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.
Domestic Benefit
This Applicant is a continuation of PCT/JP2022/019244 filed 28 April 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 October 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 that (Claim 1, Claim 9, Claim 18)
Device that (Claim 1)
Tactile sensation device that (Claim 1)
Main unit that (Claim 6)
Separator that (Claim 7, Claim 16)
Propagation member that (Claim 7)
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 device is a forceps (see at least [0028]), or the like.
The tactile sensation device is a voice coil motor (see at least [0025]), or the like.
The main unit is reference number 74 in FIG. 7-9; however, no definite structure was found (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below).
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 14: “herein” should be “wherein”.
Portions of the claims are not further limiting due to the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), for example, (Claim 4 includes “wherein the device is a surgical tool that is used for a surgical operation” and Claim 6 includes “wherein the surgical tool is a forceps”, neither of these is further limiting in view of the claim interpretations). No rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for the claims is issued since these claims contain other portions that are further narrowing, but Examiner objects to the unnecessary / redundant language.
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 6-7 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 “main unit” (in Claim 6) 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. “Main unit” is reference number 74 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.
Claims 7 and 16 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 Claim 7 and 16) 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are directed to systems. Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract idea (specifically mental process) in independent Claims 1 is “calculates an operation associated with the tactile sensation, based on sound”. There are similar limitations in independent Claims 9 and 18. Since calculating an operation can be completed in the human mind, each claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The additional elements in Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are as follows:
A remote operation system (Claims 1, 9, and 18)
an operation device that remotely operates a device that acts on an object (Claim 1) / the device is a surgical tool that is used for a surgical operation (Claim 4) / the surgical tool is a forceps (Claim 6) / an operation device that remotely operates a surgical tool (Claim 9) / the surgical tool is a forceps (Claim 15) / the forceps is provided in a clean area (Claim 16) / an operation device that remotely operates a forceps (Claim 18)
a microphone that detects sound caused by contact of the object with the device (Claim 1) / the microphone is provided near a contact position at which the object and the surgical tool come in contact with each other (Claim 4) / the microphone is capable of collecting sound at least within a range of 50 Hz to 1000 Hz (Claim 5) / the microphone is provided on a main unit that detachably holds the forceps, and detects sound propagating through the forceps (Claim 6) / a microphone that detects sound caused by contact between the surgical tool and an object of a surgical operation (Claim 9) / the microphone is provided near a contact position between the object and the surgical tool (Claim 13) / the microphone has a range of 50 Hz to 1000 Hz (Claim 14) / the microphone detects the sound propagating through the forceps (Claim 15) / a microphone that detects sound that propagates through the forceps and that is caused by contact between the forceps and an object of a surgical operation (Claim 18) / the microphone has a range of 50 Hz to 1000 Hz (Claim 19)
a tactile sensation device that is provided in the operation device and generates a tactile sensation (Claim 1) / the tactile sensation device includes an actuator that is driven in accordance with the sound detected by the microphone (Claim 2) / the actuator is a voice coil motor capable of vibrating at least within a range of 200 Hz to 400 Hz (Claim 3) / an actuator that generates a tactile sensation (Claim 9) / the actuator is a voice coil motor (Claim 11) / the voice coil motor has a vibrating range of 200 Hz to 400 Hz (Claim 12) / a voice coil motor that is driven based on the sound to generate a tactile sensation (Claim 18) / the voice coil motor has a vibrating range of 200 Hz to 400 Hz (Claim 19)
computing circuitry (Claims 1, 9, and 18)
a separator that separates the main unit in a dirty area from the forceps in a clean area (Claim 7) / a separator that separates the main unit in the dirty area from the forceps in the clean area (Claim 16)
a propagation member that transmits sound more easily than air is provided between the separator and the forceps (Claim 7) / a propagation member disposed between the separator and the forceps (Claim 16) / the propagation member transmits sound more easily than air (Claim 16)
a master component that includes the operation device, the tactile sensation device, and the computing circuitry (Claim 8) / a slave component that includes the device and the microphone (Claim 8) / the master component is remotely connected to the slave component (Claims 8, 17, and 20) / a master component that includes the operation device, the actuator, and the computing circuitry (Claim 17) / a slave component that includes the surgical tool and the microphone (Claim 17) / a master component that includes the operation device, the voice coil motor, and the computing circuitry (Claim 20) / a slave component that includes the forceps and the microphone (Claim 20)
a main unit provided in a dirty area (Claim 16)
Step 2A Prong 1: the additional elements, individually and in combination, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application: additional elements a, b, c, d, f, g, h, and i merely link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); additional element e merely applies the abstract idea to generic computing components (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: the additional elements, individually and in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Office takes Official Notice they are well-understood, routing, and conventional activity previously known to industry, specified at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claim 10 recites a discrete control step (“the actuator is driven in accordance with the sound”), and therefore overcomes this rejection. If Claim 10 was incorporated into the independent claims, then the rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 would be withdrawn.
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, 4-5, 8-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0071047 (Suzuki et al., hereinafter, Suzuki).
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki discloses A remote operation system (see at least FIG. 5) comprising:
an operation device that remotely operates a device that acts on an object (see at least [0088]-[0090] and [0094]: input unit 221 provides instructions for forceps);
a microphone that detects sound caused by contact of the object with the device (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 tactile sensation device that is provided in the operation device and generates 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)
that calculates an operation associated with the tactile sensation 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.”) / that calculates an operation…based on the sound (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.”).
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 try to transmit the sound information picked up by the microphone to tactile information for the operator (i.e., …based on an input is …based on the sound) because “Auditory vibration and tactile vibration may be presented to the surgeon by various methods that may be generally assumed as a method of transmitting vibration” (see at least [0144]) and there are a finite number of ways to transmit information to operators (primarily the senses: sight, sound, smell, taste, touch), and presenting information through touch is known (and disclosed in Suzuki), and Suzuki discloses converting from one input sense to another (see at least [145]: “the vibration presentation unit may include a display device configured to visually notify of information (for example, information indicating a characteristic such as a frequency) about detected auditory vibration and tactile vibration of the surgeon by text, a graph (waveform) and/or a color”; converting inputs to visual cues). Furthermore, one would be motivated to convert the sound data from the microphone data to touch for situations where sound data could not be easily perceived by the surgeon (e.g., operations with multiple surgeons and therefore a larger amount of background noise so sound data would not be easily perceived by the surgeon).
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations of Claim 1 are obvious in view of Suzuki. Furthermore, Suzuki further discloses wherein the tactile sensation device includes an actuator that is driven in accordance with the input (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.”). Additionally, 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 try the input is the sound detected by the microphone with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1 (i.e., there are a finite number of ways to transmit sound data to an operator one of which is touch).
Regarding Claim 4, the limitations of Claim 1 are obvious in view of Suzuki. Furthermore, Suzuki discloses wherein the device is a surgical tool that is used for a surgical operation (see at least FIG. 1: forceps 301), and 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 limitations of Claim 4 are obvious in view of Suzuki. Furthermore, Suzuki 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 8, the limitations of Claim 4 are obvious in view of Suzuki. Furthermore, Suzuki 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 device 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 that remotely operates a surgical tool (see at least [0088]-[0090] and [0094]: input unit 221 provides instructions for forceps); a microphone that detects 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 that generates a tactile sensation (see at least FIG. 5: tactile vibration presentation unit 225).
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations of Claim 9 are obvious in view of Suzuki. Furthermore, Suzuki further discloses wherein the actuator is driven in accordance with the input (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.”). Additionally, 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 try the input is the sound with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1 (i.e., there are a finite number of ways to transmit sound data to an operator one of which is touch).
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations of Claim 9 are obvious in view of Suzuki. 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 limitations of Claim 9 are obvious in view of Suzuki. Furthermore, Suzuki 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 limitations of Claim 9 are obvious in view of Suzuki. Furthermore, Suzuki discloses herein 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 limitations of Claim 9 are obvious in view of Suzuki. Furthermore, Suzuki 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 limitations of Claim 15 are obvious in view of Suzuki. Furthermore, Suzuki discloses wherein the forceps is provided in a clean area (see at least [0079]: “the vibration detection module 10 may be covered with a drape when surgery is performed”; the forceps are on the clean side of the drape), and wherein the remote operation system further comprises:
a main unit provided in a dirty area (see at least [0079]: “the vibration detection module 10 may be covered with a drape when surgery is performed”; the vibration detection module 10 is on the dirty side of the drape, and therefore, so is arm portion 303);
a separator that separates the main unit in the dirty area from the forceps in the clean area (see at least [0079]: “the vibration detection module 10 may be covered with a drape when surgery is performed”; the drape is held in place by the separator; the vibration detection module 10 is on the dirty side of the drape, and therefore, so is arm portion 303) and a propagation member disposed between the separator and the forceps, wherein the propagation member transmits sound more easily than air (see at least [0053] and FIG. 3: “the sealing member 140 is made of a soft material such as rubber”; the sealing member would be between the separator that is holding the drape and the portion of the forceps within the vibration unit).
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations of Claim 9 are obvious in view of Suzuki. Furthermore, Suzuki 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 that remotely operates a forceps (see at least [0088]-[0090] and [0094]: input unit 221 provides instructions for forceps); a microphone that detects 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 that is 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.”). Additionally, 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 try an input is the sound with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1 (i.e., there are a finite number of ways to transmit sound data to an operator one of which is touch).
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations of Claim 18 are obvious in view of Suzuki. 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 U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0183216 (Suzuki and Horie, hereinafter, Horie).
Regarding Claim 3, the limitations of Claim 2 are obvious in view of Suzuki. 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 limitations of Claim 11 are obvious in view of Suzuki. 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 limitations of Claim 18 are obvious in view of Suzuki. 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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0352665 (Itotani et al., hereinafter, Itotani).
Regarding Claim 6, the limitations of Claim 4 are obvious in view of Suzuki. Furthermore, Suzuki discloses wherein the surgical tool is a forceps (see at least FIG. 1: forceps 301), and wherein the microphone … detects 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”).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose the microphone is provided on a main unit that detachably holds the forceps.
Itotani, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, teaches the microphone is provided on a main unit that detachably holds the forceps (see at least [0028], [0036], [0043], and [0050]: “It is to be noted that the places where each of the above-described various sensors are installed at the front end part 140 are not limited in particular, but the various sensors may be installed in any places at the front end part 140. For example, the vibration sensor and the distance measuring sensor may be installed at the contact part 142 of the front end part 140. Alternatively, the vibration sensor and the distance measuring sensor may be installed in places other than the contact part 142 of the front end part 140”; “Examples of the vibration sensor include an acceleration sensor, a microphone, and the like”; “contact part 142 (i.e., medical instrument)”; “a medical instrument such as forceps”).
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 make the simple substitution of the location of the microphone of Suzuki and because Itotani teaches that the location may be anywhere on the arm, and Suzuki teaches the benefit of the location explicitly disclosed is removing for sterilization, but also that a drape is an alternative solution to maintaining a sterile environment, and in that case one of ordinary skill would be motivated to reduce the number of components, and combine the microphone with the existing component that holds the medical instrument (see at least Suzuki [0079] and Itotani [0036]).
Regarding Claim 7, the limitations of Claim 6 are obvious in view of the Suzuki and Itotani combination. Furthermore, Suzuki further discloses further comprising: a separator that separates the main unit in a dirty area from the forceps in a clean area (see at least [0079]: “the vibration detection module 10 may be covered with a drape when surgery is performed”; the drape is held in place by the separator; the vibration detection module 10 is on the dirty side of the drape, and therefore, so is arm portion 303), wherein a propagation member that transmits sound more easily than air is provided between the separator and the forceps (see at least [0053] and FIG. 3: “the sealing member 140 is made of a soft material such as rubber”; the sealing member would be between the separator that is holding the drape and the portion of the forceps within the vibration unit).
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited: U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0395344 which teaches use of audio sensors during surgical procedures.
Conclusion
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