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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II and Species A in the reply filed on 11/5/2025 is acknowledged and applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-8, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The restriction requirement has been withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 11/5/2025, no claims have been cancelled, and Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180021061 A1 Reid.
Regarding claim 1, Reid discloses a robotic medical system (100, Fig. 11, paragraph 48-52) comprising:
a cannula (200, Fig. 2a-b) having a funnel portion (bowl portion 201, Fig. 2a), a tubular portion extending distally from the funnel portion (seen in Fig. 2a-b, paragraph 7), and a defined remote center of motion on the tubular portion (remote center of motion is defined at inflection point 225, Fig. 2a-b, paragraph 42-43, 57), wherein an outer surface of the tubular portion of the cannula comprises stability ridges (235, Fig. 2a-b) configured to engage a tissue wall of a patient (paragraph 45, 64; see Fig. 4);
an elongate medical instrument (130, Fig. 11) configured to be inserted into the patient through the cannula (paragraph 49-52);
a robotic arm (110/111/112/113, Fig. 11) configured to manipulate the elongate medical instrument to perform a medical procedure (paragraph 49-52); and
a controller (surgeon console, paragraph 49) configured to control movement of the robotic arm while maintaining movement about the defined remote center (paragraph 48-52),
wherein a first segment (208, Fig. 2a-b) of the stability ridges is disposed on a first side of the defined remote center (see Fig. 2a-b) and a second segment (218, Fig. 2a-b) of the stability ridges is disposed on a second side of the defined remote center axially spaced apart from the first side of the defined remote center (see Fig. 2a-b).
Regarding claim 2, Reid discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Reid further discloses wherein the defined remote center is positioned at a non-ridged portion of the cannula interposed between the first and second segments of the stability ridges (Fig. 6a-b, paragraph 97, 101, 106-107, exemplary embodiment of cannula 600 has a defined remote center 625 that is smooth and between first segment 608 and second segment 618. Furthermore, the smooth cannula 600 can include texturing as shown in cannula 200 in Fig. 2a-b).
Regarding claim 3, Reid discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Reid further discloses wherein the defined remote center (225) is positioned at a ridged portion of the cannula (see Fig. 2a-b).
Regarding claim 4, Reid discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Reid further discloses wherein two or more of the stability ridges are configured to provide different tactile feedback from each other when engaged with the tissue wall of the patient (paragraph 43, 45, 91).
Regarding claim 5, Reid discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Reid further discloses wherein at least one of the ridges is configured to resist movement against the tissue wall in a first axial direction greater than the ridge resists movement against the tissue wall in a second axial direction opposite the first axial direction (paragraph 41-42, 91).
Regarding claim 6, Reid discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Reid further discloses wherein an upper end of the first segment of the stability ridges is spaced apart axially from the defined remote center by a fixed distance such that, when the defined remote center is at a proper insertion depth in the patient, the upper end is visible from outside the patient, and, when the defined remote center is deeper than the proper insertion depth, the upper end is obscured within the patient (see Fig. 4, paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 9, Reid discloses a cannula (200, Fig. 2a-b) comprising:
a funnel portion (bowl portion 201, Fig. 2a);
a tubular portion extending distally from the funnel portion (seen in Fig. 2a-b, paragraph 7);
a visual indicator (250, Fig. 2b) on the tubular portion indicative of a defined remote center of motion (remote center of motion is defined at inflection point 225, Fig. 2a-b, paragraph 42-43, 57, 68, 72) about which the tubular portion is pivotable by a robotic system (100, Fig. 11, paragraph 48-52);
an inner lumen extending through the tubular portion (paragraph 7, 47);
a first segment (208, Fig. 2a-b) of ridges (235, Fig. 2a-b) on an outer surface of the tubular portion, wherein the first segment of ridges is disposed proximal to the visual indicator (as seen in Fig. 2a-b); and
a second segment (218, Fig. 2a-b) of ridges (235) on the outer surface of the tubular portion, wherein the second segment of ridges is disposed distal to the visual indicator (as seen in Fig. 2a-b).
Regarding claim 10, Reid discloses the limitations of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the ridges comprise at least one tapered ridge having a distal radius and a proximal radius in which the proximal radius is greater than the distal radius (as seen in Fig. 2b, each rib (235) has a taper with a proximal radius and distal radius (paragraph 53, 64, ribs radially protrude from cannula wall surface (202) and therefore have a radius from a centerline (204) of the cannula) where the proximal radius is greater than the distal radius; Fig. 5a-d, paragraph 65, further discloses a cross section of a rib (235) showing a proximal radius greater than a distal radius).
Regarding claim 11, Reid discloses the limitations of claim 9, and further discloses wherein at least one of the ridges is configured to provide an insertion resistance and a removal resistance, and the removal resistance is greater than the insertion resistance (paragraph 41-42, 91).
Regarding claim 12, Reid discloses the limitations of claim 9, and further discloses further comprising an overlapping segment of ridges on the outer surface, wherein the overlapping segment axially overlaps with the visual indicator (as seen in annotated Fig. 2b below, an overlapping segment of ridges axially overlaps with the visual indicator 250).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
387
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200315721 A1 Rabindran et al. (hereinafter Rabindran).
Regarding claim 14, Rabindran discloses a robotic medical system (600, Fig. 21-22) comprising: a cannula (620, Fig. 21-22) having a funnel portion (as seen in Fig. 21-22), a tubular portion (622) extending distally from the funnel portion (as seen in Fig. 21-22), a first visual indicator on the tubular portion at a first defined remote center of motion, and a second visual indicator on the tubular portion at a second defined remote center of motion (paragraph 128-129, 132, 193-194, the robotic controller can define two locations on the cannula (620) as the remote center of motion, and distinct visual indicators can be projected onto the cannula to indicate the location of the remote centers);
a robotic arm (610) configured to manipulate an elongate medical instrument (630) inserted through the cannula to perform a medical procedure (Fig. 21-22, paragraph 119-122); and
a controller (processor of surgery system 600) configured to maintain movement of the elongate medical instrument and the cannula about the first defined remote center of motion in a first mode of operation and to maintain movement of the elongate medical instrument and the cannula about the second defined remote center of motion in a second mode of operation (paragraph 128-129).
Regarding claim 15, Rabindran discloses the limitations of claim 14, and further discloses wherein the first visual indicator is different than the second visual indicator (paragraph 193-194).
Regarding claim 16, Rabindran discloses the limitations of claim 15, and further discloses wherein the first visual indicator includes a first alphanumeric character and the second visual indicator includes a second alphanumeric character different than the first alphanumeric character (paragraph 194, visual indicators can be projections of a number reading).
Regarding claim 17, Rabindran discloses the limitations of claim 15, and further discloses wherein the first visual indicator includes a first number of lines and the second visual indicator includes a second number of lines different than the first number of lines (paragraph 194, a band or a series of bands can be used as visual indicators).
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid in view of Rabindran.
Regarding claim 7, Reid discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein:
the defined remote center is a first defined remote center (remote center of motion is defined at inflection point 225).
Reid is silent on the cannula further comprises a second defined remote center of motion spaced apart axially from the first defined remote center;
and a third segment of the stability ridges is disposed on a first side of the second defined remote center and a fourth segment of the stability ridges is disposed on a second side of the second defined remote center axially spaced apart from the first side of the second defined remote center.
However, Rabindran teaches a robotic medical system (600, Fig. 21-22) comprising a cannula (620, Fig. 21-22) having a first remote center of motion and a second remote center of motion (paragraph 128-129, 132, 193-194, the robotic controller can define two locations on the cannula (620) as the remote center of motion, and distinct visual indicators can be projected onto the cannula to indicate the location of the remote centers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reid with the teachings of Rabindran to have the cannula further comprising a second defined remote center of motion spaced apart axially from the first defined remote center, and using a duplication of parts, duplicate the first and second segments of stability ridges of Reid to have a third segment of the stability ridges that is disposed on a first side of the second defined remote center (second defined remote center as taught by Rabindran and modified into the cannula of Reid) and a fourth segment of the stability ridges that is disposed on a second side of the second defined remote center axially spaced apart from the first side of the second defined remote center, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Reid and Rabindran teaches the limitations of claim 7, and Rabindran further teaches wherein the controller (processor of surgery system 600) is configured to switch from maintaining movement about the first defined remote center to maintaining movement about the second defined remote center (paragraph 128-129).
Regarding claim 13, Reid discloses the limitations of claim 9, wherein the visual indicator is a first visual indicator (250), the defined remote center of motion is a first defined remote center of motion (remote center of motion is defined at inflection point 225).
Reid is silent on wherein the cannula further comprises:
a second visual indicator on the tubular portion indicative of a second defined remote center of motion about which the tubular portion is pivotable by the robotic system;
a third segment of ridges on the outer surface of the tubular portion, wherein the third segment of ridges is disposed distal to the first visual indicator and proximal to the second visual indicator; and
a fourth segment of ridges on the outer surface of the tubular portion, wherein the fourth segment of ridges is disposed distal to the second visual indicator.
However, Rabindran teaches a robotic medical system (600, Fig. 21-22) comprising a cannula (620, Fig. 21-22) having a first remote center of motion and a second remote center of motion (paragraph 128-129, 132, 193-194, the robotic controller can define two locations on the cannula (620) as the remote center of motion, and distinct visual indicators can be projected onto the cannula to indicate the location of the remote centers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reid with the teachings of Rabindran to have the cannula further comprising a second defined remote center of motion, and using a duplication of parts, duplicate the first visual indicator, the first and second segments of stability ridges of Reid to have a second visual indicator on the tubular portion indicative of a second defined remote center of motion (second defined remote center as taught by Rabindran and modified into the cannula of Reid) about which the tubular portion is pivotable by the robotic system, a third segment of ridges on the outer surface of the tubular portion, wherein the third segment of ridges is disposed distal to the first visual indicator and proximal to the second visual indicator and a fourth segment of ridges on the outer surface of the tubular portion, wherein the fourth segment of ridges is disposed distal to the second visual indicator, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabindran in view of Reid.
Regarding claim 18, Rabindran discloses the limitations of claim 14.
Rabindran is silent on further comprising a proximity indicator on the cannula, wherein the proximity indicator is spaced apart axially from a corresponding one of the visual indicators, and wherein the proximity indicator indicates an axial direction towards the corresponding one of the visual indicators.
However, Reid teaches a robotic medical system (100, Fig. 11, paragraph 48-52) comprising a cannula (200, Fig. 2a-b) having a proximity indicator (252/254, Fig. 2b) that is spaced apart axially from a corresponding one of the visual indicators (250, Fig. 2b, paragraph 272, the remote center and inflection location 225 of the cannula 200 may be located at the center of the central body wall target 250), and wherein the proximity indicator indicates an axial direction towards the corresponding one of the visual indicators (paragraph 68-69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rabindran with the teachings of Reid to further comprise a proximity indicator on the cannula, wherein the proximity indicator is spaced apart axially from a corresponding one of the visual indicators, and wherein the proximity indicator indicates an axial direction towards the corresponding one of the visual indicators, in order to provide guidance on where the body wall of the patient should sit along the length of the cannula when the cannula is inserted within the body wall of the patient as disclosed by Reid (paragraph 68-69).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabindran in view of Reid and further in view of US 6613002 B1 Clark et al. (hereinafter Clark).
Regarding claim 19, Rabindran discloses the limitations of claim 14.
Rabindran is silent on further comprising:
a first distal indicator that is distal to the first visual indicator, wherein the first distal indicator includes a directionality marking pointing proximally towards the first visual indicator; and
a first proximal indicator that is proximal to the first visual indicator, wherein the first proximal indicator includes a directionality marking pointing distally towards the first visual indicator.
However, Reid teaches a robotic medical system (100, Fig. 11, paragraph 48-52) comprising a cannula (200, Fig. 2a-b) having a first distal indicator (254, Fig. 2b) that is distal to a first visual indicator (250, Fig. 2b, paragraph 272, the remote center and inflection location 225 of the cannula 200 may be located at the center of the central body wall target 250), and a first proximal indicator (252, Fig. 2b) that is proximal to the first visual indicator, that together indicates a direction toward the first visual indicator (paragraph 68-69).
Furthermore, Clark teaches a medical system (abstract, col. 2 line 9-46) that uses markers (13, Fig. 1-4) on a guide wire (16) that are used to maintain the guide wire in place or determine the direction of longitudinal movement (abstract, col. 4 line 67 – col. 5 line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rabindran with the teachings of Reid and Clark to have a first distal indicator that is distal to the first visual indicator, wherein the first distal indicator includes a directionality marking pointing proximally towards the first visual indicator; and a first proximal indicator that is proximal to the first visual indicator, wherein the first proximal indicator includes a directionality marking pointing distally towards the first visual indicator, in order to provide guidance on where the body wall of the patient should sit along the length of the cannula when the cannula is inserted within the body wall of the patient as disclosed by Reid (paragraph 68-69) and to provide an indication of longitudinal direction to assist with proper insertion and withdrawal.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Rabindran, Reid and Clark teaches the limitations of claim 19, and the combination further teaches further comprising:
a second distal indicator that is distal to the second visual indicator, wherein the second distal indicator includes a directionality marking pointing proximally towards the second visual indicator; and
a second proximal indicator that is proximal to the second visual indicator, wherein the second proximal indicator includes a directionality marking pointing distally towards the second visual indicator (using a duplication of parts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modification of Rabindran with the teachings of Reid and Clark to duplicate the first distal indicator with the directionality marking pointing to the first visual indicator and the first proximal indicator with the directionality marking pointing distally towards the first visual indicator, to have a second distal indicator that is distal to the second visual indicator, wherein the second distal indicator includes a directionality marking pointing proximally towards the second visual indicator, and a second proximal indicator that is proximal to the second visual indicator, wherein the second proximal indicator includes a directionality marking pointing distally towards the second visual indicator, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B))).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOA TAN LE whose telephone number is (703)756-1252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:30pm.
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.
/KHOA TAN LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /MOHAMED G GABR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771