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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15- 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 29th, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, Line 2 states “during teleoperation mode”, it is suggested to change this to “during the teleoperation mode”.
Claim 14, Line 1 states “wherein disengaged mode”, it is suggested to change this to “wherein the disengaged mode”.
Claim 14, Lines 2 and 3 state “wherein pause mode”, it is suggested to change this to “wherein the pause mode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1- 5 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klingbeil et al. (US 2020/0352663).
Regarding claim 1, Klingbeil (Klingbeil et al.) teaches a robotic surgical system (1)(abstract)(Figs. 1-6B), comprising:
a robotic grasper (surgical tool 7) having a first jaw (jaw 1) movably secured relative to a second jaw (jaw 2)(Paragraphs 0022 and 0028);
a user interface device (UID)(14) comprising a first finger pad and an opposing, second finger pad (see annotated Fig. 2A below)(Paragraph 0034); and
one or more processors (42) communicatively coupled to the UID and the robotic grasper and configured to control operation of the robotic grasper in accordance with user input from the UID while a teleoperation mode is engaged (Paragraph 0036), prevent the UID from controlling the robotic grasper while the system is in a non- teleoperation mode (Paragraphs 0031, 0038, 0039, and 0042), and perform the following operations while the system is in the non-teleoperation mode:
(i) receive a synchronization sequence of detected user actions through the UID (Paragraph 0049), wherein the synchronization sequences includes:
(A) a first closing action on the first and second finger pads (Paragraphs 0031 and 0049), and
(B) an opening action on the first and second finger pads occurring after the first closing action (Paragraphs 0031 and 0049), and
(ii) determine that, as a result of the synchronization sequence, that the UID is now in a matched relationship with the first and second jaws of the robotic grasper (Paragraph 0049), and then
(iii) transition the robotic surgical system into the teleoperation mode (Paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 2, Klingbeil teaches the robotic surgical system as discussed above.
Klingbeil further teaches wherein when the first closing action occurs, the first and second jaws of the robotic grasper remain in a partially opened state (Paragraphs 0043, 0049 and 0052)(see Figs. 4A and 4B).
Regarding claim 3, Klingbeil teaches the robotic surgical system as discussed above.
Klingbeil further teaches wherein when the opening action occurs after the first closing action, the first and second jaws of the robotic grasper enter into an opened state (Paragraphs 0043, 0049 and 0052)(see Figs. 4A and 4B).
Regarding claim 4, Klingbeil teaches the robotic surgical system as discussed above.
Klingbeil further teaches wherein the first closing action on the first and second finger pads needs to move past a pre-defined closing threshold in order to meet a first requirement of the synchronization sequence (Paragraphs 0033 and 0049).
Regarding claim 5, Klingbeil teaches the robotic surgical system as discussed above.
Klingbeil further teaches wherein the opening action on the first and second finger pads needs to move past a pre-defined opening threshold in order to meet a second requirement of the synchronization sequence (Paragraphs 0033 and 0049).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Klingbeil teaches the robotic surgical system as discussed above.
Klingbeil further teaches wherein the non-teleoperation mode includes one of a disengaged mode or a pause mode (Paragraphs 0050, 0051, and 0053) and wherein the disengaged mode is when the UID is disengaged from controlling the robotic grasper prior to a teleoperation session (Paragraphs 0049 and 0053); and wherein the pause mode is when the UID is disengaged from controlling the robotic grasper to pause the teleoperation session (Paragraph 0050).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6- 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingbeil et al. (US 2020/0352663) in view of Delinger et al. (US 2020/0289217).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Klingbeil teaches the robotic surgical system as discussed above.
Klingbeil does not teach the UID further comprising a first loop in a spatial relationship with the first finger pad and a second loop in a spatial relationship with the second finger pad or wherein the opening action on the first and second finger pads occurs by applying an upward pressure to both the first loop and the second loop.
Delinger (Delinger et al.) teaches a similar robotic surgical system (110)(abstract and Paragraph 0111)(Figs. 1- 12) comprising: a robotic grasper (1050) having a first jaw movably secured relative to a second jaw (see annotated Fig. 12 below)(Paragraphs 0134 and 0157); a user interface device (UID) (end effector actuator1020)(Paragraph 0154) comprising a first finger pad with a first loop in a spatial relationship with the first finger pad (see annotated Fig. 11 below) and an opposing second finger pad with a second loop (1030) in a spatial relationship with the second finger pad (see annotated Fig. 11 below)(Paragraph 0155); and one or more processors (1402) communicatively coupled to the UID and the robotic grasper and configured to control operation of the robotic grasper in accordance with user input from the UID while a teleoperation mode is engaged, prevent the UID from controlling the robotic grasper while the system is in a non- teleoperation mode (Paragraphs 0149, 0164 and 0192), wherein there is an opening action occurs by applying an upward pressure to both the first loop and the second loop (Paragraphs 0154 and 0155).
PNG
media_image1.png
343
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
565
936
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the UID as taught by Klingbeil, since Klingbeil teaches that other UIDs can be used with the system (Paragraph 0034) and Delinger teaches a known UID in the art (Paragraphs 0154 and 0155).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Klingbeil teaches the robotic surgical system as discussed above.
Klingbeil does not teach wherein the robotic grasper is configured to fire one or more implements or wherein the one or more implements are selected from the group consisting of one or more clips or one or more staples.
Delinger (Delinger et al.) teaches a similar robotic surgical system (110)(abstract and Paragraph 0111)(Figs. 1- 12) comprising: a robotic grasper (502) having a first jaw movably secured relative to a second jaw (Paragraph 0203) wherein the robotic grasper is configured to fire one or more implements and wherein the one or more implements are one or more staples or one or more clips (Paragraph 0203); a user interface device (UID) (end effector actuator 1020)(Paragraph 0154) comprising a first finger pad and an opposing second finger pad (see annotated Fig. 11 below)(Paragraph 0155); and one or more processors (1402) communicatively coupled to the UID and the robotic grasper and configured to control operation of the robotic grasper in accordance with user input from the UID while a teleoperation mode is engaged, prevent the UID from controlling the robotic grasper while the system is in a non- teleoperation mode (Paragraphs 0149, 0164 and 0192), wherein there is an opening action occurs by applying an upward pressure to both the first loop and the second loop (Paragraphs 0154 and 0155).
PNG
media_image3.png
565
609
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the end effector of the robotic grasper as taught by Klingbeil to be a stapler as taught by Delinger, since Klingbeil teaches that the end effector of the robotic grasper can be any instrument within the art for executing a surgical procedure (Paragraphs 0022 and 0035) and Delinger teaches that a stapler is a known end effector for a robotic system and for executing a surgical procedure (Paragraph 0203).
Regarding claim 10, Klingbeil and Delinger make obvious the robotic surgical system as discussed above.
As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the end effector of the robotic grasper as taught by Klingbeil to be a stapler as taught by Delinger, since Klingbeil teaches that the end effector of the robotic grasper can be any instrument within the art for executing a surgical procedure (Paragraphs 0022 and 0035) and Delinger teaches that a stapler is a known end effector for a robotic system and for executing a surgical procedure (Paragraph 0203).
Regarding wherein when the first closing action on the first and second finger pads occurs, the one or more implements remain positioned within the robotic grasper in an inactivated state, as Klingbeil teaches that the robotic grasper does not move when the first closing action occurs (Paragraphs 0039 and 0049), then the implements of the combination would remain in an inactivated state since the system is not engaged.
Regarding claim 11, Klingbeil and Delinger make obvious the robotic surgical system as discussed above.
As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the end effector of the robotic grasper as taught by Klingbeil to be a stapler as taught by Delinger, since Klingbeil teaches that the end effector of the robotic grasper can be any instrument within the art for executing a surgical procedure (Paragraphs 0022 and 0035) and Delinger teaches that a stapler is a known end effector for a robotic system and for executing a surgical procedure (Paragraph 0203).
Regarding wherein when the opening action on the first and second finger pads occurs, the one or more implements enter an activated state, as Klingbeil teaches that after the opening action occurs, the system becomes engaged and activated (Paragraphs 0049 and 0061), then the implements would enter an activated state in accordance with the rest of the robotic system.
Regarding claim 12, Klingbeil and Delinger make obvious the robotic surgical system as discussed above.
As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the end effector of the robotic grasper as taught by Klingbeil to be a stapler as taught by Delinger, since Klingbeil teaches that the end effector of the robotic grasper can be any instrument within the art for executing a surgical procedure (Paragraphs 0022 and 0035) and Delinger teaches that a stapler is a known end effector for a robotic system and for executing a surgical procedure (Paragraph 0203).
Regarding wherein a second closing action on the first and second finger pads occurring during teleoperation mode will fire the one or more implements, as Klingbeil teaches that a second closing action can fully close the robotic grasper (Paragraphs 0028 and 0037) and as Delinger teaches that the implements can fire when closed (Paragraph 0327), then when a second closing action occurs, the robotic grasper of the combination will fire the one or more implements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY R. RIVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 272- 4696. 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.
/L.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /TAN-UYEN T HO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights