DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-18 remain pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application DE10 2022 206 067.9 filed on 06/15/2022.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 11 recites the limitation “drive mechanism” in with the structure in specifications in paragraph [0025] “manipulator”. It is being interpreted as means plus function.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jadda (US20190298460) in view of Shelton (WO2019133363, from IDS) and Donhowe (US20220129822).
Regarding claim 1, Jadda teaches a method for monitoring a robotic system that is configured for robot-assisted actuation of a movement of a medical object in a hollow organ of a patient, the robotic system including at least one drive system, a robot control unit, the method comprising ([0051]-[0054] disclosing robotic arms inserting the endoscope into a patient robotically using an instrument driver. [0056] disclosing computer control system to control the medical instrument in response to control signals):
Jadda does not teach and an acoustic sensor; receiving, by the acoustic sensor, acoustic signals of the robotic system during operation of the robotic system for moving the medical object; evaluating the at least one recognized signal pattern with respect to an associated action flow of at least one component of the robotic system; checking whether the associated action flow is an intended action flow; and actuating an action when the associated action flow is unintended.
Shelton teaches An acoustic sensor ([0465]-[0476]).
receiving, by the acoustic sensor, acoustic signals of the robotic system during operation of the robotic system for moving the medical object ([0465]-[0476] disclosing an acoustic sensor to detect an acoustic signal for the drive motor);
recognizing at least one signal pattern in the received acoustic signals ([0475]-[0476] disclosing recognizing a sequence “pattern” from the acoustic signal to determine failure of a motor drive);
evaluating the at least one recognized signal pattern with respect to an associated action flow of at least one component of the robotic system ([0475]-[0476] disclosing recognizing a sequence “pattern” associated with surgical tool operation acoustic signature “flow” to compare them to baseline signature, i.e., evaluating the signal pattern);
checking whether the associated action flow is an intended action flow ([0475]-[0476] disclosing recognizing a sequence “pattern” from the acoustic signal to determine failure of a motor drive by comparing the expected signature expected flow of the motor to the signals read from the acoustic sensor. also [0480]-[0483]. [0476] disclosing comparing the acoustic signatures “associated flow” associated with the operation of the surgical instrument to baseline component signal “planning guideline”);
and actuating an action when the associated action flow is unintended ([0475]-[0476] disclosing recognizing a sequence “pattern” from the acoustic signal to determine failure of a motor drive by comparing the expected signature expected flow of the motor to the signals read from the acoustic sensor., see also [0480]-[0483]. [0484]-[0485] disclosing when the pattern is not normal to adjust motor control algorithm to minimize damage).
wherein checking whether the associated action flow is the intended action flow comprises comparing the associated action flow with a planning guideline, a database, a control guideline, or any combination thereof, such that it is established whether the associated action flow was planned ([0475]-[0476] disclosing recognizing a sequence “pattern” from the acoustic signal to determine failure of a motor drive by comparing the expected signature expected flow of the motor to the signals read from the acoustic sensor., see also [0480]-[0483]. [0476] disclosing comparing the acoustic signatures associated with the operation of the surgical instrument to baseline component signal “planning guideline”. While it is interpreted that the term such that is indicative of an intended use for the term that follows, [0476] discloses comparing the baseline recorded “which is a database” with the profile of the surgery currently operated to determine if there is degradation by determining a deviation from the baseline, thus the baseline is indicative of intended flow and any deviation that is over a threshold is the abnormal unintended flow).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Jadda to incorporate the teaching of Shelton of receiving, by the acoustic sensor, acoustic signals of the robotic system during operation of the robotic system for moving the medical object; evaluating the at least one recognized signal pattern with respect to an associated action flow of at least one component of the robotic system; checking whether the associated action flow is an intended action flow; and actuating an action when the associated action flow is unintended in order to detect degradation of a drive system as taught by Shelton [0465]-[0475]. The combination is obvious yielding predictable results in order to detect machine failures and thus improve safety during surgeries.
Jadda as modified by Shelton does not teach wherein at least one pre-trained machine-learning algorithm is used for evaluating and checking the at least one signal pattern.
Donhowe teaches wherein at least one pre-trained machine-learning algorithm is used for evaluating and checking the signal pattern ([0045]-[0056], see also [0059]-[0062] disclosing a machine learning trained to recognize frames of received audio, i.e., evaluate the audio signal pattern).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Jadda as modified by Shelton to incorporate the teaching of Donhowe of wherein at least one pre-trained machine-learning algorithm is used for evaluating and checking the signal pattern in order to detect events based on the audio signals using machine learning as taught by Donhowe ([0045]-[0056]. The combination is obvious to improve safety and error detection timely with the aid of machine learning.
Regarding claim 2, Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the actuated action includes outputting a message, outputting a warning, outputting an action proposal, automatically interrupting the operation of the robotic system, an automatic corrective action so as to eliminate the unintended action flow, or any combination thereof.
Specifically, Shelton teaches wherein the actuated action includes outputting a message, outputting a warning, outputting an action proposal, automatically interrupting the operation of the robotic system, an automatic corrective action so as to eliminate the unintended action flow, or any combination thereof ([0490] disclosing a warning to a user).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe to incorporate the teaching of Shelton of wherein the actuated action includes outputting a message, outputting a warning, outputting an action proposal, automatically interrupting the operation of the robotic system, an automatic corrective action so as to eliminate the unintended action flow, or any combination thereof in order to warn a user as taught by Shelton [0490].
Regarding claim 4, Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe teaches the method of claim 1, further teaches wherein the acoustic signals are received from at least one drive of the at least one drive system.
Specifically, Shelton teaches wherein the acoustic signals are received from at least one drive of the at least one drive system [0465]-[0471] disclosing the acoustic sensor to receive acoustic signal for at least one drive).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe to incorporate the teaching of Shelton of wherein the acoustic signals are received from at least one drive of the at least one drive system in order to detect degradation of a drive system as taught by Shelton [0465]-[0475]. The combination is obvious yielding predictable results for detecting degradation thus improving safety during surgeries.
Regarding claim 8, Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe further teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising using a further monitoring method.
Donhowe teaches further comprising using a further monitoring method ([0052] disclosing the video imaging as another monitoring method in addition to acoustic monitoring).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Jadda as modified by Shelton to incorporate the teaching of Donhowe of using a further monitoring method in order to detect events based on the audio signals and imaging signals using machine learning as taught by Donhowe ([0045]-[0056]). The combination is obvious yielding predictable results, having multiple monitoring devices is obvious for redundancy and improves safety.
Regarding claim 9, Jadda as modified by Shelton teaches the method of claim 8. Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe further teaches wherein the further monitoring method includes monitoring by imaging.
Donhowe teaches wherein the further monitoring method includes monitoring by imaging ([0052] disclosing the video imaging as another monitoring method).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe to incorporate the teaching of Donhowe of wherein the further monitoring method includes monitoring by imaging in order to detect events based on the audio signals and imaging signals using machine learning as taught by Donhowe ([0045]-[0056] and for redundancy. The combination is obvious yielding predictable results, having multiple monitoring devices is obvious for redundancy and improves safety.
Regarding claim 11, Jadda teaches a robotic system comprising:
A robotic control unit ([0056] disclosing a computer to control the robot);
A robotic assisted drive system comprising ([0056] disclosing robot assisted drive system);
A drive ([0051]-[0054] disclosing robotic arms inserting the endoscope into a patient robotically using an instrument driver);
A drive mechanism ([0051]-[0054] disclosing robotic arms “drive mechanism” inserting the endoscope into a patient robotically using an instrument driver);
Wherein the drive system is configured to move a medical object in a hollow organ of a patient based on control signals of the robot control units ([0051]-[0054] disclosing robotic arms inserting the endoscope into a patient robotically using an instrument driver. [0056] disclosing computer control system to control the medical instrument in response to control signals):
Jadda does not teach and an acoustic sensor configured to receive acoustic signals of the robotic system during operation of the robotic system the acoustic sensor being arranged on the robotic system; evaluation unit configured to: recognize signal patterns; evaluating the signal pattern with respect to an associated action flow of at least one component of the robotic system;
Shelton teaches an acoustic sensor configured to receive acoustic signals of the robotic system during operation of the robotic system the acoustic sensor being arranged on the robotic system ([0465]-[0476] disclosing an acoustic sensor to detect an acoustic signal for the drive motor, figure 112 shows the acoustic sensor on the system);
An evaluation unit configured to: Recognize signal patterns ([0475]-[0476] disclosing control circuit “evaluation unit” recognizing a sequence “pattern” from the acoustic signal to determine failure of a motor drive);
evaluation unit configured to: recognize signal patterns; evaluating the signal pattern with respect to an associated action flow of at least one component of the robotic system ([0475]-[0476] disclosing recognizing a sequence “pattern” associated with surgical tool operation acoustic signature “flow” to compare them to baseline signature, i.e., evaluating the signal pattern);
checking whether the associated action flow is an intended action flow ([0475]-[0476] disclosing recognizing a sequence “pattern” from the acoustic signal to determine failure of a motor drive by comparing the expected signature expected flow of the motor to the signals read from the acoustic sensor. also [0480]-[0483]. [0476] disclosing comparing the acoustic signatures “associated flow” associated with the operation of the surgical instrument to baseline component signal “planning guideline”);
and actuating an action when the associated action flow is unintended ([0475]-[0476] disclosing recognizing a sequence “pattern” from the acoustic signal to determine failure of a motor drive by comparing the expected signature expected flow of the motor to the signals read from the acoustic sensor., see also [0480]-[0483]. [0484]-[0485] disclosing when the pattern is not normal to adjust motor control algorithm to minimize damage).
wherein checking whether the associated action flow is the intended action flow comprises comparing the associated action flow with a planning guideline, a database, a control guideline, or any combination thereof, such that it is established whether the associated action flow was planned ([0475]-[0476] disclosing recognizing a sequence “pattern” from the acoustic signal to determine failure of a motor drive by comparing the expected signature expected flow of the motor to the signals read from the acoustic sensor., see also [0480]-[0483]. [0476] disclosing comparing the acoustic signatures associated with the operation of the surgical instrument to baseline component signal “planning guideline”. While it is interpreted that the term such that is indicative of an intended use for the term that follows, [0476] discloses comparing the baseline recorded “which is a database” with the profile of the surgery currently operated to determine if there is degradation by determining a deviation from the baseline, thus the baseline is indicative of intended flow and any deviation that is over a threshold is the abnormal unintended flow).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Jadda to incorporate the teaching of Shelton of an acoustic sensor configured to receive acoustic signals of the robotic system during operation of the robotic system the acoustic sensor being arranged on the robotic system; evaluation unit configured to: recognize signal patterns; evaluating the signal pattern with respect to an associated action flow of at least one component of the robotic systemin order to detect degradation of a drive system as taught by Shelton [0465]-[0475].
Jadda as modified by Shelton does not teach wherein at least one pre-trained machine-learning algorithm is used for evaluating and checking the at least one signal pattern.
Donhowe teaches wherein at least one pre-trained machine-learning algorithm is used for evaluating and checking the signal pattern ([0045]-[0056], see also [0059]-[0062] disclosing a machine learning trained to recognize frames of received audio, i.e., evaluate the audio signal pattern).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Jadda as modified by Shelton to incorporate the teaching of Donhowe of wherein at least one pre-trained machine-learning algorithm is used for evaluating and checking the signal pattern in order to detect events based on the audio signals using machine learning as taught by Donhowe ([0045]-[0056]. The combination is obvious to improve safety and error detection timely with the aid of machine learning.
Regarding claim 12, Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe further teaches wherein the robot control unit is configured to actuate an action.
Specifically, Shelton teaches wherein the robot control unit is configured to actuate an action ([0475]-[0476] disclosing recognizing a sequence “pattern” from the acoustic signal to determine failure of a motor drive by comparing the expected signature expected flow of the motor to the signals read from the acoustic sensor., see also [0480]-[0483]. [0484]-[0485] disclosing when the pattern is not normal to adjust motor control algorithm to minimize damage)
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Jadda to incorporate the teaching of Shelton and Donhowe of wherein the robot control unit is configured to actuate an action in order to detect degradation of a drive system as taught by Shelton [0465]-[0475] and take an action [0480]-[0485]. The combination is obvious yielding predictable results in order to detect machine failures and thus improve safety during surgeries.
Regarding claim 13, Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe further teaches the robotic system of claim 12, the actuation of the action comprises: output of a message; output of a warning; output of an action proposal; automatic interruption of the operation of the robotic system; performance of corrective action so as to eliminate the unintended action flow; or any combination thereof.
Specifically, Shelton teaches the robotic system of claim 12, the actuation of the action comprises: output of a message; output of a warning; output of an action proposal; automatic interruption of the operation of the robotic system; performance of corrective action so as to eliminate the unintended action flow; or any combination thereof ([0490] disclosing a warning to a user).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Jadda as modified by Shelton to incorporate the teaching of Shelton and Donhowe of the robotic system of claim 12, the actuation of the action comprises: output of a message; output of a warning; output of an action proposal; automatic interruption of the operation of the robotic system; performance of corrective action so as to eliminate the unintended action flow; or any combination thereof in order to warn a user as taught by Shelton [0490].
Regarding claim 14, Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe further teaches the robotic system of claim 11, further comprising a display unit configured to display messages, warnings, action proposals, or any combination thereof.
Specifically, Shelton teaches further comprising a display unit configured to display messages, warnings, action proposals, or any combination thereof ([0494] disclosing a message via a display).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Jadda as modified by Shelton to incorporate the teaching of Shelton and Donhowe of further comprising a display unit configured to display messages, warnings, action proposals, or any combination thereof in order to warn a user via display as taught by Shelton [0495]. The substitution and or combination of a display warning is obvious yielding predictable results to visually warn a person improving safety and redundancy of warning.
Regarding claim 15, Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe further teaches the robotic system of claim 13, further comprising a display unit configured to display messages, warnings, action proposals, or any combination thereof.
Specifically, Shelton teaches further comprising a display unit configured to display messages, warnings, action proposals, or any combination thereof ([0494] disclosing a message via a display).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe to incorporate the teaching of Shelton of further comprising a display unit configured to display messages, warnings, action proposals, or any combination thereof in order to warn a user via display as taught by Shelton [0495]. The substitution and or combination of a display warning is obvious yielding predictable results to visually warn a person improving safety and redundancy of warning.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Jadda (US20190298460) in view of Shelton (WO2019133363, from IDS) and Donhowe (US20220129822) and Campagna (US20210393353).
Regarding claim 6, Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: performing a continuous monitoring during the operation of the robotic system;
Specifically, Shelton teaches performing a continuous monitoring during the operation of the robotic system ([0485]-[0487] disclosing continuous monitoring of the operation of the robotic system. [0490] disclosing the process of monitoring is ended when the degradation exceeds threshold).
it would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching of Shelton of continuous monitoring in order to continuously detect degradation of the system as taught by Shelton [0485]-[0487].
Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe does not teach terminating the continuous monitoring on deactivation of the robotic system.
Campagna teaches terminating the continuous monitoring on deactivation of the robotic system ([0104] disclosing a robotic surgery based on tracking of a surgeon gloves. [0107] disclosing terminating an error check “monitoring” when the gesture podium is turned off, which is a termination of the robotic system that tracks the surgeon hands, otherwise, if the system is still turned on, the check for errors continues, see figure 33).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe to incorporate the teaching of Campagna of terminating the continuous monitoring on deactivation of the robotic system in order to save energy when the error monitoring is not required.
It would have been obvious to modify the teaching of Jadda as modified by Shelton to stop the monitoring when the robotic system is deactivated in order to save energy and improve efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe teaches the method of claim 1, Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe does not teach wherein the method is trigger started by an activation of the robotic system.
Campagna teaches wherein the method is trigger started by an activation of the robotic system ([0107] and figure 33 disclosing the error checking of the system is initialized with the initialization of the gesture podium which is an activation of the robotic system to track a surgeon).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe to incorporate the teaching of Campagna wherein the method is trigger started by an activation of the robotic system in order to determine that there is no faults in the system upon turning on as taught by Campagna [0107]. The combination of the triggering action by an activation of the robotic system is obvious yielding predictable results ensuring the validation of the system thus improving safety.
Claims 10, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Jadda (US20190298460) in view of Shelton (WO2019133363, from IDS) and Donhowe (US20220129822) and Kokish (US20150297864).
Regarding claim 10, Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe teaches the method of claim 1. Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe does not teach further comprising performing an evaluation with respect to an unintended slip between a drive and a medical object; and actuating an action when the unintended slip is determined.
Kokish teaches performing an evaluation with respect to an unintended slip between a drive and a medical object ([0078] disclosing a slip detection between an elongate member “medical object” and a wheel “drive”. See [0143] detecting the slip of the elongate guide when used in a patient. See also [0153]-[0159]); and
actuating an action when the unintended slip is determined ([0159]-[0163] disclosing corrective action based on the slip detection).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Shelton and Donhowe to incorporate the teaching of Kokish of performing an evaluation with respect to an unintended slip between a drive and a medical object and actuating an action when the unintended slip is determined in order to adjust a grip force on the elongate member until no slip is detected as taught by Kokish [0153]-[0163].
Regarding claim 16, Jadda teaches a method for monitoring a robotic system that is configured for robot-assisted actuation of a movement of a medical object in a hollow organ of a patient, the robotic system including at least one drive system, a robot control unit, the method comprising ([0051]-[0054] disclosing robotic arms inserting the endoscope into a patient robotically using an instrument driver. [0056] disclosing computer control system to control the medical instrument in response to control signals):
Jadda does not teach and an acoustic sensor; receiving, by the acoustic sensor, acoustic signals of the robotic system during operation of the robotic system for moving the medical object; evaluating the at least one recognized signal pattern with respect to an associated action flow of at least one component of the robotic system; checking whether the associated action flow is an intended action flow; and actuating an action when the associated action flow is unintended.
Shelton teaches An acoustic sensor ([0465]-[0476]).
receiving, by the acoustic sensor, acoustic signals of the robotic system during operation of the robotic system for moving the medical object ([0465]-[0476] disclosing an acoustic sensor to detect an acoustic signal for the drive motor);
recognizing at least one signal pattern in the received acoustic signals ([0475]-[0476] disclosing recognizing a sequence “pattern” from the acoustic signal to determine failure of a motor drive);
evaluating the at least one recognized signal pattern with respect to an associated action flow of at least one component of the robotic system ([0475]-[0476] disclosing recognizing a sequence “pattern” associated with surgical tool operation acoustic signature “flow” to compare them to baseline signature, i.e., evaluating the signal pattern);
checking whether the associated action flow is an intended action flow ([0475]-[0476] disclosing recognizing a sequence “pattern” from the acoustic signal to determine failure of a motor drive by comparing the expected signature expected flow of the motor to the signals read from the acoustic sensor. also [0480]-[0483]. [0476] disclosing comparing the acoustic signatures “associated flow” associated with the operation of the surgical instrument to baseline component signal “planning guideline”);
and actuating an action when the associated action flow is unintended ([0475]-[0476] disclosing recognizing a sequence “pattern” from the acoustic signal to determine failure of a motor drive by comparing the expected signature expected flow of the motor to the signals read from the acoustic sensor., see also [0480]-[0483]. [0484]-[0485] disclosing when the pattern is not normal to adjust motor control algorithm to minimize damage)
wherein checking whether the associated action flow is the intended action flow comprises comparing the associated action flow with a planning guideline, a database, a control guideline, or any combination thereof, such that it is established whether the associated action flow was planned ([0475]-[0476] disclosing recognizing a sequence “pattern” from the acoustic signal to determine failure of a motor drive by comparing the expected signature expected flow of the motor to the signals read from the acoustic sensor., see also [0480]-[0483]. [0476] disclosing comparing the acoustic signatures associated with the operation of the surgical instrument to baseline component signal “planning guideline”. While it is interpreted that the term such that is indicative of an intended use for the term that follows, [0476] discloses comparing the baseline recorded “which is a database” with the profile of the surgery currently operated to determine if there is degradation by determining a deviation from the baseline, thus the baseline is indicative of intended flow and any deviation that is over a threshold is the abnormal unintended flow).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Jadda to incorporate the teaching of Shelton of receiving, by the acoustic sensor, acoustic signals of the robotic system during operation of the robotic system for moving the medical object; evaluating the at least one recognized signal pattern with respect to an associated action flow of at least one component of the robotic system; checking whether the associated action flow is an intended action flow; and actuating an action when the associated action flow is unintended in order to detect degradation of a drive system as taught by Shelton [0465]-[0475]. The combination is obvious yielding predictable results improving safety during surgeries by detecting any unintended flow of robotic action.
Jadda as modified by Shelton does not teach further comprising performing an evaluation with respect to an unintended slip between a drive and a medical object; and actuating an action when the unintended slip is determined.
Kokish teaches performing an evaluation with respect to an unintended slip between a drive of the at least one drive system and the medical object ([0078] disclosing a slip detection between an elongate member “medical object” and a wheel “drive”. See [0143] detecting the slip of the elongate guide when used in a patient. See also [0153]-[0159]); and
actuating an action when the unintended slip is determined ([0159]-[0163] disclosing corrective action based on the slip detection).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Jada as modified by Shelton to incorporate the teaching of Kokish of performing an evaluation with respect to an unintended slip between a drive and a medical object and actuating an action when the unintended slip is determined in order to adjust a grip force on the elongate member until no slip is detected as taught by Kokish [0153]-[0163]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the method with a drive of the drive system of Jada yielding predictable results and adjusting the force based on an unintended slip.
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jadda (US20190298460) in view of Shelton (WO2019133363, from IDS) and Donhowe (US20220129822) and Shelton IV (US20220233119) and Yardibi (US20230034101).
Regarding claim 17, Jadda as modified by Shelton and Donhowe further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising training the machine-learning algorithm, the training comprising repeated and varies model tests and comparisons made with an actual geometry as ground truth.
Shelton IV teaches training the machine-learning algorithm, the training comprising repeated and varies model tests made and comparisons made with an actual geometry as ground truth ([2130]-[2135] disclosing multiple validations and testing of machine learning modules).
The combination of the training method of Shelton IV including varies testing and repeated with the machine learning trained as taught by Donhowe is obvious yielding predictable results in order to generate accurate machine learning trained software to be used during surgeries as taught by Shelton IV [21300]-[2136].
Yardibi teaches comparisons made with an actual geometry as ground truth ([0123]-[0125] and [0128] disclosing validating the machine learning against the actual sensed data being he actual geometry as ground truth).
The combination of the validation method of Yardibi by comparison to a ground truth is obvious with the model representing audio data as geometry of Donhowe yielding predictable results in order to validate the accuracy of the model thus improving robotic detection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 would be allowable for disclosing The method of claim 1, wherein the associated action flow is a slip, wherein comparing the associated action flow with the planning guideline, the database, the control guideline, or the respective combination thereof comprises comparing the associated action flow with the planning guideline, the control guideline, or the planning guideline and the control guideline, and
wherein checking whether the associated action flow is the intended action flow comprises determining the slip is unintended based on the comparison of the slip with the planning guideline, the control guideline, or the planning guideline and the control guideline.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Shelton does not compare the determined degradation with the planning guideline, the claim does not require this comparison. The claim is broad and only required comparing an action flow to a guideline or database which is what Shelton teaches by comparing an acoustic signal specific frequency associated with the operation “associated action flow” with a predetermined baseline “database”. However, in light of applicant’s arguments, claim 18 has been indicated as allowable since it teaches the limitation argued by applicant.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that Jadda, Shelton, Donhowe and Kokish do not teach or disclose that checking whether the associated action flow is the intended action flow includes “comparing the associated action flow with a planning guideline, a database, a control guideline, or any combination thereof, such that it is established whether the associated action flow was planned. Examiner believes that Shelton specifically teaches the limitation: Shelton discloses in [0475]-[0476] determining a baseline profile which is interpreted as the database, [0476] discloses acoustic signals are determined and monitored, further the frequency profiles associated with the operation are monitored, these profiles are interpreted as the associated action flow which are then compared to the baseline “database” frequencies, also further the converting of the converted profiles into their frequency component signals associated with the operation for each component such as motor/gear are interpreted as the associated action flow which are compared to a baseline. Thus the recorded normal action forming the baseline is not equated to the “associated action flow” in claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20240032893 disclosing a catheter to excavate lesions wherein the behavior of the catheter is known before and after contact with lesion based on acoustic sensor signals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B