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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein. Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 14, 16, and 18 are amended.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the Non-Final rejection dated 16 March 2026.
All claim objections from the prior office action are withdrawn.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 from the prior office action are withdrawn.
The claims continue to have interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Applicant has not presented a sufficient showing that the currently presented claim limitations (see the list below, updated per amendments) recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the prior office action are updated below due to amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments, filed 16 June 2026, regarding the prior art rejections from the prior office action have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments regarding the newly amended limitations of Claim 1 are not persuasive. There is no interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) required for “holder” in Claim 1; therefore, in U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0071047 (Suzuki et al., hereinafter, Suzuki), the vibration detection module 10 that holds a first vibration sensor 120 and a second vibration sensor 130 is a “holder”. Since Suzuki discloses “Alternatively, the vibration detection module 10 may be covered with a drape when surgery is performed. In this case, since it is unnecessary to perform special sterilization treatment on the vibration detection module 10 itself, it is possible to further decrease a load of the sterilization treatment task” (see at least [0079]), Suzuki discloses the amended limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art knows the drape is somehow attached and “separator” is not a term of the art / a specific option for attachment. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if it is unnecessary to sterilize the vibration detection module, that it must be not be on the “clean” side of the drape (separator) and must be on the “dirty” side. One of ordinary skill in the art knows that the operating portion of forceps are always on the “clean” side of the drape. Applicant’s argument, with respect to dependent Claim 7, has been considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The changes to the rejection of Claim 7 were necessitated by amendments to the claims.
Claim Interpretation
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) 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:
Operation device configured to (Claim 1, Claim 9, Claim 18)
Tactile sensation device…configured to (Claim 1)
Holder is configured to (Claim 6)
Separator configured to (Claim 1, Claim 9, Claim 18)
Propagation member configured to (Claim 7) / propagation member transmits (Claim 16)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The operation device is a hand-held object including an actuator that provides haptic feedback (see at least [0049] and FIG. 3), or the like.
The tactile sensation device is a voice coil motor (see at least [0025]), or the like.
Holder is interpreted to be the robot, or the like.
The separator is reference number 76 in FIG. 7-9; however, no definite structure was found (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below).
The propagation member is urethane rubber or fluororubber (see at least [0042]), or the like.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6: “a forceps” was already introduced in Claim 1.
Claim 7: “transmit sound more easily than air” should be reworded for clarity.
Claim 16: “transmits sound more easily than air” should be reworded for clarity.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
Claims 1-20 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 regards as the invention. Claim limitation “separator” (in Claims 1, 9, and 18) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “Separator” is reference number 76 in FIG. 7-9; however, no definite structure was found to determine the meets and bounds of this limitation. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will assume any structure that meets the functional limitation will read on the claim.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0310257 (Kuchenbecker et al., hereinafter, Kuchenbecker).
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki discloses A remote operation system (see at least FIG. 5) comprising:
an operation device configured to remotely operate a surgical tool that acts on an object (see at least [0088]-[0090] and [0094]: input unit 221 provides instructions for forceps);
a microphone configured to detect sound caused by contact of the object with the surgical tool (see at least [0042], [0055], and [0096]: “The vibration detection module 10 is attached to a proximal end side (that is, a side connected to the arm portion 303) of the forceps 301 and detects vibration generated in the forceps 301 at a distal end side relative to the attachment position of the vibration detection module 10, that is, at a portion that approaches or comes into contact with body tissues of the patient. For example, the vibration detection module 10 can detect vibration generated in the forceps 301 when the forceps 301 inserted into the body cavity of the patient comes into contact with body tissues in the body cavity. In this manner, according to the present embodiment, a contact state of the forceps 301 in the body cavity and body tissues may be detected by the vibration detection module 10 installed outside the body cavity”; “The first vibration sensor 120 is, for example, a microphone, and is arranged in the housing 110 such that a sound collection unit of the first vibration sensor 120 comes into contact with the forceps 301 when the housing 110 is attached to the forceps 301. The first vibration sensor 120 can detect sound (for example, sound when the end effector of the forceps 301 grips body tissues of the patient) that has been generated in a distal end side of the forceps 301 and then transmitted into the forceps 301”; “The first vibration sensor 120 is, for example, a condenser microphone, and detects auditory vibration (that is, sound) generated in the forceps”);
a separator configured to separate a holder in a dirty area from a forceps in a clean area (see at least [0079]: “Alternatively, the vibration detection module 10 may be covered with a drape when surgery is performed. In this case, since it is unnecessary to perform special sterilization treatment on the vibration detection module 10 itself, it is possible to further decrease a load of the sterilization treatment task”; The vibration detection module 10 of Suzuki can be considered the “holder” and the drape / system holding the drape (not disclosed but implicit) of Suzuki can be considered the “separator”; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if it is unnecessary to sterilize the vibration detection module, that it must be not be on the “clean” side of the drape and must be on the “dirty” side; one of ordinary skill in the art knows that the operating portion of forceps are always on the “clean” side of the drape for surgery);
a tactile sensation device provided in the operation device and configured to generate a tactile sensation (see at least [0098]: “a tactile vibration presentation unit 225 including a vibration element, for example, a voice coil”); and
computing circuitry (see at least FIG. 5: control system 230 and vibration transmission unit 240) configured to calculate a tactile sensation operation based on an input (see at least [0059] and [0097]: “A signal indicating auditory vibration detected by the first vibration sensor 120 and a signal indicating tactile vibration detected by the second vibration sensor 130 are transmitted to a circuit board configured to perform various types of signal processing such as amplification and filtering on such signals using a cable 150. The signal that underwent various types of signal processing in the circuit board is transmitted to a vibration presentation unit (not illustrated) in a hand of the surgeon who manipulates the forceps 301 and the arm portion 303. Auditory vibration detected by the first vibration sensor 120 and tactile vibration detected by the second vibration sensor 130 are transmitted to the surgeon by the vibration presentation unit”) and control the tactile sensation device to generate tactile sensation… (see at least [0059] and [0097]: “A signal indicating auditory vibration detected by the first vibration sensor 120 and a signal indicating tactile vibration detected by the second vibration sensor 130 are transmitted to a circuit board configured to perform various types of signal processing such as amplification and filtering on such signals using a cable 150. The signal that underwent various types of signal processing in the circuit board is transmitted to a vibration presentation unit (not illustrated) in a hand of the surgeon who manipulates the forceps 301 and the arm portion 303. Auditory vibration detected by the first vibration sensor 120 and tactile vibration detected by the second vibration sensor 130 are transmitted to the surgeon by the vibration presentation unit.”),
wherein the microphone is provided on the holder and is configured to detect sound propagating through the separator (see at least [0052], [0055], [0079], and FIG. 2: first vibration sensor 120 can be a microphone and is on vibration detection module 10, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when covered with a drape sound would propagate through).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose computing circuitry configured to calculate a tactile sensation operation based on the sound and control the tactile sensation device to generate the tactile sensation according to the tactile sensation operation.
Kuchenbecker, in the same field of surgical robotics, and therefore analogous art, teaches computing circuitry configured to calculate a tactile sensation operation based on the sound and control the tactile sensation device to generate the tactile sensation according to the tactile sensation operation (see at least [0067], [0076], and FIG. 4: “As set forth above, sensor 102 may also be an audio sensor, e.g., a microphone. Controller 106 may desirably transmit audio signals directly from sensors 102 to actuators 104 with additional processing”).
Combining the teachings of Kuchenbecker (specifically, an actuator provides vibration to a surgeon corresponding to the sound data picked up through a microphone) with Suzuki would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of providing vibration feedback to assist with completing very precise movements during surgery (see at least [0004]).
Regarding Claim 2, the Suzuki and Kuchenbecker combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Kuchenbecker teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein the tactile sensation device includes an actuator that is driven in accordance with the sound detected by the microphone (see at least [0067], [0076], and FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 4, the Suzuki and Kuchenbecker combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Suzuki further discloses wherein the microphone is provided near a contact position at which the object and the surgical tool come in contact with each other (see at least FIG. 1, FIG. 4, and FIG. 6: first vibration sensor 120 is in vibration detection module 10, which is near operating end of support arm device 400).
Regarding Claim 5, the Suzuki and Kuchenbecker combination teaches Claim 4. Furthermore, Suzuki further discloses wherein the microphone is capable of collecting sound at least within a range of 50 Hz to 1000 Hz (see at least [0055]: “For example, the first vibration sensor 120 detects vibration of a frequency band corresponding to an audible range (for example, about 20 Hz to about 20 kHz) of a human”).
Regarding Claim 6, the Suzuki and Kuchenbecker combination teaches Claim 4. Furthermore, Suzuki further discloses wherein the surgical tool is a forceps (see at least [0088]-[0090] and [0094]). Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein the holder is configured to detachably hold the forceps. Furthermore, Kuchenbecker teaches a separator configured to separate a holder in a dirty area from a forceps in a clean area, the microphone is provided on the holder and is configured to detect sound propagating through the separator, wherein the holder is configured to detachably hold the forceps (see at least [0044], [0049], [0093]-[0094], FIG. 2B, and FIG. 5B: “Additionally, sensor 102 may be configured to be mounted in an area of the robotic surgery system that is outside of a sterile area. A robotic surgery system may have a sterile area corresponding to an area in which an operation will be performed on a patient. It may be desirable to mount sensor 102 outside of this sterile area in order to avoid having to sterilize sensor 102”; “FIG. 2B illustrates the exemplary sensor assembly mounted to a robotic armature of a robotic surgery system. Sensor mount 103 may affix sensor 102 to the robotic surgery system such that sensor 102 directly contacts an armature 110 of the surgery system. It may be desirable for sensor 102 to directly and/or rigidly contact the armature 110 in order to increase the transmission of vibrations from the surgical tool to sensor 102”; “In an exemplary embodiment, armatures 310 are configured to receive surgical tools 312. Surgical tools 312 may be any tools usable during a surgical procedure. Suitable surgical tools 312 will be known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Surgical tools 312 may be mounted to one or more armatures 310”).
Substituting the microphone placement on the holder (i.e., robot), as taught by Kuchenbecker, with Suzuki would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of easily adding the microphone to an existing surgical system in an area that is already draped.
Regarding Claim 7, the Suzuki and Kuchenbecker combination teaches Claim 6. Furthermore, Kuchenbecker further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 6) wherein a propagation member configured to transmit sound more easily than air is provided between the separator and the forceps (see at least [0049]-[0050]: “It may be desirable for sensor 102 to directly and/or rigidly contact the armature 110 in order to increase the transmission of vibrations from the surgical tool to sensor 102”; the direct contact with the armature indicates that there are portions of the armature that “transmit sound more easily than air”; many materials are provided that may be part of the system; the term “between” is broad and does not require a specific orientation the term separator can be interpreted to include the entire drape, the drape surrounds the robot arm, therefore anything on the robot arm is between the forceps and the separator).
Regarding Claim 8, the Suzuki and Kuchenbecker combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Suzuki further discloses further comprising: a master component that includes the operation device, the tactile sensation device, and the computing circuitry (see at least FIG. 5: input device 220 and control system 230, input device 220 includes input unit 221 and vibration presentation unit 223);
a slave component that includes the surgical tool and the microphone (see at least FIG. 5 and FIG. 6: support arm device 210 / support arm device 400),
wherein the master component is remotely connected to the slave component (see at least [0036]-[0039]: “the plurality of arm portions and medical instruments are controlled by the surgeon remotely through the input device such as a controller installed separately from the plurality of arm portions, and thus surgery is performed”).
Regarding Claim 9, for limitations that are substantially similar to limitations in Claim 1, reference the rejection of Claim 1. Additionally, Suzuki discloses an operation device configured to remotely operate a surgical tool (see at least [0088]-[0090] and [0094]: input unit 221 provides instructions for forceps); a microphone configured to detect sound caused by contact between the surgical tool and an object of a surgical operation (see at least [0055] and [0096]: “The first vibration sensor 120 is, for example, a microphone, and is arranged in the housing 110 such that a sound collection unit of the first vibration sensor 120 comes into contact with the forceps 301 when the housing 110 is attached to the forceps 301. The first vibration sensor 120 can detect sound (for example, sound when the end effector of the forceps 301 grips body tissues of the patient) that has been generated in a distal end side of the forceps 301 and then transmitted into the forceps 301”; “The first vibration sensor 120 is, for example, a condenser microphone, and detects auditory vibration (that is, sound) generated in the forceps”); an actuator configured to generate a tactile sensation (see at least FIG. 5: tactile vibration presentation unit 225).
Regarding Claim 10, the Suzuki and Kuchenbecker combination teaches Claim 9. Furthermore, Kuchenbecker teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein the actuator is driven in accordance with the sound (see at least [0067], [0076], and FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 11, the Suzuki and Kuchenbecker combination teaches Claim 9. Furthermore, Suzuki further discloses wherein the actuator is a voice coil motor (see at least [0098]: “a tactile vibration presentation unit 225 including a vibration element, for example, a voice coil”).
Regarding Claim 13, the Suzuki and Kuchenbecker combination teaches Claim 9. Furthermore, Suzuki further discloses wherein the microphone is provided near a contact position between the object and the surgical tool (see at least FIG. 1, FIG. 4, and FIG. 6: first vibration sensor 120 is in vibration detection module 10, which is near operating end of support arm device 400).
Regarding Claim 14, the Suzuki and Kuchenbecker combination teaches Claim 9. Furthermore, Suzuki further discloses wherein the microphone has a range of 50 Hz to 1000 Hz (see at least [0055]: “For example, the first vibration sensor 120 detects vibration of a frequency band corresponding to an audible range (for example, about 20 Hz to about 20 kHz) of a human”).
Regarding Claim 15, the Suzuki and Kuchenbecker combination teaches Claim 9. Furthermore, Suzuki further discloses wherein the surgical tool is a forceps, and the microphone detects the sound propagating through the forceps (see at least [0055]: “The first vibration sensor 120 can detect sound (for example, sound when the end effector of the forceps 301 grips body tissues of the patient) that has been generated in a distal end side of the forceps 301 and then transmitted into the forceps 301”).
Regarding Claim 16, the Suzuki and Kuchenbecker combination teaches Claim 15. Furthermore, Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 7, and accordingly rejected for the same reasons as Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 17, the Suzuki and Kuchenbecker combination teaches Claim 9. Furthermore, Suzuki further discloses further comprising: a master component that includes the operation device, the actuator, and the computing circuitry (see at least FIG. 5: input device 220 and control system 230, input device 220 includes input unit 221 and vibration presentation unit 223);
a slave component that includes the surgical tool and the microphone (see at least FIG. 5 and FIG. 6: support arm device 210 / support arm device 400),
wherein the master component is remotely connected to the slave component (see rejection for Claim 8).
Regarding Claim 18, for limitations that are the substantially similar to limitations in Claim 1, reference the rejection of Claim 1. Additionally, Suzuki discloses an operation device configured to remotely operate a forceps (see at least [0088]-[0090] and [0094]: input unit 221 provides instructions for forceps); a microphone configured to detect sound that propagates through the forceps and that is caused by contact between the forceps and an object of a surgical operation (see at least [0055] and [0096]: “The first vibration sensor 120 is, for example, a microphone, and is arranged in the housing 110 such that a sound collection unit of the first vibration sensor 120 comes into contact with the forceps 301 when the housing 110 is attached to the forceps 301. The first vibration sensor 120 can detect sound (for example, sound when the end effector of the forceps 301 grips body tissues of the patient) that has been generated in a distal end side of the forceps 301 and then transmitted into the forceps 301”; “The first vibration sensor 120 is, for example, a condenser microphone, and detects auditory vibration (that is, sound) generated in the forceps”);
a voice coil motor configured to be driven based on an input to generate a tactile sensation (see at least [0100]: “In addition, the signal indicating tactile vibration detected by the second vibration sensor 130 is amplified by the pre-AMP 244, only a frequency component of a low frequency band is extracted by the LPF 245, and the frequency component of the low frequency band is amplified by the main AMP 246 and transmitted to the tactile vibration presentation unit 225 of the input device 220. When the voice coil of the tactile vibration presentation unit 225 vibrates according to a signal indicating tactile vibration that has been processed by the pre-AMP 244, the LPF 245 and the main AMP 246, tactile vibration generated in the medical instrument is transmitted to the surgeon.”).
Regarding Claim 20, the Suzuki and Kuchenbecker combination teaches Claim 18. Furthermore, Suzuki further discloses further comprising:
a master component that includes the operation device, the voice coil motor, and the computing circuitry (see at least FIG. 5: input device 220 and control system 230, input device 220 includes input unit 221 and vibration presentation unit 223);
a slave component that includes the forceps and the microphone (see at least FIG. 5 and FIG. 6: support arm device 210 / support arm device 400),
wherein the master component is remotely connected to the slave component (see rejection for Claim 8).
Claims 3, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Kuchenbecker in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0183216 (Suzuki and Horie, hereinafter, Horie).
Regarding Claim 3, the Suzuki and Kuchenbecker combination teaches Claim 2. Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein the actuator is a voice coil motor capable of vibrating at least within a range of 200 Hz to 400 Hz.
Horie, in the same field of surgical robotics, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein the actuator is a voice coil motor capable of vibrating at least within a range of 200 Hz to 400 Hz (see at least [0109]: “Specifically, in the case where VCM is used for the vibration device, 30 Hz to 700 Hz may be set for the predetermined range”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to substitute a voice coil motor with a specific operation range of Horie with the generic voice coil motor of Suzuki so that the operator can perform precise operations without the accuracy being impacted (see at least Horie [0109]).
Regarding Claim 12, the Suzuki and Kuchenbecker combination teaches Claim 11. The limitation wherein the voice coil motor has a vibrating range of 200 Hz to 400 Hz is substantially similar a limitation in Claim 3, and accordingly rejected for the same reasons as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 19, the Suzuki and Kuchenbecker combination teaches Claim 18. Furthermore, Suzuki discloses the microphone has a range of 50 Hz to 1000 Hz (see at least [0055]: “For example, the first vibration sensor 120 detects vibration of a frequency band corresponding to an audible range (for example, about 20 Hz to about 20 kHz) of a human”). Additionally, the limitation wherein the voice coil motor has a vibrating range of 200 Hz to 400 Hz is substantially similar a limitation in Claim 3, and accordingly rejected for the same reasons as Claim 3.
Conclusion
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 ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights