DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
At the date of examination, 03/31/2025, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been submitted for consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the integration an imager system comprising multiple imagers on the distal nose of a horizontal boom of a surgical robotic arm. Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to the previously presented prior art of Hufford, which teaches an imaging system that may comprise a series of cameras ([0031]), wherein the imaging system is integrated onto the distal nose of a boom of the surgical arm (Fig. 3). Further grounds of rejection to amended claim 1 and newly presented claims 2-9 detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: ‘a second imager system comprising at least three imagers integrated into the first second manipulator arm’ should read ‘a second imager system comprising at least three imagers integrated into the second robotic manipulator arm’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: ‘transmissable’ should read ‘transmissible’. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hufford et al (US 20200205911 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hufford teaches a robotic surgical system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first robotic manipulator arm (13) having a first base (Fig. 1) and a first end effector (10c) configured to removably receive a first surgical instrument (see Abstract; instrument carried by the robotic manipulator arm);
a second robotic manipulator arm (14) having a second base (Fig. 1) and a second end effector (10b) configured to removably receive a second surgical instrument (see Abstract; instrument carried by the robotic manipulator arm);
each of the first base and the second base independently moveable on a floor of an operating room (see [0007]; the bases of each arms are independently moveable across the floor of the surgical room);
a first imager system (50) comprising multiple imagers integrated into the first robotic manipulator arm (see Fig. 3, [0016]; a camera or series of cameras may be mounted on any or all manipulator arms, [0031]; multiple cameras with multiple viewpoints that may or may not be mounted to the same structure are within the scope of this invention);
a second imager system (50) comprising multiple imagers integrated into the first second manipulator arm (see Fig. 3, [0016]; a camera or series of cameras may be mounted on any or all manipulator arms, [0031]; multiple cameras with multiple viewpoints that may or may not be mounted to the same structure are within the scope of this invention);
at least one processor having a memory (see [0017]; a processor associated with the system has a memory),
the memory storing an algorithm executable by the processor to receive first input from the first imager system (see [0017]; the memory storing a computer program that includes instructions executable by the processor to receive image data corresponding to imaged captured by the camera(s) and to execute a computer vision algorithm) and;
based on the first input detect movement of a portion of the first manipulator in proximity to a portion of the second manipulator (see [0040-0042] the system allows the relative position of two robotic bases may be determined, and determination of relative positions of the robot bases can provide information to the system for robot setup assistance, semi-autonomous motions, 3D modeling, or other techniques, [0029]; may also be used for live tracking of manipulators, and maybe even to alert of a potential collision).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hufford teaches wherein the first and second imager systems may include multiple cameras ([0031]), but is silent regarding each imager system specifically comprising at least three imagers. It can be appreciated that ‘multiple cameras’ as disclosed by Hufford must necessarily include at least two cameras, wherein the cameras are mounted to the same structure and have different viewpoints. The inclusion of three cameras/imagers in the imager system amounts to a mere duplication of parts for the already disclosed imaging system having multiple cameras, and it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669).
Regarding claim 2, Hufford teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 1, wherein: the first robotic manipulator arm (13) includes a first boom (see annotated Fig. 3 below) moveable relative to the first base (see [0033]; varying conditions and poses of the manipulator arms, [0039]; the term “base” is broadly used to mean a portion of the robotic manipulator that is not robotically moved during the course of the surgical procedure) and supporting the first end effector (10c) at a distal part of the first boom (see annotated Fig. 3 below);
the second robotic manipulator arm (14) includes a second boom moveable relative to the second base and supporting the second end effector (10b) at a distal part of the second boom (see annotated Fig. 3 below, and Fig. 1 which depicts the plurality of robotic manipulator arms 13, 14, and 15 as having identical structures, so it can be appreciated that while first robotic manipulator arm 13 is pictured in Fig. 3, the structure may be applied to each of the manipulator arms);
wherein the first imager system (50) is integrated into the first boom and the second imager system is integrated into the second boom (see annotated Fig. 3 below and Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
437
403
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Hufford teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 2, wherein the first boom is a horizontal boom having a first distal nose and the first camera system integrated in the first distal nose (see annotated Fig. 3 below), and the second boom is a horizontal boom having a second distal nose and the second camera system integrated in the second distal nose (see annotated Fig. 3 below, and Fig. 1 which depicts the plurality of robotic manipulator arms 13, 14, and 15 as having identical structures, so it can be appreciated that while first robotic manipulator arm 13 is pictured in Fig. 3, the structure may be applied to each of the manipulator arms).
PNG
media_image3.png
437
403
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Hufford teaches the robotic surgical system of claims 1 and 2, wherein the first camera system includes at least one first emitter configured to emit electromagnetic radiation detectable by the second imagers (see [0024]; manipulator arms may include lights that emit light of multiple colors in order to communicate system or manipulator arm status to the surgical staff, because these lights are in known positions relative to one another, they may be used by the system as a type of marker), and
where the second camera system includes at least one second emitter configured to emit electromagnetic radiation detectable by the first imagers (see [0024] as cited above and Fig. 1 which depicts the plurality of robotic manipulator arms 13, 14, and 15 as having identical structures, so it can be appreciated that while first robotic manipulator arm 13 is pictured in Fig. 3, the structure may be applied to each of the manipulator arms).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Hufford teaches the robotic surgical system of claims 5 and 8, wherein the electromagnetic radiation is in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum (see [0027]; use of infrared emitters).
Regarding claim 7, Hufford teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 5, further including a first sterile drape covering the first camera system, wherein the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first emitter is transmissible through the sterile drape for detection by the second imagers (see [0027] the use of infrared emitters not only allows for use without creating a visual distraction for the user, but also allows the use of such markers unimpeded by a sterile surgical drape which is largely or mostly transparent to infrared wavelengths).
Claims 1 and 4 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hufford et al (US 20200205911 A1) in view of Liu (US 10973391 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Hufford teaches a robotic surgical system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first robotic manipulator arm (13) having a first base (Fig. 1) and a first end effector (10c) configured to removably receive a first surgical instrument (see Abstract; instrument carried by the robotic manipulator arm);
a second robotic manipulator arm (14) having a second base (Fig. 1) and a second end effector (10b) configured to removably receive a second surgical instrument (see Abstract; instrument carried by the robotic manipulator arm);
each of the first base and the second base independently moveable on a floor of an operating room (see [0007]; the bases of each arm are independently moveable across the floor of the surgical room);
a first imager system (50) comprising multiple imagers integrated into the first robotic manipulator arm (see Fig. 3, [0016]; a camera or series of cameras may be mounted on any or all manipulator arms, [0031]; multiple cameras with multiple viewpoints that may or may not be mounted to the same structure are within the scope of this invention);
a second imager system (50) comprising multiple imagers integrated into the first second manipulator arm (see Fig. 3, [0016]; a camera or series of cameras may be mounted on any or all manipulator arms, [0031]; multiple cameras with multiple viewpoints that may or may not be mounted to the same structure are within the scope of this invention);
at least one processor having a memory (see [0017]; a processor associated with the system has a memory),
the memory storing an algorithm executable by the processor to receive first input from the first imager system (see [0017]; the memory storing a computer program that includes instructions executable by the processor to receive image data corresponding to imaged captured by the camera(s) and to execute a computer vision algorithm) and;
based on the first input detect movement of a portion of the first manipulator in proximity to a portion of the second manipulator (see [0040-0042] the system allows the relative position of two robotic bases may be determined, and determination of relative positions of the robot bases can provide information to the system for robot setup assistance, semi-autonomous motions, 3D modeling, or other techniques, [0029]; may also be used for live tracking of manipulators, and maybe even to alert of a potential collision).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hufford teaches wherein the first and second imager systems may include multiple cameras ([0031]), but is silent regarding each imager system specifically comprising at least three imagers.
Liu teaches a system for virtual/mixed reality viewing of a surgical procedure using an imager system (102) comprising at least three imagers (106, see Liu [Col 5, lines 22-34]; camera assembly 102 may include a spherical element 104 with a plurality of individual cameras 106 strategically placed).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hufford’s first and second imager systems comprising multiple cameras with the multi-camera spherical imaging system taught by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an omnidirectional view of the area of interest during a procedure (Liu [Col 5, lines 22-34]).
Regarding claim 4, Hufford in view of Liu teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 1. Hufford is silent regarding wherein the first imager system and the second imager system each have a field of view of at least 300 degrees.
Liu’s spherical imaging system provides an omnidirectional, 360 degree field of view (Liu [Col 5, lines 22-34]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hufford’s first and second imager systems comprising multiple cameras with the 360 degree spherical imaging system taught by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an omnidirectional view of the area of interest during a procedure (Liu [Col 5, lines 22-34]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Katz (US 20090173846 A1) teaches a medical boom.
Hwang et al (US 20140288413 A1) teaches a surgical robot system and method of control.
Penny et al (US 20200188044 A1) teaches the guidance of robotically controlled instruments along paths defined with reference to auxiliary instruments.
Penny et al (US 20200205909 A1) teaches a compact actuation configuration and expendable instrument receiver for robotically controlled surgical instruments.
Jardine et al (US 20200315740 A1) teaches the identification and assignment of instruments in a surgical system using camera recognition.
Freiin von Kapri et al (US 20200401219 A1) teaches eye tracking calibration for a surgical robotic system.
Penny et al (US 20200397520 A1) teaches the dynamic control of surgical instruments in a surgical robotic system.
Maret (US 11148297 B2) teaches force-based gesture control of a robotic surgical manipulator.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALISHA J SIRCAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9-6:30, Friday 9-5:30 CT.
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 571-270-5213. 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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights