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 .
The current application has the priority date of 12/27/2021.
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.
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: “manipulator”
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.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 3, “a first manipulator used to manipulate” should be amended to “a first manipulator configured to manipulate”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the term “linkage”, it is interpreted to encompass physical and/or communication linkage.
Regarding claim 2, “display processing” is interpreted as identifying or processing, selected items on a display)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Omori US 2009/0192519 A1 (hereinafter “Omori”).
Regarding claim 1, Omori discloses a master-side device (Fig.5: master console of robotic surgery system 10 as shown in Fig. 1) for remotely manipulating a slave-side device (Fig. 1: surgical robot 28), the master-side device comprising:
a first manipulator (robotic arms 24a-d) used to manipulate a movable part (distal-end working unit 56) of the slave-side device (manipulator instruments, e.g. manipulators 12a, 12b, an endoscope 14); and
control processing circuitry (processor 106) configured to at least:
perform determining processing of determining whether or not to turn the movable part in a roll direction (rotation around roll axis; see [0059, 0080]), and
based on determining to turn the movable part in the roll direction, control the movable part to turn in the roll direction in response to a specific manipulation of the first manipulator (controlling rotation around roll axis; see [0059, 0080]).
Regarding claim 2, Omori discloses the master-side device according to claim 1, wherein the determining processing comprises:
performing display processing (display processor 106) that allows a selection of one or more options (touch-panel operation switches 108), and
based on an option of the one or more options being selected ([0080, 0082] and Figs. 7-8:108, each distal-end working unit 56 can be controlled to move in a roll direction, and this is controlled by one or more touch-panel operation switches 108, which is controlled between the operational states of ON and OFF state of the manipulators), determining not to turn the movable part in response to the specific manipulation ([0080, 0082] in OFF state) .
Regarding claim 3, Omori discloses the master-side device according to claim 2, comprising a display (display unit 36)), wherein the display processing displays a screen on the display on which a selection operator for selecting the option is arranged. (See rejection to claim 2 above, touch-panel operation switches 108, selectable in ON and OFF state)
Regarding claim 4, Omori discloses the master-side device according to claim 3, wherein:
the one or more options include only a first option for selecting to perform turning of the movable part in the roll direction and a second option for selecting not to perform the turning of the movable part (see rejection to claim 2 above, [0080, 0082] and Figs. 7-8:108, each distal-end working unit 56 can be controlled to move in a roll direction, and this is controlled by one or more touch-panel operation switches 108, which is controlled between the operational states of ON and OFF state of the manipulators), and
the selection operator comprises a button (108) that switches between a state in which the first option (i.e. ON state) is selected and a state in which the second option (i.e. OFF state) is selected each time the button is operated.
Regarding claims 7-10 are rejected by Omori under the same rationale as discussed to claims 1-4 above.
Regarding claim 11, Omori discloses the master-side device according to claim 7, further comprising a display (display unit 36, wherein the control processing circuitry controls the display to display a button (touch-panel operation switches 108) that toggles between controlling to turn the movable part (distal-end working units 56) and not controlling to turn the movable part (56) , and the control processing circuitry determines whether or not to turn the moveable part based on the state of the button ([0080, 0082] and Figs. 7-8:108, each distal-end working unit 56 can be controlled to move in a range of motions/directions, and this is controlled by one or more touch-panel operation switches 108, which is controlled between the operational states of ON and OFF state of the manipulators)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5, 6, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omori as applied to claims 4/1 or 11/7 above, and in view of Swarup et al. US 2009/0088774 A1 (hereinafter “Swarup”).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Omori discloses the master-side device according to claim 4, wherein the first manipulator (robotic arms 24a-d) has a linkage (physical linkage as shown in Figs.3 and 9; also see [0050]) to the slave-side device (manipulator instruments, e.g. manipulators 12a, 12b, an endoscope 14) that links the master-side device to the slave-side device and allows the first manipulator to manipulate the movable part (distal-end working units 56) of the slave-side device; and wherein based on determining to turn the movable part in the roll direction (i.e. ON state), control the movable part to turn in the roll direction in response to the specific manipulation of the first manipulator ([0080, 0082] and Figs. 7-8:108, each distal-end working unit 56 can be controlled to move in a roll direction, and this is controlled by one or more touch-panel operation switches 108, which is controlled between the operational states of ON and OFF state of the manipulators). But Omori does not disclose wherein the control processing circuitry is configured to switch on and off the linkage based on the button; and based on determining not to turn the movable part in the roll direction, control the master-side device to switch off the linkage.
Swarup, a prior art reference in analogous art, teaches a master side device (Figs. 15A-15C: master grips; Fig. 16B:1650) for remotely manipulating slave-side device (Figs. 2A: electro-surgical tools 101A-C; [0058]. Alternatively, see Fig. 16B: 1698), the master-side devi) comprising: a manipulator (158) having a linkage (via master input/output processor 1603 and slave input/output processor 1607 ) to the slave-side device (101) to manipulate a moveable part of the slave device ([0291] and see Fig. 2B, controls degrees of freedom in the pitch, roll, yaw directions as controlled by motor 217 ); a display ([0292] “when entering the lock sensing mode, a flashing icon is displayed and when entering the locked mode the icon becomes solidly displayed”), and control processing circuitry (1603) configured to perform the display processing to control the display to display a screen icon for selecting ON or OFF of “lock mode” with respect to one or more slave devices, e.g. end effectors. and its respect range of motion ([0293-0295]). This is taken to encompass “control processing circuitry is configured to switch on and off the linkage based on the button” in the claim. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Omori in view of Swarup to include a displayed icon to control a lock mode (i.e. ON and OFF state) for individual end effectors slave devices and their respect roll, pitch and yaw range of motion; the motivation for including the lock mode is to customize the full dexterity and grip strength of each individual tool (Swarup: [0294]), including “[t]he inner roll and pitch motion of the tip of the robotic surgical tool are not allowed to move as well in the lock mode (a.k.a., reduced dexterity mode) to maintain intuitiveness of the control…” (Swarup: [0293] )
Regarding claims 12-13, these claims are rejected by Omori in view of Swarup, under the same rationale as discussed to claims 5 and 6 immediately above.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omori in view of Swarup et al. US 2009/0088775 A1 (hereinafter “Swarup”).
Regarding claim 14, Omori teaches a master-side device (Fig.7: image processor 35 and console 26) for remotely manipulating a slave-side device (manipulator instruments), the master-side device comprising:
a display (display unit 36);
a first manipulator (robotic arms 24a-d) that has a linkage (physical linkage as shown in Figs.3 and 9; also see [0050]) with the slave-side device (manipulator instruments, e.g. manipulators 12a, 12b, an endoscope 14), the linkage allowing the first manipulator to manipulate a movable part (distal-end working units 56 capable of pitch yaw and roll movements) of the slave-side device (manipulators 12a, 12b, an endoscope 14; also see [0055-0056, 0080]); and
control processing circuitry (processor 106) configured to at least:
control the display to display a button (touch-panel operation switches 108) that toggles between controlling to turn the movable part (distal-end working units 56) in a roll direction (rotation around roll axis; [0080]) and not controlling to turn the movable part in the roll direction in response to a roll manipulation of the first manipulator ([0080, 0082] and Figs. 7-8:108, each distal-end working unit 56 can be controlled to move in a roll direction, and this is controlled by one or more touch-panel operation switches 108, which is controlled between the operational states of ON and OFF state of the manipulators), and based on a first state (i.e. ON state) of the button (108), maintain the linkage such that the movable part of the slave-side device is turned in response to the roll manipulation of the first manipulator (see Figs. 3-4 and [0059] controlling the roll movement of unit 56).
Omori does not disclose based on a second state (i.e. OFF state) of the button (108), switch off the linkage such that when the first manipulator is turned in the roll direction in response to the roll manipulation the movable part of the slave-side device is not turned in the roll direction.
Swarup, a prior art reference in analogous art, teaches a master side device (Figs. 15A-15C: master grips; Fig. 16B:1650) for remotely manipulating slave-side device (Figs. 2A: electro-surgical tools 101A-C; [0058]. Alternatively, see Fig. 16B: 1698), the master-side devi) comprising: a manipulator (158) having a linkage (via master input/output processor 1603 and slave input/output processor 1607 ) to the slave-side device (101) to manipulate a moveable part of the slave device ([0291] and see Fig. 2B, controls degrees of freedom in the pitch, roll, yaw directions as controlled by motor 217 ); a display ([0292] “when entering the lock sensing mode, a flashing icon is displayed and when entering the locked mode the icon becomes solidly displayed”), and control processing circuitry (1603) configured to perform the display processing to control the display to display a screen icon for selecting a lock mode of one or more slave devices, e.g. end effectors and its respect range of motion in response to user’s selection ([0293-0295]). When a user selects ‘lock mode’, the system switch off the linkage such that when the manipulator is turned in the roll direction in response to the roll manipulation the movable part of the slave-side is not turned in the roll direction ([0289] “The robotic surgical system may 100 enter a lock mode so that a surgeon may easily selectively lock and unlock the wrist 402 and end effectors 414A-414B. The robotic surgical system 100 may also exit the lock mode to return the robotic surgical tool 400 to its normal range of motion and degrees of freedom”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Omori in view of Swarup to include a displayed icon to control a lock mode (i.e. ON and OFF state) for individual end effectors slave devices and their respect roll, pitch and yaw range of motion; the motivation for including the lock mode is to customize the full dexterity and grip strength of each individual tool (Swarup: [0294]), including “[t]he inner roll and pitch motion of the tip of the robotic surgical tool are not allowed to move as well in the lock mode (a.k.a., reduced dexterity mode) to maintain intuitiveness of the control…” (Swarup: [0293] )
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY X JIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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.
/SHIRLEY X JIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
March 7, 2026