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 .
Priority
The actual filing date for the instant application is 23 Jul 24. However, the instant application requests domestic benefit to a provisionally filed application 63284094, filed 30 Nov 21. As such, the effective filing date of each of the instant application’s claims under examination may be as recent as the instant application’s actual filing date of 23 Jul 24, or potentially as early as the filing date of 30 Nov 21 (filing date of 63284094), depending on whether there is appropriate specification support for each particular claim in the earlier-filed specification. In the case that a prior art rejection to one or more claims made in an Office action during prosecution of the instant application includes one or more prior art references that fall somewhere between 23 Jul 24 and 30 Nov 21 (an "intervening" reference), if Applicant can specifically identify appropriate specification support for each of these claims in the earlier filed provisional application, then the Examiner may determine that one or more of these prior art rejections against one or more of these claims will need to be withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending and examined below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20140297130 A1 (“Griffiths”).
As per Claim 1, Griffiths discloses a patient cart for a robot surgical system, comprising:
a mobile base, comprising:
a frame adapted and configured to support a medical robot (¶ 41—"a patient side cart 110 with multiple, independently moveable manipulator arms 140 that each support an actuation interface assembly 146”; ¶ 42—“A patient side cart 110 may include a plurality of wheels 149 mounted or otherwise attached to the cart 110, such as to a base 148 of the cart 110”);
one or more motive devices operatively connected to the frame (¶ 51—“one or more front wheels 410, 412 and one or more rear wheels 420”; ¶ 52—“ one or more wheels of a patient side cart 400 may be driven”;
one or more motors connected to the motive devices to drive the motive devices to move the frame (¶ 52—“ motors 411, 413 may be provided to respectively drive wheels 410, 412”); and
a drive control interface connected to the frame and configured to sense a user input and to operate the one or more motors to move the one or more motive devices as a function of the user input (¶ 8—“The steering interface may be configured to detect a force applied by a user to the steering interface indicating a desired movement”; ¶ 65—“ Control system 540 may be configured to receive signal(s) (which may be first conditioned and processed by signal conditioner 520) from a steering interface 510 indicating a desired movement for a patient side cart”).
As per Claim 2, Griffiths further discloses wherein the drive control interface includes one or more grip actuators configured to be actuated by a user (¶ 94—“steering interface may include one or more "dead man" switches”; ¶ 98—“"dead man" switch may be depressed by a user”).
As per Claim 3, Griffiths further discloses wherein the drive control interface includes two grip actuators (¶ 60—“the steering interface 510 includes a first sensor 512 and a second sensor 514 that detect forces along the X and Y directions”; ¶ 94—“ a steering interface may include one or more "dead man" switches”).
As per Claim 4, Griffiths further discloses wherein the drive control interface includes a housing defining a handle recess (¶ 35—“a steering interface for a patient side cart of a teleoperated surgical system may be provided in the form of a handlebar”).
As per Claim 5, Griffiths further discloses wherein the one or more grip actuators are disposed within the handle recess (¶ 60—“the steering interface 510 includes a first sensor 512 and a second sensor 514 that detect forces along the X and Y directions”).
As per Claim 6, Griffiths further discloses wherein the drive control interface includes a drive control module operatively connected to one or more grip actuators to receive one or more state signals from the one or more grip actuators indicative of a position of the one or more grip actuators (¶ 58—“control system may be configured to receive signal(s) or input(s) from a steering interface 430 of a patient side cart 400 and, based upon the received input(s)”).
As per Claim 7, Griffiths further discloses wherein the drive control module is configured to allow operation of the one or more motors in a drive mode if the one or more grip actuators are partially pressed (¶ 99—“When the "dead man" switch is depressed by application of a first amount of force, the cart functions normally and the brakes of the cart are not engaged”).
As per Claim 8, Griffiths further discloses wherein the drive control module is configured to prevent operation of the one or more motors if the one or more grip actuators are pressed to or beyond a stop threshold (¶ 99—“When the "dead man" switch is depressed by application of a second amount of force greater than the first amount of force, the cart may be deactivated”).
As per Claim 9, Griffiths further discloses wherein the stop threshold is complete actuation of the one or more grip actuators (¶ 99—“When the "dead man" switch is depressed by application of a second amount of force greater than the first amount of force, the cart may be deactivated”).
As per Claim 10, Griffiths further discloses wherein the drive control interface includes a force sensor configured to sense a force and directionality of a user input (¶ 60—“the steering interface 510 includes a first sensor 512 and a second sensor 514 that detect forces along the X and Y directions…the sensors 512 and 514 can be load cells”).
As per Claim 11, Griffiths further discloses wherein the drive control module is operatively connected to the force sensor to receive a sensed force, wherein in the drive mode, the drive control module is configured to operate the one or more motors as a function of the sensed force such that the one or more motors cause motion in a direction of the sensed force (¶ 8—“The control module may receive as input a signal from the steering interface corresponding to the force applied by the user…output a desired movement signal corresponding to the signal received”; ¶ 65—“issue one or more command outputs to cause the patient side cart to move in the desired manner.”).
As per Claim 12, Griffiths further discloses wherein the drive control module is configured to operate the one or more motors at a speed proportional to the sensed force (¶ 76—“control modules 610, 612 may include maps, algorithms, look-up tables, or other functions used in the art to correspond a force input to a steering interface to a desired movement of a patient side cart, such as a desired velocity and/or desired acceleration”).
As per Claim 14, Griffiths discloses a method for driving a patient cart of a robotic surgical system, comprising:
partially depressing one or more grip actuators on a drive control interface to initiate a drive mode (¶ 99—“When the "dead man" switch is depressed by application of a first amount of force, the cart functions normally”); and
applying force on a patient cart handle in a desired direction of motion thereby causing one or more motors to drive the patient cart in the desired direction of motion (¶ 56—“a user may push the steering interface 430 in the fore direction (relative to the front wheels 410, 412 and the rear wheels 420) along direction X in FIG. 3 or may pull the steering interface 430 backwards in the aft direction along direction X in FIG. 3 to indicate a desire to move a patient side cart 400 either forward or backward.”).
As per Claim 15, Griffiths further discloses wherein applying force includes pushing the patient cart handle in a forward direction while partially depressing the one or more grip actuators to move the patient cart forward (¶ 56—“a user may push the steering interface 430 in the fore direction (relative to the front wheels 410, 412 and the rear wheels 420) along direction X in FIG. 3 or may pull the steering interface 430 backwards in the aft direction along direction X in FIG. 3 to indicate a desire to move a patient side cart 400 either forward or backward.”; ¶ 99—“When the "dead man" switch is depressed by application of a first amount of force, the cart functions normally”).
As per Claim 16, Griffiths further discloses wherein applying force includes pulling on the patient cart handle in a rearward direction while partially depressing the one or more grip actuators to move the patient cart backward (¶ 56—“a user may push the steering interface 430 in the fore direction (relative to the front wheels 410, 412 and the rear wheels 420) along direction X in FIG. 3 or may pull the steering interface 430 backwards in the aft direction along direction X in FIG. 3 to indicate a desire to move a patient side cart 400 either forward or backward.”; ¶ 99—“When the "dead man" switch is depressed by application of a first amount of force, the cart functions normally”).
As per Claim 17, Griffiths further discloses wherein applying force includes pushing or pulling on the patient cart handle in a lateral direction while partially depressing the one or more grip actuators to steer the patient cart (¶ 57—“a user may apply a force having at least a component in the Y direction of FIG. 3 to indicate a desire to a turn the patient side cart either to the left or right”).
As per Claim 18, Griffiths further discloses either fully depressing or releasing the drive control switch to stop motion of the patient cart (¶ 99—“When the "dead man" switch is depressed by application of a second amount of force greater than the first amount of force, the cart may be deactivated”).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths in view of US 7612999 B2 (“Clark”).
As per Claim 13, Clark teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Griffiths, including namely a battery and can be operatively connected to the one or more motors to provide motive energy to the one or more motors to allow motion of the patient cart without an external power supply (Col 5 Lines 52-63—“The mobile workstation also carries a power converter and a power unit including an extended-life battery”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Griffiths to include the limitations as taught by Clark to eliminate the need for a wall-mounted cradle and an associated wireless computer terminal located outside each patient hospital room (Clark: Col 2 Lines 65-67).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BASIL T JOS whose telephone number is (571)270-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 8:00 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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/Basil T. Jos/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658