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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Epple (US 2011/0291471, hereinafter “Epple”).
In regards to claim 10, Epple discloses a system to mechanically interlock a first foot pedal with a second foot pedal (Figs. 2-6B), the system comprising:
a first foot pedal including a first button (Figs. 2-6B, element 16b), a first support column (element 16), and a first base (any of the elements that the proximal end of element 16 is connected to, e.g., elements 18, 12, 21, etc.); and
a second foot pedal including a second button (element 17b), a second support column (element 17), a second base (any of the elements that the proximal end of element 17 is connected to, e.g., elements 18, 12, 21, etc.), and a connector (element 25),
wherein the connector includes a first end (Figs. 6A and 6B, left side of element 25), a second end (right side of element 25), a top side (side facing into Figs. 6A and 6B), and a bottom side (side facing out of Figs. 6A and 6B), the first end of the connector is attached to the second button of the second foot pedal (Figs. 6A and 6B; element 25 is attached to pedal button 17b) and the second end of the connector is configured to be positioned under a bottom side of the first button of the first foot pedal to interlock the second foot pedal with the first foot pedal (Figs. 6A and 6B),
wherein when a force moves the first button of the first foot pedal to a position, the first button of the first foot pedal moves the connector, and the connector moves the second button of the second foot pedal to an activation position (Fig. 6B; par. 0028), and wherein the connector is configured to move, while the first end of the connector remains attached to the second button of the second foot pedal, to a position in which the second end of the connector is not positioned under the bottom side of the first button of the first foot pedal, to unlock the second foot pedal from the first foot pedal (Fig. 6A).
In regards to claim 16, the connector includes a hook (Fig. 6A, left side of element 25 forms a hook), a clip, a clasp, or a snap to interlock the connector with the support column of the second foot pedal (Fig. 6A, element 25 at least indirectly interlocks with element 17 via 17b).
In regards to claim 17, the connector is configured to rotate with respect to an axis of a bottom side of the button of the first foot pedal to unlock the first foot pedal from the second foot pedal (par. 0029; transitioning from Fig. 6B to 6A includes rotating connector 25 to swing extension 25a into engagement with element 32, thereby unlocking the first and second foot pedals).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as anticipated by Epple or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Epple in view of Hoodless (US 2021/0093370, hereinafter “Hoodless”).
In regards to claims 1 and 18, Epple discloses a device comprising:
a first foot pedal with a button including a bottom side (Figs. 6A-6B, element 17b; bottom side depicted in Figs. 6A and 6B);
a second foot pedal with a button including a bottom side (element 16b);
a connector (element 25) including a first end, a second end, a top side, and a bottom side (left, right, into Figs. 6A and 6B, and out of Figs. 6A and 6B, respectively), the first end of the connector being attached to the button of the first foot pedal (Fig. 6A, left side of 25 attached to element 17b) and the second end of the connector is configured to be positioned under the bottom side of the button of the second foot pedal to interlock the first foot pedal with the second foot pedal (Fig. 6B, element 25 interlocking with element 16B),
wherein when a force moves the button of the second foot pedal to a position, the button of the second foot pedal moves the connector, and the connector moves the button of the first foot pedal to an activation position (par. 0028), and
wherein the connector is configured to move, while the first end of the connector remains attached to the button of the first foot pedal, to a position in which the second end of the connector is not positioned under the bottom side of the button of the second foot pedal, to unlock the first foot pedal from the second foot pedal (par. 0029; Fig. 6A).
Epple does not expressly disclose that the device is “for a surgical robotic system” or “to mechanically connect a first foot pedal of a surgical robotic system with a second foot pedal of the surgical robotic system,” as recited in the preambles of the claims. However, since the bodies of the claims define structurally complete inventions and the preambles only state a purpose or intended use for the inventions, the examiner is considering Epple to anticipate these claims. See MPEP 2111.02. No positively-recited required structural elements or functional limitations are set forth in these preambles.
Alternatively and additionally, Epple discloses the essential features of the claimed invention, but does not expressly disclose that the device is “for a surgical robotic system” or “to mechanically connect a first foot pedal of a surgical robotic system with a second foot pedal of the surgical robotic system,” as recited in the preambles of the claims.
However, Hoodless in the same problem-solving area of foot actuation of devices teaches providing a foot pedal arrangement “for a surgical robotic system” or “to mechanically connect a first foot pedal of a surgical robotic system with a second foot pedal of the surgical robotic system” (Fig. 5C) to provide the predictable results of allowing for various device functionalities to be controlled merely by repositioning the foot while manipulating with the hands (par. 0003).
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 Hoodless by providing the pedal control “for a surgical robotic system” or “to mechanically connect a first foot pedal of a surgical robotic system with a second foot pedal of the surgical robotic system” to provide the predictable results of allowing for various device functionalities to be controlled merely by repositioning the foot while manipulating with the hands.
In regards to claims 8 and 19, the connector includes a hook (Fig. 6A, left side of element 25 forms a hook), a clip, a clasp, or a snap to interlock the connector with the support column of the second foot pedal (Fig. 6A, element 25 at least indirectly interlocks with element 16 via 16b).
In regards to claims 9 and 20, the connector is configured to rotate with respect to an axis of a bottom side of the button of the first foot pedal to unlock the first foot pedal from the second foot pedal (par. 0029; transitioning from Fig. 6B to 6A includes rotating connector 25 to swing extension 25a into engagement with element 32, thereby unlocking the first and second foot pedals).
Claims 10-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoodless in view of Epple.
In regards to claim 10, Hoodless discloses a system to mechanically interlock a first foot pedal with a second foot pedal (Figs. 5A-5C), the system comprising:
a first foot pedal including a first button, a first support column, and a first base (see annotated Fig. 5A below) and
a second foot pedal including a second button, a second support column, a second base, and a connector (see annotated Fig. 5A below),
wherein the connector includes a first end, a second end, a top side, and a bottom side, the first end of the connector is attached to the second button of the second foot pedal and the second end of the connector is configured to be positioned under a bottom side of the first button of the first foot pedal to interlock the second foot pedal with the first foot pedal (see annotated Fig. 5A below),
wherein when a force moves the first button of the first foot pedal to a position, the first button of the first foot pedal moves the connector, and the connector moves the second button of the second foot pedal to an activation position (Figs. 5A-5C).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hoodless does not expressly disclose wherein the connector is configured to move, while the first end of the connector remains attached to the second button of the second foot pedal, to a position in which the second end of the connector is not positioned under the bottom side of the first button of the first foot pedal, to unlock the second foot pedal from the first foot pedal.
However, Epple in the same problem-solving area of multiple pedal control teaches providing a configuration wherein the connector is configured to move, while the first end of the connector remains attached to the second button of the second foot pedal, to a position in which the second end of the connector is not positioned under the bottom side of the first button of the first foot pedal, to unlock the second foot pedal from the first foot pedal (Figs. 6A and 6B) to provide the predictable results of controllable simultaneous or independent actuation of the pedal controls (pars. 0028-0029).
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 Hoodless by providing a configuration wherein the connector is configured to move, while the first end of the connector remains attached to the second button of the second foot pedal, to a position in which the second end of the connector is not positioned under the bottom side of the first button of the first foot pedal, to unlock the second foot pedal from the first foot pedal to provide the predictable results of controllable simultaneous or independent actuation of the pedal controls.
In regards to claim 11, the second foot pedal is configured to generate an input signal in response to the second foot pedal being moved to the activation position, the input signal corresponding to at least one of a movement command of an arm of a surgical robotic system or an instrument function (pars. 0013 and 0016; Fig. 2, RF coagulation).
In regards to claim 12, the second foot pedal is further configured to send the input signal to a surgical console (Fig. 1, element 1) configured to remotely control an arm or an instrument function of the surgical robotic system based on the first input signal (pars. 0013, 0016, 0037; as surgical robots routinely include RF coagulation functionality, Hoodless’ system meets the functional language of “configured to remotely control…an instrument function of the surgical robot system. No surgical robot system is positively recited).
In regards to claim 13, the instrument function includes at least one of vessel sealing, bipolar coagulation, tissue cutting (par. 0005), stapling, monopolar power level, or ultrasonic power level.
In regards to claim 16, the connector includes a hook, a clip, a clasp, or a snap to interlock the connector with the support column of the second foot pedal (the portion extending from the side of the first button that grips the extension from the second button is fairly considered a “clip”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoodless in view of Epple. Hoodless’ modified invention discloses the essential features of the claimed invention, including a foot pedal that is configured to generate a physical click in response to the foot pedal being moved to the activation position (par. 0047). Hoodless does not expressly disclose that click functionality is provided to the second foot pedal. However, it has been held that it is prima facie obvious to reverse, duplicate, or rearrange parts such as Hoodless’ click functionality to provide no more than predictable results (see MPEP 2144.04, citing In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), respectively). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hoodless by reversing, duplicating, or rearranging the click functionality of the first foot pedal to the second pedal to provide no more than predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoodless and Epple, and further in view of Hassan et al. (US 2021/0205040, hereinafter “Hassan”). Hoodless’ modified invention discloses the essential features of the claimed invention including providing audio and visual feedback to pedal activation (par. 0047), but does not expressly disclose wherein the second foot pedal further comprises a light configured to illuminate in response to the second foot pedal being moved to the activation position. However, Hassan in the same field of endeavor of control pedals teaches providing a plurality of pedals with a light configured to illuminate in response to the foot pedal being moved to the activation position (pars. 0005-0007) to provide the predictable results of convenient indication of device state to the user (par. 0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hoodless by providing a plurality of pedals with a light configured to illuminate in response to the foot pedal being moved to the activation position to provide the predictable results of convenient indication of device state to the user.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoodless in view of Epple.
In regards to claims 1 and 18, Hoodless discloses a device for a surgical robotic system (pars. 0013, 0016, 0037; as surgical robots routinely include RF coagulation functionality, Hoodless’ system meets the functional language of “configured to remotely control…an instrument function of the surgical robot system. No surgical robot system is positively recited in the body of the claim), the device comprising:
a first foot pedal with a button including a bottom side (Fig. 5A, element 5b);
a second foot pedal with a button including a bottom side (Fig. 5A, element 5a);
a connector including a first end, a second end, a top side, and a bottom side (element 52), the first end of the connector being attached to the button of the first foot pedal and the second end of the connector is configured to be positioned under the button of the second foot pedal to interlock the first foot pedal with the second foot pedal (Figs. 5A-5C), wherein when a force moves the button of the second foot pedal to a position, the button of the second foot pedal moves the connector, and the connector moves the button of the first foot pedal to an activation position (Figs. 5A-5C).
Hoodless does not expressly disclose wherein the connector is configured to move, while the first end of the connector remains attached to the button of the first foot pedal, to a position in which the second end of the connector is not positioned under the bottom side of the second button of the first foot pedal, to unlock the first foot pedal from the second foot pedal.
However, Epple in the same problem-solving area of multiple pedal control teaches providing a configuration wherein the connector is configured to move, while the first end of the connector remains attached to the button of the first foot pedal, to a position in which the second end of the connector is not positioned under the bottom side of the second button of the first foot pedal, to unlock the first foot pedal from the second foot pedal (Figs. 6A and 6B) to provide the predictable results of controllable simultaneous or independent actuation of the pedal controls (pars. 0028-0029).
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 Hoodless by providing a configuration wherein the connector is configured to move, while the first end of the connector remains attached to the button of the first foot pedal, to a position in which the second end of the connector is not positioned under the bottom side of the second button of the first foot pedal, to unlock the first foot pedal from the second foot pedal to provide the predictable results of controllable simultaneous or independent actuation of the pedal controls.
In regards to claim 2, the second foot pedal is configured to generate an input signal in response to the second foot pedal being moved to the activation position, the input signal corresponding to at least one of a movement command of an arm of a surgical robotic system or an instrument function (pars. 0013 and 0016; Fig. 2, RF coagulation).
In regards to claim 3, the second foot pedal is further configured to send the input signal to a surgical console (Fig. 1, element 1) configured to remotely control an arm or an instrument function of the surgical robotic system based on the first input signal (pars. 0013, 0016, 0037; as surgical robots routinely include RF coagulation functionality, Hoodless’ system meets the functional language of “configured to remotely control…an instrument function of the surgical robot system. No surgical robot system is positively recited).
In regards to claim 4, the instrument function includes at least one of vessel sealing, bipolar coagulation, tissue cutting (par. 0005), stapling, monopolar power level, or ultrasonic power level.
In regards to claims 8 and 19, Epple teaches that the connector includes a hook (Fig. 6A, left side of element 25 forms a hook), a clip, a clasp, or a snap to interlock the connector with the support column of the second foot pedal (Fig. 6A, element 25 at least indirectly interlocks with element 16 via 16b) to provide the same predictable results as set forth above.
In regards to claims 9, 17 and 20, Epple teaches that the connector is configured to rotate with respect to an axis of a bottom side of the button of the first foot pedal to unlock the first foot pedal from the second foot pedal (par. 0029; transitioning from Fig. 6B to 6A includes rotating connector 25 to swing extension 25a into engagement with element 32, thereby unlocking the first and second foot pedals) to provide the same predictable results as set forth above.
In regards to claims 5 and 7, Hoodless discloses the essential features of the claimed invention, including a foot pedal that is configured to generate a physical click or noise in response to the foot pedal being moved to the activation position (par. 0047). Hoodless does not expressly disclose that click functionality is provided to the second foot pedal. However, it has been held that it is prima facie obvious to reverse, duplicate, or rearrange parts such as Hoodless’ click functionality to provide no more than predictable results (see MPEP 2144.04, citing In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), respectively). 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 Hoodless by reversing, duplicating, or rearranging the click/noise functionality of the first foot pedal to the second pedal to provide no more than predictable results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoodless and Epple in view of Hassan. Hoodless’ modified invention discloses the essential features of the claimed invention including providing audio and visual feedback to pedal activation (par. 0047), but does not expressly disclose wherein the second foot pedal further comprises a light configured to illuminate in response to the second foot pedal being moved to the activation position. However, Hassan in the same field of endeavor of control pedals teaches providing a plurality of pedals with a light configured to illuminate in response to the foot pedal being moved to the activation position (pars. 0005-0007) to provide the predictable results of convenient indication of device state to the user (par. 0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hoodless by providing a plurality of pedals with a light configured to illuminate in response to the foot pedal being moved to the activation position to provide the predictable results of convenient indication of device state to the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are unpersuasive in part and moot in part. In regards to the arguments drawn to the new claim limitations, please see the new rejections above in view of Epple, necessitated by amendment. In regards to the argument that Hoodless discloses that projection 52 engages one or more arms 50 and not the button 5a, the examiner’s position in the previous Office action and the current Office action are that the claimed “button” is fairly interpreted as the combination 5a/50 structure as a whole, with elements 50 being components or elements of the “button” of Hoodless depicted in Figs. 5A and 5B. As this structure 5A/50 can be pressed by a user to actuate a function, the examiner maintains that this interpretation fairly reads on the claimed subject matter. In regards to claims 8, 16 and 19, please see the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, in view of Epple.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Riddy (US 3,181,388) is another example of a connector device for foot pedals.
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 MICHAEL W KAHELIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8688. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Klein can be reached at (571)270-5213. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL W KAHELIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights