DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (Claims 11-28) in the reply filed on 01/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/27/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 09/25/2023 and 02/27/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 11 recites a machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 11 recites the limitation of generating a notification regarding the difference between the recommended post and the actual pose of a kinematic chain and/or the difference between the recommended port location and the actual port location when the kinematic chain is in a docked state. These steps, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically performed in the human mind and are thereby considered to be directed to an abstract idea/mental process. A person of ordinary skill in the art could determine a first recommended pose for a kinematic chain and/or a first recommended port location for a procedure in accordance with a first procedural selection and compare the difference between the recommended pose/port location to the actual pose of the kinematic chain and/or port location to a threshold.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 11 does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 11 includes the additional elements of a display, a kinematic chain, one or more processors, and a memory storing instructions which may be executed by the one or more processors, and outputting a notification reflecting the difference between the recommended pose/port location and the actual pose/port location.
The display and notification are extra-solution activity which merely amount to insignificant application of the abstract idea, in this case, communicating the determination of the difference between a recommended pose and an actual pose to the user.
The additional elements of the processor and memory are generally claimed such that it merely amounts to generic computer implementation of the abstract idea.
The kinematic chain merely amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to integrating the abstract idea into practical application.
Step 2B
Claim 11 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 includes the additional elements of a display, a kinematic chain, one or more processors, and a memory storing instructions which may be executed by the one or more processors, and outputting a notification reflecting the difference between the recommended pose/port location and the actual pose/port location.
The display and notification are extra-solution activity which merely amount to insignificant application of the abstract idea, in this case, communicating the determination of the difference between a recommended pose and an actual pose to the user.
The additional elements of the processor and memory are generally claimed such that it merely amounts to generic computer implementation of the abstract idea.
The kinematic chain merely amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Additionally, the additional elements listed above can be held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art of robotic surgery, and they are recited with a high level of generality which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 12, 22, and 23 claim elements which amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, in this case robotic surgery.
Claims 13-21 and 24-28 further define the abstract idea of comparing a recommended pose/port location to an actual pose/port location and generating a notification to communicate the output of the comparison to a user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-13 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dimaio et al (WO 2019177711 A1) with reference to the published US application US 20210228282 A1 for the purpose of citations.
Regarding claim 11, Dimaio teaches a robotic system (100), comprising:
a display (124);
a kinematic chain (assembly 102 including manipulator 103);
one or more processors (122); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (see [0067]; input data 600 can be loaded into memory associated with the controller 112 including procedure data 600a, equipment data 600b, pose data 600c, operator data 600d, obstacle data 600e, workpiece data 600f, and port data 600g) to:
after the kinematic chain (103) has entered a docked state, determine an actual pose of the kinematic chain (see [0080]; pose data 600c can include information indicative of an actual configuration of the manipulator 103);
generate a recommended pose for the kinematic chain (103) corresponding to the kinematic chain in accordance with a first procedural selection (see [0080-0081]; the pose data 600c can include information indicative of a target configuration of the manipulator 103, the target configuration of the manipulator 103 can be indicated on the predefined plan described with respect to the procedure data 600a);
compare the recommended pose with the actual pose (see Figs. 1A-1B, [0025-0026]; path 150 is indicative of the current location 152 and the recommended location 154);
in accordance with the comparison, determine that a difference between the recommended pose and the actual pose meet first criteria (see Figs. 1A-1B, [0026-0028]; region 166 corresponds to undesirable locations for the kinematic chain; in Figs. 1A-1B, the surgical system 102 is located outside of the desired region 164, and is therefore guided by path 150),
the first criteria including a first threshold amount of difference (see Figs. 1A-1B, [0028]; controller 122 determines desirability of each potential location for the assembly);
generate a first notification regarding the difference between the recommended pose and the actual pose (see [0025]; path 150 is indicative of a current location 152 of the manipulator assembly 102 and a recommended location 154 of the manipulator assembly 102); and
output the first notification (see [0025]; display device 124 presents imagery that indicates path 150 to guide repositioning of the manipulator assembly 102).
Regarding claim 12, Dimaio teaches the robotic system of claim 11, wherein the kinematic chain includes a first robotic arm that is in the docked state (see [0074-0076]; procedure data 600a can include a plan indicative of a desired or recommended setup configuration for the manipulator assembly 102/manipulator arm 103, [0087]; the recommended position/orientation of the access port is based on a pose of the manipulator 103 when a canula coupled to the manipulator 103 is docked).
Regarding claim 13, Dimaio teaches the robotic system of claim 11, wherein: generating the first notification includes generating a first visualization that includes
(1) the actual pose and the recommended pose (see [0023]; overlaid information is used to direct manual movement facilitated by the operator 106 to move the manipulator 103 or a portion of the manipulator 103 to a recommended position or orientation) and/or
(2) the actual port location and the first recommended port location (see [0087-0088]; port data 600g can include a recommended position or orientation of the access port, port data 600g can indicate an actual position or orientation of the access port); and
the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: display the first visualization on a user interface of the robotic system (see [0022-0023]; The controller 122 then controls the user device 108 to present imagery to the operator 106 equipped with the user device 108. The imagery can be presented in manner such that the imagery appears, to the operator 106 equipped with the user device 108, overlaid in the environment 10 based on the received information. This overlaid information is used to direct manual movement facilitated by the operator 106 to move the manipulator 103 or a portion of the manipulator 103 to a recommended position or orientation.)
Regarding claim 25, Dimaio teaches the robotic system of claim 11, wherein generating the recommended pose comprises determining whether the recommended pose meets a boundary condition (see [0071]; the procedure data 600a can indicate a boundary of the desired extent of the workspace, [0067]; input data 600 is used by the controller 122 to produce an output 602, e.g. signals for causing user device 108 to present imagery to guide movement of the system into a recommended pose, where input data 600 can include procedure data 600a, equipment data 600b, pose data 600c, operator data 600d, obstacle data 600e, workpiece data 600f, and port data 600g).
Regarding claim 26, Dimaio teaches the robotic system of claim 25, wherein the boundary condition is based on a respective location of one or more accessories and/or patient fixation (see [0070-0071]; procedure data 600a can refer to a specific workspace corresponding to an area around the patient 104 that the instrument 116 should be able to access during the surgery, [0067]; input data 600 is used by the controller 122 to produce an output 602, e.g. signals for causing user device 108 to present imagery to guide movement of the system into a recommended pose, where input data 600 can include procedure data 600a, equipment data 600b, pose data 600c, operator data 600d, obstacle data 600e, workpiece data 600f, and port data 600g).
Regarding claim 27, Dimaio teaches the obotic system of claim 25, 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 the recommended pose does not meet the boundary condition (see [0025-0027]; path 150 having multiple waypoints 156 selected such that the assembly 102 is kept from contacting other objects), generate and display on the user interface:
a third notification that includes information of the difference between the actual pose and the first recommended pose exceeds the boundary condition (see [0026]; indicator 160 notifies the operator of potential obstacles with which the manipulator assembly 102 could collide when moved along the path 150); and
a request to adjust the kinematic chain (see [0026]; waypoints 156 are selected to avoid collisions).
Regarding claim 28, Dimaio teaches the robotic system of claim 25, 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 the recommended pose exceeds the boundary condition, generate and execute a modified target pose that meets the boundary condition (see [0025-0027]; path 150 having multiple waypoints 156 selected such that the assembly 102 is kept from contacting other objects; indicator 160 notifies the operator of potential obstacles with which the manipulator assembly 102 could collide when moved along the path 150).
Claims 11, 12, 25, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mintz et al (US 20190000576 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Mintz teaches a robotic system, comprising:
a display (202);
a kinematic chain (1700);
one or more processors (see [0008]; at least one processor); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (see [0008]; at least one processor in communication with the at least one computer-readable memory and configured to execute instructions) to:
after the kinematic chain has entered a docked state, determine an actual pose of the kinematic chain and/or an actual port location corresponding to the kinematic chain (see [0015]; identify that a cannula is docked to the cannula holder and determine the location of the remote center [of the arm] based at least partly on the location of the cannula holder);
generate a recommended pose for the kinematic chain and/or a first recommended port location corresponding to the kinematic chain in accordance with a first procedural selection (see [0015]; null-space movement to align the first axis to pass through the remote center, where the resulting position after the null-space motion is regarded as the recommended pose);
compare the recommended pose with the actual pose and/or the first recommended port location with the actual port location (see [0015]; determine the location of the current remote sensor);
in accordance with the comparison, determine that a difference between the recommended pose and the actual pose and/or a difference between the first recommended port location and the actual port location meet first criteria, the first criteria including a first threshold amount of difference (see [0149]; null-space movement keep the medical instrument centered on the fast axes, e.g. axes with performance suitable for performing laparoscopic procedures with limited workspace);
generate a first notification regarding the difference between the recommended pose and the actual pose and/or the difference between the first recommended port location and the actual port location; and output the first notification (see [0015]; cause the robotic arm and at least one setup joint coupled to the robotic arm to perform at least one null-space movement to align the first axis to pass through the remote center, where the null-space movement may be considered to be the notification).
Regarding claim 12, Mintz teaches the robotic system of claim 11, wherein the kinematic chain includes a first robotic arm that is in the docked state (see [0015]; identify that a cannula is docked to the cannula holder).
Regarding claim 25, Mintz teaches the robotic system of claim 11, wherein generating the recommended pose comprises determining whether the recommended pose meets a boundary condition (see [0015]; cause the system to at least receive a command to adjust a distance between the position of the first motorized joint and the location of the remote center; and perform at least one null-space movement to adjust the distance by actuating at least one joint from the plurality of additional motorized joints while maintaining alignment of the first, second, and third axes through the remote center).
Regarding claim 26, Mintz teaches the robotic system of claim 25, wherein the boundary condition is based on a respective location of one or more accessories and/or patient fixation (see [0015] wherein the remote center/ first, second, and third axes are regarded as the boundary condition which is based on the respective location of the patient fixation).
Regarding claim 28, Mintz teaches the obotic system of claim 25, 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 the recommended pose exceeds the boundary condition, generate and execute a modified target pose that meets the boundary condition (see [0015]; cause the robotic arm and at least one setup joint coupled to the robotic arm to perform at least one null-space movement to align the first axis to pass through the remote center).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-24 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 is allowable over the closest prior art because although Dimaio and/or Mintz teach the robotic system of claim 11 wherein the actual pose of a kinematic chain is compared to the recommended pose of the kinematic chain after the kinematic chain has entered a docked state, they are both silent regarding comparing the actual port location to a recommended port location after the kinematic chain has entered a docked state.
It can be appreciated that one or ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art to determine a desired port/cannula location prior to the docking of the kinematic chain to the port in order to minimize any repositioning or new port placement that may cause discomfort to the patient or introduce extra risk for infection by creating superfluous incisions in the surgical area.
Examiner points to the prior art of Hayashida (US 20200311928 A1) and Anderson et al (US 20190321115 A1) which both teach methods of determining port placement, which may involve comparing an actual port location to a recommended port location (Hayashida [0074]), however, notably, both Hayashida and Anderson teach the determination of port placement prior to the docking of a kinematic chain.
Hayashida accomplishes this via a image processing apparatus which allows the operator to visualize 3D data regarding an instrument reaching a desired target location based on a proposed port location, and adjust the virtual port location to determine the ideal precise location within a range (Hayashida [0017-0018]).
Anderson accomplishes this by using port placement guides having means for tracking to identify a preliminary port location on a surface of a patient and analyze the resulting workspace an instrument/operator would be able to access based on the preliminary port location. The guides are non-invasive and can therefore be rearranged to try multiple locations/combinations of locations without the need for any incisions in the patient (Anderson [0011-0012]).
Neither the prior art of Hayashida or Anderson discloses a motivation for determining a difference between a recommended port location and an actual port location when the kinematic chain is in a docket state. This modification to the methods of controlling a minimally invasive surgical system for the determination of a desired port location would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Due to their dependence on an allowable parent claim, claims 15-24 would also be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISHA J SIRCAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9-6:30, Friday 9-5:30 CT.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights