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 .
Claims 1-5, 7-20 are pending in the application.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular passages including column and line numbers, paragraphs as designated numerically and/or figures as designated numerically in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages, paragraphs and figures of any and all cited prior art references may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing an eventual response, to fully consider the context of the passages, paragraphs and figures as taught by the prior art and/or cited by the examiner while including in such consideration the cited prior art references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Suzuki et al. WO2022009355 (Published 2022-01-13) corresponding to the US Pub. No. 2023/0149107 (“Suzuki”)
Regarding claim 1, Thompson teaches a master controller [See Fig. 2] comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
366
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a control gripper [201] to control at least an open/close degree of freedom of a slave surgical instrument [See fig. 1 - 102];
[0040] Described features of the master controller include a proximal end of the controller that is configured to allow a user to manipulate the master controller including engaging (e.g., pinching) a thumb grip portion and finger grip portion with the user's thumb and other finger while the proximal end is engaged (e.g., grounded) in the palm of the user.
[0051] In some implementations, the slave manipulator arms 108 and/or instrument systems 109 may be controlled to move and articulate the instruments 110 in response to manipulation of master control device 122 by the user 124, so that the user 124 can direct surgical procedures at internal surgical sites through minimally invasive surgical apertures. For example, one or more actuators coupled to the manipulator arms 108 and/or instrument systems 109 may output force to cause links or other portions of the arms 108 and/or instruments 110 to move in particular degrees of freedom in response to control signals received from the master control device 122.
a handle [220];
a joint [224] between said handle and said control gripper, said joint allowing a roll rotational degree of freedom of the control gripper with respect to the handle about a roll rotation axis;
[0093] In some implementations, the extension member 220 and central portion 202 are rotatable about the longitudinal axis 203 of the control body 201 with respect to each other. In some examples, the extension member 220 is rotatable about the axis 203 independently of the central portion 202 and grip portions 204A and 204B. In some examples, a rotary coupling is provided between central portion 202 and extension member 220. This rotation can allow the central portion 202 and grip portions 204 to be rotated about the axis 203 with respect to the extension member 220, e.g., by the user's fingers, while the extension member 220 is held engaged to the palm or other portion of the user's hand (e.g., grounded to the hand). Similarly, the extension member 220 can be rotated about the axis 203 with respect to the central portion 202. In some implementations, the extension member 220 can pivot in all axes with respect to the central portion 202, e.g., using a spherical joint or coupling provided between central portion 202 and extension member 220. Some examples of such an implementation are described below with respect to FIG. 15. In some implementations, the rotary position of the extension member about axis 203, and/or the rotation or pivoting motion of the extension member 220 about axis 203, can be sensed using one or more sensors coupled to the central portion 202 and/or extension member. For example, such position or rotation can be used to sense a rotary position of an input control or asymmetrical feature on the extension member, sense a current location of a tethered connection that extends from the extension member 220 (e.g., as in FIG. 5), etc. For example, sensing particular rotary positions or motions can cause the system to output a displayed, audio, and/or haptic indicator or alarm, exit controlling mode, etc. if the current position or motion matches (within a threshold amount) any of the particular positions or motions.
wherein:
the control gripper comprises two interface [Two grip members - 210] portions facing opposite relative to the roll rotation axis;
each interface portion comprises a rigid flap [206] that protrudes cantilevered from the control gripper, forming a concave surface comprising a cavity;
[0113] FIG. 3 is a perspective view of the master hand controller 200 being manipulated by a user's hand, according to some implementations. In this example, the user's thumb 302 is engaged with grip 206A and secured by finger loop 208A. The user's third finger 304 is engaged with grip 206B (not shown; e.g., see FIG. 4) and secured by finger loop 208B. The user's second finger 306 is engaged with the finger switch 230, e.g., to slide the finger switch 230 forward and/or back to different activation positions.
the concave surfaces have respective concavity facing opposite relative to the roll rotation axis [See fig. 2].
[0077] Each grip portion 204A and 204B can each include a grip 206 which is a position or member at which to contact a user's finger. Each grip 206 can have a surface that is shaped to receive a finger pad of the user. In various example implementations, the grip 206 has a contact surface that is flat (e.g., parallel to the grip member portion that extends from the central portion 202), concave (curved inward to form a valley to fit the finger), or convex (curved outward to form a bump or shell engaged by the finger) to provide engagement and secure contact with the fingers of the operating hand.
Thompson does not teach wherein the first interface portion and/or the second interface portion is repositionable in a longitudinal direction along a body of the control gripper.
Suzuki teaches another medical operation apparatus includes a body graspable by an operator, an operation part that is arranged to enable a part of the operation part to be moved relative to the body, and a holder that receives the fingers of the operator and transmits a movement of the fingers to the operation part. Suzuki teaches the operation apparatus further includes a control gripper comprises an interface portion [33] facing opposite relative to the roll rotation axis. Specifically, Suzuki teaches the interface portion is repositionable in a longitudinal direction along a body of the control gripper.
PNG
media_image2.png
348
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0076] In the medical operation apparatus 101, the connector 31 comprises the rotation axis, and the holder 30 rotates around the rotation axis, thereby making it possible to cope with the posture change of the fingers.
[0077] This configuration allows the connector 31 to support the relative posture of the holder 30 and the operation part 20 so as to change the relative posture in accordance with the posture change of the operator's fingers.
[0078] The connector 31 is arranged so as to be movable along the longitudinal direction of the operation part 20, and thus adjustable for multiple operators with different finger sizes.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first interface portion or the second interface portion of Thompson with the repositionable in longitudinal direction along a body of the control gripper of Suzuki. The motivation for doing so would has been, as suggested by Suzuki, to accommodate multiple operators with different finger sizes. Thus, help improve their fingers comfortably while retaining the controller’s open/close operation.
Regarding claim 2, Thompson teaches each concave surface is a conically developing surface [convex (curved outward to form a bump or shell - par. 0077 and fig. 2].
Regarding claim 3, Thompson teaches the cavity formed by the conically developing surface of the first interface portion is tapered along a same direction as the cavity formed by the conically developing surface of the second interface portion [par. 0077 and fig. 2].
Regarding claim 7, Thompson teaches each interface portion is reorientable with respect to the control gripper [fig. 2].
Regarding claim 11, Thompson teaches said joint between the control gripper and the handle that makes said roll rotational degree of freedom is a spherical joint [par. 0093].
Regarding claim 15, Thompson teaches the handle comprises a control button [230] to control an additional function in addition to control of the open/close degree of freedom; wherein said at least one control button is located on said horn [par. 0100, 0135].
Regarding claim 19, Thompson teaches the first interface portion and/or the second interface portion is repositionable in the longitudinal direction along the body of the control gripper, and along a respective rigid part thereof [fig. 2].
Regarding claim 20, Thompson teaches the handle comprises a control button [1124 fig. 12 or 230 of fig. 2] to control an additional function in addition to the control of the open/close degree of freedom, comprising control of the scaling factor of master-slave teleoperation [par. 0135] and/or the freezing of some degrees of freedom of the slave device; wherein said at least one control button is located on said horn [enter non-controlling mode - par. 0179].
Claim(s) 4-5, 8-9, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson/Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lutzow et al. US Pub. No. 2021/0369376 (“Lutzow”).
Regarding claim 4, Thompson teaches each surface can be concave (curved inward to form a valley to fit the finger), or convex (curved outward to form a bump or shell engaged by the finger. Thompson/Suzuki does not expressly teach each concave surface comprises an open, frustoconical band. Lutzow teaches another master controller comprises a control gripper having two interface [108 and 114] portions facing opposite relative to the roll rotation axis; each interface portion comprises a rigid flap [118 and 112] that protrudes cantilevered from the control gripper, forming a concave surface comprising a cavity where the concave surfaces have respective concavity facing opposite relative to the roll rotation axis. Specifically, Lutzow teaches each concave surface comprises an open, frustoconical band.
PNG
media_image3.png
432
668
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such feature as discussed above of Lutzow. The motivation for doing so would have to accommodate user with a larger finger or thumb while maintain user’s comfortability. Thus, improve usability of the controller.
Regarding claim 5, Thompson/Suzuki in view of Lutzow teaches cavity of each interface portion is a pass-through cavity in a longitudinal direction [fig. 2 of Thompson and fig.1 of Lutzow].
Regarding claim 8, Lutzow teaches the control gripper comprises two rigid parts that are movable with respect to one another to control said open/close degree of freedom, and the interface portions are mounted onto said two rigid parts, respectively [par. 0064].
Regarding claim 9, Thompson teaches a rotational joint [202] is between the two rigid parts of the control gripper, wherein, said rotational joint is located between the joint to connect to the handle and the two interface portions of the control gripper [fig. 2].
Regarding claim 10, Thompson teaches tracking sensors integrally mounted to control gripper for tracking for detecting information of the open/close degree of rigid parts [par. 0081 - One or more sensors (not shown) coupled to the hand controller 200 can detect the positions of the grip members 210 in their degrees of freedom 212 and send signals describing the positions to one or more control circuits of the system to which the controller 200 is connected, e.g., teleoperated surgical system 100 or other system…. the positions of the grip members 210 in degrees of freedom 212 can be used to control jaws or other components, or any of various degrees of freedom, of an end effector of a controlled slave device]. Thompson/Suzuki does not teach tracking sensors integrally mounted to said rigid parts of the control gripper, wherein each interface portion is movable with respect to said tracking sensors.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to install the tracking sensors to said the rigid parts wherein each interface portion is movable with respect to said tracking sensors because applicant has not disclosed that install the tracking sensors to said the rigid parts wherein each interface portion is movable with respect to said tracking sensors provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either install tracking sensors integrally mounted to control gripper of Thompson or the claimed install the tracking sensors to said the rigid parts wherein each interface portion is movable with respect to said tracking sensors because both tracking sensors perform the same function of detecting the open/close degree of the control gripper. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Thompson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Lutzow teaches the handle comprises a body forming at least one seat with a surface to rest on a back of a hand of a user [fig. 5; par. 0057].
Regarding claim 13, Lutzow teaches the surface to rest on the back of the hand is made by a horn or protrusion of the body of the handle that extends opposite with respect to the control gripper [fig. 5].
Regarding claim 14, Lutzow teaches the handle has a body comprising two opposite flanks that narrows forming a throat to receive a user's fingers, said throat being arranged proximate said interface portions and/or said joint [fig. 7-8].
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson/Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Simi et al. US Pub. No. 2023/0114346 (“Simi”).
Regarding claim 16, Thompson/Suzuki does not teach a sterile drape to cover the control gripper, and two sterile clips snap-fit to the control gripper through the sterile drape; and wherein each interface portion comprises a rigid cantilevered flap being mounted to a respective sterile clip of the two sterile clips.
Simi teaches a master controller designed to be hand-held by the surgeon during surgery wherein the master controller comprises features designed to be tracked by an associable tracking system to determine position and/or orientation of the master input handle assembly within a predefined work volume for controlling at least one paired slave surgical instrument. Specifically, Simi teaches a sterile drape [303 – par. 0068-0069] to cover the control gripper, and two sterile clips snap-fit [306 – par. 0070-0071; fig. 11] to the control gripper through the sterile drape; and wherein each interface portion comprises a rigid cantilevered flap being mounted to a respective sterile clip of the two sterile clips [See fig. 9-11].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the master controller of Thompson/Suzuki with a sterile drape to cover the control gripper, and two sterile clips snap-fit to the control gripper through the sterile drape; and wherein each interface portion comprises a rigid cantilevered flap being mounted to a respective sterile clip of the two sterile clips. The motivation for doing so would has been to maintain sterile for the master controller by covering it with the sterile drape 303. Moreover, the provision of the accessory 306 makes the surgeon feels to firmly and precisely hold the draped non-sterile manipulandum 310 as suggested by Simi in paragraph 0117.
Regarding claim 17, Simi teaches a sterile drape to cover the handle and a sterile clip that snap-fits to said handle through said sterile drape [See fig. 12, According to an embodiment, said at least one sterile accessory 306 forms a sterile handgrip of said sterile master input handle assembly 302 – par. 0070].
Regarding claim 18, Simi teaches said handle is a sterile element that couples to said control gripper [See fig. 11-12].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT HUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7210. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00.
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, Kamini S Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
VINCENT H TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2115
/VINCENT H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights