DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular references in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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 1-6, 9-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diolaiti et al. (WO 2013123310 A1, 2013-08-22) (hereinafter “Diolaiti”) in view of Swarup et al. (US 20090088774 A1, 2009-04-02) (hereinafter “Swarup”).
Regarding claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17-19, Diolaiti teaches a surgical robotic system (and a method of use) comprising: a robotic arm (e.g., 2514) including an instrument (e.g., [0029]) and an instrument drive unit (e.g., [0031]) configured to couple to and to actuate the instrument; a display configured to output a graphical user interface (e.g., [0003]); a surgeon console including a handle controller (e.g., 41, 42) configured to control the robotic arm and the instrument; and a processor (e.g., 43) configured to: receive a user input from the graphical user interface, the user input selecting an operating mode from a plurality of operating modes for the instrument drive unit (e.g., [0036], [0039]-[0043).
Diolaiti does not expressly teach power modes as operating modes.
Swarup teaches a plurality of power modes. See, e.g., [0288] (disclosing normal mode and torque limited mode of driving the end effectors).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Swarup with the invention taught by Diolaiti such that the invention further comprises wherein the user input selecting a power mode from a plurality of power modes for the instrument drive unit, the plurality of power modes includes a full power mode during which the instrument drive unit is fully powered and a low power mode during which the instrument drive unit is partially powered; and set the instrument drive unit to the selected power mode (as recited in claims 1, 9, 17); further comprising: a storage device including user settings having a preset power mode (as recited in claims 2, 10); wherein the processor is further configured to receive the user settings and the set the instrument drive unit to the preset power mode (as recited in claims 3, 11); wherein the graphical user interface is configured to display the plurality of power modes (as recited in claims 4, 12, 18); wherein the display is a touchscreen and the user input includes touching the power mode (as recited in claims 5, 13, 19); wherein the handle controller includes an input device configured to select the power mode (as recited in claims 6, 14);
Claims 7, 8, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diolaiti in view of Swarup, as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17, and further in view of Shelton et al. (US 20190142449 A1, 2019-05-16) (hereinafter “Shelton”).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 15, 16, and 20, Diolaiti (in view of Swarup) teaches a surgical robotic system (and a method of use), except comprising wherein the input device is configured to measure a grip force of the handle controller.
Shelton teaches wherein the input device is configured to measure a grip force of the handle controller. See, e.g., Fig. 78A-78B, 79 and associated text.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shelton with the inveniton taught by Diolaiti (in view of Swarup such that wherein the input device is configured to measure a grip force of the handle controller (as recited in claims 7, 15); wherein the processor is further configured to select the power mode based on the grip force (as recited in claims 8, 16, 20) in order to improve the usability of invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T LUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1860. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, M-F (generally).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Jackson, can be reached on 571-272-4697. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Scott Luan
/SCOTT LUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights