teaches a method according to Claim 23, as indicated hereinabove. Turner does not teach the limitation of instant claim 29, that is wherein said method comprises, prior to the assessing step, checking that a pause mode was not initiated by the user.
Klingbeil is directed to analogous art and teaches unmatching/matching a user interface device (UID) to a robot grasper for engaging teleoperation (Title; Abstract). Klingbeil also teaches the limitation of instant claim 29, that is wherein, (Figs. 5A-B, # 59) prior to the assessing step, checking that a pause mode was not initiated by the user (Par. [0021] – when seeking to re-engage teleoperation from a paused mode (also referred to as a clutched mode, where the control system had frozen the robotic grasper in response to the user actuating a pause or clutch button in the UID or the user initiating another form of pause or clutch command), the algorithm need not look for an initial unmatch and instead can allow re-engagement of teleoperation when it detects that the UID user input matches the held, jaw angle and/or grip force of the surgical robotic grasper.; Par. [0049]; Par. [0050] – Pausing the surgical robotic system could be performed by voice command, interaction with a user interface, a button on the UID, or other controls, etc., any of which in various embodiments could place the surgical robotic system into the PAUSED 59 mode. When the user is ready to resume teleoperation, it may be the case that the UID no longer matches the frozen position of the surgical robotic grasper, as the UID may have been set aside, moved, opened or closed, etc. The state diagram in FIG. 5B shows how the UID can be again matched to the surgical robotic grasper, so that teleoperation can be resumed from the PAUSED 59 mode.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Klingbeil’s method of checking whether a pause mode was initiated by a user into Turner’s method, because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have desired being able to have a user-initiated pause mode so that the user (e.g., surgeon) can rest, observe the patient or progress of surgery, obtain additional surgery strategy or instructions, consult with other surgical personnel, etc. (see Par. [0050] of Klingbeil). One of ordinary skill in the art would have desired the algorithm to check if the user initiated a pause mode in order to prevent any kind of movement of the input device from having an impact on movement of the effector device (e.g., slave device/surgical robot arm).
Therefore, claim 38 is unpatentable over Turner and Klingbeil, et al.
Regarding claim 39, Turner, in view of Klingbeil, renders obvious a method according to Claim 38, as indicated hereinabove. Klingbeil also teaches the limitation of instant claim 39, that is (Figs. 5A-B, # 59) wherein entering pause mode initiated by the user is performed by actuating a first interface (Par. [0050] – Pausing the surgical robotic system could be performed by voice command, interaction with a user interface, a button on the UID, or other controls, etc., any of which in various embodiments could place the surgical robotic system into the PAUSED 59 mode.).
Therefore, claim 39 is unpatentable over Turner and Klingbeil, et al.
Regarding claim 41, Turner, in view of Klingbeil, renders obvious a method according to Claim 39, as indicated hereinabove. Klingbeil also teaches the limitation of instant claim 41, that is wherein (Fig. 5B, # 59) exiting said pause mode is performed by actuating an interface (Par. [0021] – the algorithm need not look for an initial unmatch and instead can allow re-engagement of teleoperation when it detects that the UID user input matches the held, jaw angle and/or grip force of the surgical robotic grasper.; Par. [0050] – The state diagram in FIG. 5B shows how the UID can be again matched to the surgical robotic grasper, so that teleoperation can be resumed from the PAUSED 59 mode. Two possibilities are expressly accounted for in the state diagram. One possibility is that the system is paused with robotic grasper force >F.sub.min (value 71), e.g., the surgical robotic grasper 30 is clamping on tissue. Another possibility is that the system is paused with robotic grasper force <F.sub.min (value 73), e.g., the robotic grasper is open and not clamping on anything.).
Therefore, claim 41 is unpatentable over Turner and Klingbeil, et al.
Regarding claim 42, Turner, in view of Klingbeil, renders obvious a method according to Claim 39, as indicated hereinabove. Klingbeil also teaches the limitation of instant claim 42, that is wherein the method further includes (Figs. 5A-B, # 59) a step of exiting said pause mode by actuating a second interface (Par. [0021] – when seeking to re-engage teleoperation from a paused mode (also referred to as a clutched mode, where the control system had frozen the robotic grasper in response to the user actuating a pause or clutch button in the UID or the user initiating another form of pause or clutch command), the algorithm need not look for an initial unmatch and instead can allow re-engagement of teleoperation when it detects that the UID user input matches the held, jaw angle and/or grip force of the surgical robotic grasper; Par. [0050]).
Therefore, claim 42 is unpatentable over Turner and Klingbeil, et al.
Regarding claim 43, Turner, in view of Klingbeil, renders obvious a method according to Claim 42, as indicated hereinabove. Klingbeil also teaches the limitation of instant claim 43, that is wherein (Figs. 5A-B) the first interface and the second interface are different type interfaces (Par. [0021] – In contrast, when seeking to re-engage teleoperation from a paused mode (also referred to as a clutched mode, where the control system had frozen the robotic grasper in response to the user actuating a pause or clutch button in the UID or the user initiating another form of pause or clutch command), the algorithm need not look for an initial unmatch and instead can allow re-engagement of teleoperation when it detects that the UID user input matches the held, jaw angle and/or grip force of the surgical robotic grasper.; pause or clutch button, i.e. first interface; matching the held, jaw angle, and/or grip force of the surgical robotic grasper, i.e. second interface; Par. [0050]).
Therefore, claim 43 is unpatentable over Turner and Klingbeil, et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lynch, et al. (US 2019/0008599)
Yoshie (US 2010/0160728) – see at least Par. [0104]
Hansen (US 2022/0388156) – see at least Par. [0017]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL TAYLOR HOLTZCLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-6626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MICHAEL T. HOLTZCLAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights