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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 8/11/2025 has been received and made of record. Note the acknowledged form PTO-1449 enclosed herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference numeral “600” in Figure 6(a); and reference numeral “614” in Figures 6(a)-6(b). 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 because Figure 4(a) is missing a “Figure 4(a)” label, there is one indicator arrow lacking a reference numeral, and there are seven indicator lines missing respective reference numerals. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Currently no claims are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7 (and thereby dependent claims 8-13), (while reference numerals within parentheses is allowed) it appears applicant inadvertently missed removing reference numerals “(604)” in line 3 and “(610)” in line 4.
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 2, 15-17, 20, 22-41 and 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrases "general purpose surgical instrument like" (emphasis added) in line 2-3 and "cauterization surgical instrument like" (emphasis added) in line 3-4 renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 15-16, the phrase "the robotic arm" in line 2 of both of claims 15-16 renders the claim(s) indefinite because two different robotic arms were introduced in claim 1 (i.e., “a robotic arm out of the plurality of robotic arms” (lines 4-5); and “a robotic arm out of the remaining of robotic arms” (lines 6-7) (emphasis added)), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. It is unclear whether applicant intended to refer back to the “endoscopic” robotic arm (of lines 4-5) or the “surgical instrument” robotic arm (of lines 6-7). To move prosecution forward, the examiner assumed applicant intended to refer back to the “surgical instrument” robotic arm (of lines 6-7). Appropriate correction and/or robotic arm clarification is required.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "may be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are intended to affirmative limitations and part of the claimed invention or purely optional preferences. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To move prosecution forward, the Examiner interpreted “may be” as “the plurality of robotic arms comprise
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are intended to affirmative limitations and part of the claimed invention or purely optional preferences. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To move prosecution forward, the Examiner interpreted “can be” as “the head tracking camera is
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the hand controller" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (i.e., only “a left-hand controller” and “a right-hand controller” were already introduced in claim 1). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the patient" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the diagnostic scan" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 24, the phrases "but not limited to" (line 2) and “and the like” (line 3) render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are intended to affirmative limitations and part of the claimed invention or purely optional preferences. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the patient details" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the patient data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 26, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are intended to affirmative limitations and part of the claimed invention or purely optional preferences. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To move prosecution forward, the Examiner interpreted “can be” as “the patient data is configured to
Claim 27 (and thereby dependent claims 28-31) recites the limitation "the hand controller" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (i.e., only “a left-hand controller” and “a right-hand controller” were already introduced in claim 1). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 28, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are intended to affirmative limitations and part of the claimed invention or purely optional preferences. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To move prosecution forward, the Examiner interpreted “can be” as “the hand gripper is configured to be grasped”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the jaw" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 32 (and thereby dependent claims 33-36 and 42) recites the limitation "the hand controller" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (i.e., only “a left-hand controller” and “a right-hand controller” were already introduced in claim 1). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 37, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are intended to affirmative limitations and part of the claimed invention or purely optional preferences. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To move prosecution forward, the Examiner interpreted “can be” as “the height of the 3D HD monitor and hand controller gripper is configured to
Regarding claim 38, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are intended to affirmative limitations and part of the claimed invention or purely optional preferences. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To move prosecution forward, the Examiner interpreted “can be” as “the foot pedal is configured to
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the robotic arm toggle (left and right)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 40 recites the limitations "the left robotic arm toggle pedal" in line 2 and “the right robotic arm toggle pedal” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 41 recites the limitation "the clutch" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 43, the phrase "the type of the instrument, like monopolar, bipolar, or harmonic" (emphasis added) in line 3-4 renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 14-38 and 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia Kilroy et al. (US 2020/0138534).
Garcia Kilroy discloses (see Figs. 1-8) a surgical robotic system comprising the following claim limitations:
(claim 1) A multi-arm robotic surgical system (see Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of robotic arms (330) arranged along an operating table (300) (as shown in Fig. 3B); an endoscopic camera coupled to a robotic arm out of the plurality of robotic arms (see claims 15 and 20; [0003]; [0005]; [0008]; [0018]; [0024]-[0025]; [0037]; [0043]; [0053]; endoscopic camera use expressly disclosed); a plurality of surgical instruments (250, Fig. 2A) each detachably coupled to a robotic arm out of the remaining robotic arms (see Abstract and claim 1; [0004]; [0027]; [0029]); a surgeon console (110, Fig. 1) comprising: a master controller operably connected to the plurality of surgical instruments and the endoscopic camera, the master controller configured to (i.e., capable of) provide control inputs to the plurality of surgical instruments and the endoscopic camera ([0005]; [0019]-[0020]; [0022]-[0023]; [0048]; [0052]; [0056]; graphical user interface on the user console expressly connected toa and controls the robotic surgical instruments); a left-hand controller (116, Fig. 1) and a right-hand controller (116, Fig. 1) each coupled to the master controller (a shown in Fig. 1; [0020]; [0022]; [0025]; [0043]; user interface device for each hands expressly disclosed), the left-hand controller and the right-hand controller are configured to (i.e., capable of) receive input from a surgeon (as shown in Fig. 1; [0020]; [0022]; [0025]; [0043]); a three-dimensional (3D) HD monitor (118, Fig. 1; 420/450, Fig. 4A) configured to display a view of a surgical field in 3D ([0006]; [0037]; [0051]; [0063]; [0075]); a two-dimensional (2D) touch screen monitor coupled to the master controller, the 2D touch screen monitor configured to be used as a graphical user interface to capture inputs from the surgeon ([0007]; [0025]; [0037]; [0063]; [0071]; [0077]-[0078]; touchscreen input expressly disclosed); a head tracking camera operably connected to the master controller, the head tracking camera is secured to the 3D HD monitor ([0050]-[0051]; eye and head tracking camera mounted on the display expressly disclosed); a pair of trackable 3D glasses (420, Fig. 4A) configured to be tracked by the head tracking camera, the pair of trackable 3D glasses to be worn by the surgeon ([0037]; head-mounted visual display expressly disclosed; [0050]-[0051]; eye and head tracking camera mounted on the display expressly disclosed); a foot pedal controller (see 114, Fig. 1; 420, Fig. 4A) connected to the master controller, the foot pedal controller configured to receive an input from the surgeon ([0006]; [0025]; [0038]; [0075]; foot pedal control expressly disclosed); a control panel (130, Fig. 1) configured to receive an input from the surgeon to perform functions for system ON/OFF, clear recoverable faults, and emergency stop ([0024]; [0073]; [0077]; control tower 130 expressly offers multiple features including power on/off option); an electrosurgical unit interface connected to various surgical instruments out of the plurality of surgical instruments to provide an appropriate power signal to each of them ([0025]; [0070]; interfaces for control of monopolar and bipolar cautery expressly disclosed); an image processor coupled to the endoscopic camera; the image processor configured to process a 3D image data received from the endoscopic camera ([0006]; [0037]; endoscopic camera image being processed and displayed to user in 3D format expressly disclosed); and a digital device configured to prepare an image data by using the processed 3D image data received from the image processor and superimposing it with a 2D overlay including a status of the plurality of surgical instruments; the digital device is further configured to (i.e., capable of) transmit the prepared image data to the 3D HD monitor and a patient side staff 3D monitor ([0006]; [0037]; endoscopic camera image being processed and displayed to user in 3D format expressly disclosed; [0053]; GUI overlaying 2D widget image of high-priority information over the endoscopic image expressly disclosed);
(claim 2) wherein the plurality of surgical instruments includes general purpose surgical instruments like needle, forceps, grasper, clipper, and various cauterization surgical instruments like cutter, sealer, and coagulator etc. ([0005]; [0018]; use of cutters/scissors, graspers/forceps, electrocautery tools and the like expressly disclosed);
(claim 3) wherein the 2D touch screen monitor is used to capture an input from the surgeon to turn on the master controller, toggle between real-time simulation, enable pre-operative functions, and to view a patient data ([0007]; [0025]; [0036]-[0037]; [0053]; [0063]; [0066]; [0071]; [0077]-[0078]; 2D display of real time images, graphical interfaces and high-priority information expressly disclosed);
(claim 5) wherein the processed 3D image data from the image processor is recorded in a 3D HD image data recording system for future reference and recordkeeping ([0006]; [0037]; [0051]; [0058]; [0063]; [0066]; [0075]; recorded images expressly may be linked to specific patients for suture viewing);
(claim 6) wherein the surgeon console (110) is outside the sterile field ([0020]);
(claim 14) wherein each robotic arm (122) is placed within a sterile field (as shown in Fig. 1; [0024]; robotic arms 122 are fully capable and free to be moved into the sterile field above the draped anatomy, as one so desires);
(claim 15) wherein the robotic arm (112, Fig. 2A-2C) includes a plurality of active joints (211-217), a tool interface (220, Figs. 2A-2C), and an actuator (224, Fig. 2B-2C) for a surgical instrument (254, Fig. 2B) or an endoscopic camera;
(claim 16) wherein the robotic arm (122) further includes an instrument clutch button, primary arm clutch button (624), and a secondary arm clutch button ([0049]; system expressly includes a clutch button that pauses movement of tool and arm actuators in response to the clutch signal allowing for repositioning as needed);
(claim 17) wherein the plurality of robotic arms (122) may be four or more robotic arms (as shown in Fig. 1);
(claim 18) wherein the robotic surgical system is provided with an Un-interrupted power supply (UPS) ([0073]; uninterruptible power supply (UPS) expressly disclosed);
(claim 19) wherein the master controller manipulates the inputs to the plurality of surgical instruments for seamless control of the plurality of surgical instruments to mimic the surgeon's wrist and hand movements ([0043]-[0051]; surgeon’s hand movements expressly tracked at user input devices (UIDs) 116);
(claim 20) wherein the head tracking camera can be attached to the top of the 3D HD monitor ([0050]-[0051]; eye and head tracking camera expressly may be mounted on the top of the display);
(claim 21) wherein the head tracking camera helps in avoiding distracted system use and unintended motion ([0050]-[0051]; [0076]; eye and head tracking system expressly may be paused or locked for patient safety when the user appears distracted and/or gaze strays outside the display over a period of time);
(claim 22) wherein the hand controller manipulates the plurality of surgical instruments with four-degrees of freedom ([0028]; [0045]; [0047]; robotic arms expressly operate and provide at least five degrees of freedom);
(claim 23) wherein the patient data includes diagnostic scan and patient details ([0037]; [0058]; [0060]; [0066]; video scans, visual details, physiological details, patient name, and patient medical records number expressly disclosed as capable of being shown and saved within the system);
(claim 24) wherein the diagnostic scan comprises various medical scans, but not limited to MRI scan, CT scan, and the like, of one or more patients ([0058]; pre-operative MRI and CT scans expressly disclosed);
(claim 25) wherein the patient details comprise at least one of a name, age, sex, or medical history of one or more patients ([0066]; patient name and patient medical records number expressly disclosed);
(claim 26) wherein the patient data can be fetched from at least one of a local database, or a server, or from a hospital picture archiving and communication system (PACS) ([0022]-[0023]; [0058]; [0072]; system communication with a server and/or electronic healthcare record system expressly disclosed);
(claim 27) wherein the hand controller includes a hand gripper (116, Fig. 5D), a pinch grip button (502/504, Fig. 5D), a finger clutch button ([0049]; finger clutch expressly disclosed), and a hand sensor ([0045]; plurality of hand sensors expressly disclosed) (as shown in Figs. 5A-5D; [0045]-[0046]; [0049]; all hand gripper functionality is expressly disclosed);
(claim 28) wherein the hand gripper (116) can be grasped between thumb and index finger of left hand or right hand ([0025]; [0044]; [0048]; finger gripping capability expressly disclosed);
(claim 29) wherein the pinch grip button (502/504) is configured to (i.e., capable of) control the closure and opening of the jaw of a surgical instrument ([0046]; grip crank component 502/504 expressly generates a grip signal for controlling jaws of the corresponding end effector);
(claim 30) wherein the finger clutch button ([0049]; finger clutch expressly disclosed) is configured to (i.e., capable of) reorient the surgeon hand controller (116) to a different space without compromising the position of the surgical instrument within the patient ([0049]; “During the clutch period, the user can reposition the UIDs 116, for example, to the center of the tracking field, without causing unwanted movement of surgical robot or surgical tools”);
(claim 31) wherein the hand sensor ([0045]; plurality of hand sensors expressly disclosed) will maintain the position of hand controller (116) if left unattended by the surgeon ([0044]-[0045]; [0047]-[0048]; system expressly tracks and maintains the spatial state information of the hand gripper 116 and the system will not move the hand gripper 116 on its own);
(claim 32) wherein the hand controller (116) has specific rotational and translational motions corresponding to the motions of the plurality of surgical instruments ([0048]; system closely follows and tracks user hand input and the surgical instrument/tool closely follows the tracked movements of the hand controller, including translations along all three axes (i.e., six DOF in space));
(claim 33) wherein the specific rotational motions of the hand controller (116) include Roll, Pitch, and Yaw ([0048]; system closely follows and tracks user hand input and the surgical instrument/tool closely follows the tracked movements of the hand controller, including translations along all three axes (i.e., six DOF in space));
(claim 34) wherein the Roll rotational motion of the hand gripper (116) controls the rotation of a surgical instrument along an axis 1 ([0048]; system closely follows and tracks user hand input and the surgical instrument/tool closely follows the tracked movements of the hand controller, including translations along all three axes (i.e., six DOF in space));
(claim 35) wherein the Pitch rotational motion of the hand gripper (116) controls the rotation of the surgical instrument along an axis 2 ([0048]; system closely follows and tracks user hand input and the surgical instrument/tool closely follows the tracked movements of the hand controller, including translations along all three axes (i.e., six DOF in space));
(claim 36) wherein the Yaw rotational motion of the hand gripper (116) controls the rotation of the surgical instrument along an axis 3 ([0048]; system closely follows and tracks user hand input and the surgical instrument/tool closely follows the tracked movements of the hand controller, including translations along all three axes (i.e., six DOF in space));
(claim 37) wherein the height of the 3D HD monitor (112) and hand controller (116) can be adjusted by the surgeon (at “ODV” in Fig. 4B for vertical display movement; and see Figs. 1 and 5A-5D; [0013]; wireless hand controller free to adjusted and repositioned as one so desires);
(claim 38) wherein the position of the foot pedal (430) can be adjusted up/down or in/out by the foot pedal controller (as shown in Fig. 4B at “PT” and “PH”; [0039]);
(claim 42) wherein the translation motions corresponding to the motions of a surgical instrument translate the surgical instrument in and out of the surgical field or up/down and left/right translation of the surgical instrument along a remote centre of motion ([0048]; system closely follows and tracks user hand input and the surgical instrument/tool closely follows the tracked movements of the hand controller, including translations along all three axes (i.e., six DOF in space));
(claim 43) wherein the appropriate power signal provided to various cauterization surgical instruments out of the plurality of surgical instruments depends on the type of the instrument, like monopolar, bipolar, or harmonic ([0070]; [0073]; electrosurgical units expressly disclosed to provide appropriate power for monopolar, bipolar, advanced bipolar, and ultrasonic modalities); and
(claim 44) wherein a pre-operative 2D touch panel is provided for entering preoperative patient and surgical data by a patient side staff ([0038]; [0066]; touchscreen apps expressly provide for input of patient information).
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.
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(s) 4 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Kilroy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawabata et al. (US 2022/0175478).
Garcia Kilroy, as applied above, discloses a surgical robotic system comprising all the limitations of the claim except for wherein the foot pedal controller (430) receives an input from the surgeon to perform functions for clutch allowing for disengaging the hand controller repositioning of instruments, camera toggle, robotic arm toggle (left toggle pedal and right toggle pedal), cut cautery (left and right), coagulate cautery (left and right).
However, Kawabata teaches (see Fig. 4) a similar robotic surgical system comprising wherein the foot pedal controller (28) receives an input from the surgeon to perform functions for clutch (22b) allowing for disengaging the hand controller repositioning of instruments ([0051]), camera toggle (22c), robotic arm toggle (left and right) (22a), cut cautery (left and right) (22dR/22dL), coagulate cautery (left and right) (22eR/22eL) ([0050]) in order to beneficially allow the surgeon to execute multiple functions of the medical instrument via foot pedal input, such as easily switching the function of the operation handles without the surgeon removing their hands from the operation handles ([0050]-[0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Garcia Kilroy to have the foot pedal controller receive an input from the surgeon to perform functions for clutch, camera toggle, robotic arm toggle (left and right), cut cautery (left and right), coagulate cautery (left and right) in order to beneficially allow the surgeon to execute multiple functions of the medical instrument via foot pedal input, such as easily switching the function of the operation handles without the surgeon removing their hands from the operation handles, as taught by Kawabata.
Claim(s) 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Kilroy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kapadia et al. (US 2020/0129250).
Garcia Kilroy discloses (see Figs. 1-8) a surgical robotic system comprising the following claim limitations:
(claim 8) wherein each patient side arm cart ([0019]; table-mounted robotic arms shown expressly may be swapped for arm attachment to a side cart) is provided with parking locks ([0073]; cart casters expressly provided with a locking/braking system for preventing unwanted movements);
(claim 9) wherein each patient side arm cart ([0019]; table-mounted robotic arms shown expressly may be swapped for arm attachment to a side cart) is placed partially within the sterile field ([0019]; a movable/wheeled side cart having robotic arm attachments may be positioned within, partially within, or outside of the sterile field as one so desires); and
(claim 11) wherein each patient side arm cart ([0019]; table-mounted robotic arms shown expressly may be swapped for arm attachment to a side cart) must be registered with the master controller before engaging the hand controllers (116) ([0023]; wireless connections between the user console and control tower must be made and properly registered via proprietary connections and/or a variety of data communication protocols to allow for translation of user hand movement to robotic arm movement).
Garcia Kilroy, as applied above, discloses a surgical robotic system comprising all the limitations of the claim except for wherein each of the plurality of robotic arms connected to setup joints through a telescopic column, and further connected to a cart through a vertical column, and a control dashboard, which together form a patient side arm cart, and wherein each patient side arm cart is provided with a battery backup.
However, Kapadia teaches (see Figs. 3(b)-5(b)) a similar robotic surgical system comprising wherein each of the plurality of robotic arms (201, Fig. 3(b)) connected to setup joints (303, Figs. 3(b)-3(c)) through a telescopic column (415, Fig. 4(a)), and further connected to a cart (300, Fig. 3(b)) through a vertical column (401, Fig. 4(a)), and a control dashboard (453, Fig. 4(a)), which together form a patient side arm cart (300, Fig. 3(b)), and wherein each patient side arm cart (300) is provided with a battery backup (423, Fig. 4(a)) in order to beneficially provide for a robotic arm surgical cart having vertical telescopic movement to be able to adjust the robotic arm into proper position on a surgical table while further providing backup battery power in case of a failure of the control box ([0011]-[0014]; [0078]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Garcia Kilroy to have each of the plurality of robotic arms connected to setup joints through a telescopic column, and further connected to a cart through a vertical column, and a control dashboard, which together form a patient side arm cart, and wherein each patient side arm cart is provided with a battery backup in order to beneficially provide for a robotic arm surgical cart having vertical telescopic movement to be able to adjust the robotic arm into proper position on a surgical table while further providing backup battery power in case of a failure of the control box, as taught by Kapadia.
Claim(s) 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Kilroy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mohr et al. (US 2010/0228249).
Garcia Kilroy, as applied above, discloses a robotic surgical system comprising all the limitations of the claim except for wherein the robotic arm toggle (left and right) of the foot pedal controller includes a left robotic arm toggle pedal and a right robotic arm toggle pedal.
However, Mohr teaches (see Fig. 7A) a similar robotic surgical system comprising a left robotic arm toggle pedal (706L) and a right robotic arm toggle pedal (706R) ([0112]; [0116]; [0196]). Accordingly, Mohr teaches that it is known that a single robotic arm toggle pedal and two (right and left) robotic arm toggle pedals are elements that are functional equivalents for providing a surgeon with foot pedal capability for switching/toggling user control between respective robotic arms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have substituted the two (right and left) robotic arm toggle pedals taught by Mohr for the single robotic arm toggle pedal of Garcia Kilroy because both elements were known equivalents for providing a surgeon with foot pedal capability for switching/toggling user control between respective robotic arms within the robotic surgical system art. The substitution would have resulted in the predictable results of providing a surgeon with foot pedal capability for switching/toggling user control between respective robotic arms to the device of Garcia Kilroy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 and 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. It is noted that claim 40 remains subject to a 112 rejection that must be resolved before this claim can be in proper condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Lynch whose telephone number is (571)270-3952. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:00AM-6:00PM, with alternate Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston, at (571) 272-7134. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT A LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771