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 (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.
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.
Claims 1 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odermatt, et. al., (U.S. PGPub. No. 2013/0006267, hereinafter Odermatt) as applied to claims 1 -17 above, and further in view of Bowling, et. al., (U.S. PGPub. No. 2014/0039681).
In regard to claim 1, Odermatt teaches: A motion control system for a mechanical arm (20), wherein a terminal end (Fig 1, [0011]) of the mechanical arm is adapted to carry an effector (23), and the method comprises steps of:
receiving a first control command (Fig. 6, 44) from a first input device (25 controller with software) . . . wherein the first control command is configured to control the mechanical arm to move according to a first movement mode (45);
receiving a second control command (Fig. 7, 71) from the first input device or a second input device ([0026] Controlling a robotic arm with a controller, 25, and a handle 26), wherein the second control command is configured to control the mechanical arm to enter a second movement mode (Fig 7, 72);
and receiving a third control command (Fig 7, 72) from the second input device (26), wherein the third control command is configured to control the effector to perform a predetermined movement (Fig 7, 72 “modify bone” requires movement of, i.e. the second movement mode, and surgical actuation, i.e. the third movement mode, of end effector, 23).
wherein the first input device and the second input device are separated from each other or are provided to be separable from each other (Fig. 1 and 3, elements 25 and 26 are schematically diagramed as being separate but coupled to a robotic system 40). Odermatt fails to teach, receiving a first control command from a first input device by a graphical user interface. Bowling teaches, ([0090] 128 touch screen display and user interface 130 controls presentation of information and processes and passes commands entered through display to the controller).
Odermatt teaches active/passive and manual operation modes of a robot/computer assisted surgical system by commands input to a controller (Odermatt, 25) or input to a handle (Odermatt, 26) but does not describe specific hardware and software elements in the claims of the present application. Bowling teaches specific hardware and the use of a semi-autonomous mode and a manual mode. At the time of filing of this application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined programmed control modes and a manual control mode as taught by Odermatt with commands input in a specific manner to input devices and graphical user interfaces as taught by Bowling. Such a combination would predictably allow a surgeon to switch between performing a constrained procedure with a high degree of accuracy to performing unconstrained and low accuracy procedures in a time efficient manner (Odermatt [0010]).
In regard to claim 2, Odermatt and Bowling teach claim 1 as discussed above. Odermatt additionally teaches: inputting a fourth control command through the first input device ([0032] button selection in controller, 25, software) or the second input device (26), wherein the fourth control command is configured to control the mechanical arm to stop moving according to the first movement mode ([0032] hardware switch and button may both be used to activate/deactivate passive or active control).
In regard to claim 3, Odermatt and Bowling teach claim 1 as discussed above. Odermatt does not teach: the step of receiving the first control command from the first input device by the graphical user interface comprises: receiving a pre-control command by the graphical user interface to provide a first control interface set, wherein the first control interface set is configured to receive the first control command from the first input device. Bowling teaches ([0092] & [0093] the manipulator display 128 with a user interface, 130, may function as a tool controller 132, which functions to operate the surgical instrument 160). At the time of filing of this application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of switching between active/passive and manual control schemes of Odermatt with a GUI on the first input device that selectively generates a first control interface set that transmits first control commands as taught by Bowling. Such a combination would advantageously position instrument controls on the GUI in addition to their positioning on the instrument (Bowling Fig 8 – 10).
In regard to claim 4, Odermatt and Bowling teach claim 1 as discussed above. Odermatt teaches further comprising a step of: after the execution of the third control command is completed (Fig. 6 after 43), providing . . . by the software, . . . to receive the first control command (Fig. 6 Enter programmed control mode 51, then arrow pointing back to 45, generate course/virtual boundary for tool to follow) from the first input device([0029] and fig. 6 dashed line pathway, The system is switched back to programmed control at step 51, then the controller generates a new course and boundary for the tool to follow). Odermatt does not teach, providing a first control interface set by the graphical user interface, wherein the first control interface set is configured to. Bowling, ([0090] and [0092]), teaches a UI 130 that processes user generated commands for the control of an instrument and passes those commands to a tool controller to operate an instrument. At the time of filing of this application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the method of Odermatt for generating a new path to a predefined boundary (the first control command) following the actuation of an instrument (the third control command) with the UI and hardware of Bowling that generates and displays a first control interface set for receiving a first control command and passes that command to the tool controller. Such a modification would predictably present information to a user and initially process user generated commands (Bowling [0090]).
In regard to claim 5, Odermatt and Bowling teach claim 1 as discussed above. Odermatt teaches, the first movement mode is that the mechanical arm moves from a current position to a target position under a driving of its own power ([0029] in the active (under the arms own power) programmed control mode, at fig. 6 step 45, the controller will generate a course, path, or virtual boundary to follow); and/or, the second movement mode is that the mechanical arm is configured so that its terminal end can be translated in a predetermined plane and rotated about a normal line of the plane ([0027] in the passive, programmed control mode 51, the robot arm cannot move under its own power, but is still, [0029] constrained within a boundary that can also be a plane) under a driving of an external force ([0027] in the passive, programmed control mode the robot arm cannot move autonomously).
In regard to claim 6, Odermatt teaches: A motion control system for a mechanical arm (20), a terminal end of the mechanical arm is adapted to carry an effector (23), and the motion control system comprises a controller (25) provided with a graphical user interface (part of the controller, 25, discussed below), a first input device (25, discussed in combination below) and a second input device (26, a joystick or handle on an instrument), wherein:
. . . the first control command (Fig. 6, 44) is configured to control the mechanical arm (20) to move according to a first movement mode (45);
. . . the second control command is configured to control the mechanical arm (20) to enter a second movement mode (Fig. 7, 71 & 72);
the second input device (26) is configured to input a third control command and the third control command is configured to control the effector to perform a predetermined movement (Fig 7, 72 “modify bone” requires movement of, i.e. the second movement mode, and surgical actuation, i.e. third movement mode, of end effector, 23);
wherein the first input device and the second input device are separated from each other or are provided to be separable from each other (Fig. 1 and 3, elements 25 and 26 are schematically diagramed as being separate but coupled to a robotic system 40, discussed in combination below). Odermatt fails to explicitly teach: . . . a controller provided with a graphical user interface . . . the graphical user interface is configured to receive a first control command from the first input device . . . the graphical user interface is further configured to receive a second control command from the first input device or the second input device . . . the second input device is configured to input a third control command and the third control command is configured to control the effector to perform a predetermined movement.
Bowling teaches: . . . a controller (124) provided with a graphical user interface (130) . . . the graphical user interface is configured to receive a first control command from the first input device ([0090] 128 touch screen display and user interface 130 controls presentation of information and processes and passes commands entered through display to the controller) . . .
the graphical user interface is further configured to receive a second control command from the first input device or the second input device ([0091] second input device, pendant 190 transmits control signals to the user interface 130, which passes them to the controller, 124, [0090]) . . .
the second input device is configured to input a third control command and the third control command is configured to control the effector to perform a predetermined movement ([0408] – [0410] teach the steps and safeties for the actuation of the surgical tool upon the depression of a trigger, 194, on the pendant 190).
Odermatt teaches active/passive and manual operation modes of a robot/computer assisted surgical system by commands input to a controller (Odermatt, 25) or input to a handle (Odermatt, 26) but does not describe specific hardware and software elements in the claims of the present application. Bowling teaches specific hardware and the use of a semi-autonomous mode and a manual mode. At the time of filing of this application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined programmed control modes and a manual control mode as taught by Odermatt with commands input in a specific manner to input devices and graphical user interfaces as taught by Bowling. Such a combination would predictably allow a surgeon to switch between performing a constrained procedure with a high degree of accuracy to performing unconstrained and low accuracy procedures in a time efficient manner (Odermatt [0010]).
In regard to claim 7, Odermatt and Bowling teach claim 6 as discussed above. Odermatt additionally teaches: the first input device ([0032] button selection in controller, 25, software) and the second input device ([0032] a hardware switch) are further configured to input a fourth control command, and the fourth control command is configured to control the mechanical arm to stop moving according to the first movement mode ([0032] hardware switch and button may both be used to activate/deactivate passive or active control).
In regard to claim 8, Odermatt and Bowling teach claim 6 as discussed above. Odermatt does not teach: the graphical user interface is further configured to receive a pre-control command ([0090] UI 130 processes user generated commands) to provide a first control interface set ([0092] UI passes intructions to tool controller 132), and the first control interface set is configured to receive the first control command from the first input device. Bowling teaches ([0092] & [0093] the manipulator display 128 with a user interface, 130, may function as a tool controller 132, which functions to operate the surgical instrument 160). At the time of filing of this application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of switching between active/passive and manual control schemes as in Odermatt with a GUI on the first input device that selectively generates a first control interface set that transmits first control commands as taught in Bowling. Such a combination would advantageously position instrument controls on the GUI in addition to their positioning on the instrument (Bowling Fig 8 – 10).
In regard to claim 9, Odermatt teaches software configured to . . . after the execution of the third control command is completed (Fig. 6 after 43) . . . the software is configured to receive the first control command (Fig. 6 Enter programmed control mode 51, then arrow pointing back to 45, generate course/virtual boundary for tool to follow) from the first input device ([0029] and fig. 6 dashed line pathway, The system is switched back to programmed control at step 51, then the controller generates a new course and boundary for the tool to follow). Odermatt does not teach, the graphical user interface is further configured to provide a first control interface set . . . and the first control interface set is configured to receive the first control command. Bowling, ([0090] and [0092]), teaches a UI 130 that processes user generated commands for the control of an instrument and passes those commands to a tool controller to operate an instrument. At the time of filing of this application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the method of Odermatt for generating a new path to a predefined boundary (the first control command) following the actuation of an instrument (the third control command) with the UI and hardware of Bowling that generates and displays a first control interface set for receiving a first control command and passes that command to the tool controller. Such a modification would predictably present information to a user and initially process user generated commands (Bowling [0090]).
In regard to claim 10, Odermatt teaches, the first movement mode is that the mechanical arm moves from a current position to a target position under a driving of its own power ([0029] in the active (under the arms own power) programmed control mode, at fig. 6 step 45, the controller will generate a course, path, or virtual boundary to follow); and/or, the second movement mode is that the mechanical arm is configured so that its terminal end can be translated in a predetermined plane and rotated about a normal line of the plane ([0027] in the passive, programmed control mode 51, the robot arm cannot move under its own power, but is still constrained within a boundary that can also be a plane) under a driving of an external force ([0027] in the passive, programmed control mode the robot arm cannot move autonomously).
In regard to claim 11, Odermatt fails to teach, the first input device is a voice input module, a mechanical button, a mechanical rocker or a wireless remote controller. Bowling teaches a first input device comprising a mechanical button ([0367] Manipulator 50 is enabled for operation by depressing a button presented on user interface 130. [0400] Initial operation of the manipulator in semi-autonomous mode, once enabled, is the generation of a tool path i.e., the first movement mode.) At the time of filing of this application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the surgical system of Odermatt with a first input device that is a combination of modules for input as in Bowling. Such a combination provides a surgical system with a means for an operator to provide input (Bowling [0090]).
In regard to claim 12, Odermatt teaches the surgical system further comprises a mechanical arm (20), a control system (25) and a positioning system ([0031] tracking arrays placed on the patient and software of the controller), the positioning system is configured to locate spatial orientation information of the mechanical arm ([0031] Locations of the patient’s bone as well as the surgical tool 23 are registered with the software of the controller), and the control system is configured to control a movement of the mechanical arm ([0031] After registration at step 67, arm (20) and surgical tool (20) are moved with active, passive, or manual control) based on the spatial orientation information.
In regard to claim 13, Odermatt and Bowling teach claim 6 and 12 as discussed above. Odermatt additionally teaches: the first input device ([0032] button selection in controller, 25, software) and the second input device ([0032] a hardware switch) are further configured to input a fourth control command, and the fourth control command is configured to control the mechanical arm to stop moving according to the first movement mode ([0032] hardware switch and button may both be used to activate/deactivate passive or active control).
In regard to claim 14, Odermatt and Bowling teach claim 6 and 12 as discussed above. Odermatt does not teach: the graphical user interface is further configured to receive a pre-control command to provide a first control interface set and the first control interface set is configured to receive the first control command from the first input device. Bowling teaches ([0092] & [0093] the manipulator display 128 with a user interface, 130, may function as a tool controller 132, which functions to operate the surgical instrument 160). At the time of filing of this application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of switching between active/passive and manual control schemes as in Odermatt with a GUI on the first input device that selectively generates a first control interface set that transmits first control commands as taught by Odermatt. Such a combination would advantageously position instrument controls on the GUI in addition to their positioning on the instrument (Bowling Fig 8 – 10).
In regard to claim 15, Odermatt and Bowling teach claims 12 and 6 as discussed above. Odermatt teaches software configured to . . . after the execution of the third control command is completed (Fig. 6 after 43) . . . the software is configured to receive the first control command (Fig. 6 Enter programmed control mode 51, then arrow pointing back to 45, generate course/virtual boundary for tool to follow) from the first input device ([0029] and fig. 6 dashed line pathway, The system is switched back to programmed control at step 51, then the controller generates a new course and boundary for the tool to follow). Odermatt does not teach, the graphical user interface is further configured to provide a first control interface set . . . and the first control interface set is configured to receive the first control command. Bowling teaches a ([0090] and [0092]) UI 130 that processes user generated commands for the control of an instrument and passes those commands to a tool controller to operate an instrument. At the time of filing of this application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the method of Odermatt for generating a new path to a predefined boundary, i.e. the first control command, following the actuation of an instrument, i.e. the third control command, with the UI and hardware of Bowling that generates and displays a first control interface set for receiving a first control command and passes that command to the tool controller. Such a modification would predictably present information to a user and initially process user generated commands (Bowling [0090]).
In regard to claim 16, Odermatt teaches, the first movement mode is that the mechanical arm moves from a current position to a target position under a driving of its own power ([0029] in the active (under the arms own power) programmed control mode, at fig. 6 step 45, the controller will generate a course, path, or virtual boundary to follow); and/or, the second movement mode is that the mechanical arm is configured so that its terminal end can be translated in a predetermined plane and rotated about a normal line of the plane ([0027] in the passive, programmed control mode 51, the robot arm cannot move under its own power, but is still constrained within a boundary surface that can also be a plane) under a driving of an external force ([0027] in the passive, programmed control mode the robot arm cannot move autonomously).
In regard to claim 17, Odermatt fails to teach, the first input device is a voice input module, a mechanical button, a mechanical rocker or a wireless remote controller. Bowling teaches ([0367] Manipulator 50 is enabled for operation by depressing a button presented on user interface 130. [0400] Initial operation of the manipulator in semi-autonomous mode, once enabled, is the generation of a tool path i.e., the first movement mode.) At the time of filing of this application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the surgical system of Odermattwith a first input device that is a combination of modules for input as in Bowling. Such a combination provides a surgical system with a means for an operator to provide input (Bowling [0090]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL FRANK LITTICH whose telephone number is (703)756-1838. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 0830 - 1900 Eastern.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached on 5712705213. 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.
/SAMUEL FRANK LITTICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights