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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 15-20 in the reply filed on 05/21/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/21/26.
Status of Claims
This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 15-20 as filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casley et al. (US Patent application publication 20220193913 A1 hereinafter “Casley”) in view of Meglan et al. (US Patent application publication 20210046637 A1 hereinafter “Meglan”).
Regarding Claim 15, Casley discloses in figures 1 and 5
A surgical robotic system (10) comprising:
a plurality of mobile carts (60), each of which includes a robotic arm (40) and an alignment module (316) configured to rotate and to project an alignment pattern (318); and
a display outputting a graphical user interface (34) configured to:
for each mobile cart of the plurality of mobile carts , the setup configuration including a configured state for each of the robotic arms and an aligned position for each of the alignment modules;
Casley pertains to a medical robotic system with alignment units that are configured to determine the orientation of the robotic arms relative to a representative coordinate system and discloses the rotation of the alignment module by stating “The alignment unit 316 has a rotatable body 320 that allows a user to manually rotate the alignment unit 316 and adjust the angle of the alignment pattern 318 in order to align the alignment pattern 318 with the representative coordinate system 11” (0038). Casley further details that the alignment unit contains a sensor to record the aligned position for each of the alignment modules, detailing “The sensor 414 senses the orientation of the alignment pattern 318 and sends data regarding the angle of the alignment pattern 318 back to the control tower 20 and/or the surgical console 30” (0041). Casley discloses the use of a graphical user interface to control the robot by stating “a second display device 34, which displays a user interface for controlling the surgical robotic system 10” (0021) as well as “The plurality of motors may be controlled by a control device (not shown) operable by a user” (0042). Casley is silent on the details of the graphical user interface, particularly if the GUI displays a setup configuration and aligned position of the alignment modules to the user. However, Meglan teaches in figure 7
display a setup configuration for each mobile cart of the plurality of mobile carts , the setup configuration including a configured state for each of the robotic arms ;
Meglan pertains to a system to track the alignment of medical robots and discloses the use of a GUI that displays a setup configuration by stating “Conversely, for the system setup and user interface 700, the alignment angle is defined clockwise” (0055) as well as “The yaw angle is displayed for each of the robotic arms 40 on a user interface” (0058). Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to use the GUI of Meglan to ensure that the setup configuration and module position alignments were included in the GUI of Casley when controlling the robotic system.
Casley further discloses output a first notification in response to each of the robotic arms being moved into the configured state; and by detailing “at step 502, a user is prompted to position the movable cart 60, which includes the setup arm 300, robotic arm 40, and surgical instrument 50, adjacent to the representative coordinate system 11. The user then adjusts the setup arm 300, by manipulating the setup links 304, 306, and coupling assembly 308 to align the setup arm 300 with the representative coordinate system 11” (0042). Casley continues to disclose output a second notification in response to each of the alignment modules being rotated to the aligned position by detailing “In step 506, the user is then prompted to manipulate the alignment pattern 318 by adjusting the alignment unit 316. In particular, the user may rotate the alignment unit 316, which causes the alignment pattern 318 to rotate as well” (0043). It is understood to those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control that the prompting of users is achieved via a GUI. Additionally, it is understood that a GUI can be programmed to output a notification or prompt at the completion of the task.
Regarding Claim 16, Casley in view of Meglan discloses all the limitations of claim 15, and Meglan further discloses wherein the configured state includes an angle or a position for each joint of a plurality of joints of the robotic arm. Meglan refers to the configured state as the post-aligned state and discloses the joint angles of the configured state by detailing “In formula (II), the initial vector is a 3×1 vector of the initial setup arm angles between the links 62a, 62b, 62c of the setup arm 62 prior to alignment, and the current vector is a 3×1 vector corresponding to the setup arm 62 being in the post-aligned state” (0058).
Regarding Claim 17, Casley in view of Meglan discloses all the limitations of claim 15, and Casley further discloses wherein the aligned position includes an angle for alignment module by specifying “the alignment unit 316 includes a sensor (not shown) that is used to determine an angle of the projected alignment pattern 318” (0043).
Regarding Claim 18, Casley in view of Meglan discloses all the limitations of claim 15, and Casley further discloses wherein the GUI is further configured to output a first notification in response to the robotic arm being moved into the configured state. As addressed in the rejection of claim 1, Casley discloses prompting the user to move the robotic arms into the configured state, and it would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control that when Casley is combined in view of Meglan, it would have been obvious to display a notification on a GUI as a means to prompt the user at the completion of the task.
Regarding Claim 19, Casley in view of Meglan discloses all the limitations of claim 15, and Casley further discloses wherein the GUI is further configured to output a second notification in response to each of the alignment module being rotated to the aligned position. As addressed in the rejection of claim 1, Casley discloses prompting the user to rotate the alignment modules to the aligned position, and it would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control that when Casley is combined in view of Meglan, it would have been obvious to display a notification on a GUI as a means to prompt the user at the completion of the task.
Regarding Claim 20, Casley in view of Meglan discloses all the limitations of claim 15, and Casley further discloses wherein the GUI is further configured to receive a user confirmation in response to each of the robotic arms being moved into the configured state and in response to each of the alignment modules being rotated to the aligned position. Casley addresses user confirmation with general input devices, not specifically a GUI, detailing “At step 508, once the user completes adjustments to the alignment unit 316, the user activates input device 326 disposed on the alignment unit 316 to indicate to the control tower 20 and/or the surgical console 30 that adjustments are complete and that the setup arm 300 is properly aligned to the representative coordinate system 11” (0043). It would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control that when Casley is combined in view of Meglan, it would have been obvious to use a GUI to indicate to the control tower that adjustments are complete.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan Daniel Neckel whose telephone number is (571)272-9537. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. 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.
/NATHAN DANIEL NECKEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights