DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 2/13/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. patent application publication 2024/0016543 by Altshuler et al.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 8 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: “percutaneous access procedure” represents a different species than the previously claimed “ureteroscopy procedure” as detailed in paragraph 83 of applicant’s specification publication.
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 Accordingly, claim 8 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.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
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.
1) Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 10-14, 17 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent 10,864,050 by Tabandeh et al., and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2024/0016543 by Altshuler et al.
2) Regarding claim 1, Tabandeh teaches a robotic system (figure 1, item 102; a surgical robot) comprising: a video capture device (column 7, lines 59-66; robot can include cameras); one or more robotic arms each including a plurality of arm segments connected via a plurality of joints (column 4, lines 47-50; figure 1; arm 110 can have a plurality of joints); one or more sensors configured to produce sensor data indicating a configuration of the one or more robotic arms (column 6, line 64 – column 7, line 33; pose of arms can be tracked through various means including a mechanical tracking system [column 6, lines 32-33] further described in U.S. patent 6,322,567 by Mittelstadt et al. [incorporated by reference] to include joint sensors for determining arm position [column 6, lines 57 – 60 and column 8, lines 7-10]); and control circuitry communicatively coupled to the one or more robotic arms (column 4, lines 58-64; various connected processors), the control circuitry configured to: identify a phase of a medical procedure based at least in part on the sensor data, and video captured (column 6, lines 24-28; surgical plan is followed and amended based upon pose data from sensors [e.g. joint sensors] and image data [column 5, line 65 and column 7, lines 59-60]); and control the one or more robotic arms based on the identified phase of the medical procedure (column 8, lines 47-48; steps are planned and computed including autonomous control of robot [column 7, line 60]).
Tabandeh does not specifically teach identifying one or more features in video captured by the video capture device inside an anatomy, the one or more features including a medical tool, a stone, or one or more anatomical features and identifying a phase of a medical procedure based at least in part on the sensor data and the one or more features identified in the video captured inside the anatomy.
Altshuler teaches identifying one or more features in video captured by the video capture device inside an anatomy, the one or more features including a medical tool, a stone, or one or more anatomical features and identifying a phase of a medical procedure based at least in part on the sensor data and the one or more features identified in the video captured inside the anatomy (paragraph 113; video of stone and anatomical features and sensor data is combined to determine surgical steps such as enabling or disabling the endoscopic laser).
NOTE: tool at end of robot arm in Tabandeh could be an endoscope.
Tabandeh and Altshuler are combinable because both are from the autonomous surgery field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Tabandeh with Altshuler to add internal video. The motivation for doing so would have been to “improve medical treatment process” (paragraph 4). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Tabandeh with Altshuler to obtain the invention of claim 1.
3) Regarding claim 2, Altshuler (as combined with Tabandeh in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the medical procedure comprises at least one of percutaneous antegrade ureteroscopy lasing, ureteroscopy basketing, and percutaneous needle insertion (paragraph 260; ureteroscope can include a basket component).
4) Regarding claim 5, Altshuler (as combined with Tabandeh in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the identified phase of the medical procedure comprises lasing a stone with a laser during a ureteroscopy procedure (paragraph 98; laser is used on kidney stones during endoscopic procedure).
5) Regarding claim 6, Altshuler (as combined with Tabandeh in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches the robotic system of claim 5, wherein controlling the one or more robotic arms comprises: determining that the laser is no longer pointed at the stone during the identified phase of the medical procedure; and ceasing the lasing of the stone by the laser (paragraph 154; laser can be disabled by the system when light sensors determine the laser is no longer contacting the stone).
6) Regarding claim 7, Altshuler (as combined with Tabandeh in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches the robotic system of claim 5, wherein controlling the one or more robotic arms comprises: detecting an increase of stone fragments; and increasing aspiration of a collecting system in response to detecting the increase of the stone fragments (paragraphs 103, 112 and 194; during “popcorning” [i.e. stone fragmentation] laser pulse is synchronized with aspiration system to achieve a clean camera view [i.e. collection of fragments increases to clear the view]).
7) Regarding claim 10, Tabandeh teaches the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the sensor data from the one or more sensors comprises radio-frequency identification (RFID) data of one or more medical instruments utilized by the one or more robotic arms (column 8, line 34; RFID sensor data of robot motion can be incorporated into mapping algorithm).
8) Regarding claim 11, Tabandeh teaches the robotic system of claim 1, further comprising: an input device configured to receive one or more user inputs and a user interface (UI) including a plurality of UI screens associated with different phases of the medical procedure; wherein the one or more user inputs include a selection of a first UI screen, of the plurality of UI screens, associated with the identified phase of the medical procedure (column 4, lines 61-67, column 9, lines 29-46 and column 9, line 65 – column 10, line 19; UI is provided showing steps in a surgical plan and allows user interaction [e.g. positioning the base], which would be “selection of a screen” associated with a particular step).
9) Regarding claim 12, Tabandeh teaches the robotic system of claim 1, the control circuitry further configured to: determine a position of the one or more robotic arms (column 6, lines 6-10; arm position/pose can be determined); perform an analysis of the video captured by the video capture device (column 5, lines 64 and 65; pose is detected in part from optical receivers); and identify an ending of the identified phase of the medical procedure based at least in part on the position of the one or more robotic arms and the analysis of the video (column 6, lines 34-50 and column 8, lines 47-48; any identified progress in the surgical plan is an identification of the end of a “phase” [e.g. robot base reaches optimal calculated position, the pose/position calculated based upon arm position and camera capture of movement]).
10) Regarding claim 13, Altshuler (as combined with Tabandeh in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the robotic manipulator is configured to manipulate a medical instrument comprising a ureteroscope (paragraph 163; ureteroscope can be utilized).
11) Claims 14 and 20 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
12) Claim 17 is taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 5 above.
13) Regarding claim 21, Tabandeh teaches the robotic system of claim 1, wherein: the plurality of joints provide multiple degrees of freedom for moving the one or more robotic arms; and the sensor data indicates one or more joint angles associated with the plurality of arm segments (column 6, line 64 – column 7, line 33; pose of arms can be tracked through various means including a mechanical tracking system [column 6, lines 32-33] further described in U.S. patent 6,322,567 by Mittelstadt et al. [incorporated by reference] to include joint sensors for determining arm position [column 6, lines 57 – 60 and column 8, lines 7-10]).
14) Regarding claim 22, Tabandeh teaches the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the controlling of the one or more robotic arms comprises: determining a target trajectory for a medical instrument controlled by the one or more robotic arms based on the identified phase of the medical procedure; and actuating the plurality of joints so that the one or more robotic arms move the medical instrument along the target trajectory (column 6, lines 46-50; arm movement is optimized to avoid collision [any movement involves a trajectory]).
15) Regarding claim 23, Altshuler (as combined with Tabandeh in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the identifying of the phase of the medical procedure comprises: determining that the one or more anatomical features includes a ureter; and determining that the phase of the medical procedure is unrelated to percutaneous access based on determining that the one or more anatomical features includes a ureter (paragraph 198; ureter can be determined and causes a process unrelated to percutaneous access).
16) Claim(s) 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent 10,864,050 by Tabandeh et al., and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2024/0016543 by Altshuler et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2022/0061868 by Cheon et al.
17) Regarding claim 3, Tabandeh does not specifically teach the robotic system of claim 1, wherein: the identified phase of the medical procedure comprises capture of a stone inside a basket during a ureteroscopy procedure, the basket extending out from a ureteral sheath; and controlling the one or more robotic arms comprises, in response to determining that the basket is around the stone during the identified phase of the medical procedure, automatically retracting the basket back into the ureteral sheath.
Cheon teaches the robotic system of claim 1, wherein: the identified phase of the medical procedure comprises capture of a stone inside a basket during a ureteroscopy procedure, the basket extending out from a ureteral sheath; and controlling the one or more robotic arms comprises, in response to determining that the basket is around the stone during the identified phase of the medical procedure, automatically retracting the basket back into the ureteral sheath (paragraph 84; figure 6; basket can be retracted into sheath once stone has been grabbed, the retraction can be performed automatically).
Tabandeh and Cheon are combinable because they are both from the automated ureteroscopy field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Tabandeh with Cheon to add a basket automatically retracting into a sheath. The motivation for doing so would have been “reduce the fatigue of the operator” (paragraph 75). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Tabandeh with Cheon to obtain the invention of claim 3.
18) Claim 15 is taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 3 above.
19) Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent 10,864,050 by Tabandeh et al., and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2024/0016543 by Altshuler et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2014/0132928 by Ono.
Tabandeh does not specifically teach the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the identifying of the phase of the medical procedure comprises: determining that the one or more anatomical features includes a papilla; and determining that the phase of the medical procedure is unrelated to basketing based on determining that the one or more anatomical features includes a papilla.
Ono teaches the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the identifying of the phase of the medical procedure comprises: determining that the one or more anatomical features includes a papilla; and determining that the phase of the medical procedure is unrelated to basketing based on determining that the one or more anatomical features includes a papilla (paragraph 38; figure 3; papilla can be detected a process unrelated to basketing is executed).
Tabandeh and Ono are combinable because they are both from the medical device positioning field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Tabandeh with Ono to add detecting a papilla. The motivation for doing so would have been to accurately detect an imaging alignment (paragraph 8). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Tabandeh with Ono to obtain the invention of claim 24.
20) Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent 10,864,050 by Tabandeh et al., and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2024/0016543 by Altshuler et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent 10,977,495 by Hares et al.
Tabandeh does not specifically teach the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: generate a navigation marker associated with the identified phase of the medical procedure; and embed the navigation marker in the video.
Hares teaches the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: generate a navigation marker associated with the identified phase of the medical procedure; and embed the navigation marker in the video (column 26, lines 12 – 35; figure 8; markers for navigating the video and associated with particular medical procedure steps are added).
Tabandeh and Hares are combinable because they are both from the surgical automation field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Tabandeh with Hares to add navigation markers to medical video. The motivation for doing so would have been for user convenience (column 26, lines 12 – 35). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Tabandeh with Hares to obtain the invention of claim 25.
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 BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights