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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated July 23, 2026.
Claims 21-23, 25-33, and 35-42 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 41 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. More specifically, lines 1-2 of Claim 41 claim “a distance critical for focusing of a camera”. Although paragraph [0110] of the present specification states that “the threshold distance may be a distance critical for focusing of camera”, neither the specification nor Claim 41 describe how/why/what is meant by “critical”. As such, it is unclear as to whether the “critical distance” is a distance for optimal focusing (which is not defined or described in the specification), or a critical distance such that the camera’s lens is at a predefined position described by parameters of the camera (also not described in the specification, etc.
Appropriate correction by Applicant is required.
For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets “a distance critical for focusing of a camera” as a “desired position of focus optics”.
Claim 42 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. More specifically, lines 1-3 of Claim 42 claim “a minimum distance critical for avoiding contact of the distal tip with tissue within the body cavity”. Although paragraph [0110] of the present specification describes “a minimum distance critical for avoiding contact of distal tip (418) with tissue (Dcc) within body cavity (C)”, neither the specification nor Claim 42 describe how/why/what is meant by “minimum distance”. As such, it is unclear as to whether the “minimum distance” simply means that the distal tip is not in contact with the tissue (which is not defined or described in the specification), or distance at which the surgical scope does not cause optical blooming or heating of the tissue (also not described in the specification), etc.
Appropriate correction by Applicant is required.
For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets “a minimum distance critical for avoiding contact of the distal tip with tissue within the body cavity” as “a position at which the distal tip is not in contact with tissue within the body cavity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 21, 25-30, 36, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0289205 – “Scheib”) in view of Chopra et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0289777 – “Chopra”).
Regarding Claim 21, Scheib discloses:
A system (Scheib FIG. 12, surgical visualization system 1500; Scheib FIG. 13, surgical visualization system 1700; Scheib paragraph [0184], “surgical visualization system 1700 can be a further exemplification of the surgical visualization system 1500”)), comprising:
(a) a surgical scope (Scheib FIG. 13, imaging device 1720; see also Scheib FIG. 9, camera 1544) configured to extend through a surgical opening in a body wall of a patient and into a body cavity (Scheib FIG. 13, showing imaging device 1720 passing through the outer wall body of a patient in order to visualize the patient’s internal organ 1703), wherein the surgical scope includes a distal tip having a lens configured to visualize an anatomical structure within the body cavity (Scheib FIG. 13, distal tip of imaging device 1720 containing a spectral light emitter 1723; Scheib paragraph [0183], “imaging device 1720 includes a spectral light emitter 1723, which is configured to emit spectral light in a plurality of wavelengths to obtain a spectral image of hidden structures, for example. The imaging device 1720 can also include a three-dimensional camera and associated electronic processing circuits in various instances”);
(b) a feed device (Scheib FIG. 8, robotic arm 1514) operable to selectively advance and retract the surgical scope relative to the body wall (Scheib paragraph [0172], “robotic arm 1514 is configured to maneuver the imaging device” 1520/1720); and
(c) a controller (Scheib FIG. 9, control circuit 1533) in communication with the surgical scope (Scheib FIG. 9, camera 154; also depicted as imaging device 1720 in Scheib FIG. 13) and the feed device (Scheib paragraph [0172], “A robotic control unit can be configured to issue control motions to the robotic arms 1512, 1514“), wherein the controller is configured to:
(i) determine a present target distance measured from the distal tip to the anatomical structure (Scheib FIG. 9, distance determining logic 1541; Scheib paragraph [0185], “surgical visualization system 1700 is also configured to determine…a camera-to ureter distance dW from the imaging device 1720 to the ureter 1701a.”),
(ii) compare the present target distance to a threshold target distance (Scheib control circuit 1532; Scheib FIG. 15, query block 2060; Scheib paragraph [0223], “the control circuit 1532 compares 2060 the distance dt to a second threshold distance D2 to determine whether the robotic surgical system component is within the threshold distance D2 to the patient.”), and
(iii) based on the comparison:
(B) control the feed device to advance or retract the surgical scope longitudinally relative to the body wall (Scheib FIG. 15, block 2064; Scheib paragraph [0224], “If the distance dt is not greater than the threshold distance D2, then the process 2050 proceeds along the NO branch and the control circuit 1532 deactivates 2064 gross motion of the robotic surgical system, as described above. In one aspect, the control circuit 1532 changes an internal setting of the robotic surgical system 150 from a gross motion mode to a fine-movement mode”).
Scheib does not explicitly disclose:
a lens that is at the distal end of a surgical scope,
(A) determine a difference between the present target distance and the threshold target distance, and
(B) control the feed device to advance or retract the surgical scope longitudinally relative to the body wall by a distance equal to the difference.
Chopra is analogous art in the field of endoscope control that teaches:
a lens (Chopra FIG. 1, image capturing element 141) that is at the distal end of a surgical scope (Chopra FIG. 1, distal end 111 of flexible scope 114; Chopra paragraph [0030], “image capturing element 141 may be a stereoscopic or monoscopic camera disposed at the distal end 111 for capturing images”. Examiner interprets camera 141 as having a lens for focusing the captured images.),
(A) determine a difference between the present target distance and the threshold target distance (Chopra FIG. 1, working end 111 of steerable medical device 110; Chopra FIG. 8, block 807; Chopra paragraph [0046], “In block 807, a determination is made whether the working end 111 of the medical device 110 has come within a threshold distance to the target.”), and
(B) control the feed device to advance or retract the surgical scope longitudinally relative to the body wall by a distance equal to the difference (Chopra FIG. 3, showing medical device 110 passing through passages of an anatomical structure 330; Chopra FIG. 8, block 807; Chopra paragraph [0046], “if the medical device 110 has not reached the threshold distance to the target, then…the medical device 110 is moved further through the linked passages”; Chopra paragraph [0031], which describes movement of the medical device 110 being controlled either manually or by a controller 180 that controls actuators in the interface 170 shown in Chopra FIG. 2.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chopra’s system that controls a feed device with the system disclosed by Scheib. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result of a system that is capable of dynamically adjusting the position of a distal tip of an endoscope that is visualizing an anatomical structure within a patient’s body cavity. That is, Scheib combined with Chopra includes each element claimed. One or ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., simply combining them into a single system), such that when combined together, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. For example, Chopra positions an endoscope in a same manner whether in the invention taught by Chopra, or in the invention disclosed by Scheib. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Chopra’s endoscope positioning would result in the predictable result of an endoscope that is located where the endoscope is able to perform its intended purpose (see Chopra paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 25, Scheib in view of Chopra teaches the features of Claim 21, as described above.
Scheib further discloses an optical distance measurement system operable to measure the present target distance (Scheib FIG. 9, distance determining logic 1541; Scheib paragraph [0185], “surgical visualization system 1700 is also configured to determine…a camera-to ureter distance dW from the imaging device 1720 to the ureter 1701a.”), wherein the optical distance measurement system includes at least one of a sensor or a light emitter (Scheib FIG. 13, spectral light emitter 1723 at distal end of imaging device 1720) arranged at the distal tip of the surgical scope.
Regarding Claim 26, Scheib in view of Chopra teaches the features of Claim 25, as described above.
Scheib further discloses wherein the optical distance measurement system includes a time-of-flight sensor), wherein the controller (Scheib FIG. 9, distance determining logic 1541) is configured to determine the present target distance based on a signal provided by the time-of-flight sensor (Scheib paragraph [0151], “With time-of-flight measurements, the distance determining logic 1541 can determine one or more distance(s) to the visible tissue and/or the critical structure 1501”).
Scheib FIG. 9 does not explicitly show a time-of-flight sensor at the distal tip of the imaging device 1520.
However, Scheib FIG. 8 shows a time of flight sensor (Scheib FIG. 8, receiver 1508 at distal end of surgical device 1502, which receives reflected light produced by emitter 1506, arranged at the distal tip of surgical device 1502 to receive light reflected from the anatomical structure, and is part of the time-of-flight distance sensor system 1504; see also Scheib paragraph [0175]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Scheib’s receiver 1508 and emitter 1506 with Sheib’s imaging device 1520. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an imaging device that directly illuminates a target with time-of-flight electromagnetic radiation, in order to accurately determine the distance between the imaging device and the target, in the system taught by Scheib in view of Chopra.
Regarding Claim 27, Scheib in view of Chopra teaches the features of Claim 25, as described above.
Scheib further discloses:
(ii) a camera (Scheib FIG. 9, camera 1544) is configured to detect the light, wherein the controller (Scheib FIG. 9, distance determining logic 1541) is configured to determine the present target distance based on a signal provided by the camera (Scheib paragraph [0151], “With time-of-flight measurements, the distance determining logic 1541 can determine one or more distance(s) to the visible tissue and/or the critical structure 1501”).
Scheib FIG. 9 does not explicitly show (i) the light emitter is arranged at the distal tip of the surgical scope and configured to project light onto the anatomical structure.
However, Scheib FIG. 8 shows a light emitter (Scheib FIG. 8, emitter 1506) arranged at the distal tip of surgical device 1502 and configured to project light onto the anatomical structure (see Scheib paragraph [0173]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Scheib’s emitter 1506 with Sheib’s camera 1544. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an imaging device that directly illuminates a target, in order to control the illumination level, in the system taught by Scheib in view of Chopra.
Regarding Claim 28, Scheib in view of Chopra teaches the features of Claim 25, as described above.
Scheib further discloses wherein the light emitter (Scheib FIG. 9, structured light source 1552) is configured to project a structured light pattern onto the anatomical structure, wherein the camera is configured to detect the structured light pattern (Scheib imaging device 1520; Scheib paragraph [0171], “imaging device 1520 of the surgical visualization system 1500 is configured to detect light at various wavelengths, such as, for example, visible light, spectral light waves (visible or invisible), and a structured light pattern (visible or invisible)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Scheib’s structured light pattern with the system taught by Scheib in view of Chopra. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a system that can determine the topography or landscape of a target (see Scheib paragraph [0173).
Regarding Claim 29, Scheib in view of Chopra teaches the features of Claim 21, as described above.
Chopra further teaches wherein when the present target distance is greater than the threshold target distance, the controller is configured to control the feed device to retract the surgical scope proximally relative to the body wall by the distance equal to the difference (Chopra FIG. 8, block 807; Chopra paragraph [0046], “if the medical device 110 has not reached the threshold distance to the target, then…the medical device 110 is moved further through the linked passages”; Chopra paragraph [0031], which describes movement of the medical device 110 being controlled either manually or by a controller 180 that controls actuators in the interface 170 shown in Chopra FIG. 2.).
Regarding Claim 30, Scheib in view of Chopra teaches the features of Claim 29, as described above.
Chopra further teaches wherein when the present target distance is greater than the threshold target distance, the controller is configured to control the feed device to advance the surgical scope distally relative to the body wall by the distance equal to the difference (Chopra FIG. 8, block 807; Chopra paragraph [0046], “if the medical device 110 has not reached the threshold distance to the target, then…the medical device 110 is moved further through the linked passages”; Chopra paragraph [0031], which describes movement of the medical device 110 being controlled either manually or by a controller 180 that controls actuators in the interface 170 shown in Chopra FIG. 2.).
Regarding Claim 36, Scheib discloses:
A system (Scheib FIG. 12, surgical visualization system 1500; Scheib FIG. 13, surgical visualization system 1700; Scheib paragraph [0184], “surgical visualization system 1700 can be a further exemplification of the surgical visualization system 1500”), comprising:
(a) a surgical scope (Scheib FIG. 13, imaging device 1720, see also Scheib FIG. 9, camera 1544) configured to extend through a surgical opening in a body wall of a patient and into a body cavity (Scheib FIG. 13, showing imaging device 1720 passing through the outer wall body of a patient in order to visualize the patient’s internal organ 1703), wherein the surgical scope includes a distal tip having a lens configured to visualize an anatomical structure within the body cavity (Scheib FIG. 13, distal tip of imaging device 1720 containing a spectral light emitter 1723; Scheib paragraph [0183], “imaging device 1720 includes a spectral light emitter 1723, which is configured to emit spectral light in a plurality of wavelengths to obtain a spectral image of hidden structures, for example. The imaging device 1720 can also include a three-dimensional camera and associated electronic processing circuits in various instances”);
(b) an optical distance measurement system operable to measure a present target distance from the distal tip to the anatomical structure (Scheib FIG. 9, distance determining logic 1541; Scheib paragraph [0185], “surgical visualization system 1700 is also configured to determine…a camera-to ureter distance dW from the imaging device 1720 to the ureter 1701a.”);
(c) a feed device (Scheib FIG. 8, robotic arm 1514) operable to selectively advance and retract the surgical scope relative to the body wall (Scheib paragraph [0172], “robotic arm 1514 is configured to maneuver the imaging device 1520”); and
(d) a controller (Scheib FIG. 9, control circuit 1533) in communication with each of the surgical scope (Scheib FIG. 9, camera 1542), the optical distance measurement system (Scheib FIG. 9, distance determining logic 1541), and the feed device (Scheib paragraph [0172], “A robotic control unit can be configured to issue control motions to the robotic arms 1512, 1514“), wherein the controller is configured to:
(i) compare the present target distance to a threshold target distance (Scheib control circuit 1532; Scheib FIG. 15, query block 2060; Scheib paragraph [0223], “the control circuit 1532 compares 2060 the distance dt to a second threshold distance D2 to determine whether the robotic surgical system component is within the threshold distance D2 to the patient.”), and
(B) control the feed device to advance or retract the surgical scope longitudinally relative to the body wall (Scheib FIG. 15, block 2064; Scheib paragraph [0224], “If the distance dt is not greater than the threshold distance D2, then the process 2050 proceeds along the NO branch and the control circuit 1532 deactivates 2064 gross motion of the robotic surgical system, as described above. In one aspect, the control circuit 1532 changes an internal setting of the robotic surgical system 150 from a gross motion mode to a fine-movement mode”).
Scheib does not explicitly disclose:
a lens that is at the distal end of a surgical scope,
(A) determine a difference between the present target distance and the threshold target distance, and
(B) control the feed device to advance or retract the surgical scope longitudinally relative to the body wall by a distance equal to the difference.
Chopra is analogous art in the field of endoscope control that teaches:
a lens (Chopra FIG. 1, image capturing element 141) that is at the distal end of a surgical scope (Chopra FIG. 1, distal end 111 of flexible scope 114; Chopra paragraph [0030], “image capturing element 141 may be a stereoscopic or monoscopic camera disposed at the distal end 111 for capturing images”. Examiner interprets camera 141 as having a lens for focusing the captured images.),
(A) determine a difference between the present target distance and the threshold target distance (Chopra FIG. 1, working end 111 of steerable medical device 110; Chopra FIG. 8, block 807; Chopra paragraph [0046], “In block 807, a determination is made whether the working end 111 of the medical device 110 has come within a threshold distance to the target.”), and
(B) control the feed device to advance or retract the surgical scope longitudinally relative to the body wall by a distance equal to the difference (Chopra FIG. 3, showing medical device 110 passing through passages of an anatomical structure 330; Chopra FIG. 8, block 807; Chopra paragraph [0046], “if the medical device 110 has not reached the threshold distance to the target, then…the medical device 110 is moved further through the linked passages”; Chopra paragraph [0031], which describes movement of the medical device 110 being controlled either manually or by a controller 180 that controls actuators in the interface 170 shown in Chopra FIG. 2.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chopra’s system that controls a feed device with the system disclosed by Scheib. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result of a system that is capable of dynamically adjusting the position of a distal tip of an endoscope that is visualizing an anatomical structure within a patient’s body cavity. That is, Scheib combined with Chopra includes each element claimed. One or ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., simply combining them into a single system), such that when combined together, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. For example, Chopra positions an endoscope in a same manner whether in the invention taught by Chopra, or in the invention disclosed by Scheib. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Chopra’s endoscope positioning would result in the predictable result of an endoscope that is located where the endoscope is able to perform its intended purpose (see Chopra paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 38, Scheib in view of Chopra teaches the features of Claim 36, as described above.
Scheib further discloses wherein the optical distance measurement system includes at least one of a sensor or a light emitter (Scheib FIG. 13, spectral light emitter 1723 at distal end of imaging device 1720) arranged at the distal tip of the surgical scope.
Chopra further teaches wherein the system further comprises a second sensor (Chopra FIG. 13, sensor 1310k) operably coupled to the feed device (Chopra FIG. 13, interface 170; Chopra paragraph [0031], “interface 170 includes actuators for actuating cables in the medical device 110 to steer its tip 112 as well as an actuator for moving the entire medical device 110 forward and backward”) , the second sensor configured to track an insertion distance of the distal tip of the surgical scope from the feed device simultaneously with the measurement of the present target distance (Chopra paragraph [0046], “In block 807, a determination is made whether the working end 111 of the medical device 110 has come within a threshold distance to the target.”.
Regarding Claim 39, Scheib discloses:
A method of operating a system (Scheib FIG. 12, surgical visualization system 1500; Scheib FIG. 13, surgical visualization system 1700; Scheib paragraph [0184], “surgical visualization system 1700 can be a further exemplification of the surgical visualization system 1500”) that includes a surgical scope (Scheib FIG. 13, imaging device 1720) having a distal tip with a lens configured to visualize an anatomical structure within a body cavity of a patient (Scheib FIG. 13, distal tip of imaging device 1720 containing a spectral light emitter 1723; Scheib paragraph [0183], “imaging device 1720 includes a spectral light emitter 1723, which is configured to emit spectral light in a plurality of wavelengths to obtain a spectral image of hidden structures, for example. The imaging device 1720 can also include a three-dimensional camera and associated electronic processing circuits in various instances”), a feed device (Scheib FIG. 8, robotic arm 1514), and a controller (Scheib FIG. 9, control circuit 1533), the method comprising:
(a) controlling the feed device with the controller to advance the surgical scope distally relative to a body wall of the patient such that the distal tip advances toward the anatomical structure (Scheib paragraph [0172], “robotic arm 1514 is configured to maneuver the imaging device 1520”);
(b) measuring a present target distance from the distal tip to the anatomical structure (Scheib FIG. 9, distance determining logic 1541; Scheib paragraph [0185], “surgical visualization system 1700 is also configured to determine…a camera-to ureter distance dW from the imaging device 1720 to the ureter 1701a.”);
(c) comparing the present target distance to a threshold target distance with the controller (Scheib control circuit 1532; Scheib FIG. 15, query block 2060; Scheib paragraph [0223], “the control circuit 1532 compares 2060 the distance dt to a second threshold distance D2 to determine whether the robotic surgical system component is within the threshold distance D2 to the patient.”).
Scheib does not explicitly disclose:
a lens that is at the distal end of a surgical scope, and
(d) determining a difference between the present target distance and the threshold target distance, and
(e) based on the comparison, controlling the feed device to advance or retract the surgical scope longitudinally relative to the body wall by a distance equal to the difference.
Chopra is analogous art in the field of endoscope control that teaches:
a lens (Chopra FIG. 1, image capturing element 141) that is at the distal end of a surgical scope (Chopra FIG. 1, distal end 111 of flexible scope 114; Chopra paragraph [0030], “image capturing element 141 may be a stereoscopic or monoscopic camera disposed at the distal end 111 for capturing images”. Examiner interprets camera 141 as having a lens for focusing the captured images.), and
(d) determining a difference between the present target distance and the threshold target distance (Chopra FIG. 1, working end 111 of steerable medical device 110; Chopra FIG. 8, block 807; Chopra paragraph [0046], “In block 807, a determination is made whether the working end 111 of the medical device 110 has come within a threshold distance to the target.”), and
e) based on the comparison, controlling the feed device to advance or retract the surgical scope longitudinally relative to the body wall by a distance equal to the difference (Chopra FIG. 3, showing medical device 110 passing through passages of an anatomical structure 330; Chopra FIG. 8, block 807; Chopra paragraph [0046], “if the medical device 110 has not reached the threshold distance to the target, then…the medical device 110 is moved further through the linked passages”; Chopra paragraph [0031], which describes movement of the medical device 110 being controlled either manually or by a controller 180 that controls actuators in the interface 170 shown in Chopra FIG. 2.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chopra’s method that controls a feed device used by the method disclosed by Scheib. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result of a method that dynamically adjusts the position of a distal tip of an endoscope that is visualizing an anatomical structure within a patient’s body cavity. That is, Scheib combined with Chopra includes each element claimed. One or ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., simply combining them into a single system), such that when combined together, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. For example, Chopra positions an endoscope in a same manner whether in the invention taught by Chopra, or in the invention disclosed by Scheib. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Chopra’s endoscope positioning would result in the predictable result of an endoscope that is located where the endoscope is able to perform its intended purpose (see Chopra paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 40, Scheib in view of Chopra teaches the features of Claim 39, as described above.
Chopra further teaches when the present target distance is greater than the threshold target distance by a difference, controlling the feed device with the controller to advance the surgical scope distally relative to the body wall by a distance equal to the difference (Chopra FIG. 8, block 807; Chopra paragraph [0046], “if the medical device 110 has not reached the threshold distance to the target, then…the medical device 110 is moved further through the linked passages”; Chopra paragraph [0031], which describes movement of the medical device 110 being controlled either manually or by a controller 180 that controls actuators in the interface 170 shown in Chopra FIG. 2.).
Claims 22-23, 32-33, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0289205 – “Scheib”) in view of Chopra (US PGPUB 2021/0255451 – “Chopra”) and Padilla et al. (US Patent 6,152,918 – “Padilla”).
Regarding Claim 22, Scheib in view of Chopra teaches the features of Claim 21, as described above.
Scheib in view of Chopra does not explicitly teach a sheath configured to be inserted through the surgical opening and slidably receive the surgical scope, wherein the feed device is operable to selectively advance and retract the surgical scope and the sheath collectively relative to the body wall.
Padilla teaches a sheath (Padilla FIG. 10A-FIG. 10C; flexible piercing needle tube 110) configured to be inserted through the surgical opening (Padilla FIG. 11A; Padilla col. 10 lines 48-50, “piercing needle 110 is representatively shown at a datum surface such as a heart's epicardial surface”) and slidably receive the surgical scope (Padilla optical fiber element 101; Padilla col. 10 lines 8-13, “finger slide 106 provides both auto-piercing actuation and energy delivery device such as an optical fiber advance control for precise, one-handed advance and withdrawal of the energy delivery device such as an optical fiber element 101”; Examiner interprets optical fiber element 101 to be analogous to a surgical scope, since both are directed to transmitting light during an endoscopic procedure), wherein the feed device is operable to selectively advance and retract the surgical scope and the sheath collectively relative to the body wall (Padilla col. 9 lines 58-61, “device 100 includes a piercing needle trigger slide 102 that attaches to the flexible piercing needle tube 110”; Padilla col. 10 lines 28-31, “piercing needle flex tube 110 can rotate and advance simultaneously at the distal end of the outer guide shafting 108”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Padilla’s combined sheath and optical fiber with the system taught by Scheib in view of Chopra. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscopic system having an optical system that is protected when entering a patient (see Padilla col. 10 lines 28-31).
Regarding Claim 23, Scheib in view of Chopra and Padilla teaches the features of Claim 22, as described above.
Padilla further teaches wherein a distal end of the sheath includes an articulation section (Padilla FIG. 10B, flexible bending section 111 of piercing needle 110) configured to articulate within the body cavity to selectively orient the distal tip of the surgical scope relative to the anatomical structure, wherein the surgical scope includes a deflectable distal shaft portion configured to slidably advance and retract through and relative to the sheath (Padilla col. 10 lines 8-13, “finger slide 106 provides both auto-piercing actuation and energy delivery device such as an optical fiber advance control for precise, one-handed advance and withdrawal of the energy delivery device such as an optical fiber element 101”).
Regarding Claim 32, Scheib in view of Chopra teaches the features of Claim 21, as described above.
Scheib in view of Chopra does not explicitly teach:
wherein the feed device comprises:
(i) a device body that defines a feed passage configured to receive the surgical scope therethrough,
(ii) a drive member that extends into the feed passage, and
(iii) an actuator operable to actuate the drive member to selectively advance and retract the surgical scope relative to the body wall.
Padilla teaches:
wherein the feed device comprises:
(i) a device body (Padilla FIG. 7, headpiece 24) that defines a feed passage configured to receive the surgical scope therethrough (Padilla FIG. 7, showing headpiece 24 overlying the surgical opening in epicardium 12 and defining a feed passage by central bore 64 in Padilla FIG. 5 for optical fiber 26 to pass through),
(ii) a drive member (Padilla FIG. 5, hollow piercing tip 25) that extends into the feed passage, and
(iii) an actuator operable to actuate the drive member to selectively advance and retract the surgical scope relative to the body wall (Padilla col. 10 lines 8-13, “finger slide 106 provides both auto-piercing actuation”; see also spring 70 in Padilla FIG. 5; Padilla col. 8 lines 27-33, “A coiled spring 70 is preferably provided within the central bore to contact the enlarged head of the tip member and urge it against the seat 68. However, if a level of resistance is encountered by the tip member during its initial contact with the epicardium, the spring will allow some retraction of the tip member, thereby easing the initial penetration process.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Padilla’s headpiece 24, central bore 64,
hollow piercing tip 25, and/or coiled spring 70 with the device taught by Scheib in view of Chopra. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a device that securely mates with a surgical opening in a patient (see Padilla col. 6 lines 20-60).
Regarding Claim 33, Scheib in view of Chopra and Padilla teaches the features of Claim 32, as described above.
Scheib further discloses a sensor configured to detect at least one of a position, a direction of motion, or a speed of motion of at least one of the drive member or the actuator, wherein the controller is configured to determine an insertion distance of the distal tip of the surgical scope from the device body based on a signal provided by the sensor (Scheib FIG. 2, input control devices 136; Scheib paragraph [0095], “input control devices 136 can provide the same degrees of freedom as their associated tools 126 to provide the surgeon with telepresence, or the perception that the input control devices 136 are integral with the robotic tools 126 so that the surgeon has a strong sense of directly controlling the robotic tools 126. To this end, position, force, and tactile feedback sensors may be employed to transmit position, force, and tactile sensations from the robotic tools 126 back to the surgeon's hands through the input control devices 136.”).
Regarding Claim 37, Scheib in view of Chopra teaches the features of Claim 36, as described above.
Scheib in view of Chopra does not explicitly teach a sheath configured to be inserted through the surgical opening and slidably receive the surgical scope, wherein the feed device is operable to selectively advance and retract the surgical scope and the sheath collectively relative to the body wall.
Padilla teaches a sheath (Padilla FIG. 10A-FIG. 10C; flexible piercing needle tube 110) configured to be inserted through the surgical opening (Padilla FIG. 11A; Padilla col. 10 lines 48-50, “piercing needle 110 is representatively shown at a datum surface such as a heart's epicardial surface”) and slidably receive the surgical scope (Padilla optical fiber element 101; Padilla col. 10 lines 8-13, “finger slide 106 provides both auto-piercing actuation and energy delivery device such as an optical fiber advance control for precise, one-handed advance and withdrawal of the energy delivery device such as an optical fiber element 101”; Examiner interprets optical fiber element 101 to be analogous to a surgical scope, since both are directed to transmitting light during an endoscopic procedure), wherein the feed device is operable to selectively advance and retract the surgical scope and the sheath collectively relative to the body wall (Padilla col. 9 lines 58-61, “device 100 includes a piercing needle trigger slide 102 that attaches to the flexible piercing needle tube 110”; Padilla col. 10 lines 28-31, “piercing needle flex tube 110 can rotate and advance simultaneously at the distal end of the outer guide shafting 108”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Padilla’s combined sheath and optical fiber with the system taught by Scheib in view of Chopra. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscopic system having an optical system that is protected when entering a patient (see Padilla col. 10 lines 28-31).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0289205 – “Scheib”) in view of Chopra (US PGPUB 2021/0255451 – “Chopra”) and Komp et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0188032 – “Komp”).
Regarding Claim 31, Scheib in view of Chopra teaches the features of Claim 21, as described above.
Scheib in view of Chopra does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to adjust the threshold target distance based on a user input.
Komp teaches wherein the controller is configured to adjust the threshold target distance based on a user input (Komp Abstract, “a warning is generated when it is determined that the distance between the position of the surgical tool in the 3D spatial map and the location of the anatomy is equal to or not greater than a threshold minimum distance”’ Komp paragraph [0014], “the computing device may receive a selection of the threshold minimum distance…Additionally, or alternatively, the selection is a pre-set value based on user (e.g., surgeon) preference”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Komp’s user selection of a threshold distance between an instrument and a location on a patient anatomy with the system taught by Scheib in view of Chopra. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a system that is dynamically modifiable by a user based on the user’s preference and/or based on the procedure type, such that the system is configurable for different users and different procedures, in order to make the system useful to multiple users and/or multiple types of procedures.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0289205 – “Scheib”) in view of Chopra (US PGPUB 2021/0255451 – “Chopra”), Padilla et al. (US Patent 6,152,918 – “Padilla”), and Ida et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0315637 – “Ida”).
Regarding Claim 35, Scheib in view of Chopra and Padilla teaches the features of Claim 33, as described above.
Scheib further discloses wherein the drive member (Scheib FIG. 8, robotic arms 1514 holding imaging device 1520) comprises a rotary drive member (Scheib paragraph [0172], “robotic arms 1512, 1514 include rigid structural members 1516 and joints 1518, which can include servomotor controls”).
Padilla explicitly teaches a rotary drive member (Padilla FIG. 15, stepper motor 143; see also Padilla col. 13, line 20 – col. 14, line 23).
Scheib in view of Chopra and Padilla does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor comprises a rotary encoder.
Ida teaches wherein the sensor comprises a rotary encoder (Ida FIG. 4, robot main body 320; Ida paragraph [0047], “robot main body 320, including the robot arm AR, may have a plurality of joints and may be equipped with a motor (an example of an actuator) and an encoder (an example of a sensor) corresponding to each joint. The encoder may include a rotary encoder as an example of an angle detector”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ida’s rotary encoder with the drive system disclosed by Scheib in the system taught by Scheib in view of Chopra and Padilla. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a robotic endoscope capable of moving an imaging device and/or a surgical instrument in a controlled manner in which the location of an imaging device and/or a surgical instrument is known when moving.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0289205 – “Scheib”) in view of Chopra (US PGPUB 2021/0255451 – “Chopra”) and Piron et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0254757 – “Piron”).
Regarding Claim 41, Scheib in view of Chopra teaches the features of Claim 21, as described above.
Scheib in view of Chopra does not explicitly teach wherein the threshold target distance comprises a distance critical for focusing of a camera of the surgical scope.
Piron teaches wherein the threshold target distance comprises a distance critical for focusing of a camera of the surgical scope (Piron FIG. 6, focus optics 515; Piron FIG. 9, block 915; Piron paragraph [0122], “as indicated by block 915; and controlling the focus actuator, e.g., by a controller of the imaging system, to position the focus optics at the desired position, as indicated by block 920, whereby a focused image is capturable, for example, by using a camera of the optical imaging system”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Piron’s system for focusing a camera with the system taught by Scheib in view of Chopra. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result of a system that keeps a target area in focus during robotic surgery (see Piron paragraph [0066]). As (1) the combination of the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, as described above; (2) the record shows no evidence of each element taught by the cited prior art performing differently in combination as it does separately (i.e., either alone or in combination the system for focusing performs in a same manner); and (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e., nothing in the record supports anything other than the ability to focus on a target in the system taught by Scheib in view of Chopra would be supplied by Piron’s focusing system). As such, no additional findings based on the Graham (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0289205 – “Scheib”) in view of Chopra (US PGPUB 2021/0255451 – “Chopra”) and Jenkins (US PGPUB 2015/0182726 – “Jenkins”).
Regarding Claim 42, Scheib in view of Chopra teaches the features of Claim 21, as described above.
Scheib in view of Chopra does not explicitly teach wherein the threshold target distance comprises a minimum distance critical for avoiding contact of the distal tip with tissue within the body cavity.
Jenkins teaches wherein the threshold target distance comprises a minimum distance critical for avoiding contact of the distal tip (Jenkins FIG. 1C, imaging catheter 114) with tissue within the body cavity (Jenkins FIG. 1C, computing device 105; Jenkins paragraph [0032], “ultrasound catheter 114 may be manipulated within the patient (e.g., a human, horse, various mammals, etc.) so that its distal end 215 is positioned within an organ 130 of the patient. For example, the organ 130 may be a blood vessel or a chamber of the patient's heart”; Jenkins paragraph [0074], “the computing device may also have to adjust instructions to avoid collisions with anatomy or other elements within the patient's organ…The computing device may evaluate the current position of the first catheter and generate repositioning instructions that are appropriate for the difference in catheter positioning within the patient's organ and to maintain…the field of view of the imaging catheter.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jenkins’ collision-avoidance system with the system taught by Scheib in view of Chopra. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result of a system that prevents collision between an imaging device and patient tissue during robotic surgery (see Jenkins paragraph [0065]). As (1) the combination of the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, as described above; (2) the record shows no evidence of each element taught by the cited prior art performing differently in combination as it does separately (i.e., either alone or in combination the system for focusing performs in a same manner); and (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e., nothing in the record supports anything other than the ability to avoid collision with a target in the system taught by Scheib in view of Chopra would be supplied by Jenkins’ avoidance system). As such, no additional findings based on the Graham (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed July 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 27, 29, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive, in view of the present amendments. The rejection of Claims 27, 29, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11, filed July 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 21-23, 25-33, and 35-40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the present amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chopra et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0289777 – “Chopra”). More specifically, Applicant asserts that the newly-added features to independent Claims 21, 36, and 39 of “determining a difference between the present target distance and the threshold target distance, and controlling the feed device to advance or retract the surgical scope longitudinally relative to the body wall by a distance equal to the difference” is not taught by Scheib et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0289205 – “Scheib”) in view of Maeda (US PGPUB 2021/0255451 – “Maeda”). This argument is moot, since, as described above in the final rejection of Claims 21-23, 25-33, and 35-40 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Maeda is no longer cited. Applicant further asserts on pages 9-11 that Deane (US PGPUB 2021/0137619 – “Deane”) fails to cure the deficiencies of Scheib in view of Maeda. This argument is also moot, since, as described above in the final rejection of Claims 21-23, 25-33, and 35-40 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Deane is no longer cited.
As such, the rejections of Claims 21-23, 25-33, and 35-40, as well as new Claims 41-42, under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained for reasons presented above.
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 JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
9/9/26
Prosecution Insights