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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-15, and 17-20 remain pending. Claims 3 and 16 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, 12, and 20 have been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 09/03/2026, and 09/24/2026 have been considered. An initialed copy of each Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 1, 4-5, 8-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (US 20210030257 A1) in view of Maret (US 20210038335 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Ishihara and Maret respectively)
Regarding Claim 1, Ishihara teaches a master-side device for remotely manipulating a slave-side device (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0048 and Figure 1), the master-side device comprising:
a first manipulator having a range of movement and used to manipulate a movable part of the slave-side device (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0046-0047, 0056, and Figure 1, the operation handles are interpreted as the first manipulator, which have a movable region) the first manipulator further having a linkage with the slave-side device (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0045-0047), the linkage allowing the first manipulator to manipulate the movable part of the slave-side device (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0045-0047),;
a second manipulator provided corresponding to the first manipulator (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047 and Figure 2, the clutch switches are interpreted as the second manipulator); and
control processing circuitry configured to at least:
control the movable part in response to a manipulation of the first manipulator (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0047, 0076, and Figure 2, the controller is interpreted as the control processing circuitry, which controls the movable part based on the manipulation of the first manipulator/handles), and
removes the linkage in response to the second manipulator being manipulated (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047).
Even though Ishihara teaches the second manipulator is manipulated to clutch out (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047), Ishihara fails to disclose that the control processing circuitry is configured to:
based on a manipulation being performed on the second manipulator, move a current position of the first manipulator to a position within the range of movement,
wherein when the second manipulator is returned to a non-manipulated state during automatic control of the first manipulator, the linkage between the master-side device and the slave-side device is not resumed unless the automatic control is completed.
However, Maret teaches control processing circuitry configured to:
based on a manipulation being performed on the second manipulator, move a current position of the first manipulator to a position within the range of movement (See at least Maret Paragraph 0031, the first manipulator/handle autonomously moves to an optimal start position when the clutch/second manipulator is operated),
wherein when the system is clutched out causing automatic control of the first manipulator, the linkage between the master-side device and the slave-side device is not resumed unless the automatic control is completed (See at least Maret Paragraph 0031, the linkage is resumed after the handle is autonomously moved to the optimal start position, which is interpreted as completing the automatic control) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Ishihara with Maret to allow the control processing circuitry to move a current position of the first manipulator to a position within the range of movement based on a manipulation being performed on the second manipulator, wherein the linkage between the master-side device and the slave-side device is not resumed unless the automatic control is completed. This modification, as taught by Maret, would allow the first manipulator/handle to autonomously move to an optimal start position when the second manipulator/clutch is operated so that the user can resume the procedure from the optimal start position (See at least Maret Paragraph 0031).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Ishihara teaches the first manipulator is configured to move the movable part in axial directions of three axes that are perpendicular to one another (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0045-0047 and Figure 1), and
the position within the range of movement is a center position of each range of movement in the axial directions of the three axes (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0045-0046, 0056, and Figure 1, the position the handle is moved to is the central position of the movable region, which is defined by the three-dimensional operating region).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ishihara fails to disclose the control processing circuitry determines whether or not to allow movement to the position within the range of movement in response to the manipulation of the second manipulator.
However, Maret teaches the control processing circuitry determines whether or not to allow movement to the position within the range of movement in response to the manipulation of the second manipulator (See at least Maret Paragraph 0031, the manipulation of the second manipulator/clutch allows movement to the optimal start position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ishihara with Maret to have the control processing circuitry determine whether or not to allow movement to the position within the range of movement in response to the manipulation of the second manipulator. This modification, as taught by Maret, would allow the first manipulator/handle to autonomously move to an optimal start position when the second manipulator/clutch is operated so that the user can resume the procedure from the optimal start position (See at least Maret Paragraph 0031).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Ishihara teaches the first manipulator includes a first right manipulator to be manipulated by a right hand of a user and a first left manipulator to be manipulated by a left hand of the user (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0045 and Figure 1),
the second manipulator includes a second right manipulator corresponding to the first right manipulator and a second left manipulator corresponding to the first left manipulator (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047 and Figure 2).
Modified Ishihara fails to disclose the control processing circuitry moves positions of the first left manipulator and the first right manipulator to respective positions when the second right manipulator and the second left manipulator are manipulated together.
However, Ishihara teaches move positions of the first left manipulator and the first right manipulator to respective positions when the second right manipulator and the second left manipulator are manipulated together (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0047 and 0056, the first manipulators 1a and 1b are moved back to the central position by operating the second manipulators/clutch switches) and Maret teaches the control processing circuitry moves positions of the first left manipulator and the first right manipulator to respective positions (See at least Maret Paragraphs 0012, and 0031, the first manipulators/handles are autonomously moved to the optimal start positions by operating the second manipulator/clutch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ishihara with Maret to have the control processing circuitry move positions of the first left manipulator and the first right manipulator to respective positions when the second right manipulator and the second left manipulator are manipulated together. This modification, as taught by Maret, would allow the first manipulators/handles to autonomously move to optimal start positions when the second manipulator/clutch is operated so that the user can resume the procedure from the optimal start position (See at least Maret Paragraphs 0012 and 0031).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Ishihara teaches the slave-side device includes a right movable part corresponding to the first right manipulator and a left movable part corresponding to the first left manipulator (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047 and Figure 1),
the first right manipulator has a right linkage with the slave-side device, the right linkage allowing the first right manipulator to manipulate the right movable part of the slave-side device (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047 and Figure 1),
the first left manipulator has a left linkage with the slave-side device, the left linkage allowing the first left manipulator to manipulate the left movable part of the slave-side device (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047 and Figure 1), and
the control processing circuitry is configured to:
remove the right linkage between the first right manipulator and the right movable part when the second right manipulator is manipulated (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047), and
remove the left linkage between the first left manipulator and the left movable part when the second left manipulator is manipulated (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Ishihara teaches the second right manipulator is a right clutch provided on the first right manipulator (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047 and Figure 2), and
the second left manipulator is a left clutch provided on the first left manipulator (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047 and Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Ishihara teaches the second manipulator is a clutch provided on the first manipulator (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047 and Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Ishihara teaches a master-side device for remotely manipulating a slave-side device (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0048 and Figure 1), the master-side device comprising:
a manipulator comprising a clutch (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047 and Figure 2, the operation handles/manipulators comprise clutch switches), the manipulator having a range of movement and having a linkage with the slave-side device (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0046-0048, 0056, and Figure 2, the operation handles/manipulators have a movable region/range of motion and a linkage with the slave), the linkage allowing the manipulator to manipulate a movable part of the slave-side device (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047 and Figure 1); and
control processing circuitry configured to at least:
control the movable part in response to a manipulation of the manipulator (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0047, 0076, and Figure 2, the controller is interpreted as the control processing circuitry, which controls the movable part based on the manipulation of the manipulator/handles).
Even though Ishihara teaches the clutch is actuated to clutch out (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047), Ishihara fails to disclose the control processing circuity is configured to:
in response to an actuation of the clutch, remove the linkage and move a current position of the manipulator to a position within the range of movement,
wherein when the clutch is returned to a non-actuated state during automatic control of the manipulator, the linkage between the master-side device and the slave-side device is not resumed unless the automatic control is completed.
However, Maret teaches control processing circuitry configured to:
in response to an actuation of the clutch, remove the linkage and move a current position of the manipulator to a position within the range of movement (See at least Maret Paragraph 0031, the manipulator/handle autonomously moves to an optimal start position when the clutch/second manipulator is operated),
wherein when the system is clutched out causing automatic control of the first manipulator, the linkage between the master-side device and the slave-side device is not resumed unless the automatic control is completed (See at least Maret Paragraph 0031, the linkage is resumed after the handle is autonomously moved to the optimal start position, which is interpreted as completing the automatic control) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Ishihara with Maret to allow the control processing circuitry to move a current position of the manipulator to a position within the range of movement based on actuation of the clutch, wherein the linkage between the master-side device and the slave-side device is not resumed unless the automatic control is completed. This modification, as taught by Maret, would allow the manipulator/handle to autonomously move to an optimal start position when the clutch is operated so that the user can resume the procedure from the optimal start position (See at least Maret Paragraph 0031).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Ishihara teaches the clutch is a trigger provided on the manipulator (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0047 and Figure 2, the clutch is a switch/trigger on the manipulators/handles).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Ishihara teaches the position within the range of movement is a center of the range of movement (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0056, the central position is interpreted as the center of the range of movement).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Ishihara teaches the manipulator is configured to move the movable part in axial directions of three axes that are perpendicular to one another (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0045-0047 and Figure 1), and
the position within the range of movement comprises a center position of each range of movement in the axial directions of the three axes (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0045-0046, 0056, and Figure 1, the position is the central position of the movable region, which is defined by the three-dimensional operating region).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Ishihara teaches the manipulator comprises a right manipulator and a left manipulator (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0045 and Figure 1) and the clutch comprises a right clutch and a left clutch corresponding, respectively, to the right manipulator and the left manipulator (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047 and Figure 2).
Modified Ishihara fails to disclose in response to an actuation of the right clutch, the control processing circuitry moves a current position of the right manipulator to a position within the range of movement of the right manipulator, and
in response to an actuation of the left clutch, the control processing circuitry moves a current position of the left manipulator to a position within the range of movement of the left manipulator
However, Ishihara teaches in response to an actuation of the right clutch, move a current position of the right manipulator to a position within the range of movement of the right manipulator (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0047 and 0056, the right manipulator/handle is moved to the central position when the right clutch switch is actuated), and
in response to an actuation of the left clutch, move a current position of the left manipulator to a position within the range of movement of the left manipulator (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0047 and 0056, the left manipulator/handle is moved to the central position when the left clutch switch is actuated),
and Maret teaches in response to an actuation of the clutch, the control processing circuitry moves a current position of the right manipulator to a position within the range of movement of the right manipulator (See at least Maret Paragraphs 0012, and 0031, there are two handles/manipulators, which are autonomously moved to the optimal start positions by operating the clutch), and
in response to an actuation of the clutch, move a current position of the left manipulator to a position within the range of movement of the left manipulator (See at least Maret Paragraphs 0012, and 0031, there are two handles/manipulators, which are autonomously moved to the optimal start positions by operating the clutch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ishihara with Maret to have the control processing circuitry move positions of the right manipulator and the left manipulator to a position within the range of movement when the right clutch and the left clutch are actuated. This modification, as taught by Maret, would allow the right and left manipulators/handles to autonomously move to optimal start positions when the respective clutch is operated so that the user can resume the procedure from the optimal start position (See at least Maret Paragraphs 0012 and 0031).
Regarding Claim 20, Ishihara teaches a master-side device for remotely manipulating a slave-side device (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0048 and Figure 1), the master-side device comprising:
a right manipulator comprising a right clutch (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0045, 0047 and Figures 1-2, the right operation handle/manipulator comprises a clutch switch), the right manipulator having a range of movement and having a right linkage with the slave-side device (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0046-0048, 0056, and Figure 2, the right operation handle/manipulator has a movable region/range of motion and a linkage with the slave), the right linkage allowing the right manipulator to manipulate a first movable part of the slave-side device (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047 and Figure 1);
a left manipulator comprising a left clutch (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0045, 0047 and Figures 1-2, the left operation handle/manipulator comprises a clutch switch), the left manipulator having a range of movement and having a left linkage with the slave-side device (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0046-0048, 0056, and Figure 2, the left operation handle/manipulator has a movable region/range of motion and a linkage with the slave), the left linkage allowing the left manipulator to manipulate a second movable part of the slave-side device (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047 and Figure 1); and
control processing circuitry configured to at least:
control the first movable part and the second movable part in response to manipulations of the right manipulator and the left manipulator, respectively (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0047, 0076, and Figure 2, the controller is interpreted as the control processing circuitry, which controls the first and second movable part based on the manipulation of the right and left manipulators/handles),
in response to an actuation of the right clutch, switch off the right linkage between the right manipulator and the slave-side device such that the manipulation of the right manipulator moves a current position of the right manipulator to a position within the range of movement of the right manipulator and does not move the first movable part (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0047 and 0056, the right manipulator/handle is moved to the central position when the right clutch switch is actuated), and
in response to an actuation of the left clutch, switch off the left linkage between the left manipulator and the slave-side device such that the manipulation of the left manipulator moves a current position of the left manipulator to a position within the range of movement of the left manipulator and does not move the second movable part (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0047 and 0056, the left manipulator/handle is moved to the central position when the left clutch switch is actuated).
Even though Ishihara teaches the right clutch is actuated to clutch out the right linkage and the left clutch is actuated to clutch out the left linkage (See at least Ishihara Paragraph 0047), Ishihara fails to disclose when the right clutch is returned to a non-actuated state during automatic control of the right manipulator, the right linkage between the master-side device and the slave-side device is not resumed unless the automatic control is completed, and
when the left clutch is returned to a non-actuated state during automatic control of the left manipulator, the left linkage between the master-side device and the slave-side device is not resumed unless the automatic control is completed.
However, Maret teaches when the right linkage is clutched out causing automatic control of the right manipulator, the right linkage between the master-side device and the slave-side device is not resumed unless the automatic control is completed (See at least Maret Paragraphs 0012, 0031, and Figure 1, the right linkage between handle 18 and the first moveable part is resumed after the handle 18 is autonomously moved to the optimal start position, which is interpreted as completing the automatic control) and
when the left linkage is clutched out causing automatic control of the left manipulator, the left linkage between the master-side device and the slave-side device is not resumed unless the automatic control is completed (See at least Maret Paragraphs 0012, 0031, and Figure 1, the left linkage between handle 17 and the second moveable part is resumed after the handle 17 is autonomously moved to the optimal start position, which is interpreted as completing the automatic control).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Ishihara with Maret to not resume the right linkage between the master-side device and the slave-side device unless the automatic control is completed and not resume the left linkage between the master-side device and the slave-side device unless the automatic control is completed. This modification, as taught by Maret, would allow the right and left manipulators/handles to autonomously move to optimal start positions when the clutch is operated so that the user can resume the procedure from the optimal start positions (See at least Maret Paragraph 0031).
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Maret, and in further view Mustufa et al (US 20230073049 A1) and Itkowitz (US 20240208065 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Mustufa and Itkowitz respectively)
Regarding Claims 2 and 15, modified Ishihara fails to disclose a driver configured to feed back a tactile sensation detected in the slave-side device to the first manipulator.
However, Mustufa teaches a driver configured to feed back a tactile sensation detected in the slave-side device to the first manipulator (See at least Mustufa Paragraph 0041, the tactile sensation from the surgical tools/slave side device are fed back to the input control devices/first manipulator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ishihara with Mustufa to feedback a tactile sensation detected in the slave-side device to the first manipulator. This modification, as taught by Mustufa, would give a surgeon controlling the slave-side device a strong sense of directly controlling the instruments (See at least Mustufa Paragraph 0041), which would improve the control of the slave-side device.
Modified Ishihara fails to disclose the control processing circuitry controls the driver to guide the first manipulator to the position within the range of movement.
However, Itkowitz teaches the control processing circuitry controls the driver to guide the first manipulator to the position within the range of movement (See at least Itkowitz Paragraphs 0149-0152 and Figure 10B, the haptic force is used to guide the hand input device to the center of the bounding region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ishihara with Itkowitz to have the driver guide the first manipulator to the position within the range of movement. This modification, as taught by Itkowitz, would guide the operator to position the first manipulator at the center position by applying a haptic force on the first manipulator, thus, helping the operator center the first manipulator when in clutch mode (See at least Itkowitz Paragraphs 0149-0152 and Figure 10B).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Maret, and in further view of Chassot et al (US 20210330407 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Chassot)
Regarding Claims 6 and 18, modified Ishihara teaches the position within the range of movement is a central angular position of each range of movement (See at least Ishihara Paragraphs 0041-0042 and 0056, the position is the central position of the movable region, which includes angular positions along the roll and pitch axes)…
Modified Ishihara fails to explicitly disclose the first manipulator is configured to turn the movable part in directions about the three axes that are perpendicular to one another, and that the range of movement is in the directions about the three axes.
However, Chassot teaches the first manipulator is configured to turn the movable part in directions about the three axes that are perpendicular to one another, and that the range of movement is in the directions about the three axes (See at least Chassot Paragraph 0035, the handle/first manipulator moves the end effector/movable part using roll, pitch, and yaw degrees of freedom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ishihara with Chassot to turn the movable part in directions about the three axes that are perpendicular to one another by using the first manipulator. This modification, as taught by Chassot, would allow a surgeon to move the movable part using the roll, pitch, and/or yaw degrees-of-freedom via the handle/first manipulator (See at least Chassot Paragraph 0035), which would increase the operability of the movable part.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Maret, and in further view of Lee et al (US 20230285090 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Lee)
Regarding Claim 7, modified Ishihara fails to disclose a continuous portion that is continuous to a grasping part of the first manipulator, wherein the second manipulator is provided in either the grasping part or the continuous portion.
However, Lee teaches a continuous portion that is continuous to a grasping part of the first manipulator (See at least Lee Paragraph 0100 and Figure 9a, the pistol grip/grasping part has a continuous portion), wherein the second manipulator is provided in either the grasping part or the continuous portion (See at least Lee Paragraph 0102 and Figure 9b, the pistol grip/grasping part has the second manipulator/clutch button).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ishihara with Lee to provide the second manipulator on the grasping part. This modification, as taught by Lee, would allow the user to actuate the second manipulator using their thumb or index finger (See at least Lee Paragraph 0102), thus, increasing the convenience of the second manipulator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on pages 11-12 of the remarks, that Maret fails to disclose "the linkage between the master-side device and the slave-side device is not resumed unless the automatic control is completed." Applicant states that Maret “describes that the user can "clutch back in" and enable control of the output device simply by moving the handles. Accordingly, Maret does not disclose a surgical device which prevents the linkage from resuming unless the automatic control is completed. The user merely has to move the handles to reengage a linkage between the handles and output device without having to wait for the automatic control to be completed.”.
However, Examiner disagrees. Paragraph 0031 of Maret states “Once the system is clutched out via one of the methods discussed above, the manipulator autonomously moves the handle into the optimal start position. The user can then resume the procedure and clutch back in simply by moving the handles.”. Thus, Paragraph 0031 of Maret discloses that the user resumes the procedure after the manipulator autonomously moves the handle into the optimal start position, which corresponds to the automatic control being completed. Therefore, Maret teaches "the linkage between the master-side device and the slave-side device is not resumed unless the automatic control is completed.".
For these reasons, the claims still stand rejected under 103.
Conclusion
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 ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
