DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to amendments received on 10/31/2025. Claims 1-13 were previously pending with claims 3-4 and 9-10 being withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1, 5-6, 8 and 11-12 have been amended and new claims 13-20 added. A complete action on the merits of claims 1-2, 5-8 and 11-20 follows below.
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 .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: “based on a determination” in line 8 of claim 1 and in line 7 of claim 8 should be amended to recite --based on the determination--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, 13, 15 and 18 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.
Claims 7 and 13 recite the limitation “wherein the predefined boundary is a field of view defined by a scope device”. It is noted that claims 1 and 8 on which these claims depend on introduce the limitation “wherein the predefined boundary is a virtual movement boundary associated with a surgical task”. It is at most unclear how the predefined boundary can be both a virtual movement boundary associated with a surgical task and a field of view defined by a scope device. It is unclear if the virtual movement boundary associated with a surgical task is the same as a field of view defined by a scope device. Furthermore, no endoscope or any kind of scopes associated with the invention has been introduced, therefore, it is unclear how a field of view defined by a scope device is associated with the processor and therefore the claimed invention. Clarification and appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15 and 18 recite the limitation “wherein the virtual movement boundary is defined by is a health care professional for performing the surgical task”. It is at most unclear what is meant by the virtual movement boundary is defined by is a health care professional for performing the surgical task. It is noted that the independent claims introduce a processor configured to carry this step therefore, it is unclear what exactly is meant by this statement and if it means that the health care professional can override the processor or not. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shelton (US Pub. No. 2019/0200977).
Regarding Claim 1, Shelton teaches a computing device, the computing device comprising: a processor (1820/13822/13862 [2064], [2089]) configured to:
control a surgical device (Figs. 262, 410, 418) to operate autonomously within a predefined boundary (“a processor of the robotic surgical system (e.g. a processor of the control unit 13862) is configured to calculate a boundary around the surgical instrument 13890” [2089] and boundary 222006 shown in Fig. 410) wherein the surgical device comprises a smart energy device (13890 in Fig. 262, 222002 in Fig. 410, 222504 in Fig. 418) and wherein the predefined boundary is a virtual movement boundary associated with a surgical task (“a defined boundary” [2064], “calculate a boundary” [2089], “within boundary” [2090]);
determine whether a distance between the smart energy device 13890 and a smart grasper (13861 in Fig. 262, 222002 in Fig. 410, 222510 in Fig. 418) is below a threshold ([2064], [2068] and [2090]);
based on a determination that the distance between the smart energy device and the smart grasper is below the threshold, determine a safety adjustment that is configured to control the surgical device autonomously (“if one of the robotic arms 13830, 13840 moves out of a defined boundary around the surgical site, or into abutting contact with an organ or other tissue, or too close to another surgical device, the processor 13822 can switch to a position control mode and prevent further movement of the robotic arm 13830, 13840 and/or move the robotic arm 13830, 13840 back within the defined surgical space” [2064], “The processor is configured to continuously monitor the position of each robotic arm at step 13525. In various instances, the processor is configured to repeatedly send interrogation signals in pre-determined time intervals. As discussed above, if the detected position exceeds the position limit set for the specific robotic arm, in certain instances, the processor is configured to automatically move the robotic arm back within the three-dimensional boundary at step 13532. In certain instances, the processor is configured to re-adjust the position limits of the other robotic arms in response to one robotic arm exceeding its original position limit” [2068] and Fig. 246 and/or “When a robotic surgical tool approaches the wider boundary B.sub.2, the robotic surgical tool 13861 can issue a notification or warning to the surgeon that the robotic surgical tool attached to the robot 13861 is approaching another surgical instrument 13890. In certain instances, if the surgeon continues to advance the robotic surgical tool toward the surgical instrument 13890 and to a second narrower boundary B.sub.1, the robotic surgical system 13865 can stop advancing the robotic surgical tool. For example, if the robotic surgical tool crosses the narrower boundary B.sub.1, advancement of the robotic surgical tool can be stopped” [2090]); and control the surgical device to operate autonomously based on the safety adjustment ([2064]-[2068], [2088]-[2090], [2517] and Fig. 258).
Regarding Claim 2, Shelton teaches wherein the computing device is a robotic system (Figs. 10, 147, 206, 210, 239 and 262, [2088]).
Regarding Claim 5, Shelton teaches and wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a first placement data associated with a first trocar and a second placement data associated a second trocar, wherein the first trocar is associated with the smart grasper ([2053], [2056], [2125]-[2126], 13861 in Fig. 262 and 222012 in Fig. 410, 222504 Fig. 418 [2517]) and the second trocar is associated with the smart energy device (Figs. 144-147, 246, 248, 258-262, 274, 410, 418, [0268], [2517]); and determine first location data associated with the smart grasper (Figs. 144-147, 246, 248, 255-262, 274 and [1423], [2051]) based on the first placement data and second location data associated with the smart energy device based on the second placement data (Figs. 147, 246-248, 258-262, 274-275, 418 and [2068], [2089]-[2090], [2123], [2517]-[2522]).
Regarding Claim 6, Shelton teaches wherein the processor is further configured to receive a third location data associated with a patient body and a first orientation data associated with the patient body, and wherein the safety adjustment is a movement adjustment of the smart energy device based on the first location data, the second location data, the third location data, and the first orientation data ([2064]-[2068], [2088]-[2090], [2117], [2123], [2517]-[2522]).
Regarding Claim 7, Shelton teaches a field of view defined by a scope device (given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the 112 rejection above, Shelton teaches an imaging device associated with the invention and further discloses “the imaging device 124 is configured for use in a minimally invasive procedure. Examples of imaging devices suitable for use with the present disclosure include, but not limited to, an arthroscope, angioscope, bronchoscope, choledochoscope, colonoscope, cytoscope, duodenoscope, enteroscope, esophagogastro-duodenoscope (gastroscope), endoscope, laryngoscope, nasopharyngo-neproscope, sigmoidoscope, thoracoscope, and ureteroscope” in [0646], also see [1306], [2127] and [2295]).
Regarding Claim 8, Shelton teaches method comprising:
controlling a surgical device to operate autonomously within a predefined boundary (“the processor is configured to set a position limit for each specific robotic arm within a work envelope of the robotic surgical system at step 13515. The position limit can set three-dimensional boundaries for where each robotic arm can travel” [2066], “a defined boundary” [2064], “calculate a boundary” [2089], “within boundary” [2090]) wherein the surgical device comprises a smart energy device (13890 in Fig. 262, 222002 in Fig. 410, 222504 in Fig. 418) and wherein the predefined boundary is a virtual movement boundary associated with a surgical task (“a defined boundary” [2064], “calculate a boundary” [2089], “within boundary” [2090]);
determine whether a distance between the smart energy device 13890 and a smart grasper (13861 in Fig. 262, 222002 in Fig. 410, 222510 in Fig. 418) is below a threshold ([2064], [2068] and [2090]);
based on a determination that the distance between the smart energy device and the smart grasper is below the threshold, determine a safety adjustment that is configured to control the surgical device autonomously (“if one of the robotic arms 13830, 13840 moves out of a defined boundary around the surgical site, or into abutting contact with an organ or other tissue, or too close to another surgical device, the processor 13822 can switch to a position control mode and prevent further movement of the robotic arm 13830, 13840 and/or move the robotic arm 13830, 13840 back within the defined surgical space” [2064], “The processor is configured to continuously monitor the position of each robotic arm at step 13525. In various instances, the processor is configured to repeatedly send interrogation signals in pre-determined time intervals. As discussed above, if the detected position exceeds the position limit set for the specific robotic arm, in certain instances, the processor is configured to automatically move the robotic arm back within the three-dimensional boundary at step 13532. In certain instances, the processor is configured to re-adjust the position limits of the other robotic arms in response to one robotic arm exceeding its original position limit” [2068] and Fig. 246 and/or “When a robotic surgical tool approaches the wider boundary B.sub.2, the robotic surgical tool 13861 can issue a notification or warning to the surgeon that the robotic surgical tool attached to the robot 13861 is approaching another surgical instrument 13890. In certain instances, if the surgeon continues to advance the robotic surgical tool toward the surgical instrument 13890 and to a second narrower boundary B.sub.1, the robotic surgical system 13865 can stop advancing the robotic surgical tool. For example, if the robotic surgical tool crosses the narrower boundary B.sub.1, advancement of the robotic surgical tool can be stopped” [2090]); and control the surgical device to operate autonomously based on the safety adjustment ([2064]-[2068], [2088]-[2090], [2517] and Fig. 258).
Regarding Claim 11, Shelton teaches wherein the method further comprising:
receiving a first placement data associated with a first trocar and second placement data associated a second trocar, wherein the first trocar is associated with the smart grasper (Figs. 10, 144-147 and 13861 in Fig. 262, 222012 in Fig. 410, 222504 Fig. 418 [2517]) and the second trocar is associated with the smart energy device; and determining first location data associated with the smart grasper based on the first placement data and second location data associated with the smart energy device based on the second placement data (Figs. 147, 246-248, 258-262, 274-275, 418 and [2068], [2089]-[2090], [2123], [2517]-[2522]).
Regarding Claim 12, Shelton teaches wherein the method further comprises receiving third location data associated with a patient body and first orientation data associated with the patient body, wherein the condition is that a distance between the smart energy device and the smart grasper is below a threshold ([2064]), and wherein the safety adjustment is a movement adjustment of the smart energy device based on the first location data, the second location data, the third location data, and the first orientation data ([2064]-[2068], [2089]-[2090], [2117], [2123], [2517]-[2522]).
Regarding Claim 13, Shelton teaches a field of view defined by a scope device (given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the 112 rejection above, Shelton teaches an imaging device associated with the invention and further discloses “the imaging device 124 is configured for use in a minimally invasive procedure. Examples of imaging devices suitable for use with the present disclosure include, but not limited to, an arthroscope, angioscope, bronchoscope, choledochoscope, colonoscope, cytoscope, duodenoscope, enteroscope, esophagogastro-duodenoscope (gastroscope), endoscope, laryngoscope, nasopharyngo-neproscope, sigmoidoscope, thoracoscope, and ureteroscope” in [0646], also see [1306], [2127] and [2295]).
Regarding Claim 14, Shelton teaches wherein the safety adjustment comprises the processor being configured to: retract the smart energy device to a predefined distance autonomously (“the processor 13822 can switch to a position control mode and prevent further movement of the robotic arm 13830, 13840 and/or move the robotic arm 13830, 13840 back within the defined surgical space” [2064]).
Regarding Claim 15, Shelton teaches wherein the virtual movement boundary is defined by is a health care professional for performing the surgical task (in view of the 112 rejection above, it is unclear what is meant by “the virtual movement boundary is defined by is a health care professional” and therefore, it is hereby interpreted to be the possibility of the healthcare professional to override the processor, see [1999], [2011], [2043], [2076]-[2078] and [2090]).
Regarding Claim 16, Shelton teaches wherein the safety adjustment comprises the processor being configured to: send a notification to a health care professional (“When a robotic surgical tool approaches the wider boundary B.sub.2, the robotic surgical tool 13861 can issue a notification or warning to the surgeon that the robotic surgical tool attached to the robot 13861 is approaching another surgical instrument 13890” [2090]), wherein the notification indicates whether a level of autonomy to control the smart energy device is needed or whether to establish a breakpoint (to stop, [2090]), and wherein the level of autonomy comprises a full autonomy, a partial autonomy, or a manual override ([1999], [2011], [2043], [2076]-[2078] and [2090]).
Regarding Claim 17, Shelton teaches wherein the safety adjustment comprises: retracting the smart energy device to a predefined distance autonomously (“the processor 13822 can switch to a position control mode and prevent further movement of the robotic arm 13830, 13840 and/or move the robotic arm 13830, 13840 back within the defined surgical space” [2064]).
Regarding Claim 18, Shelton teaches wherein the virtual movement boundary is defined by is a health care professional for performing the surgical task (in view of the 112 rejection above, it is unclear what is meant by “the virtual movement boundary is defined by is a health care professional” and therefore, it is hereby interpreted to be the possibility of the healthcare professional to override the processor, see [1999], [2011], [2043], [2076]-[2078] and [2090]).
Regarding Claim 19, Shelton teaches wherein the method is performed by a robotic system (Figs. 10, 147, 206, 210, 239 and 262, [2088]).
Regarding Claim 20, Shelton teaches wherein the safety adjustment comprises: sending a notification to a health care professional, wherein the notification indicates whether a level of autonomy to control the smart energy device is needed or whether to establish a breakpoint (to stop, [2090]), and wherein the level of autonomy comprises a full autonomy, a partial autonomy, or a manual override ([1999], [2011], [2043], [2076]-[2078] and [2090]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are on the grounds that “Shelton is silent on the amended recited subject matter. For example, Shelton does not describe at least controlling "a surgical device to operate autonomously within a predefined boundary, wherein the surgical device comprises a smart energy device, and wherein the predefined boundary is a virtual movement boundary associated with a surgical task," determining "whether a distance between the smart energy device and a smart grasper is below a threshold,” “based on a determination that the distance between the smart energy device and the smart grasper is below the threshold, determin[ing] a safety adjustment that is configured to control the surgical device autonomously," and controlling "the surgical device to operate autonomously based on the safety adjustment," as recited in the claims (emphasis added). Accordingly, Shelton also cannot be said to teach each and every element of the recited subject matter and cannot be said to satisfy the strict requirements of 102 rejections.”
These arguments are not found persuasive in view of the teachings directed to for example, Figs. 262, 410 and 418 as applied above. Specifically see [2088]-[2090] among other teachings as indicated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHADIJEH A VAHDAT whose telephone number is (571)270-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached on (571) 272-4764. 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.
/KHADIJEH A VAHDAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794