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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-8 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/18/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chassot et al. (US PGPub 2018/0353252 A1) in view of Hibner (US PGPub 2018/0000543 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Chassot et al. discloses a method for controlling a surgical robotic instrument (see Fig. 1D, abstract), the method comprising:
performing a first calibration of an end effector (506 in Fig. 6A) of an instrument (500) at a first position within a longitudinal tube (310 in Fig. 5B) of a surgical access port (400, see also Fig. 5C, PP [0072]: “The control system may alternatively cause drive unit 304 to move receptacle 310 in a direction that improves alignment”, the instrument is calibrated to align with the tube);
advancing the end effector (506) to a second position, distal of the first position, within the longitudinal tube (310, see Fig. 7A, PP [0072]: “e.g., due to inherent design of the instrument or potential collision with a trocar when the end-effector is still inside the trocar lumen upon instrument insertion, at least one of the one or more sensors may detect lack of proper alignment, e.g., a torque sensor integrates within drive unit 304 or by measuring the current of motor 306, and the control system may generate an alarm via the alarm system based on the detection by the sensor. The control system may alternatively, cause drive unit 304 to move receptacle 310 in a direction that improves alignment”, emphasis added);
performing a second calibration of the end effector (506) at the second position (see PP [0072], calibration occurs continuously during insertion including when the end effector is at a second position within the tube 310); and
monitoring contact between the end effector (506) and the longitudinal tube (510, see PP [0072], since the system continuously detects “potential collision with a trocar”, contact is being monitored).
However, Chassot et al. fails to disclose a method including determining a length of the longitudinal tube based on the contact.
In the same field of robotic surgical tools (abstract, see Figs. 16-19) Hibner teaches a method for controlling a surgical robotic instrument (see Fig. 1) including advancing an end effector (14) through a longitudinal tube of a surgical access port and determining a length of the longitudinal tube (see PP [0067-0068]: “The wrist 16 being advanced distally beyond the trocar's distal end can be detected in any number of ways, such as by a scope or other visualization device inserted into the patient “seeing” that the wrist 16 has been so advanced, by the tool 10 including a motion sensor configured to sense translational movement of the shaft 12 indicative of the wrist 16 being fully advanced through the trocar (e.g., distal translational movement of the shaft 12 equal to or within a predetermined threshold amount of a known length of the trocar, etc.), etc” and “the home position can be configured to be additionally or alternatively gathered when the end effector 14 is in the articulated position at a predetermined angle relative to the shaft 12. For example, the home position can be configured to be additionally or alternatively gathered when the end effector 14 is at a maximum articulated angle relative to the shaft 12. The home position being able to be gathered when the end effector is articulated may provide more surgeon flexibility by allowing the home position to be gathered when the tool 10 is in use in a patient and has already had its end effector 14 articulated”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Chassot et al. according to the teachings of Hibner to include the method of determining a length of the longitudinal tube based on the contact. When the method of Chassot et al. (which includes detecting whether an end effector is within or outside of a trocar by measuring torque, see PP [0072]) is combined with the method of Hibner (which involves measuring/detecting a length of a longitudinal tube during insertion of an end effector, see PP [0067-0068]), it would yield a method involving simultaneously measuring torque and a length of a longitudinal tube such that the length of the tube can be correlated with the measured torque when the measured torque threshold is reached (see PP [0072] of Hibner). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification because it involves the combination of prior art elements (the method of Chassot et al. with the length detection as taught by Hibner) according to known methods to yield predictable results, as both references teach methods involving detecting and controlling an end effector’s progress through a surgical access port.
Regarding claim 10, Chassot et al. as modified by Hibner further discloses wherein the end effector (506 in Fig. 6A of Chassot et al.) defines a longitudinal axis (see axis defined by 506 in Fig. 6A) and includes a proximal joint (530 in Fig. 6D) pivotable relative to the longitudinal axis defining a yaw angle of the end effector (PP [0069]: “yaw component 530 of end-effector 506”).
Regarding claim 11, Chassot et al. as modified by Hibner further discloses wherein the end effector (506 in Fig. 6A of Chassot et al.) includes a distal joint (532 in Fig. 6D) pivotable relative to the proximal joint (530) defining a pitch angle of the end effector (PP [0069]: “pitch component 532 of end-effector 506”).
Regarding claim 12, Chassot et al. as modified by Hibner further discloses wherein the end effector (506 in Fig. 6A of Chassot et al., see also Fig. 6D for close up on distal end) includes a pair of opposing jaws (see unmarked jaws in Fig. 6D) pivotable relative to the distal joint (532) defining a jaw angle (PP [0069]: “open and close component 534 of end-effector 506 via an element of force transmitting element 524 such that actuation of the third engager will actuate the open and close degree-of-freedom of end-effector 506”).
Regarding claim 13, Chassot et al. as modified by Hibner further discloses wherein the first calibration (Chassot et al. PP [0072]: “if an actuation of handle 100 causes receptacle 310 to be in a position that when instrument 500 is inserted within sterile shield 400, actuator 520 attempts to cause an undesirable articulation of end-effector 506, e.g., due to inherent design of the instrument or potential collision with a trocar when the end-effector is still inside the trocar lumen upon instrument insertion, at least one of the one or more sensors may detect lack of proper alignment, e.g., a torque sensor integrates within drive unit 304 or by measuring the current of motor 306, and the control system may generate an alarm via the alarm system based on the detection by the sensor. The control system may alternatively, cause drive unit 304 to move receptacle 310 in a direction that improves alignment”) includes calibration of the yaw angle, the pitch angle, and the jaw angle (PP [0062]: “head 502 has an identification tag, e.g., RFID or barcode, configured to store information regarding instrument 500, e.g., instrument type, serial number, calibration data, range-of-motion, end-effector kinematics such as numbers and types of degrees-of-freedom including serial-serial, serial-parallel, yaw-pitch-actuate, pitch-yaw-actuate, roll-pitch-yaw-actuate, pitch-roll-actuate, etc., or controlling offsets”, Hibner PP [0067-0068]: “The wrist 16 being advanced distally beyond the trocar's distal end can be detected in any number of ways, such as by a scope or other visualization device inserted into the patient “seeing” that the wrist 16 has been so advanced, by the tool 10 including a motion sensor configured to sense translational movement of the shaft 12 indicative of the wrist 16 being fully advanced through the trocar (e.g., distal translational movement of the shaft 12 equal to or within a predetermined threshold amount of a known length of the trocar, etc.), etc” and “the home position can be configured to be additionally or alternatively gathered when the end effector 14 is in the articulated position at a predetermined angle relative to the shaft 12. For example, the home position can be configured to be additionally or alternatively gathered when the end effector 14 is at a maximum articulated angle relative to the shaft 12. The home position being able to be gathered when the end effector is articulated may provide more surgeon flexibility by allowing the home position to be gathered when the tool 10 is in use in a patient and has already had its end effector 14 articulated”, the combination as proposed involves calibrating each of these in order to sense and correct a position of the end effector relative to the trocar).
Regarding claim 14, Chassot et al. as modified by Hibner further discloses wherein the second calibration (Chassot et al. PP [0072]: “if an actuation of handle 100 causes receptacle 310 to be in a position that when instrument 500 is inserted within sterile shield 400, actuator 520 attempts to cause an undesirable articulation of end-effector 506, e.g., due to inherent design of the instrument or potential collision with a trocar when the end-effector is still inside the trocar lumen upon instrument insertion, at least one of the one or more sensors may detect lack of proper alignment, e.g., a torque sensor integrates within drive unit 304 or by measuring the current of motor 306, and the control system may generate an alarm via the alarm system based on the detection by the sensor. The control system may alternatively, cause drive unit 304 to move receptacle 310 in a direction that improves alignment”) includes calibration of at least one of the yaw angle, the pitch angle, or the jaw angle (PP [0062]: “head 502 has an identification tag, e.g., RFID or barcode, configured to store information regarding instrument 500, e.g., instrument type, serial number, calibration data, range-of-motion, end-effector kinematics such as numbers and types of degrees-of-freedom including serial-serial, serial-parallel, yaw-pitch-actuate, pitch-yaw-actuate, roll-pitch-yaw-actuate, pitch-roll-actuate, etc., or controlling offsets”, Hibner PP [0067-0068]: “The wrist 16 being advanced distally beyond the trocar's distal end can be detected in any number of ways, such as by a scope or other visualization device inserted into the patient “seeing” that the wrist 16 has been so advanced, by the tool 10 including a motion sensor configured to sense translational movement of the shaft 12 indicative of the wrist 16 being fully advanced through the trocar (e.g., distal translational movement of the shaft 12 equal to or within a predetermined threshold amount of a known length of the trocar, etc.), etc” and “the home position can be configured to be additionally or alternatively gathered when the end effector 14 is in the articulated position at a predetermined angle relative to the shaft 12. For example, the home position can be configured to be additionally or alternatively gathered when the end effector 14 is at a maximum articulated angle relative to the shaft 12. The home position being able to be gathered when the end effector is articulated may provide more surgeon flexibility by allowing the home position to be gathered when the tool 10 is in use in a patient and has already had its end effector 14 articulated”, the combination as proposed involves calibrating each of these in order to sense and correct a position of the end effector relative to the trocar).
Regarding claim 18, Chassot et al. as modified by Hibner further discloses wherein monitoring contact includes measuring torque of at least one motor actuating the end effector (506 in Fig. 6A of Chassot et al., PP [0072]: “at least one of the one or more sensors may detect lack of proper alignment, e.g., a torque sensor integrates within drive unit 304 or by measuring the current of motor 306”, Hibner PP [0060]: “The surgical tool 10 can include a plurality of sensors (obscured in FIG. 1) configured to sense a position of each of the plurality of flexible members at least when the end effector 14 is in the unarticulated position”, PP [0061]: “any one or more of the sensors can include a torque (force) sensor, a position sensor, or a load cell”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chassot et al. (US PGPub 2018/0353252 A1) in view of Hibner (US PGPub 2018/0000543 A1), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hauck (US PGPub 2008/0033284 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Chassot et al. as modified by Hibner fails to disclose wherein the second calibration includes oscillating the end effector relative to the longitudinal axis while the end effector is advanced and oscillating includes pivoting at least one of the proximal joint, the distal joint, or the pair of opposing jaws periodically at a predetermined time.
In the same field of robotic surgical devices (abstract), Hauck teaches a method of calibration including oscillating a robotic device periodically at a predetermined time (PP [0014]: “a method of calibrating a robotic device capable of movement relative to at least one actuation axis generally includes: oscillating the robotic device on a first actuation axis by applying a first oscillation vector at a first oscillation frequency; while oscillating the robotic device on the first actuation axis, periodically measuring a location of the robotic device, thereby generating a first plurality of location data points measured as a function of time; processing the first plurality of location data points using a Fourier transform algorithm to isolate a displacement of the robotic device attributable to application of the first oscillation vector; and resolving an output of the processing step into a calibration vector for the first actuation axis. The location of the robotic device is measured for a sampling interval between about 0.5 seconds and about 10 seconds at a first sampling rate that is preferably a multiple of at least about two times greater than, and preferably between about five and about ten times greater than, the first oscillation frequency”, abstract: “The process may be repeated for any actuation axes on which calibration is desired”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the Chassot et al. and Hibner combination to further include the oscillation as taught by Hauck. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification because doing so would have constituted the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Modifying the combination in this way would not have altered the main operating principles of Chassot et al. or Hibner, but instead would have simply provided a variety of spatial data points to calibrate the device in three-dimensional space in order to “[facilitate] accurate and precise control” of the device (PP [0013]). Since Hibner is already concerned with collecting data from position sensors (PP [0062]: “The data received by the at least one processor from the sensors includes data that is indicative of the sensed position of each of the flexible members when the end effector 14 is in the unarticulated position, e.g., when the one or more homing members are forcing the end effector 14 into the unarticulated position”, PP [0063]: “by knowing an amount of force applied to each of the flexible members in the home position (in the case of force sensors) or a position of each of the flexible members in the home position (in the case of position sensors), the at least one processor can determine how much to tension each of the flexible members (e.g., how much to pull each of the flexible members) to accurately achieve the requested movement of the end effector 14”), such a modification would yield predictable results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chassot et al. (US PGPub 2018/0353252 A1) in view of Hibner (US PGPub 2018/0000543 A1), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Shelton et al. (US PGPub 2020/0405403 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Chassot et al. as modified by Hibner further discloses outputting the length of the longitudinal tube (310 in Fig. 7A of Chassot et al., Hibner PP [0067]: “The wrist 16 being advanced distally beyond the trocar's distal end can be detected… by the tool 10 including a motion sensor configured to sense translational movement of the shaft 12 indicative of the wrist 16 being fully advanced through the trocar (e.g., distal translational movement of the shaft 12 equal to or within a predetermined threshold amount of a known length of the trocar, etc.), etc”, PP [0062]: “The sensors are configured to be in electronic communication with at least one processor configured to process data received from the sensors. The at least one processor can be on board the tool 10, e.g., disposed within the tool housing 18 thereof, or can be located elsewhere, such as part of a robotic surgical system to which the tool 10 is releasably attached. The data received by the at least one processor from the sensors includes data that is indicative of the sensed position of each of the flexible members when the end effector 14 is in the unarticulated position, e.g., when the one or more homing members are forcing the end effector 14 into the unarticulated position”, the translational movement of the end effector, which is equivalent to the length of the trocar, is output to the processor).
However, the combination as proposed fails to explicitly disclose displaying the length on at least one display.
In the same field of surgical robotic assemblies (abstract), Shelton et al. teaches the use of sensors to gather translational position data (PP [0533]: “A sensor element may be operably coupled to a gear assembly such that a single revolution of the position sensor 472 element corresponds to some linear longitudinal translation of the displacement member”) and further teaches displaying the data on at least one display (PP [0533]: “A power source supplies power to the absolute positioning system and an output indicator may display the output of the absolute positioning system”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Chassot et al. and Hibner combination to incorporate the teachings of Shelton et al. and include displaying the length (which correlates to a translational distance collected by both Hibner and Shelton et al., see PP [0067] of Hibner: “distal translational movement of the shaft 12 equal to or within a predetermined threshold amount of a known length of the trocar, etc.”). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification because doing so constitutes the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Doing so furthermore would not have altered the main operating principle of the Chassot et al. or Hibner disclosures, particularly since Hibner already contemplates “at least one display 410 configured to display information thereon to a user U” (PP [0093]). The modification as proposed would simply place the translational position data of the device onto the display.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chassot et al. (US PGPub 2018/0353252 A1) in view of Hibner (US PGPub 2018/0000543 A1), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Augenbraun et al. (US PGPub 2016/0158942 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Chassot et al. as modified by Hibner further discloses wherein the second calibration includes:
pivoting at least one of the proximal joint (530 in Fig. 6D of Chassot et al.), the distal joint (532), or the pair of opposing jaws (see unmarked jaws articulated at 534) such that at least one jaw of the pair of opposing jaws contacts the longitudinal tube (PP [0072]: “due to inherent design of the instrument or potential collision with a trocar when the end-effector is still inside the trocar lumen upon instrument insertion, at least one of the one or more sensors may detect lack of proper alignment, e.g., a torque sensor integrates within drive unit 304 or by measuring the current of motor 306, and the control system may generate an alarm via the alarm system based on the detection by the sensor. The control system may alternatively, cause drive unit 304 to move receptacle 310 in a direction that improves alignment”).
However, Chassot et al. as modified by Hibner fails to disclose advancing the end effector while applying a force on the longitudinal tube by the at least one of the jaws.
In the related field of robots (abstract), which is pertinent to the field of surgical robots due to a shared concern for accurate movement within a space to accomplish a specific goal, Augenbraun et al. teaches a robot (100 in Fig. 1) configured to build a mapping engine (601 in Fig. 11) to “build a data structure that represents the positions where it has detected obstacles, e.g. surfaces and objects using touch data and/or distance data” (PP [0113]). This data structure enables the controller to “determine the position of the robot 100 and/or arm within the environment or in relation to an object… [and] move the robot 100 and/or arm 200 based on a received map or map data and the determined position of the robot 100 and/or arm 200” (PP [0115]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Chassot et al. and Hibner combination to include the teachings of Augenbraun et al. and incorporate advancing the end effector while applying a force on the longitudinal tube by the at least one of the jaws such that the end effector produces a data structure representing the position and relative dimensions of the longitudinal tube to navigate through and relative to. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification because doing so constitutes the use of a known technique to improve a known device in a similar way and yield predictable results, as the combination as proposed would not alter the main operating principle of the Chassot et al. and Hibner combination, particularly since Chassot et al. contemplates the collection of information such as “calibration data, range-of-motion, end-effector kinematics such as numbers and types of degrees-of-freedom including serial-serial, serial-parallel, yaw-pitch-actuate, pitch-yaw-actuate, roll-pitch-yaw-actuate, pitch-roll-actuate, etc., or controlling offsets” (PP [0062]). Using the teachings of Augenbraun et al. to improve the device of Chassot et al. would simply build a map of position data that would further prevent potential collision with the trocar as desired by the Chassot et al. disclosure (see PP [0072]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bridget E. Rabaglia whose telephone number is (571)272-2908. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 272-4696. 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.
/BRIDGET E. RABAGLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/TAN-UYEN T HO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights