DETAILED ACTION
The following Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on April 30, 2026. Claims 2-11 and 13-22 are currently pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Concerning the “3. Response to the § 103 Rejections” section on page 7 of the Applicant’s Response filed on April 30, 2026, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-5, 9-10, 13, 16-18, and 20-22 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 2002/0091374) in view of Marquart et al. (US 2006/0058616, hereinafter Marquart) and Stahler et al. (US 2012/0071895, hereinafter Stahler).
Concerning claims 2 and 22, the Cooper prior art reference teaches a surgical system (Figure 1; 2), comprising: at least one electromechanical arm (Figure 3B; 42) selectively coupleable to a fixture (Figure 2; 34), the at least one electromechanical arm comprising one or more electromechanical joints configured to permit motion of the at least one electromechanical arm ([¶ 0039]) while preserving a remote center substantially in fixed space ([¶ 0029] | Figure 8; 45); an electromechanical tool supported by the at least one electromechanical arm (Figure 3AB; 20) to define an electromechanical arm and tool assembly (Figure 3AB; 4), wherein the electromechanical arm and tool assembly is able to move at a plurality of control points that are located on the electromechanical arm and tool assembly ([¶ 0026]); an input device configured to control movement of the electromechanical arm and tool assembly about at least one selected control point of the plurality of control points (Figure 1; C); and a user interface comprising a display (Figure 1; 10), but it does not specifically teach the display being operable to depict the electromechanical arm an tool assembly and to indicate the plurality of control points located on the electromechanical arm and tool assembly, or the user interface being operable to select the at least one selected control point among the plurality of control points and to associate the input device with at least one selected control point.
However, the Marquart reference teaches a surgical system including a trackable tool and trackable input device (Figure 1; 20, 30), wherein the tool includes a plurality of control points that are located on the tool ([¶ 0027]), an input device configured to control movement of the tool (Figure 1; 14), and a user interface comprising a display (Figure 1; 12), wherein the display is operable to depict the tool and indicate the plurality of control points associated with the device, wherein said control points may be indicated using buttons, which may be defined as icons ([¶ 0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the display of the Cooper reference be operable to depict the electromechanical arm and tool assembly and to indicate the plurality of control points located on the electromechanical and tool assembly as in the Marquart reference to allow the electromechanical arm and tool assembly and its control points to be properly tracked and selected by a user (Marquart; [¶ 0027]).
Furthermore, the Cooper reference teaches that the electromechanical tool may be any number of articulated tools or non-articulated tools, including catheters (Cooper; [¶ 0038]), while the Stahler reference teaches a robotic electromechanical catheter tool (Figure 1; 18) supported by an arm (Figure 1; 20) to define an electromechanical arm and tool assembly (Figure 1; A), wherein the electromechanical arm and tool assembly is able to move at a plurality of control points that are located on the electromechanical arm and tool assembly ([¶ 0453], individual segments of a multisegmented catheter defines a plurality of control points), an input device configured to control movement of the electromechanical arm and tool assembly about at least one selected control point of the plurality of control points (Figure 2; 12); and a user interface (Figure 2; 2) comprising a display (Figure 2; 5), wherein the user interface is operable to select the at least one selected control point from among the plurality of control points to associate the input device with the at least one selected control point ([¶ 0453]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the electromechanical tool of the Cooper reference be the robotic catheter instrument of the Stahler reference given the Cooper reference teaches that a robotic catheter is an appropriate tool to be used within the surgical system (Cooper; [¶ 0038]), and to further have the user interface of the system be operable to select at least one selected control point from among the plurality of control points to associate the input device with the at least one selected control point as in the Stahler reference to allow for many options of how to control the movement of the electromechanical arm and tool assembly, which would result in a more desirable tool performance (Stahler; [¶ 0453]).
Concerning claim 3, the combination of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler references teaches the surgical system of claim 2, wherein the Cooper reference further teaches the input device being a joystick, gloves, trigger-guns, or hand-operated controllers (Cooper; [¶ 0024]), which may be defined as handheld portable devices.
Concerning claim 4, the combination of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler references teaches the surgical system of claim 2, wherein the Stahler reference teaches that movement of the input device controls movement of the electromechanical arm and tool assembly about the at least one selected control point (Stahler; [¶ 0453]).
Concerning claim 5, the combination of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler references teaches the surgical system of claim 2, wherein the Cooper reference further teaches that the input device may be a trigger gun (Cooper; [¶ 0024]), which may be interpreted as a pincher.
Concerning claim 9, the combination of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler references teaches the surgical system of claim 2, wherein the Stahler reference further teaches that the input device may be a joystick type controller (Stahler; [¶ 0656]), similar to the Cooper reference (Cooper; [¶ 0024]), wherein the Stahler reference further teaches that the joystick may include a knob that can be held with one or more fingers of a hand of a user (Stahler; Figure 117C).
Concerning claim 10, the combination of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler references teaches the surgical system of claim 9, wherein the Stahler reference further teaches the input device comprising one or more buttons (Stahler; Figure 117CC), and wherein actuation of the one or more buttons enables the knob to control movement the electromechanical arm and tool assembly about the at least one selected control point (Stahler; [¶ 0666]).
Concerning claim 13, the combination of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler references teaches the surgical system of claim 2, wherein the Cooper reference further teaches the at least one electromechanical arm having at least two degrees of freedom (Cooper; [¶ 0029]).
Concerning claims 16 and 17, the combination of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler references teaches the surgical system of claim 2, wherein the Cooper reference further teaches that the electromechanical arm and tool assembly is configured to achieve a desired position for the electromechanical tool via two different poses of the at least one electromechanical arm given the degrees of freedom provided by the electromechanical arm and tool assembly (Cooper; [¶ 0011]), therein allowing the at least one electromechanical arm to maintain a tool tip position of the electromechanical tool or a position of the remote center while reconfiguration the components of the at least one electromechanical arm in different poses.
Concerning claim 18, the combination of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler references teaches the surgical system of claim 2, wherein the Cooper reference further teaches a support arm coupling the at least one electromechanical arm to the fixture (Cooper; Figure 2; 30), the support arm comprising a plurality of links rotatable in a combination of planes (Cooper; [¶ 0028]).
Concerning claim 20, the combination of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler references teaches the surgical system of claim 2, wherein the Cooper reference further teaches the electromechanical arm and tool assembly being configured to couple to a bed via the fixture (Cooper; Figure 2; 36) such that a base of the at least one electromechanical arm is selectively positionable in any of a plurality of vertical positions relative to the bed and an of a plurality of lateral positions relative to the bed (Cooper; [¶ 0028]).
Concerning claim 21, the combination of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler references teaches the surgical system of claim 2, wherein the Stahler reference further teaches an alternative input device that may be used in the combination that includes a touch screen (Figure 2; 5 | [¶ 0299]).
Claims 6-8 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 2002/0091374) in view of Marquart et al. (US 2006/0058616, hereinafter Marquart) and Stahler et al. (US 2012/0071895, hereinafter Stahler) as applied to claims 2-5, 9-10, 13, 16-18, and 20-22 above, and further in view of Hagn et al. (US 2012/0316681, hereinafter Hagn).
Concerning claims 6-8, the combination of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler references as discussed above teaches the surgical system of claim 5, but does not specifically teach the pincher comprising a first ring configured to be placed around a first finger of a user and a second ring configured to be placed around a second finger of a user.
However, the Hagn reference teaches an input device for a robotic surgical system, therein being in the same field of endeavor as the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler references, wherein the Hagn reference teaches the input device being a pincher comprising a first ring (Figure 2; 32 lower) configured to be placed around a thumb of a user and a second ring (Figure 2; 32 upper) configured to be placed around a forefinger of a user, wherein the pincher further comprises one or more sensors configured to provide information related to the position of the pincher and/or orientation of the pincher ([¶ 0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the input device of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler combination be the pincher device of the Hagn reference to provide an alternative input device that allows for an intuitive operation of the surgical system that is robust and avoids the disadvantages of a haptic input apparatus (Hagn; [¶ 0009]).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cooper (US2002/0091374) in view of Marquart et al. (US 2006/0058616, hereinafter Marquart) and Stahler et al. (US 2012/0071895, hereinafter Stahler) as applied to claims 2-5, 9-10, 13, 16-18, and 20-22 above, and further in view of Moll et al. (US 2002/0082612, hereinafter Moll).
Concerning claim 11, the combination of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler references as discussed above teaches the surgical system of claim 2, wherein the Stahler reference further teaches an alternative input device that may be used in the combination, which may include a console including a plurality of input controls for controlling a number of control points of the electromechanical arm and tool assembly, which is among many other forms of input that may be utilized to control separate control points of the electromechanical arm and tool assembly (Stahler; Figures 113-117), therein defining a first input device controlling a first selected control point, and a second input device configured to control movement of the electromechanical arm and tool assembly about a second selected control point of the plurality of control points, wherein the second selected control point is different than the first selected control point, and wherein the Marquart reference teaches that the user interface is operable to select control points from among the plurality of control points ([¶ 0027]), but does not specifically teach the user interface being operable to select the second selected control point from among the plurality of control points and to associate the second input device with the second selected control point.
However, the Moll reference teaches a robotic surgical system (Figure 1; 10) including an electromechanical arm and tool assembly (Figure 4; 300), therein being in the same field of endeavor as the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler references, wherein the Moll reference teaches a first input device (Figure 23A; 210R) that is configured to control movement of the electromechanical arm and tool assembly about at least one selected control point of a plurality of control points, and a second input device (Figure 23A; 210L) configured to control movement of the electromechanical arm and tool assembly about a second selected control point of the plurality of control points, wherein the second control point is different than the first selected control point, and a user interface (Figure 2; 208a), wherein the user interface is operable to select the at least one selected control point from among the plurality of control points and to associate the input device with the at least one selected control point, and wherein the user interface is operable to select the second selected control point from among the plurality of control points and to associate the second input device with the second selected control point ([¶ 0207-0209]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the user interface of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler combination be operable to select the second selected control point from among the plurality of control points and to associate the second input device with the second selected control point as in the Moll reference to allow a user to manually associate specific input devices of the system with a specific control points of the electromechanical arm and tool assembly (Moll; [¶ 0202]).
Claims 14-15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 2002/0091374) in view of Marquart et al. (US 2006/0058616, hereinafter Marquart) and Stahler et al. (US 2012/0071895, hereinafter Stahler) as applied to claims 2-5, 9-10, 13, 16-18, and 20-22 above, and further in view of Schena et al. (US 2013/0325031, hereinafter Schena).
Concerning claim 14, the combination of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler references as discussed above teaches the surgical system of claim 2, wherein the Cooper reference teaches that the one or more electromechanical joints comprises pitch and a yaw ([¶ 0039]), but does not specifically teach the one or more electromechanical joints comprising a roll mechanism and a redundant roll mechanism.
However, the Schena reference teaches a surgical system (Figure 1; 10) including at least one electromechanical arm comprising one or more joints (Figure 7; 72), therein being in the same field of endeavor as the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler references, wherein the Schena reference teaches that the electromechanical joints may comprise a roll mechanism, a pitch mechanism, and a redundant roll mechanism ([¶ 0072-0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the electromechanical joints of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler combination further include a roll mechanism and a redundant roll mechanism as in the Schena reference to further allow the electromechanical arm and tool assembly to achieve various configuration for an individual instrument position therein offering increased access to the surgical field where the tool enters the patient (Schena; [¶ 0073]).
Concerning claim 15, the combination of the Cooper, Marquart, Stahler, and Schena references as discussed above teaches the surgical system of claim 14, wherein the Schena reference further teaches that the remote center defined at the incorporated roll axis of the roll mechanism and a pitch axis of the pitch mechanism (Figure 7; RC).
Claim 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 2002/0091374) in view of Marquart et al. (US 2006/0058616, hereinafter Marquart) and Stahler et al. (US 2012/0071895, hereinafter Stahler) as applied to claims 2-5, 9-10, 13, 16-18, and 20-22 above, and further in view of Ranjit et al. (US 2011/0238080, hereinafter Ranjit).
Concerning claim 19, the combination of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler references as discussed above teaches the surgical system of claim 18, but does not specifically teach the support arm comprising one or more motors to move the plurality of links.
However, the Ranjit reference teaches a surgical arm mounting robot (Figure 1; 30, 31) that may include a motor at each joint of the arm ([¶ 0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the support arm of the Cooper, Marquart, and Stahler combination include one or more motors to move the plurality of links as in the Ranjit reference to provide an automated method of facilitating movement of the arms (Ranjit; [¶ 0058]).
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 MARTIN TRUYEN TON whose telephone number is (571)270-5122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; EST 10:00 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/MARTIN T TON/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights