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 Amendment
The amendment filed 09/12/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 remain pending in the application, claim 10 is cancelled, and claims 21 has been added. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections and the interpretation of the prior rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/18/2025, however a new rejection of claims 1 and 13 of Weir in view of Eyre is applied as outlined below. Furthermore, new claim 21 is subject to restriction (see Election/Restriction section below).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the previous interpretation of the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Arguments directed to the claims as amended are addressed in the body of the rejection below.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 21 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
I. Claims 1-9 and 11-20, drawn to a robotic medical system, classified in A61B34/74.
II. Claim 21, drawn to a method, classified in A61B34/35.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product, such as in manually controlling the first and second robotic arms without the use of automatic/mimicking control.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Furthermore, the search and/or examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes that effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weir (US Patent 10,130,429) in view of Eyre et al. (US PGPub 2019/0216550), hereinafter known as “Eyre.”
With regards to claim 1, Weir discloses (Figures 2 and 11) a robotic medical system 100/600 (Col 17 lines 37-44 disclose the generality of the computer system, therefore can be used with the robotic surgical system of figure 11), comprising:
a first robotic arm 606a for holding a first medical instrument 608a (Col 22 lines 1-36);
a second robotic arm 606b for holding a second medical instrument 608b, wherein the second medical instrument 608b is separated from the first medical instrument 608a (figure 11; Col 22 lines 1-36);
one or more processors 102 (Col 8 line 54 – Col 9 line 6 and Col 16 lines 12-31); and
memory 104 storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors 102, cause the one or more processors 102 to (Col 15 lines 33-57 and Col 16 lines 12-31):
activate an arm follow mode (second mode) in accordance with a determination that the robotic medical system 600 is executing a predefined step of a workflow process (Col 6 lines 45-58 – movement of the arm along a predetermined path); and
in the arm follow mode (Col 41 lines 37-57 – “second mode”):
obtain data corresponding to movement of at least a first portion of the first robotic arm 606a; and
cause movement of the second robotic arm 606b according to the movement of the first portion of the first robotic arm 606a (Col 8 lines 14-53 – “In the first mode, the first electromechanical arm can move relative to each of the one or more additional electromechanical arms. In the second mode, the other movement of the first electromechanical arm can cause corresponding movement of each of the one or more additional electromechanical arms”).
Weir is silent wherein the predefined step is prior to the first medical instrument being loaded onto the first robotic arm and the second medical instrument being loaded onto the second robotic arm.
However, in a similar field of endeavor of robotic medical systems, Eyre teaches in paragraph 259-260 “movement of the adjustable arm support 1305 can be provided automatically by system software during setup, deployment, draping, or other workflow steps when tools are not inserted into the patient” and in paragraph 438 “one or more aspects of a system including adjustable arm supports and corresponding robotic arms can be controlled via software. For example, the system can be designed so that all actuations are robotically controlled by the system, and the system knows the position of all end effectors relative to the tabletop. This may provide a unique advantage that existing robotic surgery systems do not have. Further, this may allow for advantageous workflows including: adjusting the table top intraoperatively (e.g., tilt, Trendelenburg, height, flexure, etc.) while arms and arm positioning platforms move in sync; moving the robotic arms can move away from the operative field for draping or patient loading; after a clinician tells the system the type of procedure, the robotic arms can move to approximate positions near where ports are typically placed (Surgeons could modify and set port selection “presets” for how they like to do surgery).” Therefore, the predefined step of a workflow process is a setup process (adjusting the table top intraoperatively (e.g., tilt, Trendelenburg, height, flexure, etc.) while arms and arm positioning platforms move in sync; moving the robotic arms can move away from the operative field for draping or patient loading) prior to the first and second medical instruments being loaded onto the respective robotic arms.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic medical system of Weir to include wherein the predefined step is prior to the first medical instrument being loaded onto the first robotic arm and the second medical instrument being loaded onto the second robotic arm as taught by Eyre for the purpose of allowing the system to know the position and workflows of all end effectors relative to the tabletop (paragraph 438 of Eyre).
With regards to claim 2, Weir further discloses wherein causing movement of the second robotic arm 606b comprises adjusting a pose of the second robotic arm 606b to mimic a pose of the first robotic arm 606a (Col 8 lines 14-53 – “In the first mode, the first electromechanical arm can move relative to each of the one or more additional electromechanical arms. In the second mode, the other movement of the first electromechanical arm can cause corresponding movement of each of the one or more additional electromechanical arms” – corresponding movement such that the relative position of the first and second electromechanical arms is maintained is interpreted as the mimicked movement).
With regards to claim 3, Weir further discloses wherein the memory 104 further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors 102, cause the one or more processors 102 to cause the movement of the second robotic arm 606b in accordance with a determination that the second robotic arm 606b meets one or more predefined criteria (Col 6 lines 45-58 – movement of the arm along a predetermined path).
With regards to claim 4, Weir further discloses wherein the movement of the at least a first portion of the first robotic arm comprises robotic movement (Col 41 line 58 – Col 42 line 17).
With regards to claim 5, Weir further discloses wherein the movement of the at least a first portion of the first robotic arm 606a comprises manual movement (Col 11 lines 1-15).
With regards to claim 6, Weir further discloses wherein the memory 104 further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors 102, cause the one or more processors 102 to activate the arm follow mode (second mode) via an input control on the first robotic arm 606a (Col 41 lines 58-62).
With regards to claim 7, Weir further discloses wherein the memory 104 further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors 102, cause the one or more processors 102 to:
switch the robotic medical system 600 from the arm follow mode (second mode) to a clutch mode (first mode), and
in the clutch mode (first mode), cause movement of the second robotic arm 606b independent of movement of the first robotic arm 606a (Col 41 lines 37-47).
With regards to claim 8, Weir/Eyre disclose the robotic medical system as claimed in claim 1. The combination is silent to further comprising an adjustable arm support, wherein the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm are positioned on the adjustable arm support.
However, in another embodiment of Weir, Weir teaches (Figure 6) to further comprising an adjustable arm support 424, wherein the first robotic arm 400 and the second robotic arm 422 are positioned on the adjustable arm support 424 (Col 20 lines 37-45).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic medical system of Weir/Eyre to include an adjustable arm support, wherein the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm are positioned on the adjustable arm support as taught by the figure 6 embodiment of Weir for the purpose of facilitating positioning of the arms relative to the patient (Col 20 lines 37-45 of Weir).
With regards to claim 9, Weir further discloses further comprising a third robotic arm 606n, wherein the memory 104 further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors 102, cause the one or more processors 102 to cause movement of the third robotic arm 606n according to the movement of the at least a first portion of the first robotic arm 606a (Col 8 lines 14-53 – “In the first mode, the first electromechanical arm can move relative to each of the one or more additional electromechanical arms. In the second mode, the other movement of the first electromechanical arm can cause corresponding movement of each of the one or more additional electromechanical arms”).
With regards to claims 11-12, it would have been obvious to modify the robotic medical system of Weir to include wherein the predefined step is prior to the first medical instrument being loaded onto the first robotic arm and the second medical instrument being loaded onto the second robotic arm as taught by Eyre. Eyre further discloses in paragraph 438 “one or more aspects of a system including adjustable arm supports and corresponding robotic arms can be controlled via software. For example, the system can be designed so that all actuations are robotically controlled by the system, and the system knows the position of all end effectors relative to the tabletop. This may provide a unique advantage that existing robotic surgery systems do not have. Further, this may allow for advantageous workflows including: adjusting the table top intraoperatively (e.g., tilt, Trendelenburg, height, flexure, etc.) while arms and arm positioning platforms move in sync; moving the robotic arms can move away from the operative field for draping or patient loading; after a clinician tells the system the type of procedure, the robotic arms can move to approximate positions near where ports are typically placed (Surgeons could modify and set port selection “presets” for how they like to do surgery); and performing “last mile” docking with cameras on the end effectors and vision targets on cannulas.” Therefore, a workflow of draping as well as a clinician telling the system the type of procedure so that the robotic arms can move to approximate positions near where ports are typically placed is interpreted to satisfy the claim limitation of draping and pre-docking, respectively. Thus, when incorporating wherein the predefined step is prior to the first medical instrument being loaded onto the first robotic arm and the second medical instrument being loaded onto the second robotic arm, the claimed limitation is considered obvious.
With regards to claim 13, Weir discloses (Figures 2 and 11) a robotic medical system 100/600 (Col 17 lines 37-44 disclose the generality of the computer system, therefore can be used with the robotic surgical system of figure 11), comprising:
a first robotic arm 606a for holding a first medical tool 608a (Col 22 lines 1-36);
a second robotic arm 606b for holding a second medical tool 608b, wherein the second medical tool 608b is separated from the first medical tool 608a (figure 11; Col 22 lines 1-36);
one or more processors 102 (Col 8 line 54 – Col 9 line 6 and Col 16 lines 12-31); and
memory 104 storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors 102, cause the one or more processors 102 to (Col 15 lines 33-57 and Col 16 lines 12-31);
in a teleoperation mode (Col 41 lines 37-47 – “first mode”; teleoperation mode is interpreted as the first movement of the first robotic arm 606a in the first mode), execute first movement of the first robotic arm 606a;
activate an arm follow mode (second mode) in accordance with a determination that the robotic medical system 600 is executing a predefined step of a workflow process (Col 6 lines 45-58 – movement of the arm along a predetermined path); and
in the arm follow mode (Col 41 lines 37-57 – “second mode”):
obtain data corresponding to second movement of at least a portion of the first robotic arm 606a; and
cause movement of the second robotic arm 606b according to the second movement (Col 8 lines 14-53 – “In the first mode, the first electromechanical arm can move relative to each of the one or more additional electromechanical arms. In the second mode, the other movement of the first electromechanical arm can cause corresponding movement of each of the one or more additional electromechanical arms”).
Weir is silent wherein the predefined step is a setup process prior to the teleoperation mode.
However, in a similar field of endeavor of robotic medical systems, Eyre teaches in paragraph 259-260 “movement of the adjustable arm support 1305 can be provided automatically by system software during setup, deployment, draping, or other workflow steps when tools are not inserted into the patient” and in paragraph 438 “one or more aspects of a system including adjustable arm supports and corresponding robotic arms can be controlled via software. For example, the system can be designed so that all actuations are robotically controlled by the system, and the system knows the position of all end effectors relative to the tabletop. This may provide a unique advantage that existing robotic surgery systems do not have. Further, this may allow for advantageous workflows including: adjusting the table top intraoperatively (e.g., tilt, Trendelenburg, height, flexure, etc.) while arms and arm positioning platforms move in sync; moving the robotic arms can move away from the operative field for draping or patient loading; after a clinician tells the system the type of procedure, the robotic arms can move to approximate positions near where ports are typically placed (Surgeons could modify and set port selection “presets” for how they like to do surgery).” Therefore, the predefined step of a workflow process is a setup process (adjusting the table top intraoperatively (e.g., tilt, Trendelenburg, height, flexure, etc.) while arms and arm positioning platforms move in sync; moving the robotic arms can move away from the operative field for draping or patient loading) prior to the teleoperation mode.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic medical system of Weir to include wherein the predefined step of the workflow process is a setup process prior to the teleoperation mode as taught by Eyre for the purpose of allowing the system to know the position and workflows of all end effectors relative to the tabletop (paragraph 438 of Eyre).
With regards to claim 14, Weir further discloses further comprising a physician console 612, wherein the first movement of the first robotic arm 606a is executed in accordance with an input received at the physician console 612 (Col 22 lines 26-36).
With regards to claim 15, Weir further discloses wherein causing movement of the second robotic arm 606b comprises adjusting a pose of the second robotic arm 606b to mimic a pose of the first robotic arm 606a (Col 8 lines 14-53 – “In the first mode, the first electromechanical arm can move relative to each of the one or more additional electromechanical arms. In the second mode, the other movement of the first electromechanical arm can cause corresponding movement of each of the one or more additional electromechanical arms” – corresponding movement such that the relative position of the first and second electromechanical arms is maintained is interpreted as the mimicked movement).
With regards to claim 16, Weir further discloses wherein the memory 104 further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors 102, cause the one or more processors 102 to cause the movement of the second robotic arm 606b in accordance with a determination that the second robotic arm 606b meets one or more predefined criteria (Col 6 lines 45-58 – movement of the arm along a predetermined path).
With regards to claim 17, Weir further discloses wherein the second movement of the at least a first portion of the first robotic arm comprises robotic movement (Col 41 line 58 – Col 42 line 17).
With regards to claim 18, Weir further discloses wherein the second movement of the at least a first portion of the first robotic arm 606a comprises manual movement (Col 11 lines 1-15).
With regards to claim 19, Weir further discloses wherein the memory 104 further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors 102, cause the one or more processors 102 to activate the arm follow mode (second mode) via an input control on the second robotic arm 606b (Col 41 lines 58-62).
With regards to claim 20, Weir further discloses wherein the memory 104 further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors 102, cause the one or more processors 102 to:
switch the robotic medical system 600 from the arm follow mode (second mode) to a clutch mode (first mode); and
in the clutch mode (first mode), cause movement of the second robotic arm 606b independent of movement of the first robotic arm 606a (Col 41 lines 37-47; clutch mode is interpreted as the movement of the second robotic arm 606b in the first mode).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ADAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8981. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/MOHAMMED S ADAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 12/19/2025
/SARAH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771