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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the medical treatment" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-13, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al (US20230011428A1; hereinafter referred to as Crawford) in view of Jiang et al (Z. Jiang et al., “Motion-aware robotic 3D ultrasound,” 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 12494–12500, May 2021; hereinafter referred to as Jiang).
Regarding Claim 1, Crawford discloses a method for robotic positioning of a medical probe or instrument (“a surgical robot system that includes a robot, a US transducer, and at least one processor (“processor”). The robot includes a robot base, a robot arm coupled to the robot base, and an end-effector coupled to the robot arm. The end-effector is configured to guide movement of a surgical instrument. “ [0008]), comprising:
receiving, from each of a plurality of sensing elements disposed in proximity to a medical instrument (“FIG. 20 depicts a guide tube 2000 configured to guide movement of a surgical instrument through the guide tube, and a US transducer unit 2010 formed by an array of US transducers spaced apart along a leading edge of the guide tube 2000. In the example embodiment illustrated in FIG. 20 , the US transducers are spaced apart to form a ring-shape and are at least partially disposed within a leading edge of the guide tube 2000.” [0161]),
a plurality of signals indicative of a distance to a treatment site of a patient defined by an epidermal surface (“The US transducer can be configured to output US imaging data that captures locations of the discrete features on the surgical instrument and captures anatomical structure proximately located to the guide tube 2000.” [0167], “the US transducer must remain in contact with the patient's skin while moving so that the US imaging data from the US transducer continuously captures anatomical structure of the patient under the skin. A 6-axis load cell at or near the leading edge of the robot arm may be used to sense pressure of the US transducer and/or end-effector against the patient and ensure that the US transducer stays in gentle contact with the skin.” [0189], “With the apparatus attached to the patient's skin, each US transducer can operate to detect underlying bone and detect the distance to the underlying bone according to the known speed of sound in the connective tissue below skin surface and dorsal to the vertebrae” [0227]);
computing, based on each of the signals and an offset of the sensor from the medical instrument, a distance from each of the respective sensing elements to the treatment site (“FIG. 20 depicts a guide tube 2000 configured to guide movement of a surgical instrument through the guide tube, and a US transducer unit 2010 formed by an array of US transducers spaced apart along a leading edge of the guide tube 2000. In the example embodiment illustrated in FIG. 20 , the US transducers are spaced apart to form a ring-shape and are at least partially disposed within a leading edge of the guide tube 2000.” [0161], “the processor generates 2300 US images of the anatomical structure based on the US imaging data, and matches 2302 the anatomical structure captured in one of the US images to the anatomical structure captured in the image volume. The processor then determines 2304 the pose of the end-effector relative to the anatomical structure captured in the image volume based on the matching and the known orientation of the end-effector relative to the US transducers.” [0182], “As an alternate to either of the US transducers configurations illustrated in FIGS. 28 and 29 , any 3D US transducer can be used to identify 3D locations of detected structures relative to the optical tracking array 2810.” [0232]);
identifying a surgical target, the surgical target disposed on an opposed side of the plane defining the treatment surface (“a processor is operative to determine 2400 a target pose for the surgical instrument based on a surgical plan defining where a surgical procedure is to be performed using the surgical instrument on the anatomical structure captured in the image volume.” [0184]);
and disposing the medical instrument for aligning the axis with the treatment site (“The processor is further operative to generate 2402 steering information based on the target pose for the surgical instrument and a present tracked pose of the end-effector relative to the anatomical structure captured in the image volume, the steering information indicating where the surgical instrument and/or the end-effector need to be moved.” [0184], “FIGS. 26A-C depicts a sequence of snapshots of a robotic arm 104 of the surgical robot system 100 moving laterally to a target pose while automatically maintaining contact between the US transducer 2010 and the patient's skin 2600 and normal to the body surface. Responsive to a leading edge of the guide tube 2000 reaching a trajectory at a target location, the processor can operate to automatically adjust the robot arm 104 so that the guide tube 2000 becomes oriented with a pose that matches the target trajectory.” [0190]).
Crawford does not specifically disclose determining, based on the computed distances, an angle of the medical instrument relative to the treatment site, the angle defining an axis of the medical instrument, the axis extending towards the treatment site, the angle based on an orientation of the axis relative to a plane defined by the treatment site.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Jiang teaches a vision-based robotic US system that can monitor an object’s motion and automatically update the sweep trajectory to provide 3D compounded images of the target anatomy seamlessly [Abstract].
Jiang also teaches determining, based on the computed distances, an angle of the medical instrument relative to the treatment site, the angle defining an axis of the medical instrument, the axis extending towards the treatment site, the angle based on an orientation of the axis relative to a plane defined by the treatment site (“a vision-based normal direction estimation method was proposed to quickly compute the desired poses for the whole sweep rather than a force-based method, which only works for the current contact position used in[12].Compared with[14], more local points distributed around the point on the trajectory P3d are considered to accurately and stably estimate ni.The selected point will be located on a plane when the local points are distributed close enough. In that case, ni atP3d t (i) is approximated by the normal direction of the plane. The plane expression(z=f(x,y)) is optimized using the Least-Squares method as Eq. (3)… After aligning the probe to the estimated ni, the probetip is expected to be perpendicular to the scan trajectory. Since the width of the manually drawn trajectory varies, the moving direction computed by connecting two close points in P3d t may differ significantly from the real value, causing instability in the rotation around the probe centerline (aligned with ni) during scanning. To address this problem, we propose a difference-based optimization method to automatically select keypoints from P3d t, generating a smooth robotic movement trajectory. To achieve this, the 3D points P3d t are transformed into 2D vectors (xp(i), yp(i)) as follows” [Pg. 4 D. Probe Orientation Determination and Optimization].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Crawford as outlined above with determining, based on the computed distances, an angle of the medical instrument relative to the treatment site, the angle defining an axis of the medical instrument, the axis extending towards the treatment site, the angle based on an orientation of the axis relative to a plane defined by the treatment site as taught by Jiang, because it would quickly compute the desired poses for the whole sweep rather than a force-based method, which only works for the current contact position [Pg. 4 D. Probe Orientation Determination and Optimization].
Regarding Claim 3, Crawford discloses that the axis defines an approach angle of a surgical instrument (“Surgical robot system 600 may comprise end-effector 602, robot arm 604, guide tube 606, instrument 608, and robot base 610. Instrument instrument 608 may be attached to a tracking array 612 including one or more tracking markers (such as markers 118) and have an associated trajectory 614. Trajectory 614 may represent a path of movement that instrument 608 is configured to travel once it is positioned through or secured in guide tube 606,” [0080], “The guide tube 114, 606 is configured to be oriented by the robot arm 104 such that insertion and trajectory for the surgical instrument 608 is able to reach a desired anatomical target within or upon the body of the patient 210.” [0087]), further comprising:
disposing the surgical instrument at the angle based on a target angle defined by intersection of the axis with the treatment site (“FIGS. 26A-C depicts a sequence of snapshots of a robotic arm 104 of the surgical robot system 100 moving laterally to a target pose while automatically maintaining contact between the US transducer 2010 and the patient's skin 2600 and normal to the body surface. Responsive to a leading edge of the guide tube 2000 reaching a trajectory at a target location, the processor can operate to automatically adjust the robot arm 104 so that the guide tube 2000 becomes oriented with a pose that matches the target trajectory.” [0190], “In either of these modes (accurate or estimate), once the end-effector 112 control by the surgical robot 102 approaches the target location, the surgical robot 102 will adjust the arm 104 orientation to match the desired trajectory orientation” [0194]);
and translating the surgical instrument along the axis (“The guide tube 114, 606 is configured to be oriented by the robot arm 104 such that insertion and trajectory for the surgical instrument 608 is able to reach a desired anatomical target within or upon the body of the patient 210.” [0087]).
Regarding Claim 5, Crawford discloses further comprising: identifying a probe plane defined by the plurality of sensors (“FIG. 20 depicts a guide tube 2000 configured to guide movement of a surgical instrument through the guide tube, and a US transducer unit 2010 formed by an array of US transducers spaced apart along a leading edge of the guide tube 2000. In the example embodiment illustrated in FIG. 20 , the US transducers are spaced apart to form a ring-shape and are at least partially disposed within a leading edge of the guide tube 2000. A ring-shaped US transducers layout may be especially operationally accurate because the ring can provide improved US visualization of anatomical structure, e.g., bone and tissues, that are distal, medial, and lateral proximately located to the guide tube 2000.” [0161]);
determining an orientation of the medical instrument to the probe plane identifying a patient plane defined by the treatment site (“the processor generates 2300 US images of the anatomical structure based on the US imaging data, and matches 2302 the anatomical structure captured in one of the US images to the anatomical structure captured in the image volume. The processor then determines 2304 the pose of the end-effector relative to the anatomical structure captured in the image volume based on the matching and the known orientation of the end-effector relative to the US transducers.” [0182];
Crawford does not specifically disclose computing an orientation of the probe plane relative to the patient plane based on the computed distances.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Jiang teaches computing an orientation of the probe plane relative to the patient plane based on the computed distances (“a vision-based normal direction estimation method was proposed to quickly compute the desired poses for the whole sweep rather than a force-based method, which only works for the current contact position used in[12].Compared with[14], more local points distributed around the point on the trajectory P3d are considered to accurately and stably estimate ni.The selected point will be located on a plane when the local points are distributed close enough. In that case, ni atP3d t (i) is approximated by the normal direction of the plane. The plane expression(z=f(x,y)) is optimized using the Least-Squares method as Eq. (3)… After aligning the probe to the estimated ni, the probetip is expected to be perpendicular to the scan trajectory. Since the width of the manually drawn trajectory varies, the moving direction computed by connecting two close points in P3d t may differ significantly from the real value, causing instability in the rotation around the probe centerline (aligned with ni) during scanning. To address this problem, we propose a difference-based optimization method to automatically select keypoints from P3d t, generating a smooth robotic movement trajectory. To achieve this, the 3D points P3d t are transformed into 2D vectors (xp(i), yp(i)) as follows” [Pg. 4 D. Probe Orientation Determination and Optimization].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Crawford as outlined above with computing an orientation of the probe plane relative to the patient plane based on the computed distances as taught by Jiang, because it would quickly compute the desired poses for the whole sweep rather than a force-based method, which only works for the current contact position [Pg. 4 D. Probe Orientation Determination and Optimization].
Regarding Claim 6, Crawford discloses further comprising: positioning the sensing elements in a predetermined orientation with a robotic actuator; engaging the medical instrument with the robotic actuator; and disposing the robotic actuator based on the determined angle of the medical instrument (“a surgical robot system that includes a robot, a US transducer, and at least one processor (“processor”). The robot includes a robot base, a robot arm coupled to the robot base, and an end-effector coupled to the robot arm. The end-effector is configured to guide movement of a surgical instrument. The US transducer is coupled to the end-effector and operative to output US imaging data of anatomical structure proximately located to the end-effector.” [0008], “FIG. 20 depicts a guide tube 2000 configured to guide movement of a surgical instrument through the guide tube, and a US transducer unit 2010 formed by an array of US transducers spaced apart along a leading edge of the guide tube 2000. In the example embodiment illustrated in FIG. 20 , the US transducers are spaced apart to form a ring-shape and are at least partially disposed within a leading edge of the guide tube 2000.” [0161], “the processor is operative to control movement of at least one motor, which is operatively connected to move the robot arm relative to the robot base, based on the steering information to guide movement of the end-effector so the surgical instrument becomes positioned with the target pose” [0185],).
Regarding Claim 7, Crawford discloses further comprising: receiving a location of a surgical target; computing the angle of the medical instrument based on an intersection with the surgical target; and advancing the medical instrument along the computed angle for attaining the surgical target (“a processor is operative to determine 2400 a target pose for the surgical instrument based on a surgical plan defining where a surgical procedure is to be performed using the surgical instrument on the anatomical structure captured in the image volume. The processor is further operative to generate 2402 steering information based on the target pose for the surgical instrument and a present tracked pose of the end-effector relative to the anatomical structure captured in the image volume, the steering information indicating where the surgical instrument and/or the end-effector need to be moved.” [0184], “ the processor is operative to control movement of at least one motor, which is operatively connected to move the robot arm relative to the robot base, based on the steering information to guide movement of the end-effector so the surgical instrument becomes positioned with the target pose” [0185]).
Regarding Claim 8, Crawford discloses further comprising: engaging the medical instrument with a robotic actuator for advancing the medial instrument (“the processor is operative to control movement of at least one motor, which is operatively connected to move the robot arm relative to the robot base, based on the steering information to guide movement of the end-effector so the surgical instrument becomes positioned with the target pose” [0185]).
Regarding Claim 9, Crawford discloses the distance sensor is configured for at least one of optical, ultrasonic, or visual sensing (“FIG. 20 depicts a guide tube 2000 configured to guide movement of a surgical instrument through the guide tube, and a US transducer unit 2010 formed by an array of US transducers spaced apart along a leading edge of the guide tube 2000. In the example embodiment illustrated in FIG. 20 , the US transducers are spaced apart to form a ring-shape and are at least partially disposed within a leading edge of the guide tube 2000.” [0161], “the processor generates 2300 US images of the anatomical structure based on the US imaging data, and matches 2302 the anatomical structure captured in one of the US images to the anatomical structure captured in the image volume. The processor then determines 2304 the pose of the end-effector relative to the anatomical structure captured in the image volume based on the matching and the known orientation of the end-effector relative to the US transducers.” [0182], “As an alternate to either of the US transducers configurations illustrated in FIGS. 28 and 29 , any 3D US transducer can be used to identify 3D locations of detected structures relative to the optical tracking array 2810.” [0232]).
Regarding Claim 10, Crawford discloses all limitations noted above except that further comprising receiving, from the plurality of sensing elements, a set of points, each point of the set of points having a position and corresponding distance to the treatment site.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Jiang teaches further comprising receiving, from the plurality of sensing elements, a set of points, each point of the set of points having a position and corresponding distance to the treatment site (“a vision-based normal direction estimation method was proposed to quickly compute the desired poses for the whole sweep rather than a force-based method, which only works for the current contact position used in[12].Compared with[14], more local points distributed around the point on the trajectory P3d are considered to accurately and stably estimate ni.The selected point will be located on a plane when the local points are distributed close enough. In that case, ni atP3d t (i) is approximated by the normal direction of the plane. The plane expression(z=f(x,y)) is optimized using the Least-Squares method as Eq. (3)… After aligning the probe to the estimated ni, the probetip is expected to be perpendicular to the scan trajectory. Since the width of the manually drawn trajectory varies, the moving direction computed by connecting two close points in P3d t may differ significantly from the real value, causing instability in the rotation around the probe centerline (aligned with ni) during scanning. To address this problem, we propose a difference-based optimization method to automatically select keypoints from P3d t, generating a smooth robotic movement trajectory. To achieve this, the 3D points P3d t are transformed into 2D vectors (xp(i), yp(i)) as follows” [Pg. 4 D. Probe Orientation Determination and Optimization].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Crawford as outlined above with further comprising receiving, from the plurality of sensing elements, a set of points, each point of the set of points having a position and corresponding distance to the treatment site as taught by Jiang, because it would quickly compute the desired poses for the whole sweep rather than a force-based method, which only works for the current contact position [Pg. 4 D. Probe Orientation Determination and Optimization].
Regarding Claim 11, Crawford discloses all limitations noted above except that the signal is a video signal and the set of points defines a pixelated grid, the pixelated grid having a two dimensional representation of the position of a respective point in the set of points.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Jiang teaches further comprising the signal is a video signal and the set of points defines a pixelated grid (“To control the robot to follow the manually drawn trajec tory, the transformation matrix between the RGB-D camera and the robot was calculated. As shown in Fig. 3, the involved coordinate frames are: 1) the image frame {i}; 2) the RGB-D camera frame {c}; 3) the robotic base frame {b}; 4) the robotic flange frame {f}; 5) the tool center point {tcp}; 6) an ArUco marker [17] {ar}. The transformation from the flange to the base frame b fT can be directly obtained using the robotic kinematic model. Thus, the transformation f tcpT is obtained using the 3D model of the custom-designed probe holder (connecting the US probe to the robot). Besides, the transformation c iT, used to generate a 3D point cloud from the 2D image can be computed based on the camera intrinsics accessed via a program1. The transformation between frame {b} and {c} b cT can be optimized based on the paired descriptions of the points in different frames using ICP [18]. To accurately estimate b cT, at least four non-coplanar points should be employed.” [Pg. 2 B. Hand-Eye Calibration]),
the pixelated grid having a two dimensional representation of the position of a respective point in the set of points (“a vision-based normal direction estimation method was proposed to quickly compute the desired poses for the whole sweep rather than a force-based method, which only works for the current contact position used in[12].Compared with[14], more local points distributed around the point on the trajectory P3d are considered to accurately and stably estimate ni.The selected point will be located on a plane when the local points are distributed close enough. In that case, ni atP3d t (i) is approximated by the normal direction of the plane. The plane expression(z=f(x,y)) is optimized using the Least-Squares method as Eq. (3)… After aligning the probe to the estimated ni, the probetip is expected to be perpendicular to the scan trajectory. Since the width of the manually drawn trajectory varies, the moving direction computed by connecting two close points in P3d t may differ significantly from the real value, causing instability in the rotation around the probe centerline (aligned with ni) during scanning. To address this problem, we propose a difference-based optimization method to automatically select keypoints from P3d t, generating a smooth robotic movement trajectory. To achieve this, the 3D points P3d t are transformed into 2D vectors (xp(i), yp(i)) as follows” [Pg. 4 D. Probe Orientation Determination and Optimization].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Crawford as outlined above with the signal is a video signal and the set of points defines a pixelated grid, the pixelated grid having a two dimensional representation of the position of a respective point in the set of points as taught by Jiang, because it would quickly compute the desired poses for the whole sweep rather than a force-based method, which only works for the current contact position [Pg. 4 D. Probe Orientation Determination and Optimization].
Regarding Claim 12, Crawford discloses that plurality of sensing elements are arranged in a plane, the offset indicative of a relative position from the medical treatment (“FIG. 20 depicts a guide tube 2000 configured to guide movement of a surgical instrument through the guide tube, and a US transducer unit 2010 formed by an array of US transducers spaced apart along a leading edge of the guide tube 2000. In the example embodiment illustrated in FIG. 20 , the US transducers are spaced apart to form a ring-shape and are at least partially disposed within a leading edge of the guide tube 2000. A ring-shaped US transducers layout may be especially operationally accurate because the ring can provide improved US visualization of anatomical structure, e.g., bone and tissues, that are distal, medial, and lateral proximately located to the guide tube 2000.” [0161], “the US transducer comprises a planar array of US transducers that are connected by a mounting arm to the guide tube 2000 or another part of the end-effector.” [0163], “the processor generates 2300 US images of the anatomical structure based on the US imaging data, and matches 2302 the anatomical structure captured in one of the US images to the anatomical structure captured in the image volume. The processor then determines 2304 the pose of the end-effector relative to the anatomical structure captured in the image volume based on the matching and the known orientation of the end-effector relative to the US transducers.” [0182]).
Regarding Claim 13, Crawford discloses all limitations noted above except that the medical instrument has an axis passing through a longitudinal dimension of the medical instrument , the axis extending towards the treatment site, the angle based on an orientation of the axis relative to a plane defined by the treatment site.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Jiang teaches the medical instrument has an axis passing through a longitudinal dimension of the medical instrument, the axis extending towards the treatment site, the angle based on an orientation of the axis relative to a plane defined by the treatment site (“a vision-based normal direction estimation method was proposed to quickly compute the desired poses for the whole sweep rather than a force-based method, which only works for the current contact position used in[12].Compared with[14], more local points distributed around the point on the trajectory P3d are considered to accurately and stably estimate ni.The selected point will be located on a plane when the local points are distributed close enough. In that case, ni atP3d t (i) is approximated by the normal direction of the plane. The plane expression(z=f(x,y)) is optimized using the Least-Squares method as Eq. (3)… After aligning the probe to the estimated ni, the probetip is expected to be perpendicular to the scan trajectory. Since the width of the manually drawn trajectory varies, the moving direction computed by connecting two close points in P3d t may differ significantly from the real value, causing instability in the rotation around the probe centerline (aligned with ni) during scanning. To address this problem, we propose a difference-based optimization method to automatically select keypoints from P3d t, generating a smooth robotic movement trajectory. To achieve this, the 3D points P3d t are transformed into 2D vectors (xp(i), yp(i)) as follows” [Pg. 4 D. Probe Orientation Determination and Optimization].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Crawford as outlined above with the medical instrument has an axis passing through a longitudinal dimension of the medical instrument , the axis extending towards the treatment site, the angle based on an orientation of the axis relative to a plane defined by the treatment site as taught by Jiang, because it would quickly compute the desired poses for the whole sweep rather than a force-based method, which only works for the current contact position [Pg. 4 D. Probe Orientation Determination and Optimization].
Regarding Claim 20, Crawford discloses the plurality of sensors define a sensor plane, the probe axis normal to the sensor plane (“FIG. 20 depicts a guide tube 2000 configured to guide movement of a surgical instrument through the guide tube, and a US transducer unit 2010 formed by an array of US transducers spaced apart along a leading edge of the guide tube 2000. In the example embodiment illustrated in FIG. 20 , the US transducers are spaced apart to form a ring-shape and are at least partially disposed within a leading edge of the guide tube 2000. A ring-shaped US transducers layout may be especially operationally accurate because the ring can provide improved US visualization of anatomical structure, e.g., bone and tissues, that are distal, medial, and lateral proximately located to the guide tube 2000.” [0161], “With the apparatus attached to the patient's skin, each US transducer can operate to detect underlying bone and detect the distance to the underlying bone according to the known speed of sound in the connective tissue below skin surface and dorsal to the vertebrae. With each parallel US transducer detecting the closest proximate contour of the underlying bone, a map of the bony surface could be generated by the US tracker computer 2820.” [0227].
Crawford does not specifically disclose further comprising an angle to the plane defined by the treatment site.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Jiang teaches further comprising an angle to the plane defined by the treatment site (“a vision-based normal direction estimation method was proposed to quickly compute the desired poses for the whole sweep rather than a force-based method, which only works for the current contact position used in[12].Compared with[14], more local points distributed around the point on the trajectory P3d are considered to accurately and stably estimate ni.The selected point will be located on a plane when the local points are distributed close enough. In that case, ni atP3d t (i) is approximated by the normal direction of the plane. The plane expression(z=f(x,y)) is optimized using the Least-Squares method as Eq. (3)… After aligning the probe to the estimated ni, the probetip is expected to be perpendicular to the scan trajectory. Since the width of the manually drawn trajectory varies, the moving direction computed by connecting two close points in P3d t may differ significantly from the real value, causing instability in the rotation around the probe centerline (aligned with ni) during scanning. To address this problem, we propose a difference-based optimization method to automatically select keypoints from P3d t, generating a smooth robotic movement trajectory. To achieve this, the 3D points P3d t are transformed into 2D vectors (xp(i), yp(i)) as follows” [Pg. 4 D. Probe Orientation Determination and Optimization].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Crawford as outlined above with further comprising an angle to the plane defined by the treatment site as taught by Jiang, because it would quickly compute the desired poses for the whole sweep rather than a force-based method, which only works for the current contact position [Pg. 4 D. Probe Orientation Determination and Optimization].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claim 1 the applicant argues the following:
The OA further cites to Crawford ‘428 for teaching robotic control of a probe. Crawford ‘428, however, is intended to “track pose of the end-effector relative to anatomical structure captured in the image volume based on the US imaging data.” [0008]. Crawford ‘428 is cited for teaching “robotic positioning of a medical probe or instrument,” OA at page 5. Crawford ‘428 teaches robotic engagement of the medical probe, not robotic control of the ultrasound probe or transducer as in the claimed approach. Crawford [0120]. Still further, even if Crawford ‘428 engages a surgical instrument 117, Crawford obtains pose based on an optical medium [0049], Fig. 27, optical markers [0221], or image based coordinate registration [0217]. There is no showing, teaching or disclosure of a plurality of distance based sensors, nor is there any way to combine with Zhang because there is no way to attach and implement a distance-sensing array, since the Crawford approach is based on markers or image references, not a distance to an epidermal surface. The proposed combination would be inoperable.
However, it is noted that Crawford does broadly teach robotic control of the ultrasound probe or transducer (“a surgical robot system that includes a robot, a US transducer, and at least one processor (“processor”). The robot includes a robot base, a robot arm coupled to the robot base, and an end-effector coupled to the robot arm. The end-effector is configured to guide movement of a surgical instrument. “ [0008], [0161], [0163]); and it is also noted that the distance sensors are recited at a highly broad level of specificity and as disclosed in dependent claim 9 the distance sensors can be either have optical, ultrasonic, or visual sensing.
Crawford teaches using the ultrasound transducers as a pose determination tool as well as an imaging device (“FIG. 20 depicts a guide tube 2000 configured to guide movement of a surgical instrument through the guide tube, and a US transducer unit 2010 formed by an array of US transducers spaced apart along a leading edge of the guide tube 2000. In the example embodiment illustrated in FIG. 20 , the US transducers are spaced apart to form a ring-shape and are at least partially disposed within a leading edge of the guide tube 2000.” [0161], “the processor generates 2300 US images of the anatomical structure based on the US imaging data, and matches 2302 the anatomical structure captured in one of the US images to the anatomical structure captured in the image volume. The processor then determines 2304 the pose of the end-effector relative to the anatomical structure captured in the image volume based on the matching and the known orientation of the end-effector relative to the US transducers.” [0182], “As an alternate to either of the US transducers configurations illustrated in FIGS. 28 and 29 , any 3D US transducer can be used to identify 3D locations of detected structures relative to the optical tracking array 2810.” [0232]).
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 STEVEN MALDONADO whose telephone number is 703-756-1421. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am-4:00 pm PST M-Th 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/Steven Maldonado/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/JOSEPH M SANTOS RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights