DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-final office action is in response to the application filled on 2/10/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0328471 (“Tojo”), and further in view of US 2013/0103050 (“Richmond”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 8 and 15), Tojo discloses a computer-implemented system (see at least [0054]), comprising:
a device comprising one or more slave sensors and a slave pressure system (see at least [0049], where “the surgical instrument 28 may also be an electrically driven device, such as an electrosurgical electrode, a transducer, a sensor, or the like.”; see also [0085], where “The tactile sensor 42 is a thin pressure-sensitive sensor called a tactile film sensor.”), the device configured to be manipulated by a user (see at least [0034], where robot main body 2 is interpreted as device. See also fig 1, where robot, 2 is manipulated by user. See also [0059]);
a master device (see at least fig 1 and fig 16, where 7 is master device); and
a control system comprising one or more processing devices operatively coupled to the master device and the device, wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to (see at least fig 16 and [0062]):
receive slave sensor data from the one or more slave sensors (see at least [0086], where “As shown in FIG. 16, the tactile sensor 42 is connected to the slave controller 3 by a signal line passing through the inside of the instrument manipulator 21, and pressure detected by the tactile sensor 42 is output to the slave controller 3.”);
use a manipulation of the master device to generate a manipulation instruction (see at least [0086], where “The predetermined processing performed by the slave controller 3 includes at least one of processing of outputting a warning to the console 7, processing of temporarily stopping the operation of the robot main body 2, processing of reducing a ratio (scale) of a displacement amount of the instrument manipulator 21 corresponding to the manipulation amount received by the console 7, and processing of outputting information to the console 7 such that a reaction force is applied to a manipulation force toward a radially outer side of the guide bore 90 received by the manipulation input device 71.”; see also [0059]);
transmit the manipulation instruction (see at least [0086]); and
use the manipulation instruction to cause the slave tool to perform operation/task (see at least [0061], where “The manipulation input device 71 further includes a manipulation tool that receives an input of a body cavity insertion command of the surgical instrument 28, a manipulation tool that receives an input of a manipulator return command, and the like.”; see also [0080], where “a manipulation force that is received by the manipulation input device 71”).
Tojo does not disclose the following limitation:
cause the slave pressure system to activate.
However, Richmond discloses a system wherein cause the slave pressure system to activate (see at least [0061], where “a master grip input signal is generated, the torque of the motor that ultimately controls the gripping force (slave grip 102) of the corresponding gripping device 700”; see also [0042]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Tojo to incorporate the teachings of Richmond by including the above feature for increasing telemedicine services by controlling equipment remotely.
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly claim 9 and 16), Tojo further discloses a system comprising a user interface comprising an output device configured to present telemedicine information associated with a telemedicine session (see at least fig 2, where display device is showing remote surgical operation related data. remote surgical operation related data is interpreted as information associated with a telemedicine session).
Regarding claim 3 (and similarly claim 10 and 17), Richmond further discloses a system wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to, during the telemedicine session, use the manipulation instruction to cause the slave pressure system to activate (see at least [0042] and [0061], where grip force (slave pressure) is generated by manipulating master device during a surgical procedure).
Regarding claim 4 (and similarly claim 11 and 18), Tojo further discloses a system wherein the slave sensor data comprises slave force measurements (see at least [0086]);
wherein the master device comprises a master pressure system (see at least [0060], where “the surgeon S applies a manipulation force to the manipulation unit”); and
wherein, using the slave force measurements, the one or more processing devices are further configured to activate the master pressure system (see at least [0086-87]).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 12, 13, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0328471 (“Tojo”), and in view of US 2013/0103050 (“Richmond”), as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 2021/0290310 (“Laby”).
Regarding claim 5 (and similarly claim 12 and 19), Tojo in view of Richmond does not disclose claim 5. However, Laby discloses a system wherein the master device comprises a pressure gradient (see at least [0219], where “a local linear 3D pressure gradient to estimate the goal position or the closest achievable position in the 3D space.”; see also [0020]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Tojo in view of Richmond to incorporate the teachings of Laby by including the above feature for improving telemedical quality and effectiveness by controlling the device using pressure gradient.
Regarding claim 6 (and similarly claim 13 and 20), Tojo in view of Richmond does not disclose claim 6. However, Laby discloses a system wherein, using the pressure gradient, the one or more processing devices are configured to cause the slave pressure system to apply one or more measured levels of force to one or more sections of the device (see at least [0144]).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0328471 (“Tojo”), and in view of US 2013/0103050 (“Richmond”), as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 2024/0180766 (“James”).
Regarding claim 7 (and similarly claim 14), Tojo in view of Richmond does not disclose claim 7. However, James discloses a system wherein the device comprises at least one of a physical therapy device, a brace, a mat, and a wrap (see at least [0015], where “a radiolucent pressure-sensing mattress for a surgical table includes a radiolucent sensor mat comprising radiolucent pressure sensors; a radiolucent ergonomic pad below the radiolucent sensor mat; a radiolucent fire protection layer enveloping the radiolucent pressure sensors”; see also [0035]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Tojo in view of Richmond to incorporate the teachings of James by including the above feature for providing medical session remotely using slave devices that will increase patient and provider service accessibility.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l) (1) - 706.02(l) (3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-15, 18 and 20 is/are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4, 6, 14, 18, 27 and 30 of US Application No. 17/147,532 (US patent No. 12,220,201).
This is a non-provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have in fact been patented. Table below shows the claim matching between two applications:
Application No.
claims
claims
claims
claims
19/049,457
1/8/15
4/11/18
6/13/20
7/14
17/147,532
(US patent No. 12,220,201)
1/6/18
2
3/14/27
4/30
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of US Application No. 17/684,309 (US patent No. 12,220,202).
This is a non-provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have in fact been patented. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 11 and 13-15 is/are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3-5, 7, 14, 27 and 30 of US Application No. 17/379,533 (US patent No. 11,284,797).
This is a non-provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have in fact been patented. Table below shows the claim matching between two applications:
Application No.
claims
claims
claims
claims
19/049,457
1/8/15
4/11/18
6/13/20
7/14
17/379,533
(US patent No. 11,284,797)
1/5/17
7
3/14/27
4/7/30
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 571-270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights