DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the arguments file from 2026/1/20. Claims 1, 8 – 11, 14, 16, 18, 25 – 28, 31, 33, and 34 are amended. Claims 12, 13, 29, and 30 are cancelled. Claims 1 – 11, 14 – 28, and 31 – 34 are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s correction of “automated manipulator” to “anatomical manipulator” in the specification has overcome the Specification Objection.
The applicant argues “With regard to claim 1, Tabandeh fails to describe capturing, from the localizer, states of the anatomy in response to movement of the anatomy according to a prescribed manner or a predetermined manner.” However, Tabandeh does teach the ability to capture the state of the anatomy during a surgical procedure. Tabandeh states “The system… determines… an optimal position for a robot with respect to a patient’s anatomy… during a surgical procedure” (Tabandeh, Abstract). The system’s ability to determine “an optimal position for a robot with respect to a patient’s anatomy” shows that it is capable of “capturing states of the anatomy in response to movement of the anatomy” (Applicant). Tabandeh additionally discloses the following: “the position and orientation (POSE) of the bone are registered to the surgical plan and to the system using a tracking mechanism” (Tabandeh, [0006]).
The applicant additional argues “Tabandeh further fails to teach determining operative parameters of the anatomy based on the captured states of the anatomy.” Tabandeh discloses “the position and orientation (POSE) of the bone are registered to the surgical plan and to the system using a tracking mechanism (e.g., an optical tracking system, a mechanical tracking system)” (Tabandeh, [0006]). The “mechanical tracking system” would be used to determine an “operative parameter of the anatomy based on the captured states of the anatomy”.
Applicant's arguments regarding the secondary references beginning at the bottom of page 15 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The applicant’s arguments are directed at hypothetical rejections on which the examiner did not make.
The applicant’s amendments are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 8, 9, 12, 17, 18, 22, 25, 26, 29, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Tabandeh et. al. (US 20190069962 A1) hereinafter referred to as Tabandeh.
Regarding Claim 1:
A surgical system comprising:
a robotic manipulator comprising a robotic arm including a plurality of links and joints, and a cart that is moveable and is configured to support the robotic arm;
Tabandeh discloses “A process is provided for positioning a robot in an operating room containing a surgical table, the robot having a moveable base, a manipulator arm, and an end effector tool.” (Tabandeh, [0011]).
a localizer configured to track the robotic manipulator and an anatomy of a patient; and
Tabandeh discloses “Upon assembly of the device tracking array 132c to the surgical robot 102 prior to surgery, the POSE's of the coordinate systems, 132c and 113, are fixed relative to each other and stored in memory to accurately track the end effector tool 113 during the surgery (see for example U.S. Patent Publication 20140039517 A1) relative to the bone anatomy (e.g., femur F, and tibia T).” (Tabandeh, [0029]).
one or more controllers coupled to the localizer and being configured to:
obtain workspace parameters of the robotic manipulator;
Tabandeh discloses “The device computer 116 may be housed in the moveable base 108 and contain hardware, software, data and utilities that are preferably dedicated to the operation of the surgical device 102. This may include surgical device control, robotic manipulator control, the processing of kinematic and inverse kinematic data, the execution of registration algorithms, the execution of calibration routines, the execution of surgical plan data, coordinate transformation processing, providing workflow instructions to a user, and utilizing position and orientation (POSE) data from the tracking system 106.” (Tabandeh, [0026]).
capture, from the localizer, a current state of the robotic manipulator relative to the anatomy;
Tabandeh discloses “Upon assembly of the device tracking array 132c to the surgical robot 102 prior to surgery, the POSE's of the coordinate systems, 132c and 113, are fixed relative to each other and stored in memory to accurately track the end effector tool 113 during the surgery (see for example U.S. Patent Publication 20140039517 A1) relative to the bone anatomy (e.g., femur F, and tibia T).” (Tabandeh, [0029]).
capture, from the localizer, states of the anatomy in response to movement of the anatomy according to a prescribed manner or a predetermined manner;
Tabandeh discloses “The POSE data may be used by the computing system 104 during the procedure to update the robot and surgical plan coordinate transforms so the surgical robot 102 can accurately execute the surgical plan in the event any bone motion occurs.” (Tabandeh, [0029]) and “The system and method accurately determines and indicates an optimal position for a robot with respect to a patient's anatomy before or during a surgical procedure.” (Tabandeh, Abstract).
determine operative parameters of the anatomy based on the captured states of the anatomy;
Tabandeh discloses “Due to the criticality of positioning the base 108 with respect to the anatomy as described above, the optimal position for the robot may be determined using several algorithms which heavily rely on global and local optimization algorithms. The optimization algorithms may use a kinematic model of the robotic system, and a known POSE of the patient's anatomy (as determined by registering the surgical plan to the bone prior to approaching the patient with the robot) to determine an optimal position for the base to achieve the desired reachability within the operative volume such as the points in the cut file, a set of boundaries, or a set of drill holes or planar cuts, defined in the surgical plan.” (Tabandeh, [0030]).
compare the workspace parameters to the operative parameters to determine a desired state for the robotic manipulator relative to the anatomy, whereby in the desired state, the workspace parameters of the robotic manipulator have an acceptable relationship with respect to the operative parameters of the anatomy; and
Tabandeh discloses “Due to the criticality of positioning the base 108 with respect to the anatomy as described above, the optimal position for the robot may be determined using several algorithms which heavily rely on global and local optimization algorithms. The optimization algorithms may use a kinematic model of the robotic system, and a known POSE of the patient's anatomy (as determined by registering the surgical plan to the bone prior to approaching the patient with the robot) to determine an optimal position for the base to achieve the desired reachability within the operative volume such as the points in the cut file, a set of boundaries, or a set of drill holes or planar cuts, defined in the surgical plan.” (Tabandeh, [0030]).
guide placement of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the desired state.
Tabandeh discloses “The present invention has utility as a system and process for dynamically positioning or repositioning a robot in a surgical context based on workspace and task requirements, manipulator requirements, or user preferences.” (Tabandeh, [0020]).
Regarding Claim 5:
The surgical system of claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to determine the operative parameters of the anatomy based on any one or more of:
the states of the anatomy being captured at physical range of motion limits of the anatomy;
the states of the anatomy being captured during continuous motion of the anatomy;
Tabandeh discloses “The robotic surgical system includes a computer assisted surgical robot having a base, an end effector tool projecting from the robot, fiducial marker arrays and an optical tracking system for tracking or navigating the end effector relative to a subject bone.” (Tabandeh, [0014]).
the states of the anatomy being captured at one or more discrete positions within physical range of motion limits of the anatomy; and
augmentation of the captured states with one or more of: patient data, surgical plan data, and statistical data.
Regarding Claim 8:
The surgical system claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to guide placement of the cart of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the desired state by being configured to display, on a display device:
a representation of the cart of the robotic manipulator at the current state;
Tabandeh discloses “A graphical user interface (GUI) method is also provided in which a display on monitor 118 is used to provide the user with positioning information. For example, if the position and orientation of the robot 102 with respect to the bone/patient is known, both the current and optimal position of the robot base 108 with respect to the patient is displayed on a screen.” (Tabandeh, [0039]).
a representation of the anatomy;
Tabandeh discloses “A graphical user interface (GUI) method is also provided in which a display on monitor 118 is used to provide the user with positioning information. For example, if the position and orientation of the robot 102 with respect to the bone/patient is known, both the current and optimal position of the robot base 108 with respect to the patient is displayed on a screen.” (Tabandeh, [0039]).
a graphical representation of the desired state of the cart of the robotic manipulator;
Tabandeh discloses “When the base 108 of the robot 102 is moved the screen is updated to provide a visual assist in moving the robot 102 to an optimal position.” (Tabandeh, [0039]).
movement of the representation of the cart of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the desired state; and
Tabandeh discloses “When the base 108 of the robot 102 is moved the screen is updated to provide a visual assist in moving the robot 102 to an optimal position.” (Tabandeh, [0039]).
a state confirmation indicator that is configured to be displayed in response to the representation of the cart of the robotic manipulator reaching the desired state.
Tabandeh discloses “In a specific embodiment, a target symbol (e.g., crosshairs) is displayed on the GUI. The target symbol may first appear enlarged on the screen and then focuses in to the optimal position for the base as the base is moved to the optimal position.” (Tabandeh, [0039]).
Regarding Claim 9:
The surgical system claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to guide placement of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the desired state by being configured to display, on a display device:
a graphical representation of the workspace parameters of the cart of the robotic manipulator;
Tabandeh discloses “The optimization algorithms may use a kinematic model of the robotic system, and a known POSE of the patient's anatomy (as determined by registering the surgical plan to the bone prior to approaching the patient with the robot) to determine an optimal position for the base to achieve the desired reachability within the operative volume such as the points in the cut file, a set of boundaries, or a set of drill holes or planar cuts, defined in the surgical plan.” (Tabandeh, [0030]).
a graphical representation of the operative parameters of the anatomy; and
Tabandeh discloses “A graphical user interface (GUI) method is also provided in which a display on monitor 118 is used to provide the user with positioning information. For example, if the position and orientation of the robot 102 with respect to the bone/patient is known, both the current and optimal position of the robot base 108 with respect to the patient is displayed on a screen.” (Tabandeh, [0039]).
a state confirmation indicator that is configured to be displayed in response to determining presence of the acceptable relationship between the graphical representation of the workspace parameters and the graphical representation of the operative parameters.
Tabandeh discloses “a side and top view of the bone and the footprint of the base 108 of the robot are displayed, where the color of the bone changes to indicate if the bone is within a reachable part of the workspace, and to show a direction of the movement of the base 108 that would lead to a reachable point in the work space.” (Tabandeh, [0039]).
Regarding Claim 12:
The surgical system of claim 1, wherein the robotic manipulator comprises a robotic arm including a plurality of links and joints, and a cart that is moveable and is configured to support the robotic arm, and wherein the one or more controllers guide placement of the robotic manipulator by further being configured to guide placement of the cart of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the desired state.
Tabandeh discloses “A process is provided for positioning a robot in an operating room containing a surgical table, the robot having a moveable base, a manipulator arm, and an end effector tool. The process includes: evaluating an initial position of the moveable base in the operating room, the robot having a programmed surgical plan; moving the moveable base from the initial position towards the surgical table with collision avoidance mobility software to a first determined position; stopping the moveable base; and engaging the manipulator arm and the end effector tool.” (Tabandeh, [0011]).
Regarding Claim 17:
The surgical system of claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers are configured obtain the workspace parameters of the robotic manipulator by further being configured to obtain one or more of: a predetermined kinematic model of the robotic manipulator; factory data related to the robotic manipulator; calibration or setup data related to the robotic manipulator; and surgical plan data related to the robotic manipulator.
Tabandeh discloses “The device computer 116 may be housed in the moveable base 108 and contain hardware, software, data and utilities that are preferably dedicated to the operation of the surgical device 102. This may include surgical device control, robotic manipulator control, the processing of kinematic and inverse kinematic data, the execution of registration algorithms, the execution of calibration routines, the execution of surgical plan data, coordinate transformation processing, providing workflow instructions to a user, and utilizing position and orientation (POSE) data from the tracking system 106.” (Tabandeh, [0026]).
Regarding Claim 18:
A method of operating a surgical system, the surgical system including a robotic manipulator comprising a robotic arm including a plurality of links and joints, and a cart that is moveable and is configured to support the robotic arm, a localizer configured to track the robotic manipulator and an anatomy of a patient, and one or more controllers coupled to the localizer, and the method comprising the one or more controllers performing the steps of:
obtaining workspace parameters of the robotic manipulator;
Tabandeh discloses “The device computer 116 may be housed in the moveable base 108 and contain hardware, software, data and utilities that are preferably dedicated to the operation of the surgical device 102. This may include surgical device control, robotic manipulator control, the processing of kinematic and inverse kinematic data, the execution of registration algorithms, the execution of calibration routines, the execution of surgical plan data, coordinate transformation processing, providing workflow instructions to a user, and utilizing position and orientation (POSE) data from the tracking system 106.” (Tabandeh, [0026]).
capturing, from the localizer, a current state of the robotic manipulator relative to the anatomy;
Tabandeh discloses “Upon assembly of the device tracking array 132c to the surgical robot 102 prior to surgery, the POSE's of the coordinate systems, 132c and 113, are fixed relative to each other and stored in memory to accurately track the end effector tool 113 during the surgery (see for example U.S. Patent Publication 20140039517 A1) relative to the bone anatomy (e.g., femur F, and tibia T).” (Tabandeh, [0029]).
capturing, from the localizer, states of the anatomy in response to movement of the anatomy according to a prescribed manner or a predetermined manner;
Tabandeh discloses “The POSE data may be used by the computing system 104 during the procedure to update the robot and surgical plan coordinate transforms so the surgical robot 102 can accurately execute the surgical plan in the event any bone motion occurs.” (Tabandeh, [0029]) and “The system and method accurately determines and indicates an optimal position for a robot with respect to a patient's anatomy before or during a surgical procedure.” (Tabandeh, Abstract).
determining operative parameters of the anatomy based on the captured states of the anatomy;
Tabandeh discloses “Due to the criticality of positioning the base 108 with respect to the anatomy as described above, the optimal position for the robot may be determined using several algorithms which heavily rely on global and local optimization algorithms. The optimization algorithms may use a kinematic model of the robotic system, and a known POSE of the patient's anatomy (as determined by registering the surgical plan to the bone prior to approaching the patient with the robot) to determine an optimal position for the base to achieve the desired reachability within the operative volume such as the points in the cut file, a set of boundaries, or a set of drill holes or planar cuts, defined in the surgical plan.” (Tabandeh, [0030]).
comparing the workspace parameters to the operative parameters for determining a desired state for the cart of the robotic manipulator relative to the anatomy, whereby in the desired state, the workspace parameters of the robotic manipulator have an acceptable relationship with respect to the operative parameters of the anatomy; and
Tabandeh discloses “Due to the criticality of positioning the base 108 with respect to the anatomy as described above, the optimal position for the robot may be determined using several algorithms which heavily rely on global and local optimization algorithms. The optimization algorithms may use a kinematic model of the robotic system, and a known POSE of the patient's anatomy (as determined by registering the surgical plan to the bone prior to approaching the patient with the robot) to determine an optimal position for the base to achieve the desired reachability within the operative volume such as the points in the cut file, a set of boundaries, or a set of drill holes or planar cuts, defined in the surgical plan.” (Tabandeh, [0030]).
guiding placement of the cart of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the desired state.
Tabandeh discloses “The present invention has utility as a system and process for dynamically positioning or repositioning a robot in a surgical context based on workspace and task requirements, manipulator requirements, or user preferences.” (Tabandeh, [0020]).
Regarding Claim 22:
The method of claim 18, comprising the one or more controllers determining the operative parameters of the anatomy based on any one or more of:
the states of the anatomy being captured at physical range of motion limits of the anatomy;
the states of the anatomy being captured during continuous motion of the anatomy;
Tabandeh discloses “The robotic surgical system includes a computer assisted surgical robot having a base, an end effector tool projecting from the robot, fiducial marker arrays and an optical tracking system for tracking or navigating the end effector relative to a subject bone.” (Tabandeh, [0014]).
the states of the anatomy being captured at one or more discrete positions within physical range of motion limits of the anatomy; and
augmentation of the captured states with one or more of: patient data, surgical plan data, and statistical data.
Regarding Claim 25:
The method of claim 18, comprising the one or more controllers guiding placement of the cart of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the desired state by displaying, on a display device:
a representation of the cart of the robotic manipulator at the current state;
Tabandeh discloses “A graphical user interface (GUI) method is also provided in which a display on monitor 118 is used to provide the user with positioning information. For example, if the position and orientation of the robot 102 with respect to the bone/patient is known, both the current and optimal position of the robot base 108 with respect to the patient is displayed on a screen.” (Tabandeh, [0039]).
a representation of the anatomy;
Tabandeh discloses “A graphical user interface (GUI) method is also provided in which a display on monitor 118 is used to provide the user with positioning information. For example, if the position and orientation of the robot 102 with respect to the bone/patient is known, both the current and optimal position of the robot base 108 with respect to the patient is displayed on a screen.” (Tabandeh, [0039]).
a graphical representation of the desired state of the cart of the robotic manipulator;
Tabandeh discloses “When the base 108 of the robot 102 is moved the screen is updated to provide a visual assist in moving the robot 102 to an optimal position.” (Tabandeh, [0039]).
movement of the representation of the cart of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the desired state; and
Tabandeh discloses “When the base 108 of the robot 102 is moved the screen is updated to provide a visual assist in moving the robot 102 to an optimal position.” (Tabandeh, [0039]).
a state confirmation indicator that is displayed in response to the representation of the cart of the robotic manipulator reaching the desired state.
Tabandeh discloses “In a specific embodiment, a target symbol (e.g., crosshairs) is displayed on the GUI. The target symbol may first appear enlarged on the screen and then focuses in to the optimal position for the base as the base is moved to the optimal position.” (Tabandeh, [0039]).
Regarding Claim 26:
The method of claim 18, comprising the one or more controllers guiding placement of the cart of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the desired state by displaying, on a display device:
a graphical representation of the workspace parameters of the robotic manipulator;
Tabandeh discloses “The optimization algorithms may use a kinematic model of the robotic system, and a known POSE of the patient's anatomy (as determined by registering the surgical plan to the bone prior to approaching the patient with the robot) to determine an optimal position for the base to achieve the desired reachability within the operative volume such as the points in the cut file, a set of boundaries, or a set of drill holes or planar cuts, defined in the surgical plan.” (Tabandeh, [0030]).
a graphical representation of the operative parameters of the anatomy; and
Tabandeh discloses “A graphical user interface (GUI) method is also provided in which a display on monitor 118 is used to provide the user with positioning information. For example, if the position and orientation of the robot 102 with respect to the bone/patient is known, both the current and optimal position of the robot base 108 with respect to the patient is displayed on a screen.” (Tabandeh, [0039]).
a state confirmation indicator that is displayed in response to determining presence of the acceptable relationship between the graphical representation of the workspace parameters and the graphical representation of the operative parameters.
Tabandeh discloses “a side and top view of the bone and the footprint of the base 108 of the robot are displayed, where the color of the bone changes to indicate if the bone is within a reachable part of the workspace, and to show a direction of the movement of the base 108 that would lead to a reachable point in the work space.” (Tabandeh, [0039]).
Regarding Claim 34:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to be utilized with a localizer configured to track a robotic manipulator comprising a robotic arm including a plurality of links and joints, and a cart that is moveable and is configured to support the robotic arm and an anatomy of a patient, wherein the non- transitory computer-readable medium comprises instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, are configured to:
obtain workspace parameters of the robotic manipulator;
Tabandeh discloses “The device computer 116 may be housed in the moveable base 108 and contain hardware, software, data and utilities that are preferably dedicated to the operation of the surgical device 102. This may include surgical device control, robotic manipulator control, the processing of kinematic and inverse kinematic data, the execution of registration algorithms, the execution of calibration routines, the execution of surgical plan data, coordinate transformation processing, providing workflow instructions to a user, and utilizing position and orientation (POSE) data from the tracking system 106.” (Tabandeh, [0026]).
capture, from the localizer, a current state of the cart of the robotic manipulator relative to the anatomy;
Tabandeh discloses “Upon assembly of the device tracking array 132c to the surgical robot 102 prior to surgery, the POSE's of the coordinate systems, 132c and 113, are fixed relative to each other and stored in memory to accurately track the end effector tool 113 during the surgery (see for example U.S. Patent Publication 20140039517 A1) relative to the bone anatomy (e.g., femur F, and tibia T).” (Tabandeh, [0029]).
capture, from the localizer, states of the anatomy in response to movement of the anatomy according to a prescribed manner or a predetermined manner;
Tabandeh discloses “The POSE data may be used by the computing system 104 during the procedure to update the robot and surgical plan coordinate transforms so the surgical robot 102 can accurately execute the surgical plan in the event any bone motion occurs.” (Tabandeh, [0029]) and “The system and method accurately determines and indicates an optimal position for a robot with respect to a patient's anatomy before or during a surgical procedure.” (Tabandeh, Abstract).
determine operative parameters of the anatomy based on the captured states of the anatomy;
Tabandeh discloses “Due to the criticality of positioning the base 108 with respect to the anatomy as described above, the optimal position for the robot may be determined using several algorithms which heavily rely on global and local optimization algorithms. The optimization algorithms may use a kinematic model of the robotic system, and a known POSE of the patient's anatomy (as determined by registering the surgical plan to the bone prior to approaching the patient with the robot) to determine an optimal position for the base to achieve the desired reachability within the operative volume such as the points in the cut file, a set of boundaries, or a set of drill holes or planar cuts, defined in the surgical plan.” (Tabandeh, [0030]).
compare the workspace parameters to the operative parameters to determine a desired state for the robotic manipulator relative to the anatomy, whereby in the desired state, the workspace parameters of the robotic manipulator have an acceptable relationship with respect to the operative parameters of the anatomy; an
Tabandeh discloses “Due to the criticality of positioning the base 108 with respect to the anatomy as described above, the optimal position for the robot may be determined using several algorithms which heavily rely on global and local optimization algorithms. The optimization algorithms may use a kinematic model of the robotic system, and a known POSE of the patient's anatomy (as determined by registering the surgical plan to the bone prior to approaching the patient with the robot) to determine an optimal position for the base to achieve the desired reachability within the operative volume such as the points in the cut file, a set of boundaries, or a set of drill holes or planar cuts, defined in the surgical plan.” (Tabandeh, [0030]).
guide placement of the cart of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the desired state.
Tabandeh discloses “The present invention has utility as a system and process for dynamically positioning or repositioning a robot in a surgical context based on workspace and task requirements, manipulator requirements, or user preferences.” (Tabandeh, [0020]).
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 2 – 4, 6, 7, 19 – 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabandeh et. al. (US 20190069962 A1) hereinafter referred to as Tabandeh, in view of Malackowski, et. al. (US 20190336043 A1), hereinafter referred to as Malackowski.
Regarding Claim 2:
The surgical system of claim 1, wherein the anatomy comprises an anatomical joint, and the prescribed manner or the predetermined manner includes one or more of: flexing the anatomical joint; extending the anatomical joint; tilting the anatomical joint; and rotating the anatomical joint.
Malackowski discloses “The notification 80 may suggest movement of the leg from extension to flexion, or vice-versa. The notification 80 suggests movement of the anatomy along any given degree(s) of freedom. For example, in FIG. 5, the notification 80 suggests rotating the surgical holder 14 medially (toward centerline of the patient). Alternatively, the notification 80 may suggest rotating the surgical holder 14 laterally (away from the centerline of the patient). In such instances, the notification 80 may suggest to move the surgical holder 14 laterally or medially.” (Malackowski, [0076] and Figures 4 – 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the methods of manipulating an anatomy taught by Malackowski with the system taught by Tabandeh because the method taught by Malackowski is just one set of many methods one can adjust an anatomy. Tabandeh refers to manipulating the anatomy, but does not provide specific steps on how to do so. Since Malackowski teaches specific steps for manipulating the anatomy, it would have been obvious to combine the specific steps taught by Malackowski with the system taught by Tabandeh according to known methods to yield predictable results. As stated in MPEP 2143(A), combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is consider obvious. In addition, according to MPEP 2143(E), it would have been “obvious to try” the methods taught by Malackowski with the system of Tabandeh, because there are a finite number of anatomical manipulations that can be performed, and Malackowski teaches one possibility of the anatomical positions that when combined with Tabandeh, would result in achieving an predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 3:
The surgical system of claim 1, further comprising a display device, and wherein the one or more controllers are configured to:
prompt a user, on the display device, to manually move the anatomy according to the prescribed manner; and
Malackowski discloses “As shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, the notification 80 may be displayed as an image or animation visually showing how to adjust the surgical holder 14. The notification 80 indicates how to move the anatomy from a current position 90 to a suggested position 92.” (Malackowski, [0075]).
capture, from the localizer, the states of the anatomy in response to movement of the anatomy according to the prescribed manner.
Malackowski discloses “The notification 80 indicates how to move the anatomy from a current position 90 to a suggested position 92. The current position 90 of the anatomy is the real-time position of the anatomy.” (Malackowski, [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the methods of displaying the required change to an anatomy taught by Malackowski with the system taught by Tabandeh because Malackowski teaches adjusting the anatomy as another method of adjusting the relative positions between a robotics manipulator and a surgical area. Malackowski teaches utilizing a display to indicate to the user how to make the adjustment.
Regarding Claim 4:
The surgical system of claim 1, further comprising an anatomical manipulator being configured to support and move the anatomy, wherein the one or more controllers are coupled to the anatomical manipulator and are configured to:
command the anatomical manipulator to autonomously or semi-autonomously move the anatomy according to the predetermined manner; and
Malackowski discloses “n many instances, it is advantageous to provide the notification 80 with instructions on how to adjust the anatomy of the patient based on the calculated characteristic. The notification 80 may alert the medical personnel to reposition the anatomy in the surgical holder 14 such that the anatomy is more securely fastened. Repositioning of the anatomy is carried out by manipulating the surgical holder 14. As such, the notification 80 may suggest instructions on how to manipulate (e.g., move/adjust) the surgical holder 14. The position of the anatomy can be adjustably set along a plurality of degrees of freedom using the surgical holder” (Malackowski, [0073]).
capture the states of the anatomical manipulator in response to autonomous or semi- autonomous movement of the anatomy by the anatomical manipulator according to the predetermined manner.
Malackowski discloses “The force applied to the anatomy generates the response by the anatomy with respect to each degree of freedom. For each degree of freedom, the response of the anatomy is measured. The calculated characteristic is determined for each degree of freedom. Based on the calculated characteristic, a determination can be made as to whether the anatomy should be adjusted with respect to any of the degrees of freedom. The determination can be made according to various methods, including whether the calculated characteristic has exceed a predetermined threshold or a range. The magnitude or extent of the adjustment may also be determined.” (Malackowski, [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the autonomous/semi-autonomous anatomy movement taught by Malackowski with the system taught by Tabandeh because the autonomous/semi-autonomous systems taught by Malackowski and Tabandeh both have access to the operative condition of the surgical area, and are capable of tracking the anatomy. Malackowski however, additionally teaches the information being used for an anatomical manipulator, versus a robotic manipulator. Malackowski teaches that automating anatomical manipulation improves the system “During a surgical procedure, it is desirable for the robotic system 10 to switch from the manual mode to the semi-autonomous or autonomous mode.” (Malackowski, [0034]), for several reasons, including: “the feed rate in the autonomous or semi-autonomous mode may be adjusted to a level needed to maintain machining accuracy” (Malackowski, [0071]).
Regarding Claim 6:
The surgical system of claim 1, further comprising a display device, and wherein the one or more controllers are configured to guide movement of the anatomy according to the prescribed manner by further being configured to display, on the display device, a target indicator comprising one or both of:
a target position at which to place the anatomy; and
Malackowski discloses “the navigation system 32 may display the current position 90 of the anatomy and/or surgical holder 14 in relation to the suggested position 92 of the anatomy and/or surgical holder 14. As the anatomy and/or surgical holder 14 is moved, the displayed current position 90 of the anatomy and/or surgical holder 14 approaches the displayed suggested position 92. The adjustment is made until the displayed current position 90 reaches the displayed suggested position 92.” (Malackowski, [0079]).
a target range within which to place the anatomy.
Malackowski discloses “The determination can be made according to various methods, including whether the calculated characteristic has exceed a predetermined threshold or a range.” (Malackowski, [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the method of aiding the user to move an anatomy taught by Malackowski with the system taught by Tabandeh because although Tabandeh teaches knowing the relative position of the anatomy in reference to the robotic manipulator, Tabandeh does not teach using a display to show the user where to move the anatomy. Tabandeh does however teach a display utilized for showing a user how to changing objects within a surgical area. Malackowski, however, specifically teaches the ability to show the current state of the anatomy on a display, and how to change the anatomy to better suit the surgical plan.
Regarding Claim 7:
The surgical system of claim 6, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to guide movement of the anatomy according to the prescribed manner by further being configured to display, on the display device:
a moveable indicator that is configured to move in response to movement of the anatomy and to move relative to one or both of:
the target position to provide guidance on relative positioning between the anatomy and the target position; and
Malackowski discloses “The direction of the suggested movement of the sled 100 in FIG. 4 is illustrated by an arrow for simplicity.” (Malackowski, [0076]).
the target range to provide guidance on relative positioning between the anatomy and the target range; and
“Malackowski discloses “For example, the navigation system 32 may display the current position 90 of the anatomy and/or surgical holder 14 in relation to the suggested position 92 of the anatomy and/or surgical holder” (Malackowski, [0079]).
a target confirmation indicator that is configured to be displayed in response to the moveable indicator being located at the target position and/or within the target range.
Malackowski discloses “Additionally, the robotic system 10 may employ any suitable notification method for communicating that the suggested position 92 has been reached. For example, the navigation system 32 may display the current position 90 of the anatomy and/or surgical holder 14 in relation to the suggested position 92 of the anatomy and/or surgical holder 14… Of course, other methods of communication, such as haptic or auditory methods, may be employed to communicate that the suggested position 92 has been reached.” (Malackowski, [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the method of aiding a user to “guide movement of the anatomy” taught by Malackowski with the system taught by Tabandeh because although Tabandeh teaches the ability to determine the relative position between the robotic manipulator and the anatomy, and the ability to determine how the relative position needs to change to fit the surgical plan, Tabandeh does not disclose a method for displaying how to move the anatomy specifically. Malackowski however does teach a method for aiding the user in moving the anatomy to fit the surgical plan.
Regarding Claim 19:
The method of claim 18, wherein the anatomy comprises an anatomical joint, and the prescribed manner or the predetermined manner includes one or more of: flexing the anatomical joint; extending the anatomical joint; tilting the anatomical joint; and rotating the anatomical joint.
Malackowski discloses “The notification 80 may suggest movement of the leg from extension to flexion, or vice-versa. The notification 80 suggests movement of the anatomy along any given degree(s) of freedom. For example, in FIG. 5, the notification 80 suggests rotating the surgical holder 14 medially (toward centerline of the patient). Alternatively, the notification 80 may suggest rotating the surgical holder 14 laterally (away from the centerline of the patient). In such instances, the notification 80 may suggest to move the surgical holder 14 laterally or medially.” (Malackowski, [0076] and Figures 4 – 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the methods of manipulating an anatomy taught by Malackowski with the system taught by Tabandeh because the method taught by Malackowski is just one set of many methods one can adjust an anatomy. Tabandeh refers to manipulating the anatomy, but does not provide specific steps on how to do so. Since Malackowski teaches specific steps for manipulating the anatomy, it would have been obvious to combine the specific steps taught by Malackowski with the system taught by Tabandeh according to known methods to yield predictable results. As stated in MPEP 2143(A), combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is consider obvious. In addition, according to MPEP 2143(E), it would have been “obvious to try” the methods taught by Malackowski with the system of Tabandeh, because there are a finite number of anatomical manipulations that can be performed, and Malackowski teaches one possibility of the anatomical positions that when combined with Tabandeh, would result in achieving an predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 20:
The method of claim 18, comprising the one or more controllers:
prompting a user, on a display device, to manually move the anatomy according to the prescribed manner; and
Malackowski discloses “As shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, the notification 80 may be displayed as an image or animation visually showing how to adjust the surgical holder 14. The notification 80 indicates how to move the anatomy from a current position 90 to a suggested position 92.” (Malackowski, [0075]).
capturing, from the localizer, the states of the anatomy in response to movement of the anatomy according to the prescribed manner.
Malackowski discloses “The notification 80 indicates how to move the anatomy from a current position 90 to a suggested position 92. The current position 90 of the anatomy is the real-time position of the anatomy.” (Malackowski, [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the methods of displaying the required change to an anatomy taught by Malackowski with the system taught by Tabandeh because Malackowski teaches adjusting the anatomy as another method of adjusting the relative positions between a robotics manipulator and a surgical area.
Regarding Claim 21:
The method of claim 18, wherein the surgical system comprises an anatomical manipulator being configured to support and move the anatomy, and the one or more controllers being coupled to the anatomical manipulator, the method comprising the one or more controllers:
commanding the anatomical manipulator to autonomously or semi-autonomously move the anatomy according to the predetermined manner; and
Malackowski discloses “n many instances, it is advantageous to provide the notification 80 with instructions on how to adjust the anatomy of the patient based on the calculated characteristic. The notification 80 may alert the medical personnel to reposition the anatomy in the surgical holder 14 such that the anatomy is more securely fastened. Repositioning of the anatomy is carried out by manipulating the surgical holder 14. As such, the notification 80 may suggest instructions on how to manipulate (e.g., move/adjust) the surgical holder 14. The position of the anatomy can be adjustably set along a plurality of degrees of freedom using the surgical holder” (Malackowski, [0073]).
capturing the states of the anatomical manipulator in response to autonomous or semi- autonomous movement of the anatomy by the anatomical manipulator according to the predetermined manner.
Malackowski discloses “The force applied to the anatomy generates the response by the anatomy with respect to each degree of freedom. For each degree of freedom, the response of the anatomy is measured. The calculated characteristic is determined for each degree of freedom. Based on the calculated characteristic, a determination can be made as to whether the anatomy should be adjusted with respect to any of the degrees of freedom. The determination can be made according to various methods, including whether the calculated characteristic has exceed a predetermined threshold or a range. The magnitude or extent of the adjustment may also be determined.” (Malackowski, [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the autonomous/semi-autonomous anatomy movement taught by Malackowski with the system taught by Tabandeh because the autonomous/semi-autonomous systems taught by Malackowski and Tabandeh both have access to the operative condition of the surgical area, and are capable of tracking the anatomy. Malackowski however, additionally teaches the information being used for an anatomical manipulator, versus a robotic manipulator. Malackowski teaches that automating anatomical manipulation improves the system “During a surgical procedure, it is desirable for the robotic system 10 to switch from the manual mode to the semi-autonomous or autonomous mode.” (Malackowski, [0034]), for several reasons, including: “the feed rate in the autonomous or semi-autonomous mode may be adjusted to a level needed to maintain machining accuracy” (Malackowski, [0071]).
Regarding Claim 23:
The method of claim 18, comprising the one or more controllers guiding movement of the anatomy according to the prescribed manner by displaying, on a display device, a target indicator comprising one or both of:
a target position at which to place the anatomy; and
Malackowski discloses “the navigation system 32 may display the current position 90 of the anatomy and/or surgical holder 14 in relation to the suggested position 92 of the anatomy and/or surgical holder 14. As the anatomy and/or surgical holder 14 is moved, the displayed current position 90 of the anatomy and/or surgical holder 14 approaches the displayed suggested position 92. The adjustment is made until the displayed current position 90 reaches the displayed suggested position 92.” (Malackowski, [0079]).
a target range within which to place the anatomy.
Malackowski discloses “The determination can be made according to various methods, including whether the calculated characteristic has exceed a predetermined threshold or a range.” (Malackowski, [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the method of aiding the user to move an anatomy taught by Malackowski with the system taught by Tabandeh because although Tabandeh teaches knowing the relative position of the anatomy in reference to the robotic manipulator, Tabandeh does not teach using a display to show the user where to move the anatomy. Tabandeh does however teach a display utilized for showing a user how to changing objects within a surgical area. Malackowski, however, specifically teaches the ability to show the current state of the anatomy on a display, and how to change the anatomy to better suit the surgical plan.
Regarding Claim 24:
The method of claim 23, comprising the one or more controllers guiding movement of the anatomy according to the prescribed manner by further displaying, on the display device:
a moveable indicator that moves in response to movement of the anatomy and moves relative to one or both of:
the target position for providing guidance on relative positioning between the anatomy and the target position; and
Malackowski discloses “The direction of the suggested movement of the sled 100 in FIG. 4 is illustrated by an arrow for simplicity.” (Malackowski, [0076]).
the target range for providing guidance on relative positioning between the anatomy and the target range; and
“Malackowski discloses “For example, the navigation system 32 may display the current position 90 of the anatomy and/or surgical holder 14 in relation to the suggested position 92 of the anatomy and/or surgical holder” (Malackowski, [0079]).
a target confirmation indicator that is displayed in response to the moveable indicator being located at the target position and/or within the target range.
Malackowski discloses “Additionally, the robotic system 10 may employ any suitable notification method for communicating that the suggested position 92 has been reached. For example, the navigation system 32 may display the current position 90 of the anatomy and/or surgical holder 14 in relation to the suggested position 92 of the anatomy and/or surgical holder 14… Of course, other methods of communication, such as haptic or auditory methods, may be employed to communicate that the suggested position 92 has been reached.” (Malackowski, [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the method of aiding a user to “guide movement of the anatomy” taught by Malackowski with the system taught by Tabandeh because although Tabandeh teaches the ability to determine the relative position between the robotic manipulator and the anatomy, and the ability to determine how the relative position needs to change to fit the surgical plan, Tabandeh does not disclose a method for displaying how to move the anatomy specifically. Malackowski however does teach a method for aiding the user in moving the anatomy to fit the surgical plan.
Claims 10, 11, 13, 27, 28, and 30 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabandeh et. al. (US 20190069962 A1) hereinafter referred to as Tabandeh, in view of Coiseur, et. al. (US 20210244485 A1), hereinafter referred to as Coiseur.
Regarding Claim 10:
The surgical system of claim 1, wherein the anatomy is subject to a surgical procedure involving a plurality of steps, and wherein, after successful placement of the cart of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the desired state, the one or more controllers are configured to:
identify a change to one or both of: the workspace parameters and the operative parameters;
Coiseur discloses “the response of the anatomy is measured by measuring a displacement of the anatomy” (Coiseur, 0048).
evaluate the change to determine a second desired state for the cart of the robotic manipulator and guide placement of the cart of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the second desired state; and/or
Coiseur discloses “For instance, the navigation system 32 may determine an initial position of the anatomy prior to applying the force at step 72. After the force is applied, the navigation system 32 may determine a displaced position of the anatomy. The navigation system 32 may then compare the displaced position relative to the initial position to determine the displacement. (Coiseur, [0048]).
evaluate the change to determine a desired pose of the anatomy and guide placement of the anatomy to the desired pose.
Coiseur discloses “The response of the anatomy may be measured according any combination of the aforementioned embodiments. In one embodiment, certain steps of the method occur at different times. For example, steps 72 and 74 occur at different times.” (Coiseur, [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the robot following a “surgical procedure involving a plurality of steps” taught by Coiseur with the system taught by Tabandeh because Tabandeh only teaches up to the first step of a surgical procedure. The system taught by Tabandeh has all of the mechanical capabilities of continuing on with future steps, however, does not specifically state additional steps. Coiseur, however, talks about applying steps after the initial move to a specified relative position between a robotic manipulator and an anatomy.
Regarding Claim 11:
The surgical system of claim 1, wherein:
the cart of the robotic manipulator is configured to be manually moved by a user; and
Coiseur discloses “This technique includes activating the robotic arm and placing it in the cooperative mode, with a camera on or in the end effector 406 of the robotic arm. The camera may be moved by using the robotic arm in the cooperative mode (e.g., via a handle on the camera or the end effector 406). The camera may be placed above the surface to be scanned. Once the camera is placed above the surface to be scanned the user may use the cooperative mode to manually adjust the camera position in order to be within the best Measure Range (MR) of the surface by using the laser rangefinder incorporated in or on the camera.” (Coiseur, [0046 – 0047]).
the one or more controllers guide placement of the cart of the robotic manipulator by being configured to display, on a display device, instructions to assist the user to manually move the cart of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the desired state.
Coiseur discloses “This technique includes moving the camera using the robotic arm in the cooperative mode. The camera may be placed above the surface to be scanned. When the robotic arm or camera is in position, a 3D acquisition technique may be launched and checked (e.g., automatically with the aid of AI techniques or manually by using the visual of the 3D acquisition on a display). When an image captured by the camera identifies a part of the head of the patient, for example, the image or position may be verified.” (Coiseur, [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the manual movement of the robot taught by Coiseur with the system taught by Tabandeh because although Tabandeh teaches the ability for the user to manually control the robot base, Tabandeh does not teach the ability for the arm itself to be manually controlled. Coiseur however, teaches the ability for a user to manually move a robotic arm to a desired position.
Regarding Claim 27:
The method of claim 18, wherein the anatomy is subject to a surgical procedure involving a plurality of steps, and wherein, after successful placement of the cart of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the desired state, the method comprises the one or more controllers:
identifying a change to one or both of: the workspace parameters and the operative parameters;
Coiseur discloses “the response of the anatomy is measured by measuring a displacement of the anatomy” (Coiseur, 0048).
evaluating the change to determine a second desired state for the cart of the robotic manipulator and guiding placement of the cart of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the second desired state; and/or
Coiseur discloses “For instance, the navigation system 32 may determine an initial position of the anatomy prior to applying the force at step 72. After the force is applied, the navigation system 32 may determine a displaced position of the anatomy. The navigation system 32 may then compare the displaced position relative to the initial position to determine the displacement. (Coiseur, [0048]).
evaluating the change to determine a desired pose of the anatomy and guiding placement of the anatomy to the desired pose.
Coiseur discloses “The response of the anatomy may be measured according any combination of the aforementioned embodiments. In one embodiment, certain steps of the method occur at different times. For example, steps 72 and 74 occur at different times.” (Coiseur, [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the robot following a “surgical procedure involving a plurality of steps” taught by Coiseur with the system taught by Tabandeh because Tabandeh only teaches up to the first step of a surgical procedure. The system taught by Tabandeh has all of the mechanical capabilities of continuing on with future steps, however, does not specifically state additional steps. Coiseur, however, talks about applying steps after the initial move to a specified relative position between a robotic manipulator and an anatomy.
Regarding Claim 28:
The method of claim 18, wherein the cart of the robotic manipulator is manually moved by a user, and comprising the one or more controllers guiding placement of the cart of the robotic manipulator by:
displaying, on a display device, instructions for assisting the user to manually move the cart of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the desired state.
Coiseur discloses “This technique includes activating the robotic arm and placing it in the cooperative mode, with a camera on or in the end effector 406 of the robotic arm. The camera may be moved by using the robotic arm in the cooperative mode (e.g., via a handle on the camera or the end effector 406). The camera may be placed above the surface to be scanned. Once the camera is placed above the surface to be scanned the user may use the cooperative mode to manually adjust the camera position in order to be within the best Measure Range (MR) of the surface by using the laser rangefinder incorporated in or on the camera.” (Coiseur, [0046 – 0047]) and “This technique includes moving the camera using the robotic arm in the cooperative mode. The camera may be placed above the surface to be scanned. When the robotic arm or camera is in position, a 3D acquisition technique may be launched and checked (e.g., automatically with the aid of AI techniques or manually by using the visual of the 3D acquisition on a display). When an image captured by the camera identifies a part of the head of the patient, for example, the image or position may be verified.” (Coiseur, [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the manual movement of the robot taught by Coiseur with the system taught by Tabandeh because although Tabandeh teaches the ability for the user to manually control the robot base, Tabandeh does not teach the ability for the arm itself to be manually controlled. Coiseur however, teaches the ability for a user to manually move a robotic arm to a desired position.
Claims 14 – 16, 31 – 33 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabandeh et. al. (US 20190069962 A1) hereinafter referred to as Tabandeh, in view of Hannaford, et. al. (US 20220241038 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hannaford.
Regarding Claim 14:
The surgical system of claim 1, wherein:
the cart comprises a plurality of wheels such that the cart is moveable, and a placement control system comprising a drive system that is configured to drive the wheels, a steering system that is configured to steer the wheels, and a cart controller that is configured to control the drive system and steering system; and
Hannaford discloses “FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary bifurcated navigation control system 100 (“system 100”) for bifurcated navigation control of a manipulator cart included within a computer-assisted medical system. As will be described and illustrated in more detail below, a “manipulator cart,” as used herein, may refer to any robotic or other system that includes one or more manipulators (e.g., manipulator arms, etc.) configured to facilitate performance of an operation (e.g., a medical operation such as a surgical procedure, etc.), and that is configured to be independently navigable from one location to another, rather than being mounted; for example; on a physical track.” (Hannaford, [0028]).
the one or more controllers are configured to communicate with the placement control system and to guide placement of the cart of the robotic manipulator to the desired state.
Hannaford discloses “a bifurcated navigation control system may include or be implemented by a memory storing instructions and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to 1) define a path whereby a manipulator cart included within a computer-assisted medical system is to navigate from an initial location to a target location” (Hannaford, [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the drivable cart taught by Hannaford with the system taught by Tabandeh because although Tabandeh teaches a moveable base on which a robot is mounted, the cart does not have any means to drive itself. Hannaford, however, teaches a robot cart that has motors that can drive its wheels.
Regarding Claim 15:
The surgical system of claim 14, wherein the placement control system is configured to control the drive system and the steering system to autonomously move the cart from the current state to the desired state.
Hannaford discloses “Unfortunately, however, various challenges (e.g., poor visibility afforded to the operator, obstacles on the path, narrow parameters characterizing the target location and target configuration of the manipulator cart, etc.) may make it difficult for the operator to effectively navigate the manipulator cart in an efficient manner.” (Hannaford, [0003]) and “[0018] In a bifurcated navigation control mode, a processor autonomously controls a steering of the manipulator cart while allowing operator control of a propulsion of the manipulator cart using a control interface. For example, the operator may direct the manipulator cart forward and backward at a speed comfortable for the operator while the manipulator cart is autonomously steered along an appropriate path.” (Hannaford, [0018]). Although Hannaford discloses this semiautomated system, the user (in this embodiment) is merely controlling the speed of the cart. It is therefore capable of “control[ing its] drive system and [its] steering system”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the drivable cart taught by Hannaford with the system taught by Tabandeh because although Tabandeh teaches a moveable base on which a robot is mounted, the cart does not have any means to drive itself. Hannaford, however, teaches a robot cart that has motors that can drive its wheels, and is capable of “autonomously steering” itself.
Regarding Claim 16:
The surgical system of claim 14, wherein the placement control system is configured to provide haptic feedback to guide a user on placement of the cart of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the desired state, wherein the haptic feedback is implemented by one or both of:
a haptic path, wherein the placement control system controls the drive system and/or the steering system to provide haptic feedback in response the user manually moving the cart in a manner that interacts with, or deviates from, the haptic path; and
Hannaford discloses “a processor autonomously controls a steering of the manipulator cart while allowing operator control of a propulsion of the manipulator cart using a control interface. For example, the operator may direct the manipulator cart forward and backward at a speed comfortable for the operator while the manipulator cart is autonomously steered along an appropriate path” (Hannaford, [0018]) and “Haptic or other feedback may also be provided to operators of manipulator cart 202. For instance, rather that providing visual feedback by way of touchscreen 810, system 100 may use boom 506, arms 212, or another such component of manipulator cart 202 to, for example, point in the direction that manipulator cart 202 is currently steering” (Hannaford, [0095]).
a haptic zone, wherein the placement control system controls the drive system and/or the steering system to provide haptic feedback in response the user manually moving the cart in a manner that interacts with, or deviates from, the haptic zone.
Hannaford discloses “Once this final movement is complete, manipulator cart 202 may not only be located at location 406-target, but may also be in the target orientation and/or target configuration associated with the particular medical operation that is to be performed. As such, system 100 may determine and indicate to the operator (e.g., by way of visual, haptic, audible, or any other suitable type of feedback) that the navigation and configuration of manipulator cart 202 is complete.” (Hannaford, [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the haptic feedback taught by Hannaford with the system taught by Tabandeh because although Tabandeh teaches the ability to determine if a robot cart is in the correct position, it does not teach using haptic feedback to alert the user. Hannaford, however, teaches using haptic feedback to offer guidance to the user with regards to placement of the cart.
Regarding Claim 31:
The method of claim 18, wherein cart comprises a plurality of wheels such that the cart is moveable, and a placement control system comprising a drive system that is configured to drive the wheels, a steering system that is configured to steer the wheels, and a cart controller that is configured to control the drive system and steering system, and wherein guiding placement of the cart of the robotic manipulator further comprises the one or more controllers:
communicating with the placement control system and for guiding placement of the cart of the robotic manipulator to the desired state.
Hannaford discloses “FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary bifurcated navigation control system 100 (“system 100”) for bifurcated navigation control of a manipulator cart included within a computer-assisted medical system. As will be described and illustrated in more detail below, a “manipulator cart,” as used herein, may refer to any robotic or other system that includes one or more manipulators (e.g., manipulator arms, etc.) configured to facilitate performance of an operation (e.g., a medical operation such as a surgical procedure, etc.), and that is configured to be independently navigable from one location to another, rather than being mounted; for example; on a physical track.” (Hannaford, [0028]) and “a bifurcated navigation control system may include or be implemented by a memory storing instructions and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to 1) define a path whereby a manipulator cart included within a computer-assisted medical system is to navigate from an initial location to a target location” (Hannaford, [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the drivable cart taught by Hannaford with the system taught by Tabandeh because although Tabandeh teaches a moveable base on which a robot is mounted, the cart does not have any means to drive itself. Hannaford, however, teaches a robot cart that has motors that can drive its wheels.
Regarding Claim 32:
The method of claim 31, comprising the one or more controllers instructing the placement control system to control the drive system and the steering system for autonomously moving the cart from the current state to the desired state.
Hannaford discloses “Unfortunately, however, various challenges (e.g., poor visibility afforded to the operator, obstacles on the path, narrow parameters characterizing the target location and target configuration of the manipulator cart, etc.) may make it difficult for the operator to effectively navigate the manipulator cart in an efficient manner.” (Hannaford, [0003]) and “[0018] In a bifurcated navigation control mode, a processor autonomously controls a steering of the manipulator cart while allowing operator control of a propulsion of the manipulator cart using a control interface. For example, the operator may direct the manipulator cart forward and backward at a speed comfortable for the operator while the manipulator cart is autonomously steered along an appropriate path.” (Hannaford, [0018]). Although Hannaford discloses this semiautomated system, the user (in this embodiment) is merely controlling the speed of the cart. It is therefore capable of “control[ing its] drive system and [its] steering system”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the drivable cart taught by Hannaford with the system taught by Tabandeh because although Tabandeh teaches a moveable base on which a robot is mounted, the cart does not have any means to drive itself. Hannaford, however, teaches a robot cart that has motors that can drive its wheels, and is capable of “autonomously steering” itself.
Regarding Claim 33:
The method of claim 31, comprising the one or more controllers instructing the placement control system to provide haptic feedback for guiding a user on placement of the cart of the robotic manipulator from the current state to the desired state, wherein the haptic feedback is implemented by one or both of:
a haptic path, whereby the placement control system is controlling the drive system and/or the steering system for providing haptic feedback in response the user manually moving the cart in a manner that interacts with, or deviates from, the haptic path; and
Hannaford discloses “a processor autonomously controls a steering of the manipulator cart while allowing operator control of a propulsion of the manipulator cart using a control interface. For example, the operator may direct the manipulator cart forward and backward at a speed comfortable for the operator while the manipulator cart is autonomously steered along an appropriate path” (Hannaford, [0018]) and “Haptic or other feedback may also be provided to operators of manipulator cart 202. For instance, rather that providing visual feedback by way of touchscreen 810, system 100 may use boom 506, arms 212, or another such component of manipulator cart 202 to, for example, point in the direction that manipulator cart 202 is currently steering” (Hannaford, [0095]).
a haptic zone, whereby the placement control system is controlling the drive system and/or the steering system for providing haptic feedback in response the user manually moving the cart in a manner that interacts with, or deviates from, the haptic zone.
Hannaford discloses “Once this final movement is complete, manipulator cart 202 may not only be located at location 406-target, but may also be in the target orientation and/or target configuration associated with the particular medical operation that is to be performed. As such, system 100 may determine and indicate to the operator (e.g., by way of visual, haptic, audible, or any other suitable type of feedback) that the navigation and configuration of manipulator cart 202 is complete.” (Hannaford, [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the haptic feedback taught by Hannaford with the system taught by Tabandeh because although Tabandeh teaches the ability to determine if a robot cart is in the correct position, it does not teach using haptic feedback to alert the user. Hannaford, however, teaches using haptic feedback to offer guidance to the user with regards to placement of the cart.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Niemeyer, Gunter D. (US 6493608 B1)
Niemeyer discloses “...The cart 300 typically carries three robotic arm assemblies” and “...corresponding haptic feedback is provided on the master 700 so that the surgeon is urged not to move the master 700 in a manner causing the corresponding slave movement to transgress the set limitations”, however, does not teach initial and desired positions, and was therefore not used as prior art.
Coste-Maniere, Eve C., et. al. (US 20030109780 A1)
Coste-Maniere discloses “In yet another aspect, a method for identifying advantageous locations for placement of two or more entry ports for performing a surgical procedure on a body of a patient includes defining a list of possible locations for each of the two or more entry ports, the possible locations being disposed on a surface of the body, selecting, based on a set of criteria, an advantageous location for placement of each of the two or more entry ports from each list of possible locations, verifying that the selected location for placement of each entry port is feasible, and providing means for simulating the surgical procedure. In some embodiments, the set of criteria includes at least two of robot kinematics, robot kinetics, robot work range, deviation of tool entry angle from normal, organ geometry, surgeon defined constraints, robot force limitations, and patient force limitations. In other embodiments, the set of criteria includes a cost function, the cost function at least partially defined by at least one of minimizing deviations from a desired configuration, arm placement symmetry with respect to endoscope positioning, and minimization of tool entry angle with respect to surface normal”, however, does not teach autonomously moving from one position to another, and was therefore not used as prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES B CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday | 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/J.B.C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights