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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 pointingout and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as theinvention.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites ‘the alert’ whereby ‘an alert’ was not previously defined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2):
(a) Novelty; Prior Art.— A person shall be entitled to a patent unless: (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.
(b) Exceptions: (2) Disclosures appearing in applications and patents.— A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if: (A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or (C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Claims 1-3, 14-15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over HASSAN (Pub. No: US 2021-0401527).
As per Claim 1 HASSAN discloses A surgical robotic surgeon console comprising a console frame (Figs. 1-4, 11-15, 21 – in at least Fig. 2 console 11 with frame 14 [0056-0058] [0132]);
a display mounted on the console frame (Figs. 1-4, 11-15, 21 – in at least Fig. 2 display 26 [0056-0058] [0132]); a horizontal positioning member connected to the console frame, the horizontal member extending outwardly from the console frame and positioned above the display (Figs. 1-4, 11-16, 21 horizontal members extending outward 23 with end-points 22 capable of pivot-positioning above display 26 [0056-0058] [0062] [0132]); and a sensor (Figs. 1-4, 11-16, 21 sensor camera [0010] [0053] [0092-0093]).
As per Claim 2 HASSAN discloses The surgical robotic surgeon console of claim 1, wherein the display is an autostereoscopic display (Figs. 1-4 viewer 202 [0132]).
As per Claim 3 HASSAN discloses The surgical robotic surgeon console of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a head position sensor or an eye-tracking camera (Figs. 1-4, 11-16, 20-21 sensor camera for tracking [0110]).
As per Claim 14 HASSAN discloses The surgical robotic surgeon console of claim 1, further comprising an eye-tracking camera for tracking live gaze information of the user (Figs. 1-4, 11-16, 20-21 sensor camera for tracking [0110] live view [0164-0165]).
As per Claim 15 HASSAN discloses The surgical robotic surgeon console of claim 1 further comprising, one or more operator controls for a surgical robotic system (Figs. 1-4, 11-16, 21 controls [0049] [0055-0058]).
As per Claim 19 HASSAN discloses A surgical robotic system comprising: the surgical robotic surgeon console of claim 1, wherein (See said analysis for Claim 1)
the sensor is an eye-tracking camera (Figs. 1-4, 11-16, 20-21 sensor camera for tracking [0110] [0164-0165]); a surgical camera assembly (Figs. 1-4, 11-16, 20-21 sensor camera for tracking [0110] [0164-0165]); and one or more controllers that receive an input from the eye-tracking camera and control an operation or a function of the surgical camera assembly (Figs. 1-4, 11-16, 20-21 at least user input from gaze [0010] [0053] [0092-0093] [0110] [0164-0165]).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 4-6, 12-13, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HASSAN (Pub. No: US 2021-0401527) in view of ABU-AKEEL et al. (US Pub. No: 2019-0239969).
As per Claim 4 HASSAN discloses The surgical robotic surgeon console of claim 1, further comprising
HASSAN does not disclose but ABU-AKEEL discloses a head bar mounted on the horizontal member, the head bar configured to support a user's head (Fig. 4 forehead rest bar 6 curved/indented to rest user’s head – mounted to at least members 6/15 [0051-0052] [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a head bar mounted on the horizontal member, the head bar configured to support a user's head as taught by ABU-AKEEL into the system of HASSAN because of the benefit taught by ABU-AKEEL to extend comfort to a target user which increases likelihood of successful image capture/tracking which benefits the eye-tracking image capturing system of HASSAN
As per Claim 5 HASSAN discloses The surgical robotic surgeon console of claim 4, wherein
HASSAN does not disclose but ABU-AKEEL discloses the head bar includes an indentation therein to receive a user's forehead (Fig. 4 forehead rest bar 6 curved/indented to rest user’s head [0051-0052] [0069]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 4 applies equally to Claim 5).
As per Claim 6 HASSAN discloses The surgical robotic surgeon console of claim 4, wherein HASSAN does not disclose but ABU-AKEEL discloses the head bar is moveable from an engaged position to a retracted position (Figs. 4-5 whereby Fig. 5 is retracted position [0036-0037] [0046-0052] [0069]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 4 applies equally to Claim 6).
As per Claim 12 HASSAN discloses The surgical robotic surgeon console claim 1, further comprising
HASSAN does not disclose but ABU-AKEEL discloses at least one camera for imaging at least a portion of the user's head to determine a position of the user's head relative to the head bar or relative to the display (Figs. 4-12 camera 14 relative to head bar [0064-0071]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 4 applies equally to Claim 12).
As per Claim 13 HASSAN discloses The surgical robotic surgeon console claim 12, wherein
HASSAN does not disclose but ABU-AKEEL discloses the at least one camera is mounted on or incorporated into the display, the horizontal bar, or the head support (Figs. 4-12 camera 14 incorporated in head support [0036-0037] [0046-0052] [0064-0071]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 4 applies equally to Claim 13).
As per Claim 16 HASSAN discloses The surgical robotic surgeon console of claim 15, wherein
HASSAN does not disclose but ABU-AKEEL discloses the alert comprises an audible alert, a visible alert, an on-display alert, or deactivation (Figs. 1-12 deactivation withdraw of tool if improper procedures [0021] [0068-0069]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 4 applies equally to Claim 16).
As per Claim 17 HASSAN discloses The surgical robotic surgeon console of claim 1, further comprising
HASSAN does not disclose but ABU-AKEEL discloses a seat positionable at a location relative to the display, the console frame, or both (Figs. 1-12 seat chair 102 [0046] [0057] [0068-0069]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 4 applies equally to Claim 17).
As per Claim 18 HASSAN discloses The surgical robotic surgeon console of claim 17, wherein
HASSAN does not disclose but ABU-AKEEL discloses the location of the seat is adjustable for different physical characteristics of a user (Figs. 1-12 seat chair 102 adjustable [0057] [0062] [0068-0069]) and the surgical visualization system is configured for the seat to be secured a different locations corresponding to physical characteristics of different users (Figs. 1-12 [0057] [0062] [0068-0069]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 4 applies equally to Claim 18).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HASSAN (Pub. No: US 2021-0401527) in view of ABU-AKEEL et al. (US Pub. No: 2019-0239969), as applied in Claims 4-6, 12-13, 16-18, and further in view of SPIER (US Pub. No.: 2016-0000606).
As per Claim 7 HASSAN discloses The surgical robotic surgeon console of claim 4,
HASSAN does not disclose but ABU-AKEEL discloses wherein the head bar and the horizontal member have widths (Fig. 4 [0018] [0048-0052] [0069]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 4 applies equally to Claim 7)
HASSAN and ABU-AKEEL do not disclose but SPIER discloses widths configured to maintain, at least, lateral peripheral sight lines of a user during use (Fig. 2 204/206 [0020] [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include widths configured to maintain, at least, lateral peripheral sight lines of a user during use as taught by SPIER into the system of HASSAN and ABU-AKEEL because of the benefit taught by SPIER to maintain a consistent control of an operator’s gaze to ensure maintaining proper eye focusing during image capture and tracking features which complements both systems of HASSAN and ABU-AKEEL directed towards image capture and eye-tracking surgical systems.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HASSAN (Pub. No: US 2021-0401527) in view of YEUYNG et al. (US Pub. No.: 2013-0289579).
As per Claim 8 HASSAN discloses The surgical robotic surgeon console of claim 1, wherein
HASSAN does not disclose but YEUYNG discloses the horizontal member is configured to block at least a portion of ambient or overhead light from striking the display (Fig. 4 shelter 122 [0061-0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the horizontal member is configured to block at least a portion of ambient or overhead light from striking the display as taught by YEUYNG into the system of HASSAN because of the benefit taught by YEUYNG to provide a mechanism for blocking light that could interfere with display feedback which benefits the visualization system of HASSAN which relies upon display feedback data for an operator.
Claims 20-21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HASSAN (Pub. No: US 2021-0401527) in view of SHIMADA (US Pub. No.: 2019-035682).
As per Claim 20 HASSAN discloses A method of controlling a surgical robotic system comprising (Figs. 1-4, 11-16, 20-21 [0010] [0053] [0092-0093] [0110] [0164-0165]):
tracking movement of one or more eyes of a user using an eye-tracking camera (Figs. 1-4, 11-16, 20-21 at least user input from gaze [0010] [0053] [0092-0093] [0110] [0164-0168]);
receiving live gaze location information from the eye-tracking camera based upon the tracking of the movement of one or more eyes of the user (Figs. 1-4, 11-16, 20-21 [0053] [0092-0093] [0110] [0164-0168]);
HASSAN does not disclose but SHIMADA discloses setting an adjusted autofocus depth of a camera based at least in part on the live gaze location information (Figs. 1-5 [Abstract] [0012-0013] [0017-0018] [0022-0024] [0033-0038]); and presenting an image from the camera based at least in part on the adjusted autofocus depth on the display (Figs. 1-5 [Abstract] [0012-0013] [0017-0018] [0022-0024] [0033-0038])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include setting an adjusted autofocus depth of a camera based at least in part on the live gaze location information; and presenting an image from the camera based at least in part on the adjusted autofocus depth on the display as taught by SHIMADA into the system of HASSAN because of the benefit taught by SHIUMADA for better display feedback by allowing for depth adjustments for the autostereoscopic display of HASSAN to improve upon system display and feedback.
As per Claim 21 HASSAN discloses The method of claim 20, wherein
live gaze and live depth-map (Figs. 1-4, 11-16, 20-21 gaze [Abstract] [0010] [0053] [0092-0093] [0110] [0164-0165])
HASSAN does not disclose but SHIMADA discloses the setting the adjusted autofocus depth of the camera comprises pairing the gaze information with depth-map information generated at least in part from camera data (Figs. 1-5 [Abstract] [0012-0013] [0017-0018] [0022-0024] [0033-0038]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 20 applies equally to Claim 21)
As per Claim 23 HASSAN discloses The method of claim 20, wherein the display is an autostereoscopic display (Figs. 1-4 viewer 202 [0132]).
Allowable Subject Matter
REASON FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 9-11, 22 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9-11, 22 is/are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 9 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The surgical robotic surgeon console of claim 4, further comprising one or more sensors for sensing a position of a user's head relative to the head bar” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 10 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The surgical robotic surgeon console of claim 9, wherein at least one of the one or more sensors is positioned on the head bar” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 11 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The surgical robotic surgeon console of claim 10, wherein the at least one of the one or more sensors is selected from a pressure sensor, a contact sensor, an electrical sensor, a photoelectrical sensor, a light beam and detector sensor, a proximity sensor, or a camera” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 22 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 20, further comprising: storing an indication of the live gaze location information; mapping the live gaze location information to information of one or more of: the display, the camera, a robotic arm of the surgical robotic system, and a patient; providing the data for local or remote collection” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record HASSAN (Pub. No: US 2021-0401527) for Claims 9-11, 22 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. HASSAN only discloses a surgical robotic surgeon console comprising a console frame and a display mounted on the console frame. The prior art further includes a horizontal positioning member connected to the console frame, the horizontal member extending outwardly from the console frame and positioned above the display and a sensor.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EILEEN M ADAMS whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
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 any 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.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights