DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 6/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/17/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sramek U.S 2022/0061925.
Claim 1: Sramek discloses a surgical robot 100 as best seen in fig. 1 comprising: a robot arm 12 including a holder (cart 11 is part of a holder) to allow a first instrument (endoscope 13) to be attached thereto and detached therefrom; an arm operation unit (support arm 105) on the robot arm including an operation tool to operate the robot arm (see paragraph 105); a detector 28/29 is equivalent as a detector, fig. 14, see paragraphs 72,94) in the holder to detect attachment and detachment of the first instrument to and from the holder; and a controller (see fig. 17, paragraph 145) configured or programmed to move the holder to a first replacement position when the detector detects that the first instrument has been removed; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to move the holder from the first replacement position to a second replacement position based on an input to the operation tool (see paragraph 48).
Claims 2-3: Sramek discloses wherein the arm operation unit further includes an operator- operated input element (see paragraph 7); and the controller is configured or programmed to control operation of the robot arm to move the holder from the second replacement position to the first replacement position when the input element is operated with a second instrument attached to the holder at the second replacement position (see paragraph 48); comprising: a storage to store information on a pivot position; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to control the operation of the robot arm based on the pivot position and a distal end position of the first instrument at a time at which the first instrument has been removed when the input element is operated with the second instrument attached to the holder (see paragraphs 76,98).
Claims 6-7: Sramek discloses wherein the input element includes an enable switch on the arm operation unit (see paragraphs 87, 127); comprising: a storage to store information on a pivot position; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to control operation of the robot arm to maintain a distance between the pivot position and the holder when the first instrument is removed and the robot arm is operated based on the operation input to the operation tool (see paragraphs 76,98).
Claim 8: Sramek discloses wherein the robot arm includes: a linear motion mechanism at a distal end of the robot arm; and a movable element attached so as to be linearly movable with respect to the linear motion mechanism; and the holder and the arm operation unit are each engaged with the movable element (see paragraphs 72,93).
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) 10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sramek in view of Mintz et al U.S 2021/0290324.
Claim 10: Sramek discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but is silent regarding wherein the operation tool includes a joystick; and the controller is configured or programmed to control the robot arm based on an operation input to the joystick. However, Mintz et al teach FIG. 16 illustrates an example command console 200 for a medical robotics system as described herein, for example in a medical robotic system as depicted in FIGS. 1-5 and 8-10. The command console 200 that can be used, for example, as the command console 105 in the example operating environment 100. The command console 200 includes a console base 201, display modules 202, e.g., monitors, and control modules, e.g., a keyboard 203 and joystick 204. In some embodiments, one or more of the command console 200 functionality may be integrated into a base of a medical robotic system as depicted in FIGS. 1-5 and 8-10 or another system communicatively coupled to the medical robotic system. A user 205, e.g., a physician, remotely controls the medical robotic system from an ergonomic position using the command console 200.
[0131] The console base 201 may include controller 206 including a one or more processors and memories, and optionally one or more data buses and associated data communication ports. Controller 206 is responsible for interpreting and processing signals such as robotic position data, camera imagery, and tracking sensor data, e.g., from a medical instrument such as endoscope 13, ureteroscope 32, medical instrument 34, laparoscope 59, gastroscope, bronchoscope, or another procedure-specific medical instrument. The memory of the controller 206 can store instructions for operation of the medical instruments and robotic systems described herein. In some embodiments, both the console base 201 and the base of the medical robotic system can perform signal processing for load-balancing, and thus the controller 206 may be split between different system components. The controller 206 may also process commands and instructions provided by the user 205 through the control modules 203 and 204. In addition to the keyboard 203 and joystick 204 shown in FIG. 16, the control modules may include other devices, for example, computer mice, trackpads, trackballs, control pads, controls such as handheld remote controllers, and sensors (e.g., motion sensors or cameras) that capture hand gestures and finger gestures. For example, for some laparoscopic robotic systems the control modules include a pair of seven degree-of-freedom (“7 DOF”) haptic masters. A haptic master is a force controlled haptic interface that translates input (e.g., force applied by a human user) to output (e.g., displacement of the end effector of the robotic system) and also provides tactile feedback back to the user. A 7 DOF haptic master can provide three degrees of motion in the X, Y, Z directions and four degrees of motion of the pitch, yaw, roll and articulation. A control can include a set of user inputs (e.g., buttons, joysticks, directional pads, etc.) mapped to an operation of the instrument (e.g., articulation, driving, water irrigation, etc.) (see paragraphs 130,131). It would have been obvious ot one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Sramek with the operation tool includes a joystick; and the controller is configured or programmed to control the robot arm based on an operation input to the joystick as taught by Mintz et al in order to control the robotic system from an ergonomic position using the command console 200 and the joystick 204.
Claim 15: Mintz et al teach wherein an operator-operated input element included in the arm operation unit includes an enable switch on the arm operation unit; the operation tool includes a joystick; and the controller is configured or programmed to control the robot arm based on an operation input to the joystick 204, see paragraphs 130,131.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (6:30-4:30).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VI X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights