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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/03/2025 and 09/11/2025 are being considered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are under examination.
Priority
The instant application (filed on 02/03/2025) is a non-provisional application, filed under 35 USC 111(a). Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application JP 2024-030881 filed on 03/01/2024. The Examiner used a translation (from Espacenet) of the published application JP 2025133132 (see attached) to interpret the foreign application. Claims 1-20 are adequately supported in this translated disclosure. Therefore, the instant application will receive an effective filing date of 03/01/2024, and all prior art will be evaluated with respect to this date.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
• Claim 9: The limitation “a second display to display an indicator” implies a first display has been defined, but the first display is not described. Since only one display is described in the claim language, the claim may be better represented with “a display.”
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 20 is directed to a signal per se (“a storage medium operable to store a program for a control method for a robotic surgical system”).
Step 1
The invention in claim 20 is not to a statutory subject matter as the claims recite a “a storage medium operable to store a program for a control method for a robotic surgical system” (which is interpreted as a “signal per se”). The “storage medium” could broadly encompass both transitory and non-transitory signals and the Applicant’s specification does not adequately exclude the use of transitory signals. The claim can be amended to recite “non-transitory” forms of signal transmission (see MPEP 2106.03 II). Because the claim could be amended to fall within a statutory category, the following eligibility analysis is performed.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 20 does not recite abstract ideas.
Therefore, claim 20 is directed to nonstatutory subject matter.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata (US 2022/0175478 A1) in view of Jang (US 2011/0022229 A1) and Brisson (US 2019/0105117 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kawabata discloses a robotic surgical system (Abstract) comprising:
• (see Fig. 6, [0058-0060]): a robot arm (robot arm 60) to allow a surgical instrument including a shaft (shaft 4c) and a distal end device (distal end effectors 104a and 104b) connected to a distal end of the shaft via a wrist joint to be attached thereto (wrist joint with two supports 4e and 4f);
• an operation apparatus (Fig. 1, [0045]: 2 - remote control apparatus) including an operation unit to receive an operation for the surgical instrument (Fig. 3 – operation handles 21).
Kawabata discloses operation handles 21 which control rotation of the medical instrument along multiple axes ([0047-0048]) and servomotors which are used to rotate along corresponding multiple axes in arm 60 ([0060-0062]). However, Kawabata does not disclose: a controller configured or programmed to restrict an operation to rotate the shaft in a direction out of a rotational operating range of the shaft with the operation unit and an operation to bend the distal end device with respect to the shaft with the operation unit when the operation for the surgical instrument received by the operation unit includes an operation to rotate the shaft out of the rotational operating range of the shaft.
Jang, in the same field of endeavor of using a handle to control the rotation of a surgical robotic arm ([0017-0018]), teaches an instrument can be rotated by rotating a master interface which can include turning a wheel or rotating the handle around an axis ([0153]; Fig. 8 shows the master interface). Jang also discloses a force feedback mechanism 222 to limit the rotation of the master controller handles when the instrument would be rotated beyond its limit ([0159]). This is achieved by using motors in the handles to provide a counterforce to prevent motion in the handle which would, according to the feedback from the processor, cause the instrument to move outside operational rotational boundaries and disrupt smooth control of the operation ([0160-0161]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Kawabata’s handle with multiple rotational axes used to control an instrument arm by incorporating the force feedback mechanism in Jang. This would have been obvious because both Kawabata and Jang discuss controlling a robotic arm with a handle interface and Jang provides a solution/improvement to prevent the handle from moving beyond the capabilities of the robotic arm in order to enhance smoothness of control and prevent excessive burden on the handle interface. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Kawabata by incorporating the force feedback mechanism in Jang to limit the rotational range of the controller in Kawabata along the disclosed axes.
Brisson, in the same field of endeavor of using a master control to regulate rotation of a surgical robotic arm ([0005]), teaches the interrelatedness of joint movements in the medical instrument where joints which reach the edge of a range of motion limit are locked (defined as making the joint unable to move) and joints which remain within a desired range of motion are unlocked and must, when deciding on the needed motions of the unlocked joints to reach a target orientation, take into account the inability of the locked joints to move ([0089], [0099-0101]). In this sense, the unlocked joint movements must be modified and restricted based on the inability of the locked joint to move after exceeding the locked joint’s range of motion.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Kawabata’s handle with multiple rotational axes used to control an instrument arm by incorporating a locking of joints exceeding the locked joint’s range of motion and the computed movements of unlocked joints to compensate in Brisson. This would have been obvious because both Kawabata and Brisson discuss controlling a robotic arm with a master control interface and Brisson provides a solution/improvement to produce improved and intuitive movements in the robotic arm even when some joints are locked at their operational ranges of motion. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Kawabata by incorporating the locking of joints exceeding the locked joint’s range of motion and the computed movements of unlocked joints to compensate in Brisson (such as locking the shaft rotation when out or range and modifying the range of motion of the bending rotation in the distal instrument to compensate in Kawabata).
Regarding Claim 2, the robotic surgical system according to claim 1 is obvious over Kawabata in view of Jang and Brisson, as indicated hereinabove. Kawabata further discloses wherein the rotational operating range of the shaft is a rotational operating range defined on software that is smaller than a mechanical rotational operating range of the shaft ([0104] – “Therefore, the amount of movement of the medical instrument 4 is smaller than the operation amount received by the operation handle 21. As a result, even when the operation handle 21 is operated to the end (the boundary) of the operable range, the medical instrument 4 does not necessarily reach the end (the boundary) of the operable range”).
Regarding Claim 3, the robotic surgical system according to claim 1 is obvious over Kawabata in view of Jang and Brisson, as indicated hereinabove. Kawabata further discloses wherein
• (see Fig. 6, [0060]): the surgical instrument includes a first support member attached to the shaft (4f – “second support”), and a second support member (4e – “first support”) supported by the first support member so as to be rotatable around a first rotation axis to support the distal end device (JT10 – supports proximal end portion of 4f along axis) such that the distal end device is rotatable around a second rotation axis intersecting with the first rotation axis as viewed in a direction in which the shaft extends (JT11 – axis orthogonal to the direction in which shaft extends); and
• the operation to bend the distal end device with respect to the shaft includes an operation to rotate the second support member around the first rotation axis and an operation to rotate the distal end device around the second rotation axis ([0062] - four servomotors M2 are controlled to drive the medical instrument to rotate along axes J9-J12).
Regarding Claim 8, the robotic surgical system according to claim 1 is obvious over Kawabata in view of Jang and Brisson, as indicated hereinabove. Kawabata further discloses comprising: a first display (Fig. 20, [0095] – “The graphical user interface G also includes a second area G9 that is different from the first area G8. The second area G9 displays a second graphical display GR2”) to display a message indicating that an operation on the operation unit is the operation to rotate the shaft out of the rotational operating range of the shaft when the operation for the surgical instrument received by the operation unit includes the operation to rotate the shaft out of the rotational operating range of the shaft ([0095] – “indicating a required operation of the operation handle 21 to return (reposition, reset) the operation handle 21 to the inside of the operable range and/or to return (reposition, reset) the arm 60 to the inside of the movable range”).
Regarding Claim 9, the robotic surgical system according to claim 1 is obvious over Kawabata in view of Jang and Brisson, as indicated hereinabove. Kawabata further discloses comprising: a second display (Fig. 19, [0095] – “the graphical user interface G includes a first area G8 that displays a first graphical display GR1”) to display an indicator indicating a movable range of the robot arm, a movable range of the operation unit with respect to the movable range of the robot arm, and a current position of the robot arm ([0095] – “indicating a movable range of the arm 60 and an operable range of the operation handle 21, which is a range where the operation handle 21 can be operated in the movable range of the arm 60”, where the movable range of arm 60 shows the current position).
Regarding Claim 10, the robotic surgical system according to claim 1 is obvious over Kawabata in view of Jang and Brisson, as indicated hereinabove. Kawabata further discloses wherein
• the rotational operating range of the shaft is a rotational operating range defined on software that is smaller than a mechanical rotational operating range of the shaft ([0104] – the range the operation handle is able to rotate the arm joint is less than the total mechanical limit of the arm joint);
• (see Fig. 6, [0060]): the surgical instrument includes a first support member attached to the shaft (4f – “second support”), and a second support member (4e – “first support”) supported by the first support member so as to be rotatable around a first rotation axis to support the distal end device (JT10 – supports proximal end portion of 4f along axis) such that the distal end device is rotatable around a second rotation axis intersecting with the first rotation axis as viewed in a direction in which the shaft extends (JT11 – axis orthogonal to the direction in which shaft extends); and
• the operation to bend the distal end device with respect to the shaft includes an operation to rotate the second support member around the first rotation axis and an operation to rotate the distal end device around the second rotation axis ([0062] - four servomotors M2 are controlled to drive the medical instrument to rotate along axes J9-J12).
Regarding Claim 16, the robotic surgical system according to claim 1 is obvious over Kawabata in view of Jang and Brisson, as indicated hereinabove. Kawabata further discloses comprising:
• a first display to display (Fig. 20, [0095] – “The graphical user interface G also includes a second area G9 that is different from the first area G8. The second area G9 displays a second graphical display GR2”) a message indicating that an operation on the operation unit is the operation to rotate the shaft out of the rotational operating range of the shaft when the operation for the surgical instrument received by the operation unit includes the operation to rotate the shaft out of the rotational operating range of the shaft ([0095] – “indicating a required operation of the operation handle 21 to return (reposition, reset) the operation handle 21 to the inside of the operable range and/or to return (reposition, reset) the arm 60 to the inside of the movable range”); and
• a second display (Fig. 19, [0095] – “the graphical user interface G includes a first area G8 that displays a first graphical display GR1”) to display an indicator indicating a movable range of the robot arm, a movable range of the operation unit with respect to the movable range of the robot arm, and a current position of the robot arm ([0095] – “indicating a movable range of the arm 60 and an operable range of the operation handle 21, which is a range where the operation handle 21 can be operated in the movable range of the arm 60”, where the movable range of arm 60 shows the current position).
Regarding Claim 19, Kawabata discloses a control method for a robotic surgical system ([0007-0009] – describes how the robotic surgical system is used), the robotic surgical system comprising:
• (see Fig. 5-6, [0058-0060]): a robot arm (robot arm 60) to allow a surgical instrument including a shaft (shaft 4c) and a distal end device (distal end effectors 104a and 104b) connected to a distal end of the shaft via a wrist joint to be attached thereto (wrist joint with two supports 4e and 4f); and
• an operation apparatus (Fig. 1, [0045]: 2 - remote control apparatus) including an operation unit to receive an operation for the surgical instrument (Fig. 3 – operation handles 21),
• the control method comprising:
receiving the operation for the surgical instrument by the operation unit ([0047-0048] - operation handles 21 which control rotation of the medical instrument along multiple axes; ([0060-0062]) - servomotors which are used to rotate along corresponding multiple axes in arm 60).
However, Kawabata does not disclose: restricting an operation to rotate the shaft in a direction out of a rotational operating range of the shaft with the operation unit and an operation to bend the distal end device with respect to the shaft with the operation unit when the operation for the surgical instrument received by the operation unit includes an operation to rotate the shaft out of the rotational operating range of the shaft.
Jang, in the same field of endeavor of using a handle to control the rotation of a surgical robotic arm ([0017-0018]), teaches an instrument can be rotated by rotating a master interface which can include turning a wheel or rotating the handle around an axis ([0153]; Fig. 8 shows the master interface). Jang also discloses a force feedback mechanism 222 to limit the rotation of the master controller handles when the instrument would be rotated beyond its limit ([0159]). This is achieved by using motors in the handles to provide a counterforce to prevent motion in the handle which would, according to the feedback from the processor, cause the instrument to move outside operational rotational boundaries and disrupt smooth control of the operation ([0160-0161]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Kawabata’s method of using a handle with multiple rotational axes used to control an instrument arm by incorporating the force feedback mechanism in Jang. This would have been obvious because both Kawabata and Jang discuss controlling a robotic arm with a handle interface and Jang provides a solution/improvement to prevent the handle from moving beyond the capabilities of the robotic arm in order to enhance smoothness of control and prevent excessive burden on the handle interface. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the method of Kawabata by incorporating the force feedback mechanism in Jang to limit the rotational range of the controller in Kawabata along the disclosed axes.
Brisson, in the same field of endeavor of using a master control to regulate rotation of a surgical robotic arm ([0005]), teaches the interrelatedness of joint movements in the medical instrument where joints which reach the edge of a range of motion limit are locked (defined as making the joint unable to move) and joints which remain within a desired range of motion are unlocked and must, when deciding on the needed motions of the unlocked joints to reach a target orientation, take into account the inability of the locked joints to move ([0089], [0099-0101]). In this sense, the unlocked joint movements must be modified and restricted based on the inability of the locked joint to move after exceeding the locked joint’s range of motion.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Kawabata’s method of using a handle with multiple rotational axes used to control an instrument arm by incorporating a locking of joints exceeding the locked joint’s range of motion and the computed movements of unlocked joints to compensate in Brisson. This would have been obvious because both Kawabata and Brisson discuss controlling a robotic arm with a master control interface and Brisson provides a solution/improvement to produce improved and intuitive movements in the robotic arm even when some joints are locked at their operational ranges of motion. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the method of Kawabata by incorporating the locking of joints exceeding the locked joint’s range of motion and the computed movements of unlocked joints to compensate in Brisson (such as locking the shaft rotation when out or range and modifying the range of motion of the bending rotation in the distal instrument to compensate in Kawabata).
Regarding Claim 20, Kawabata discloses a storage medium operable to store a program for a control method for a robotic surgical system ([0053], [0183] – hardware/software for controlling the robotic system), the robotic surgical system comprising
• (see Fig. 5-6, [0058-0060]): a robot arm (robot arm 60) to allow a surgical instrument including a shaft (shaft 4c) and a distal end device (distal end effectors 104a and 104b) connected to a distal end of the shaft via a wrist joint to be attached thereto (wrist joint with two supports 4e and 4f); and
• an operation apparatus (Fig. 1, [0045]: 2 - remote control apparatus) including an operation unit to receive an operation for the surgical instrument (Fig. 3 – operation handles 21), the storage medium operable to store the program for the control method ([0053, [0183]), the control method comprising:
receiving the operation for the surgical instrument by the operation unit ([0047-0048] - operation handles 21 which control rotation of the medical instrument along multiple axes; ([0060-0062]) - servomotors which are used to rotate along corresponding multiple axes in arm 60).
However, Kawabata does not disclose: restricting an operation to rotate the shaft in a direction out of a rotational operating range of the shaft with the operation unit and an operation to bend the distal end device with respect to the shaft with the operation unit when the operation for the surgical instrument received by the operation unit includes an operation to rotate the shaft out of the rotational operating range of the shaft.
Jang, in the same field of endeavor of using a handle to control the rotation of a surgical robotic arm ([0017-0018]), teaches an instrument can be rotated by rotating a master interface which can include turning a wheel or rotating the handle around an axis ([0153]; Fig. 8 shows the master interface). Jang also discloses a force feedback mechanism 222 to limit the rotation of the master controller handles when the instrument would be rotated beyond its limit ([0159]). This is achieved by using motors in the handles to provide a counterforce to prevent motion in the handle which would, according to the feedback from the processor, cause the instrument to move outside operational rotational boundaries and disrupt smooth control of the operation ([0160-0161]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Kawabata’s handle with multiple rotational axes used to control an instrument arm by incorporating the force feedback mechanism in Jang. This would have been obvious because both Kawabata and Jang discuss controlling a robotic arm with a handle interface and Jang provides a solution/improvement to prevent the handle from moving beyond the capabilities of the robotic arm in order to enhance smoothness of control and prevent excessive burden on the handle interface. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Kawabata by incorporating the force feedback mechanism in Jang to limit the rotational range of the controller in Kawabata along the disclosed axes.
Brisson, in the same field of endeavor of using a master control to regulate rotation of a surgical robotic arm ([0005]), teaches the interrelatedness of joint movements in the medical instrument where joints which reach the edge of a range of motion limit are locked (defined as making the joint unable to move) and joints which remain within a desired range of motion are unlocked and must, when deciding on the needed motions of the unlocked joints to reach a target orientation, take into account the inability of the locked joints to move ([0089], [0099-0101]). In this sense, the unlocked joint movements must be modified and restricted based on the inability of the locked joint to move after exceeding the locked joint’s range of motion.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Kawabata’s handle with multiple rotational axes used to control an instrument arm by incorporating a locking of joints exceeding the locked joint’s range of motion and the computed movements of unlocked joints to compensate in Brisson. This would have been obvious because both Kawabata and Brisson discuss controlling a robotic arm with a master control interface and Brisson provides a solution/improvement to produce improved and intuitive movements in the robotic arm even when some joints are locked at their operational ranges of motion. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Kawabata by incorporating the locking of joints exceeding the locked joint’s range of motion and the computed movements of unlocked joints to compensate in Brisson (such as locking the shaft rotation when out or range and modifying the range of motion of the bending rotation in the distal instrument to compensate in Kawabata).
Claims 4-7, 11-15, and 17-18 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata (US 2022/0175478 A1) in view of Jang (US 2011/0022229 A1), Brisson (US 2019/0105117 A1), and Ichii (US 2022/0409317 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the robotic surgical system according to claim 1 is obvious over Kawabata in view of Jang and Brisson, as indicated hereinabove. Kawabata further discloses wherein
• the operation unit (operation handles 21) includes a grip support member (link portion 21d) to rotatably support one end of a grip member to be operated by a hand of an operator (see Fig. 3, [0047-0048] – operation handles 21L and 21R are operated by the hands where the handholds are connected to the wrist via link portion 21d), the grip support member being operable to rotate around a third rotation axis parallel to a longitudinal direction of the grip support member to receive an operation to rotate the shaft ([0048] – “The link portion 21d is rotatable about an axis (joint) A7 with respect to the link portion 21c”); and
• the operation to rotate the shaft is received by rotating the grip support member around the third rotation axis ([0047-0048] – operation handles configured to operate the medical instrument 4 to rotate the arm and shaft, where moving 21d would rotate the shaft along an axis via arm movements; Fig. 6, [0060- 0062] – multiple servomotors in the arm 60 control rotation along joints 9-12 in the medical instrument 4).
However, Kawabata does not disclose operation by a finger of the operator.
Ichii, in the same field of endeavor of using a handle to control the rotation of a surgical robotic arm ([0039-0040]), teaches finger grip members 21f connected to link 21d as additional elements to operate operation handle 21 (Fig. 4, [0046]). The finger controls are used to pivot and rotate the end effector jaws via moving the arm and shaft of the robotic arm ([0093-0094]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Kawabata’s handle with multiple rotational axes used to control an instrument arm by incorporating the finger controlled grip members to move the end effector in Ichii. This would have been obvious because both Kawabata and Ichii discuss controlling a robotic arm with a handle interface and Ichii provides a solution for another layer of regulation by using finger controls for more intricate control of the end-effector (the finger grips in Ichii Figure 4 are visible in Kawabata Figure 3, but not discussed in Kawabata). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Kawabata by incorporating the finger controlled grip members to move the end effector in Ichii.
Regarding Claim 5, the robotic surgical system according to claim 4 is obvious over Kawabata in view of Jang, Brisson, and Ichii as indicated hereinabove. Kawabata discloses:
• the operation unit includes a grip support member to rotate the grip support member around the third rotation axis ([0048] – rotation of link portion 21d along axis A7). However, Kawabata does not disclose a grip support member motor or the controller is configured or programmed to control the grip support member motor to prevent rotation of the grip support member when the operation for the surgical instrument includes the operation to rotate the shaft out of the rotational operating range of the shaft.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Jang yields a force feedback mechanism to provide a counterforce via a motor in the handle to a handle’s rotation along an axis when the processor deems that rotation would exceed the operational limit of the robotic arm instrument along a corresponding rotational axis ([0159-0161]).
Regarding Claim 6, the robotic surgical system according to claim 4 is obvious over Kawabata in view of Jang, Brisson, and Ichii as indicated hereinabove. Kawabata further discloses wherein
• (see Fig. 3, [0048]): the operation unit (operation handles 21) includes an arm (proximal wrist visibly connected to an arm portion of controller) and a wrist (link portions 21a-d);
• the wrist (link portions 21a-d) includes:
a first link (link portion 21a) including a proximal end connected to a distal end of the arm and rotatable around a fourth rotation axis (see Fig. 3, [0048] – “By rotating the link portion 21a around the axis A4, the arm portion 61 described later rotates about an axis (joint) JT4”);
a second link (link portion 21b) including a proximal end connected to a distal end of the first link and rotatable around a fifth rotation axis (see Fig. 3, [0048] – link portion 21b connects to distal end of link portion 21a and “The link portion 21b is rotatable about an axis (joint) A5 with respect to the link portion 21a”); and
a third link (link portion 21c) including a proximal end connected to a distal end of the second link and a distal end to which the grip support member is connected (see Fig. 3, [0048] – link portion 21c is connected to distal link portion 21b and proximal link portion 21d) and rotatable around a sixth rotation axis (see Fig. 3, [0048] – “The link portion 21c is rotatable about an axis (joint) A6 with respect to the link portion 21b”).
However, Kawabata does not disclose: the controller is configured or programmed to restrict rotation of the first link around the fourth rotation axis, rotation of the second link around the fifth rotation axis, and rotation of the third link around the sixth rotation axis when the operation for the surgical instrument received by the operation unit includes the operation to rotate the shaft out of the rotational operating range of the shaft.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Jang yields a force feedback mechanism to provide a counterforce via a motor in the handle to a handle’s rotation along an axis when the processor deems that rotation would exceed the operational limit of the robotic arm instrument along a corresponding rotational axis ([0159-0161]). Force feedback could be applied along any axis or rotation disclosed in Kawabata.
Regarding Claim 7, the robotic surgical system according to claim 6 is obvious over Kawabata in view of Jang, Brisson, and Ichii as indicated hereinabove. Kawabata discloses the first, second, and third links with the fourth, fifth, and sixth rotation axes ([0048]). However, Kawabata does not disclose:
• wherein the wrist includes:
a first link motor to rotate the first link around the fourth rotation axis;
a second link motor to rotate the second link around the fifth rotation axis; and
a third link motor to rotate the third link around the sixth rotation axis; and
• the controller is configured or programmed to control the first link motor, the second link motor, and the third link motor to prevent rotation of the first link, the second link, and the third link when the operation for the surgical instrument received by the operation unit includes the operation to rotate the shaft out of the rotational operating range of the shaft.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Jang yields a force feedback mechanism to provide a counterforce via a motor in the handle to a handle’s rotation along an axis when the processor deems that rotation would exceed the operational limit of the robotic arm instrument along a corresponding rotational axis ([0159-0161]). Force feedback could be applied along any axis or rotation disclosed in Kawabata.
Regarding Claim 11, the robotic surgical system according to claim 1 is obvious over Kawabata in view of Jang and Brisson, as indicated hereinabove. Kawabata further discloses wherein
• the rotational operating range of the shaft is a rotational operating range defined on software that is smaller than a mechanical rotational operating range of the shaft ([0104] – the range the operation handle is able to rotate the arm joint is less than the total mechanical limit of the arm joint);
• the operation unit (operation handles 21) includes a grip support member (link portion 21d) to rotatably support one end of a grip member to be operated by a hand of an operator (see Fig. 3, [0047-0048] – operation handles 21L and 21R are operated by the hands where the handles are connected to the wrist via link portion 21d), the grip support member being operable to rotate around a third rotation axis parallel to a longitudinal direction of the grip support member to receive an operation to rotate the shaft ([0048] – “The link portion 21d is rotatable about an axis (joint) A7 with respect to the link portion 21c”); and
• the operation to rotate the shaft is received by rotating the grip support member around the third rotation axis ([0047-0048] – operation handles configured to operate the medical instrument 4 to rotate the arm and shaft, where moving 21d would rotate the shaft along an axis via arm movements; Fig. 6, [0060- 0062] – multiple servomotors in the arm 60 control rotation along joints 9-12 in the medical instrument 4).
However, Kawabata does not disclose operation by a finger of the operator.
Ichii, in the same field of endeavor of using a handle to control the rotation of a surgical robotic arm ([0039-0040]), teaches finger grip members 21f connected to link 21d as additional elements to operate operation handle 21 (Fig. 4, [0046]). The finger controls are used to pivot and rotate the end effector jaws via moving the arm and shaft of the robotic arm ([0093-0094]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Kawabata’s handle with multiple rotational axes used to control an instrument arm by incorporating the finger controlled grip members to move the end effector in Ichii. This would have been obvious because both Kawabata and Ichii discuss controlling a robotic arm with a handle interface and Ichii provides a solution for another layer of regulation by using finger controls for more intricate control of the end-effector (the finger grips in Ichii Figure 4 are visible in Kawabata Figure 3, but not discussed in Kawabata). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Kawabata by incorporating the finger controlled grip members to move the end effector in Ichii.
Regarding Claim 12, the robotic surgical system according to claim 1 is obvious over Kawabata in view of Jang and Brisson, as indicated hereinabove. Kawabata further discloses wherein
• (see Fig. 6, [0060]): the surgical instrument includes a first support member attached to the shaft (4f – “second support”), and a second support member supported by the first support member so as to be rotatable around a first rotation axis to support the distal end device such that the distal end device (JT10 – supports proximal end portion of 4f along axis) is rotatable around a second rotation axis intersecting with the first rotation axis as viewed in a direction in which the shaft extends (JT11 – axis orthogonal to the direction in which shaft extends);
• the operation to bend the distal end device with respect to the shaft includes an operation to rotate the second support member around the first rotation axis and an operation to rotate the distal end device around the second rotation axis ([0062] - four servomotors M2 are controlled to drive the medical instrument to rotate along axes J9-J12);
• the operation unit (operation handles 21) includes a grip support member (link portion 21d) to rotatably support one end of a grip member to be operated by a hand of an operator (see Fig. 3, [0047-0048] – operation handles 21L and 21R are operated by the hands where the handholds are connected to the wrist via link portion 21d), the grip support member being operable to rotate around a third rotation axis parallel to a longitudinal direction of the grip support member to receive an operation to rotate the shaft ([0048] – “The link portion 21d is rotatable about an axis (joint) A7 with respect to the link portion 21c”); and
• the operation to rotate the shaft is received by rotating the grip support member around the third rotation axis ([0047-0048] – operation handles configured to operate the medical instrument 4 to rotate the arm and shaft, where moving 21d would rotate the shaft along an axis via arm movements; Fig. 6, [0060- 0062] – multiple servomotors in the arm 60 control rotation along joints 9-12 in the medical instrument 4).
However, Kawabata does not disclose operation by a finger of the operator.
Ichii, in the same field of endeavor of using a handle to control the rotation of a surgical robotic arm ([0039-0040]), teaches finger grip members 21f connected to link 21d as additional elements to operate operation handle 21 (Fig. 4, [0046]). The finger controls are used to pivot and rotate the end effector jaws via moving the arm and shaft of the robotic arm ([0093-0094]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Kawabata’s handle with multiple rotational axes used to control an instrument arm by incorporating the finger controlled grip members to move the end effector in Ichii. This would have been obvious because both Kawabata and Ichii discuss controlling a robotic arm with a handle interface and Ichii provides a solution for another layer of regulation by using finger controls for more intricate control of the end-effector (the finger grips in Ichii Figure 4 are visible in Kawabata Figure 3, but not discussed in Kawabata). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Kawabata by incorporating the finger controlled grip members to move the end effector in Ichii.
Regarding Claim 13, the robotic surgical system according to claim 1 is obvious over Kawabata in view of Jang and Brisson, as indicated hereinabove. Kawabata further discloses wherein
• the rotational operating range of the shaft is a rotational operating range defined on software that is smaller than a mechanical rotational operating range of the shaft ([0104] – the range the operation handle is able to rotate the arm joint is less than the total mechanical limit of the arm joint);
• the operation unit (operation handles 21) includes a grip support member (link portion 21d) to rotatably support one end of a grip member to be operated by a hand of an operator (see Fig. 3, [0047-0048] – operation handles 21L and 21R are operated by the hands where the handholds are connected to the wrist via link portion 21d), the grip support member being operable to rotate around a third rotation axis parallel to a longitudinal direction of the grip support member ([0048] – “The link portion 21d is rotatable about an axis (joint) A7 with respect to the link portion 21c”) to receive an operation to rotate the shaft ([0047-0048] – operation handles configured to operate the medical instrument 4 to rotate the arm and shaft, where moving 21d would rotate the shaft along an axis via arm movements; Fig. 6, [0060- 0062] – multiple servomotors in the arm 60 control rotation along joints 9-12 in the medical instrument 4);
• (see Fig. 3, [0048]): the operation unit (operation handles 21) includes an arm (proximal wrist visibly connected to an arm portion of controller) and a wrist (link portions 21a-d);
• the wrist (link portions 21a-d) includes:
a first link (link portion 21a) including a proximal end connected to a distal end of the arm and rotatable around a fourth rotation axis (see Fig. 3, [0048] – “By rotating the link portion 21a around the axis A4, the arm portion 61 described later rotates about an axis (joint) JT4”);
a second link (link portion 21b) including a proximal end connected to a distal end of the first link and rotatable around a fifth rotation axis (see Fig. 3, [0048] – link portion 21b connects to distal end of link portion 21a and “The link portion 21b is rotatable about an axis (joint) A5 with respect to the link portion 21a”); and
a third link (link portion 21c) including a proximal end connected to a distal end of the second link and a distal end to which the grip support member is connected (see Fig. 3, [0048] – link portion 21c is connected to distal link portion 21b and proximal link portion 21d) and rotatable around a sixth rotation axis (see Fig. 3, [0048] – “The link portion 21c is rotatable about an axis (joint) A6 with respect to the link portion 21b”).
However, Kawabata does not disclose: the controller is configured or programmed to restrict rotation of the first link around the fourth rotation axis, rotation of the second link around the fifth rotation axis, and rotation of the third link around the sixth rotation axis when the operation for the surgical instrument received by the operation unit includes the operation to rotate the shaft out of the rotational operating range of the shaft.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Jang yields a force feedback mechanism to provide a counterforce via a motor in the handle to a handle’s rotation along an axis when the processor deems that rotation would exceed the operational limit of the robotic arm instrument along a corresponding rotational axis ([0159-0161]). Force feedback could be applied along any axis or rotation disclosed in Kawabata.
However, Kawabata does not disclose operation by a finger of the operator.
Ichii, in the same field of endeavor of using a handle to control the rotation of a surgical robotic arm ([0039-0040]), teaches finger grip members 21f connected to link 21d as additional elements to operate operation handle 21 (Fig. 4, [0046]). The finger controls are used to pivot and rotate the end effector jaws via moving the arm and shaft of the robotic arm ([0093-0094]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Kawabata’s handle with multiple rotational axes used to control an instrument arm by incorporating the finger controlled grip members to move the end effector in Ichii. This would have been obvious because both Kawabata and Ichii discuss controlling a robotic arm with a handle interface and Ichii provides a solution for another layer of regulation by using finger controls for more intricate control of the end-effector (the finger grips in Ichii Figure 4 are visible in Kawabata Figure 3, but not discussed in Kawabata). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Kawabata by incorporating the finger controlled grip members to move the end effector in Ichii.
Regarding Claim 14, the robotic surgical system according to claim 1 is obvious over Kawabata in view of Jang and Brisson, as indicated hereinabove. Kawabata further discloses wherein
• (see Fig. 6, [0060]): the surgical instrument includes a first support member attached to the shaft (4f – “second support”), and a second support member (4e – “first support”) supported by the first support member so as to be rotatable around a first rotation axis to support the distal end device (JT10 – supports proximal end portion of 4f along axis) such that the distal end device is rotatable around a second rotation axis intersecting with the first rotation axis as viewed in a direction in which the shaft extends (JT11 – axis orthogonal to the direction in which shaft extends);
• the operation to bend the distal end device with respect to the shaft includes an operation to rotate the second support member around the first rotation axis and an operation to rotate the distal end device around the second rotation axis ([0062] - four servomotors M2 are controlled to drive the medical instrument to rotate along axes J9-J12);
• the operation unit (operation handles 21) includes a grip support member (link portion 21d) to rotatably support one end of a grip member to be operated by a hand of an operator (see Fig. 3, [0047-0048] – operation handles 21L and 21R are operated by the hands where the handholds are connected to the wrist via link portion 21d), the grip support member being operable to rotate around a third rotation axis parallel to a longitudinal direction of the grip support member ([0048] – “The link portion 21d is rotatable about an axis (joint) A7 with respect to the link portion 21c”) to receive an operation to rotate the shaft ([0047-0048] – operation handles configured to operate the medical instrument 4 to rotate the arm and shaft, where moving 21d would rotate the shaft along an axis via arm movements; Fig. 6, [0060- 0062] – multiple servomotors in the arm 60 control rotation along joints 9-12 in the medical instrument 4);
• (see Fig. 3, [0048]): the operation unit (operation handles 21) includes an arm (proximal wrist visibly connected to an arm portion of controller) and a wrist (link portions 21a-d);
• the wrist (link portions 21a-d) includes:
a first link (link portion 21a) including a proximal end connected to a distal end of the arm and rotatable around a fourth rotation axis (see Fig. 3, [0048] – “By rotating the link portion 21a around the axis A4, the arm portion 61 described later rotates about an axis (joint) JT4”);
a second link (link portion 21b) including a proximal end connected to a distal end of the first link and rotatable around a fifth rotation axis (see Fig. 3, [0048] – link portion 21b connects to distal end of link portion 21a and “The link portion 21b is rotatable about an axis (joint) A5 with respect to the link portion 21a”); and
a third link (link portion 21c) including a proximal end connected to a distal end of the second link and a distal end to which the grip support member is connected (see Fig. 3, [0048] – link portion 21c is connected to distal link portion 21b and proximal link portion 21d) and rotatable around a sixth rotation axis (see Fig. 3, [0048] – “The link portion 21c is rotatable about an axis (joint) A6 with respect to the link portion 21b”).
However, Kawabata does not disclose: the controller is configured or programmed to restrict rotation of the first link around the fourth rotation axis, rotation of the second link around the fifth rotation axis, and rotation of the third link around the sixth rotation axis when the operation for the surgical instrument received by the operation unit includes the operation to rotate the shaft out of the rotational operating range of the shaft.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Jang yields a force feedback mechanism to provide a counterforce via a motor in the handle to a handle’s rotation along an axis when the processor deems that rotation would exceed the operational limit of the robotic arm instrument along a corresponding rotational axis ([0159-0161]). Force feedback could be applied along any axis or rotation disclosed in Kawabata.
However, Kawabata does not disclose operation by a finger of the operator.
Ichii, in the same field of endeavor of using a handle to control the rotation of a surgical robotic arm ([0039-0040]), teaches finger grip members 21f connected to link 21d as additional elements to operate operation handle 21 (Fig. 4, [0046]). The finger controls are used to pivot and rotate the end effector jaws via moving the arm and shaft of the robotic arm ([0093-0094]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Kawabata’s handle with multiple rotational axes used to control an instrument arm by incorporating the finger controlled grip members to move the end effector in Ichii. This would have been obvious because both Kawabata and Ichii discuss controlling a robotic arm with a handle interface and Ichii provides a solution for another layer of regulation by using finger controls for more intricate control of the end-effector (the finger grips in Ichii Figure 4 are visible in Kawabata Figure 3, but not discussed in Kawabata). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Kawabata by incorporating the finger controlled grip members to move the end effector in Ichii.
Regarding Claim 15, the robotic surgical system according to claim 1 is obvious over Kawabata in view of Jang and Brisson, as indicated hereinabove. Kawabata further discloses wherein
• the operation unit (operation handles 21) includes a grip support member (link portion 21d) to rotatably support one end of a grip member to be operated by a hand of an operator (see Fig. 3, [0047-0048] – operation handles 21L and 21R are operated by the hands where the handholds are connected to the wrist via link portion 21d), the grip support member being operable to rotate around a third rotation axis parallel to a longitudinal direction of the grip support member to receive an operation to rotate the shaft ([0048] – “The link portion 21d is rotatable about an axis (joint) A7 with respect to the link portion 21c”);
• the operation to rotate the shaft is received by rotating the grip support member around the third rotation axis ([0047-0048] – operation handles configured to operate the medical instrument 4 to rotate the arm and shaft, where moving 21d would rotate the shaft along an axis via arm movements; Fig. 6, [0060- 0062] – multiple servomotors in the arm 60 control rotation along joints 9-12 in the medical instrument 4);
• (see Fig. 3, [0048]): the operation unit (operation handles 21) includes an arm (proximal wrist visibly connected to an arm portion of controller) and a wrist (link portions 21a-d);
• the wrist (link portions 21a-d) includes:
a first link (link portion 21a) including a proximal end connected to a distal end of the arm and rotatable around a fourth rotation axis (see Fig. 3, [0048] – “By rotating the link portion 21a around the axis A4, the arm portion 61 described later rotates about an axis (joint) JT4”);
a second link (link portion 21b) including a proximal end connected to a distal end of the first link and rotatable around a fifth rotation axis (see Fig. 3, [0048] – link portion 21b connects to distal end of link portion 21a and “The link portion 21b is rotatable about an axis (joint) A5 with respect to the link portion 21a”); and
a third link (link portion 21c) including a proximal end connected to a distal end of the second link and a distal end to which the grip support member is connected (see Fig. 3, [0048] – link portion 21c is connected to distal link portion 21b and proximal link portion 21d) and rotatable around a sixth rotation axis (see Fig. 3, [0048] – “The link portion 21c is rotatable about an axis (joint) A6 with respect to the link portion 21b”).
However, Kawabata does not disclose: the controller is configured or programmed to restrict rotation of the first link around the fourth rotation axis, rotation of the second link around the fifth rotation axis, and rotation of the third link around the sixth rotation axis when the operation for the surgical instrument received by the operation unit includes the operation to rotate the shaft out of the rotational operating range of the shaft.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Jang yields a force feedback mechanism to provide a counterforce via a motor in the handle to a handle’s rotation along an axis when the processor deems that rotation would exceed the operational limit of the robotic arm instrument along a corresponding rotational axis ([0159-0161]). Force feedback could be applied along any axis or rotation disclosed in Kawabata.
However, Kawabata does not disclose operation by a finger of the operator.
Ichii, in the same field of endeavor of using a handle to control the rotation of a surgical robotic arm ([0039-0040]), teaches finger grip members 21f connected to link 21d as additional elements to operate operation handle 21 (Fig. 4, [0046]). The finger controls are used to pivot and rotate the end effector jaws via moving the arm and shaft of the robotic arm ([0093-0094]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Kawabata’s handle with multiple rotational axes used to control an instrument arm by incorporating the finger controlled grip members to move the end effector in Ichii. This would have been obvious because both Kawabata and Ichii discuss controlling a robotic arm with a handle interface and Ichii provides a solution for another layer of regulation by using finger controls for more intricate control of the end-effector (the finger grips in Ichii Figure 4 are visible in Kawabata Figure 3, but not discussed in Kawabata). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Kawabata by incorporating the finger controlled grip members to move the end effector in Ichii.
Regarding Claim 17, the robotic surgical system according to claim 16 is obvious over Kawabata in view of Jang and Brisson, as indicated hereinabove. Kawabata further discloses wherein
• the operation unit (operation handles 21) includes a grip support member (link portion 21d) to rotatably support one end of a grip member to be operated by a hand of an operator (see Fig. 3, [0047-0048] – operation handles 21L and 21R are operated by the hands where the handholds are connected to the wrist via link portion 21d), the grip support member being operable to rotate around a third rotation axis parallel to a longitudinal direction of the grip support member to receive an operation to rotate the shaft ([0048] – “The link portion 21d is rotatable about an axis (joint) A7 with respect to the link portion 21c”); and
• the operation to rotate the shaft is received by rotating the grip support member around the third rotation axis ([0047-0048] – operation handles configured to operate the medical instrument 4 to rotate the arm and shaft, where moving 21d would rotate the shaft along an axis via arm movements; Fig. 6, [0060- 0062] – multiple servomotors in the arm 60 control rotation along joints 9-12 in the medical instrument 4).
However, Kawabata does not disclose operation by a finger of the operator.
Ichii, in the same field of endeavor of using a handle to control the rotation of a surgical robotic arm ([0039-0040]), teaches finger grip members 21f connected to link 21d as additional elements to operate operation handle 21 (Fig. 4, [0046]). The finger controls are used to pivot and rotate the end effector jaws via moving the arm and shaft of the robotic arm ([0093-0094]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Kawabata’s handle with multiple rotational axes used to control an instrument arm by incorporating the finger controlled grip members to move the end effector in Ichii. This would have been obvious because both Kawabata and Ichii discuss controlling a robotic arm with a handle interface and Ichii provides a solution for another layer of regulation by using finger controls for more intricate control of the end-effector (the finger grips in Ichii Figure 4 are visible in Kawabata Figure 3, but not discussed in Kawabata). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Kawabata by incorporating the finger controlled grip members to move the end effector in Ichii.
Regarding Claim 18, the robotic surgical system according to claim 16 is obvious over Kawabata in view of Jang and Brisson, as indicated hereinabove. Kawabata further discloses wherein
• the operation unit (operation handles 21) includes a grip support member (link portion 21d) to rotatably support one end of a grip member to be operated by a hand of an operator (see Fig. 3, [0047-0048] – operation handles 21L and 21R are operated by the hands where the handholds are connected to the wrist via link portion 21d), the grip support member being operable to rotate around a third rotation axis parallel to a longitudinal direction of the grip support member ([0048] – “The link portion 21d is rotatable about an axis (joint) A7 with respect to the link portion 21c”) to receive an operation to rotate the shaft ([0047-0048] – operation handles configured to operate the medical instrument 4 to rotate the arm and shaft, where moving 21d would rotate the shaft along an axis via arm movements; Fig. 6, [0060- 0062] – multiple servomotors in the arm 60 control rotation along joints 9-12 in the medical instrument 4);
• (see Fig. 3, [0048]): the operation unit (operation handles 21) includes an arm (proximal wrist visibly connected to an arm portion of controller) and a wrist (link portions 21a-d);
• the wrist (link portions 21a-d) includes:
a first link (link portion 21a) including a proximal end connected to a distal end of the arm and rotatable around a fourth rotation axis (see Fig. 3, [0048] – “By rotating the link portion 21a around the axis A4, the arm portion 61 described later rotates about an axis (joint) JT4”);
a second link (link portion 21b) including a proximal end connected to a distal end of the first link and rotatable around a fifth rotation axis (see Fig. 3, [0048] – link portion 21b connects to distal end of link portion 21a and “The link portion 21b is rotatable about an axis (joint) A5 with respect to the link portion 21a”); and
a third link (link portion 21c) including a proximal end connected to a distal end of the second link and a distal end to which the grip support member is connected (see Fig. 3, [0048] – link portion 21c is connected to distal link portion 21b and proximal link portion 21d) and rotatable around a sixth rotation axis (see Fig. 3, [0048] – “The link portion 21c is rotatable about an axis (joint) A6 with respect to the link portion 21b”).
However, Kawabata does not disclose: the controller is configured or programmed to restrict rotation of the first link around the fourth rotation axis, rotation of the second link around the fifth rotation axis, and rotation of the third link around the sixth rotation axis when the operation for the surgical instrument received by the operation unit includes the operation to rotate the shaft out of the rotational operating range of the shaft.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Jang yields a force feedback mechanism to provide a counterforce via a motor in the handle to a handle’s rotation along an axis when the processor deems that rotation would exceed the operational limit of the robotic arm instrument along a corresponding rotational axis ([0159-0161]). Force feedback could be applied along any axis or rotation disclosed in Kawabata.
However, Kawabata does not disclose operation by a finger of the operator.
Ichii, in the same field of endeavor of using a handle to control the rotation of a surgical robotic arm ([0039-0040]), teaches finger grip members 21f connected to link 21d as additional elements to operate operation handle 21 (Fig. 4, [0046]). The finger controls are used to pivot and rotate the end effector jaws via moving the arm and shaft of the robotic arm ([0093-0094]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Kawabata’s handle with multiple rotational axes used to control an instrument arm by incorporating the finger controlled grip members to move the end effector in Ichii. This would have been obvious because both Kawabata and Ichii discuss controlling a robotic arm with a handle interface and Ichii provides a solution for another layer of regulation by using finger controls for more intricate control of the end-effector (the finger grips in Ichii Figure 4 are visible in Kawabata Figure 3, but not discussed in Kawabata). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Kawabata by incorporating the finger controlled grip members to move the end effector in Ichii.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is 703-756-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 am to 5:00 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on 571-270-3061. 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.
/Benjamin A. Schmitt/
Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights