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 .
Note: all citations with respect to the specification of present application are citing the paragraph numbers in the Pre-Grant Application US 2025/0268664 A1.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 02/19/2025 have been fully considered. There is an error of publication number of foreign patent document No.2 on page 1. The cited reference “WO 202216810 A2” cannot be identified. According to the PDF copy of foreign reference submitted on 02/19/2025, the correct publication number should be “WO 2022216810 A2”. A correction should be made.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 line 6, limitation "positioning an instrument (11)" should read "positioning the instrument (11)".
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Limitation “image processing device” in claim 1, 7, 8, 11 and 15.
Limitation “positioning device” in claim 3.
Limitation “detection device” in claim 7, 9 and 10.
Limitation “acknowledging device” in claim 9, 12 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding limitation “image processing device” in claim 1, 7, 8, 11 and 15, the corresponding disclosure in the specification of present application is recited as: “An image processing device 25 is arranged between the image capturing device 14 and the image display device 18, wherein the image processing device 25 is configured to localize the image tip 19 in the image captured by the image capturing device 14 and to control apparatus 15 based thereon” in [0027]; “The device 10 according to the invention comprises an image capturing device 14 to which an image processing device 25 and via the latter an image display device 18 are connected” in [0038].
However, there is no structural disclosure in the specification to provide any structural detail about the “image processing device”. There is no other disclosure about any computer, processor or equivalent integrated circuits to carry out the claimed function. See also 112 (a) and 112 (b) rejections.
Regarding limitation “positioning device” in claim 3, the corresponding structural disclosure in the specification of present application is recited as: “For example, the instrument 11 can also be configured in rigid manner, wherein a handle for positioning the rigid instrument 11 inside the patient can be provided at the proximal end. During laparoscopic surgical operations the image capturing device 14 can be inserted into the body of the patient separately and independent from instrument 11. All elements that are provided for moving the (flexible or rigid) instrument 11 together form the positioning device for the instrument 11” in [0023].
Regarding limitation “detection device” in claim 7, 9 and 10, the corresponding disclosure in the specification of present application is recited as: “26 control device/detection device” in [REFERENMCE SIGNS]; “wherein the image processing device 25 is configured to localize the image tip 19 in the image captured by the image capturing device 14” in [0027]; “The recognition of such gestures can be carried out by means of the image processing device 25 and/or the control device 26” [0028]; “This detection region E is monitored by means of the image processing device 25 for movements of instrument tip 19 as soon as the latter is located inside detection region E. Movements of the instrument tip 19 detected by image processing device 25” in [0032].
However, there is no structural disclosure in the specification to provide any structural detail about the “detection device”. There is no other disclosure about any computer, processor or equivalent integrated circuits to carry out the claimed function. See also 112 (a) and 112 (b) rejections.
Regarding limitation “acknowledging device” in claim 9, 12 and 14, the corresponding structural disclosure in the specification of present application is recited as: “The acknowledging device can be a foot switch, a manual switch or also a gesture recognition device that can be part of the image processing device” in [0016].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding limitation “image processing device” in claim 1, 7, 8, 11 and 15, and limitation “detection device” in claim 7, 9 and 10, the above limitations invoke claim interpretation under 112 (f). However, the specification of present application fails to disclose structural information about the claimed “image processing device” (see detail of corresponding citations in Claim Interpretation). There is no other disclosure about any computer, processor or equivalent integrated circuits to perform the claimed functions. It is unclear and unknown which hardware is constructed to perform the claimed functions.
When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP § 2163.03, subsection VI.
Therefore, claim 1, 7 – 11, 15 and all corresponding dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claim 1 – 15 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.
Regarding limitation “image processing device” in claim 1, 7, 8, 11 and 15, and limitation “detection device” in claim 7, 9 and 10, the above limitations invoke claim interpretation under 112 (f). However, the specification of present application fails to disclose structural information about the claimed “image processing device” (see detail of corresponding citations in Claim Interpretation). There is no other disclosure about any computer, processor or equivalent integrated circuits to perform the claimed functions. It is unclear which hardware is constructed to perform the claimed functions.
35 U.S.C. 112(f) states that a claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure…described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” “If one employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) [or the second paragraph of pre-AIA section 112].” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). See MPEP 2181.
Thus, the above limitations render claims indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitations, which invoke 112(f), are interpreted as any reasonable hardware to perform the claimed functions.
Claim 1 recites limitation “and if required: show at least one menu (20) outside a center of the captured image (B); and show a pointer symbol (21) that is movably coupled with the instrument (11)”. The term “if required” in line 9 makes the above limitation optional. It is unclear the features recited after term “if required” are actually required by the claimed invention or not.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable combination of recited features.
Claim 3 recites limitation “to move the distal instrument tip (19) inside the image (B) captured by the image capturing device (14) in two directions (x, y)”. The positioning device is disclosed to move the distal instrument tip (19) in real world, where the instrument tip (19) is a real physical 3D object (see specification [0023], [0025]). It is unclear how to move a real world 3D object in a digital image virtual space, since the limitation requires the movement “inside the image (B)”.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as moving the instrument and in the meanwhile the imaged instrument tip in the image is moved correspondingly.
Claim 5 recites limitation "wherein the pointer symbol (21) is positioned distant from the distal instrument tip (19) in the image (B) in at least one direction (x, y)". As discussed above, the instrument tip (19) is disclosed as a real physical 3D object (see specification [0025]), and the pointer symbol (21) is disclosed as a displayed graphic symbol (see specification [0026]). It is unclear how to set the distance between a real world 3D object and a virtual graphic object.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as the distance between the imaged representation of instrument tip and the pointer symbol.
Claim 6 recites limitation "multiple menu fields (22, 23, 24, 29)". Although reference numbers are allowed in the claim, it is unclear the list of four reference numbers actually limit the scope of "multiple menu fields" to only four fields or not.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable numbers of menu fields.
Claim 7 recites limitation “to detect the position of the distal instrument tip (19) in the image (B)”. As discussed above, the instrument tip (19) is disclosed as a real physical 3D object (see specification [0025]), it is unclear which position is actually detected, the position of real instrument tip (19) in real world or the position of tip representation in the captured image (B).
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable position.
Therefore, claim 1, 3, 5 – 11, 15 and all corresponding dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1, 2 and 4 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ootsuki et al. (US 2020/0146885 A1; published on 05/14/2020) (hereinafter "Ootsuki").
Regarding claim 1, Ootsuki discloses A device (10) for surgical treatment of a human or animal patient ("… it is possible to help an operator perform a treatment since the image processing device operates in an operation mode according to a procedure …" [0008]; "… a surgical tool and a site of an eye that are included in the front image …" [0018]), comprising:
an image capturing device (14) ("… the image information acquisition section 101 includes a front image acquisition section 1011 …" [0106]) configured to capture an image (B) of an operation site (12) ("… and constitutes a functional configuration of a front-image capturing device that is capable of capturing an image of a treatment-target eye ..." [0107]) and to transmit the image (B) to an image processing device (25) ("… The image information acquisition section 101 provides the acquired front image and the acquired cross-sectional information to the image recognition section 102 and the display information generator 105." [0110]);
an instrument (11) configured to influence the patient at the operation site (12) and to be movably guidable within the operation site (12) ("… an opening for inserting a surgical tool …" [0121]; "In the removal of a vitreous body, the tip of a surgical tool moves in a relatively wide range." [0193]; see also the movement of surgical tool in Fig. 9 - 12, 16 and 18 – 20); and
an image display device (18) connected to the image processing device (25) ("The display information generator 105 provides the generated display information to the display section 106." [0114]; see the connection in Fig.1), wherein the image display device (18) is configured to:
show the image (B) captured from the operation site (12) ("As illustrated in FIGS. 7 to 9, the display information includes a front image G captured by the front image acquisition section 1011 …" [0137]), and if required:
show at least one menu (20) outside a center of the captured image (B) ("… and a menu (M in the figures)." [0137]; see Fig.7 – 9); and
show a pointer symbol (21) ("… a selected item is indicated using a box S." [0138]; "… indicated using a box S in the figures ..." [0144]; here the box S is interpreted as the pointer symbol) that is movably coupled with the instrument (11) ("Here, the user can select an item using a position of the tip of a surgical tool T. As illustrated in FIG. 10, the user moves the position of the tip of the surgical tool T into a box of an item that the user wishes to select (“cataract” in the figure). The controller 104 can grasp a positional relationship between the tip of surgical tool T and the menu M by the image recognition section 102 performing an object recognition with respect to the surgical tool T." [0144]; see Fig.10).
Regarding claim 2, Ootsuki discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the instrument (11) comprises a distal instrument tip (19) that can be positioned in the operation site (12) ("… the tip of the surgical tool T is situated close to a retina, the tip of the surgical tool T is situated close to a macular region …" [0150]).
Regarding claim 4, Ootsuki discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the pointer symbol (21) is movably coupled with the distal instrument tip (19) ("Here, the user can select an item using a position of the tip of a surgical tool T. As illustrated in FIG. 10, the user moves the position of the tip of the surgical tool T into a box of an item that the user wishes to select (“cataract” in the figure). The controller 104 can grasp a positional relationship between the tip of surgical tool T and the menu M by the image recognition section 102 performing an object recognition with respect to the surgical tool T." [0144]; see Fig.10).
Regarding claim 5, Ootsuki discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 4, and further discloses wherein the pointer symbol (21) is positioned distant from the distal instrument tip (19) in the image (B) in at least one direction (x, y) (see Fig.9, the box S is away from the tip).
Regarding claim 6, Ootsuki discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one menu (20) comprises multiple menu fields (22, 23, 24, 29) ("… and a menu (M in the figures)." [0137]; see the multiple fields in Fig. 7 - 10) to which different technical actions are assigned and the different technical actions are a selection or modification of settings of an apparatus (15) for supply of the instrument (11), the settings being part of different modes and effect strengths ("… a procedure selection performed according to an instruction of a user, and are an example of selecting a procedure of membrane detachment in vitrectomy (PPV) with respect to epi-retinal membrane (ERM), which is a kind of vitreoretinal surgery." [0136]).
Regarding claim 7, Ootsuki discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 2, and further discloses a detection device (26) connected with the image processing device (25), wherein the detection device (26) is configured to detect the position of the distal instrument tip (19) in the image (B) and to transmit the position of the distal instrument tip (19) to the image processing device (25) ("The controller 104 can grasp a positional relationship between the tip of surgical tool T and the menu M by the image recognition section 102 performing an object recognition with respect to the surgical tool T." [0144]), wherein the image processing device (25) is configured to move the pointer symbol (21) depending on changes of the position of the distal instrument tip (19) ("… a selected item is indicated using a box S." [0138]; "The user can select an item by a method such as moving the tip of the surgical tool T into a box of a specific item, and giving a determination instruction using a foot switch or keeping the tip of the surgical tool T in the box of the specific item for a certain period of time or more." [0145]; the movement of box s is the result of user selection with movement of tool tip).
Regarding claim 8, Ootsuki discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 7, and further discloses wherein the image processing device (25) is configured to couple a movement of the pointer symbol (21) using a magnification factor or a reduction factor to a movement of the instrument tip (19) (see Fig.10 and 11, the movement of box s is not equal to the actual movement of tool tip, the magnification or reduction factor is inherently included).
Regarding claim 9, Ootsuki discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 7, and further discloses an acknowledging device (27) that is configured to create an acknowledging signal (q) and that is connected with the detection device (26) in order to transmit the acknowledging signal (q) to the detection device (26) ("… and giving a determination instruction using a foot switch or keeping the tip of the surgical tool T in the box of the specific item for a certain period of time or more." [0145]).
Regarding claim 10, Ootsuki discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 7, and further discloses wherein the detection device (26) is configured to transmit adjustment parameters to an apparatus (15) for the supply of the instrument (11) upon receipt of an acknowledging signal (q) ("… and giving a determination instruction using a foot switch or keeping the tip of the surgical tool T in the box of the specific item for a certain period of time or more." [0145]), wherein the adjustment parameters are stored for a menu field (22, 23, 24) on which the pointer symbol (21) is positioned ("… a selected item is indicated using a box S. As illustrated in the figure, first, the user selects “vitreoretinal” as a type of disease. Then, as illustrated in FIG. 8, the controller 104 displays a surgical technique included in “vitreoretinal” on the menu M." [0138]).
Regarding claim 11, Ootsuki discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 9, and further discloses wherein the image processing device (25) is configured to show and to hide the at least one menu (20) depending on an activation command (a) ("… a selected item is indicated using a box S. As illustrated in the figure, first, the user selects “vitreoretinal” as a type of disease. Then, as illustrated in FIG. 8, the controller 104 displays a surgical technique included in “vitreoretinal” on the menu M." [0138]; see Fig.8, the menu on the left are not shown in Fig.7 before the selection).
Regarding claim 12, Ootsuki discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 11, and further discloses wherein the acknowledging device (27) is configured to create the activation command (a) ("… and giving a determination instruction using a foot switch or keeping the tip of the surgical tool T in the box of the specific item for a certain period of time or more." [0145]; here the selection is functioned as the activation of next level of menu displaying).
Regarding claim 13, Ootsuki discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 12, and further discloses wherein the acknowledging device (27) comprises a foot push button ("… and giving a determination instruction using a foot switch ..." [0145]).
Regarding claim 14, Ootsuki discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 12, and further discloses wherein the acknowledging device (27) is configured to detect predefined movements of the distal instrument tip (19) and to create acknowledging signals (q) and/or activation signals (a) depending on the detected predefined movements ("… and giving a determination instruction ... or keeping the tip of the surgical tool T in the box of the specific item for a certain period of time or more." [0145]; here the selection is functioned as the activation of next level of menu displaying).
Regarding claim 15, Ootsuki discloses a method for adjusting an apparatus (15) for supply of a surgical instrument (11) ("… it is possible to help an operator perform a treatment since the image processing device operates in an operation mode according to a procedure …" [0008]; "… a surgical tool and a site of an eye that are included in the front image …" [0018]), wherein the method comprises:
capturing an image (B) of an operation site (12) ("… and constitutes a functional configuration of a front-image capturing device that is capable of capturing an image of a treatment-target eye ..." [0107]) by an image capturing device (14) ("… the image information acquisition section 101 includes a front image acquisition section 1011 …" [0106]) and transmitting the image (B) to an image processing device (25) ("… The image information acquisition section 101 provides the acquired front image and the acquired cross-sectional information to the image recognition section 102 and the display information generator 105." [0110]);
positioning an instrument (11) suitable for influencing a patient at the operation site (12) with an instrument tip (19) thereof at the operation site (12) ("… an opening for inserting a surgical tool …" [0121]; "In the removal of a vitreous body, the tip of a surgical tool moves in a relatively wide range." [0193]; see also the movement of surgical tool tip in Fig. 9 - 12, 16 and 18 – 20);
displaying the captured image (B) of the operation site (12) ("As illustrated in FIGS. 7 to 9, the display information includes a front image G captured by the front image acquisition section 1011 …" [0137]) and of the instrument tip (19) with an image display device (18) ("… such as an image of a surgical tool or a site of an eyeball …" [0111]; "The image recognition section 102 recognizes a surgical tool included in the front image ..." [0130]; see Fig.9 – 11);
displaying at least one menu (12) outside of a center of the captured image (B) with the image display device (18) ("… and a menu (M in the figures)." [0137]; see Fig.9 – 11); and
displaying a pointer (21) on the at least one menu (20) ("… a selected item is indicated using a box S." [0138]; "… indicated using a box S in the figures ..." [0144]; here the box S is interpreted as the pointer symbol) that is movably coupled with the instrument (11) ("Here, the user can select an item using a position of the tip of a surgical tool T. As illustrated in FIG. 10, the user moves the position of the tip of the surgical tool T into a box of an item that the user wishes to select (“cataract” in the figure). The controller 104 can grasp a positional relationship between the tip of surgical tool T and the menu M by the image recognition section 102 performing an object recognition with respect to the surgical tool T." [0144]; see Fig.10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ootsuki, as applied in claim 2, and further in view of Simaan et al. (US 2011/0125165 A1; published on 05/26/2011) (hereinafter "Simaan").
Regarding claim 3, Ootsuki teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 2, except wherein assigned to the instrument (11) is a positioning device, which is configured to move the distal instrument tip (19) inside the image (B) captured by the image capturing device (14) in two directions (x, y) that are independent from one another.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Simaan teaches wherein assigned to the instrument (11) is a positioning device, which is configured to move the distal instrument tip (19) inside the image (B) captured by the image capturing device (14) in two directions (x, y) that are independent from one another ("As shown, the RCM unit 16 can allow the surgeon to manipulate the MMDD robot 14 in four degree-of-freedom (DoF) motion …" [0023]; "the RCM unit 16 may comprise, for example, a seven DoF robot composed from a three DoF Cartesian robot, such as an x-y-z stage 18 ..." [0024]; each degree-of-freedom is an independent movement direction).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tool positioning as taught by Ootsuki with the tool supported by the RCM mechanism as taught by Simaan. By using robotic mechanism for tool manipulation, it is possible to "provide the surgeon with dexterity inside the eye" (see Simaan"; [0026]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakatani et al. (US 2024/0016364 A1; published on 01/18/2024) teach a surgery system which use the imaged tool tip as a mouse cursor to select functions on displayed image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAO SHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-8059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 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, Anne M. Kozak can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/CHAO SHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797