DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's preliminary amendments and remarks, filed 4/23/25, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending with claims 8-20, and claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 amended. The following is a complete response to the 4/23/25 communication.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: "detecting, using a sensor system, the transitioning of the . Claims 2-9 are dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, and 16-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robinson (US 2010/0228264).
Regarding claim 1, Robinson teaches a method of operating a teleoperated surgical system, the method comprising:
while a surgical instrument is in an installed state at a patient side cart of the teleoperated surgical system (101a installed to cart 152 as in par. [0044]):
engaging an electrosurgical energy transmission conduit with a connector feature of the surgical instrument by inserting a portion of the electrosurgical energy transmission conduit into a receptacle in a housing of the surgical instrument (connecting instrument 401 with plug 474 connecting to an electrosurgical energy transmission conduit as cables as in par. [0156]-[0158]), wherein the electrosurgical energy transmission conduit is configured to transmit electrical energy from an electrosurgical generator to the surgical instrument via the connector feature in an electrically connected condition of the electrosurgical energy transmission conduit and the connector feature (cable connects the tool and the electrical generating source unit as in par. [0156]-[0158] for electrosurgical energy);
in response to engaging the electrosurgical energy transmission conduit with the connector feature of the surgical instrument, transitioning a mechanism in the housing from a first state indicating an electrically disconnected condition of the electrosurgical energy transmission conduit with the connector feature of the surgical instrument to a second state indicating the electrically connected condition of the electrosurgical energy transmission conduit with electrical the connector feature (par. [0291] switching from an indication that the instrument has been mounted or not mounted as a response); and
detecting, using a sensor system, the transitioning of the mechanism from the first state to the second state (detection of connection of instruments between ESU and tool as in at least par. [0291]).
Regarding claim 2, Robinson teaches further comprising receiving, at a controller of the teleoperated surgical system, a first signal indicating the electrically disconnected condition or a second signal indicating the electrically connected condition (connection detected as in par. [0291]), wherein the first signal is received before the engaging of the electrosurgical energy transmission conduit with the connector feature of the surgical instrument (par. [0291]).
Regarding claim 3, Robinson wherein the sensor system is located at the patient side cart (ESU detects the connection as in par. [0291]).
Regarding claim 7, Robinson teaches further comprising, while the surgical instrument is in the installed state at the patient side cart of the teleoperated surgical system (par. [0291]), receiving, at a controller of the teleoperated surgical system (ESU), information from at least one memory storage structure of the surgical instrument regarding an electrosurgical energy type the surgical instrument is configured to deliver (par. [0082] memory associated with the tool).
Regarding claim 8, Robinson teaches further comprising:
detecting, using the sensor system, the mechanism in the first state before the transitioning, and
detecting, using the sensor system, the mechanism in the second state after the transitioning (detection of connection of instruments between ESU and tool as in at least par. [0291]).
Regarding claim 9, Robinson teaches wherein moving the component is caused by the inserting the portion of the electrosurgical energy transmission conduit into a receptacle in a housing of the surgical instrument (474 connected to cable mechanically at a receptacle).
Regarding claim 10, Robinson teaches a system for detecting an operative condition of a surgical instrument of a teleoperated surgical system (system with 400), the system comprising:
a surgical instrument comprising a housing configured to couple the surgical instrument in an installed position at a patient side cart of a teleoperated surgical system (400 with a housing 401 configured to couple 400 to a patient side cart as in par. [0068]), the housing comprising an electrical connector feature (474 as in par. [0067]);
a flux transmission conduit configured to be mechanically engageable with the connector feature of the housing (cables 106, 107 connect to 474 as in par. [0070]), wherein in a mechanically engaged state with the connector feature, the flux transmission conduit and the surgical instrument are either in an electrosurgical energy connection state or in an electrosurgical energy disconnection state (detection once cable is plugged into tool as in par. [0291], such that there is a point of mechanical connection but before detection, and after detection and electrosurgical connection); and
a sensing mechanism associated with the patient side cart and positioned to detect the electrosurgical energy connection state and the electrosurgical energy disconnection state of the flux transmission conduit and the surgical instrument in the installed position of the surgical instrument at the patient side cart and in the mechanically engaged state of the flux transmission conduit with the connector feature of the housing (par. [0291]); and
a controller in signal communication with the sensing mechanism (ESU as in par. [0288]), the controller configured to:
receive information from the sensing mechanism (par. [0291] receive information from sensor), and transmit a control signal based on which of the electrosurgical energy connection state or the electrosurgical energy disconnection state the flux transmission conduit and surgical instrument are in (transmitting signal for downloading based on connection to connection and par. [0291]).
Regarding claim 16, Robinson teaches wherein the sensing mechanism is in signal communication with a controller to provide a signal indicating the electrosurgical energy connection state of the surgical instrument (par. [0291]).
Regarding claim 17, Robinson teaches further comprising:
a readable memory structure associated with the surgical instrument and storing information about the surgical instrument (par. [0082] memory associated with the tool); and
a reader associated with the patient side cart and configured to read the information from the readable memory structure in the installed position of the surgical instrument at the patient side cart (par. [0082] read data from tool memory).
Regarding claim 18, Robinson teaches wherein the controller is further configured to output feedback about the electrosurgical energy connection state or electrosurgical energy disconnection state based on the information from the sensing mechanism (feedback as in par. [0220] to show no generator coupled to the tool).
Regarding claim 19, Robinson teaches wherein the controller is configured to transmit the control signal to an electrical energy generator (par. [0291]).
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.
Claim 4-6, 11, 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Robinson in view of Craig (US 2009/0254077).
Regarding claims 4-5, Robinson is not explicit wherein moving a component of the surgical instrument from a first position to a second position comprises moving a magnet from a first position to a second position.However, Craig teaches using a Hall effect sensor of a surgical instrument (Hall effect sensor of par. 0032]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robinson with the magnetic sensor of Craig, allowing for detecting connection of an instrument to verify to the user of connection of a tool for treatment.
Regarding claim 6, Robinson is silent wherein a magnetic field of the magnet is within a sensing proximity the sensor system in a position of the magnet between the first position and the second position.However, Craig teaches using Hall effect to sense a position of the magnet to determine a connected or disconnected state of a connector (par. [0032] 46 of instrument 2 is detected).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robinson with the magnetic sensor of Craig, allowing for detecting connection of an instrument to verify to the user of connection of a tool for treatment.
Regarding claim 11, Robinson is not explicit wherein the surgical instrument further comprises a magnet configured to move between a first position and a second position, and wherein the first position of the magnet corresponds to the electrosurgical energy disconnection state of the flux transmission conduit and surgical instrument and the second position of the magnet corresponds to the electrosurgical energy connection state of the flux transmission conduit and surgical instrument.However, Craig teaches a magnet to move between a first position and second position, (par. [0032]-[0033] hall sensors with magnets that corresponds to connection and disconnection).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robinson with the magnetic sensing of Craig, allowing for detecting connection of an instrument to verify to the user of connection of a tool for treatment.
Regarding claim 20, Robinson is not explicit regarding wherein the sensing mechanism comprises:
a magnet sensing mechanism configured to sense the surgical instrument in the installed position and the electrical energy disconnection state of the flux transmission conduit and the surgical instrument, and an electrical circuit switch mechanism configured to sense the electrical energy connection state flux transmission conduit and the surgical instrument.However, Craig teaches using Hall effect to sense a position of the magnet to determine a connected or disconnected state of a connector (par. [0032] 46 of instrument 2 is detected).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robinson with the magnetic sensor of Craig, allowing for detecting connection of an instrument to verify to the user of connection of a tool for treatment.
Claim 12-15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Robinson in view of Craig, in view of Bunce (US 2007/0049822).
Regarding claim 12, Robinson is not explicit wherein the sensing mechanism comprises a Hall sensor array.Bunce teaches a plurality of Hall effect sensors can be used instead of a single sensor (par. [0033]-[0034]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robinson with the magnetic sensor array of Bunce, allowing for multiple sensors to provide a high level of confidence in positioning (par. [0034]).
Regarding claim 13, Robinson is not explicit wherein the Hall sensor array comprises:
a first plurality of Hall sensors in sensing proximity to the magnet in the first position, and a second plurality of Hall sensors in sensing proximity to the magnet in the second position.Bunce teaches a plurality of Hall effect sensors can be used instead of a single sensor (par. [0033]-[0034]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robinson with the magnetic sensor array of Bunce, allowing for multiple sensors to provide a high level of confidence in positioning (par. [0034]).
Regarding claim 14, Robinson is silent wherein: the first plurality of Hall sensors is not in sensing proximity to the magnet in the second position; and
the second plurality of Hall sensors in not in sensing proximity to the magnet in the first position.Bunce teaches a plurality of Hall effect sensors can be used instead of a single sensor (par. [0033]-[0034]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robinson with the magnetic sensor array of Bunce, allowing for multiple sensors to provide a high level of confidence in positioning (par. [0034]).
Regarding claim 15, Robinson is not explicit regarding wherein at least one of the first plurality of Hall sensors and at least one of the second plurality of Hall sensors are in sensing proximity to the magnet in a position of the magnet between the first position and the second position.Bunce teaches a plurality of Hall effect sensors can be used instead of a single sensor (par. [0033]-[0034]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robinson with the magnetic sensor array of Bunce, allowing for multiple sensors to provide a high level of confidence in positioning (par. [0034]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Malackowski (US 2009/0275940) teaches a robotic electrosurgical system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO OUYANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
/BO OUYANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights