CTNF 18/827,563 CTNF 101588 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are currently pending and under consideration. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on Oct. 23, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, Fig. 12 should be edited to show "transmitting a second signal from the first sensor to a controller" as it appears in claim 17 or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 06-22 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 06-27 AIA In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “robotic arms of FIG. 4” should be changed to “robotic arms of FIG. 5” in ¶[00010] since Fig. 4 does not contain any robotic arms; “bar (26) ( see FIG. 2)” should be changed to “bar (26) ( see FIG. 3)” in ¶[00029] since there is no element 26 in Fig. 2; “base covers (310)” should be changed to “base cover panels (31)” in ¶[00033]; and “FIG. 12 depicts an example of a method (310)” should be changed to “FIG. 13 depicts an example of a method (310)” in ¶[00077] . Appropriate correction is required. 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: “ indicia indicating surfaces to facilitate positioning of the stowage cover over the first and second movable robotic arms ” in claim 13. 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. Per the specification ¶[00065], indicia indicating surfaces is being interpreted as graphics or text 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. MPEP 2163.03(V) states the following: “While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated.” Claim 17 recites the limitation “transmitting a second signal from the first sensor to a controller”. As-filed the specification recites this limitation in ¶[00181] and [00187] and provides details about the separate signals, specifically about a first signal from a first sensor and a second signal from a second sensor, in in ¶[00078]-[00082] and shown in Fig. 12. However, as-filed the specification does not provide any further description on what the second signal is in relation to the first sensor nor how the second signal is obtained from the first sensor. As such, the specification does not provide an adequate written description of the claimed invention. Claim 18 is dependent on claim 17 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 17. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 17-18, and 20 is 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. Claim 17 recites the limitation “transmitting a second signal from the first sensor to a controller” is unclear and is not defined by the specification (see 112(a) rejection above). It is unclear what the second signal generated from the first sensor is. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “transmitting a second signal from a second sensor to a controller”. Claim 18 is dependent on claim 17 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 17. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the act of positioning the stowage cover" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this will be interpreted as “the act of receiving the stowage cover” since claim 14 recites a step of receiving a stowage cover in step (a). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tse et al. (US 20200268460 A1, published Aug. 27, 2020, hereinafter referred to as “Tse”) in view of Murakami et al. (US 20200070336 A1, published Mar. 5, 2020, hereinafter referred to as “Murakami”), and in even further view of Soto et al. (US 20190099232 A1, published Apr. 4, 2019, hereinafter referred to as “Soto”) . Regarding claim 1 and 3, Tse teaches a robotic surgical system (Fig. 8A “surgical robotics system 800A… an embodiment of surgical robotics system 400B in Fig. 4B” in ¶[0157]) comprising: (a) a surgical bed comprising a table configured to receive a patient (Fig.’s 4B and 8A “the surgical robotics system 400B accommodates a variety of surgical procedures because the robotic arms can access any area (e.g., upper body, core body, or lower body) of the body of a patient lying on the table 401B” in ¶[0134]) ; (b) a first movable robotic arm coupled with the surgical bed and movable between a stowed configuration and a deployed configuration (Fig. 4B “The surgical robotics system 400B includes multiple robotic arms, i.e., a first robotic arm 470B, second robotic arm 470C” in ¶[0128] and “Robotic surgical systems can include adjustable arm supports … for supporting one or more robotic arms. The adjustable arm supports can be configured to attach to, for example, either a table, a column support of the table, or a base of the table to deploy the adjustable arm supports and robotic arms from a position below the table. In some embodiments, the adjustable arm supports can be attached to a bed” In ¶[0183]) , wherein the first movable robotic arm is positioned under the table in the stowed configuration and is configured to interact with the patient in the deployed configuration (Fig. 8C “The surgical robotics system 800B stores column-mounted robotic arms 470B and 470D and column rings 405B and 405C inside the base 403B when the robotic arms are not in use.” ¶[0159]) ; (c) a stowage cover (Fig. 8A “base 403B includes a first panel 820A and a second panel 820B” In ¶[0157]) comprising: (i) a body configured to selectively cover the first movable robotic arm in the stowed configuration (Fig. 8A “The base 403B includes a first panel 820A and a second panel 820B that cover stored robotic arms. The first panel 820A and the second panel 820B are advantageous because they prevent waste materials from de-sterilizing or otherwise contaminating stored robotic arms.” In ¶[0157]) , wherein the body is removable from the surgical bed to permit the first movable robotic arm to transition from the stowed configuration to the deployed configuration; and (e) a controller (“the command may be a command to stow or deploy the system.” In ¶[0238] and Fig. 19 “the method 1900 is executed by a controller for executing one or more commands” in ¶[0242]) . Tse does not disclose wherein the stowage cover comprises (i) a flexible body, and (ii) a first sensor target operatively coupled with the flexible body, the first sensor target includes a proximity sensor target configured to be sensed by the proximity sensor, the proximity sensor target including a magnet configured to be sensed by the Hall effect sensor; and the robotic surgical system further comprises (d) a first sensor configured to generate a first signal in response to sensing a presence of the first sensor target, wherein: the first sensor includes a proximity sensor, the proximity sensor including a Hall effect sensor; and (e) a controller configured to receive the first signal from the first sensor to determine that the stowage cover is positioned on the first movable robotic arm in the stowed configuration. Murakami’s invention relates to a robot and a bag used for the robot ¶[0001]. By covering the robotic arm with the bag having flexibility, it can prevent that, for example, scrap meat and cleaning water infiltrate into the robot from the robotic arm when processing meat at a food processing site (¶[0010]). The main body is made of material having flexibility, such as polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, polyolefin, etc. Since these materials are inexpensive, the bag can be thrown away after use (¶[0046]). Note that, although the robot 11 of the embodiments is introduced into the meat processing site, the site is not be limited to meat processing site, as long as it is a work site where the robot performs a work jointly with the worker within the same workspace (¶[0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the stowage cover out of a flexible material as taught by Murakami in the robotic surgical system of Tse because the material prevents debris from contaminating the robot and the flexible material is inexpensive and can be thrown out after use. Tse and Murakami do not disclose the stowage cover comprises (ii) a first sensor target operatively coupled with the flexible body the first sensor target includes a proximity sensor target configured to be sensed by the proximity sensor, the proximity sensor target including a magnet configured to be sensed by the Hall effect sensor; and the robotic surgical system further comprises (d) a first sensor configured to generate a first signal in response to sensing a presence of the first sensor target, wherein: the first sensor includes a proximity sensor, the proximity sensor including a Hall effect sensor; and (e) a controller configured to receive the first signal from the first sensor to determine that the stowage cover is positioned on the first movable robotic arm in the stowed configuration. Soto’s invention relates to sterile barrier assemblies for surgical components and, more specifically, to a sterile drape assembly for a surgical robot (¶[0002]). Referring to Fig.’s 13-14, the surgical drape 22 ( flexible body ) may include a magnetic material ( first sensor target ) associated with the indicia 80 that may produce an indication when the surgical drape 22 is correctly mounted to the LED 64 by being in close proximity to a corresponding sensor on the support, e.g., a hall-effect sensor ( first sensor that generates a signal in response to the target ) (¶[0068]). The controller 89 is coupled to an indicator 90 to be activated by the controller 89 to indicate to the user that proper placement of the surgical drape 22 has been achieved (¶[0067]). The surgical drape 22 protects the robotic surgical system 10 (Fig. 2) and reduces the potential for migration of contaminants (¶[0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a first sensor target (in particular a magnet) on the flexible body and a first sensor (in particular a Hall-effect sensor) on the surgical unit with a controller that receives information from the sensor to determine that the cover is properly positioned as taught by Soto in the robotic surgical system of Tse and Murakami in order to protect the robotic surgical system and reduce the potential for migration of contaminants. Regarding claim 2, Tse and Murakami do not teach wherein, in response to the first sensor not sensing the presence of the first sensor target, the controller is configured to provide an alert to a user. Soto teaches the indicator LED remains illuminated a second color (e.g., red/orange) until the surgical drape 22 is properly aligned. The indicator 90 may comprise one or more of an audible indicator (e.g., speaker), visual indicator (e.g., LED), and/or a tactile indicator (e.g., a piezoelectric element) (¶[0067]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an alert to the user when the sensor does not sense a first sensor target as taught by Soto in the robotic surgical system of Tse and Murakami in order to make sure the drape is adjusted until it is correctly placed (¶[0067]). Regarding claim 4, Tse teaches the robotic surgical system further comprising an arm support operatively coupled with the first movable robotic arm (“Robotic surgical systems can include adjustable arm supports for supporting one or more robotic arms. The adjustable arm supports can be configured to attach to, for example, either a table, a column support of the table, or a base of the table to deploy the adjustable arm supports and robotic arms from a position below the table.” In ¶[0183] and “FIGS. 13A and 13B are isometric and end views, respectively, of a surgical robotics system 1300 that includes an adjustable arm support 1305 according to one embodiment. The adjustable arm support 1305 can be configured to support one or more robotic arms (see, for example, FIGS. 14A-15B) relative to a table 1301.” In ¶[0184]) . Tse and Murakami do not disclose wherein the arm support includes a magnetic feature configured to magnetically couple with the magnet to couple the stowage cover with the arm support. Soto discloses the sterile drape assembly 18 in Fig. 2 includes a cart retaining mechanism, generally indicated at 30, to retain the cart drape portion 26 of the surgical drape 22 to the cart 14. The cart retaining mechanism 30 may include one or more metal strips 31 coupled to the cart drape portion 24 and one or more magnets 32 coupled to the cart 14 (vice versa in other embodiments, or combinations thereof). The metal strips 31/magnets 32 are coupled to the cart drape portion 26/cart 14 by a suitable mechanism such as an adhesive. The metal strips 31 and magnets 32 are spaced from each other and located at various points on the cart drape portion 26 and cart 14 to retain the cart drape portion 26 to a top and sides of the cart 14 (¶[0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a magnetic feature in the surgical system to magnetically couple with magnets in the cover as taught by Soto in the robotic surgical system of Tse and Murakami in order to retain the drape over the surgical system. Regarding claims 5-6, Tse and Murakami do not disclose the robotic surgical system further comprising a second sensor, wherein: the stowage cover includes a second sensor target operatively coupled with the flexible body, the second sensor is configured to sense a presence of the second sensor target, and the controller is configured to determine that the stowage cover is positioned on the first movable robotic arm based on a combination of the first sensor sensing the presence of the first sensor target and the second sensor sensing the presence of the second sensor target, wherein: the first sensor includes a first Hall effect sensor, the second sensor includes a second Hall effect sensor, the first sensor target includes a first magnet, the second sensor target includes a second magnet, and the controller is configured to: determine that the stowage cover is positioned on the first movable robotic arm based on a combination of the first Hall effect sensor sensing the presence of the first magnet and the second Hall effect sensor sensing the presence of the second magnet, and in response to either the first sensor not sensing the presence of the first sensor target or the second sensor not sensing the presence of the second sensor target, the controller is configured to provide an alert to a user. As described in claim 1, Soto’s the surgical drape 22 in Fig. 2 may include a magnetic material associated with the indicia 80 in Fig.’s 13-14 that may produce an indication when the surgical drape 22 is correctly mounted to the LED 64 by being in close proximity to a corresponding sensor on the support, e.g., a hall-effect sensor (¶[0068]). As shown in Fig.’s 11-12, there are multiple LED 64 elements. Fig. 13 shows the surgical drape 22 and/or the drape belts 58, 60 may include indicia 80 (e.g., arrows) to match up with a corresponding element 82 associated with each of the LEDs 64. In the embodiment shown, the indicia 80 is located on the drape belts 58, 60. The corresponding element 82 may be matching indicia, other indicia, or structure to which the surgical drape 22 is being mounted. The corresponding element 82 may be located on the LEDs 64 (e.g., the base portion 72), on another support 86 to which the base portion 72 is attached, or any other part associated with the LEDs 64 (¶[0065]). Therefore, each LED/indicia has its own Hall effect sensor and there would be a second target and second sensor which would each produce an indication when the drape is correctly mounted. Further, the controller 89 in Fig.’s 13-14 is coupled to an indicator 90 to be activated by the controller 89 to indicate to the user that proper placement of the surgical drape 22 has been achieved. The indicator 90 may comprise an indicator LED that is illuminated a first color (e.g., green/blue) for indicating proper alignment and/or the indicator LED remains illuminated a second color (e.g., red/orange) until the surgical drape 22 is properly aligned. The indicator 90 may comprise one or more of an audible indicator (e.g., speaker), visual indicator (e.g., LED), and/or a tactile indicator (e.g., a piezoelectric element). In the embodiment shown, the LED 64 itself may be coupled to the controller 89 and be illuminated by the controller 89 when the surgical drape 22 is properly placed (¶[0067]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a second sensor (a Hall effect sensor) with a paired second sensor target (a magnet) on the cover and determine when both the first and second hall effect sensors detect the respective magnetic sensor targets that the cover is on properly, or issue an alert when either is not detected as taught by Soto in the robotic surgical system of Tse and Murakami in order to protect the robotic surgical system and reduce the potential for migration of contaminants. Regarding claim 7, Tse teaches wherein the body includes opposing first and second ends (inherent property) , and wherein an arm support operatively coupled with the first movable robotic arm (“Robotic surgical systems can include adjustable arm supports for supporting one or more robotic arms. The adjustable arm supports can be configured to attach to, for example, either a table, a column support of the table, or a base of the table to deploy the adjustable arm supports and robotic arms from a position below the table.” In ¶[0183] and “FIGS. 13A and 13B are isometric and end views, respectively, of a surgical robotics system 1300 that includes an adjustable arm support 1305 according to one embodiment. The adjustable arm support 1305 can be configured to support one or more robotic arms (see, for example, FIGS. 14A-15B) relative to a table 1301.” In ¶[0184]) . Tse does not disclose the flexible body, wherein the first magnet is positioned at the first end, wherein the second magnet is positioned at the second end, and the arm support includes opposing first and second magnetic features configured to magnetically couple with the first and second magnets to couple the stowage cover with the arm support. Murakami teaches the flexible body as shown in claim 1. Murakami also teaches that Fig. 6A binding parts 30e are provided from one end in the longitudinal direction of the main body 30 to near the center. The binding parts 30e are a pair of fasteners. By mutually binding the pair of fasteners, the right arm 13 is accommodated in the main body 30, and the opening 31 is formed at one end of the main body 30. The end effector 18 at the tip end of one of the arms (right arm) 13 is exposed from the opening 31 (¶[0070]). FIG. 6(B) is a front view of the bag 3A when seen from the opening 31. As illustrated in FIG. 6(B), binding parts 30c which are mutually bindable are formed in a circumferential edge of the opening 31 formed by binding the binding parts 30e (fasteners). The binding parts 30c are a pair of strings provided at two separated locations on the circumferential edge. A hook-and-loop fastener 30g is attached to the respective strings. By mutually binding the hook-and-loop fasteners 30g attached to the respective strings, the opening 31 can be narrowed, while exposing the end effector 18 at the tip end of one of the arms (right arm) 13 from the opening 31 (¶[0073]). As illustrated in FIG. 8, the worker puts the bag 3A on both of the pair of arms 13. Then, the hook-and-loop fasteners 30g attached to the binding parts 30c of one opening 31 of the bag 3A are bound. Thus, the opening 31 can be narrowed, while exposing the end effector 18 at the tip end of one of the arms (right arm) 13 from the opening 31. At this time, by mutually binding the pair of fasteners (binding parts 30e) of the main body 30, the right arm 13 is accommodated in the main body 30 (¶[0078]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have attachments at the first and second end of the flexible body as taught by Murakami in the robotic surgical system of Tse in order to completely couple the flexible body to the surgical system. Tse and Murakami do not disclose magnets and the arm support includes opposing first and second magnetic features configured to magnetically couple with the first and second magnets to couple the stowage cover with the arm support. Soto discloses the sterile drape assembly 18 in Fig. 2 includes a cart retaining mechanism, generally indicated at 30, to retain the cart drape portion 26 of the surgical drape 22 to the cart 14. The cart retaining mechanism 30 may include one or more metal strips 31 coupled to the cart drape portion 24 and one or more magnets 32 coupled to the cart 14 (vice versa in other embodiments, or combinations thereof). The metal strips 31/magnets 32 are coupled to the cart drape portion 26/cart 14 by a suitable mechanism such as an adhesive. The metal strips 31 and magnets 32 are spaced from each other and located at various points on the cart drape portion 26 and cart 14 to retain the cart drape portion 26 to a top and sides of the cart 14 (¶[0038]). Therefore, these magnets can be on opposite edges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a magnetic feature in the surgical system to magnetically couple with magnets in the cover as taught by Soto in the robotic surgical system of Tse and Murakami in order to retain the drape over the surgical system. Regarding claim 8, Tse teaches the robotic surgical system further comprising a second movable robotic arm that is independently movable relative to the first movable robotic arm, wherein the stowage cover is configured to cover each of the first and second movable robotic arms simultaneously (Fig. 8C “The surgical robotics system 800B stores column-mounted robotic arms 470B and 470D and column rings 405B and 405C inside the base 403B when the robotic arms are not in use.” in ¶[0159]) . Regarding claim 9, Tse teaches wherein: the body defines a first compartment the first compartment is configured to simultaneously cover the first and second movable robotic arms in the stowed configuration (Fig. 8C “The surgical robotics system 800B stores column-mounted robotic arms 470B and 470D and column rings 405B and 405C inside the base 403B when the robotic arms are not in use.” in ¶[0159]) , and an arm support operatively coupled with the first and second movable robotic arms (“Robotic surgical systems can include adjustable arm supports for supporting one or more robotic arms. The adjustable arm supports can be configured to attach to, for example, either a table, a column support of the table, or a base of the table to deploy the adjustable arm supports and robotic arms from a position below the table.” In ¶[0183] and “FIG. 14B is an isometric view of a surgical robotics system 1400B… a second adjustable arm support 1305B supports a second robotic arm 1402B, a third robotic arm 1402C, and a fourth robotic arm 1402D.” ¶[0218]) . Tse does not disclose the body is flexible and the flexible body defines a second compartment, and the second compartment is configured to cover an arm support operatively coupled with the first and second movable robotic arms in the stowed configuration. Murakami taught the flexible body in claim 1. F ig . ’s 6 (A) to 6 (D) are views illustrating a structure of a bag which accommodates a robotic arm , and Fig. 7 is a perspective view illustrating a structure of a bag which accommodates a base (¶[0033]-[0031]). FIG. 6(A) is a perspective view illustrating a structure of a bag 3A which accommodates the arm 13. As illustrated in FIG. 6(A), the bag 3A of this embodiment differs from the first embodiment (refer to FIGS. 2(A) to 2(D)) in that both the pair of arms 13 are accommodated (¶[0068]). FIG. 7 is a developed view illustrating a structure of a bag 4A which accommodates the base 12 (¶[0075]). FIG. 8 is a front view of the robot 11 equipped with the bag 3A and the bag 4A (¶[0078]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a second compartment configured to cover the arm support/base that is coupled to the first and second robotic arms as taught by Murakami in the robotic surgical system of Tse, Murakami, and Soto in order to protect the base from preventing waste materials from de-sterilizing or otherwise contaminating stored robotic arms and base. Regarding claim 11, Tse teaches wherein: the first and second movable robotic arms are operable to transition between a stowed configuration and a deployed configuration (Fig. 4B “The surgical robotics system 400B includes multiple robotic arms, i.e., a first robotic arm 470B, second robotic arm 470C” in ¶[0128] and “Robotic surgical systems can include adjustable arm supports … for supporting one or more robotic arms. The adjustable arm supports can be configured to attach to, for example, either a table, a column support of the table, or a base of the table to deploy the adjustable arm supports and robotic arms from a position below the table.” In ¶[0183]) , and the stowage cover is configured to cover the first and second movable robotic arms in at least the stowed configuration (Fig. 8C “The surgical robotics system 800B stores column-mounted robotic arms 470B and 470D and column rings 405B and 405C inside the base 403B when the robotic arms are not in use.” in ¶[0159]) . Regarding claim 12, Tse teaches the robotic surgical system further comprising a bar that is coupled with the first and second movable robotic arms (“FIG. 14B is an isometric view of a surgical robotics system 1400B… a second adjustable arm support 1305B supports a second robotic arm 1402B, a third robotic arm 1402C, and a fourth robotic arm 1402D.” ¶[0218]) , wherein the bar is configured to transition between an upper position and a lower position ( “Robotic surgical systems can include adjustable arm supports … for supporting one or more robotic arms. The adjustable arm supports can be configured to attach to, for example, either a table, a column support of the table, or a base of the table to deploy the adjustable arm supports and robotic arms from a position below the table.” In ¶[0183]) . Tse does not disclose wherein the stowage cover is configured to cover the first and second movable robotic arms and the bar in the upper position, in the lower position, and during the transition between the upper position and the lower position. Murakami teaches Fig. 1 robot 11 has each arm 13 is a horizontal articulated robotic arm constructed to be movable with respect to the base, and includes an arm part 15, a wrist part 17, and an end effector 18. Note that the right arm 13 and the left arm 13 may have substantially the same structure. Moreover, the right arm 13 and the left arm 13 can operate independently and/or can operate collaboratively ( ¶[0039] ). Therefore, according to this embodiment, by covering the arms 13 with the bags 3 having flexibility (refer to FIG. 4), it can prevent that the scrap meat and the cleaning water infiltrate into the robot 11 from the arms 13 when processing meat at the food processing site. Moreover, since the robot 11 has the pair of arms 13, it can perform the work jointly in the same workspace with the worker (refer to FIGS. 1 and 4). Therefore, both the hygiene management and the productivity improvement can be achieved (¶[0055]). FIG. 6(A) is a perspective view illustrating a structure of a bag 3A which accommodates the arm 13. As illustrated in FIG. 6(A), the bag 3A of this embodiment differs from the first embodiment (refer to FIGS. 2(A) to 2(D)) in that both the pair of arms 13 are accommodated (¶[0068]). Therefore, the flexible cover covers both arms simultaneously throughout use and is capable of moving with the robotic arm actuation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a stowage cover that covers the first and second movable robotic arms and the base in the upper position, and transition to lower position as taught by Murakami in the surgical robotic system of Tse, Murakami, and Soto in order to protect the device from contaminants at each position. Regarding claim 13, Tse and Murakami do not disclose wherein the flexible body includes indicia indicating surfaces to facilitate positioning of the stowage cover over the first and second movable robotic arms, and wherein the indicia are positioned on each of the first and second compartments and are configured to aid a user in installing of the stowage cover over the first and second movable robotic arms. Soto discloses that the ring assembly 44 also includes a plurality of indicia 50 in Fig. 5 on the arm drape portion 24 of the surgical drape 22 adjacent the snap-ring 48 to facilitate alignment of the coupling 38 and snap-ring 48 when mating the two together. In one embodiment, the indicia 50 is configured as arrows. In another embodiment, the indicia 50 may be numbers such as 1, 2, and 3 (¶[0044]). Referring to FIG. 13, in another embodiment, the surgical drape 22 and/or the drape belts 58, 60 may include indicia 80 (e.g., arrows) to match up with a corresponding element 82 associated with each of the LEDs 64. In the embodiment shown, the indicia 80 is located on the drape belts 58, 60. The corresponding element 82 may be matching indicia, other indicia, or structure to which the surgical drape 22 is being mounted. The corresponding element 82 may be located on the LEDs 64 (e.g., the base portion 72), on another support 86 to which the base portion 72 is attached, or any other part associated with the LEDs 64. The other support 86 may be rigidly mounted to the robotic arm 12. The indicia 80 and corresponding element 82 guides the user to install the surgical drape 22 properly (¶[0065]). Referring to FIG. 14, the indicia 80 for alignment and indication thereof could be employed on drapes for other components (¶[0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include indicia indicating surfaces to facilitate positioning of the cover as taught by Soto in the device of Tse and Murakami in order to install the drape properly . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tse, Murakami, and Soto (hereinafter referred to as “modified Tse”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Gharib (US 20110301459 A1, published Dec. 8, 2011) . Regarding claim 10, modified Tse teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 1. Modified Tse does not disclose wherein the flexible body includes a liquid-impermeable material. Gharib’s invention relates to apparatus used to create a sterile environment during surgical procedures, and more specifically to medical-grade coverings that eliminate the need for a conventional surgical drape (¶[0003]). Referring to Fig.’s 5-6, the bag 10 or at least the bottom 4 should be impermeable to liquids to prevent patient's body fluids from leaking into the bag 10 and contaminating the sterile environment. Further, being soft and collapsible also makes packaging and storing the bag 10 simpler. (¶[0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the flexible body out of a liquid-impermeable material at taught by Gharib in the robotic surgical system of modified Tse allows the contents of the covering to be protected from bodily fluids and prevents compromising the cleanliness of the environment . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto in view of Tse . Regarding claim 14, Soto teaches a method of operating a robotic surgical system (Fig. 1 “robotic surgical system 10” in ¶[0034]) , the method comprising: (a) receiving a cover over at least one movable robotic arm of the robotic surgical system (Fig. 1 “the sterile drape assembly 18 includes a surgical drape 22 to cover the surgical robot 11.” In ¶[0036]) ; (b) sensing a presence of a first sensor target of the cover (Fig.’s 13-14 “the surgical drape 22 may include a magnetic material associated with the indicia 80” in ¶[0068]) via a first sensor of the robotic surgical system (“corresponding sensor on the support, e.g., a hall-effect sensor” ¶[0068]) ; and (c) generating a first signal from the first sensor, the first signal indicating the sensing of the presence of the first sensor target (Fig.’s 13-14 “the surgical drape 22 may include a magnetic material associated with the indicia 80 that may produce an indication when the surgical drape 22 is correctly mounted to the LED 64 by being in close proximity to a corresponding sensor on the support, e.g., a hall-effect sensor” ¶[0068]) . Soto does not disclose the cover being a stowage cover. Tse’s invention relates to medical systems, and particularly to surgical or medical platforms, tables, or beds with motorized arms for adjustable robotic arm supports (¶[0002]). Referring to Fig. 8C, the surgical robotics system 800B stores column-mounted robotic arms 470B and 470D and column rings 405B and 405C inside the base 403B when the robotic arms are not in use (¶[0159]). The first panel 820A and the second panel 820B are advantageous because they prevent waste materials from de-sterilizing or otherwise contaminating stored robotic arms (¶[0157]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to receive a stowage cover over at least one movable robotic arm of the robotic surgical system as taught by Tse in the device of Soto in order to prevent waste materials from desterilizing the robotic arms. Regarding claim 15, Soto teaches the method further comprising: (a) transmitting the first signal from the first sensor to a controller; and (b) determining, via the controller, that the stowage cover is in a covered configuration based on the first signal (Fig.’s13-14 “the controller 89 is coupled to an indicator 90 to be activated by the controller 89 to indicate to the user that proper placement of the surgical drape 22 has been achieved” ¶[0067] therefore, the signal is transmitted to the controller in order for the controller to process the signal) . Regarding claim 19, Soto teaches wherein: the first sensor includes a first Hall effect sensor (“corresponding sensor on the support, e.g., a hall-effect sensor” ¶[0068]) , the first sensor target includes a first magnet (Fig.’s 13-14 “the surgical drape 22 may include a magnetic material associated with the indicia 80” in ¶[0068]) , and the act of sensing further comprises sensing the presence of the first magnet of the stowage cover via the first Hall effect sensor (Fig.’s 13-14 “the surgical drape 22 may include a magnetic material associated with the indicia 80 that may produce an indication when the surgical drape 22 is correctly mounted to the LED 64 by being in close proximity to a corresponding sensor on the support, e.g., a hall-effect sensor” ¶[0068]) . Regarding claim 20, Soto does not disclose wherein the act of receiving the stowage cover further comprises positioning the stowage cover under a table of the robotic surgical system, wherein the table is configured to receive a patient. Tse teaches in Fig.’s 4B and 8A that the surgical robotics system 400B accommodates a variety of surgical procedures because the robotic arms can access any area (e.g., upper body, core body, or lower body) of the body of a patient lying on the table 401B (¶[0134]). Referring to Fig. 8A, the base 403B includes a first panel 820A and a second panel 820B that cover stored robotic arms. The first panel 820A and the second panel 820B are advantageous because they prevent waste materials from de-sterilizing or otherwise contaminating stored robotic arms (¶[0157]). FIG. 8D is an isometric view of robotic arms stowed underneath the table 701 of the surgical robotics system 700A according to one embodiment. Specifically, the arm segments of each robotic arm rotate such that the robotic arm is in a compact configuration for stowage. The surgical robotics system 700A raises the first column ring 705A and the second column ring 705B, and lowers the third column ring 705C toward the center of the column 702. This way, the robotic arms have enough space in the stowed configuration without interfering with each other. In one embodiment, the column 702 includes covers (e.g., similar to panels 820A and 820B) over the robotics arms to protect the robotic arms from contamination or damage (¶[0161]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to position the stowage cover under the table which is configured to receive a patient as taught by Tse in the device of Soto because it allows the arms to have enough space without interfering with each other while also protecting the arms from contamination and damage in a compact manner . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto in view of Tse (hereinafter referred to as “modified Soto”) as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Shelton et al. (US 20200405408 A1, published Dec. 31, 2020, hereinafter referred to as “Shelton”) . Regarding claim 16, modified Soto discloses the method of claim 15. Modified Soto does not disclose the method further comprising, alerting a user to remove the stowage cover from the at least one movable robotic arm in response to both determining that the stowage cover is in the covered configuration and a receiving a signal to the robotic surgical system to move the at least one movable robotic arm. Shelton’s invention relates to robotic surgical systems, including a central control unit, command console, and a robot having one or more robotic arms (¶[0001]). Referring to Fig.’s 51-53, improperly connected or misaligned components can cause failures of the surgical system 13000 and unsafe operational conditions. Therefore, it can be desirable for the robotic surgical system 13000 to include detection systems to ensure proper connections and alignment of components. In response to detecting an improper or misaligned connection, the robotic surgical system 13000 can take various actions, including providing alerts or prompts to users or preventing the robotic surgical system 13000 (or components thereof) from being activated until all components or the relevant components of the robotic surgical system 13000 are properly connected together (¶[0475]). In various aspects, a control circuit can be configured to take various actions in response to detecting the presence and orientation of a surgical instrument 40200 and/or components of a robotic surgical system 40100, such as providing instructions to users or only permitting activation or operation of the robotic surgical system 15000 when all components are properly connected together. In another aspect, a control circuit, such as the processor 15004 of the robotic surgical system 15000 illustrated in FIG. 22, can operate the robotic surgical system 15000 in different modes according to whether a compatible surgical instrument 40200 (e.g., a trocar) are connected to the robotic surgical system 15000 by, for example, executing the process 3310 illustrated in FIG. 64 (¶[0496]). A processor 15004 executing the process 3310 can determine 3312 that the robotic surgical system 15000 has been activated and then energize 3314 or operate the robotic surgical system 15000 in an initial or first operational mode. If the surgical instrument 40200 is not compatible or the processor 15004 is not able to determine whether the surgical instrument is compatible 40200 (e.g., due to the instrument being improperly oriented with respect to the robotic arm 13120, causing the detection elements to not be identifiable), then the process 3310 proceeds along the NO branch and the processor 15004 alerts 3318 the surgical staff to attach the surgical instrument 40200 or confirm that the surgical instrument 40200 is attached properly. The processor 15004 can provide the alert via the surgeon console's display 15014, for example. The processor 15004 can thereafter continue monitoring to determine 3316 whether the surgical instrument 40200 is fully seated and respond accordingly (¶[0497]). Therefore, the device is capable of sensing whether something is attached or not after receiving a command to operate and then alerting the user to fix the attachment if the condition is not correct for operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to alerting a user to do an action such as remove the stowage cover in response to both determining that the stowage cover is in the covered configuration and a receiving a signal to the robotic surgical system to activate the robot as taught by Shelton in the device of modified Soto to prevent the device from being operated in an unsafe condition . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Soto as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Welch et al. (US 8676540 B1, published Mar. 18, 2014, hereinafter referred to as “Welch”), and in even further view of Shelton . Regarding claim 17, modified Soto discloses the method of claim 15. Soto also teaches the method further comprising: (a) sensing an absence of the first sensor target of the stowage cover via the first sensor of the robotic surgical system, the absence being sensed in response to the stowage cover being removed from the at least one movable robotic arm of the robotic surgical system (Fig.’s 13-14 “The controller 89 is coupled to an indicator 90 to be activated by the controller 89 to indicate to the user that proper placement of the surgical drape 22 has been achieved… the indicator LED remains illuminated a second color (e.g., red/orange) until the surgical drape 22 is properly aligned.” In ¶[0067], therefore, when the sensor target is absent, regardless of reason the target and sensor are not aligned, the LED will be the second color) ; (b) transmitting a second signal from a second sensor to a controller (Fig. 13 “In the embodiment shown, the LED 64 itself may be coupled to the controller 89 and be illuminated by the controller 89 when the surgical drape 22 is properly placed.” In ¶[0067] and “the surgical drape 22 may include a magnetic material associated with the indicia 80 that may produce an indication when the surgical drape 22 is correctly mounted to the LED 64 by being in close proximity to a corresponding sensor on the support, e.g., a hall-effect sensor.” In ¶[0068]; therefore, since there are multiple LED 64 in Fig. 11-12, multiple signals are sent to the controller) ; (c) determining, via the controller, that the stowage cover is in a non-covered configuration based on the first signal from the first sensor (Fig.’s 13-14 “The controller 89 is coupled to an indicator 90 to be activated by the controller 89 to indicate to the user that proper placement of the surgical drape 22 has been achieved… the indicator LED remains illuminated a second color (e.g., red/orange) until the surgical drape 22 is properly aligned.” In ¶[0067]; “the surgical drape 22 may include a magnetic material associated with the indicia 80 that may produce an indication when the surgical drape 22 is correctly mounted to the LED 64 by being in close proximity to a corresponding sensor on the support, e.g., a hall-effect sensor” in ¶[0068]) . Modified Soto does not disclose that transmitting a second signal from the second sensor occurs in response to sensing the absence of the first sensor target and (d) in response to determining that the stowage cover is in the covered configuration, preventing movement of the at least one movable robotic arm via the controller. Welch’s invention relates to methods for adjusting trigger threshold levels for data acquisition (Col. 1 ln. 14-15). Due to limitations that can exist with regards to the amount of information that can be stores by data recording systems, or the desire to minimize the amount of data to be subsequently analyzed, it can be desirable to trigger, i.e. initiate a data recording event only upon the occurrence of a specific condition or event that signals the beginning of the time period of interest. For example, one or more trigger signals (e.g. output signals from one or more sensors) can be monitored and a data recording event initiated only when the level of a monitored trigger signal meets a given criteria, for example, whereat the signal level falls below or rises above a trigger threshold value. In this manner the memory within a data recording apparatus can be more efficiently allotted to the time period of interest, and recoding of and subsequent analysis of sensor data that may not be of particular interest can be avoided (Col. 1 ln. 26-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to transmit the second signal after a condition of the first signal was met as taught by Welch in the method of modified Soto in order to more efficiently analyze the signal. Further, the second signal can be used as a condition confirmation. Modified Soto and Welch do not disclose (d) in response to determining that the stowage cover is in the covered configuration, preventing movement of the at least one movable robotic arm via the controller. Referring to Fig.’s 51-53 of Shelton’s invention, improperly connected or misaligned components can cause failures of the surgical system 13000 and unsafe operational conditions. Therefore, it can be desirable for the robotic surgical system 13000 to include detection systems to ensure proper connections and alignment of components. In response to detecting an improper or misaligned connection, the robotic surgical system 13000 can take various actions, including providing alerts or prompts to users or preventing the robotic surgical system 13000 (or components thereof) from being activated until all components or the relevant components of the robotic surgical system 13000 are properly connected together (¶[0475]). In the aspect illustrated in FIGS. 57A and 57B, the sterile shell or barrier 40060 can include a sensor assembly configured to detect whether a corresponding detection element is within a threshold proximity to the sensor assembly (or a particular sensor thereof). The sensors 3230a, 3230b, 3230c, 3230d can include Hall effect sensors and the detection elements 3228a, 3228b, 3228c, 3228d can include magnets (¶[0476]). A control circuit, such as the processor 15004 of the robotic surgical system 15000 illustrated in FIG. 22, can be configured to monitor a detection assembly, such as the detection assembly illustrated in FIGS. 57A and 57B (¶[0480]). If proximity of mating components is not sensed, then the process 3232 proceeds along the NO branch and the processor 15004 causes 3236 a display (e.g., a surgeon console's display 15014 (FIG. 22)) to display that the component is missing and/or instructions for assembling the robotic surgical system 13000 (¶[0481]). For example, the control circuit could prevent the robotic arm to which the robotic surgical assembly 40100 is coupled from activating or moving unless it determines that all of the components of the robotic surgical assembly 40100 are properly connected together (¶[0486]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to preventing movement of the at least one movable robotic arm via the controller in response to determining that a component such as the stowage cover is properly connected as taught by Shelton in the robotic surgical system of modified Soto and Welch in order to prevent failures and unsafe conditions. Regarding claim 18, modified Soto and Welch do not disclose the method further comprising, in response to sensing the absence of the first sensor target, instructing a user to reposition the stowage cover over the at least one movable robotic arm of the robotic surgical system. Shelton teaches improperly connected or misaligned components can cause failures of the surgical system 13000 and unsafe operational conditions in reference to Fig.’s 51-53. Therefore, it can be desirable for the robotic surgical system 13000 to include detection systems to ensure proper connections and alignment of components. In response to detecting an improper or misaligned connection, the robotic surgical system 13000 can take various actions, including providing alerts or prompts to users or preventing the robotic surgical system 13000 (or components thereof) from being activated until all components or the relevant components of the robotic surgical system 13000 are properly connected together (¶[0475]). A control circuit, such as the processor 15004 of the robotic surgical system 15000 illustrated in FIG. 22, can be configured to monitor a detection assembly, such as the detection assembly illustrated in FIGS. 57A and 57B (¶[0480]). If proximity of mating components is not sensed, then the process 3232 proceeds along the NO branch and the processor 15004 causes 3236 a display (e.g., a surgeon console's display 15014 (FIG. 22)) to display that the component is missing and/or instructions for assembling the robotic surgical system 13000 (¶[0481]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to instruct a user to reposition a component such as the stowage cover in response to sensing an absence of the first target as taught by Shelton in the surgical unit of modified Soto and Welch in order to ensure safe conditions. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily N Cirulnick whose telephone number is (571)272-9734. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5:30 and every other F 8-4:30ET. 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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. /E.N.C./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792 /UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 2 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 3 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 4 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 5 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 6 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 7 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 8 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 9 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 10 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 11 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 12 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 13 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 14 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 15 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 16 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 17 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 18 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 19 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 20 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 21 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 22 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 23 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 24 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 25 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 26 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 27 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 28 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 29 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 30 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/827,563 Page 31 Art Unit: 3792
Prosecution Insights