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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostrzewski et al. (US 2015/0366624) in view of NPL “Optical techniques for 3D surface reconstruction in computer-assisted laparoscopic surgery” (hereinafter referred to as “Maier-Hein”) in view of Parazynski et al. (US 2018/0356907) in view of Cavalier (WO 2018/112227) in view of Ogawa (US 2016/0135909).
In re claim 1, Kostrzewski discloses:
a control system ([0156] lines 1-10; Processor #1252), comprising:
a robotic surgical tool (Figure 1, 102);
a tissue proximity detection system
([0041]: detecting the desired trajectory based on the position of the surgical tool and the position of a patient is interpreted to be the tissue proximity detection system since the position and distance must be known by the trajectory to guide a surgical tool holder to the desired target position)
configured to intraoperatively detect a distance between the robotic surgical tool and an anatomical structure of a patient undergoinq a surgical procedure
([0041]; since the processor can determine the projected trajectory depending on the position of a surgical tool and a patient position (i.e. an anatomical structure of a patient undergoing surgery), then it also detects a distance between the two so it can guide the surgical tool to the targeted patient structure; [0144]: the movement of the patient may automatically be used to provide real-time compensation that is used to lock the system in a new trajectory which means the distance between the robotic surgical tool and the anatomical structure must be detected),
wherein the control circuit is configured to:
receive first input signals ([0058]; force sensor is interpreted as the first input signals)
receive second input signals ([0057]; the user being able to grab the handle and move the end effector is interpreted to be the second input signals) and
receive third input signals ([0060]; the sensor that detects the hand of a user before movement is interpreted as the third input signals);
wherein the control circuit ([0032]: processor is interpreted as a control circuit) is configured to:
switch the surgical tool holder [0041] from a first mode ([0141]; the surgeon can manually move the surgical tool holder to the desired trajectory based on attractive and resistive haptic feedback) to a second mode (Kostrzewski: [0041]; once the surgical tool holder is brought to the desired trajectory, the surgical tool holder is locked into said trajectory, which is interpreted as the second mode) in response to input from the tissue proximity detection system [0144] indicative of the distance between the robotic surgical tool and the anatomical structure of the patient undergoing the surgical procedure being reduced to less than a threshold distance ([0061]: once the surgical tool holder is brought to a desired trajectory, i.e. once it’s within a threshold distance of an anatomical structure of a patient undergoing surgery, the trajectory is locked; [0105]: trajectory is calculated from real time patient position; [0144]: trajectory is affected by patient position).
Kostrzewski fails to disclose
wherein the tissue proximity detection system comprises a structured light source configured to project a light pattern onto a surface of tissue,
wherein the tissue proximity detection system is configured to determine the distance based on a deformation of the light pattern on the surface of the tissue;
a user input device, comprising:
a base comprising a force sensor,
a forearm support movably coupled to the base,
wherein the forearm support is movable relative to the base within a travel zone;
a shaft extending distally from the forearm support,
a handpiece extending distally from the shaft,
wherein the handpiece comprises a jaw, and
a jaw sensor configured to detect pivotal movement of the jaw,
wherein the forearm support, the shaft, and the handpiece are movable together as a collective unit as the forearm support moves relative to the base within the travel zone, and
wherein the user input device further comprises
a displacement sensor configured to detect movement of the collective unit; and
a control circuit communicatively coupled to
the force sensor,
the displacement sensor, and
the jaw sensor,
wherein the control circuit is configured to:
receive first input signals from the force sensor,
receive second input signals from the displacement sensor,
receive third input signals from the jaw sensor, and
switch the user input device from a first mode to a second mode in response to input from the tissue proximity detection system indicative of the distance between the robotic surgical tool and the anatomical structure being reduced to less than a threshold distance,
process and scale the first input signals and the second input signals to effect control motions of the robotic surgical tool in the first mode,
process and scale the first input signals and the second input signals to effect control motions of the robotic surgical tool in the second mode,
wherein the control circuit scales the first input signals and the second input signals in the first mode differently than in the second mode.
Maier-Hein teaches providing laparoscopic 3D surface reconstruction (pg. 2, right column, lines 13-26) and
wherein a tissue proximity detection system (pg. 10, left column, lines – 1-6: object’s surface position is accurately calculated) comprises a structured light source (pg. 9, 5.1. Introduction, lines 1-9) configured to project a light pattern onto a surface of tissue (pg. 9, 5.1. Introduction, lines 1-9: structured light used to recover 3D surface information of an object using artificial pattern of light; pg. 10, left column, lines – 1-6),
wherein the tissue proximity detection system is configured to determine a distance based on a deformation of the light pattern on the surface of the tissue (pg. 10, left column, lines – 1-6).
Maier-Hein further teaches that structured light systems have advantages such as speed, accuracy, and depth profiling of objects (pg. 10, 5.4. Discussion, lines 1-14), as well as immunity to artefacts caused by changes in tissue texture (pg. 10, 5.4. Discussion, lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the tissue proximity detection system taught by Kostrzewski, to provide wherein the tissue proximity detection system comprises a structured light source configured to project a light pattern onto a surface of tissue, as taught by Maier-Hein, because structured light systems have advantages such as speed, accuracy, and depth profiling of objects, as well as immunity to artefacts caused by changes in tissue texture.
Parazynski teaches a user input device, comprising:
a base ([0081] lines 1-6 & [0125]; based on the user’s preferences, the controller can be mounted on a fixed base) comprising a force sensor ([0125, 0145]; sensors to detect pitch, roll, and yaw are interpreted as a force sensor which can be adapted to be located within the base),
a forearm support (Parazynski: [0145] lines 1-2) movably coupled to the base ([0145], lines 2-9),
wherein the forearm support is movable relative to the base within a travel zone ([0145-0146]: #1500 connected to #1504 and said connection is made and bounded by pivot point #1510 in Figure 15),
a shaft (Figure 15, #1508) extending distally from the forearm support (Figure #1504); a handpiece (Figure 15, #1500) extending distally from the shaft (Figure #1508), wherein the forearm support, the shaft, and the handpiece are movable together as a collective unit (Figure 15, #1504, #1508, #1500) as the forearm support moves relative to the base within the travel zone ( [0145] lines 2-9), and wherein the user input device further comprises a displacement sensor configured to detect movement of the collective unit ([0145]; angular displacement is interpreted to be the displacement sensor); and
a control circuit ([0064]; the controller processor is interpreted as a control circuit) communicatively coupled to the force sensor ([0135; the controller senses force and provides a reactive force to return the position back to the zero position) and the displacement sensor [0136], wherein the control circuit is configured to: receive first input signals from the force sensor ([0135-0136]; the processor processes signals from the control members); receive second input signals from the displacement sensor [0136].
Parazynski further teaches that the single-handled controllers (i.e., the user input device) would enable users to gain better control of their target in a virtual reality space and also allow unintended motions to be limited [0006]. Parazynski also teaches that incorporating a coupling that allows the shaft, handpiece, and forearm support to be attached together allows for sensors to precisely measure the displacement of commands sent to the controller ([0145], lines 2-15). Moreover, Parazynski teaches that attaching the hand controller to a base structure enables for sensing and can even permit the user to use their non-dominant hand on a second controller ([0160] lines 7-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the user input device of Parazynski comprising a base comprising a force sensor, a forearm support movably coupled to the base, wherein the forearm support is movable relative to the base within a travel zone, a shaft extending distally from the forearm support; a handpiece extending distally from the shaft, wherein the forearm support, the shaft, and the handpiece are movable together as a collective unit as the forearm support moves relative to the base within the travel zone, and wherein the user input device further comprises a displacement sensor configured to detect movement of the collective unit; and a control circuit communicatively coupled to the force sensor and the displacement sensor into the robotic surgical system of the proposed combination because doing so would allow the user to gain better control of their target and would allow the attachment of the shaft, handpiece, and forearm support to enable the device to measure displacement, as taught by Parazynski.
Regarding the limitations, “switch the user input device from a first mode to a second mode in response to input from the tissue proximity detection system indicative of the distance between the robotic surgical tool and the anatomical structure being reduced to less than a threshold distance”, the proposed combination discussed above would yield wherein the user input device of Parazynski switches from a first mode to a second mode (first mode and second mode as disclosed by Kostrzewski) in response to input from the tissue proximity detection system of Kostrzewski being indicative of the distance between the robotic surgical tool and the anatomical structure being reduced to less than a threshold distance.
Cavalier teaches wherein the user input device (Figure 3) comprises:
wherein the handpiece comprises a jaw (Cavalier: Figure 3, #306); and a jaw sensor [0053] configured to detect pivotal movement of the jaw ([0053-0054]; Cavalier disclose the one or more sensors as being able to detect the positions of the jaw members 306 depending on how they are rotated around the degrees of freedom 308 to manipulate the end effector of the salve manipulator device 104),
a control circuit [0055] communicatively coupled to the force sensor ([00207; Figure 22, #2210]), the displacement sensor [0053], and the jaw sensor [0055];
wherein the control circuit [0055] is configured to: receive first input signals from the force sensor ([00200-00201]; forces applied to the grip members are interpreted as the first input signals received from the force sensor since they control the slave device); receive second input signals from the displacement sensor [0053]; receive third input signals from the jaw sensor [0055];
wherein the control circuit (Figure 23, #2310) is configured to: switch the user input device from a first mode
([0040]: first mode i.e. non-controlling mode; [00192]: non-controlling mode occurs when any manipulation by a user to master controllers 210 and 212 will not cause any controlled motion of slave device 104; [00217-00218]: non-controlling mode can be used to easily manipulate and reposition an arm)
to a second mode ([00198]: second mode i.e. controlling mode is when the master controllers can be used to control movement of the slave device; [0044]) in response to the user-initiated inputs [0044, 00199].
Cavalier further teaches that the controller (i.e., user input device) allows a user to control various instruments on the surgical device, which can assist in performing minimally invasive surgical procedures from teleoperated surgical devices [002]. This is useful because the jaw sensor allows the jaws to control motion of an end effector [0055-0057], so that the end effector can be controlled in multiple degrees of freedom at the operating site [002]. Cavalier teaches the advantage to this because using actuators such as the jaw 306 enables the master controller to provide pinching motions that can be used to control instruments such as forceps, tweezers, etc. that can be used in surgery [003]. Furthermore, Cavalier teaches the user input device with the various sensors, and that the detection of inputs from sensors activates the controlling mode [00199], and the tissue proximity detection system disclosed by Kostrzewski would be used to detect the presence of tissue and ensure that haptic forces are provided to the input user device. Cavalier also teaches that the use of a non-controlling mode and controlling mode help prevent improper position of the control system or movement when no user is detected on the master controller [00214].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by the proposed combination with the device taught by Cavalier so that the handpiece comprises a jaw and a jaw sensor to detect pivotal movement of the jaw, because doing so would enable the user input device to transmit signals to control the robotic surgical tool during surgery so it can be used to perform surgery related tasks that require pinching motions, as taught by Cavalier.
Furthermore, it would be obvious to modify the proposed combination so that the control circuit is configured to receive first input signals from the force sensor; receive second input signals from the displacement sensor; receive third input signals from the jaw sensor; and switch the user input device from a first mode to a second mode, as taught by Cavalier so that improper positioning of the control system is prevented and so the user has access to perform pinching motions during surgery.
Regarding the limitations,
“process and scale the first input signals and the second input signals to effect control motions of the robotic surgical tool in the first mode,
process and scale the first input signals and the second input signals to effect control motions of the robotic surgical tool in the second mode,
wherein the control circuit scales the first input signals and the second input signals in the first mode differently than in the second mode”,
Ogawa teaches a method for controlling a medical system [0010] with a multi-joint slave arm [0010], and teaches wherein a control circuit (fig. 1: 3; [0035-0036]) is configured to
switching a user input device (9) from a first mode to a second mode ([0037-0039]: motion-scale-ration change unit 11 changes motion scale ratio between master arm 9 and slave arm 6),
process [0041-0043] and scale [0041-0043] first input signals (fig. 4: first input signals are input signals of J1 and J2 by master arm; [0041-0043]) and second input signals (fig. 4: second input signals are input signals of J3 and J4 by master arm; [0041-0043]) to effect control motions of a robotic surgical tool (fig. 4: master arm is used to control slave arm; fig. 1: slave arm 6; [0041-0043]) in the first mode [0041],
process and scale the first input signals and the second input signals (see above) to effect control motions of the robotic surgical tool in a second mode [0042-0043, 0046],
wherein the control circuit scales the first input signals and the second input signals in the first mode differently than in the second mode ([0042]: second control mode has a motion scale ratio below a default ratio established in the first control mode; [0046]).
Ogawa further teaches that having a second control mode allows for the entire slave arm 6 to be prevented from moving by a great amount [0054], allowing an operator to focus on only an operation of a distal end of slave arm 6 [0054]. Therefore, switching between a first and second mode allows for adjustments to be made depending on whether a situation requires a large amount of motion versus a situation requiring minute motion [0055, 0051-0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device yielded by the proposed combination to provide wherein a control circuit is configured to process and scale the first input signals and the second input signals to effect control motions of the robotic surgical tool in the first mode, process and scale the first input signals and the second input signals to effect control motions of the robotic surgical tool in the second mode, wherein the control circuit scales the first input signals and the second input signals in the first mode differently than in the second mode, as taught by Ogawa, because switching between a first and second mode allows for adjustments to be made depending on whether a situation requires a large amount of motion versus a situation requiring minute motion.
In re claim 2, the proposed combination fails to yield wherein the travel zone comprises a three-dimensional space surrounding a forearm home position, wherein the forearm support is spring-biased toward the forearm home position, and wherein the three-dimensional space extends in all directions between 2.0 cm and 6.0 cm from the forearm home position.
Parazynski teaches wherein the travel zone ([0145-0146] Parazynski discloses #1500 connected to #1504 and that said connection is made and bounded by pivot point #1510 in Figure 15) comprises a three-dimensional space (Parazynski: [0014] lines 5-11) surrounding a forearm home position (Parazynski: [0014] lines 16-19; the position where zero input is felt by the user is interpreted as the forearm home position since that’s where the controls return to without any input), wherein the forearm support is spring-biased toward the forearm home position (Parazynski [0014] lines 16-19, [0061] lines 4-7, [0135]), and wherein the three-dimensional space extends in all directions between 2.0 cm and 6.0 cm from the forearm home position (Parazynski: [0014] lines 1-5& [0014] lines 16-19; it’s interpreted that the joystick is able to move in 3D space due to its degrees of freedom which allow it to detect pitch, yaw, and roll inputs, and that these inputs must be done within a determined range that can include between 2.0 cm and 6.0cm from the zero command (i.e. the forearm home position)).
Parazynski further teaches that the measuring displacement in the zero-position using the six degrees of freedom allows for users to make intuitive inputs as well as controlled precision [0010]. Parazynski further teaches that moving a point of reference means that displacement is needed in every degree of freedom so that the zero-input position is known, therefore, knowing the zero position is important because it provides the user with tactile information about forces related to the zero position [0012-0014].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement wherein the forearm support is spring-biased toward the forearm home position, and wherein the three-dimensional space extends in all directions between 2.0 cm and 6.0 cm from the forearm home position into the proposed combination because doing so would allow the user to gain better control of their target and knowing the three dimensional space and allowing forearm to return to the home position using a spring force would allow the system to detect the zero position and send zero input forces to the user, as taught by Parazynski. Furthermore, because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application [0256], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 3, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Parazynski unless otherwise stated) wherein the forearm support comprises a curved arc forming a cuff (Figure 15, #1504), and wherein the cuff is dimensioned to at least partially surround a surgeon's arm (Figure 15, #1504).
In re claim 4, the proposed combination fails to yield wherein the tissue proximity detection system comprises a structured light source on the robotic surgical tool.
Cavalier teaches wherein the tissue proximity detection system [00203] comprises a structured light source ([0093]; the light sources are interpreted as structured light source since they will be attached to the end effector) on the robotic surgical tool. Cavalier also teaches a variety of other instruments that can be added to the end effector, which relates to other surgical instruments [0093].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement wherein the tissue proximity detection system comprises a structured light source on the robotic surgical tool to the modified device taught by the proposed combination because the end effector can be adjusted to fit the needs of various surgical mechanisms and instruments while the robotic surgical device interacts with the patient surgical site, as further taught by Cavalier [0002, 0093].
Claim 5 is ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostrzewski et al. (US 2015/0366624) in view of Parazynski et al. (US 2018/0356907) in view of Cavalier (WO 2018/112227) in view of Ogawa (US 2016/0135909) in view of Peine et al. (US 2020/0367984) (hereinafter referred to as Peine (‘984)).
In re claim 5, Kostrzewski discloses wherein a control system [0156] lines 1-10; Processor #1252) comprises:
a tissue proximity detection system ([0140] lines 12-19, [0041], [0038]; the robotic arm is interpreted to be adjusted by a tissue proximity detection system because the robotic arm is able to be moved to a position based on the trajectory of the robotic tool in relation to the vertebrae);
a control circuit ([0048] lines 1-5) configured to:
receive proximity data signals ([0140] lines 12-15) from the tissue proximity detection system ([0140] lines 12-19);
receive first input signals ([0058]; force sensor is interpreted as the first input signals)
receive second input signals ([0057]; the user being able to grab the handle and move the end effector is interpreted to be the second input signals) and
receive third input signals ([0060]; the sensor that detects the hand of a user before movement is interpreted as the third input signals);
switch the robotic surgical tool from a first mode ([0141] the surgeon can manually move the surgical tool holder to the desired trajectory based on attractive and resistive haptic feedback) to a second mode (Kostrzewski: [0041]; once the surgical tool holder is brought to the desired trajectory, the surgical tool holder is locked into said trajectory, which is interpreted as the second mode) in response to proximity data signals from the tissue proximity detection system ([0144] lines 1-5) indicating a predefined tissue proximity to an anatomical structure of a patient undergoinq a surgical procedure (see in re claim 1 above; [0041] lines 20-25; the haptic guide is interpreted as the predefined tissue proximity since it provides constraints and force fields to encourage specific movement).
Kostrzewski fails to disclose a user input device, comprising:
a base,
a forearm support movably coupled to the base,
wherein the forearm support is movable relative to the base within a travel zone,
a shaft extending distally from the forearm support,
a handpiece extending distally from the shaft, wherein the handpiece comprises a jaw configured to pivot relative to the shaft, and
a plurality of sensors comprising: a first sensor arrangement configured to detect user input forces to the base,
a second sensor arrangement configured to detect displacement of the forearm support, and
a third sensor arrangement configured to detect pivotal motion of the jaw; and
a control circuit configured to:
receive first input signals from the first sensor arrangement,
receive second input signals from the second sensor arrangement,
receive third input signals from the third sensor arrangement, and
switch the user input device from a first mode to a second mode in response to proximity data signals from the tissue proximity detection system indicating a predefined tissue proximity,
process the first input signals and the second input signals,
wherein processing the first input signals and the second input signals comprises scaling the first input signals and the second input signals in the first mode differently than in the second mode,
transmit control signals based on the processed first input signals and the processed second input signals to effect control motions of the robotic surgical tool in the first mode, and
transmit control signals based on the processed first input signals and the processed second input signals to effect control motions of the robotic surgical tool in the second mode,
wherein the control circuit dynamically adjusts the scaling of the first input signals and the second input signals in response to the proximity data signals from the tissue proximity detection system.
Parazynski teaches a user input device (Figure 15), comprising:
a base (Parazynski: [0081], lines 1-6),
a forearm support movably coupled to the base (Parazynski: [0145] lines 2-9), wherein the forearm support is movable relative to the base within a travel zone ([0145-0146] Parazynski discloses #1500 connected to #1504 and that said connection is made and bounded by pivot point #1510 in Figure 15),
a shaft (Parazynski: Figure 15, #1508) extending distally from the forearm support (Parazynski: Figure #1504),
a handpiece extending distally from the shaft (Parazynski: Figure 15, #1500), and
a plurality of sensors [0125] comprising:
a first sensor arrangement configured to detect user input forces to the base (Parazynski: [0125] lines 3-9; sensors to detect roll, pitch, and yaw are interpreted as the force sensors),
a second sensor arrangement configured to detect displacement of the forearm support [0145],
a control circuit ([0064]; the controller processor is interpreted as a control circuit) configured to:
receive first input signals from the first sensor arrangement ([0125 & 0136]; the processor processes signals from the control members),
receive second input signals from the second sensor arrangement [0136].
Parazynski further teaches that the single-handled controllers (i.e., the user input device) would enable users to gain better control of their target in a virtual reality space and also allow unintended motions to be limited ([0006] lines 1-10). Parazynski also teaches that incorporating a coupling that allows the shaft, handpiece, and forearm support to be attached together allows for sensors to precisely measure the displacement of commands send to the controller ([0145], lines 2-15). Moreover, Parazynski teaches that attaching the hand controller to a base structure enables for sensing and can even permit the user to use their non-dominant hand on a second controller ([0160] lines 7-10). Furthermore, incorporating the external use input sensors to the controller while the user’s wrist is in the device provides a frame of reference [0125] which further allows displacement to be measured [0138]. Parazynski also teaches that moving any point of reference in the virtual space requires constant insight into displacement and that it’s important to know where the zero input is at all times [0146]. Parazynski further teaches that the use of one or more sensors to determine the pitch, roll, and yaw can be incorporated to determine an inertial measurement that is also used for measuring displacement [0125].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the user input device, comprising: a base, a forearm support movably coupled to the base, wherein the forearm support is movable relative to the base within a travel zone, a shaft extending distally from the forearm support, a handpiece extending distally from the shaft, and a plurality of sensors comprising: a first sensor arrangement configured to detect user input forces to the base, a second sensor arrangement configured to detect displacement of the forearm support, and a control circuit configured to receive first input signals from the first sensor arrangement and receive second input signals from the second sensor arrangement, as taught by Parazynski into the proposed combination because doing so would allow the user to gain better control of their target and would allow the attachment of the shaft, handpiece, and forearm support to enable the device to measure displacement. The addition of the user input device taught by Parazynski enables the robotic surgical tool disclosed in Kostrzewski to be controlled by a hand controller that’s able to detect displacement in all degrees of freedom being controlled, and enables the user input device to sense movements done by the user’s wrist.
Cavalier teaches a user input device (Figure 3), comprising:
wherein the handpiece comprises a jaw (Cavalier: Figure 3, #306) configured to pivot relative to the shaft [0035]; and
a plurality of sensors [0053] comprising:
a third sensor arrangement configured to detect pivotal motion of the jaw [0053];
a control circuit [0055] configured to:
receive first input signals from the first sensor arrangement ([00200]; forces applied to the grip members are interpreted as the force sensor since they control the slave device),
receive second input signals from the second sensor arrangement [0053],
receive third input signals from the third sensor arrangement [0055]; and
switch the user input device from a first mode
([0040]: first mode i.e. non-controlling mode; [00192]: non-controlling mode occurs when any manipulation by a user to master controllers 210 and 212 will not cause any controlled motion of slave device 104; [00217-00218]: non-controlling mode can be used to easily manipulate and reposition an arm)
to a second mode ([00198]: second mode i.e. controlling mode is when the master controllers can be used to control movement of the slave device; [0044]) in response to the user-initiated inputs [0044, 00199].
Cavalier further teaches that the controller (i.e., user input device) allows a user to control various instruments on the surgical device, which can assist in performing minimally invasive surgical procedures from teleoperated surgical devices [002]. This is useful because detecting the pivotal motion of the jaw allows the jaws to control motion of an end effector [0055-0057], so that the end effector can be controlled in multiple degrees of freedom at the operating site [002]. Cavalier also teaches that the use of actuators to the handle (i.e., the handpiece) can help detect the positions of the grip members based on their degrees of freedom, which sends signals to control the salve manipulator device [0053]. Cavalier teaches the advantage to this because using actuators such as the jaw 306 enables the master controller to provide pinching motions that can be used to control instruments such as forceps, tweezers, etc. that can be used in surgery [003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by the proposed combination so that it incorporates the handpiece comprising of a jaw configured to pivot relative to the shaft and a plurality of sensors comprising of a third sensor arrangement configured to detect pivotal motion of the jaw, as well as a control circuit configured to receive third input signals from the third sensor arrangement; and switch the user input device from a first mode to a second mode, as taught by Cavalier, because doing so would enable the user input device to transmit signals to control the robotic surgical tool during surgery so it can be used to perform surgery related tasks that require pinching motions.
Regarding the limitations,
“process the first input signals and the second input signals,
wherein processing the first input signals and the second input signals comprises scaling the first input signals and the second input signals in the first mode differently than in the second mode,
transmit control signals based on the processed first input signals and the processed second input signals to effect control motions of the robotic surgical tool in the first mode, and
transmit control signals based on the processed first input signals and the processed second input signals to effect control motions of the robotic surgical tool in the second mode,”
see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 1 above.
Regarding the limitations, “wherein the control circuit dynamically adjusts the scaling of the first input signals and the second input signals in response to the proximity data signals from the tissue proximity detection system”, Peine (‘984) teaches a method of handling a collision [0005] for a robotic surgical system [0005] comprising
a control circuit (fig. 3; 200; [0078) which dynamically adjusts a scaling of
first input signals
(fig. 8: receives torque measurement (710) i.e. first input signals and increases scaling factor (718) if handle moves in a second direction (716); [0078-0081]: torque being greater than a predetermined threshold determines that a collision occurred and the scaling factor continues to be increased if the handle moves in a second direction; [0046]: larger scaling factor results in smaller movement) and
second input signals (fig. 8: second input signals would be process 700 repeated after block 724 since arrow goes back to block 704; [0082]: process 700 is reiterated; [0078])
in response to proximity data signals from a tissue proximity detection system ([0039]: tissue proximity detection system is system which detects collisions, such as between a robotic surgical instrument and a patient; [0032]: scaling factor is adjusted after a collision is detected).
Peine (‘984) further teaches that the scaling factor can be adjusted [0074] after a collision is detected [0032], so movements are smaller [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify control circuit yielded by the proposed combination to provide wherein the control circuit dynamically adjusts the scaling of the first input signals and the second input signals in response to the proximity data signals from the tissue proximity detection system, as taught by Peine (‘984), because adjusting the scaling once a collision occurs allows for movements to be smaller as needed.
Claims 6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parazynski et al. (US 2018/0356907) in view of Kostrzewski et al. (US 2015/0366624) in view of Ogawa (US 2016/0135909) in view of Peine et al. (US 2020/0367984) (hereinafter referred to as Peine (‘984)).
In re claim 6, Parazynski discloses a user input device (Figure 15) for controlling a robotic surgical tool [0062], the user input device comprising:
a base (Parazynski: [0081], lines 1-6) comprising a first sensor arrangement ([0125] lines 3-9);
a forearm support (Parazynski: [0145] lines 1-2) movably coupled to the base (Parazynski: [0145] lines 2-9),
wherein the forearm support is movable relative to the base within a travel zone ([0145-0146] Parazynski discloses #1500 connected to #1504 and that said connection is made and bounded by pivot point #1510 in Figure 15), and
wherein the forearm support comprises a second sensor arrangement [0145]; and
a control circuit ([0064]; the controller processor is interpreted as a control circuit),
the control circuit configured to:
receive first input signals ([0135; the controller senses force and provides a reactive force to return the position back to the zero position, which is interpreted as the first input signals) from the first sensor arrangement [0125 & 0136],
receive second input signals ([0136]; the displacement sensor is interpreted as the second input signals) from the second sensor arrangement [0136].
Parazynski fails to disclose
a control circuit communicatively coupled to a tissue proximity detection system,
wherein the control circuit is configured to
receive proximity data signals from the tissue proximity detection system,
switch the user input device between a first mode and a second mode in response to the proximity data signals indicating the robotic surgical tool is positioned less than a threshold distance from an anatomical structure of a patient undergoinq a surgical procedure, and
process and scale the first input signals and the second input signals to effect control motions of the robotic surgical tool in the first mode, and
process and scale the first input signals and the second input signals to effect control motions of the robotic surgical tool in the second mode,
wherein the control circuit scales the first input signals and the second input signals in the first mode differently than in the second mode, and
wherein the control circuit dynamically adjusts the scaling of the first input signals and the second input signals in response to the proximity data signals from the tissue proximity detection system.
Regarding the limitations,
“a control circuit communicatively coupled to a tissue proximity detection system,
wherein the control circuit is configured to
receive proximity data signals from the tissue proximity detection system, and
switch the user input device between a first mode and a second mode in response to the proximity data signals indicating the robotic surgical tool is positioned less than a threshold distance from an anatomical structure of a patient undergoinq a surgical procedure,”
see in re claim 1 above, as taught by Kostrzewski.
Kostrzewski further teaches that the robot may be out of alignment with the proper trajectory if the patient moves, therefore, the modes are beneficial in assisting the surgeon to guide the robot back to the proper trajectory [0143-0144].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control circuit of Parazynski to provide a control circuit communicatively coupled to a tissue proximity detection system, wherein the control circuit is configured to receive proximity data signals from the tissue proximity detection system and switch the user input device between a first mode and a second mode in response to the proximity data signals indicating the robotic surgical tool is positioned less than a threshold distance from an anatomical structure of a patient undergoinq a surgical procedure, as taught by Kostrzewski, because doing so would allow the surgeon to control the robot to the proper trajectory during surgery.
Regarding the limitations,
“a control circuit configured to…
switch the user input device between a first mode and a second mode,
process and scale the first input signals and the second input signals to effect control motions of the robotic surgical tool in the first mode, and
process and scale the first input signals and the second input signals to effect control motions of the robotic surgical tool in the second mode,
wherein the control circuit scales the first input signals and the second input signals in the first mode differently than in the second mode”,
see in re claim 1 above, as taught by Ogawa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user input device taught by Parazynski, to provide a control circuit configured to switch the user input device between a first mode and a second mode, process and scale the first input signals and the second input signals to effect control motions of the robotic surgical tool in the first mode, and process and scale the first input signals and the second input signals to effect control motions of the robotic surgical tool in the second mode, wherein the control circuit scales the first input signals and the second input signals in the first mode differently than in the second mode , as taught by Ogawa, for substantially the same reasons as discussed in re claim 1 above.
Regarding the limitation, “wherein the control circuit dynamically adjusts the scaling of the first input signals and the second input signals in response to the proximity data signals from the tissue proximity detection system”, see in re claim 5 above, where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify control circuit yielded by the proposed combination to provide wherein the control circuit dynamically adjusts the scaling of the first input signals and the second input signals in response to the proximity data signals from the tissue proximity detection system, as taught by Peine (‘984), for substantially the same reasons as discussed in re claim 5 above.
In re claim 8, the proposed combination fails to yield
wherein the first mode comprises a gross motion mode, and
wherein the second mode comprises a precision motion mode.
Kostrzewski discloses wherein the first mode comprises a gross motion mode (Kostrzewski: [0041] lines 1-8; the first mode aka the attractive haptic feedback allows the surgeon to manually move the robot to find the correct trajectory), and wherein the second mode comprises a precision motion mode (Kostrzewski: [0042] lines 1-7; once the robot is within the correct trajectory.
Kostrzewski further teaches that the second mode is turned on and the surgeon must stay within the locked trajectory, leading to more precise movements), and wherein the control circuit is configured to switch the robotic surgical tool between the gross motion mode and the precision motion mode (Kostrzewski: [0041] lines 14-16 & [0144] lines 5-7) when the tissue proximity detection system provides a proximity signal indicative of the robotic surgical tool being positioned less than a threshold distance from an anatomical structure (Kostrzewski: [0041] lines 20-25 & [0142] lines 1-7).
Kostrzewski also teaches that the robot may be out of alignment with the proper trajectory if the patient moves, therefore, the modes are beneficial to guide the robot back to the proper trajectory [0143-0144].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the proposed combination to implement a user input device wherein the first mode comprising a gross motion mode, and wherein the second mode comprises a precision motion mode, because doing so would allow the surgeon to control the robot to the proper trajectory during surgery, as taught by Kostrzewski.
In re claim 9, the proposed combination yields wherein the first sensor arrangement (Parazynski: [0014] lines 1-5; detecting for pitch, yaw, and roll inputs to the joystick is interpreted as the first sensor arrangement) comprises a six degree-of-freedom force (Parazynski [0060] lines 11-15; the first control member is also referred to as a joystick (Parazynski: [0127] lines 1-7)) and torque sensor (Parazynski: [0014] lines 1-5; detecting for pitch, yaw, and roll inputs is interpreted as the torque sensor since movement can be detected around multiple axes).
In re claim 10, the proposed combination yields wherein the first sensor arrangement comprises a joystick (Parazynski: [0014] lines 1-5) movable in a three-dimensional space (Parazynski: [0014] lines 5-11) around an input home position (Parazynski: [0014] lines 5-11; zero command is interpreted as the input home position which can be controlled in the X, Y, and Z axes), wherein the three-dimensional space extends in all directions between 1.0 mm and 5.0 mm from the input home position (Parazynski: [0014] lines 16-19; it’s interpreted that the range of travel of the control member will be within a specific range that could include to be between 1.0 mm and 5.0 mm from the zero input (i.e., input home position)), and wherein the joystick is spring-biased toward the input home position (Parazynski: [0061] lines 1-9; [0135]).
Furthermore, because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application [0331], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement wherein the input support is spring-biased toward the input home position, and wherein the three-dimensional space extends in all directions between 1.0 mm and 5.0 mm from the input home position into the proposed combination because doing so would allow the user to gain better control of their target and knowing the three dimensional space and allowing forearm to return to the home position using a spring force would allow the system to detect the zero position and send zero input forces to the user, as taught by Parazynski.
In re claim 11, the proposed combination yields (mapping directed to Parazynski unless otherwise stated) wherein the second sensor arrangement [0145] comprises a displacement sensor [0145].
In re claim 12, the proposed combination yields (mapping directed to Parazynski unless otherwise stated) wherein the travel zone ([0145-0146]: #1500 connected to #1504 and that said connection is made and bounded by pivot point #1510 in Figure 15) comprises a three-dimensional space surrounding a forearm home position ( [0014] lines 5-11; zero command is interpreted as the forearm home position which can be controlled in the X, Y, and Z axes), and wherein the forearm support is spring-biased toward the forearm home position ( [0014] lines 16-19, [0061] lines 4-7, [0135]).
In re claim 13, the proposed combination yields (mapping directed to Parazynski unless otherwise stated) wherein discloses wherein the three-dimensional space ([0014] lines 5-11) extends in all directions in a range of travel from the zero command (i.e., forearm home position)).
Parazynski further teaches that measuring displacement in the zero-position using the six degrees of freedom allows for users to make intuitive inputs and have controlled precision [0010]. Parazynski further teaches that moving a point of reference means that displacement is needed in every degree of freedom so that the zero-input position is known, therefore, knowing the zero position is important because it provides the user with tactile information about forces related to the zero position [0012-0014].
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement into the proposed combination wherein the three-dimensional space extends in all directions between 2.0 cm and 6.0 cm from the forearm home position, as taught by Parazynski, because doing so would allow the user to gain better control of their target and knowing the three dimensional space and allowing forearm to return to the home position using a spring force would allow the system to detect the zero position and send zero input forces to the user and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application [0256], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 14, the proposed combination yields (mapping directed to Parazynski unless otherwise stated) wherein the forearm support comprises a curved arc (Figure 15, #1504) forming a sleeve (Figure 15, #1504; sleeve is interpreted as being able to cover the surgeon’s arm), and wherein the sleeve is dimensioned to at least partially surround a surgeon's arm (Figure 15, #1506).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parazynski et al. (US 2018/0356907 Al) in view of Kostrzewski et al. (US 2015/0366624) in view of Ogawa (US 2016/0135909) in view of Peine et al. (US 2020/0367984) (hereinafter referred to as Peine (‘984)) in view of Cavalier (WO 2018/112227 A2).
In re claim 15, the proposed combination yields (mapping directed to Parazynski unless otherwise stated) further comprising: a shaft (Figure 15, #1508) extending distally from the forearm support (Figure 15, #1504); a handpiece (Figure 15, #1500) extending distally from the shaft (Figure #1508).
The proposed combination fails to yield wherein the user input device further comprising a first jaw and a second jaw, wherein the first jaw and the second jaw are pivotable relative to the shaft within a range of motion; and a jaw sensor arrangement configured to detect pivotal motion of the first jaw and the second jaw within the range of motion.
Cavalier teaches the user input device further comprising: a first jaw (Figure 3, #306) and a second jaw (Figure 3, #306), wherein the first jaw and the second jaw are pivotable relative to the shaft (Figure 3, #303; #303 is interpreted as the shaft which can rotate the jaws #306 around the axis #312 [0054]) within a range of motion (Figure 3, #310); and a jaw sensor arrangement configured to detect pivotal motion of the first jaw and the second jaw within the range of motion [0055 & 0056].
Cavalier further teaches that the controller (i.e., user input device) allows a user to control various instruments on the surgical device, which can assist in performing minimally invasive surgical procedures from teleoperated surgical devices [002]. This is useful because the jaw sensor arrangement allows the jaws to control motion of an end effector [0055-0057], so that the end effector can be controlled in multiple degrees of freedom at the operating site [002]. Cavalier also teaches that the use of actuators to the handle (i.e., the handpiece) can help detect the positions of the grip members based on their degrees of freedom, which sends signals to control the salve manipulator device [0053]. Cavalier teaches the advantage to this because using actuators such as the jaw 306 enables the master controller to provide pinching motions that can be used to control instruments such as forceps, tweezers, etc. that can be used in surgery [003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device taught by the proposed combination so it comprises a first jaw and a second jaw, wherein the first jaw and the second jaw are pivotable relative to the shaft within a range of motion; and a jaw sensor arrangement configured to detect pivotal motion of the first jaw and the second jaw within the range of motion, as taught by Cavalier, because doing so would enable the user input device to transmit signals to control the robotic surgical tool during surgery so it can be used to perform surgery related tasks that require pinching motions.
In re claim 16, the proposed combination fails to yield wherein the jaw sensor arrangement is communicatively coupled to the control circuit, and wherein the control circuit is further configured to: receive third input signals from the jaw sensor arrangement; and provide output signals to the robotic surgical tool to control actuation of one or more jaws of an end effector of the robotic surgical tool.
Cavalier teaches wherein the jaw sensor arrangement is communicatively coupled to the control circuit [0055], and wherein the control circuit is further configured to: receive third input signals from the jaw sensor arrangement ([0055]; third input signals are interpreted as the control signals); and provide output signals to the robotic surgical tool to control actuation of one or more jaws of an end effector of the robotic surgical tool ([0057]; the end effects of the slave device 104 is interpreted as the robotic surgical tool that can be actuated by the degrees of freedom sensed, which requires output signals from the user input device).
Cavalier further teaches that the controller (i.e., user input device) allows a user to control various instruments on the surgical device, which can assist in performing minimally invasive surgical procedures from teleoperated surgical devices [002]. This is useful because the jaw sensor arrangement allows the jaws to control motion of an end effector [0055-0057], so that the end effector can be controlled in multiple degrees of freedom at the operating site [002]. Cavalier also teaches that the use of actuators to the handle (i.e., the handpiece) can help detect the positions of the grip members based on their degrees of freedom, which sends signals to control the salve manipulator device [0053]. Cavalier teaches the advantage to this because using actuators such as the jaw 306 enables the master controller to provide pinching motions that can be used to control instruments such as forceps, tweezers, etc. that can be used in surgery [003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device taught by the proposed combination so that it incorporates the jaw sensor arrangement that is communicatively coupled to the control circuit, and wherein the control circuit is further configured to: receive third input signals from the jaw sensor arrangement; and provide output signals to the robotic surgical tool to control actuation of one or more jaws of an end effector of the robotic surgical tool, as taught by Cavalier, because doing so would enable the user input device to transmit signals to control the robotic surgical tool during surgery so it can be used to perform surgery related tasks that require pinching motions.
In re claim 17, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Parazynski unless otherwise stated) a user input device (Figure 15) further comprising: a first finger loop dimensioned to receive at least one digit of a person’s hand (Figure 15, #1502); and a second finger loop positioned and dimensioned to receive at least one digit of a person’s hand (Figure 15, #1503).
The proposed combination fails to yield the user input device further comprising: a first finger loop on the first jaw positioned and dimensioned to receive at least one digit of a surgeon's hand; and a second finger loop on the second jaw positioned and dimensioned to receive at least one digit of the surgeon's hand.
Cavalier teaches a user input device (Figure 3) further comprising: a first finger loop (Cavalier: Figure 3, #304) on the first jaw (Cavalier: Figure 3, #306) positioned and dimensioned to receive at least one digit of a surgeon's hand ([0052]; finger loops are interpreted as being able to receive a digit of a surgeon’s hand); and a second finger loop (Cavalier: Figure 3, #304) on the second jaw (Cavalier: Figure 3, #306) positioned and dimensioned to receive at least one digit of the surgeon's hand [0052].
Cavalier also teaches that using the finger loops 304 attached to the jaws 306 helps to secure the user’s fingers ([0052 lines 2-7). This also allows the user to be able to control the slave device used during surgery so it can control pinching motion needed to control instruments such as forceps, tweezers, and scissors, as taught by Cavalier [003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device taught by the proposed combination to incorporate a user input device further comprising: a first finger loop on the first jaw positioned and dimensioned to receive at least one digit of a surgeon's hand; and a second finger loop on the second jaw positioned and dimensioned to receive at least one digit of the surgeon's hand, as taught by Cavalier, because implementing the finger loops to the jaws would enable increased control of the robotic surgical tool so it could mimic pinching motions that are used in surgery.
In re claim 18, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Parazynski unless otherwise stated) a user input device (Figure 15) comprising: a rotary joint (Figure 15, #1510) intermediate the handpiece (Figure 15, #1500) and the shaft (Figure 15, #1508); and a rotary sensor ([0145]; precisely measuring angular displacement at the pivot point 1510 is interpreted as a rotary sensor) configured to detection rotary motion of the handpiece relative to the shaft ([0145]; the connection between the shaft, attachment, and handpiece allow for angular displacement to be measured, which is interpreted as rotary motion).
In re claim 19, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Parazynski unless otherwise stated) wherein a handpiece (Figure 3A, #204) further comprises an actuator ([0108]; lines 3-10) communicatively coupled to the control circuit ([0073] & [0108]; the control signals and transmitted by the controller processor which is interpreted as the control circuit), and wherein the control circuit is further configured to: receive input actuation signals from the actuator [0108]; and provide output actuation signals ([0108]; the mechanical force that is translated into an electrical signal is interpreted as the output actuation signals).
The proposed combination fails to yield wherein the control circuit is further configured to provide output actuation signals to the robotic surgical tool to actuate a surgical function.
Cavalier teaches wherein the control circuit is further configured to: receive input actuation signals from the actuator [0055-0057]; and provide output actuation signals to the robotic surgical tool to actuate a surgical function [0055-0057]; moving slave device 104 performs a surgical function [0042].
Cavalier also teaches that the use of actuators to the handle (i.e., the handpiece) can help detect the positions of the grip members based on their degrees of freedom, which sends signals to control the salve manipulator device [0053]. Cavalier teaches the advantage to this because using actuators such as the jaw 306 enables the master controller to provide pinching motions that can be used to control instruments such as forceps, tweezers, etc. that can be used in surgery [003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device taught by the proposed combination with the user input device of Cavalier wherein the handpiece further comprises an actuator communicatively coupled to the control circuit, and wherein the control circuit is further configured to: receive input actuation signals from the actuator; and provide output actuation signals to the robotic surgical tool to actuate a surgical function, as taught by Cavalier, because doing so would enable the user input device to transmit signals to control the robotic surgical tool during surgery so it can be used to perform surgery related tasks that require pinching motions.
In re claim 20, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Parazynski unless otherwise stated) wherein the actuator is selected from a group consisting of a trigger, a button, a switch, a lever, a toggle, and combinations thereof (Figure 3A, #204; [0087] the first control member can be moved due to its ball-joint coupling which is interpreted as a combination of a toggle, trigger, and lever).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parazynski et al. (US 2018/0356907 Al) in view of Kostrzewski et al. (US 2015/0366624) in view of Ogawa (US 2016/0135909) in view of Peine et al. (US 2020/0367984) (hereinafter referred to as Peine (‘984)) in view of Tan et al. (US 2018/0361586).
In re claim 22, the proposed combination fails to yield wherein a movement velocity of the robotic surgical tool is greater in the gross motion mode than in the precision motion mode.
Tan teaches a robotic machine [0006] wherein a movement velocity of the robotic surgical tool is greater in a gross motion mode [0137] than in a precision motion mode ([0137]: movement is slower in the fine movement mode).
Tan further teaches that the first mode (i.e. gross motion mode) may be used to move the robotic machine to determined locations proximate a target object, while the second mode (i.e. precision motion mode) is used to actuate tools and must be slower as the robot machine makes contact with the target object [0030]. Tan also teaches that moving slower prevents or reduces the chance of a collision [0103].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device yielded by the proposed combination to provide wherein a movement velocity of the robotic surgical tool is greater in the gross motion mode than in the precision motion mode, as taught by Tan, because doing so would allow the robotic surgical tool to move slower as it comes in contact with the target such as during precision motion mode compared to when it is further away from the target such as during gross motion mode, which will reduce collisions.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parazynski et al. (US 2018/0356907 Al) in view of Kostrzewski et al. (US 2015/0366624) in view of Ogawa (US 2016/0135909) in view of Peine et al. (US 2020/0367984) (hereinafter referred to as Peine (‘984)) in view of Peine (US 2018/0310999) (hereinafter referred to as Peine (‘999)).
In re claim 23, the proposed combination fails to yield wherein, in the first mode, the control circuit scales the first input signals according to a first scale factor and the second input signals according to a second scale factor, wherein the first and second scale factors are different scale factors.
Peine (‘999) teaches an analogous robotic surgical system (fig. 1: 10; [0006]) wherein, in a first mode ([0034]: when user interface 40 is coupled to actuate robotic system 10), a control circuit (30; [0029, 0035]) scales first input signals ([0037-0038]: first input signals are input to rotate about the roll axis i.e. “R”) according to a first scale factor ([0038]: rotation about the roll axis “R” is scaled in a positive manner) and second input signals ([0037-0038]: second input signals are input to rotate about the pitch axis i.e. “P”) according to a second scale factor ([0038]: rotation about the pitch axis “P” is scaled in a neutral manner), wherein the first and second scale factors are different scale factors [0038-0039, 0006].
Peine (‘999) further teaches that the scaling factor can be different for each of the roll, pitch, and yaw axis [0037] depending on the different levels of precision and movement desired by a clinician for each axis [0037]. For instance, scaling in a positive manner provides dexterity beyond what a human body is capable of moving [0037], while scaling in a negative manner provides more precise control rotation [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device yielded by the proposed combination to provide wherein, in a first mode, a control circuit scales first input signals according to a first scale factor and second input signals according to a second scale factor, wherein the first and second scale factors are different scale factors, as taught by Peine (‘999), because each of the input signals can be modified to have their own scaling factor depending on whether the clinician prefers to rotate the axes in a manner that the human body cannot, and if they want another axes to be rotated in a more precise way.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUMAISA R BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-0175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am- 5pm.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached on (571) 270-5625. 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.
/RUMAISA RASHID BAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights