DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is taken in response to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on 3/2/2026 regarding Application No. 18/467,520 originally filed on 09/14/2023. Claims 1-10, 12-19, 22-27 and 42-44 are pending for consideration:
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 14-19, 22-27, 42-44 are allowed. The amended language now requires generating a recommended adjustment comprising a pre-planned adjustment to pose corresponding to progress of a procedure, followed by confirmed execution concurrently with teleoperation. Therefore, the claim(s) are allowable.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues “Amended independent claim 1 recites, for instance, a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: ‘control a medical instrument via teleoperation of the kinematic chain to perform the procedure’ and ‘in accordance with a determination that a first user command to execute the recommended adjustment has been received, adjust the pose of the kinematic chain in accordance with the recommended adjustment, wherein adjusting the pose of the kinematic chain comprises either (i) halting the control of the medical instrument via teleoperation of the kinematic chain prior to adjusting the pose of the kinematic chain in accordance with the pre-planned adjustment, or (ii) adjusting the pose of the kinematic chain in accordance with the pre-planned adjustment concurrently with the control of the medical instrument via teleoperation.’ The combined art of record fails to teach or suggest these features.” [Remarks, p. 9-11]. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Itkowitz discloses controlling a medical instrument via teleoperation of the kinematic chain. (as per “An operator input system 16 allows a surgeon or other type of clinician S to view images of or representing the surgical site and to control the operation of the medical instrument system 14” in ¶22, ¶38). Hashimoto discloses detecting progress of the procedure and generating a pre-planned adjustment corresponding to the detected progress. (as per “The situation detection data may include the contents of the surgical operation, and a lapsed time of the surgical operation” in ¶14, as per “recognizing a surgery situation based on the recognized surgeon’s motion, and predicting at least one kind of surgical instrument to be used next” in ¶11, as per “The given handing position may be a fixed position defined according to the contents of the surgical operation, a position defined beforehand according to the progress state of the surgical operation” in ¶12, as per “the robot control device 3… operates the manipulator arm 2… and then stands by at a standby position” in ¶48). Hourtash discloses the claimed concurrent adjustment during teleoperation. (as per “these improvements would allow a first user to effect movement of an end effector of the manipulator arm during a surgical procedure while allowing a second user to reconfigure the manipulator arms in preparation for and/or during end effector movement” in ¶9, as per “reconfigure the manipulator arm, while maintaining the desired end effector state, optionally even during movement of the end effector during a surgical procedure” in ¶45). Thus, the combined teachings meet the amended limitation. Further, claim 1 recites the adjustment as either (i) halting teleoperation prior to adjustment, or (ii) adjusting concurrently with teleoperation. Because the claim is written in the alternative, the teachings of Hourtash with respect to option (ii) are sufficient to meet the amended limitation.
The applicant argues “The Office Action relies on Hashimoto for purportedly teaching ‘a pre-planned adjustment to the kinematic chain.’ However, the purported kinematic chain of Hashimoto is of ‘a robot to pass the surgical instrument to the surgeon, which contributes to the reduction of fatigues of the surgical room nurse.’ FIG. 1 of Hashimoto shows a human surgeon manually performing surgery, where the surgery assisting robot 1 merely passes the instrument to the human surgeon. Hashimoto fails to teach or suggest the above recited-features…” [Remarks, pp. 9-11]. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The rejection does not rely on Hashimoto alone for the teleoperation of the medical instrument or for the concurrent adjustment feature. Rather, Itkowitz is relied upon for teleoperation of the medical instrument via the kinematic chain, Hashimoto is relied upon for detecting procedure progress and determining a position defined beforehand according to the progress state of the surgical operation, and Hourtash is relied upon for adjusting the pose concurrently with teleoperation. Hashimoto expressly discloses that the surgery situation is recognized from data including the contents of the surgical operation and elapsed time, and that a position may be “defined beforehand according to the progress state of the surgical operation.” (as per ¶14, ¶11, and ¶12). Accordingly, even if Hashimoto’s manipulator is used for instrument handoff, Hashimoto still teaches the relied-upon concept of generating a pre-planned manipulator position based on detected procedural progress. It would have been obvious to apply Hashimoto’s progress-based pre-planned positioning to the teleoperational manipulator of Itkowitz, and to apply Hourtash’s concurrent reconfiguration during telesurgery, to enable another standard means of recommending and executing a progress-based pose adjustment while the teleoperational procedure is being performed. Applicant’s traversal is therefore unpersuasive, and the obviousness rejection of the claims should be maintained.
The applicant argues “Applicant further notes that the dependent claims include additional features not disclosed or suggested in the art of record, thus forming independent bases for non-obviousness.” [Remarks, p. 10-12]. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The present Office action specifically addresses the additional limitations of the rejected dependent claims and identifies where those limitations are taught or suggested by the applied art. For example, Itkowitz teaches forgoing adjustment when the command is not received, pose recognition, the robotic arm and underlying arm support, threshold-range joint-limit conditions, and rule-based recommended adjustment. (as per ¶59, ¶23, ¶20, ¶32, ¶35, ¶58, and ¶6). Shen teaches receiving a second user command during adjustment and terminating the adjustment in response to an abort command. (as per ¶14, ¶58, and ¶95-¶96). Gassner teaches a joint remaining in a threshold range for at least a specified period of time. (as per ¶15 and ¶43). He teaches generating the recommended adjustment in response to user request, generating a movement trajectory, and determining the recommended adjustment via optimization of a pre-determined objective function. (as per P4¶13-¶15, P6¶21, P5¶21, Abstract, P2¶6, P2¶12, and P8¶3). DiMaio teaches displaying the recommended adjustment as a visualization comparing a recommended pose to an actual pose. (as per ¶25, ¶118, and ¶101). Therefore, the rejected dependent claims have been separately addressed by the cited combinations, and no separate persuasive argument has been presented showing reversible error in those rejections. Applicant’s traversal is therefore unpersuasive, and the obviousness rejection of the claims should be maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein detecting the one or more conditions includes detecting progress of the procedure;” in claim 1 should read “wherein detecting the one or more conditions include detecting progress of the procedure;”
“via teleoperation the kinematic chain” in claim 14 should read “via teleoperation of the kinematic chain”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkowitz (US Pub. No. 20190105118) in view of Hashimoto (US Pub. No. 20220387116) in further view of Hourtash (US Pub. No. 20180214225).
As per Claim 1, Itkowitz discloses of structural adjustments for a teleoperational medical system (as per Abstract), comprising:
a kinematic chain for performing a procedure; (as per “and several arms 106 that support surgical tools (including portions of the image capture system 18)” in ¶32, as per Fig. 1A)
one or more processors; (¶27)
a memory storing instructions that, (¶27) when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
control a medical instrument via teleoperation of the kinematic chain to perform the procedure; (as per “clinician S to view images of or representing the surgical site and to control the operation of the medical instrument system 14” in ¶22, as per “the teleoperational medical systems of this disclosure are under the teleoperational control of a surgeon” in ¶22, as per “The operator input system 120 includes a console 121 equipped with left and right multiple degree-of-freedom (DOF) control interfaces 122 a and 122 b, which are kinematic chains that are used to control the surgical instruments 110 including the endoscope” in ¶38)
detect one or more conditions encountered by the kinematic chain, (as per “control system senses or detects the position, status, and setup of the arm 106” in ¶35) the one or more conditions corresponding to a respective adjustment to a pose of the kinematic chain; (as per “At 406, the central electronic data processing unit 142 compares the motion limits of the arm 106 at the particular pitch angle to the pre-stored threshold limits.” in ¶58, as per “select a threshold limit of the plurality of threshold limits based on which medical procedure type is to be performed, compare the motion limit to the selected threshold limit,” in Claim 22)
in response to detecting the one or more conditions or upon user request, generate a recommended adjustment of the kinematic chain in accordance with the one or more conditions; (as per “the adjustment system prompts the user to make adjustments to the arrangement in order to change the motion limit to a more desirable state.” in ¶20)
present a notification of the recommended adjustment of the kinematic chain to a user; (as per “the central electronic data processing unit 142 displays a notification on the touchscreen monitor 146 and/or make a warning sound issue a voice instruction. The notification may instruct the user to adjust the distal-most setup link so that the motion limits more fully align with the threshold limits” in ¶59)
in accordance with a determination that a first user command to execute the recommended adjustment has been received, adjust the pose of the kinematic chain in accordance with the recommended adjustment. (as per “At 410, after the notification is activated, the central electronic data processing unit 142 may receive an input at the clearance button 186 to rotate the distal-most setup link 162 and change the arm pitch at 412. In some embodiments, a user enters an input, such as by pressing a button to rotate the distal-most setup link 162. In the example in FIG. 1D, the user may press one of two buttons, with one button 186 a causing the distal-most setup link 162 to rotate in one direction, and the other button 186 b causing the distal-most setup link 162 to rotate in the other. For example, when the “up” button is pressed and held, teleoperational assembly 100 moves the arm 106 to a steeper angle to provide more patient clearance” in ¶60)
Itkowitz fails to expressly disclose:
wherein detecting the one or more conditions includes detecting progress of the procedure;
wherein generating the recommended adjustment of the kinematic chain comprises generating a pre-planned adjustment to the pose of the kinematic chain corresponding to the detected progress of the procedure;
wherein adjusting the pose of the kinematic chain comprises either (i) halting the control of the medical instrument via teleoperation of the kinematic chain prior to adjusting the pose of the kinematic chain in accordance with the pre-planned adjustment, or (ii) adjusting the pose of the kinematic chain in accordance with the pre-planned adjustment concurrently with the control of the medical instrument via teleoperation.
Hashimoto discloses of a predicting use instrument, and surgery assisting robot, comprising:
wherein detecting the one or more conditions includes detecting progress of the procedure; (as per “The situation recognizing module recognizes the surgery situation based on situation detection data which includes the recognized result of the motion recognizing module (i.e., the surgeon's motion). The situation detection data may include the contents of the surgical operation, and a lapsed time of the surgical operation. The situation recognizing module has a second learned model which has learned with a large number of second teaching data in which the situation detection data and the surgery situation which are accumulated are associated with each other” in ¶14, as per “recognizing the surgeon's motion based on the motion detection data, recognizing a surgery situation based on the recognized surgeon's motion, and predicting at least one kind of surgical instrument to be used next by the surgeon out of a plurality of kinds of surgical instruments given beforehand” in ¶11)
wherein generating the recommended adjustment of the kinematic chain (as per “The manipulator arm 2 is an articulated robotic arm having a plurality of joints. A hand 21 is attached to a distal-end part of the manipulator arm 2 as an end effector” in ¶29, as per “The robot control device 3 controls the position of a control point of the manipulator arm 2 (for example, a point on the hand 21) by acquiring a detection signal of the rotational position sensor for each of the joint actuators D31-Dn, and adjusting the output of the servomotor based on the detection signal” in ¶31) comprises generating a pre-planned adjustment to the pose of the kinematic chain corresponding to the detected progress of the procedure; (as per “The given handing position may be a fixed position defined according to the contents of the surgical operation, a position defined beforehand according to the progress state of the surgical operation, or the surgeon's favorite handing position” in ¶12, as per “The robot control device 3, which received the prediction result of the surgical instrument, operates the manipulator arm 2 so that it picks out at least one kind of predicted surgical instrument which will be used next by the surgeon from the instrument storage 5, and then stands by at a standby position” in ¶48)
In this way, Hashimoto operates to predict a surgical instrument suitable for a surgery situation during a surgical operation (¶1). Like Itkowitz, Hashimoto is concerned with robot surgery.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teleoperational medical system of Itkowitz with the surgery assisting robot as taught by Hashimoto to enable another standard means of monitoring the surgery procedure (¶11) and predicting/generating a pre-planned command (¶12) based on the progress of the procedure. Such modification also improves the structural arrangement of the teleoperational medical system for a surgical procedure.
Itkowitz and Hashimoto fail to expressly disclose:
wherein adjusting the pose of the kinematic chain comprises either (i) halting the control of the medical instrument via teleoperation of the kinematic chain prior to adjusting the pose of the kinematic chain in accordance with the pre-planned adjustment, or (ii) adjusting the pose of the kinematic chain in accordance with the pre-planned adjustment concurrently with the control of the medical instrument via teleoperation.
Hourtash discloses of methods for commanded reconfiguration of a surgical manipulator using the null-space, comprising:
wherein adjusting the pose of the kinematic chain comprises adjusting the pose of the kinematic chain in accordance with the pre-planned adjustment concurrently with the control of the medical instrument via teleoperation. (as per “these improvements would allow a first user to effect movement of an end effector of the manipulator arm during a surgical procedure while allowing a second user to reconfigure the manipulator arms in preparation for and/or during end effector movement.” in ¶9, as per “reconfigure the manipulator arm, while maintaining the desired end effector state, optionally even during movement of the end effector during a surgical procedure” in ¶45, as per “reconfigure the linkages of the manipulator assemblies while maintaining the desired end effector state, optionally in preparation for surgery and/or while another use maneuvers the end effector during a surgical procedure” in ¶38)
In this way, Hourtash operates to reconfigure joints and the calculate movement so as to maintain a desired state of the end effector or a remote center about which an instrument shaft pivots (Abstract). Like Itkowitz and Hashimoto, Hourtash is concerned with surgical robots.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teleoperational medical system of Itkowitz and the surgery assisting robot of Hashimoto with the commanded reconfiguration as taught by Hourtash to enable another standard means of reconfiguring a manipulator arm while maintaining the end effector state during telesurgery, including reconfiguration “even during movement of the end effector during a surgical procedure,” (¶45).
As per Claim 2, the combination of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Itkowitz further discloses wherein the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
in accordance with a determination that a first user command to execute the recommended adjustment has not been received, forgo adjusting the pose of the kinematic chain. (as per “For example a recorded voice from a speaker may warn or instruct the user that the arm pitch should be adjusted. In some embodiments, the notification is a one-time alert that warns the user, while in other embodiments, the notification may a persistent alert that continues until the user adjusts the pitch angle of the arm using the distal-most setup link” in ¶59)
As per Claim 4, the combination of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Itkowitz further discloses wherein the one or more conditions comprises a pose recognition of the kinematic chain. (as per “The teleoperational assembly 12 includes elements 26, such as sensors, switches, encoders, and/or other components that sense the arrangement of components of the teleoperational assembly” in ¶23, as per “The adjustment system determines whether the original arrangement of the motorized surgical arms has a motion limit, based on the arrangement, that might impact the surgical capability” in ¶20, as per “the central electronic data processing unit 142 compares the motion limits of the arm 106 at the particular pitch angle to the pre-stored threshold limits” in ¶58)
As per Claim 5, the combination of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Itkowitz further discloses wherein the kinematic chain comprises a robotic arm and an underlying arm support. (as per “The assembly 100 includes a base 102 that rests on the floor, a telescoping support column 104 that is mounted on the base 102, a telescoping boom 105 that extends from the support column 104, a platform portion as an orienting platform 107 with support beams 10′), and several arms 106 that support surgical tools” in ¶32, as per “the arm 106 includes a vertical setup 160 connected via a setup joint 162 to a distal-most setup link 164” in ¶35)
As per Claim 6, the combination of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Itkowitz further discloses wherein the one or more conditions comprise a joint of the kinematic chain reaching a threshold range of a joint limit. (as per “At 406, the central electronic data processing unit 142 compares the motion limits of the arm 106 at the particular pitch angle to the pre-stored threshold limits.” in ¶58, as per “if the motion limits are within ten degrees of the threshold limits, then the threshold limits are considered to be outside the motion limits” in ¶58, as per “Other motorized drive systems may move the distal end of the medical instrument in multiple degrees of freedom, which may include three degrees of linear motion (e.g., linear motion along the X, Y, Z Cartesian axes) and in three degrees of rotational motion (e.g., rotation about the X, Y, Z Cartesian axes). Additionally, the motors can be used to actuate an articulable end effector of the instrument. The teleoperational assembly 12 may be configured and arranged to sense, such as detect, calculate, or otherwise determine the position of each motor and/or each arm” in ¶23)
As per Claim 12, the combination of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Itkowitz further discloses wherein the recommended adjustment of the kinematic chain is generated based on a pre-determined rule. (as per “the surgical threshold limit is pre-stored in the control system and accessed for comparison to the motion limit based upon at least one of the type of surgery, the location of the surgery in the body, patient body features, and the patient approach” in ¶6, as per “the threshold limits are considered outside the range of the motion limits if they are sufficiently close to the motion limits to create a chance of preventing the arm from moving to the threshold limit” in ¶58)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkowitz (US Pub. No. 20190105118) in view of Hashimoto (US Pub. No. 20220387116) in view of Hourtash (US Pub. No. 20180214225) in further view of Shen (US Pub. No. 20180228501).
As per Claim 3, the combination of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash fail to expressly disclose wherein the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive a second user command while adjusting the pose of the kinematic chain;
in accordance with a determination that the second user command corresponds to a command to abort the recommended adjustment, terminate the adjustment.
Shen discloses of monitoring a surgical procedure (as per Abstract), wherein the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive a second user command while adjusting the pose of the kinematic chain; (as per “requiring a user acknowledgment of the alert to allow processing of the cutting path to continue” in ¶14, as per “the trigger may be used by the surgeon to approve each stage of the cutting process, based on feedback shown on the robot GUI display and on the state of the patient as discussed in detail above” in ¶99)
in accordance with a determination that the second user command corresponds to a command to abort the recommended adjustment, terminate the adjustment. (as per “If it is determined that no user acknowledgment has been received, the process moves to block 465 where a stop command is generated” in ¶58, as per “The emergency stop function is implemented with a dedicated, off-the-shelf switch designed for emergency stop use… Emergency Stop button which physically interrupts power to the robot motion controllers” in ¶95-¶96)
In this way, Shen operates to receive user requests during surgery (¶47-¶48). Like Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash, Shen is concerned with surgical robots.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash with the monitoring of a surgical procedure as taught by Shen to enable another standard means of interrupting terminating an adjustment due to a user command (¶47-¶49, ¶95-¶96).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkowitz (US Pub. No. 20190105118) in view of Hashimoto (US Pub. No. 20220387116) in view of Hourtash (US Pub. No. 20180214225) in further view of Gassner (US Pub. No. 20220192768).
As per Claim 7, the combination of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash fail to expressly disclose wherein the one or more conditions comprise the joint of the kinematic chain remaining in the threshold range of the joint limit for at least a specified period of time.
Gassner discloses of a robotic surgery system (as per Abstract), wherein the one or more conditions comprise the joint of the kinematic chain remaining in the threshold range of the joint limit for at least a specified period of time. (as per “control of the instrument movement is interrupted only at the end of a specified period. If the analysis of measured values yields the result that the first measured value is smaller than the first threshold value, a timer is started, and only if, within the specified period after the start of the timer, the first measured value permanently remains smaller than the first threshold value, control is interrupted after the specified period—as a rule, not more than five seconds—has expired and, as a consequence, coupling between the input unit and the manipulator arm is cancelled so that no involuntary movement of the instrument or the instrument's tip can take place any more” in ¶15, as per “step 190 is followed by step 210, which queries, whether a specified period—as a rule, between three and five seconds, although shorter or longer periods can be specified as well—has expired. If this is the case, control is interrupted between the input unit 16 and the manipulator arms 2 in addition to the fixation of the joints of the input unit 16, and the procedure continues with step 110. If the operator wants to continue operation, he/she has to carry out an activation movement again” in ¶43)
In this way, Gassner operates to interrupt movement after detecting that a joint has remained continuously below a threshold for a preset interval (¶41-¶42). Like Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash, Gassner is concerned with surgical robots.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash with the surgical robot system as taught by Gassner to enable another standard means of interrupting control due to a time in a threshold range (¶39-¶40).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkowitz (US Pub. No. 20190105118) in view of Hashimoto (US Pub. No. 20220387116) in view of Hourtash (US Pub. No. 20180214225) in further view of He (WO Pub. No. 2022083719).
As per Claim 8, the combination of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash fail to expressly disclose wherein generating a recommended adjustment of the kinematic chain comprises generating the recommended adjustment in response to the user request.
He discloses of a surgical robot adjustment system (as per Abstract), wherein generating a recommended adjustment of the kinematic chain comprises generating the recommended adjustment in response to the user request. (as per “When a certain joint of the patient's operating platform 12 has a joint limit, the doctor's console 11 and/or the image unit 13 interactively prompt to prompt the doctor whether to adjust… surgical robot system 1 performs motion path traversal according to the position information of each joint, and performs optimal path screening in combination with pose adjustment control information… the meaning of judging convergence is that the results selected from the optimal path have corresponding adjustment paths” in P4¶13-¶15, as per “the adjustment system has two selection modes, including active adjustment mode and passive adjustment mode” in P6¶21)
In this way, He operates to perform motion path traversal and optimal path screening according to movement information (P2¶3). Like Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash, He is concerned with surgical robots.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash with the surgical robot adjustment system as taught by He to enable another standard means of generating an adjustment of the kinematic chain (P2¶2). Such modification also allows the system to adjust the surgical instrument to a desired position to avoid movement space issues and expand the operating range of the instrument (P2¶3).
As per Claim 9, the combination of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash fail to expressly disclose wherein generating the recommended adjustment of the kinematic chain further comprises generating a movement trajectory of one or more joints of the kinematic chain.
He discloses of a surgical robot adjustment system (as per Abstract), wherein generating the recommended adjustment of the kinematic chain further comprises generating a movement trajectory of one or more joints of the kinematic chain. (as per “after calculating the base adjustment path of the trolley 23, the surgical robot system 1 records the position of the current fixed point and the position of each joint of the robotic arm 21, and then iteratively calculates the step length to Obtain the desired step size information of each adjustment motor used to drive the adjustment arm 25 and the tool arm 24, and calculate the movement information of each joint according to the desired step size information” in P5¶21, as per “The control unit (63) generates, according to movement information of the carrying module and position information of the surgical instrument (22) before the movement thereof, adjustment position information of the carrying module, so as to drive the carrying module to adjust the carrying orientation, then performs motion path traversal and optimal path screening according to movement information of the regulation module combined with pose adjustment control information” as per Abstract)
In this way, He operates to perform motion path traversal and optimal path screening according to movement information (P2¶3). Like Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash, He is concerned with surgical robots.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash with the surgical robot adjustment system as taught by He to enable another standard means of generating an adjustment of the kinematic chain (P2¶2). Such modification also allows the system to adjust the surgical instrument to a desired position to avoid movement space issues and expand the operating range of the instrument (P2¶3).
As per Claim 13, the combination of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash fail to expressly disclose wherein the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to determine the recommended adjustment of the kinematic chain via optimization of a pre-determined objective function associated with a bar pose optimization and/or collision avoidance.
He discloses of a surgical robot adjustment system (as per Abstract), wherein the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to determine the recommended adjustment of the kinematic chain via optimization of a pre-determined objective function associated with a bar pose optimization and/or collision avoidance. (as per “performs the motion path traversal according to the movement of the plurality of joint motors. The angle information establishes a heuristic function and a cost function to screen the optimal path” in P2¶6, as per “the planning module constructs the cost function according to the position deviation function of the fixed point, the end joint attitude deviation function, the distance function and the limit function” in P2¶12, as per “the planning module 632 determines that after the trolley 23 is adjusted, it converges the information according to the constraint , the position deviation information of the fixed point, the movement information of the multiple joints, and the distance information between the adjacent adjustment arms to construct a cost function, which is accurate through position judgment, collision detection and fixed fixed points” in P8¶3)
In this way, He operates to perform motion path traversal and optimal path screening according to movement information (P2¶3). Like Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash, He is concerned with surgical robots.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash with the surgical robot adjustment system as taught by He to enable another standard means of generating an adjustment of the kinematic chain (P2¶2). Such modification also allows the system to adjust the surgical instrument to a desired position to avoid movement space issues and expand the operating range of the instrument (P2¶3).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkowitz (US Pub. No. 20190105118) in view of Hashimoto (US Pub. No. 20220387116) in view of Hourtash (US Pub. No. 20180214225) in view of He (WO Pub. No. 2022083719) in further view of DiMaio (US Pub. No. 20210228282).
As per Claim 10, the combination of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash fail to expressly disclose wherein:
the recommended adjustment of the kinematic chain comprises a recommended pose of the kinematic chain; and
the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
display the recommended adjustment as a visualization that compares the recommended pose of the kinematic chain to an actual pose of the kinematic chain.
He discloses of a surgical robot adjustment system (as per Abstract), wherein:
the recommended adjustment of the kinematic chain comprises a recommended pose of the kinematic chain; (as per “The control unit generates a control instruction according to the movement information of the adjustment module to drive at least one of the carrying module and the adjustment module to move, so as to adjust at least one of the position or posture of the surgical instrument” in P2¶2, as per “the control unit combines the pose adjustment control information according to the movement information of the adjustment module with the pose adjustment control information. The motion path traversal and optimal path screening are performed…” in P2¶4)
In this way, He operates to perform motion path traversal and optimal path screening according to movement information (P2¶3). Like Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash, He is concerned with surgical robots.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, and Hourtash with the surgical robot adjustment system as taught by He to enable another standard means of generating an adjustment of the kinematic chain (P2¶2). Such modification also allows the system to adjust the surgical instrument to a desired position to avoid movement space issues and expand the operating range of the instrument (P2¶3).
Itkowitz, Hashimoto, Hourtash, and He fail to expressly disclose wherein:
the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
display the recommended adjustment as a visualization that compares the recommended pose of the kinematic chain to an actual pose of the kinematic chain.
DeMaio discloses of guiding manual movement of medical systems (as per Abstract), wherein:
the memory further includes instructions that, (as per ¶124) when executed by the one or more processors, (as per ¶125) cause the one or more processors to:
display the recommended adjustment as a visualization (as per “The display device 124 presents imagery that indicates a path 150 along the floor surface 20” in ¶25) that compares the recommended pose of the kinematic chain to an actual pose of the kinematic chain. (as per “The animation can be indicative of a sequence of positions or orientations between the current position and orientation of the manipulator 103 and the recommend position and orientation of the manipulator 103” in ¶118, as per “In examples in which the operator 106 is directed to reorient the manipulator assembly 102 or a portion of the manipulator assembly 102, the user device 108 can present imagery including an alignment indicator. For example, if the controller 122 directs reorientation of the manipulator 103, the alignment indicator be a line, a mark, or other indicator indicative of a target orientation of a link or a joint of the manipulator 103” in ¶101)
In this way, DeMaio operates to improve accuracy and precision of manual movement of an object in an environment (¶7). Like Itkowitz, Hashimoto, Hourtash, and He, DeMaio is concerned with surgical robots.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Itkowitz, Hashimoto, Hourtash, and He with the guiding manual movement of medical systems as taught by DeMaio to enable another standard means of visualizing the recommended and current pose of the manipulator (¶23). Such modification also allows the system to move the manipulator to the recommended position or orientation via the imagery (i.e. recommended pose) overlaid in the environment (i.e. actual pose) (¶23).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Steinle (US Pub. No. 2018/0001475) discloses robotic arm configuration to workflow steps and changing environment data during a procedure.
Brisson (US Pub. No. 2013/0204271) discloses predetermined safety configurations and manipulator transitions during setup, docking, instrument exchange, or conclusion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER R ROBARGE whose telephone number is (703)756-5872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/T.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights