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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujie et al (Pub. No.: US 2018/00000511) in view of Overmyer et al (Pub. No.: US 2020/0188046)
Regarding claims 1, 10, Fujie et al disclose a system comprising:
a handheld robotic system [see 0028] comprising:
a robotic arm [see fig 2], wherein the robotic arm comprises:
a robotic manipulator (probe actuator 36) [see fig 2, 0026-0033];
an instrument guide (puncture needle actuator 39) for facilitating movement therein of a percutaneous instrument (needle) configured to puncture a patient's skin [see 0029], the instrument guide (puncture needle actuator 39) coupled to the robotic manipulator (probe actuator 36) [see 0029-0036];
a medical imaging device (ultrasonic probe 15) [see 0028];
a system user interface (monitor 19), wherein the system user interface displays a plurality of medical images and robotic system controls [see 0014, 0036] by disclosing a monitor 19 as presenting means for presenting the ultrasonic images, the puncture assistance information, and other pieces of information to the physician [see 0014]
Fujie et al disclose don’t disclose a remote user interface provided to at least one remote user, wherein the remote user
interface includes comprises at least one of:
at least one element of the system user interface and or at least one image from the medical imaging device;
two-way communication capabilities between the at least one remote user and a robot
operator,
wherein the two-way communication capabilities includes at least one of:
an audio communication and or a video communication.
Nonetheless, Overmyer et al disclose a remote user interface provided to at least one remote user [see 0034, 0079], wherein the remote user interface includes at least one of:
at least one element (input control or switch, emphasis added) of the system user interface [see 0034, 0079-0080, 0157] by disclosing the operator may transition the system (e.g., the system 100 of FIG. 1) between manual mode 1002, semi-automatic mode 1004, and automatic mode 1006 [see 0079]; and
at least one image from the medical imaging device [see 0040, 0045];
two-way communication capabilities between the at least one remote user and a robot operator, wherein the two-way communication capabilities include at least one of:
an audio communication [see 0157] and a video communication [see 0157].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Fujie et al and Overmyer et al by using a remote user interface provided to at least one remote user, wherein the remote user
interface includes comprises at least one of:
at least one element of the system user interface and or at least one image from the medical imaging device;
two-way communication capabilities between the at least one remote user and a robot
operator,
wherein the two-way communication capabilities includes at least one of:
an audio communication and or a video communication; for enabling the clinicians 112a, b to operate on the patient 110 from remote locations [see 0034].
Regarding claims 3, 12, Fujie et al disclose wherein the medical imaging device is an ultrasound
probe [see 0028].
Regarding claims 4-9, 13-19, Fujie et al don’t disclose wherein the at least one remote user interacts with elements of the system user interface remotely;
wherein the remote user is provided a portal with robotic system telemetry data;
wherein the remote user modifies a handheld robotic system software;
wherein the remote user interface is a duplicate of the system user interface;
wherein the at least one remote user utilizes telestration to provide guidance to the robot operator’
wherein the system user interface utilizes a graphical overlay.
Nonetheless, Overmyer et al disclose wherein the at least one remote user interacts with elements of the system user interface remotely [see 0034, 0157].
Overmyer et al disclose wherein the remote user is provided a portal with robotic system telemetry data [see 0148].
Overmyer et al disclose wherein the remote user modifies a robotic system software [see 0104] by disclosing using conventional CAD modeling software to alter the graphically replicated "Scope" view to a desired "custom" vantage point [see 0104].
Overmyer et al disclose wherein the remote user interface is a duplicate (the remote clinician and the local can use the same interface) of the system user interface [see 0034] by disclosing the clinicians 112a, b may be able to remotely control the robotic arms 106 via the communications link 114, thus enabling the clinicians 112a, b to operate on the patient 110 from remote locations [see 0034].
Overmyer et al disclose wherein the at least one remote user utilizes telestration to provide guidance to the robot operator [see 0148].
Overmyer et al disclose wherein the system user interface utilizes a graphical overlay [see claim 19, 0148, 0166].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Fujie et al and Overmyer et al by having at least one remote user interacts with elements of the system user interface remotely;
wherein the remote user is provided a portal with robotic system telemetry data;
wherein the remote user modifies a handheld robotic system software;
wherein the remote user interface is a duplicate of the system user interface;
wherein the at least one remote user utilizes telestration to provide guidance to the robot operator’
wherein the system user interface utilizes a graphical overlay; for enabling the clinicians 112a, b to operate on the patient 110 from remote locations [see 0034].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REM, filed 5/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fujie et al (Pub. No.: US 2018/00000511).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the term “handheld robot” of Overmyer et al are moot due to newly cited Fujie et al.
Applicant argues Overmyer does not disclose a remote user separate from a robot operator. Instead, Overmyer describes two clinicians 112a, 112b who each operate the robotic system from respective master control consoles 102a, 102b. (See Overmyer at II [0032]-[0033]). Both clinicians function as operators of the robotic arms 106, "each clinician 102a,b may control different robotic arms 106 or, in some cases, complete control of the robotic arms 106 may be passed between the clinicians 102a,b." (Id. at I [0033]). Overmyer's dual-clinician arrangement thus constitutes two co-operators of the same robotic system, not a "remote user" and a "robot operator" as recited in claim 1. Overmyer is entirely silent regarding any user who is remote from the robotic system and who communicates with an operator of the robotic system, as distinguished from a second clinician who independently controls the robotic arms.
The examiner disagrees because Overmyer disclose enabling the clinicians 112a, b to operate on the patient 110 from remote locations [see 0034].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL F BRUTUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat, 11:00 AM to 7:00 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 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.
/JOEL F BRUTUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights