DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 6/30/2025 have been entered. Claims 47-66 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/30/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 11,648,073 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 47, 48, 50-55, 58-63, 65, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fielding et al. (US Publication No. 2014/0142593) in view of Stark (US Patent No. 4,578,757).
Fielding teaches:
Re claim 47. A robotic surgery system comprising:
a plurality of surgical tool manipulators including respective handles configured to be operated by a user, the plurality of surgical tool manipulators configured to manipulate a plurality of surgical tools comprising a plurality of end effectors whose positions and orientations are determined based on positions and orientations of the handles of the plurality of surgical tool manipulators (controller devices 300, 301, Figure 3; robotic arms 100, 101 and tools 400, 401, Figure 1; and paragraph [0036]), the plurality of surgical tools comprising a first surgical tool including at least one first segment comprising a first plurality of sections configured to bend and form a continuous curve and a second surgical tool including at least one second segment comprising a second plurality of sections configured to bend and form a continuous curve (The plurality of surgical tools are not positively recited in the claims. The claims recite a plurality of surgical tool manipulators configured to manipulate a plurality of surgical tools. The recited details of the surgical tools do not structurally modify the positively recited surgical tool manipulators beyond what is disclosed by Fielding. The examiner notes that, were the surgical tools to be positively recited in the claims as they are currently described, they would likely be rejected further in view of Bajo et al. (US Patent No. 9,333,650) as applied to claim 56 below.); and
a processor (paragraph [0053]: “processor”) configured to:
determine new end effector positions and new end effector orientations of the plurality of end effectors based on current positions and current orientations of the respective handles of the plurality of surgical tool manipulators (paragraph [0004]: “the determining of the calculated motion is based on an input value received from a controller device that provides input from a user”; and paragraph [0042]: “If an intended motion will cause collision between the models, manipulator motion is halted and a feedback force is fed back to the controller device in the direction opposite to the commanded motion.”);
in response to a determination that at least one distance of the set of distances satisfies a proximity threshold:
cause movement of the plurality of end effectors associated with the first and second surgical tools to be disabled (paragraph [0042]: “If an intended motion will cause collision between the models, manipulator motion is halted”); and
cause the plurality of end effectors associated with the first and second surgical tools to remain at respective previous positions and previous orientations (paragraph [0042]: “If an intended motion will cause collision between the models, manipulator motion is halted”); and
in response to a determination that no distance of the set of distances satisfies the proximity threshold, cause the end effectors associated with the first and second surgical tools to be positioned and oriented at the respective new end effector positions and the respective new end effector orientations (paragraph [0004]: “output an actuation signal to move the medical robotic arm in accordance with the calculated motion.”).
Fielding fails to specifically teach: (re claim 47) determine, in response to the determination of the new end effector positions and the new end effector orientations, a set of distances from each point of a first set of points along the first surgical tool to each point of a second set of points along the second surgical tool.
Fielding does teach, at paragraph [0042], If an intended motion will cause collision between the models, manipulator motion is halted and a feedback force is fed back to the controller device in the direction opposite to the commanded motion. Collision detection algorithms are well known in the art, and the use of these algorithms to determine collision avoidance boundaries will be understood by those of ordinary skill.
Stark teaches, at the abstract and column 2, lines 19-30, determining the distance between each of a plurality of spheres associated with multiple bodies in a medical environment to determine if the motion of the bodies should be stopped. Each sphere is centered around a centrum point on one of the bodies so that the plurality of spheres can approximate the outer contours of the bodies. Determining the distance between each of a plurality of spheres ensures that each primitive is accounted for when detecting collisions between models of manipulators, as taught by Fielding. Representing the bodies with spheres keeps the number of distance calculations reasonable while maintaining a good approximation of the outer contour of the bodies.
In view of Stark’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Fielding, (re claim 47) determine, in response to the determination of the new end effector positions and the new end effector orientations, a set of distances from each point of a first set of points along the first surgical tool to each point of a second set of points along the second surgical tool, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Stark teaches determining the distance between each of a plurality of spheres associated with multiple bodies in a medical environment to determine if the motion of the bodies should be stopped. This ensures that each primitive is accounted for when detecting collisions between models of manipulators, as taught by Fielding. Representing the bodies with spheres keeps the number of distance calculations reasonable while maintaining a good approximation of the outer contour of the bodies.
Fielding further teaches:
Re claim 48. Wherein the processor is further configured to generate a notification that the at least one distance of the set of distances satisfies the proximity threshold (paragraph [0042]: “If an intended motion will cause collision between the models, manipulator motion is halted and a feedback force is fed back to the controller device in the direction opposite to the commanded motion.”).
Re claim 50. Wherein the processor is further configured to, in response to the determination that the at least one distance of the set of distances satisfies the proximity threshold, determine at least one parameter of a haptic feedback and cause first and second handles associated, respectively, with the first and second surgical tools to provide the haptic feedback to the user to impede movement of the first and second handles in a direction that would shorten the at least one distance (paragraph [0042]: “a feedback force is fed back to the controller device in the direction opposite to the commanded motion” and “The feedback force applied to the controller device may be proportional to the commanded distance through a collision avoidance boundary.”).
Re claim 51. Wherein the at least one parameter of the haptic feedback comprises an intensity of a haptic feedback force, the intensity being proportional to a difference between the at least one distance and the proximity threshold (paragraph [0042]: “The feedback force applied to the controller device may be proportional to the commanded distance through a collision avoidance boundary.”).
Re claim 52. Wherein the at least one parameter of the haptic feedback comprises a first direction associated with a first handle of the first surgical tool and a second direction associated with a second handle of the second surgical tool, the first direction being opposite to the second direction (paragraph [0042]: “a feedback force is fed back to the controller device in the direction opposite to the commanded motion.”).
Re claim 53. Wherein the processor is further configured to cause movement of the plurality of end effectors associated with the first and second surgical tools to be enabled in response to a determination that the at least one distance no longer satisfies the proximity threshold (paragraph [0004]: “output an actuation signal to move the medical robotic arm in accordance with the calculated motion.”).
Re claim 54. Wherein the processor is configured to determine a new end effector position and a new end effector orientation of an end effector of the plurality of end effectors based on a current position and orientation of a handle of a surgical tool manipulator of the plurality of surgical tool manipulators, the surgical tool manipulator associated with the end effector (paragraph [0004]: “the determining of the calculated motion is based on an input value received from a controller device that provides input from a user”).
Re claim 55. Wherein the processor is configured to periodically receive the current position and orientation of the handle from the surgical tool manipulator (paragraph [0004]: “the determining of the calculated motion is based on an input value received from a controller device that provides input from a user”).
Re claim 58. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a robotic surgery apparatus, cause the processor to:
determine new end effector positions and new end effector orientations of a plurality of end effectors of a plurality of surgical tools based on current positions and current orientations of a plurality of user input interfaces of a plurality of surgical tool manipulators configured to manipulate the plurality of surgical tools comprising the plurality of end effectors whose positions and orientations are determined based on positions and orientations of the plurality of user input interfaces (paragraph [0004]: “the determining of the calculated motion is based on an input value received from a controller device that provides input from a user”; and paragraph [0042]: “If an intended motion will cause collision between the models, manipulator motion is halted and a feedback force is fed back to the controller device in the direction opposite to the commanded motion.”), the plurality of surgical tools comprising a first surgical tool including at least one first segment comprising a first plurality of sections configured to bend and form a continuous curve and a second surgical tool including at least one second segment comprising a second plurality of sections configured to bend and form a continuous curve (The plurality of surgical tools are not positively recited in the claims. The claims recite a plurality of surgical tool manipulators configured to manipulate a plurality of surgical tools. The recited details of the surgical tools do not structurally modify the positively recited surgical tool manipulators beyond what is disclosed by Fielding.);
in response to a determination that at least one distance of the set of distances satisfies a proximity threshold:
cause movement of the plurality of end effectors associated with the first and second surgical tools to be disabled (paragraph [0042]: “If an intended motion will cause collision between the models, manipulator motion is halted”); and
cause the plurality of end effectors associated with the first and second surgical tools to remain at respective previous positions and previous orientations (paragraph [0042]: “If an intended motion will cause collision between the models, manipulator motion is halted”); and
in response to a determination that no distance of the set of distances satisfies the proximity threshold, cause the plurality of end effectors associated with the first and second surgical tools to be positioned and oriented at the respective new end effector positions and the respective new end effector orientations. (paragraph [0004]: “output an actuation signal to move the medical robotic arm in accordance with the calculated motion.”)
Fielding fails to specifically teach: (re claim 58) in response to the determination of the new end effector positions and the new end effector orientations, determine a set of distances from each point of a first set of points along the first surgical tool to each point of a second set of points along the second surgical tool.
Fielding does teach, at paragraph [0042], If an intended motion will cause collision between the models, manipulator motion is halted and a feedback force is fed back to the controller device in the direction opposite to the commanded motion. Collision detection algorithms are well known in the art, and the use of these algorithms to determine collision avoidance boundaries will be understood by those of ordinary skill.
Stark teaches, at the abstract and column 2, lines 19-24, determining the distance between each of a plurality of spheres associated with multiple bodies in a medical environment to determine if the motion of the bodies should be stopped. Each sphere is centered around a centrum point on one of the bodies so that the plurality of spheres can approximate the outer contours of the bodies. Determining the distance between each of a plurality of spheres ensures that each primitive is accounted for when detecting collisions between models of manipulators, as taught by Fielding.
In view of Stark’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Fielding, (re claim 58) in response to the determination of the new end effector positions and the new end effector orientations, determine a set of distances from each point of a first set of points along the first surgical tool to each point of a second set of points along the second surgical tool, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Stark teaches determining the distance between each of a plurality of spheres associated with multiple bodies in a medical environment to determine if the motion of the bodies should be stopped. This ensures that each primitive is accounted for when detecting collisions between models of manipulators, as taught by Fielding.
Fielding further teaches:
Re claim 59. Wherein the plurality of user input interfaces comprise a plurality of handles (controller devices 300, 301, Figure 3).
Re claim 60. Wherein the instructions further cause the processor to, in response to the determination that the at least one distance of the set of distances satisfies the proximity threshold, determine at least one parameter of a haptic feedback and cause first and second handles associated, respectively, with the first and second surgical tools to provide the haptic feedback to a user to impede movement of the first and second handles in a direction that would shorten the at least one distance (paragraph [0042]: “If an intended motion will cause collision between the models, manipulator motion is halted and a feedback force is fed back to the controller device in the direction opposite to the commanded motion.”).
Re claim 61. Wherein the at least one parameter of the haptic feedback comprises an intensity of a haptic feedback force, the intensity being proportional to a difference between the at least one distance and the proximity threshold (paragraph [0042]: “The feedback force applied to the controller device may be proportional to the commanded distance through a collision avoidance boundary.”).
Re claim 62. Wherein the least one parameter of the haptic feedback comprises a first direction associated with a first handle of the first surgical tool and a second direction associated with a second handle of the second surgical tool, the first direction being opposite to the second direction (paragraph [0042]: “a feedback force is fed back to the controller device in the direction opposite to the commanded motion.”).
Re claim 63. Wherein the instructions further cause the processor to generate a notification that the at least one distance of the set of distances satisfies the proximity threshold (paragraph [0042]: “If an intended motion will cause collision between the models, manipulator motion is halted and a feedback force is fed back to the controller device in the direction opposite to the commanded motion.”).
Re claim 65. Wherein the processor is further configured to cause movement of the plurality of end effectors associated with the first and second surgical tools to be enabled in response to a determination that the at least one distance no longer satisfies the proximity threshold (paragraph [0004]: “output an actuation signal to move the medical robotic arm in accordance with the calculated motion.”).
Re claim 66. Wherein the instructions cause the processor to:
determine a new end effector position and a new end effector orientation of an end effector of the plurality of end effectors based on a current position and orientation of a user input interface of the plurality of user input interfaces of a surgical tool manipulator of the plurality of surgical tool manipulators, the surgical tool manipulator associated with the end effector (paragraph [0004]: “the determining of the calculated motion is based on an input value received from a controller device that provides input from a user”); and
periodically receive the current position and orientation of the user input interface from the surgical tool manipulator (paragraph [0004]: “the determining of the calculated motion is based on an input value received from a controller device that provides input from a user”, “The actuation signal may be any suitable form of data that includes information sufficient to cause the medical robot arm to move appropriately.”).
Claims 49 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fielding et al. (US Publication No. 2014/0142593) as modified by Stark (US Patent No. 4,578,757) as applied to claims 48 and 63 above, and further in view of Buehler et al. (US Publication No. 2013/0343640).
The teachings of Fielding have been discussed above. Fielding fails to specifically teach: (re claims 49 and 64) wherein the notification comprises at least one of a visual or audio notification.
Buehler teaches, at paragraph [0052], in addition to haptic feedback, sounds may be used to indicate how close a robotic arm is to colliding with another part of a robot, and that visual information may also be used to provide such information to a user. This allows a user to be aware of potential collisions of one part of a robot with another part of the robot by using various senses of the operator.
In view of Buehler’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system and medium as taught by Fielding, (re claims 49 and 64) wherein the notification comprises at least one of a visual or audio notification, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Buehler teaches in addition to haptic feedback, sounds may be used to indicate how close a robotic arm is to colliding with another part of a robot, and that visual information may also be used to provide such information to a user. This allows a user to be aware of potential collisions of one part of a robot with another part of the robot by using various senses of the operator.
Claim 56 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fielding et al. (US Publication No. 2014/0142593) as modified by Stark (US Patent No. 4,578,757) as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of Bajo et al. (US Patent No. 9,333,650).
The teachings of Fielding have been discussed above. It is noted that claim 56 further modifies the surgical tools, which are not positively recited in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, this rejection is being applied as if the surgical tools were positively claimed.
Fielding fails to specifically teach: (re claim 56) wherein:
the first plurality of sections comprises a first plurality of disks; and
the second plurality of sections comprises a second plurality of disks.
Bajo teaches, at Figure 1a, and column 1, lines 21 through column 2, line 13, such medical robots may be continuum segment robots which allow for deeper anatomical reach along increasingly tortuous paths.
In view of Bajo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Fielding, (re claim 56) wherein: the first plurality of sections comprises a first plurality of disks; and the second plurality of sections comprises a second plurality of disks; since Bajo teaches such medical robots may be continuum segment robots which allow for deeper anatomical reach along increasingly tortuous paths.
Fielding fails to specifically teach: (re claim 57) wherein the processor is configured to, for at least one of the first or second surgical tools, determine a set of vectors from a reference point associated with the at least one of the first or second surgical tools to a point on a disk of the at least first or second surgical tools based on the new end effector position of an end effector associated with the at least one of the first or second surgical tools.
Stark teaches, at Figure 3; and column 4, lines 18-24, determining the coordinates for the centrum points of each sphere for performing the collision tests. This ensures each point’s location in space is known for the collision test calculations.
In view of Stark’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Fielding, (re claim 57) wherein the processor is configured to, for at least one of the first or second surgical tools, determine a set of vectors from a reference point associated with the at least one of the first or second surgical tools to a point on a disk of the at least first or second surgical tools based on the new end effector position of an end effector associated with the at least one of the first or second surgical tools, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Stark teaches determining the coordinates for the centrum points of each sphere for performing the collision tests. This ensures each point’s location in space is known for the collision test calculations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 6/30/2025, with respect to the objections to claims 47, 57, and 58; and the double patenting rejection of claims 47-66 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 47, 57, and 58; and the double patenting rejection of claims 47-66 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks, on pages 9-12:
First, the Applicant submits that the systems taught by Fielding and Stark utilize fundamentally different data sources and collision detection algorithms for achieving collision avoidance. As the two systems utilize such different data and algorithms for collision detection, the systems are inherently incompatible, and the combination of these two systems would necessitate a significant redesign of one or both systems, thereby negating any motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine them.
…
As Stark uses real-time, active tracking for collision detection while Fielding uses a predictive, position estimation system based on user input to the controller device, the Applicant submits that the collisions avoidance units within these two systems operate on fundamentally different principles and are therefore incompatible. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the collision detection method of Stark with the system of Fielding as such a combination would require a significant, non-obvious redesign and would likely not yield the advantages of the system provided in claim 47.
"The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Fielding teaches, at paragraph [0042], “Collision detection algorithms are well known in the art, and the use of these algorithms to determine collision avoidance boundaries will be understood by those of ordinary skill.”
Stark teaches, at the abstract and column 2, lines 19-30, a collision detection algorithm in which the distances between each of a plurality of spheres associated with multiple bodies in a medical environment are calculated.
That is, Fielding teaches using a known collision detection algorithm but does not specify any particular collision detection algorithm, and Stark teaches such a collision detection algorithm which keeps the number of calculations reasonable. The combined teachings of Fielding and Stark suggest operating the system of Fielding using the collision detection algorithm of Stark so as to successfully detect collisions while keeping the number of distance calculations reasonable.
Any combination of references under 35 USC § 103 would require some level of redesign. The Examiner submits that incorporating a specific known collision detection algorithm into the system of Fielding would not require a significant redesign as the system of Fielding already calls for a known collision detection algorithm, without specifying a specific collision detection algorithm. The collision detection algorithm of Stark may be used with the system of Fielding to determine potential collisions between the intended motion of models just as well as Stark uses the collision detection algorithm to detect the risk of collision between independently movable bodies. Both references detect the positions of the models/bodies and perform collision detection based on these positions. Whether the positions of the models/bodies are determined based on user input or transducer signals does not materially affect how the collision detection algorithm is performed.
Applicant remarks, on page 12:
As provided above, Stark uses rough geometric approximations (e.g., spherical sub-volumes) for estimating objects surfaces and determining any potential collisions between objects. While this approach may be suitable for determining gross distances between large objects, it is unlikely that these rough approximations would be able to provide the fine level of control that is required for the navigation of surgical tools, making Stark's method unsuitable for the application in Fielding.
It is not clear why the collision detection algorithm of Stark would not scale down to surgical tools. Smaller spheres would be well adapted to approximating the outer contour of the smaller body of a surgical tool while keeping the number of collision calculations to a reasonable value.
Applicant remarks, on page 13:
MPEP § 2143.01(V) is directly applicable here, stating that "[i]f proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984)". "If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima face obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959)".
In the present case, combining Stark's method of collision detection (based on active tracking) with Fielding's nuanced, model-based approach could lead to non-desirable results for surgical applications, and would likely frustrate the very purpose of Fielding's system, particularly its emphasis on the precision required for surgical tasks and the delivery of intuitive force feedback.
As such, the Applicant respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reason to combine these features, and that, furthermore, the combination thereof would fundamentally frustrate the principle of operation of Fielding's system.
Moreover, the Applicant submits that Examiner's proposed combination of Fielding and Stark ignores the importance of the force feedback that is provided in the system of Fielding for surgical applications. Fielding specifically teaches that the robotic system will provide force feedback to a user of the system based on the collision detection algorithm, and that this force feedback can be used to enhance the user control of the robotic system. By contrast, Stark describes an automatic safety system that merely reduces the speed of objects or stops the motion of objects based on the distances between objects. The system of Stark does not provide any real-time, haptic feedback to the user and is a purely autonomous safety override.
The Applicant therefore submits that Stark provides no motivation or basis for a person of ordinary skill in the art to generate the force feedback required by Fielding's system. Applying Stark's automatic algorithm into Fielding's framework for claimed interactive force feedback would fundamentally alter their principles of operation of the system in Fielding. Such a combination would not be obvious and would likely frustrate Fielding's purpose of haptic, force feedback-enhanced control of a surgical robot.
Combining the specific collision detection algorithm of Stark with the system of Fielding would not change the principle of operation of Fielding as Fielding already calls for the use of a known collision detection algorithm at paragraph [0042]. Stark merely fills in the specifics of the collision detection algorithm.
Fielding teaches using a known collision detection algorithm as part of a system which provides force feedback to a user, Stark simply provides such a collision detection algorithm, with Fielding providing the details regarding how to use a collision detection algorithm to implement force feedback. A secondary reference does not need to teach the details of the primary reference to be combinable with the primary reference.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights