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 1-11 are pending.
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, which is designed 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 not described.
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 not described.
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 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 3, 5, 7, and 8 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.
Re Claim 3, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Re Claim 5, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Re Claim 7, the limitation ““a speech recognition device, which is designed 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” is indefinite, because there is no the corresponding structure disclosed in the instant specification under 112(f) interpretation for this limitation.
Re Claim 8, the limitation “the speech recognition device” is indefinite, because it lacks antecedent basis.
Re Claim 8, the limitation “the speech recognition device is configured to authenticate the user on the basis of his or her voice” is indefinite, because there is no corresponding structure disclosed in the instant specification under 112(f) interpretation for this limitation.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krinninger et al. (US 2019/0223976A1).
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), characterized in that the handling device comprises 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.).
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, which is designed 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 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krinninger et al. (US 2019/0223976A1) in view of Cagle et al. (US 2020/0360098A1).
Re Claim 8, Krinninger 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, 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) in view of Miller et al. (US 2021/0287649A1).
Re Claim 3, Krinninger discloses that the instrument holder is designed as part of the multi-joint robot arm, in particular 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, 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) in view of Kostrzewski (US 2016/0081753).
Re Claim 5, Krinninger 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, in particular a non-stick 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, in particular a non-stick 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, by configuring the at least one microphone to be covered by a cover, in particular a non-stick cover, as taught by Kostrzewski, for the purpose of enabling a surgeon to utilize the input device from a sterile environment (abstract).
Claim 9 is 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 9, Krinninger discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1.
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 the multi-joint robot arm comprises at least one sensor which is configured to detect a movement of at least the head of the user in spatial terms and to transmit this in the form of sensor signals to the control device, wherein the control device is designed, on the basis of the sensor signals, to control the multi-joint robot arm in such a way that at least the instrument holder follows the movement of the head of the user while maintaining a predetermined minimum distance.
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 at least one sensor which is configured to detect a movement of the user in spatial terms and to transmit this in the form of sensor signals to the control device, wherein the control device is designed, on the basis of the sensor signals, to control the multi-joint robot arm in such a way that at least the instrument holder follows the movement of the user while maintaining a predetermined minimum distance (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 configuring a multi-joint robot arm to comprise at least one sensor which is configured to detect a movement of the user in spatial terms and to transmit this in the form of sensor signals to the control device, wherein the control device is designed, on the basis of the sensor signals, to control the multi-joint robot arm in such a way that at least the instrument holder follows the movement of the user while maintaining a predetermined minimum distance, 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 the at least one sensor configured to detect a movement of at least the head of the user and the control device is designed to control the multi-joint robot in such a way that at least the instrument holder follows the movement of the head of the user.
Payyavula discloses a teleoperational system (abstract) and teaches at least one sensor configured to detect a movement of at least the head of the user (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).
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 at least one sensor to detect a movement of at least the head of the user and designing the control device to control the multi-joint robot in such a way that at least the instrument holder follows the movement of the head of the user while maintaining a predetermined minimum distance, as taught by Payyavula, for the purpose of determine the position and orientation of markers or objects relative to other system (para. [0033]).
Conclusion
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.
/MICHAEL W KAHELIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/V.V.H./
Vynn Huh, February 7, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3792