DETAILED ACTION
The instant Non-Final Rejection supersedes Final Rejection (9/24/2025).
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See discussion below.
The critical teaching of Itkowitz is reproduced below (emphases added).:
[0056] FIG. 7 illustrates a method 310 for evaluating instrument tip positions in the endoscope tip coordinate space. In the method 310, the forward kinematics of the teleoperational system and medical instruments is evaluated to determine the position of landmarks on the instrument tips, such as the proximal and distal tip portions, within the endoscope coordinate system. The evaluation uses forward kinematic and rigid body transformations. A process 312 includes evaluating the manipulator (e.g. manipulator 51) and instrument (e.g., instrument 206, 208) forward kinematic position data in the world coordinate space. A process 314 includes evaluating the manipulator and endoscope (e.g., imaging instrument 204) forward kinematic position data in the world coordinate space. A process 316 includes transforming the instrument tip position data into endoscope tip coordinate space. A process 320 includes determining a gripping angle (e.g., the angle between the distal tip portions 214, 216) for the distal tip portions. A process 322 includes determining a length of the instrument tip (e.g., a length between the proximal tip portion 212 and the distal tip portions 214, 216). At a process 318, the gripping angle and instrument tip length are used to evaluate the position of the proximal and distal instrument tip points. At a process 324, the proximal tip portion position is determined in endoscope tip coordinate space. At a process 326, a first distal tip portion (e.g., portion 214) position is determined in the endoscope tip coordinate space. At a process 328, a second distal tip portion (e.g., portion 216) position is determined in the endoscope tip coordinate space.
PNG
media_image1.png
428
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Itkowitz’s teaching includes the following:
The evaluation uses forward kinematic and rigid body transformations.
A process 320 includes determining a gripping angle (e.g., the angle between the distal tip portions 214, 216) for the distal tip portions.
A process 322 includes determining a length of the instrument tip (e.g., a length between the proximal tip portion 212 and the distal tip portions 214, 216).
At a process 318, the gripping angle and instrument tip length are used to evaluate the position of the proximal and distal instrument tip points
Concerning (I), the “forward kinematic and rigid body transformations” is construed broadly as forward kinematics and inverse kinematics made possible by rigid body transformations, as depicted below. Such an interpretation constrains method 310 to using only forward and inverse kinematics as opposed to other ways to determining instrument length (i.e., sensors directly measuring instrument length).
PNG
media_image2.png
462
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Concerning (II), the “[gripping] angle” in question is the joint angle inputs to the right body kinematic transformations, as depicted above.
Concerning (III), the “determination of the length of the instrument tip” is necessarily (or inherently) made by inverse kinematics. Recall that (I) constrains the method 310 to using only forward and inverse kinematics (rather than a sensor to measure instrument length, for example). As shown above, inverse kinematics can yield geometric parameters (such as instrument length) based on absolute position of the instrument tip and robot joint angles. As the Final Rejection explains:
So, even though Itkowitz does not expressly disclose exactly how to "determin[ e] instrument tip length" ([0056]), the principles of forward kinematics easily allow for this determination. Specifically, somewhat schematically: if position=f(angle, length) according to forward kinematics, then the such kinematics also allow for length=f '(angle, position), where f and f' are transformations (and their reformulations) based on the principles of forward kinematics.
So, contrary to Applicant's third argument, the instrument length need not be known a priori if the absolute position of the instrument tip can be easily determined based on well-known calibration techniques. And, contrary to Applicant's first two arguments, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these well-known calibration techniques (yielding absolute position) easily allow for the determination of instrument length based on well-known principles of forward kinematics, as discussed above. And with the instrument length (322) and joint angle (320) determined, it is possible to calculate any position of the distal instrument (step 318), as shown in Fig. 7 of Itkowitz.
See Final Rejection at 2-3. To be clear, then, Itkowitz’s process 322 for determining a length of the instrument tip necessarily requires inverse kinematics to determine the length based on calibration techniques that are well-known (e.g., positional reference datums). Hence, as corrected noted by the Applicant, Itkowitz is silent on how exactly to determine the instrument length. Itkowitz is silent because, on the one hand, such a determination (e.g., involving use of reference datums) are so well-known and, on the other hand, such determination necessarily requires inverse kinematics, as initially stipulated by Itkowitz.
Note that because the inverse kinematic calculations taught by Itkowitz, as discussed above, requires geometric parameters that include not only the lengths of various portion of the robotic arm but also the proximal length of the instrument (i.e. instrument without the tip), Applicant’s distinction between “length of the instrument” and “length of the instrument tip” is a distinction without a difference. After all, to determine the “length of the instrument tip,” one must by implication also determine “the length of the [entire] instrument” by virtue of the inverse kinematics.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is “a computing device configured to” (as recited in claim 1).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure is a device comprising CPU, ROM, and RAM (e.g., [0076]),
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 8, and all dependent claims therefrom recite, inter alia, “to obtain angle information of at least one joint portion of the one or more joint portions in a state in which a distal end of the surgical instrument is positioned at a predetermined position and determine a length of the surgical instrument based on the angle information.”
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The abstract idea is the mental process of determining the instrument length by inverse kinematics. The limitations at issue are directed to concepts and calculations that can be performed in the human mind. This judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because other elements recited in the claim (e.g., a computing device, a robotic arm) does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
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 1-3, 7-10, 13, 16, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itkowitz et al. (US 20170165013 A1, 2017-06-15) (hereinafter “Itkowitz”).
Regarding claim 1, as discussed above (Response to Arguments incorporated by reference herein), Quaid teaches a surgery assisting device comprising: an arm (e.g., 12) including one or more joint portions and configured to hold a surgical instrument (e.g., 26); and a computing device (e.g., 20) configured to obtain angle information of at least one joint portion of the one or more joint portions in a state in which a distal end of the surgical instrument is positioned at a predetermined position and determine a length of the surgical instrument based on the angle information. See, e.g., [0056] (“FIG. 7 illustrates a method 310 for evaluating instrument tip positions in the endoscope tip coordinate space. In the method 310, the forward kinematics of the teleoperational system and medical instruments is evaluated to determine the position of landmarks on the instrument tips, such as the proximal and distal tip portions, within the endoscope coordinate system. The evaluation uses forward kinematic and rigid body transformations. A process 312 includes evaluating the manipulator (e.g. manipulator 51) and instrument (e.g., instrument 206, 208) forward kinematic position data in the world coordinate space. A process 314 includes evaluating the manipulator and endoscope (e.g., imaging instrument 204) forward kinematic position data in the world coordinate space. A process 316 includes transforming the instrument tip position data into endoscope tip coordinate space. A process 320 includes determining a gripping angle (e.g., the angle between the distal tip portions 214, 216) for the distal tip portions. A process 322 includes determining a length of the instrument tip (e.g., a length between the proximal tip portion 212 and the distal tip portions 214, 216). At a process 318, the gripping angle and instrument tip length are used to evaluate the position of the proximal and distal instrument tip points. At a process 324, the proximal tip portion position is determined in endoscope tip coordinate space. At a process 326, a first distal tip portion (e.g., portion 214) position is determined in the endoscope tip coordinate space. At a process 328, a second distal tip portion (e.g., portion 216) position is determined in the endoscope tip coordinate space.”) (emphasis added). See also Fig. 7 (disclosing forward kinematics computation 312).
Regarding claims 2-3, 7-10, 13, and 16, as discussed above, Quaid teaches the surgery assisting device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined position is a position in air (as recited in claim 2); wherein the one or more joint portions comprise a first joint portion, a second joint portion, and a third joint portion that are arranged in order from a base of the arm to a distal end of the arm, the arm further includes a first link portion linking the first joint portion to the second joint portion, and a second link portion linking the second joint portion to the third joint portion, the angle information comprises first angle information of the first joint portion and second angle information of the second joint portion in the state in which the distal end of the surgical instrument is positioned at the predetermined position; and the computing device determines the length of the surgical instrument based on the first angle information, the second angle information, the length of the first link portion, and the length of the second link portion (as recited in claim 3); further comprising an input device, wherein the computing device determines the length of the surgical instrument in response to an operation input to the input device (as recited in claim 7); a computing device for a surgery assisting device that is configured to hold a surgical instrument on a distal end portion of the surgery assisting device and that includes an arm portion including one or more joint portions, the computing device comprising: a microcomputer that obtains angle information of at least one joint portion of the one or more joint portions in a state in which a distal end of the surgical instrument held by the arm portion is positioned at a predetermined position and that determines a length of the surgical instrument by based on the angle information (as recited in claim 8); wherein the predetermined position is a position in air (as recited in claim 9); wherein: the one or more joint portions comprise a first joint portion, a second joint portion, and a third joint portion that are arranged in order from a base side to a distal end side of the arm portion, and the angle information includes first angle information of the first joint portion and second angle information of the second joint portion in the state in which the distal end of the surgical instrument is positioned at the predetermined position, and the microcomputer determines the length of the surgical instrument based on the first angle information, the second angle information, a length of a link portion between the first joint portion and the second joint portion, and a length of a link portion between the second joint portion and the third joint portion (as recited in claim 10); wherein: the one or more joint portions comprise a first joint portion, a second joint portion, and a third joint portion that are arranged in order from a base side to a distal end side of the arm portion, and the angle information includes first angle information of the first joint portion and second angle information of the second joint portion in the state in which the distal end of the surgical instrument is positioned at the predetermined position; and the microcomputer determines the length of the surgical instrument based on the first angle information, the second angle information, a length of a link portion between the first joint portion and the second joint portion, and a length of a link portion between the second joint portion and the third joint portion (as recited in claim 13); wherein the microcomputer determines the length of the surgical instrument in response to an operation to a predetermined input device disposed in the surgery assisting device (as recited in claim 16); wherein the predetermined position is a position known in advance (as recited in claims 17 and 18); wherein the arm further comprises two or more link portions connected to the one or more joint portions, and wherein the computing device is configured to determine the length of the surgical instrument based on the angle information and respective lengths of each of the two or more link portions (as recited in claims 19 and 20).
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.
In the alternative, claims 1-3, 7-10, 13, 16, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkowitz.
As discussed above, Itkowitz inherently teaches a computing device configured to obtain angle information of at least one joint portion of the one or more joint portions in a state in which a distal end of the surgical instrument is positioned at a predetermined position and determine a length of the surgical instrument based on the angle information. See [0056] (disclosing inverse kinematic calculations implicit in process 322, as discussed above). However, even if such a teaching is not inherent, then it would be obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the limitation(s) at issue in order to make the determination in question.
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkowitz, as applied to claims 1, 8, 9, and further in view of Pagel et al. (US 7684898 B2, 2010-03-23) (hereinafter “Pagel”).
Regarding claims 4-5, 11-12, and 14, Itkowitz does not teach use of light emitters to determine position of the instrument tip. Pagel not teaches use of light emitters (e.g., 1, Fig. 3) to determine position of the instrument tip (e.g., TCP). See, e.g. Fig. 4 and associated text.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pagel with the invention of Itkowitz such that the invention further comprises a light emitter that is disposed in a link portion at a proximal end of the distal end joint portion and that emits a guide light that guides a position of the distal end of the surgical instrument, and the angle information comprises angle information of the distal end joint portion in the state in which the distal end of the surgical instrument is positioned at the position indicated by the guide light (as recited in claim 4); a light emitting portion that is disposed in a link portion at an arm base side of the distal end joint portion and that emits a guide light that guides a position of the distal end of the surgical instrument toward an outward direction of the link portion, and the angle information includes angle information of the distal end joint portion in a state in which the distal end of the surgical instrument is positioned at the position at which the guide light guides, and the microcomputer determines the length of the surgical instrument based on the angle information of the distal end joint portion (as recited in claim 11); a light emitting portion that is disposed in a link portion at an arm base side of the distal end joint portion and that emits a guide light that guides a position of the distal end of the surgical instrument toward an outward direction of the link portion, and the angle information includes angle information of the distal end joint portion in a state in which the distal end of the surgical instrument is positioned at the position at which the guide light guides, and the microcomputer determines the length of the surgical instrument based on the angle information of the distal end joint portion (as recited in claim 14) in order to accurate determine the length of the instrument.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkowitz in view of Brock et al. (US 20080177285 A1, 2008-07-24) (hereinafter “Brock”).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Itkowitz teaches the surgery assisting device according to claims 1 and, except comprising a drape. Brock teaches wherein the predetermined position is a position covered by the drape (as shown in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Brock with the invention taught by Itkowitz such that the invention further comprises a drape, wherein the predetermined position is a position covered by the drape (as recited in claim 6); wherein the predetermined position is a position covered by a drape in the surgery assisting device (as recited in claim 15) in order to enhance the efficacy and sterility of the operating environment.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered to be pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Quaid et al. (US 20080010705 A1, 2008-01-10) teaches forward kinematics calibration process using a calibration bar. See, e.g., [0096].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T LUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1860. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, M-F (generally).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Jackson, can be reached on 571-272-4697. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Scott Luan, Ph.D.
/SCOTT LUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792