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 § 112
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.
Claims 17 and 25 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.
The term “disposed relatively centrally” in claims 17 and 25is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively centrally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of further examination, “disposed relatively centrally” will be interpreted to mean that the control-component tool is disposed within the control component workspace.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 1, 2, 6-10, 16, 17-20, and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami et al. (US 2021/0369365 A1, Dec. 2, 2021) (hereinafter “Goswami”) in view of Sitnitsky et al. (US 2023/0117302 A1, Apr. 20, 2023) (hereinafter “Sitnitsky”).
Regarding claim 1: Goswami discloses apparatus for performing a procedure on a portion of a body of a patient using a surgical tool that has a tip, an imaging system and a display, the apparatus comprising: a robotic unit configured to move the surgical tool (fig. 1A, [0040]); a control-component unit that comprises one or more location sensors and a control- component tool that is configured to be moved by an operator (fig. 1A, operator console 38 with operator input system 16 comprising one or more control devices, [0041]); and at least one computer processor (control system 20) configured: to drive the display to show an image that includes a representation of the surgical tool (fig. 17, [0111]); in response to the control-component tool being at least partially aligned with the representation of the surgical tool within the image upon the display, to engage the control- component tool with the surgical tool (fig. 17, [0112]-[0113], [0117], [0120]), and when the control-component tool is engaged with the surgical tool: to determine movement of the location and orientation of the tip of the control-component tool based upon data received from the one or more location sensors; and to move the tip of the surgical tool within the patient’s body in a manner that corresponds with the movement of the location and orientation of the control-component tool (fig. 1A, [0040], [0044], [0047], [0122]). Goswami further discloses that to provide an effective control relationship between a master control device and its slave tool/end effector (also referred to as a master-tool alignment), a spatial alignment between the master control device and the tool/end effector is needed. Such a spatial alignment provides a reasonably accurate relationship between the operator's perceived motion of the master control device (e.g., a proprioceptive sense) and the operator's perceived resulting motion of the tool including the shaft and the end effector (e.g., a visual sense) ([0059]).
While Goswami discloses that the control devices can be any known type of control device ([0041] – “The control device(s) may include one or more of any number of a variety of input devices, such as hand grips, joysticks, trackballs, data gloves, trigger-guns, foot pedals, hand-operated controllers, voice recognition devices, touch screens, body motion or presence sensors, and the like.”) and that the surgical robot may be used to perform any type of surgical procedure using any type of surgical tool ([0039], [0042]) but is silent on a specific control device that “defines a tip” and performing an eye procedure.
Sitnitsky, in the same field of robotic surgery, discloses apparatus for performing a procedure on a portion of a body of a patient using a surgical tool that has a tip, an imaging system and a display, the apparatus comprising: a robotic unit configured to move the surgical tool (robotic arm 55 with base 102 and/or robot 212); a control-component unit that comprises one or more location sensors and a control- component tool that is configured to be moved by an operator and that defines a tip (model surgical tool 135/235); at least one computer processor ([0036]) configured to determine movement of the location and orientation of the tip of the control-component tool based upon data received from the one or more location sensors ([0029], [0033] - position and direction; sensors 111 and 110/210); and to move the tip of the surgical tool within the patient's eye in a manner that corresponds with the movement of the location and orientation of the tip of the control-component tool ([0027], [0029], [0039] - mimicking motion, following motion).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the surgical procedure of Sitnitsky using the alignment/engagement process of Goswami in order to provide an effective control relationship between the control device (“control-component”) and surgical tool, as well as accurate proprioceptive and visual senses for the operator in view of the further teachings of Goswami.
Regarding claim 2: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 1. Sitnitsky further discloses wherein the apparatus is configured for performing an ophthalmic procedure on an eye of a patient using one or more ophthalmic tools that have tips and wherein the robotic unit is configured to move the one or more ophthalmic tools within the patient's eye ([0028], [0029], [0032]).
Regarding claim 6: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the robotic unit is configured to move the surgical tool within a tool frame of reference (Goswami – fig. 4, [0056]-[0058]; Sitnitsky - [0033]-[0034] - the frame of reference of sensor 110); the control-component tool is moveable within a control-component frame of reference (Goswami – fig. 4, [0056]-[0058]; Sitnitsky - [0033]-[0034] - the frame of reference of sensor 111); and the computer processor is configured to guide the operator to move the control-component tool to become engaged with the surgical tool when the control-component tool is disposed at an orientation within the control component frame of reference that is substantially similar to an orientation of the surgical tool within the tool frame of reference (Goswami - fig. 17, [0112]-[0114], [0117], [0120]).
Regarding claim 7: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 1. Goswami further discloses wherein the computer processor is configured to engage the control-component tool with the surgical tool, without requiring any inputs via any operator-controlled interfaces other than movement of the control-component tool ([0120] - "the control system switches to a tool control mode, and reconnects the control loop between the master control device and the tool"; no additional operator actions are disclosed).
Regarding claim 8: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 8. Goswami further discloses wherein the computer processor is configured to drive the display to show an image that includes a representation of the surgical tool by driving the display an image of the surgical tool and the portion of the patient's body (fig. 5, [0111]).
Regarding claim 9: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 1. Goswami further discloses wherein the computer processor is configured to drive the display to show an image that includes a representation of the surgical tool by driving the display an image of the surgical tool (fig. 5, [0111]).
Regarding claim 10: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 8. Goswami further discloses wherein the computer processor is configured to drive the display to show an image that includes a representation of the surgical tool by driving the display to display an augmented surgical tool overlaid upon the surgical tool upon the display (fig. 15, [0105], [0117]).
Regarding claim 16: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 1. Goswami further discloses wherein the control-component tool is moveable within a control-component workspace, and wherein the computer processor is configured to guide the operator to move the control-component tool to become engaged with the surgical tool when the control-component tool is disposed within a given portion of the control-component workspace (fig. 17, [0112]-[0113], [0117], [0120]; any portion of the workspace can be “a given portion”).
Regarding claim 17, as interpreted above: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 16. Goswami further discloses wherein the computer processor is configured to guide the operator to move the control-component tool to become engaged with the surgical tool when the control-component tool is disposed relatively centrally within the control-component workspace (fig. 17, [0112]-[0113], [0117], [0120]).
Regarding claim 18: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the robotic unit is capable of moving the surgical tool within a tool workspace, and wherein the computer processor is configured to guide the operator to move the control-component tool to become engaged with the surgical tool (Goswami - fig. 17, [0112]-[0113], [0117], [0120]) when the control-component tool is disposed such that the control-component tool can be moved so as to move the surgical tool to any location within the tool workspace without the control-component tool leaving the control-component workspace (Sitnitsky – [0025], [0027], [0042] - the robotic movements are scaled, mirrored versions of the control-component movements, meaning that the control-component can direct the robotic movements without leaving the control-component workspace).
Regarding claim 19: Goswami discloses apparatus for performing a procedure on a portion of a body of a patient using a surgical tool that has a tip, an imaging system and a display, the apparatus comprising: a robotic unit configured to move the surgical tool within a tool frame of reference (fig. 1A, [0040]); a control-component unit that comprises one or more location sensors and a control- component tool that is configured to be moved by an operator, and that is moveable within a control-component frame of reference (fig. 1A, operator console 38 with operator input system 16 comprising one or more control devices, [0041]); and at least one computer processor (control system 20) configured: to guide the operator to move the control-component tool to become engaged with the surgical tool when the control-component tool is disposed at an orientation within the control-component frame of reference that is substantially similar to an orientation of the surgical tool within the tool frame of reference (fig. 17, [0114], [0120]), and when the control-component tool is engaged with the surgical tool: to determine movement of the location and orientation of the tip of the control-component tool based upon data received from the one or more location sensors (fig. 17, [0114], [0120], [0122]); and to move the tip of the surgical tool within the patient's body in a manner that corresponds with the movement of the location and orientation of the control-component tool (fig. 1A, [0040], [0044], [0047], [0122]). Goswami further discloses that to provide an effective control relationship between a master control device and its slave tool/end effector (also referred to as a master-tool alignment), a spatial alignment between the master control device and the tool/end effector is needed. Such a spatial alignment provides a reasonably accurate relationship between the operator's perceived motion of the master control device (e.g., a proprioceptive sense) and the operator's perceived resulting motion of the tool including the shaft and the end effector (e.g., a visual sense) ([0059]).
While Goswami discloses that the control devices can be any known type of control device ([0041] – “The control device(s) may include one or more of any number of a variety of input devices, such as hand grips, joysticks, trackballs, data gloves, trigger-guns, foot pedals, hand-operated controllers, voice recognition devices, touch screens, body motion or presence sensors, and the like.”) and that the surgical robot may be used to perform any type of surgical procedure using any type of surgical tool ([0039], [0042]) but is silent on a specific control device that “defines a tip” and performing an eye procedure.
Sitnitsky, in the same field of robotic surgery, discloses apparatus for performing a procedure on a portion of a body of a patient using a surgical tool that has a tip, an imaging system and a display, the apparatus comprising: a robotic unit configured to move the surgical tool (robotic arm 55 with base 102 and/or robot 212); a control-component unit that comprises one or more location sensors and a control- component tool that is configured to be moved by an operator and that defines a tip (model surgical tool 135/235); at least one computer processor ([0036]) configured to determine movement of the location and orientation of the tip of the control-component tool based upon data received from the one or more location sensors ([0029], [0033] - position and direction; sensors 111 and 110/210); and to move the tip of the surgical tool within the patient's eye in a manner that corresponds with the movement of the location and orientation of the tip of the control-component tool ([0027], [0029], [0039] - mimicking motion, following motion).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the surgical procedure of Sitnitsky using the alignment/engagement process of Goswami in order to provide an effective control relationship between the control device (“control-component”) and surgical tool, as well as accurate proprioceptive and visual senses for the operator in view of the further teachings of Goswami.
Regarding claim 20: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 19. Goswami further discloses wherein the computer processor is configured to engage the control-component tool with the surgical tool, without requiring any inputs via any operator-controlled interfaces other than movement of the control-component tool ([0120] - "the control system switches to a tool control mode, and reconnects the control loop between the master control device and the tool"; no additional operator actions are disclosed).
Regarding claim 22: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 19. Goswami further discloses wherein the computer processor is configured to drive the display to show an image that includes a representation of the of the surgical tool (fig. 5, [0111]).
Regarding claim 23: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 22. Goswami further discloses wherein the computer processor is configured, in response to the control-component tool being at least partially aligned with the representation of the surgical tool within the image upon the display, to engage the control-component tool with the surgical tool (fig. 17, [0114], [0120]).
Regarding claim 24: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 19. Goswami further discloses wherein the control-component tool is moveable within a control-component workspace, and wherein the computer processor is configured to guide the operator to move the control-component tool to become engaged with the surgical tool when the control-component tool is disposed within a given portion of the control-component workspace (fig. 17, [0114], [0120]; any portion of the workspace can be “a given portion”).
Regarding claim 25, as interpreted above: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 24, wherein the computer processor is configured to guide the operator to move the control-component tool to become engaged with the surgical tool when the control-component tool is disposed relatively centrally within the control-component workspace (fig. 17, [0114], [0120]).
Regarding claim 26: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 24, wherein the robotic unit is capable of moving the surgical tool within a tool workspace, and wherein the computer processor is configured to guide the operator to move the control-component tool to become engaged with the surgical tool (Goswami - fig. 17, [0112]-[0113], [0117], [0120]) when the control-component tool is disposed such that the control-component tool can be moved so as to move the surgical tool to any location within the tool workspace without the control-component tool leaving the control-component workspace (Sitnitsky – [0025], [0027], [0042] - the robotic movements are scaled, mirrored versions of the control-component movements, meaning that the control-component can direct the robotic movements without leaving the control-component workspace).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami and Sitnitsky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He et al. (US 2021/0132701 A1, May 6, 2021) (hereinafter “He”).
Regarding claim 3: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 1. Goswami further discloses wherein the computer processor is configured to drive the display to display an augmented display comprising an overlay, and wherein the computer processor is configured to engage the control- component tool with the surgical tool in response to the augmented overlay being at least partially aligned with the representation of the surgical tool within the image upon the display (figs. 15-16, [0105]-[0107]). However, Goswami and Sitnitsky do not disclose displaying an augmented control-component tool overlaid upon the control-component tool upon the display, and wherein the computer processor is configured to engage the control- component tool with the surgical tool in response to the augmented control-component tool being at least partially aligned with the representation of the surgical tool within the image upon the display.
He, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a display for assisting in control device and surgical tool alignment comprising a computer processor configured to display an augmented control-component tool (“input device”) overlaid upon the control-component tool (“input device”) upon the display and engaging the control- component tool (“input device”) with the surgical tool (“end effector”) in response to the augmented control-component tool being at least partially aligned with the representation of the surgical tool within the image upon the display ([0040] - "a blended overlay of live images of the hand and/or the input device and live images of the end effector associated with the input device"; [0041] - "the position and orientation of end effector 410 and input device 460 as well as the position and orientation of end effector 420 and input device 470 are generally matched"; [0077] – “the views may be augmented to include one or more motion cues, such as directional, arrows indicating the one or more directions in which each of the input devices, hands, end effectors, and/or virtual hands are moving to assist engagement during process 350”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Goswami and Sitnitsky by providing additional/alternative virtual overlays as taught by He to further assist the user in aligning the control device (“control-component tool”, “input device”) with the surgical tool (“end effector”).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami and Sitnitsky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Itkowitz et al. (US 2017/0000574 A1, Jan. 5, 2017) (hereinafter “Itkowitz”).
Regarding claim 4: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the computer processor is configured to automatically move the control-component tool to become at least partially aligned with the representation of the surgical tool within the image upon the display, such that the control- component tool becomes engaged with the surgical tool.
Itkowitz, in the same field of endeavor, discloses an apparatus configured to assist a user in aligning/engaging the control device(s) (“control-component tool”) and the surgical tool(s) and configured to automatically move the control-component tool to become at least partially aligned with the representation of the surgical tool within the image upon the display, such that the control- component tool becomes engaged with the surgical tool ([0037]-[0038], [0040], [0042]; [0081] - "the input control recentering operation repositions and/or reorients input controls 760 and 770 about ergonomic center 750 to approximately correspond to the positions and/or orientations of the end effectors 310 and 330 within the view space corresponding to the image with borders 710. ").
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Goswami and Sitnitsky with at least partially automated control/tool/view recentering including automatically moving the control-component tool to become at least partially aligned with the representation of the surgical tool within the image upon the display as taught by Itkowitz in order to further reduce the operator burden in achieving a proper alignment and engagement between controls and surgical tools.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami and Sitnitsky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Piron et al. (US 2017/0273715 A1, Sep. 28, 2017) (hereinafter “Piron”).
Regarding claim 5: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein the robotic unit is capable of moving the surgical tool within a tool workspace, and wherein the computer processor is configured to automatically drive the robotic unit to move the surgical tool to an initial position at which the surgical tool is within a given portion of the tool workspace.
Piron, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a robotic surgical system which is configured to automatically drive the robotic unit to move the surgical tool to an initial position at which the surgical tool is within a given portion of the tool workspace ([0101]-[0102] – “zero position”). Piron further discloses that automatic movement of the tool to the “zero position”, or start position, saves time and improves efficiency because it is possible to start immediately on the treatment of the patient allowing the surgeon to skip the manual positioning ([0101]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the robotic unit of Goswami and Sitnitsky to automatically move the tool to a start position (“zero position”) as taught by Piron in order to save time during the procedure in view of the further teachings of Piron.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami and Sitnitsky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2011/0276058 A1, Nov. 10, 2011) (hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding claim 11: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 1. Goswami and Sitnitsky further disclose that the robotic surgical apparatus can have any number of arms/surgical instruments and corresponding control devices, including left and right robotic units, surgical tools, and control devices based on the specifics of the desired procedure (Goswami – [0042], [0046]; Sitnitsky – [0044]). Goswami and Sitnitsky do not disclose a specific embodiment comprising the surgical tool includes left and right surgical tools; the robotic unit comprises left and right robotic units configured to move the left and right surgical tools respectively; the control-component unit comprises left and right control-component tools that are configured to be moved by the operator and that define tips; the left control-component tool is engageable with both of the left and right surgical tools; and the right control-component tool is engageable with both of the left and right surgical tools.
Choi, in the same field of endeavor, discloses an apparatus comprising left and right surgical tools ([0089] - tools 410a and 410b); left and right robotic units configured to move the left and right surgical tools respectively (fig. 1, robot arms 3, [0063]-[0064]); left and right control-component tools that are configured to be moved by the operator ([0064] – handles 10, [0090] - handles L and R); the left control-component tool is engageable with both of the left and right surgical tools ([0084], figs. 6-8, [0091], [0094], [0123]); and the right control-component tool is engageable with both of the left and right surgical tools ([0084], figs. 6-8, [0091], [0094], [0123]). Choi further discloses that the ability to reverse controls assists the operator to intuitively control the surgical tools even when the on-screen view image is rotated ([0084]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the apparatus of Goswami and Sitnitsky with left and right robotic arms, surgical tools, and controls in order to perform a procedure requiring multiple tools, in view of the teachings of Goswami and Sitnitsky that any number of arms/tools/controls may be used as appropriate, and to provide reversible controls as taught by Choi in order to allow proper instrument control even if the viewing image is rotated.
Regarding claim 12: Goswami, Sitnitsky and Choi disclose the apparatus according to claim 11. Choi further discloses wherein the computer processor is configured to engage the left control-component tool with the right surgical tool and the right control-component tool with the left surgical tool in response to an input from the operator ([0084], figs. 6-8, [0091], [0094], [0123]).
Regarding claim 13: Goswami, Sitnitsky and Choi disclose the apparatus according to claim 11. Choi further discloses wherein the computer processor is configured to engage the left control-component tool with the right surgical tool and the right control-component tool with the left surgical tool automatically based on positions of the left and right robotic units relative to the portion of the patient's body ([0084], figs. 6-8, [0091], [0094], [0123]).
Claim(s) 14 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami and Sitnitsky as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Prisco et al. (US 2007/0142825 A1, Jun. 21, 2007) (hereinafter “Prisco”).
Regarding claim 14: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the robotic unit is capable of moving the surgical tool within a tool workspace, but do not disclose wherein the computer processor is configured to disengage the control-component tool from the surgical tool in response to the surgical tool being moved toward an edge of the tool workspace.
Prisco, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a surgical robot with a computer processor configured to automatically disengage the master control from the surgical tool when it is determined that the surgical tool would exceed a safe state limitation, including a position limitation within its dexterous workspace (“edge of the tool workspace”) ([0012], [0037], [0049]-[0050]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Goswami and Sitnitsky by including automatic disengagement to prevent the tool from exceeding position limitations (“edge of workspace”) as taught by Prisco in order to prevent unsafe conditions from occurring.
Regarding claim 21: Goswami and Sitnitsky disclose the apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the robotic unit is capable of moving the surgical tool within a tool workspace, but do not disclose wherein the computer processor is configured to disengage the control-component tool from the surgical tool in response to the surgical tool being moved toward an edge of the tool workspace.
Prisco, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a surgical robot with a computer processor configured to automatically disengage the master control from the surgical tool when it is determined that the surgical tool would exceed a safe state limitation, including a position limitation within its dexterous workspace (“edge of the tool workspace”) ([0012], [0037], [0049]-[0050]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Goswami and Sitnitsky by including automatic disengagement to prevent the tool from exceeding position limitations (“edge of workspace”) as taught by Prisco in order to prevent unsafe conditions from occurring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLYN A PEHLKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3484. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm (Central Time), Monday - Friday.
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, Chris Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/CAROLYN A PEHLKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
