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 .
Claims status: amended claims 1; canceled claim: 19-22; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new secondary reference is currently being used in the present rejection. The 112(b) rejection is withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments.
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.
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.
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 1-14, 17-18, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (JP 2001037747 A; pub. Feb. 13, 2001) in view of Sheng et al. (US 2023/0015121 A1; pub. Jan. 19, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe et al. disclose: A surgical system (para. [0016]) comprising: a patient positioning system including a patient positioner disposed on a floor surface and supporting a patient support, and a patient position controller configured to control movement of the patient support between a first position and a second position (para. [0058], fig.18 & 19); a medical imaging device usable in a medical facility having a support surface (fig.16 item 110, para. [0151]), the medical imagining device comprising:
an imaging gantry (fig.16) suspended from the support surface (fig.16 item 110, para. [0151]), above the floor surface the imaging gantry comprising a gantry housing defining a bore and supporting one or more image collection components (fig.16 items 2 & 3, para. [0152]) configured to obtain image data of a patient positioned in the bore;
a support column coupled (fig.16 item 111) between the imaging gantry and the support surface; and
a drive system operably coupled to the imaging gantry and configured to effect translation of the imaging gantry relative to the support surface (para. [0151]), the drive system comprising;
a translation drive motor (para. [0151], [0153]); and
a motion controller in communication with the drive system and configured to send control signals to the translation drive motor to control movement of the imaging gantry relative to the support surface (para. [0056], [0063], [0065]).
Watanabe et al. are silent about: a robotic arm with a robotic arm controller configured to control movement of the robotic arm; a control system connected with the robotic arm controller, the patient position controller, and the motion controller, the control system being configured to send and receive position data to and from each of the robotic arm controller, the patient position controller, and the motion controller to coordinate movements of the robotic arm, patient positioning system, and the medical imaging device.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sheng et al. disclose: a robotic arm with a robotic arm controller configured to control movement of the robotic arm (para. [0022]), the gantry is moved relatively to the robotic arm (para. [0088]), para. [0093] teaches the movements of the robotic arm, patient support and gantry are related motivated by the benefits for improving treatment precision.
In light of the benefits for improving treatment precision, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Watanabe et al. with the teachings of Sheng et al.
Sheng et al. are silent about: a single controller to control the robotic arm controller, the patient position controller, and the motion controller. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a single control system, since it has been held that forming a single apparatus which has formerly been formed into different apparatuses and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 US 164 (1893). Additionally, the movements of the gantry, the patient support and robotic arm to be coordinated to avoid collision and improved the safety of occupants of the surgical room.
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe et al. disclose: the drive system is further configured to effect rotation of the imaging gantry relative to the support surface and further comprises a rotation drive motor, wherein the motion controller is configured to send control signals to the translation drive motor and the rotation drive motor to control movement of the imaging gantry relative to the support surface (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe et al. disclose: the imaging gantry defines a pitch axis, a roll axis, and a yaw axis that intersect perpendicular to each other at a center of the bore, and wherein the rotation drive motor is further defined as a pitch rotation drive motor, and yaw rotation drive motor, and a roll rotation drive motor (fig.16).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe et al. disclose: the surgical system of further comprising a gimbal (fig.16 item 112) coupled to the support column (fig.16 item 111) and rotatably coupled to the imaging gantry such that the imaging gantry is rotatable with respect to the support column about the pitch axis, and wherein the pitch rotation drive motor rotates the imaging gantry about the pitch axis.
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe et al. disclose: a rotary bearing assembly coupled to the support column that enables the imaging gantry to rotate with respect to the support surface about the yaw axis, and wherein the yaw rotation drive motor rotates the imaging gantry about the yaw axis (fig.16).
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe et al. disclose: a curved bearing assembly (fig.16 item 112) coupled between the support column and the imaging gantry that enables the imaging gantry to rotate with respect to the support surface about the roll axis, and wherein the roll rotation drive motor rotates the imaging gantry about the roll axis (fig.16).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe et al. disclose: a first linear motion system (fig.16 item 109) coupled between the support surface (fig.16 item 110) and the support column (fig.16 item 111) and configured to constrain movement of the imaging gantry and the support column relative to the support surface in two degrees of freedom (fig.16).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe et al. disclose: a second linear motion system (fig.16 item 109) coupled between the support surface and the imaging gantry and configured to constrain movement of the imaging gantry relative to the support surface in a third degree of freedom.
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe et al. and Sheng et al. disclose: the motion controller is further configured to send control signals to the drive system to coordinate rotational and translational movements of the imaging gantry such that as the imaging gantry moves about a first axis and a second axis, a center of the bore of the imaging gantry remains stationary relative to the support surface (rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe et al. and Sheng et al. disclose: a patient positioner configured to support the patient, wherein the patient positioner is movable between at least a first patient position and a second patient position to move the patient relative to the support surface (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe et al. and Sheng et al. disclose: the control system is configured to receive feedback comprising position data of the patient positioner and to control movement of the imaging gantry based on the position of the patient positioner (rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe et al. and Sheng et al. disclose: the position data of the patient positioner comprises movement data, and wherein the control system is further configured to control movement of the imaging gantry based on the position and movement of the patient positioner to effect coordinated motion (rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe et al. disclose: the image collection components comprise at least one of an x-ray source and x-ray detector array (para. [0001]).
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe et al. disclose: the medical imaging device is configured to obtain image data including fan-beam computed tomography (CT) scan data and x- ray fluoroscopic image data (para. [0010], [0023], [0063]).
Regarding claim 17, Sheng et al. disclose: a robotic arm coupled to the imaging gantry for positioning an end effector usable during a medical procedure, wherein the robotic arm is movable between at least a first arm pose and a second arm pose (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Watanabe et al. and Sheng et al. disclose: the control system is configured to receive feedback comprising pose data of the robotic arm and to control movement of the imaging gantry based on the position of the robotic arm wherein the pose data of the robotic arm comprises movement data, and wherein the control system is further configured to control movement of the imaging gantry and the patient support based on the pose and movement of the robotic arm to effect coordinated motion (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 23, Sheng et al. disclose: the robotic arm is connected with the imaging gantry (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 24, Watanabe et al. disclose: the patient positioner is arranged for movement about the floor surface (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (JP 2001037747 A; pub. Feb. 13, 2001) in view of Sheng et al. (US 2023/0015121 A1; pub. Jan. 19, 2023) and further in view of Garlow et al. (US 2022/0031268 A1; pub. Feb. 3, 2022).
Regarding claim 15, the combined references are silent about: the x-ray detector array includes a first portion having a first length and a first width and a second portion having a second length and a second width, wherein the first length is greater than the second length and the second width is greater than the first width.
In a similar field of endeavor, Garlow et al. disclose: the x-ray detector array includes a first portion having a first length and a first width and a second portion having a second length and a second width, wherein the first length is greater than the second length and the second width is greater than the first width (para. [0038]) motivated by the benefits for optimized light detection.
In light of the benefits for optimized light detection, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the detectors of Garlow et al. in the apparatus of Watanabe et al. and Sheng et al.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (JP 2001037747 A; pub. Feb. 13, 2001) in view of Sheng et al. (US 2023/0015121 A1; pub. Jan. 19, 2023) in view of Garlow et al. (US 2022/0031268 A1; pub. Feb. 3, 2022) and further in view of Gregerson et al. (1) (US 2019/0282185 A1; pub. Sep. 19, 2019).
Regarding claim 16, the combined references are silent about: the x-ray source comprises an adjustable collimator that is configured to shape a beam of x-ray radiation from the x-ray source to project onto the first portion of the x-ray detector array during a fan-beam CT imaging scan and to shape a beam of x-ray radiation from the x-ray source to project onto the second portion of the x-ray detector array during x-ray fluoroscopic imaging and/or a cone-beam CT imaging scan.
In a similar field of endeavor Gregerson et al. (1) disclose: the x-ray source comprises an adjustable collimator that is configured to shape a beam of x-ray radiation from the x-ray source to project onto the first portion of the x-ray detector array during a fan-beam CT imaging scan and to shape a beam of x-ray radiation from the x-ray source to project onto the second portion of the x-ray detector array during x-ray fluoroscopic imaging and/or a cone-beam CT imaging scan (claim 25) motivated by the benefits for a safer and more efficient dose utilization (Gregerson et al. (1) para. [0110]).
In light of the benefits for optimized light detection as taught by Gregerson et al. (1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the variable collimator of Gregerson et al. (1) in the apparatus of Watanabe et al., Sheng et al. and Garlow et al.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (JP 2001037747 A; pub. Feb. 13, 2001) in view of Sheng et al. (US 2023/0015121 A1; pub. Jan. 19, 2023) and further in view of Gregerson et al. (US 2016/0302871 A1; pub. Oct. 20, 2016).
Regarding claim 25, Watanabe et al. and Sheng et al. are silent about: the control system is configured to implement a collision model to avoid collisions between one or more of the imaging gantry, the patient positioner, and the robotic arm
In a similar field of endeavor Gregerson et al. disclose: the control system is configured to implement a collision model to avoid collisions between one or more of the imaging gantry, the patient positioner, and the robotic arm (para. [0057]) motivated by the benefits for a safe surgery environment.
In light of the benefits for a safe surgery environment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Watanabe et al. and Sheng et al. with the teachings of Gregerson et al
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 MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights