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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/06/2026 has been entered.
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(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11, 14-16, 19-25 and 27-29 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,773,388 to Larkin et al. “Larkin” in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0030257 to Ishihara.
As for Claims 1-2, 19-20, 23, 25 and 27, Larkin discloses a robotic system and method comprising a first robotic arm coupled to a first surgical tool (129 in Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions), a second robotic arm coupled to a second surgical tool (128 in Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions), a third robotic arm coupled to a scope (122 in Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions) and one or more processors (102 in Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions) configured to display a view of the surgical site from the scope (104 in Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions; Column 5, Lines 3-16). Larkin discloses various GUI’s which display robotic arm position data to the user (Figs. 4-7). When tools are within the field of view, they are displayed in viewing area 300 with bold lines (Column 5, Lines 3-15) and when the robotic arm and tool is not within the scope’s field of view, a visual indicator is displayed in a boundary area to indicate the position of the out-of-view tool (Column 5, Lines 37-67). Larkin explains and depicts that the position of the visual indicator relates to the current position of the tool to a central point of the viewing area, may change and that a distance that the out-of-plane tool is from the viewing area may be indicated in a number of ways including size, color, brightness, blinking frequency or oscillating frequency of the symbol when the distance changes (Column 6, Lines 1-30).
However, Larkin does not expressly depict where the visual indicators representing out of view tool positions are elongate in shape overlapping the field of view and fails to disclose changing only the length of the elongate shape when the tool moves closer/away to the field of view while maintaining the width of the elongate shape as now claimed.
Ishihara teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to surgical robotic systems and methods (Abstract) where tool indicators are displayed in an overlapping manner on a field of view display (Figs. 8-10 for example).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the display means described by Larkin to overlap the visual indicators on the displayed field of view as described by Ishihara in order to expand the displayed field of view image and enhance the user’s visual experience.
Regarding the shape of the visual indicators, Larkin explains “Although show as circles, the non-depictive symbols 420, 410, 510, 610 and 710 may be displayed in any one or more of many different shapes” (Column 7, Lines 43-45). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have used other shapes such as an elongate shape (e.g. rectangle, stretched oval, etc.) in order to allow the user to customize the visual indicator appearance according to preference. In addition, it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
With respect to the limitation of only changing the length of the elongate shape and maintaining the width of the elongate shape when a distance between the surgical tool and the field of view changes, Larkin makes it clear that the dimensions of the shape change relative to the tool’s distance to the field of view such that the visual indicator gets larger as the tool moves closer to entering the viewing area (Column 6, Lines 1-30). Thus, Larkin teaches the inventive concept of growing/shrinking an indicator as a function of the tool’s distance to a viewing area. While Larkin appears to change both the length and width of the visual indicator, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have only modified one dimension of the shape such as the length in order to allow the user to customize the visual appearance of the visual indicators. In addition, such a modification is a matter of pure design choice in the absence of showing any criticality or unexpected result.
As for Claims 6, Larkin depicts wherein the visual indicator may include an orientation indicator superimposed thereon (511 in Fig. 5 and corresponding descriptions). Such a disclosure is considered to read on the limitation of the visual indicator including information identifying the first robotic arm (e.g. orientation of the first arm) in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Larkin further discloses where indicators may be displayed in any number of shapes or may be symbols depictive of the respective tool (Column 7, Lines 40-67) which is considered to read on information identifying a robotic arm its broadest reasonable interpretation. Larkin also explains that the indicators may be “clickable” and provide additional displayed information about the tool (Column 7, Lines 20-40).
As for Claim 11, Examiner notes the modified device includes the visual indicators overlaid onto the displayed field of view as described above. Larkin explains the visual indicators may be colored (e.g. highlighted) (Column 5, Lines 15-35; Column 6, Lines 10-30). Thus, the modified device would highlight a predefined region on the field of view (e.g. where the visual indicator is) in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Ishihara also discloses coloring icons on a predetermined area of the field of view image (Figs. 6 and 8-11).
Regarding Claim 14, Examiner notes the user’s action to click the symbol is considered to be a request in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
As for Claims 15-16, Larkin provides visual indicators for the surgical tools as explained above. In addition, Larkin explains a surgeon may instruct an assistant to remove a tool no longer being used from its robotic arm and replace it with another tool (Column 4, Lines 3-15). Examiner notes that if a remove instruction has been issued and no tool replaces it, the visual indicators would be removed in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
As for Claims 21-22, Ishihara depicts various embodiments where visual indicators are displayed adjacent to a border of the field of view (Figs. 8-13) or alternatively where visual indicators are displayed “inward” from the border (e.g. 328 in Fig. 10, 324 in Figs. 11-12, 328c in Fig. 16). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have positioned the modified elongate visual indicators anywhere on the displayed field of view in order to allow the user to customize the display screen layout.
As for Claims 24 and 28-29, Examiner notes the modified system and method would read on the indicator being displayed vertically on the sides of the field of view, horizontal on the top and bottom of the field of view and on two sides of the field of view display (e.g. corners or “L” shape) if and when the tool is positioned accordingly.
Claim(s) 6 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin and Ishihara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,862,268 to Robinson et al. “Robinson”.
As for Claim 6, Larkin and Ishihara disclose a robotic surgical system and method including visual indicators for the robotic arms as described above.
Robinson teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to surgical systems and methods (Abstract) where a GUI may include tool number icons (504L and 504R in Fig. 5A).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the visual indicators described by Larkin and Ishihara to include overlaid tool number icons described by Robinson in order to improve the user’s visualization and understanding of robotic arm locations during a procedure. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin and Ishihara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of WO 2014/151621 to Kilroy et al. “Kilroy”.
Regarding Claims 17-18, Larkin and Ishihara discloses a robotic system and method for displaying tool positions in and out of displayed views as described above. Larkin further discloses wherein the robotic system may be controlled by an operator sitting at a da Vinci surgical system which includes a console with user inputs (Column 1, Lines 25-45 and Column 3, Lines 40-50). However, Larkin does not expressly disclose a “birds-eye” view on the display.
Kilroy teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to robotic systems and methods (Abstract) where a display may provide the user a birds eye view (Paragraph [0108]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated other conventionally known display views as described by Kilroy in order to enhance operation and user control of the robotic system.
As for Claim 18, Kilroy discloses wherein the system can include a foot pedal (Paragraph [0124]). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the surgical console described by Larkin to include a foot pedal in order to provide additional user inputs as necessary. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 24 and 27-28 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin and Ishihara as applied to claims 1 and 23 above, and further in view of in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0307270 to Pantel.
Regarding Claims 24 and 27-28, Larkin and Ishihara discloses a robotic system and method for displaying tool positions in and out of displayed views as described above. Examiner notes the modified system and method would read on the indicator being displayed vertically on the sides of the field of view, horizontal on the top and bottom of the field of view and on two sides of the field of view display (e.g. corners or “L” shape) if and when the tool is positioned accordingly.
Nonetheless, Pantel teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to graphical user interfaces (Abstract) where a graphical symbol or status indicator may surround the corner of a display (3601 in Fig. 36). Examiner notes the indictor which surrounds a corner is considered “L” shaped in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the visual indicators described by Larkin and Ishihara to bend around corners as described by Pantel in order to accurately reflect the position of the out of plane tool. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 14-16 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin and Ishihara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0092700 to Itkowitz et al. “Itkowitz”.
Regarding Claim 26, Larkin and Ishihara discloses a robotic system and method for displaying tool positions in and out of displayed views as described above. However, Larkin appears to continue to display the visual indicator even when the tool is in the displayed field of view.
Itkowitz teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to surgical robotic systems and methods where out-of-view indicators may be disabled or selectively enabled by the user (Paragraph [0055]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have allowed the user to disable the modified indicators as described by Larkin and Ishihara if and when the tool is within the field of view in order to reduce clutter on the displayed images. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Examiner notes the modified device described by Larkin, Ishihara and Itkowitz to allow the user to disable and/or selectively enable the visual indicators would read on the claimed limitations of Claims 14-16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11 and 14-27 have been considered but are not persuasive. New and updated grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant argues the Office Action improperly relies on case law to supply the missing claim elements not found in the prior art even though Applicant has demonstrated the criticality of such elements (REMARKS, Page 13). Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant has failed to demonstrate the criticality of only changing one dimension of the indicator. This is further evidenced by other embodiments disclosed by Applicant which do not change any dimension of the indicator (Figs. 27 H, 27J, 28B-C for example). Applicant also argues Larkin’s symbols circumscribe the viewing area and it is improper to rely on case law or pure design choice to reject this combination of features (REMARKS, Pages 13-14). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Finally, Applicant argues the proposed motivation lacks any rational underpinning or basis in the cited art and is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction (REMARKS, page 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The inventive concept of changing icon dimensions based on the distance to a viewing area is already taught by the prior art. The design choice relates to only changing one dimension.
Thus, the prior art of record is considered to teach all claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approximately 8AM-5PM.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights