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 .
Status of Claims
This is the second Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-14 and 17-26 are currently pending, claims 1, 5-6, 9-12, 17, and 22 are currently amended, and claims 15 and 16 are cancelled. This action is FINAL.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application, with the effective filing date of 09/30/2020, which under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 08/12/2025 has been entered.
In view of the Specification, Applicant’s amendments have been acknowledged and the objections have been withdrawn.
In view of the 35 USC 103 rejections, Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 5-6, 9-12, 17, and 22 have been acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meglan et al. (WO2020190832A1), hereinafter Meglan.
Regarding claim 1, Meglan discloses a medical robotic system ("A surgical robotic system", [0020]), comprising: a first robotic arm ("a robotic arm", [0004]); one or more sensors positioned to detect presence of a plurality of objects adjacent to the first robotic arm ("image devices 106, 114, 414, 416 capture real-time images of objects, either within the surgical environment or within surgical space (block 502). Specifically, one or more sensors of the imaging device 106, 114, 414, 416 capture images in position relative to each of the imaging devices…", [0065], [0004]), at least one object of the plurality of objects being movable relative to the other objects of the plurality of objects ("The term "objects as used herein generally refers to the corresponding components of a robotic surgical system, as well as foreign objects (e.g., tables, walls, movable carts, clinicians, or any other elements) located within the surgical environment, particularly those capable of collision with components of the described robotic surgical system", [0040]); one or more processors in communication with the one or more sensors ("The controller 200 generally includes a processing unit or processor 206", [0051], "The controller 200 receives, the real-time image data transmitted from each of the imaging device", [0066]); and memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors ("The controller includes a processor and a memory storing instructions thereon which when executed by the processor", [0004]) , cause the one or more processors to: receive, from the one or more sensors, first sensor information corresponding to positional locations of a plurality of objects that are within a vicinity of the first robotic arm ([0004], [0065]); generate or update an object map based on the first sensor information, wherein the object map characterizes spatial relationships of a plurality of objects that are within the vicinity of the first robotic arm ("In the depth maps or point clouds, when available, one or more predetermined object maps (e.g., sets of points that defines the exterior of objects) associated with specific objects (e.g., a link in a robotic arm linkage) may be matched with subsets of spatial points within the depth map or point cloud to identify the position of the specific object within the surgical environment", [0046]), such that each object of the plurality of objects has one or more corresponding representations within the object map ([0072]); and automatically adjust a configuration of the first robotic arm from a first configuration to a second configuration, based on the object map, to avoid a collision between the first robotic arm and at least one object of the plurality of objects ("The controller 200 may also transmit modified control signals to the motors 122 of the surgical robotic system 100 to adjust movement or positioning of the objected identified as potentially subject to a collision", [0085], "In a further aspect of the present disclosure, the method further includes transmitting a control signal to cause the robotic am to modify motion in a direction to avoid the possible collision", [0026], "…generating a depth map including a first plurality of spatial points based on the image data, and detecting potential collision", [0020], implicit that collision detection is related to the depth map and image data).
Regarding claim 5, Meglan discloses wherein the stored instructions, when executed by the one or more processors ("The controller includes a processor and a memory storing instructions thereon which when executed by the processor", [0004]), further cause the one or more processors to, subsequent to generating or updating the object map, iterate ("By way of example, the one or more image devices 106, 114, 414, 416 may capture real-time images at a first point T=1 and may capture subsequent real-time image data at a second time point T=2", [0065]): receiving, from the one or more sensors, subsequent sensor information corresponding to positions of at least one object of the plurality of objects adjacent to the first robotic arm ("By way of example, the one or more image devices 106, 114, 414, 416 may capture real-time images at a first point T=1 and may capture subsequent real-time image data at a second time point T=2", [0065]); updating the object map based on the subsequent sensor information ("Where matched, the depth map or point cloud is updated based on the matched object maps to include spatial points from the object maps not included in the depth map or point cloud (e.g., known spatial points which are omitted from the initial depth map or point cloud and their positions relative to the matched points of the objects", [0046]); and adjusting the configuration of the first robotic arm in accordance with the object map that is updated based on the subsequent sensor information ("Based on the identification of these potential collisions, image data may be transmitted from the controller 200 to the console 300 to cause the display 306 to display an indication that a collision may occur…The controller may also transmit modified control signals to adjust movement or positioning of the objected identified as potentially subject to a collision", [0058]).
Regarding claim 9, Meglan discloses wherein the plurality of objects include an object that moves dynamically ("the controller 200 may identify potential collisions of objects by calculating spatial trajectories of each object in the depth maps or point clouds", [0058], the objects having trajectories implies their dynamic movement, "These adjustments may lead to collision between the various controlled components and/or other objects (e.g., a surgical table or support staff) in a surgical environment", [0002], implicit that surgery staff is a dynamic object as it can move on its own within the vicinity of the robotic system).
Regarding claim 10, Meglan discloses wherein the object that moves dynamically is configured to move dynamically based on a configuration of the medical robotic system ("determine a spatial trajectory (e.g., positional trajectory and/or orientation direction) of the one or more objects based upon the identified motion of the one or more objects in the first point cloud to the position of the one or more objects in the second point cloud", [0015], the movement of dynamic objects (i.e., determine spatial trajectory…of the one or more objects), "to cause the robotic arm to reposition to avoid the possible collision", [0019], dynamically move the robotic arm to avoid collision).
Regarding claim 11, Meglan discloses wherein the stored instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to remove the update to the object map after a period of time after the object map has been updated to reflect the object that moves dynamically ("A determination is made as to whether a new capture real-time images demand is received from the controller 200 (block 520). For instance, to capture real-time images of the objects in the surgical environment at a subsequent time point (e.g., a second time point), and in turn, generate a second three-dimensional model", [0076], implicit of iterative updating of the object mapping).
Regarding claim 12, Meglan discloses wherein the plurality of objects include a static object ("The imaging devices 106, 114, 414, 416 are configured to capture image data of the surgical environment or the surgical space "S" (e.g., linkages 112, surgical tables, individuals, other objects, organs, etc.) and the surgical robot 100", 0056]).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan in view of Weir (US20170189126), and further in view of Kostrzewski et al. (US20180200002A1), hereinafter Weir and Kostrzewski.
Regarding claim 2, Meglan teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Meglan does not teach of one or more robotic arms other than the first robotic arm; and one or more second sensors positioned to detect presence of objects within a vicinity of the one or more robotic arms, wherein the stored instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive, from the one or more second sensors, second sensor information corresponding to one or more positional locations of one or more objects that are within a vicinity of the one or more robotic arms; generate or update the object map based also on the second sensor information; and adjust configurations of the one or more robotic arms based on the object map.
Weir, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of one or more robotic arms other than the first robotic arm (“second electromechanical arm”, [0009]); and one or more second sensors (908N) positioned to detect presence of objects within a vicinity of the one or more robotic arms ([0009]), and memory storing instructions (“memories” 104), which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to ([0082]): receive, from the one or more sensors (908N), second sensor information ([0149]) corresponding to one or more positional locations of one or more objects that are within a vicinity of the first robotic arm (“considered to be close”, [0141]; Distance between object and arm); and adjust configurations of the one or more robotic arms based on the sensor. (“remedial action”, [0010]).
However, Weir does not teach that the one or more processors generate or update the object map based also on the second sensor information; and adjust configurations of the one or more robotic arms based on the object map.
Kostrzewski, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of generating or updating an object map (“coordinate mapping”, [0020]) based on the sensor information.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the medical robotic system of Meglan with the teachings of Weir and Kostrzewski to yield predictable results. Such that the system includes one or more robotic arms other than the first robotic arm, and one or more second sensors wherein memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors has the capability of generating or updating the object map based on the second sensor information of Weir as well as adjusting configurations of the one or more robotic arms based on the object map of Kostrzewski. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combine these elements to detect local objects in a spatial context in order to prevent collisions with the medical robotic system.
Claims 3-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan in view of Weir.
Regarding claim 3, Meglan teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Meglan does not teach of teaches of one or more sensors include at least one or more of sonar, radar, LIDAR, ultrasound, light-based sensors, or vision- based sensors.
Weir, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of one or more sensors include at least one or more of sonar, radar, LIDAR, ultrasound, light-based sensors, or vision- based sensors (“light probe”, [0138]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the medical robotic system of Meglan with sensors of Weir with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to increase the performance of the system by increasing the confidence and chances of detecting impending collisions (Weir, [0137]).
Regarding claim 4, Meglan teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Meglan does not teach of teaches of one or more sensors include at least one non-contact sensor.
Weir, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of one or more sensors include at least one non-contact sensor (“light probe”, [0138]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the medical robotic system of Meglan with sensors of Weir with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to increase the performance of the system by increasing the confidence and chances of detecting impending collisions due to having multiple ways of detecting collisions (Weir, [0137]).
Regarding claim 7, Meglan teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Meglan does not teach of the first robotic arm being teleoperatively controlled.
Weir, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of the first robotic arm being teleoperatively controlled (“Controller can be configured to be in communication with… the first arm”, [0010]; “all electronic communication in the system can be wireless” [0091]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the medical robotic system of Meglan with the teleoperatively controlled robotic arm of Weir with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable a surgeon to operate the robotic arm from a remote console with improved precision and ergonomics (Weir, [0003]).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan in view of Shimizu et al. (US9424468B2), hereinafter Shimizu.
Regarding claim 6, Meglan teach of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above including more specifically, storing instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors ("The controller includes a processor and a memory storing instructions thereon which when executed by the processor", [0004]).
However, Meglan does not teach of further cause the one or more processors to update the object map based on a probability of detecting a respective object of the plurality of objects.
Shimizu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of further cause the one or more processors to update the object map based on a probability of detecting a respective object of the plurality of objects (“a map generation section 42 that generates a presence probability map in which the presence probability is expressed for each separate type of moving object based on the detected travelling environment conditions", Col. 11 line 32).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of Meglan with the probability of detecting a respective object of the plurality of objects of Shimizu with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to increase the performance of the system by improving the capability of object detection by filtering out false detections based on probability (Shimizu, Col. 10 Line 66).
Regarding claim 17, Meglan teaches of a method performed by an electronic device in communication with a medical robotic system ([0020]) including a first robotic arm ("a robotic arm", [0020]) and one or more sensors positioned to detect presence of objects within a vicinity of the first robotic arm ("image devices 106, 114, 414, 416 capture real-time images of objects, either within the surgical environment or within surgical space (block 502). Specifically, one or more sensors of the imaging device 106, 114, 414, 416 capture images in position relative to each of the imaging devices…", [0065], [0020]), the method comprising: receiving, from the one or more sensors, sensor information corresponding to positions of one or more objects that are present within a vicinity of the first robotic arm ([0020], [0065]); generating or updating an object map based on the sensor information, wherein the object map characterizes spatial relationships of objects within a vicinity of the first robotic arm ("In the depth maps or point clouds, when available, one or more predetermined object maps (e.g., sets of points that defines the exterior of objects) associated with specific objects (e.g., a link in a robotic arm linkage) may be matched with subsets of spatial points within the depth map or point cloud to identify the position of the specific object within the surgical environment", [0046]); and adjusting a configuration of the first robotic arm from a first configuration to a second configuration based on the object map ("The controller 200 may also transmit modified control signals to the motors 122 of the surgical robotic system 100 to adjust movement or positioning of the objected identified as potentially subject to a collision", [0085], "In a further aspect of the present disclosure, the method further includes transmitting a control signal to cause the robotic am to modify motion in a direction to avoid the possible collision", [0026], "…generating a depth map including a first plurality of spatial points based on the image data, and detecting potential collision", [0020], implicit that collision detection is related to the depth map and image data).
However, Meglan does not teach of determining a probability of movement of at least one object of the one or more objects, wherein the object map further indicates the determined probability of movement of at least one object of the one or more objects.
Shimizu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of determining a probability of movement of at least one object of the one or more objects ("The position distribution of a moving object is moved based on the movement state distribution of the moving object, the position distribution…is changed based on a presence probabilities for moving objects are allocated…", Col. 24 line 41), wherein the object map further indicates the determined probability of movement of at least one object of the one or more objects ("The position distribution of a moving object is moved based on the movement state distribution of the moving object, the position distribution…is changed based on a presence probabilities for moving objects are allocated…", Col. 24 line 41).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the method of Meglan with the probability of movement of Shimizu with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to increase the performance of the system by integrating the movement of objects within the environment of the system to better prevent collision (Shimizu, Col. 17 line 25).
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan in view of Kostrzewski.
Regarding claim 8, Meglan teaches of the limitation of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Meglan does not teach that the first robotic arm is kinematically redundant.
Kostrzewski, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a robotic arm having 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7, degrees of freedom ([0107]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the robotic arm of Meglan with the kinematically redundant robotic arm of Kostrzewski with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification such that robotic arm has increased mobility to avoid collisions and perform a wider scope of task.
Regarding claim 13, Meglan teaches of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Meglan does not teach that the one or more processors generate or update an object map based on the first sensor information, wherein the object map characterizes spatial relationships of objects adjacent to the first robotic arm; and adjust a configuration of the first robotic arm from a first configuration to a second configuration based on the object map.
Kostrzewski, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of those limitations as stated in claim 1 as well as the stored instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to update the object map also based on a configuration of the medical robotic system ([0019]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the medical robotic system of Meglan with the teaching of Kostrzewski to update the object map based on a configuration of the medical robotic system to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to increase the accuracy of the object map by updating it with information that detects the location of components of the medical robotic system in addition to the location of local objects detected.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan in view of Diolaiti et al. (US20100274087A1), hereinafter Diolaiti.
Regarding claim 14, Meglan teach of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Meglan does not teach of the system further comprising a movable patient platform.
Diolaiti, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a movable table that a patient is placed on (Fig. 1, [0097]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of Meglan with the movable patient platform of Diolaiti with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to increase mobility and functionality of the robotic arm.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan and Shimizu in view of Weir, and further in view of Kostrzewski.
Regarding claim 18, modified Meglan teaches of all limitations of claim 17 as stated above.
However, modified Meglan does not teach of further comprising: subsequent to generating or updating the object map, iterating: receiving, from the one or more sensors, subsequent sensor information corresponding to positions of one or more objects that are within a vicinity of the first robotic arm; updating the object map based on the subsequent sensor information; and adjusting the configuration of the first robotic arm in accordance with the object map that is updated based on the subsequent sensor information.
Weir, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of the limitations of claim 17 as stated above including more specifically, adjusting the configuration of the first robotic arm in accordance with the sensors that is updated based on the subsequent sensor information (“remedial action”, [0010]).
However, Weir does not teach of the method further comprising: subsequent to generating or updating the object map, iterating: receiving, from the one or more sensors, subsequent sensor information corresponding to positions of one or more objects that are within a vicinity of the first robotic arm; updating the object map based on the subsequent sensor information; and adjusting the configuration of the first robotic arm in accordance with the object map that is updated based on the subsequent sensor information.
Kostrzewski, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of the method further comprising: subsequent to generating or updating the object map, iterating (“set of spatial coordinates collected”, [0016]): receiving, from the one or more sensors, subsequent sensor information corresponding to positions of one or more objects that are within a vicinity of the first robotic arm ([0019]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the method of modified Meglan with the adjustment of the robotic arm in accordance with the sensors of Weir and the teaching of Kostrzewski to iteratively receive subsequent sensor information corresponding to positions of objects within the vicinity of the robotic arm and updating the object map based on the sensor information to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to provide the robotic arm with a continuously updated sensor-based object mapping that will dictate the configuration the adjustments and configuration of the robotic arm.
Regarding claim 20, modified Meglan teaches of all limitations of claim 17 as stated above.
However, modified Meglan does not teach of the one or more objects include an object that moves dynamically; and the method further comprises removing the update to the object map after a period of time after the object map has been updated to reflect the object.
Weir, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of one or more objects include an object that moves dynamically (“medical personnel”, [0136]).
However, Weir does not teach of the method further comprises removing the update to the object map after a period of time after the object map has been updated to reflect the object.
Kostrzewski, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of the method further comprising removing the update to the object map after a period of time after the object map has been updated to reflect the object ([0028], “overwrite the original model”, [0154]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of modified Meglan with the dynamic object of Weir and the teachings of Kostrzewski to update the object map with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to continuously update the object map with a more accurate, real-time environment, and prevent collisions from occurring between the robotic arm and dynamic objects.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan and Shimizu, and further in view of Hu et al. (“Probability Analysis for Grasp Planning Facing the Field of Medical Robotics.”), hereinafter Hu.
Regarding claim 19, modified Meglan teach of all limitations of claim 17 as stated above.
However, modified Meglan does not teach of the method further comprising updating the object map based on a probability of detecting a respective object of the one or more objects.
Hu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a probability of detecting a respective object of the one or more objects (“probability of feasible grasp points”, Fig. 5).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the method of modified Meglan with the probability of detecting a respective object of the one or more objects of Hu to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for an accurate estimation of spatial certainty.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan and Shimizu in view of Kostrzewski.
Regarding claim 21, modified Meglan teaches of the limitations of claim 17 as stated above.
However, modified Meglan does not teach of the method further comprising updating the object map based on a configuration of the medical robotic system.
Kostrzewski, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of further comprising updating the object map based on a configuration of the medical robotic system ([0019]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the method of modified Meglan with the teaching of Kostrzewski to update the object map based on a configuration of the medical robotic system to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to increase the accuracy of the object map by updating it with information that detects the location of components of the medical robotic system in addition to the location of local objects detected.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan in view of Stanton et al. (WO2019204699A1), hereinafter Stanton.
Regarding claim 22, Meglan teaches of an electronic device ("controller" 200), comprising: one or more processors ("The controller 200 generally includes a processing unit or processor 206", [0051]); and memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to ("The controller includes a processor and a memory storing instructions thereon which when executed by the processor", [0004]): receive, from one or more sensors, sensor information corresponding to positions of one or more objects that are within a vicinity of a first robotic arm of a medical robotic system ([0004], [0065]); generate or update an object map based on the sensor information, wherein the object map characterizes spatial relationships of objects within a vicinity of the first robotic arm ("In the depth maps or point clouds, when available, one or more predetermined object maps (e.g., sets of points that defines the exterior of objects) associated with specific objects (e.g., a link in a robotic arm linkage) may be matched with subsets of spatial points within the depth map or point cloud to identify the position of the specific object within the surgical environment", [0046]); and cause automatic adjustment of a configuration of the first robotic arm from a first configuration to a second configuration, based on the object map, to avoid a collision between the first robotic arm and at least one object of the one or more objects ("The controller 200 may also transmit modified control signals to the motors 122 of the surgical robotic system 100 to adjust movement or positioning of the objected identified as potentially subject to a collision", [0085], "In a further aspect of the present disclosure, the method further includes transmitting a control signal to cause the robotic am to modify motion in a direction to avoid the possible collision", [0026], "…generating a depth map including a first plurality of spatial points based on the image data, and detecting potential collision", [0020], implicit that collision detection is related to the depth map and image data).
However, Meglan does not teach of determine when an object has left the vicinity of the first robotic arm; and update the object map to remove the representation of the object that has left the vicinity of the first robotic arm.
Stanton, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of determine when an object has left the vicinity of the first robotic arm ("removing the graphical depictions of objects when they are no longer within the field of view of the optical sensing device 111", [0046]); and update the object map to remove the representation of the object that has left the vicinity of the first robotic arm ("The display 121 may be updated to reflect any change(s) in the position or orientation of the objects within the common coordinate system…which may include…removing the graphical depictions of objects when they are no longer within the field of view of the optical sensing device 111", [0046]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of Meglan with the teachings of Stanton with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the performance of the system by maintaining an accurate depiction of the surrounding objects of the robotic arm, including objects detected, and objects that are no longer detected (Stanton, [0046]).
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan and Stanton in view of Weir, and further in view of Kostrzewski.
Regarding claim 23, modified Meglan teaches of all limitations of claim 22 as stated above.
However, modified Meglan does not teach of wherein the stored instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: subsequent to generating or updating the object map, iterate: receiving, from the one or more sensors, subsequent sensor information corresponding to positions of one or more objects within a vicinity of the first robotic arm; updating the object map based on the subsequent sensor information; and adjusting the configuration of the first robotic arm in accordance with the object map that is updated based on the subsequent sensor information.
Weir, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of adjusting the configuration of the first robotic arm in accordance with the sensor that is updated based on the subsequent sensor information (“remedial action”, [0010]).
However, Weir does not teach of stored instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to, subsequent to generating or updating the object map, iterate: receiving, from the one or more sensors, subsequent sensor information corresponding to positions of one or more objects adjacent to the first robotic arm; updating the object map based on the subsequent sensor information; and adjusting the configuration of the first robotic arm in accordance with the object map that is updated based on the subsequent sensor information.
Kostrzewski, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of stored instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to, subsequent to generating or updating the object map, iterate: ([0028], “set of spatial coordinates”, [0016]) receiving, from the one or more sensors, subsequent sensor information corresponding to positions of one or more objects adjacent to the first robotic arm; updating the object map based on the subsequent sensor information ([0019]);
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the medical robotic system of modified Meglan with adjusting the configuration of the robotic arm in accordance with the sensor of Weir with the teachings of Kostrzewski to iteratively update the object map based on the subsequent sensor information and yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to iteratively and continuously detect local objects in a spatial context and adjust the position of the arm in order to prevent collisions with the medical robotic system.
Regarding claim 25, modified Meglan teaches of all limitations of claim 22 as stated above.
However, modified Meglan does not teach of wherein: the one or more objects include an object that moves dynamically; and the stored instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to remove the update to the object map after a period of time after the object map has been updated to reflect the object.
Weir, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of one or more objects include an object that moves dynamically (“medical personnel”, [0136).
However, Weir does not teach of the stored instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to remove the update to the object map after a period of time after the object map has been updated to reflect the object.
Kostrzewski, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of stored instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to remove the update to the object map after a period of time after the object map has been updated to reflect the object ([0028], “overwrite the original model”, [0154]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of modified Meglan with the teachings of Kostrzewski and the dynamic object of Weir with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to continuously update the object map with a more accurate, real-time environment, and prevent collisions from occurring between the robotic arm and dynamic objects.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan and Stanton in view of Hu.
Regarding claim 24, modified Meglan teach of all limitations of claim 22 as stated above including more specifically, storing instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to generate or update an object map based on the first sensor information.
However, modified Meglan do not teach that the one or more processors update the object map based on a probability of detecting a respective object of the one or more objects.
Hu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a probability of detecting a respective object of the one or more objects (“probability of feasible grasp points”, Fig. 5).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have substituted updating an object map based on the first sensor information of modified Meglan with the probability of detecting a respective object of the one or more objects of Hu to yield predictable results. Such that the one or more processors update the object map based on a probability of detecting a respective object of the one or more objects rather than sensor information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this substitution for an accurate estimation of spatial certainty.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan and Stanton in view of Kostrzewski.
Regarding claim 26, modified Meglan teaches of the limitations of claim 22 as stated above.
However, modified Meglan does not teach of the stored instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to update the object map based on a configuration of the medical robotic system.
Kostrzewski, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of stored instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to update the object map based on a configuration of the medical robotic system ([0019]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the processor, sensors, and robotic arm of modified Meglan with the teaching of Kostrzewski to cause the processor to update the object map based on the configuration of the medical robotic system to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements to more accurately avoid collisions by causing the processor to utilize an object mapping, in addition to the sensor information, to configure the robotic arm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 11, filed 08/12/2025, with respect to the objections to the Specifications have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the Specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-6, 9-12, 17, and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See new ground of rejection discussed above.
Conclusion
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 ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA
Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657