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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-10 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein. Claim 2 is cancelled.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the final rejection dated 14 November 2025.
All claim objections from the prior office action are withdrawn.
All specification objections from the prior office action are withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument, regarding the prior art rejection of Claim 1 from the prior office action, has been fully considered and is not persuasive. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “detecting a manual force applied to said robotic arm end-effector with at least one sensor” does not require a sensor to measure or calculate or determine a magnitude of a manual force. A position sensor that detects change in position because a manual force has been applied reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation.
Applicant’s argument, regarding the prior art rejection of Claim 3 from the prior office action, has been considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A master control module…for… in Claim 3
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A master control module is a processor, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“wherein said step of… counting a number of steps…” in Claim 9
“wherein said step of…” in Claim 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “at least one sensor for detecting a manual force” as recited in Claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 1: the first instance of “said robotic arm end-effector” should be “[[said]] a robotic arm end-effector”.
Claim 1: the first instance of “said processor” should be “[[said]] a processor”.
Claim 1: “a processor” should be “[[said]] a processor”.
Claim 1: “a robotic arm end-effector” should be “[[a]] said robotic arm end-effector”.
Claim 1: “in accordance with the robot movement plan” should be deleted or reworded.
Claim 9: “detecting an area inputted by a user manually moving a cold atmospheric probe connected to a robotic end-effector by counting a number of steps of a robotic motor in a direction” should be “detecting an area inputted by [[a]] the user manually moving [[a]] the cold atmospheric plasma probe connected to [[a]] the robotic end-effector by counting a number of steps of a robotic motor in a direction”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 3 has been amended to recite “said end effector having at least one sensor for detecting a manual force applied to the end effector”. There is no support in the original disclosure for the end effector having a sensor for detecting manual force. There is solely support for the system having a sensor that detects manual force applied to the end effector without support for a position of the sensor (e.g., the sensor could be elsewhere on the robot). Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no disclosure covering “said step of defining a tissue area” from Claim 10 with the “defining a tissue area to be treated by detecting at least three points entered by a user…” now claimed in Claim 1. There are disclosed as alternatives (see at least FIG. 1 and FIG. 4). Appropriate corrections are required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 is under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Claim 10 appears to be claiming an alternative for “said step of defining a tissue area”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of Claim 10. Appropriate corrections are required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 does not include all the limitations of Claim 1, as Claim 10 is claiming an alternative for “said step of defining a tissue area”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0276377 (hereinafter, Carol) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0128136 (hereinafter, Post) in further view of WIPO Pub. No. 2019/126636 (Canady et al., hereinafter, Canady).
Regarding Claim 1, Carol discloses A method for robotic controlled cancer treatment surgery (see at least FIG 18) comprising:
defining a tissue area to be treated by detecting at least three points entered by a user (see at least [0134]: “The preferred embodiment for this step of the process calls for acquiring directly off the patient the shape and location of the region to be treated. This can be done by tracing, outlining, or painting over the area to be treated with a localization system that then transfers this information to the planning system. In the preferred embodiment the robot, or a multiple degree of freedom device, that will be used to guide the delivery of the treatment is used to acquire information directly from the patient regarding the region to be treated. After immobilizing the patient and the robot next to the patient, the robot is used in a passive data acquisition mode whereby the control system for the robot records the position of the tip of the arm in the coordinate system of the robot as the user guides the robot arm around the contour of the region to be treated or over the surface of the region as if painting it with a paint brush”),
wherein said detecting at least three points comprises: detecting a manual force applied to said robotic arm end-effector with at least one sensor;…and recording a movement path (see at least [0134] and [0143]-[0144]: “After immobilizing the patient and the robot next to the patient, the robot is used in a passive data acquisition mode whereby the control system for the robot records the position of the tip of the arm in the coordinate system of the robot as the user guides the robot arm around the contour of the region to be treated or over the surface of the region as if painting it with a paint brush. That is, the user traces the region to be treated with the arm of the robot while the control system records the movement of the arm and computes the location of the tip of the arm as it is moving. This "recording" capability is common to many existent robot systems”; the path is recorded; the sensor is the built-in position sensors that detect a manual force has been applied by detecting that the robot moved);
inputting cancer treatment settings into a cancer treatment surgical system (see at least [0135]: “The depth and thickness of the region to be treated is designated by the user by entering the appropriate values into the user interface of the planning system”);
calculating with a processor a robot movement plan to move a cancer treatment probe over the tissue area to be treated at said cancer treatment settings and storing said robot movement plan in memory, wherein said robot movement plan comprises robotically moving said cancer treatment probe connected to a robotic arm end-effector over the tissue area to be treated in accordance with the robot movement plan (see at least [0135]: “These two pieces of data, along with the shape and size and location of the region to be treated, as well as the desired dose to which it should be treated, also entered by the user, are used by the on-board planning system to generate a treatment plan”);
robotically moving said cancer treatment probe over said tissue area to be treated according to said robot movement plan without activating a cancer treatment (see at least [0142]-[00143]: “it is possible to use the robot to retrace the region”); and
activating said robot movement plan to move said cancer treatment probe over said tissue area to be treated according to said robot movement plan while activating said cancer treatment to treat the tissue area to be treated with said cancer treatment (see at least [0136]: “After reviewing the plan, the user approves the plan and then initiates treatment. This sets the robot into delivery mode, selects the degree of attenuation, energy, and beam shaping if such features are supported, and activates the x-ray tube. The robot then proceeds to deliver the treatment under computer control until the entire target is treated to the desired dose.”)
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will use Post instead of Carol to teach the limitations converting the manual force into robot instructions with said processor; moving a robotic arm in accordance with the robot instructions. The Examiner maintains that Carol teaches the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations (especially because “robot instructions” is broad and not related to “recording a movement path”), but that Post better teaches the intended invention and would be obvious to combine.
Post, in the same field of robots for medical treatments, and therefore analogous art, teaches detecting a manual force applied to said robotic arm end-effector with at least one sensor; converting the manual force into robot instructions with said processor; moving a robotic arm in accordance with the robot instructions (see at least [0032]: “Each joint 22 is actively driven by one of the joint motors 24. Utilization of the methods described herein may, at times, give the impression that some of the joints 22 are passive, meaning that the joint 22 is moved directly by the force exerted by the user (similar to a door joint). However, the joints 22 in the embodiments described herein are not passive. The system 10 and method mimic passive behavior by actively driving the joints 22 and thereby commanding control of the manipulator 14 in response to determined forces applied to the manipulator 14”). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have found the mode that mimics passive behavior of Post to be an obvious, specific, substitution for the passive mode of Carol to provide a rigid feel and predictable behavior (see at least Post [0006] and [0010]) while maintaining the capability of manually applying forces to move the robot necessary for Carol.
Furthermore, Canady, in the same field of robots for medical treatments, and therefore analogous art, teaches cancer treatment is cold atmospheric plasma (see at least [0006]). Substituting the cold atmospheric plasma of Canady for the radiation treatment of Carol would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of updating the similar robotic method using a different treatment type for the newly available field of cold atmospheric plasma treatment (seat least Canady [0006]).
Claims 3, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0060674 (hereinafter, Fishman) in view of Canady.
Regarding Claim 3, Fishman discloses A system for robotic controlled cancer treatment surgery (see at least [0002], FIG.1, and FIG. 2) comprising:
a passive positioning system (see at least [0033], [0043], and FIG. 2) comprising:
a positioning system base (see at least FIG. 2: base unit 201);
at least one passive positioning arm extending from said positioning system base (see at least [0041], [0043], and FIG. 1: robotic arm 114), said at least one passive positioning arm having five degrees of freedom (see at least [0043], [0061], and FIG. 1: “Although not shown in FIG. 2, more or fewer articulation members 204 can be provided at different points of robotic arm 202. Such articulation members 204 can increase or decrease a number of degrees of freedom 225 of placing, orienting and moving the X-ray treatment head 224”; “The present disclosure contemplates that the any number of articulation points can be provided so as to provide any number of degrees of freedom in robotic arm 202 as may be required for dynamically positioning and orienting the X-ray treatment head 224 with respect to the patient and/or calibration well”);
a robotic end effector connected to said at least one passive positioning arm (see at least [0062] and FIG. 2: “A main body 227 comprising head unit portion 223 can be directly mounted on or attached to the robotic arm 202”; everything from joint 204 and beyond (including physical sensor 248) can be considered the end effector), said robotic end effector having three degrees of freedom (see at least [0061]: “The present disclosure contemplates that the any number of articulation points can be provided so as to provide any number of degrees of freedom in robotic arm 202 as may be required for dynamically positioning and orienting the X-ray treatment head 224 with respect to the patient and/or calibration well”) and a connector for connecting a cancer treatment accessory to said robotic end effector (see at least [0062]: “treatment head 224 and coupled through the head unit 223 to the robotic arm”), said end effector having at least one sensor for detecting a manual force applied to the end effector (see at least [0043] and [0062]: “The robotic arm 114 is advantageously selected to be a robotic system that provides freedom of movement about multiple orthogonal axes (e.g. up to seven axes) and includes lightweight force and torque sensors (not shown in FIG. 1) to ensure safe operation with humans without the need for a safety fence. Exemplary robots of this kind are commercially available from various sources. For example, KUKA Roboter GmbH of Augsburg Germany (KUKA) manufactures a line of direct human-robot collaboration (HRC) capable lightweight robots which are suitable for direct human-robot interaction. These robots include the LBR iiwa model and/or the LBR iisy model produced by KUKA. Robots of this kind are well suited for the delicate operations described herein because they include high-grade joint torque sensors included in all six axes, which can detect the slightest of external forces resulting from contact with objects, and can respond by immediately reducing a level of force and speed associated with robot movements.”; “The force sensing can be facilitated by physical sensors 242, 244, 246, 248 located in any of several positions throughout the robotic arm. For example, in some scenarios, the physical sensors can be comprise torque sensors associated with each of a plurality of robot arm joints 204. The physical sensors can be a combination of one or more various types, such as piezo-electric, gyroscopic, solid state, and other mechanisms and materials”);
a master control module in said positioning system base for controlling robotic movement of said robotic end effector (see at least [0032], [0041], [0057]-[0061], and FIG. 2: “In some scenarios, the adjusted or modified position of the treatment head can be a static position in which the treatment head does not move during a time when radiation treatment is being applied. However, the robotic arm can also facilitate a predetermined motion or movement of the treatment head during a IORT session to ensure that all portions of a tumor bed receive a predetermined amount of radiation in accordance with a treatment plan”; “In some scenarios described herein, the system control component 110 guides the robotic arm 114 during IORT operations”; “the base unit 201 can contain one or more computers 217 for controlling the system 200 and/or analyzing and processing data obtained from the system 200 components”; “The robotic arm 202 is articulated with appropriate robotic joints or articulation members 204 under the control of the system control component 210”); and
a cancer treatment generator (see at least [0041] and FIG. 1: “an X-ray generating system comprised of a radiotherapy component 102 with X-ray tube 101”).
Furthermore, Canady, in the same field of robots for medical treatments, and therefore analogous art teaches cancer treatment is cold atmospheric plasma (see at least [0006]). Substituting the cold atmospheric plasma of Canady for the cancer treatment through x-ray of Fishman would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of updating the robotic method for the newly available field of treatment (seat least Canady [0006]).
Regarding Claim 4, the Fishman and Canady combination teaches Claim 3. Furthermore, Fishman further discloses wherein said passive positioning system further comprises a levelling stage (see at least [0061] and FIG. 2: “The robotic arm 202 is articulated with appropriate robotic joints or articulation members 204 under the control of the system control component 210. Although not shown in FIG. 2, more or fewer articulation members 204 can be provided at different points of robotic arm 202. Such articulation members 204 can increase or decrease a number of degrees of freedom 225 of placing, orienting and moving the X-ray treatment head 224. Moreover, the number of articulation members illustrated in FIG. 2 is solely for ease of illustration. The present disclosure contemplates that the any number of articulation points can be provided so as to provide any number of degrees of freedom in robotic arm 202 as may be required for dynamically positioning and orienting the X-ray treatment head 224 with respect to the patient and/or calibration well”; the articulation member 204 closest to base unit 201 could be considered a levelling stage).
Regarding Claim 8, the Fishman and Canady combination teaches Claim 3. Furthermore, Fishman further discloses wherein said system has three degrees of freedom comprising two rotational degrees of freedom and one translational degree of freedom (see at least [0043], [0061], and FIG. 1: “Although not shown in FIG. 2, more or fewer articulation members 204 can be provided at different points of robotic arm 202. Such articulation members 204 can increase or decrease a number of degrees of freedom 225 of placing, orienting and moving the X-ray treatment head 224”; “The present disclosure contemplates that the any number of articulation points can be provided so as to provide any number of degrees of freedom in robotic arm 202 as may be required for dynamically positioning and orienting the X-ray treatment head 224 with respect to the patient and/or calibration well”).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carol in view of Post in further view of Canady in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0007786 (Konesky et al., hereinafter, Konesky).
Regarding Claim 5, the Carol, Post, and Canady combination teaches Claim 1. The Carol, Post, and Canady combination does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein said robot movement plan comprises maintaining a constant distance between a tip end of said cold atmospheric plasma probe and the tissue area to be treated.
Konesky, in the same field of applying cold plasma to an operative site, and therefore analogous art, teaches moving a cold plasma probe while maintaining a constant distance between a tip end of said cold atmospheric plasma probe and the tissue area to be treated (see at least [0150]: the applicator nozzle tip is placed 5 millimeters above the test tissue and scanned across the tissue surface).
Therefore, wherein said robot movement plan comprises maintaining a constant distance between a tip end of said cold atmospheric plasma probe and the tissue area to be treated would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to ensure the energy density to the operative site remains within a beneficial range that achieves a desired physiological effect to the operative site since relatively small changes in applicator distance can have significant effects in applied power density (see at least Konesky [0009] and [0093]).
Regarding Claim 6, Carol, Post, and Canady combination teaches Claim 1. The Carol, Post, and Canady combination does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein said robot movement plan comprises moving said cold atmospheric plasma probe at a constant speed.
Konesky, in the same field of applying cold plasma to an operative site, and therefore analogous art, teaches moving said cold atmospheric plasma probe at a constant speed (see at least [0150]: the applicator nozzle is scanned across the tissue surface at a constant speed of 4 millimeters per second).
Therefore, wherein said robot movement plan comprises moving said cold atmospheric plasma probe at a constant speed would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, since a small change in the applicator scanning speed can result in undesirable physiological effects to the operative site (see at least Konesky [0095]).
Regarding Claim 7, the Carol, Post, Canady, and Konesky combination teaches Claim 5. While none of Carol, Post, Canady, and Konesky appear to explicitly teach wherein said constant distance between said tip end of said cold atmosphere plasma probe and the tissue area to be treated is in the range of 1.5-2.5 mm would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, there is no unexpected result or particular advantage of the particular range provided in Applicant’s disclosure.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carol in view of Post in further view of Canady in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0014851 (Hansen et al., hereinafter, Hansen).
Regarding Claim 9, the Carol, Post, and Canady combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Carol further discloses wherein said step of defining a tissue area to be treated comprises: detecting an area inputted by a user manually moving a cancer treatment probe connected to a robotic end-effector (see at least [0134]: “This can be done by tracing, outlining, or painting over the area to be treated with a localization system that then transfers this information to the planning system. In the preferred embodiment the robot, or a multiple degree of freedom device, that will be used to guide the delivery of the treatment is used to acquire information directly from the patient regarding the region to be treated”). Carol also teaches recording the position (see at least [0142]: “the control system records the movement of the arm and computes the location of the tip of the arm as it is moving”), but not the specific method of computing the position to record (by counting a number of steps of a robotic motor in a direction).
The Carol, Post, and Canady combination does not appear to explicitly disclose detecting …by counting a number of steps of a robotic motor in a direction.
Hansen, in the same field of surgical robots, and therefore analogous art, teaches detecting …by counting a number of steps of a robotic motor in a direction (see at least [0050]-[0052] and [0056]: “The robot may advantageously comprise at least one encoder configured for tracking the real-time movement of the surgical tool and for conferring (e.g. by transmitting data representing) the tracked movements in real time to the computer system”; “The at least one encoder may include one or more rotary or linear encoders positioned on one or more robot arms”; “The encoder(s) may for example include one or more of at least one type of encoder comprising mechanical, magnetic, optical, capacitive encoder type or any combinations thereof”).
Substituting the specific encoder of Hansen into the general position recording of Carol would have been obvious to try, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, because there are a finite number of known methods for tracking position of robots and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try each of the known methods to determine which provides the most appropriate benefits. Applicant provides no specific benefit or critical aspect of the claimed position recording; Applicant provides the claimed position recording as merely one example.
Regarding Claim 10, the Carol, Post, and Canady combination teaches Claim 1. Carol further discloses wherein said step of defining a tissue area to be treated comprises: inputting boundaries of the tissue area to be treated (see at least [0134]: “identify and delineate the region to be treated”; “This can be done by tracing, outlining, or painting over the area to be treated with a localization system that then transfers this information to the planning system”) …and defining a depth map of said tissue area to be treated (see at least [0135]: “The depth and thickness of the region to be treated is designated by the user by entering the appropriate values into the user interface of the planning system”; “the user both moves the tool around on the display to define depth of desired dose”). The Carol, Post, and Canady combination does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein said step of defining a tissue area to be treated comprises:…detecting with a camera a projected surface shape of the tissue area to be treated; calculating with said processor a deformation of the projected surface shape.
Hansen, in the same field of surgical robots, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein said step of defining a tissue area to be treated comprises:…detecting with a camera a projected surface shape of the tissue area to be treated; calculating with said processor a deformation of the projected surface shape (see at least [0033]-[0034], [0069], [0074], [0076]-[0077], [0079], and FIG. 7: “The surgical site often comprises a very curved and uneven surface, which will be visible from the shape of the pattern as it is reflected on the surgical site. The projector may project the light pattern on an area of the surgical site such that the contours and/or the topography of the surgical site and the position of the surgical instrument can be deduced by a computer”; “the reflections of the projected light pattern is received by a camera”).
Combining wherein said step of defining a tissue area to be treated comprises:…detecting with a camera a projected surface shape of the tissue area to be treated; calculating with said processor a deformation of the projected surface shape with the Carol, Post, and Canady combination would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of improving understanding of a surgical site (see at least Hansen [0017]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights