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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 43-47 and 49-63 are pending.
Claims 60-63 are withdrawn from prosecution.
Claims 43-47, and 49-59 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in Applicant’s responses filed 01/06/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 43 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
That is, newly found prior art, Baumgartner, et al., US 20140303486 A1, has been introduced in combination with the teachings of Link, et al., US 20190380789 A1 and Walker, et al., US 20190380789 A1 to arrive at the claimed invention.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Link, et al., US 20190380789 A1 and Walker, et al., US 20190380789 A1 fail to teach automatically detect position deviations, automatically recalculate a 3D trajectory, and then automatically steer the medical instrument according to the update trajectory.
Baumgartner teaches these limitations in paragraphs 296-297 stating that:
[0296] A computer system can be provided with a display device to enable evaluation of the determined navigational path of the depth electrode in the tissue, to establish a deviation from a previously established navigational plan and possibly to automatically alter the parameters or propose such a change to an operator, in order to modify the ultimate resection surgery such that it can be carried out as planned. To this end, systems can be provided that enable the accuracy of the navigational path to be optimized or changed and altered, if necessary, to obtain an accurate plan for the ultimate resection surgery as previously planned. When a deviation from a given navigational plan is established during verification, the manner and magnitude of the change to the resection parameters can be advantageously determined using known action and function mechanisms.
[0297] In one embodiment, the resection plan can be communicated via an interface to a navigation system, such as for example the VectorVision.RTM. system. The navigation system can be used to position the selected depth electrode or catheter at the given points in the brain based on the planning data. The electrodes or catheter(s) can be positioned automatically, for example using a robot, or manually with guidance from the navigation system (e.g., a display device showing whether the electrode or catheter is correctly positioned or still has to be moved in a particular direction). The results of the positioning and navigation may be output to a display device.
The prior art of record in combination teach all the limitations of the claims and therefore, the claims stand rejected.
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.
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.
Claims 43-45, 47-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Link, et al., US 20190380789 A1 in view of Walker, et al., US 20190380789 A1 and Baumgartner, et al., US 20140303486 A1.
Regarding claim 43, Link teaches a method of steering a medical instrument (handheld surgical tool 200 of fig. 1) toward a target within a body of a subject (the abstract discloses a surgical navigation system for providing computer-aided surgery including a handheld surgical tool with computer-aided navigation, an imaging device, an alignment module, and a user interface module), the method comprising:
calculating a planned 3D trajectory ([0047], [0062] disclose defining a 3D trajectory) for the medical instrument from an entry point to a target in the body of the subject ([0070] discloses determining a starting point and [0072] indicate an endpoint of the trajectory being displayed);
steering the medical instrument toward the target according to the planned 3D trajectory ([0078] teaches moving the handheld surgical tool 200 in the 3D trajectory with its relative positions indicated on the display by a green dot);
determining if a real-time position of the target deviates from a previous target position ([0010] states that “The processor is configured to operate in at least two different modes and for generation of deviation signals…Deviation signals may be generated, which represent a deviation of the handheld surgical tool in either two or three dimensions in comparison to a predetermined or selected position” and [0011] states that “The user interface module may be supplied with the actual location of the handheld surgical tool, the deviation signals, and patient images taken by the imaging device. The user interface module includes at least one computer and a visual display that is configured to indicate the location of the handheld surgical tool direction in two or three dimensions, the deviation of the handheld surgical tool in two or three dimensions, and a magnitude of any such deviation.”);
if it is determined that the real-time position of the target deviates from the previous target position ([0016] states that “The processor detects whether a present position of the handheld surgical tool is in conformity with the stored incomplete position indication, and if it is not it will provide a deviation signal”),
recalculating and updating the 3D trajectory of the medical instrument to facilitate the medical instrument reaching the target ([0016] then goes on to say that “In the above mentioned simplified example using just two angles, the incomplete position data only comprises yaw. By pressing at least one of the control keys, the position may be virtually changed (e.g., the yaw angle may be modified). By pressing of a set key the position will be stored in the position memory as an incomplete position indication”), and
steering the medical instrument toward the target according to the updated 3D trajectory ([0016] then states that “The processor will then detect any deviation from the stored value for yaw, while pitch is still freely modifiable. The user may reposition the tool such that its actual yaw angles matches the stored one. By virtue of this, yaw angle of the tool can be locked in”).
Links fails to teach steering the medical instrument using an automated medical device.
However, Walker teaches systems and methods for driving a flexible medical instrument to a target in an anatomical space with robotic assistance (abstract) for steering the medical instrument using an automated medical device ([0042] discloses an instrument driver 22, [0113] stating that “the controller 34 and the instrument driver 22 work together to drive the instrument along the recommended path 1310 while an auto-pilot feature of the user input device is actuated”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Link for steering the medical instrument using an automated medical device, as taught by Walker, to provide an intuitive system for navigating and tracking surgical instruments ([0006]-[0012] describe challenges that are addressed by the system in Walker).
Link in view of Walker requires user intervention for updating the trajectory and hence fails to teach automatically recalculating and updating the 3D trajectory, and steering the medical instrument.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Baumgartner teaches a device for carrying out a navigation method comprising a verification device for determining the spatial distribution of a depth electrode in a brain, in particular in an area of tissue ([0295]). [0296] states that “A computer system can be provided with a display device to enable evaluation of the determined navigational path of the depth electrode in the tissue, to establish a deviation from a previously established navigational plan and possibly to automatically alter the parameters or propose such a change to an operator, in order to modify the ultimate resection surgery such that it can be carried out as planned”. [0297] then states that “The navigation system can be used to position the selected depth electrode or catheter at the given points in the brain based on the planning data. The electrodes or catheter(s) can be positioned automatically, for example using a robot, or manually with guidance from the navigation system (e.g., a display device showing whether the electrode or catheter is correctly positioned or still has to be moved in a particular direction). The results of the positioning and navigation may be output to a display device”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Link, as modified by Walker, to automatically recalculate and update the 3D trajectory, and automatically steer the medical instrument, as taught by Baumgartner, to provide systems that enable the accuracy of the navigational path to be optimized or changed and altered, if necessary, to obtain an accurate plan for the ultimate resection surgery as previously planned (see [0296]).
Regarding claim 44, Link in view of Walker and Baumgartner teaches all the limitations of claim 43.
Link further teaches wherein calculating the planned 3D trajectory from the entry point to the target comprises:
calculating a first planar trajectory for the medical instrument from the entry point to the target, based on a first image or a first set of image frames of a region of interest, the first image frame or first set of image frames pertaining to a first, wherein the first planar trajectory is a first 2D trajectory plane ([0070]-[0071] describes a 2D “AP trajectory” of an “AP plane” based on AP X-ray image);
calculating a second planar trajectory for the medical instrument from the entry point to the target, based on a second image frame or a second set of image frames of a region of interest, the second image frame or second set of image frames pertaining to a second plane, wherein the second planar trajectory is a second 2D trajectory ([0074]-[0075] disclose a 2D “lateral trajectory” of a lateral plane based on lateral X-ray image), and
superpositioning the first and second planar trajectories to form a single 3D trajectory for the medical instrument from the entry point to the target([0078] states that “From the locked-in 2D AP and lateral target angles/trajectory/orientation, a desired 3D trajectory/orientation is established in the system as the target 3D trajectory/orientation, and display 410 is used to orient the shaft 250 of the handheld surgical tool 200 into alignment with the target 3D trajectory/orientation.”) and
wherein updating the 3D trajectory comprises:
calculating a 2D trajectory correction on each of the first plane and the second plane ([0087] discloses modifying the AP and lateral trajectories); and
superpositioning the two calculated 2D trajectory corrections to form one 3D trajectory correction ([0087] states that “A new target 3D trajectory/orientation is determined based on the AP and lateral, locked-in trajectories/orientations”).
Regarding claim 45, Link in view of Walker and Baumgartner teaches all the limitations of claim 44.
Link further teaches wherein the first plane and the second are perpendicular to each other ([0010], [0091] both indicate that the planes are orthogonal to teach other).
Regarding claim 47, Link in view of Walker and Baumgartner teaches all the limitations of claim 44.
Link further teaches defining at least one of the target and the entry point on the first or second image frames or sets of image frames, using image processing and/or machine learning algorithms ([0072] and [0075] describe the starting point and the endpoint indicated in the respective AP and lateral images).
Regarding claim 49, Link in view of Walker and Baumgartner teaches all the limitations of claim 43.
Link further teaches wherein the real-time position of the medical instrument and/or the target is determined manually by a user ([0022] states that “the surgeon might position the tool in a first plane that is defined by the imaging device. For example, the first plane might be the anterior-posterior plane, where an x-ray image is generated by a correspondingly orientated C-arm. With the help of the generated picture, the surgeon might define the desired starting point and the desired trajectory of the tool in this plane using known anatomic landmarks visible on the generated picture”).
Regarding claim 50, Link in view of Walker and Baumgartner teaches all the limitations of claim 43.
Link further teaches wherein the real-time position of the medical instrument and/or the target is determined automatically by a processor, using image processing and/or machine learning algorithms ([0087] states that “The shaft 250 of the tool 200 can be placed over a provisionally directed guidewire, fixation pin, or the like, and the system can capture the digital orientation in real time, allowing the surgeon to more accurately adjust the final placement.”).
Regarding claim 51, Link in view of Walker and Baumgartner teaches all the limitations of claim 43.
Link fails to teach real-time tracking the position of the target within the body, to determine the real-time position of the target within the body.
However, Walker further teaches real-time tracking the position of the target within the body, to determine the real-time position of the target within the body ([0055] states that “the position or shape tracking sensors incorporated into the medical instrument 18 allow for real-time sensing of the instrument's position (i.e., location, orientation, and/or shape)”. This occurs within the anatomical space which is within the patient ([0045])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Link to perform real-time tracking of the position of the target within the body, to determine the real-time position of the target within the body, as taught by Walker, to provide an intuitive system for navigating and tracking surgical instruments ([0006]-[0012] describe challenges that are addressed by the system in Walker).
Regarding claim 52, Link in view of Walker and Baumgartner teaches all the limitations of claim 43.
Link fails to teach determining a real-time position of the medical instrument within the body, and tracking the position of the medical instrument within the body to determine the real-time position of the medical instrument within the body.
However, Walker further teaches determining a real-time position of the medical instrument within the body, and tracking the position of the medical instrument within the body to determine the real-time position of the medical instrument within the body([0055] states that “the position or shape tracking sensors incorporated into the medical instrument 18 allow for real-time sensing of the instrument's position (i.e., location, orientation, and/or shape)”. This occurs within the anatomical space which is within the patient ([0045])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Link for determining a real-time position of the medical instrument within the body, and tracking the position of the medical instrument within the body to determine the real-time position of the medical instrument within the body, as taught by Walker, to provide an intuitive system for navigating and tracking surgical instruments ([0006]-[0012] describe challenges that are addressed by the system in Walker).
Regarding claim 53, Link in view of Walker and Baumgartner teaches all the limitations of claim 53.
Link fails to teach determining if the real-time position of the medical instrument within the body deviates from the planned 3D trajectory.
However, Walker further teaches determining if the real-time position of the medical instrument within the body deviates from the planned 3D trajectory ([0113] states that “the controller 34 is configured to suspend movement of the instrument and notify the user automatically if the instrument deviates from the recommended path”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Link for determining if the real-time position of the medical instrument within the body deviates from the planned 3D trajectory, as taught by Walker, to provide an intuitive system for navigating and tracking surgical instruments ([0006]-[0012] describe challenges that are addressed by the system in Walker).
Regarding claim 54, Link in view of Walker and Baumgartner teaches all the limitations of claim 53.
Link fails to teach wherein the determining is performed continuously, wherein the determining is performed at checkpoints along the 3D trajectory and the method further comprises adding and/or repositioning one or more checkpoints along the 3D trajectory.
However, Walker further teaches wherein the determining is performed continuously ([0060] discloses continuous calculation of the positions and movement of the instrument).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Link wherein the determining is performed continuously, as taught by Walker, to provide an intuitive system for navigating and tracking surgical instruments ([0006]-[0012] describe challenges that are addressed by the system in Walker).
Link in view of the embodiment of Walker applied above fail to teach wherein the determining is performed at checkpoints along the 3D trajectory and the method further comprises adding and/or repositioning one or more checkpoints along the 3D trajectory.
However, in a separate embodiment (figs. 15A-15E), Walker further teaches that a virtual instrument 1510 is superimposed on the anatomical image 1500. The virtual instrument 1510 includes a virtual guidewire 1512, a virtual inner member 1514, and a virtual outer member 1516 ([0134]), wherein the determining is performed at checkpoints along the 3D trajectory and the method further comprises adding and/or repositioning one or more checkpoints along the 3D trajectory ([0135] states that “the controller 34 is configured to determine and set one or more intermediate targets that the instrument components aim for along their path to the final user-designated target”. The intermediate targets represented by visual indicator 1534 form the recited checkpoints).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Link for determining is performed continuously, wherein the determining is performed at checkpoints along the 3D trajectory and the method further comprises adding and/or repositioning one or more checkpoints along the 3D trajectory, as taught by Walker, to provide an intuitive system for navigating and tracking surgical instruments ([0006]-[0012] describe challenges that are addressed by the system in Walker).
Regarding claim 55, Link in view of Walker and Baumgartner teaches all the limitations of claim 50.
Link fails to teach wherein the determining is performed continuously, wherein the determining is performed at the checkpoints along the 3D trajectory and the method further comprises adding and/or repositioning one or more checkpoints along the 3D trajectory.
However, Walker further teaches wherein the determining is performed continuously ([0060] discloses continuous calculation of the positions and movement of the instrument).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Link wherein the determining is performed continuously, as taught by Walker, to provide an intuitive system for navigating and tracking surgical instruments ([0006]-[0012] describe challenges that are addressed by the system in Walker).
Link in view of the embodiment of Walker applied above fail to teach wherein the determining is performed at checkpoints along the 3D trajectory and the method further comprises adding and/or repositioning one or more checkpoints along the 3D trajectory.
However, in a separate embodiment (figs. 15A-15E), Walker further teaches that a virtual instrument 1510 is superimposed on the anatomical image 1500. The virtual instrument 1510 includes a virtual guidewire 1512, a virtual inner member 1514, and a virtual outer member 1516 ([0134]), wherein the determining is performed at checkpoints along the 3D trajectory and the method further comprises adding and/or repositioning one or more checkpoints along the 3D trajectory ([0135] states that “the controller 34 is configured to determine and set one or more intermediate targets that the instrument components aim for along their path to the final user-designated target”. The intermediate targets represented by visual indicator 1534 form the recited checkpoints).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Link, as modified by the first embodiment applied to the rejection above, for determining is performed continuously, wherein the determining is performed at checkpoints along the 3D trajectory and the method further comprises adding and/or repositioning one or more checkpoints along the 3D trajectory, as taught by Walker, to provide an intuitive system for navigating and tracking surgical instruments ([0006]-[0012] describe challenges that are addressed by the system in Walker).
Regarding claim 56, Link in view of Walker and Baumgartner teaches all the limitations of claim 43.
Link in view of the embodiment applied to the rejections above fails to teach wherein the calculating comprises calculating the planned 3D trajectory such that the medical instrument avoids contact with one or more initial obstacles within the body of the subject.
However, Walker further teaches in the embodiment in fig. 15 wherein the calculating comprises calculating the planned 3D trajectory such that the medical instrument avoids contact with one or more initial obstacles within the body of the subject ([0135] describes that the reason for providing the intermediate targets as depicted in figs. 15C and 15D is to prevent collision of the instrument with a wall of the aorta).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Link, as modified by the first embodiment applied to the rejection above, for determining is performed continuously, wherein the calculating comprises calculating the planned 3D trajectory such that the medical instrument avoids contact with one or more initial obstacles within the body of the subject, as taught by Walker, to provide an intuitive system for navigating and tracking surgical instruments ([0006]-[0012] describe challenges that are addressed by the system in Walker).
Regarding claim 57, Link in view of Walker and Baumgartner teaches all the limitations of claim 43.
Link in view of the first embodiment of Walker applied above fails to teach identifying a real-time location of the one or more initial obstacles and/or one or more new obstacles within the body of the subject and wherein updating the 3D trajectory of the medical instrument comprises updating the 3D trajectory such that the medical instrument avoids entering the real-time location of the one or more initial obstacles and/or the one or more new obstacles.
However, Walker further teaches in the embodiment in fig. 15 wherein the calculating comprises calculating the planned 3D trajectory such that the medical instrument avoids contact with one or more initial obstacles within the body of the subject ([0135] describes updating a trajectory of the instrument (see figs. 15C and 15D) to avoid collision with the wall of the aorta).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Link, as modified by the first embodiment applied to the rejection above, for identifying a real-time location of the one or more initial obstacles and/or one or more new obstacles within the body of the subject and wherein updating the 3D trajectory of the medical instrument comprises updating the 3D trajectory such that the medical instrument avoids entering the real-time location of the one or more initial obstacles and/or the one or more new obstacles, as taught by Walker, to provide an intuitive system for navigating and tracking surgical instruments ([0006]-[0012] describe challenges that are addressed by the system in Walker).
Regarding claim 58, Link in view of Walker and Baumgartner teaches all the limitations of claim 43.
Link further teaches wherein if it is determined that the real-time position of the target deviates from the previous target position, the method further comprises determining if the deviation exceeds a predetermined threshold, and wherein the 3D trajectory of the medical instrument is updated only if it is determined that the deviation exceeds the predetermined threshold ([0018] states that “The processor may also be configured to suppress indicating a deviation signal below a preset threshold. For example, a tolerance threshold may be preset or inputted into the system, provides a certain tolerance around the correct position.”).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Link in view of Walker and Baumgartner, as applied to claim 44 above, and further in view of Crawford, et al., US 20200170723 A1.
Regarding claim 46, Link in view of Walker and Baumgartner teaches all the limitations of claim 44.
Link fails to teach wherein each of the 2D trajectory corrections is calculated utilizing an inverse kinematics algorithm.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Crawford teaches a surgical robot system for attaching an electrode holder to a skull of a patient ([0005]), wherein each of the 2D trajectory corrections is calculated utilizing an inverse kinematics algorithm ([0199] states that “Desired locations and trajectories in the surgical space may be referenced via a Cartesian coordinate system to the frame on the patient as shown in FIG. 27. Using inverse kinematics, the locations to which each joint should be driven to position the end effector at the desired tip location with the desired trajectory can be determined”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Link, as modified by Walker and Baumgartner, wherein each of the 2D trajectory corrections is calculated utilizing an inverse kinematics algorithm, to accurately set the joint locations ([0199]) since selective control of the translation and orientation of end-effector 112 can permit performance of medical procedures with significantly improved accuracy compared to conventional robots that use ([0065]).
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Link in view of Walker and Baumgartner, as applied to claim 52 above, and further in view of Bowling, et al., US 20140039517 A1.
Regarding claim 59, Link in view of Walker and Baumgartner teaches all the limitations of claim 52.
Link fails to teach wherein determining the real-time position of the medical instrument within the body of the subject comprises determining the actual position of a tip of the medical instrument within the body of the subject, and wherein determining the actual position of the tip of the medical instrument within the body of the subject comprises: detecting the medical instrument in one or more images; defining an end of the detected medical instrument in the one or more images; determining the position and/or orientation of the medical instrument relative to a coordinate system of an imaging system.
However, Walker further teaches wherein determining the real-time position of the medical instrument within the body of the subject comprises determining the actual position of a tip of the medical instrument within the body of the subject ([0074] states “The presence of the 6-DOF position tracking sensors in the tip of the instrument may be used to communicate the actual roll orientation of the instrument tip in the given viewing plane”), and
wherein determining the actual position of the tip of the medical instrument within the body of the subject comprises: detecting the medical instrument in one or more images; defining an end of the detected medical instrument in the one or more images (see fig. 9 for the fluoroscopy image 900 depicting the tip of the instrument. Also see [0073]);
determining the position and/or orientation of the medical instrument relative to a coordinate system of an imaging system ([0054] states that “the robotic surgical system 10 is designed to relate a coordinate system of the tracking sensor FRF of the elongate member 18 to either a fluoroscopy coordinate system FF or a pre-operative 3-D coordinate system AMF, as shown in FIG. 5”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Link, as modified by the first embodiment applied to the rejection above, wherein determining the real-time position of the medical instrument within the body of the subject comprises determining the actual position of a tip of the medical instrument within the body of the subject, and wherein determining the actual position of the tip of the medical instrument within the body of the subject comprises: detecting the medical instrument in one or more images; defining an end of the detected medical instrument in the one or more images; determining the position and/or orientation of the medical instrument relative to a coordinate system of an imaging system, as taught by Walker, to provide an intuitive system for navigating and tracking surgical instruments ([0006]-[0012] describe challenges that are addressed by the system in Walker).
Link in view of Walker fails to teach determining a compensation value for the end of the medical instrument based on a look-up table; and determining the actual position of the tip of the medical instrument in the body of the subject based on the determined compensation value.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Bowling teaches a navigation system for use with a surgical manipulator operable in manual or semi-autonomous modes, the navigation system including a tracker for attaching to the patient and a localizer to receive signals from the tracker or transmit signals to the tracker (abstract), [0335]-[0339] describe compensations to the instrument, determining a compensation value for the end of the medical instrument based on a look-up table; and determining the actual position of the tip of the medical instrument in the body of the subject based on the determined compensation value ([0336] states that “The compensation is often performed by reference to values stored in look up tables integral with the compensator 689. These values may be positive or negative. The specific compensation value subtracted from any individual signal representative of measured force and torque is generally a function of the orientation of the instrument. A second input into compensator 689 is therefore data representative of the actual orientation of the instrument. The orientation component of the measured pose from the forward kinematics module 562 can function as this representation of actual instrument orientation”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Link, as modified by Walker and Baumgartner, for determining a compensation value for the end of the medical instrument based on a look-up table; and determining the actual position of the tip of the medical instrument in the body of the subject based on the determined compensation value, as taught by Bowling, as collectively, these features make it possible for the joint motors to rapidly reposition the shoulders and links and to perform such repositioning with a high degree of accuracy ([0386]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Farouk A Bruce whose telephone number is (408)918-7603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (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.
/FAROUK A BRUCE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797