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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 4/23/2026, claims 2-3, 12 have been cancelled, claims 21-23 are newly added, thus claims 1, 4-11, 13-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Reid fails to anticipate amended claim 1 in accordance with MPEP 2131”, and “Reid fails to anticipate amended claim 9 in accordance with MPEP 2131”, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reid discloses the stability ridges (235) extend circumferentially around the outer surface of the tubular portion on an upper side of the defined remote center (225) (as seen in Fig. 2a-b), on a lower side of the defined remote center (as seen in Fig. 2a-b), and at a location of the defined remote center (the stability ridges at the defined remote center are still considered going around circumferentially, at least partially around circumferentially, the tubular portion as seen in Fig. 2a-b). Reid further discloses that the target indicia (250) integrated with the stability ridges at the defined remote center may include colored regions (paragraph 72).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of applicant’s amendments. Amended claim 14 is rejected under USC 103 as being unpatentable over Rabindran in view of Reid as described below.
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, 4-6, 9-11, 21-22 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 a series of 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 the stability ridges extend circumferentially around the outer surface of the tubular portion on an upper side of the defined remote center (see Fig. 2a-b, portion 208), on a lower side of the defined remote center (see Fig. 2a-b, portion 218), and at a location of the defined remote center (the stability ridges at the defined remote center are still considered going around circumferentially, at least partially around circumferentially, the tubular portion as seen in Fig. 2a-b), and wherein a colored or shaded marking is integrated with the stability ridges at the location of the defined remote center to provide a visual indication of the location of the defined remote center (paragraph 72, the target indicia (250) integrated with the stability ridges at the defined remote center may include colored regions).
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 stability 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 series 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);
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); and
an overlapping segment of ridges on the outer surface of the tubular portion, wherein the overlapping segment of ridges extends circumferentially around the outer surface of the tubular portion and axially overlaps with the visual indicator (the stability ridges at the defined remote center are still considered going around circumferentially, at least partially around circumferentially, the tubular portion as seen in Fig. 2a-b; as seen in annotated Fig. 2b below, an overlapping segment of ridges axially overlaps with the visual indicator 250), wherein the visual indicator comprises a colored or shaded marking integrated with the ridges of the overlapping segment of ridges (paragraph 72).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
387
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 21, Reid discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the shaded or colored marking extends circumferentially around the outer surface of the tubular portion at the location of the defined remote center (the colored target marking (250) at the defined remote center is still considered going around circumferentially, at least partially around circumferentially, the tubular portion as seen in Fig. 2a-b).
Regarding claim 22, Reid discloses the limitations of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the shaded or colored marking extends circumferentially around the outer surface of the tubular portion at the overlapping segment of ridges (the colored target marking (250) is still considered going around circumferentially, at least partially around circumferentially, the tubular portion at the overlapping segment of ridges as seen in annotated Fig. 2b above).
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, 13 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;
the stability ridges extend circumferentially around the outer surface of the tubular portion on an upper side of the second defined remote center, on a lower side of the second defined remote center, and at a location of the second defined remote center, and
a second colored or shaded marking is integrated with the stability ridges at the location of the defined remote center to provide a visual indication of the location of the 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 stability ridges that extends circumferentially around the tubular portion and the colored visual indictor at the first defined remote center of Reid to have the stability ridges extend circumferentially around the outer surface of the tubular portion on an upper side of the second defined remote center, on a lower side of the second defined remote center, and at a location of the second defined remote center (second defined remote center as taught by Rabindran and modified into the cannula of Reid) and a second colored or shaded marking is integrated with the stability ridges at the location of the defined remote center to provide a visual indication of the location of the 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; and
a fifth segment of ridges on the outer surface of the tubular portion, wherein the fifth segment of ridges extends circumferentially around the outer surface of the tubular portion and axially overlaps with the second visual indicator, wherein the second visual indicator comprises a second colored or shaded marking integrated with the ridges of the fifth segment of ridges.
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 with a colored marking, the first and second segments of stability ridges, and the segment of ridges that extends circumferentially around the tubular portion and overlaps with the first visual indictor 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, and a fifth segment of ridges on the outer surface of the tubular portion, wherein the fifth segment of ridges extends circumferentially around the outer surface of the tubular portion and axially overlaps with the second visual indicator, wherein the second visual indicator comprises a second colored or shaded marking integrated with the ridges of the fifth segment of ridges, 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 14-18, 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabindran in view of Reid.
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).
Rabindran is silent on wherein the first visual indicator comprises a first marking formed on an outer surface of the tubular portion at a first fixed axial location, and the second visual indicator comprises a second marking formed on the outer surface of the tubular portion at a second fixed axial location.
However, Reid teaches a robotic medical system (100, Fig. 11, paragraph 48-52) comprising a cannula (200, Fig. 2a-b) having a defined remote center (225) and a visual indicator at the defined remote center (target 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 visual indicator can be a marking (paragraph 72).
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 in order to allow a user to more easily visually distinguish both remote centers of motion on the cannula.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Rabindran and Reid teaches the limitations of claim 14, and the combination further teaches wherein the first marking is visually distinct from the second marking such that the first marking can be discriminated from the second marking (the markings taught by Reid modified into the differentiating visual indicators of Rabindran as in paragraph 193-194).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Rabindran and Reid teaches the limitations of claim 15, and the combination further teaches wherein the first marking includes a first alphanumeric character and the second marking includes a second alphanumeric character different than the first alphanumeric character (the markings taught by Reid modified into the different alphanumeric characters of Rabindran as in paragraph 194, visual indicators can be of a number reading).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Rabindran and Reid teaches the limitations of claim 15, and the combination further teaches wherein the first marking includes a first number of lines and the second marking includes a second number of lines different than the first number of lines (the markings taught by Reid modified into the different number of lines of Rabindran as in paragraph 194, a band or a series of bands can be used as visual indicators).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Rabindran and Reid teaches the limitations of claim 14, and Reid teaches further comprising a proximity indicator (252/254, Fig. 2b) on the cannula, wherein the proximity indicator is spaced apart axially from a corresponding one of the first or second visual indicators (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 first or second visual indicators (paragraph 68-69).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Rabindran and Reid teaches the limitations of Claim 14, and the combination further teaches wherein the cannula has a series of ridges that extend circumferentially around the outer surface of the tubular portion at the first defined remote center of motion and at the second defined remote center of motion (Reid teaches the stability ridges at the defined remote center are considered going around circumferentially, at least partially around circumferentially, the tubular portion as seen in Fig. 2a-b, and using a duplication of parts, duplicate the circumferential stability ridges at the defined remote center of Reid to have a series of ridges that extend circumferentially around the outer surface of the tubular portion at the first defined remote center of motion and at the second defined remote center of motion, 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)).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabindran in view of Reid as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US 6613002 B1 Clark et al. (hereinafter Clark).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Rabindran and Reid teaches the limitations of claim 14, and Reid teaches further comprising: a first distal indicator (254, Fig. 2b) that is distal to the first visual indicator (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).
The combination is silent on wherein the first distal indicator includes a directionality marking pointing proximally towards the first visual indicator and wherein the first proximal indicator includes a directionality marking pointing distally towards the first visual indicator.
However, 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 the modification of Rabindran with Reid with the teachings of Clark to have wherein the first distal indicator includes a directionality marking pointing proximally towards the first visual indicator and wherein the first proximal indicator includes a directionality marking pointing distally towards the first visual indicator, in order 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights