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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed Oct. 28, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 10-13, and 16-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 102 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed Sept. 17, 2025.
Response to Arguments
35 USC §§ 102 and 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-12, filed Oct. 28, 2025, with respect to claim 13 have overcome the 35 USC 102 rejections with respect to Meglan from the Sept. 17, 2025 Office Action. A new 35 USC 103 rejection below is being applied using Meglan in light of the amendments to the claim.
Applicant’s arguments filed Oct. 28, 2025 with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 10-11, and 16-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by applicant's amendment. However below response addresses arguments still relevant to the new ground of rejection set forth below.
On pg. 7 of Applicant’s response, applicant argues that Meglan, taken alone, or in combination with Fuerst and Niemeyer fail to disclose all of the elements recited in the claims as amended. Examiner agrees that any combination of Meglan, Fuerst, and Niemeyer alone discloses all of the amended limitations of the amended claims. See the new ground of rejection set forth below addressing the addition of a CT device for imaging.
On pg. 10-11 of Applicant’s response, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). On their own, it is true that Meglan does not teach the additional elements of claim 8, Fuerst does not teach a plurality of manipulator arms and the CT device, and Niemeyer also does not remedy these deficiencies. Fuerst, however, does imply the presence of multiple trocars: by reciting the capability of selecting a trocar and the surgeon confirming that the location is correct, and that an endoscope is typically placed first to provide hand-held camera visualization for placement of other trocars (¶[0028] therefore there are a plurality of trocars). This implies that there are more than one trocar in the patient. Further, in combination, Fuerst teaches the limitations of claim 8 in order to determine the positions of components of the surgical robotic system relative to the interface device. See the new ground of rejection set forth below addressing the addition of a CT device for imaging.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “dvice” in line 6 should be changed to --device--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan et al. (WO 2019204013 A1, published Oct. 24, 2019, hereinafter referred to as "Meglan"), in view of Meyer et al. (US 10016900 B1, published Jul. 10, 2018, hereinafter referred to as "Meyer"), and in further view of Fuerst et al. (US 20210068907 A1, published Mar. 11, 2021, filed Sept. 10, 2019, hereinafter referred to as "Fuerst").
Regarding claim 1, Meglan discloses a surgical robot (Fig. 1: robotic surgical system 1) comprising: a robot main body including a plurality of manipulator arms to which a plurality of surgical instruments are attached (Fig. 1: surgical robotic cart assembly 100, electromechanical instrument 10, robotic arms 2, 3; “Each of the robotic arms 2, 3 may be composed of a plurality of members, which are connected through joints, and may include a surgical instrument, such as, for example, an electromechanical instrument 10 removably attached thereto for treating patient” ¶[0039]; “Robotic surgical system 1 may also include more than two robotic arms 2, 3” ¶[0041]); a medical cart to move the robot main body (Fig. 2: surgical robotic cart assembly 100); a medical cart drive to drive the medical cart (Par. 40: “Additionally/alternatively, control device 4 may be configured to regulate the movement of surgical robotic cart assembly 100.”); an imager provided on the robot main body to image at least one of a surgical table and a patient placed on the surgical table (Fig. 2: camera 132); and a controller configured or programmed to perform operations comprising: performing at least one of a control to move the medical cart by the medical cart drive and a control to move the plurality of manipulator arms by the robot main body (Par. 40: “Additionally/alternatively, control device 4 may be configured to regulate the movement of surgical robotic cart assembly 100.”).
Meglan does not disclose the imager comprising a CT device; preparing a three-dimensional model of the patient from images of the patient captured in advance from the CT device; planning positions of a plurality of ports or a plurality of trocars provided on a body surface of the patient placed on the surgical table and into which the plurality of surgical instruments are to be inserted, based on the three-dimensional model and a type of surgical procedure to be performed on the patient placed on the surgical table; and to align the plurality of manipulator arms with the planned position corresponding to the plurality of ports or the plurality of trocars.
Meyer, in the same field of endeavor of robotic surgical systems, discloses in FIG. 15 a block diagram illustrating a localization system 90 that estimates a location of one or more elements of the robotic system, such as the location of the instrument (Col. 14, ln. 9-12). The localization system 90 may include a localization module 95 that processes input data 91-94 to generate location data 96 for the distal tip of a medical instrument. The location data 96 may be data or logic that represents a location and/or orientation of the distal end of the instrument relative to a frame of reference. The frame of reference can be a frame of reference relative to the anatomy of the patient or to a known object (Col. 14, ln. 21-28). Pre-operative mapping may be accomplished through the use of the collection of low dose CT scans. Pre-operative CT scans generate two-dimensional images, each representing a “slice” of a cutaway view of the patient's internal anatomy. When analyzed in the aggregate, image-based models for anatomical cavities, spaces and structures of the patient's anatomy, such as a patient lung network, may be generated. Techniques such as center-line geometry may be determined and approximated from the CT images to develop a three-dimensional volume of the patient's anatomy, referred to as preoperative model data 91. Network topological models may also be derived from the CT-images, and are particularly appropriate for bronchoscopy (Col. 14, ln. 31-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the imager comprising a CT device and preparing a three-dimensional model of the patient from images of the patient captured in advance from the CT device; and planning positions on a body surface of the patient placed on the surgical table and into which the plurality of surgical instruments are to be inserted, based on the three-dimensional model based on a type of surgical procedure to be performed on the patient placed on the surgical table as taught by Meyer in the device of Meglan in order to generate 2-D and 3-D models of the patient to provide a frame of reference for the surgical tool within the patient and is particularly appropriate for certain procedures including bronchoscopy.
Meglan and Meyer do not disclose planning positions of a plurality of ports or a plurality of trocars provided on a body surface of the patient placed on the surgical table and into which the plurality of surgical instruments are to be inserted, based on the three-dimensional model; and to align the plurality of manipulator arms with the planned position corresponding to the plurality of ports or the plurality of trocars.
Fuerst, in the same field of endeavor of robotic surgical systems, discloses that the interface device may identify a trocar near the target arm as a surgical tool that the target arm may wish to engage, and thus a possible destination position for the target arm, by highlighting the trocar on the screen and requesting the surgeon to confirm. If the surgeon confirms, the interface device may calculate a trajectory for moving the target arm from the preparation position to a pre-docking position proximate to the trocar so the trocar may be attached to the distal end of the target arm. The interface device may run the image processing software to identify one or more objects or points near the objects in the image frame as a possible destination position for the target arm. The interface device may identify or highlight the possible destination positions on the display screen… the interface device may identify a trocar near the target arm as a surgical tool that the target arm may wish to engage, and thus a possible destination position for the target arm (Par. 26). The endoscope is typically placed first to provide hand-held camera visualization for placement of other trocars (¶[0028] there are a plurality of trocars).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include aligning the manipulator arm with a position corresponding to a port or trocar of a plurality of ports/trocars, as taught and suggested by Fuerst using the 3D images in the device of Meglan and Meyer, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining high positional accuracy for surgical instruments supported by the robotic arms (Par. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Meglan further discloses wherein the controller is configured or programmed to move the medical cart to the vicinity of the patient placed on the surgical table based on an image of the surgical table captured by the imager or a preplanned movement path (Fig. 3: Obtain sensor data S202, Initiate path planning phase S208, Calculate target positions for surgical robotic cart assemblies S210, Initiate movement phase S214).
Regarding claim 4, Meglan further discloses the surgical robot further comprising: an obstacle detection sensor provided on the medical cart to detect an obstacle that hinders movement of the medical cart (Fig. 3: Do surgical robotic cart assemblies detect potential collision in target positions? S216); wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: move the medical cart backward when the obstacle detection sensor detects the obstacle (Par. 70: “patterns “A1” and“B1” are configured to change to provide updated directions until exact placement of first and second surgical robotic cart assemblies 300a, 300b is achieved.”; Fig. 3: Do surgical robotic cart assemblies detect potential collision in target positions? S216 – Examiner notes that it can be understood that because the directions for the cart assemblies are changing as they move and because the system is detecting potential collisions as the assemblies move, it is possible for the cart to move backward when encountering an obstacle.); and resume movement of the medical cart to the vicinity of the patient or stop movement of the medical cart (Par. 62: “In step S220, if troubleshooting is required, second surgical robotic cart assembly 100b is configured to stop movement”).
Regarding claim 10, Meglan discloses wherein the imager is provided on the arm base (Fig. 2: camera 132).
Regarding claim 13, Meglan discloses a robotic surgical system (Fig. 1: robotic surgical system 1) to support robotic surgery using a surgical robot, the robotic surgical system comprising: the surgical robot, a processor, and a controller (Fig. 1: control device 4, surgical robotic cart assembly 100); wherein the surgical robot includes: a robot main body including a plurality of manipulator arms to which a plurality of surgical instruments are attached (Fig. 1: robotic arms 2 and 3, surgical robotic cart assembly 100, “Each of the robotic arms 2, 3 may be composed of a plurality of members, which are connected through joints, and may include a surgical instrument, such as, for example, an electromechanical instrument 10 removably attached thereto for treating patient” ¶[0039]; “Robotic surgical system 1 may also include more than two robotic arms 2, 3” ¶[0041]); a medical cart to move the robot main body (Fig. 2: surgical robotic cart assembly 100); a medical cart drive to drive the medical cart (Par. 40: “Additionally/alternatively, control device 4 may be configured to regulate the movement of surgical robotic cart assembly 100.”); and an imager provided on the robot main body to image at least one of a surgical table and a patient placed on the surgical table (Fig. 2: camera 132), wherein the processor is operable to perform operations comprising: planning positions of the plurality of manipulators arm with respect to a position corresponding to a port, which is provided on a body surface of the patient placed on the surgical table and into which the surgical instrument is to be inserted (Par. 3: “In operation, the robot arm inserts the surgical instrument into or holds a surgical instrument in a small incision via a surgical portal or a natural orifice of a patient to position the end effector at a work site within a patient’s body.”); the controller is configured or programmed to perform operations comprising: acquire an image captured by the imager (Par. 50: “sensor(s) 16 and transmitter 18 of surgical table “ST” and camera 132, sensor(s) 134, and transmitter 136 are configured to cooperate to provide an accurate measurement of the relative orientation of each of the plurality of surgical robotic cart assemblies 100 relative to surgical table “ST.””); and performing at least one of a control to move the medical cart by the medical cart drive; and a control to move the plurality of manipulator arms by the robot main body, to arrange the plurality of manipulator arms at the planned positions corresponding to the plurality of ports based on the image (Par. 51: “The process of positioning first and second surgical robotic cart assemblies 100a, 100b around surgical table “ST” generally includes a localization phase (e.g., step S200), a path planning phase (e.g., step S208), a movement phase (e.g., step S214), and a confirmation of placement phase (e.g., step S224),”).
Meglan does not disclose wherein the imager comprises a CT device, acquire an image captured by the CT device, and preparing a three-dimensional model of the patient from images of the patient captured in advance by the CT device; planning positions of a plurality of ports provided on a body surface of the patient placed on the surgical table and into which the plurality of surgical instruments are to be inserted, based on the three-dimensional model and a type of surgical procedure to be performed on the patient placed on the surgical table.
Meyer, in the same field of endeavor of robotic surgical systems, discloses in FIG. 15 a block diagram illustrating a localization system 90 that estimates a location of one or more elements of the robotic system, such as the location of the instrument (Col. 14, ln. 9-12). The localization system 90 may include a localization module 95 that processes input data 91-94 to generate location data 96 for the distal tip of a medical instrument. The location data 96 may be data or logic that represents a location and/or orientation of the distal end of the instrument relative to a frame of reference. The frame of reference can be a frame of reference relative to the anatomy of the patient or to a known object (Col. 14, ln. 21-28). Pre-operative mapping may be accomplished through the use of the collection of low dose CT scans. Pre-operative CT scans generate two-dimensional images, each representing a “slice” of a cutaway view of the patient's internal anatomy. When analyzed in the aggregate, image-based models for anatomical cavities, spaces and structures of the patient's anatomy, such as a patient lung network, may be generated. Techniques such as center-line geometry may be determined and approximated from the CT images to develop a three-dimensional volume of the patient's anatomy, referred to as preoperative model data 91. Network topological models may also be derived from the CT-images, and are particularly appropriate for bronchoscopy (Col. 14, ln. 31-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the imager comprising a CT device and preparing a three-dimensional model of the patient from images of the patient captured in advance from the CT device; and planning positions on a body surface of the patient placed on the surgical table and into which the plurality of surgical instruments are to be inserted, based on the three-dimensional model based on a type of surgical procedure to be performed on the patient placed on the surgical table as taught by Meyer in the device of Meglan in order to generate 2-D and 3-D models of the patient to provide a frame of reference for the surgical tool within the patient and is particularly appropriate for certain procedures including bronchoscopy.
Meglan and Meyer do not disclose planning positions of a plurality of ports provided on a body surface of the patient placed on the surgical table and into which the plurality of surgical instruments are to be inserted, based on the three-dimensional model.
Fuerst, in the same field of endeavor of robotic surgical systems, discloses that the interface device may identify a trocar near the target arm as a surgical tool that the target arm may wish to engage, and thus a possible destination position for the target arm, by highlighting the trocar on the screen and requesting the surgeon to confirm. If the surgeon confirms, the interface device may calculate a trajectory for moving the target arm from the preparation position to a pre-docking position proximate to the trocar so the trocar may be attached to the distal end of the target arm. The interface device may run the image processing software to identify one or more objects or points near the objects in the image frame as a possible destination position for the target arm. The interface device may identify or highlight the possible destination positions on the display screen… the interface device may identify a trocar near the target arm as a surgical tool that the target arm may wish to engage, and thus a possible destination position for the target arm (Par. 26). The endoscope is typically placed first to provide hand-held camera visualization for placement of other trocars (¶[0028] there are a plurality of trocars).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include planning of positions of a plurality of ports provided on a body surface of the patient placed on the surgical table and into which the plurality of surgical instruments are to be inserted, based on the three-dimensional model, as taught and suggested by Fuerst using the 3D images in the device of Meglan and Meyer, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining high positional accuracy for surgical instruments supported by the robotic arms (Par. 3).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan in view of Meyer in view of Fuerst, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Niemeyer et al. (EP 1269389 B1, published Sept. 28, 2005, hereinafter referred to as “Niemeyer”).
Regarding claim 11, Fuerst further discloses wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: acquire coordinates of the plurality of ports or the plurality of trocars provided on the body surface of the patient and imaged by the imager (Par. 26: “the interface device may calculate a trajectory for moving the target arm from the preparation position to a pre-docking position proximate to the trocar so the trocar may be attached to the distal end of the target arm.” As Fuerst implies multiple trocars as shown in claim 13 above, the device is capable of acquiring coordinates of each trocar).
Although Meglan, Meyer, and Fuerst teach a plurality of surgical instruments attached to the plurality of manipulator arms and a plurality of trocars, they do not disclose wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: move each surgical instrument of the plurality of surgical instruments attached to each of the plurality of manipulator arms, to a vicinity of a pivot position that serves as a fulcrum for movement of the surgical instrument attached to the manipulator arm, the surgical instrument or a pivot position teaching instrument to teach the pivot position based on the acquired coordinates of the corresponding port of the plurality of ports or the corresponding trocar of the plurality of trocars.
Niemeyer, in the same field of endeavor of robotic surgical systems, discloses that it will be understood that the axis 14.2 along which the shaft 14.1 of the instrument 14 extends when mounted on the robotic arm 12 pivots about a pivot center or fulcrum 49… In use, the pivot center 49 is positioned at a port of entry into a patient's body when an internal surgical procedure is to be performed (Par. 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a pivot position that serves as a fulcrum for movement of the surgical instrument and to have this on each arm, as taught and suggested by Niemeyer in the device of Meglan, Meyer, and Fuerst, for the purpose of changing the general position of the mechanism 50 relative to the surgical site in a patient's body by movement of the arm 12. Since the pivot center 49 is coincident with the port of entry, such movement of the arm does not excessively effect the surrounding tissue at the port of entry (Par. 47). Providing this fulcrum at each arm is a result-effective way to provide the benefit to the surrounding tissue.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include using calculating a position of the port or trocar based on the images, as taught and suggested by Fuerst, for the purpose of “enable the surgical robotic system 1 to activate the actuator 17 to drive the gears, linkages, or joints of the target arm to move the target arm through the selected or programmed trajectory to the destination position or pose.” (Par. 26).
Regarding claim 12, Fuerst further discloses wherein the controller is configured or programmed to acquire the coordinates of each port of the plurality of ports or each trocar of the plurality of trocars by calculating a distance to the port or the trocar and a distance between the ports or between the trocars based on a plurality of images captured by the imager with different distances between the imager and the patient (Par. 26: “the interface device may calculate a trajectory for moving the target arm from the preparation position to a pre-docking position proximate to the trocar so the trocar may be attached to the distal end of the target arm.” And “the endoscope is typically placed first to provide hand-held camera visualization for placement of other trocars” ¶[0028] there are a plurality of trocars).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include using calculating a position of each of the port or trocar based on the images, as taught and suggested by Fuerst in the device of Meglan, Meyer, and Fuerst, for the purpose of enabling the surgical robotic system 1 to activate the actuator 17 to drive the gears, linkages, or joints of the target arm to move the target arm through the selected or programmed trajectory to the destination position or pose (Par. 26).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst in view of Meglan and further in view of Meyer.
Regarding claim 16, Fuerst discloses a control method for a surgical robot, the surgical robot including a robot main body including a plurality of manipulator arms (Fig. 1: “one or more surgical robotic arms 4… The system 1 can incorporate any number of devices, tools, or accessories used to perform surgery on a patient 6.” ¶[0018]) to which a plurality of surgical instruments are attached (Par. 18: “A surgical tool 7 may be an end effector that is attached to a distal end of a surgical arm 4, for executing a surgical procedure.”), a medical cart to move the robot main body (Par. 19: “The robotic arms 4 are shown as a table-mounted system, but in other configurations the arms 4 may be mounted in a cart, ceiling or sidewall, or in another suitable structural support.”), the control method comprising: imaging at least one of a surgical table and a patient placed on the surgical table by an imager comprising provided on the robot main body (Fig. 3: patient 39, table 36B); and performing at least one of a control to move the medical cart by the medical cart drive; and a control to move the plurality of manipulator arms by the robot main body, to align the plurality of manipulator arms with the planned positions corresponding to the plurality of ports or the plurality of trocars(Par. 44: “ The image processing algorithm may additionally identify the trocar 40B as a possible destination position for the first robotic arm 37B. As such, the list of options 31 may include an option for moving the first robotic arm 37B to a pre-docking position near the trocar 40B, through a planned trajectory.” And “the endoscope is typically placed first to provide hand-held camera visualization for placement of other trocars” ¶[0028] there are a plurality of trocars), planning positions of a plurality of ports or a plurality of trocars provided on a body surface of the patient placed on the surgical table and into which the plurality of surgical instruments are to be inserted (“the interface device may identify a trocar near the target arm as a surgical tool that the target arm may wish to engage, and thus a possible destination position for the target arm, by highlighting the trocar on the screen and requesting the surgeon to confirm. If the surgeon confirms, the interface device may calculate a trajectory for moving the target arm from the preparation position to a pre-docking position proximate to the trocar so the trocar may be attached to the distal end of the target arm. The interface device may run the image processing software to identify one or more objects or points near the objects in the image frame as a possible destination position for the target arm. The interface device may identify or highlight the possible destination positions on the display screen… the interface device may identify a trocar near the target arm as a surgical tool that the target arm may wish to engage, and thus a possible destination position for the target arm” Par. 26).
Fuerst does not disclose the imager comprising a CT device, a medical cart drive to drive the medical cart, and preparing a three-dimensional model of the patient from images of the patient captured in advance from the CT device; planning positions based on the three-dimensional model and a type of surgical procedure to be performed on the patient placed on the surgical table.
Meglan, in the same field of endeavor of robotic surgical systems, discloses that additionally/alternatively, control device 4 may be configured to regulate the movement of surgical robotic cart assembly 100 (Par. 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a device to move the medical cart, as taught and suggested by Meglan in the device of Fuerst, for the purpose of automatically positioning first surgical robotic cart assembly (Par. 51).
Meglan and Fuerst do not disclose the imager comprising a CT device, and preparing a three-dimensional model of the patient from images of the patient captured in advance from the CT device; planning positions based on the three-dimensional model and a type of surgical procedure to be performed on the patient placed on the surgical table.
Meyer, in the same field of endeavor of robotic surgical systems, discloses in FIG. 15 a block diagram illustrating a localization system 90 that estimates a location of one or more elements of the robotic system, such as the location of the instrument (Col. 14, ln. 9-12). The localization system 90 may include a localization module 95 that processes input data 91-94 to generate location data 96 for the distal tip of a medical instrument. The location data 96 may be data or logic that represents a location and/or orientation of the distal end of the instrument relative to a frame of reference. The frame of reference can be a frame of reference relative to the anatomy of the patient or to a known object (Col. 14, ln. 21-28). Pre-operative mapping may be accomplished through the use of the collection of low dose CT scans. Pre-operative CT scans generate two-dimensional images, each representing a “slice” of a cutaway view of the patient's internal anatomy. When analyzed in the aggregate, image-based models for anatomical cavities, spaces and structures of the patient's anatomy, such as a patient lung network, may be generated. Techniques such as center-line geometry may be determined and approximated from the CT images to develop a three-dimensional volume of the patient's anatomy, referred to as preoperative model data 91. Network topological models may also be derived from the CT-images, and are particularly appropriate for bronchoscopy (Col. 14, ln. 31-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the imager comprising a CT device and preparing a three-dimensional model of the patient from images of the patient captured in advance from the CT device; and planning positions on a body surface of the patient placed on the surgical table and into which the plurality of surgical instruments are to be inserted, based on the three-dimensional model based on a type of surgical procedure to be performed on the patient placed on the surgical table as taught by Meyer in the device of Meglan in order to generate 2-D and 3-D models of the patient to provide a frame of reference for the surgical tool within the patient and is particularly appropriate for certain procedures including bronchoscopy.
Regarding claim 17, Meglan discloses the control method further comprising: moving the medical cart to a vicinity of the patient placed on the surgical table (Par. 59: “With reference to FIGS. 3, 5, and 6, once the path planning phase is completed, the movement phase is initiated in step S214 during which first and second surgical robotic cart assemblies 100a, 100b move autonomously towards second positions “PA2” and “PB2,” respectively, based on the instructions received from control device 4.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a device to move the medical cart, as taught and suggested by Meglan, for the purpose of “automatically positioning first surgical robotic cart assembly” (Par. 51).
Regarding claim 18, Meglan discloses wherein the moving the medical cart to the vicinity of the patient includes moving the medical cart to the vicinity of the patient placed on the surgical table based on an image of the surgical table captured by the imager or a preplanned movement path (Fig. 44: “Visual sensor l4a may include one or more cameras, video cameras, and/or imagers configured to detect the three-dimensional geometry of a base portion 130 of surgical robotic cart assembly 100 (FIG. 2) and surgical table “ST.””; Par. 59: “With reference to FIGS. 3, 5, and 6, once the path planning phase is completed, the movement phase is initiated in step S214 during which first and second surgical robotic cart assemblies 100a, 100b move autonomously towards second positions “PA2” and “PB2,” respectively, based on the instructions received from control device 4.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include moving the medical cart based on an image of the surgical table, as taught and suggested by Meglan, for the purpose of “automatically positioning first surgical robotic cart assembly” (Par. 51).
Regarding claim 19, Meglan discloses the surgical robot further including an obstacle detection sensor provided on the medical cart to detect an obstacle that hinders movement of the medical cart, the control method further comprising: moving the medical cart backward when the obstacle detection sensor detects the obstacle (Par. 70: “patterns “A1” and“B1” are configured to change to provide updated directions until exact placement of first and second surgical robotic cart assemblies 300a, 300b is achieved.”; Fig. 3: Do surgical robotic cart assemblies detect potential collision in target positions? S216 – Examiner notes that it can be understood that because the directions for the cart assemblies are changing as they move and because the system is detecting potential collisions as the assemblies move, it is possible for the cart to move backward when encountering an obstacle.); and resuming movement of the medical cart to the vicinity of the patient or stopping movement of the medical cart (Par. 60: “In step S216, as first and second surgical robotic cart assemblies 100a, 100b move towards second positions“PA2” and“PB2,” respectively, sensor(s) 134 of each of first and second surgical robotic cart assemblies 100a, 100b are configured to continuously detect for signs of close- in contact potential, beyond prior detection of obstructions during the path planning phase as described above.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include obstacle detection, as taught and suggested by Meglan, for the purpose of “automatically positioning first surgical robotic cart assembly” (Par. 51).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chin et al. (US 20200093549 A1, published Mar. 26, 2020) – robotic instrument which is capable of CT imaging and has multiple arms on a cart
DiMaio et al. (US 20190231460 A1, published Aug. 1, 2019) – CT imaging on a robotic system
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily N Cirulnick whose telephone number is (571)272-9734. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5:30 and every other F 8-4:30ET.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/E.N.C./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights