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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed November 13, 2024 is noted and has been entered. Claims 1-10 are noted as cancelled and claims 11-20 are noted as newly added. Claims 11-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11, 18, and 19 recite the phrase “in such a way that” with regards to functional limitations. While not exactly the same as the exemplary language “such as”, see MPEP 2173.05, the phrase could be interpreted as exemplary language though for the sake of compact prosecution the terminology is interpreted as functional limitations. Examiner recommends amending the recitations.
In claim 11, line 10, “to the haptic” should read “to the at least one haptic”.
In claim 11, line 12, “to the haptic” should read “to the at least one haptic”.
In claim 11, line 19, “between the haptic” should read “between the at least one haptic”.
In claim 11, line 22, “of the movable haptic” should read “of the at least one haptic”.
Claims 12, 18, and 19 recite the phrase “makes it possible”. The phrase could be interpreted as an optional limitation. Additionally, the use of the word “it” is improper formatting for claim language. Examiner recommends amending the recitations.
In claim 12, line 2, “of the haptic” should read “of the at least one haptic” to correspond with the recitation of claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 14 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 14 recites the limitation "the key-lock type" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kurenov et al. (US PGPub 20110014596), hereinafter referred to as Kurenov.
With regard to claim 11, Kurenov teaches a surgical training platform configured to interface a haptic controller with a surgical simulation tool (Fig. 1; Abstract; Paragraphs 0008, 0013, 0042 , 0058 teach a system for surgical training including a haptic device/feedback comprising:
a control system (Paragraphs 0060-0061, 0063 teach the system includes a computer for maintaining and executing the virtual scene and providing control information to the connected devices including displays and the haptic device),
at least one surgical simulation tool having at least one free end extending along a first axis A1 (Figs 3-4; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0118 teach the system can include various surgical instruments represented by instrument handles having a free end axis as shown),
at least one haptic controller including a connection system configured to mechanically and electrically connect, reversibly, the at least one surgical simulation tool (Figs 2C, 8; Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0065, 0070, 0081-0082, 0113 teaches a haptic device including a connector such as a jack connector which can be connected to the surgical tool handle including an electrical connection for transmitting signals from the handle/surgical device through the haptic device and to the computer), and
the control system further including a system for recognizing each surgical simulation tool configured to obtain identification information specific to the surgical simulation tool connected to the haptic controller, and to communicate the identification information to the control system in such a way that the control system recognizes each surgical simulation tool connected to the haptic controller (Paragraphs 0059, 0082, 0118 teaches that the selected instrument/surgical instrument can be identified by transmitting initializing information to the computer including identifying information thereby the system can identify/recognize the selected and attached surgical instrument),
wherein: the connection system comprises at least one connector extending along a second axis A2, the at least one connector comprising a first coupling element complementary to a corresponding coupling element of the free end of each surgical simulation tool (Fig. 2B, Ref 24; Paragraphs 0068, 0074, 0079 teach the haptic device includes a stereophonic jack (connector with axis) that can be connected to the complementary jack connector of the free end of the modified surgical handles/instruments),
the coupling elements of the connector and of the free end of each surgical simulation tool are configured to coaxially cooperate by alignment of the axes A1 and A2, in such a way that the connection between the haptic controller and each surgical simulation tool is carried out axially (Figs 2C, 8, and 13; Paragraphs 0054, 0058, 0079, 0089, 0097 teach that the surgical handles/instruments can be operably connected to the haptic device via the jack connectors wherein the jack connector and stereophonic jack of the haptic device would be coaxially aligned as shown in the figures such that the connection is axial in order to translate motion of the handle/instrument to the haptic device),
once connected to one another, each displacement of the surgical simulation tool induces a corresponding movement of the movable haptic controller (Figs 2C, 8, and 13; Paragraphs 0054, 0058, 0062, 0079, 0089, 0097, 0122 teach the connection between the haptic device and the surgical instrument such that movement of the surgical instrument can result in a movement signal of the haptic device as the free ends of the device and the attached instrument are attached such that movement of the handle or movement of a microswitch of the handle corresponds to movement of the haptic device).
With regard to claim 12, Kurenov further teaches wherein the connection system of the haptic controller makes it possible to connect at least two different surgical simulation tools (Figs. 2A, 2C, 8, 13; Paragraphs 0013, 0059, 0076, 0086 teach and show various different surgical instruments and surgical instrument handles such as a grasper, shear, and dissector (at least two different tools) that have been modified to be connected to the haptic device).
With regard to claim 13, Kurenov further teaches wherein the at least one connector is configured to cooperate with the free end of the surgical simulation tool (Figs 2C, 8, and 13; Paragraphs 0054, 0058, 0079, 0089, 0097 teach that the surgical handles/instruments can be operably connected to the haptic device via the jack connectors wherein the jack connector and stereophonic jack of the haptic device connect the free ends of the haptic device arm and the surgical instrument/handle).
With regard to claim 14, Kurenov further teaches wherein the at least one connector is a locking connector of a key-lock type configured to cooperate with the free end of the surgical simulation tool (Paragraphs 0079, 0083, 0089 teach the jack connection between the haptic device and surgical instrument handle can include a connection cover to maintain the position and securely connect the handle and haptic device wherein the jack connection includes a stereophonic jack and a jack connector (“key and lock”)).
With regard to claim 15, Kurenov further teaches wherein the connection between the haptic controller and the free end of the at least one surgical simulation tool ensures a collinearity constraint according to the first axis A1 of the at least one connector (Figs 2C, 8, and 13; Paragraphs 0054, 0058, 0079, 0089, 0097 teach that the surgical handles/instruments can be operably connected to the haptic device via the jack connectors wherein the jack connector and stereophonic jack of the haptic device connect the free ends of the haptic device arm and the surgical instrument/handle in such a way that the free ends would be on the same axis (collinearity constraint)).
With regard to claim 16, Kurenov further teaches wherein the connection system comprises a first connector attached to the haptic controller and a second connector attached to the free end of the surgical simulation tool, the two connectors being configured to cooperate with one another (Figs 2C, 8, and 13; Paragraphs 0054, 0058, 0079, 0089, 0097 teach that the surgical handles/instruments can be operably connected to the haptic device via the jack connectors wherein the surgical instrument has the jack connector (second connector) and the haptic device has the stereophonic jack (first connector) to connect the free ends of the haptic device arm and the surgical instrument/handle).
With regard to claim 17, Kurenov further teaches wherein the haptic controller comprises a movable arm, the movable arm having a free end intended to cooperate with the connection system (Figs 2A-2C; Paragraphs 0058-0059, 0074, 0142 teach the system includes a haptic device including an actuator arm as shown including a free end including the connector for connecting an instrument handle).
With regard to claim 18, Kurenov further teaches wherein the connection system makes it possible to pass electric current between the haptic controller and the connected surgical simulation tool, in such a way as to supply the surgical simulation tool with power (Paragraphs 0065, 0067, 0070, 0076 teach the surgical handle, haptic device, and computer/display device are connected in such a way as to allow electrical signals to be transmitted between the devices in order to receive user inputs/interactions with the handle such as pulling a handle or rotating a control or knob and sending tactile feedback from the computer to the haptic device and/or handle).
With regard to claim 19, Kurenov further teaches wherein the connection system makes it possible to pass electric current between the control system and the connected surgical simulation tool, in such a way as to supply the surgical simulation tool with power (Paragraphs 0065, 0067, 0070, 0076 teach the surgical handle, haptic device, and computer/display device are connected in such a way as to allow electrical signals to be transmitted between the devices in order to receive user inputs/interactions with the handle such as pulling a handle or rotating a control or knob and sending tactile feedback from the computer to the haptic device and/or handle).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurenov in view of Noonan et al. (US PGPub 20220361968), hereinafter referred to as Noonan.
With regard to claim 20, Kurenov may not explicitly teach wherein each connector comprises a magnet in such a way that the connection is magnetized. However, Noonan teaches a co-manipulation robotic system for surgical procedures that may be used as a training tool that provides haptic feedback via robotic arms wherein a “free end” of the robotic arms include couplers that can include magnets/be magnetized and include connected surgical instruments attached via magnetic couplers to the robotic arms (Abstract; Paragraphs 0019, 0096-0097, 0102-0103, 0137, 0177).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kurenov to incorporate the teachings of Noonan by applying the technique of using the magnetic coupler/connector of Noonan as part of or in place of the jack connectors of Kurenov, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to haptic feedback/robotic arm based training systems for surgical procedures. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Kurenov by incorporating a magnet into the haptic device and surgical instrument near the jack connectors to magnetize the connection or substituting the magnetic couplers of Noonan for the connectors as magnetic connection/connectors are a known alternative in the art and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute for the jack connectors as an known alternative capable of providing communication/electrical interfacing and ease of attaching and detaching the connected devices. Upon such modification, the method and system of Kurenov would include wherein each connector comprises a magnet in such a way that the connection is magnetized. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Noonan with Kurenov’s system and method in order to provide communication/electrical interfacing between the haptic device and surgical instrument and ease of attaching and detaching the connected devices as magnetic connection is a known alternative in the art.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 11-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights