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 .
Claim Status: Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are pending.
Response to Amendment
With respect to 112(b) rejection, Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant made an argument that cited references do not teach processing a distance of the user’s head relative to the microphone such that background noise may be removed to provide for better voice capture.
This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., processing a distance of the user’s head relative to the microphone such that background noise may be removed to provide for better voice capture) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Krinninger discloses a microphone at the distal end of the multi-joint robot arm in order to detect voice of a user (para. [0075]) and sensors for providing a gesture control for the holding device (para. [0075]).
It would have been obvious to modify Krinninger by using Gonenc’s teaching of touch-free control of surgical robotic system where the sensor detects the movement of a user and maintains a predetermined minimum distance and angular relationship between the user and the sensor (para. [0010]) for the purpose of keeping the surgical robot component in the proximity of the user (para. [0010]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to use Payyavula’s tracking system to track a movement of the head of the user relative to static or movable markers with known positions in the surgical environment (para. [0033]) for the purpose of orienting the display or other surgical component based on the head orientation, eye gaze direction or a combination of the two (para. [0039]). Payyavula discloses the tracking system mounted to the display system and tracking markers within the volume 34 in front of the display (para. [0033], fig. 1). The tracking system 32 may track markers within the volume 34 that indicate whether the surgeon (or other personnel) S, who is spaced a distance apart from the display system 26, is looking at a display region of the display system (para. [0033]), fig. 1).
Examiner has also cited a pertinent prior art but not relied upon for Applicant to consider for future claim amendments: Dahiya (US 20220030343 A1) discloses an automated microphone system having a microphone and microphone stand having at least one movable arm, at least one movable leg, and a fixed base (abstract). Dahiya teaches a control module configured to determine a presence of a user in front of the microphone within a predetermined distance and a position of a mouth of the user with respect to the microphone, using the one or more sensors, determine a movement required by each of the at least one movable arm and the at least one movable leg in one or more directions to reach the determined position and actuate the one or more motors to facilitate the determined movement of the at least one movable leg and the at least one movable arm to reach proximal to the mouth of the user, thereby completing the automated adjustment of the microphone with respect to the user in real time (para. [0011], para. [0040], the method starts when the control module (110) is configured to determine a presence of a user (206) in front of the microphone (104) within a predetermined distance, say 50-70 cm, from the microphone (104) using the one or more sensors (106). If the user (206) is successfully detected, then next step is to determine a position of the mouth of the user (206) with respect to the microphone (104).). Dahiya further discloses that the one or more motors (108) may also be configured to move the movable arm (1022) sideways the user (206) to negotiate the small lateral movements of the user (206) or the face of the user (206), that are within the range of the movable arm (1022), in real-time. Also, each of the one or more sensors (106) may be arranged in a way and preconfigured to receive equal decibel levels to so as to ensure that the microphone (104) is positioned directly in front of the mouth of the user (206). So, the one or more motors (108) may also be configured by the microcontroller to move and position the microphone (104) till each of the one or more sensors (106) receive equal decibel levels (para. [0048]).
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a speech recognition device configured to detect an information content of a text spoken by the user, to check this for the presence of at least one predefined control command, and, if the at least one predefined control command is present in the information content, to transmit the control command to the control device” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Based on the instant specification, the corresponding structure for the claim limitation is a large number of control commands predefined and stored in a database in such a way that the speech recognition device can compare the determined information content against the database entries (page 13) and a computer terminal 24 (page 17).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the speech recognition device is configured to authenticate the user on the basis of his or her voice” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Based on the instant specification, the corresponding structure for the claim limitation is a large number of control commands predefined and stored in a database in such a way that the speech recognition device can compare the determined information content against the database entries (page 13) and a computer terminal 24 (page 17).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Re Claim 1, the limitation “maintaining a predetermined minimum distance and angular relationship between the head and the microphone” is a new matter.
Based on the disclosure below, the instant specification discloses that microphone is in direct proximity to surgeon’s mouth and that there is a predetermined minimum distance between at least the instrument holder and the user’s head; however, it doesn’t disclose that there’s a predetermined minimum distance and angular relationship between the head and the microphone.
Page 14 of the instant specification discloses the following: “[A]t least the instrument holder follows the movement of the user’s head while maintaining a predetermined minimum distance. This makes it possible for the multi-joint robot arm to follow the movements of at least the head or at least one of the hands of the surgeon in a sensor-controlled manner, without the surgeon having to initiate an independent control command. This has the advantage that the instrument is always in a predefined proximity (maintaining a predefined minimum distance) to the surgeon or to another user. Thus, the microphone arranged on the multi-joint robot arm is also located in direct proximity to the user with the aid of sensors, so that high-quality speech detection and/or speech recognition is made possible in a particularly comfortable manner.”
Page 6 of the instant specification discloses that “at least one microphone of the speech detection device, by virtue of its arrangement at the distal end of the multi-joint robot arm, is always located near the head of the user or of the surgeon” and that “[i]f the user speaks during the operation, his or her mouth is also in direct proximity to the at least one microphone.”
Page 10 of the instant specification discloses that “the at least one microphone is arranged on the instrument holder.”
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krinninger et al. (US 2019/0223976A1) in view of Gonenc et al. (US 2020/0367978) and Payyavula et al. (US 2020/0015918).
Re Claim 1, Krinninger discloses a handling device for handling at least one medical and/or surgical instrument, comprising:
a multi-joint robot arm (fig. 5, para. [0064], The joints 11, 15, 19, and 23 are implemented as rotary joints and the joints 13, 17, and 21 as pivot joints; para. [0071], the holding device 1), which at its distal end carries an instrument holder designed for holding a medical and/or surgical instrument (fig. 11, para. [0071], an attached device 6 at distal interface 8; para. [0105], an instrument receiving device 220 is attached to the attached device 6), and
a control device (para. [0065], a control unit 64 of the holding device 1), which is designed at least to control the multi-joint robot arm (para. [0065], Each of the processor units 64 a, 64 b provided in each arm segment (thus seven altogether in the embodiment example from FIG. 1) serve to control individual brakes at the joints 11 through 23. Altogether, the processor units 64 a, 64 b together form a control unit 64 of the holding device 1, altogether controlling functions of the holding device 1);
a speech detection device with at least one microphone (para. [0075], microphone 102), which is arranged in a region of the distal end of the multi-joint robot arm and/or integrated therein and is designed to detect at least a voice of a user of the handling device (fig. 1, fig. 12, para. [0075], The photo sensor and microphone 102, 104 are preferably disposed in the last arm segment 22. The microphone particularly serves for voice recording and the control unit 64 comprises a corresponding voice recognition software program, so that spoken commands from an operator can be translated by means of the control unit 64 into actuating signals for the holding device 1, the robot unit 84, and/or the kinematic device 86.).
Krinninger discloses that photosensor or sensors 104 can be used for providing a gesture control for the holding device (para. [0075]).
Krinninger is silent regarding a sensor configured to detect a movement of a head of a user in spatial terms and to transmit the detected movement in the form of sensor signals to the control device, wherein the control device is configured to process the sensor signals to control the multi-joint robot arm and move the instrument holder in a manner corresponding to a movement of the head of the user while maintaining a predetermined minimum distance and angular relationship between the head and the microphone.
However, Gonenc discloses sensors for touch-free control of surgical robotic systems (abstract) and teaches that a multi-joint robot arm (fig. 8, robotic arms 804) comprises a sensor configured to detect a movement of a user in spatial terms and to transmit the detected movement in the form of sensor signals to the control device, wherein the control device is configured to process the sensor signals to control the multi-joint robot arm and move the instrument holder in a manner corresponding to a movement of the user while maintaining a predetermined minimum distance and angular relationship between the user and the sensor (para. [0010], a method for touch-free control of a surgical robot component based on proximity sensing is disclosed. The method may include determining a distance between a user and a surgical robot component using a proximity sensor coupled to the surgical robot component; comparing the determined distance of the user to a predetermined target distance, the predetermined target distance being a desired distance to be maintained between the user and the surgical robot component; and automatically causing the surgical robot component to move based on the comparing so that the determined distance is equal to the predetermined target distance prior to the user contacting the surgical robot component. The proximity sensor may be operable to detect a linear movement of the user or an angular movement of the user, and the surgical robot component is caused to move in parallel to the linear movement or the angular movement. The surgical robot component may be a robotic arm and the robotic arm is caused to move according to a number of degrees of freedom so that the determined distance is equal to the predetermined target distance. The surgical robot component may be caused to move in a same direction as the user so that the determined distance is equal to the predetermined target distance.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Krinninger, by adding a sensor configured to detect a movement of a user in spatial terms and to transmit the detected movement in the form of sensor signals to the control device, wherein the control device is configured to process the sensor signals to control the multi-joint robot arm and move the instrument holder in a manner corresponding to a movement of the user while maintaining a predetermined minimum distance and angular relationship between the user and the microphone, as taught by Gonenc, for the purpose of touch-free control of a surgical robot component based on proximity sensing to maintain a desired distance between the user and the surgical robot component (para. [0010]).
Gonenc is silent regarding a sensor configured to detect a movement of a head of a user in spatial terms and to transmit the detected movement in the form of sensor signals to the control device, wherein the control device is configured to process the sensor signals to control the multi-joint robot arm and move the instrument holder in a manner corresponding to a movement of the head of the user while maintaining a predetermined minimum distance and angular relationship between the head and the microphone.
Payyavula discloses a teleoperational system (abstract) and teaches a sensor configured to detect a movement of the head of the user in spatial terms and to transmit the detected movement in the form of sensor signals to the control device, wherein the control device is configured to process the sensor signals to control a component and move the component in a manner corresponding to a movement of the head of the user while maintaining a predetermined minimum distance and angular relationship between the head and the component (para. [0033], fig. 1, tracking system may include a camera or other sensor coupled to the surgeon's head which tracks the motion of the surgeon's head and/or eyes relative to static or movable markers with known positions in the surgical environment; para. [0039], Referring again to the method 100 of FIG. 3, at process 102 tracking of one or more markers (including natural landmarks or artificial markers) may be used to estimate the position and orientation of the operator's head, face, eyes, gaze, or other head portion. The positions and orientations may be used to compute the looking direction as a viewing vector in the coordinate frame of the display system; fig. 3, block 102: Is the operator’s view directed toward a display region, block 106: Is the operator’s head positioned in a predefined region with respect to the display).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Krinninger as modified by Gonenc, by configuring the sensor to detect a movement of a head of a user in spatial terms and to transmit the detected movement in the form of sensor signals to the control device, wherein the control device is configured to process the sensor signals to control the multi-joint robot arm and move the instrument holder in a manner corresponding to a movement of the head of the user while maintaining a predetermined minimum distance and angular relationship between the head and the microphone, as taught by Payyavula, for the purpose of determining the position and orientation of markers or objects relative to other system (para. [0033]).
Re Claim 2, The handling device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the handling device comprises a platform from which the multi-joint robot arm extends (fig. 5, para. [0063], a proximal end 2 for attaching the holding device 1 to a base; para. [0081], The holding device comprises a base 3 at the proximal end 2. The base 3 according to the present embodiment example is implemented as a standard rail of an operating table), and the control device is designed to move at least the distal end relative to the platform (para. [0065], Each of the processor units 64 a, 64 b provided in each arm segment (thus seven altogether in the embodiment example from FIG. 1) serve to control individual brakes at the joints 11 through 23. Altogether, the processor units 64 a, 64 b together form a control unit 64 of the holding device 1, altogether controlling functions of the holding device 1).
Re Claim 4, Krinninger discloses that the at least one microphone (para. [0075], microphone 102) is arranged on or integrated in an arm section and/or a joint of the multi-joint robot arm on which the instrument holder is directly or indirectly arranged (fig. 1, fig. 12, para. [0075], The photo sensor and microphone 102, 104 are preferably disposed in the last arm segment 22. fig. 11 shows that instrument holder 220 is arranged on the last arm segment.).
Re Claim 6, Krinninger discloses that the multi-joint robot arm has a plurality of arm sections (fig. 5, para. [0064], seven arm segments 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22), which are connected to one another in each case via at least one joint (fig. 5, para. [0064], joints 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23 are provided between the individual arm segments 10 through 22. The joints 11, 15, 19, and 23 are implemented as rotary joints and the joints 13, 17, and 21 as pivot joints) with at least one joint drive, wherein the control device is designed to control each joint drive individually (para. [0065], Each of the processor units 64 a, 64 b provided in each arm segment (thus seven altogether in the embodiment example from FIG. 1) serve to control individual brakes at the joints 11 through 23. Altogether, the processor units 64 a, 64 b together form a control unit 64 of the holding device 1, altogether controlling functions of the holding device 1).
Re Claim 7, Krinninger discloses that the speech detection device comprises a speech recognition device configured to detect an information content of a text spoken by the user, to check this for the presence of at least one predefined control command, and, if the at least one predefined control command is present in the information content, to transmit the control command to the control device (fig. 1, fig. 12, para. [0075], The photo sensor and microphone 102, 104 are preferably disposed in the last arm segment 22. The microphone particularly serves for voice recording and the control unit 64 comprises a corresponding voice recognition software program, so that spoken commands from an operator can be translated by means of the control unit 64 into actuating signals for the holding device 1, the robot unit 84, and/or the kinematic device 86; para. [0034], a voice control system, such that commands spoken by an operator are converted into electrical signals for controlling the navigation camera. It is conceivable, for example, that an operator speaks the word “snapshot” and the navigation camera takes a photo, said photo then being transferred).
Re Claim 10, Krinninger discloses a medical system comprising a handling device as set forth in claim 1.
Krinninger further discloses a medical and/or surgical instrument that is directly or indirectly held on the instrument holder (fig. 11, para. [0102], The robotic attached device 6, implemented here as a surgical manipulator device, is provided for receiving an endoscope 202; para. [0071], The kinematic device 86 in turn receives a medical instrument 88 such as an endoscope, a biopsy needle, or the like.).
Re Claim 11, Krinninger discloses that that the medical and/or surgical instrument comprises an exoscope and/or a microscope and/or an endoscope and/or a sterile barrier and/or a cystoscope and/or a laparoscope and/or an arthroscope and/or a sterile adapter and/or an operating-room light (fig. 11, para. [0102], The robotic attached device 6, implemented here as a surgical manipulator device, is provided for receiving an endoscope 202; para. [0071], The kinematic device 86 in turn receives a medical instrument 88 such as an endoscope, a biopsy needle, or the like.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krinninger et al. (US 2019/0223976A1) as modified by Gonenc et al. (US 2020/0367978) and Payyavula et al. (US 2020/0015918) and further in view of Cagle et al. (US 2020/0360098A1).
Re Claim 8, Krinninger as modified by Gonenc and Payyavula discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1.
Krinninger is silent regarding the speech recognition device configured to authenticate the user on the basis of his or her voice.
Cagle discloses a surgical system with voice control (abstract) and teaches a speech recognition device configured to authenticate the user on the basis of his or her voice (para. [0014], designated user's voice is preregistered for command authenticity and the stored in memory; para. [0026], The system must authenticate the voice command generated by the user. The authentication protocol involves one or more of the following: verifying that the voice command is issued by a designated or authorized user (such as by comparison with a registered voice), verifying the authenticity of the voice command based on the location of the source of the voice command, and verifying the authenticity of voice command by capturing the motion of the lips of the designated user and deciphering the corresponding spoken phrase).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Krinninger as modified by Gonenc and Payyavula, by configuring the speech recognition device to authenticate the user on the basis of his or her voice, as taught by Cagle, for the purpose of ensuring that the command is an actionable command that is made by an authorized user (para. [0026]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krinninger et al. (US 2019/0223976A1) as modified by Gonenc et al. (US 2020/0367978) and Payyavula et al. (US 2020/0015918) and further in view of Miller et al. (US 2021/0287649A1).
Re Claim 3, Krinninger as modified by Gonenc and Payyavula discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1.
Krinninger discloses that the instrument holder is designed as an end effector of the multi-joint robot arm (fig. 9, fig. 11, para. [0071], an attached device 6 at distal interface 8; para. [0105], an instrument receiving device 220 is attached to the attached device 6), and the at least one microphone is arranged on the last arm segment (para. [0075], fig. 9, last arm segment 22).
Krinninger is silent regarding the at least one microphone being arranged on the instrument holder.
Miller discloses surgical tool having integrated microphones (abstract) and teaches at least one microphone being arranged on the instrument holder (para. [0081], fig. 9, Microphone 210 may be located on an outward facing surface of holding prong 716 such that a front volume of microphone 210 faces the surrounding environment. Accordingly, microphone 210 may receive sound input 304 propagating toward sterile adapter 712 from the surrounding environment; para. [0082], [0083], Holding channel 902 may be located between adjacent holding prongs 716 to receive a portion of the endoscope, e.g., shaft 202. – holding prong 716 reads on “instrument holder”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Krinninger as modified by Gonenc and Payyavula, by configuring the at least one microphone to be arranged on the instrument holder, as taught by Miller, for the purpose of receiving sound input propagating toward the instrument holder from the surrounding environment by configuring a front volume of microphone to face the surrounding environment (para. [0081], fig. 9, Microphone 210 may be located on an outward facing surface of holding prong 716 such that a front volume of microphone 210 faces the surrounding environment. Accordingly, microphone 210 may receive sound input 304 propagating toward sterile adapter 712 from the surrounding environment; para. [0082], [0083], Holding channel 902 may be located between adjacent holding prongs 716 to receive a portion of the endoscope, e.g., shaft 202. – holding prong 716 reads on “instrument holder”) and since such a modification would have been obvious to try for speech detection and recognition with a reasonable level of success.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krinninger et al. (US 2019/0223976A1) as modified by Gonenc et al. (US 2020/0367978) and Payyavula et al. (US 2020/0015918) and further in view of Kostrzewski (US 2016/0081753).
Re Claim 5, Krinninger as modified by Gonenc and Payyavula discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1.
Krinninger is silent regarding the at least one microphone being covered by a cover.
Kostrzewski discloses robot-mounted user interface for interacting with operation room equipment (abstract) and teaches that the at least one microphone is covered by a cover (para. [0006], an input device (e.g., a touch screen, button panel, one or more buttons, microphone, visual tracking device, gesture recognition device, motion sensor, or combination thereof) on the robotic arm for controlling the robotic surgical system and one or more operating room devices (e.g., a navigation system, medical imaging system, information system, patient data system, coagulation system, power tool, anesthesia device, and communication system); para. [0086], FIGS. 4A and 4B are illustrations of an example system for securing a sterile drape 408 over an input device 402 on a robotic arm 404; para. [0020], the system includes a sterile drape holder for securing a sterile drape over the touch-screen input device such that a surgeon can utilize the touch-screen input device from a sterile environment; para. [0083], The sterile adapter ensures the drape is tightly stretched over the tool holder).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Krinninger as modified by Gonenc and Payyavula, by configuring the at least one microphone to be covered by a cover, as taught by Kostrzewski, for the purpose of enabling a surgeon to utilize the input device from a sterile environment (abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dahiya (US 20220030343 A1) discloses an automated microphone system having a microphone and microphone stand having at least one movable arm, at least one movable leg, and a fixed base (abstract). Dahiya teaches a control module configured to determine a presence of a user in front of the microphone within a predetermined distance and a position of a mouth of the user with respect to the microphone, using the one or more sensors, determine a movement required by each of the at least one movable arm and the at least one movable leg in one or more directions to reach the determined position and actuate the one or more motors to facilitate the determined movement of the at least one movable leg and the at least one movable arm to reach proximal to the mouth of the user, thereby completing the automated adjustment of the microphone with respect to the user in real time (para. [0011], para. [0040], the method starts when the control module (110) is configured to determine a presence of a user (206) in front of the microphone (104) within a predetermined distance, say 50-70 cm, from the microphone (104) using the one or more sensors (106). If the user (206) is successfully detected, then next step is to determine a position of the mouth of the user (206) with respect to the microphone (104).). Dahiya further discloses that the one or more motors (108) may also be configured to move the movable arm (1022) sideways the user (206) to negotiate the small lateral movements of the user (206) or the face of the user (206), that are within the range of the movable arm (1022), in real-time. Also, each of the one or more sensors (106) may be arranged in a way and preconfigured to receive equal decibel levels to so as to ensure that the microphone (104) is positioned directly in front of the mouth of the user (206). So, the one or more motors (108) may also be configured by the microcontroller to move and position the microphone (104) till each of the one or more sensors (106) receive equal decibel levels (para. [0048]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VYNN V HUH whose telephone number is (571)272-4684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at (571) 270-5213. 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.
/JONATHAN T KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/V.V.H./
Vynn Huh, August 17, 2026
Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights