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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 10 November 2025 has been considered by the examiner. The examiner sincerely thanks Applicant for providing the references which they deem pertinent to the present application.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 10 have been newly amended. Claims 19 and 20 have been newly added. No claims have been newly canceled. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bydlon (WO2022048984A1), hereafter Bydlon, in view of Clark (US 20220211452 A1), hereafter Clark.
Regarding claim 1, Bydlon teaches a robotic interventional device control system comprising:
A robotic drive system (Page 19, Lines 22-23, medical robot system including a medical robot apparatus 91 and a medical robot controller 92, Page 20, Lines 11-17, medical robot controller 92 may set robot navigation parameters associated with various motions of interventional instrument 10 as being held by medical robot apparatus 91); and
An interventional device assembly comprising a plurality of interventional devices configured to couple to the robotic drive system, each of the plurality of interventional devices comprising an identifier (Page 10, Lines 8-23, examples of interventional instrument 10 include a balloon catheter including over-the-wire device 11 in the form of a catheter and interventional device 12 in form of a balloon, stent catheters including OTW device 11 in the form of a catheter and interventional device 12 in form of a stent, an endograft delivery system including OTW device 11 in the form of a delivery system and interventional device 12 in the form of a stent graft, or an intervascular therapy system including OTW device 11 in the form of an introducer sheath and interventional device 12 in the form of a percutaneous heart pump, OTW device 11 has one or more pre-defined identify features that serves as a basis for identifying a device type of interventional instrument 10);
A plurality of sensors, each of the plurality of sensors being configured to identify one of the plurality of interventional devices based on the identifier when the one of the plurality of interventional devices is coupled to the robotic drive system (Page 17, Lines 9-21, tracking sensors are optical shape sensors as known in the art that utilize light along a multicore optical fiber for device localization and navigation of interventional instrument 20 during an interventional procedure);
One or more hardware processors configured to receive interventional device identity data from the plurality of sensors and, based on the interventional device identity data, generate a user interface comprising an instrument window, the instrument window comprising (Page 29, Lines 7-29, image/robotic adaptation state S206 of flowchart 200 may involve the adaptive intervention controller adapting an operational control of medical robot apparatus 91 by the medical robot controller 92 in accordance with the identification of the device type of the interventional instrument 10 via robot parameter settings 217),
A plurality of interventional device representations, each of the plurality of interventional device representations representing one of the plurality of interventional devices (Page 29, Lines 7-29 medical robot controller 92 may control a display of one or more user interfaces allowing user interface with navigation of interventional instrument 10 within an anatomy, user interface may be displayed that provide a user interaction with a simulated navigation of the interventional instrument 10 within X-ray images of the anatomy via operator-manipulated medical robots that corresponds to the identified device type of interventional instrument 10);
A plurality of interventional device markers, each of the plurality of interventional device markers being associated with one of the plurality of interventional device representations and configured to indicate a type of the interventional device represented by the one of the plurality of interventional device representations (Page 28, Line 28 - Page 29, Line 6, medical imaging controller 42 may control a display of one or more user interfaces allowing users to interface with the medical images, user interface may be displayed that provides a user interaction to change a color of interventional instrument 10 within the medical image as means for delineating the identified device type of interventional instrument 10); and
A display configured to display the user interface (Page 19, Lines 17-21, medical intervention system employs interventional instrument 10, a spatial tracking system including spatial tracking apparatus 53 and spatial tracking controller 54, and a medical display system including image processor 60 and a monitor 61).
Bydlon fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein each of the plurality of interventional devices is coupled to one of a plurality of interventional device hubs; and
Wherein each of the plurality of interventional device markers is configured to change in appearance to provide an indication that its corresponding interventional device hub has reached a driving limit.
Clark, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein each of the plurality of interventional devices is coupled to one of a plurality of interventional device hubs (0074, The robotic drive 24 includes a plurality of device modules 32a-d mounted to a rail or linear member 60. The rail or linear member 60 guides and supports the device modules. Each of the device modules 32a-d may be used to drive an EMD such as a catheter or guidewire. For example, the robotic drive 24 may be used to automatically feed a guidewire into a diagnostic catheter and into a guide catheter in an artery of the patient 12.); and
Wherein each of the plurality of interventional device markers is configured to change in appearance to provide an indication that its corresponding interventional device hub has reached a driving limit (0163, In some embodiments, the GUI 400 can be configured to display additional graphics or text when a device module 32 reaches a travel limit. The additional graphics or text may indicate where the limit [is], what is defining the travel limit, and how the user can control the robotic drive 24 to continue moving the device module 32. Further, the GUI 400 may highlight or otherwise point out the "contact point" between device modules 23 on the graphical illustration of their positions.).
Bydlon and Clark are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the interventional hub driving limit indication of Clark in order to provide a means of signaling when a surgical device has reached or is approaching its movement limit. The motivation to combine is to ensure that a surgical device is not operated past its physical limits.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Bydlon and Clark teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 1, and Clark further teaches wherein the driving limit is a condition in which further movement of the corresponding interventional device hub would result in a collision with another interventional device hub or exceed a physical boundary of a support table (0162, In the illustrated embodiments, the distal travel limit for each device module 32 is defined by the position of the device module 32 in front of it (in the distal direction) or by the distal end of the robotic drive. Thus, the range bar 420 of the first device module 32 is attached to the left side of the boundary region 412, while the range bars 422, 424 of the second and third device modules 32 (represented by the middle icon 406 and rightmost icon 408, respectively) are attached to the right side (proximal end) of the adjacent device module 32 in the distal direction. The proximal travel limit for each device module 32 is defined by a system-implemented limit (which may be defined by the user or by the system) as well as the position of the device module 32 behind it (in the proximal direction), or by a limit defined by the user or by the system.).
Bydlon and Clark are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the interventional hub driving limit indication of Clark in order to provide a means of signaling when a surgical device has reached or is approaching its movement limit. The motivation to combine is to ensure that a surgical device is not operated past its physical limits.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Bydlon and Clark teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 1, and Clark further teaches wherein the driving limit is a condition in which further movement of the corresponding interventional device hub would exceed a physical boundary of a drive surface (0163, As illustrated in FIG. 21, the maximum travel range of a device module (in this case, the range bar 424 of the third device module 32) may be illustrated as extending outside of the boundary region 412. Although the proximal travel limit of the third device module in this case is the proximal end of the robotic drive 24, this may be useful in order to show that the maximum travel range of the third device module 32 is longer than the distance between the proximal end of the second device module 32 and the proximal end of the robotic drive.).
Bydlon and Clark are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the interventional hub driving limit indication of Clark in order to provide a means of signaling when a surgical device has reached or is approaching its movement limit. The motivation to combine is to ensure that a surgical device is not operated past its physical limits.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bydlon in view of Clark, and further in view of Cohen (US 10307061 B2), hereafter Cohen.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bydlon and Clark teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the user interface further comprises a window configured to display fluoroscopy imagery from a vasculature of a patient.
Cohen, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the user interface further comprises a window configured to display fluoroscopy imagery from a vasculature of a patient (Col. 40, Lines 1-16, automatically-generated roadmap is overlaid upon an image frame belonging to a stabilized image stream, road map is overlaid upon a fluoroscopic image frame, thus the layout of the vasculature is depicted).
Bydlon, Clark, and Cohen are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have included the fluoroscopy imagery of Cohen in order to provide a means of showing relevant information to the surgical procedure. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the surgeon has as much relevant information as possible when performing the procedure.
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bydlon in view of Clark, and further in view of Duindam (US 20200054399 A1), hereafter Duindam.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bydlon and Clark teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the user interface further comprises a window configured to display one or more messages indicative of an operational status of the robotic interventional device control system.
Duindam, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the user interface further comprises a window configured to display one or more messages indicative of an operational status of the robotic interventional device control system (0080, graphical user interface 500 includes a header 541 and a message bar 542, message bar 542 displays one or more messages which may be used to inform the clinician of the next steps in the procedure, send the clinician a reminder, alert the clinician of a hazard, etc.).
Bydlon, Clark, and Duindam are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the message bar of Duindam in order to provide a means of presenting further information to an operator. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the operator is readily able to view information relevant to the surgical instruments.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bydlon and Clark teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the user interface further comprises a window configured to display a live feed.
Duindam, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the user interface further comprises a window configured to display a live feed (0079, graphical user interface 500 may display one or more local views 530, local views 530 include a live camera feed 531, which displays real-time images received from an endoscope positioned at a distal end of the medical instrument).
Bydlon, Clark, and Duindam are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the message bar of Duindam in order to provide a means of presenting further information to an operator. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the operator is readily able to view information relevant to the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bydlon and Clark teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the instrument window is positioned on a central portion of the user interface.
Duindam, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the instrument window is positioned on a central portion of the user interface (Figs. 5B-5D, reduced anatomical model 522 in central portion of the user interface).
Bydlon, Clark, and Duindam are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the central placing of the instrument window of Duindam in order to provide a means of effectively displaying the instrument window. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the operator is readily able to view information relevant to the surgical instruments.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bydlon and Clark teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of interventional device markers are configured to transition from a first configuration to a second configuration when the plurality of interventional devices are moving axially along a drive table.
Duindam, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein each of the plurality of interventional device markers are configured to transition from a first configuration to a second configuration when the plurality of interventional devices are moving axially along a drive table (0084, compact views 520 include a reduced anatomical model 522, which displays an elongated representation of the planned route to the target location, Fig. 5B, reduced anatomical model 522 showing interventional device at a first position, Fig. 5C, reduced anatomical model 522 showing interventional device at a second position).
Bydlon, Clark, and Duindam are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the marker movement of Duindam in order to provide a means of effectively displaying instrument information. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the operator is readily able to view information relevant to the surgical instruments.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bydlon, Clark, and Duindam teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 6, and Duindam further teaches wherein in the first configuration, each of the plurality of interventional device markers are in a first position, and wherein in the second configuration, each of the plurality of interventional device markers are in a second position (0084, compact views 520 include a reduced anatomical model 522, which displays an elongated representation of the planned route to the target location, Fig. 5B, reduced anatomical model 522 showing interventional device at a first position, Fig. 5C, reduced anatomical model 522 showing interventional device at a second position).
Bydlon, Clark, and Duindam are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the marker movement of Duindam in order to provide a means of effectively displaying instrument information. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the operator is readily able to view information relevant to the surgical instruments.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bydlon, Clark, and Duindam teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 7, and Duindam further teaches wherein the first position is closer to a central longitudinal axis of the plurality of interventional device representations than the second position (0084, compact views 520 include a reduced anatomical model 522, which displays an elongated representation of the planned route to the target location, Fig. 5B, reduced anatomical model 522 showing interventional device at a first position, Fig. 5C, reduced anatomical model 522 showing interventional device at a second position).
Bydlon, Clark, and Duindam are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the marker movement of Duindam in order to provide a means of effectively displaying instrument information. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the operator is readily able to view information relevant to the surgical instruments.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bydlon, Clark, and Duindam teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 7, and Duindam further teaches wherein the plurality of interventional device markers are configured to be in the first configuration when the plurality of interventional devices are not moving axially along the drive table (0084, compact views 520 include a reduced anatomical model 522, which displays an elongated representation of the planned route to the target location, Fig. 5B, reduced anatomical model 522 showing interventional device at a first position, Fig. 5C, reduced anatomical model 522 showing interventional device at a second position, Examiner's note: if the interventional device is not being moved, it wouldn't move relative to the first position).
Bydlon, Clark, and Duindam are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the marker movement of Duindam in order to provide a means of effectively displaying instrument information. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the operator is readily able to view information relevant to the surgical instruments.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bydlon in view of Clark, and further in view of Stepanauskas (US 20220047344 A1), hereafter Stepanauskas.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bydlon and Clark teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 1, but fails to teach:
A plurality of hub adapters, wherein each of the plurality of interventional device hubs is configured to be coupled to one of the plurality of hub adapters; and
A support table, wherein the plurality of hub adapters are configured to move along a support table to drive the interventional device assembly.
Stepanauskas, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach:
A plurality of hub adapters, wherein each of the plurality of interventional device hubs is configured to be coupled to one of the plurality of hub adapters (0054-0055, control computing system 34 is in communication with bedside unit 20, which includes a robotic drive 24, and may provide control signals to the bedside unit 20 to control the operation of the motors and drive mechanisms used to drive the percutaneous intervention devices, robotic drive 24 includes multiple device modules 32 coupled to a linear rail 60, each device module 32 is coupled to the rail 60 via a state 62 slidably mounted on the rail 60, each device module 32 includes a drive module 68 and a cassette 66 mounted on and coupled to the drive module, the cassette is sterile and is configured to house and support an elongated medical device); and
A support table, wherein the plurality of hub adapters are configured to move along a support table to drive the interventional device assembly (0054-0055, control computing system 34 is in communication with bedside unit 20, which includes a robotic drive 24, and may provide control signals to the bedside unit 20 to control the operation of the motors and drive mechanisms used to drive the percutaneous intervention devices, robotic drive 24 includes multiple device modules 32 coupled to a linear rail 60, each device module 32 is coupled to the rail 60 via a state 62 slidably mounted on the rail 60, each device module 32 includes a drive module 68 and a cassette 66 mounted on and coupled to the drive module, the cassette is sterile and is configured to house and support an elongated medical device).
Bydlon, Clark and Stepanauskas are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the drive system of Stepanauskas in order to provide a more effective means of actuating a plurality of interventional devices. The motivation to combine is to ensure that a procedure can be performed properly.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bydlon, Clark, and Stepanauskas teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the plurality of interventional device representations are arranged based on an arrangement of the plurality of hub adapters on the support table.
The examiner asserts, however, that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have arranged the plurality of interventional device representations based on the arrangement of the plurality of hub adapters on the support table, as to do so amounts to mere design choice. Specifically, the examiner notes that Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the interventional device representations being arranged based on the arrangement of the plurality of hub adapters provides and particular advantage nor unexpected result.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bydlon in view of Clark, and further in view of Wenderow (US 9320479 B2), hereafter Wenderow.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Bydlon and Clark teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein it further comprises a controller having one or more controls configured to cause movement of at least one of the plurality of interventional devices responsive to a user input.
Wenderow, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach a controller having one or more controls configured to cause movement of at least one of the plurality of interventional devices responsive to a user input (Col. 4, Line 55 - Col. 5, Line 3, controls 16 include a touch screen 18, a dedicated guide catheter control 29, a dedicated guide wire control 23, and a dedicated working catheter control 25).
Bydlon, Clark, and Wenderow are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., surgical robotic systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the individual controls of Wenderow in order to provide further means of controlling interventional devices. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the proper interventional devices are able to be controlled properly.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Bydlon, Clark, and Wenderow teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 12, and Wenderow further teaches wherein the one or more controls comprise:
A first control linked to a first interventional device such that the movement of the first control causes a responsive movement of the first interventional device (Col. 4, Line 55 - Col. 5, Line 3, guide wire control 32 is a joystick configured to advance, retract, or rotate a guide wire, working catheter control 25 is a joystick configured to advance, retract, or rotate a working catheter, and guide catheter control 29 is a joystick configured to advance, retract, or rotate a guide catheter); and
A second control linked to a second interventional device such that movement of the second control causes a responsive movement of the second interventional device (Col. 4, Line 55 - Col. 5, Line 3, guide wire control 32 is a joystick configured to advance, retract, or rotate a guide wire, working catheter control 25 is a joystick configured to advance, retract, or rotate a working catheter, and guide catheter control 29 is a joystick configured to advance, retract, or rotate a guide catheter).
Bydlon, Clark, and Wenderow are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., surgical robotic systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the individual controls of Wenderow in order to provide further means of controlling interventional devices. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the proper interventional devices are able to be controlled properly.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Bydlon, Clark, and Wenderow teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 13, and Wenderow further teaches wherein the first interventional device is a guide catheter and the second interventional device is a guidewire (Col. 4, Line 55 - Col. 5, Line 3, guide wire control 32 is a joystick configured to advance, retract, or rotate a guide wire, working catheter control 25 is a joystick configured to advance, retract, or rotate a working catheter, and guide catheter control 29 is a joystick configured to advance, retract, or rotate a guide catheter).
Bydlon, Clark, and Wenderow are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., surgical robotic systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the guide catheter and guidewire control of Wenderow in order to provide further means of controlling interventional devices. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the proper interventional devices are able to be controlled properly.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bydlon in view of Clark, and further in view of Wenderow and Stepanauskas.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Bydlon, Clark, and Wenderow teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the controller further comprises an interventional device actuator, wherein actuation of the interventional device actuator causes the first interventional device to be linked to the second control such that movement of the second control causes a responsive movement of the first interventional device.
Stepanauskas, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the controller further comprises an interventional device actuator, wherein actuation of the interventional device actuator causes the first interventional device to be linked to the second control such that movement of the second control causes a responsive movement of the first interventional device (0102-0104, two or more elongated medical devices may use closed-loop operation to synchronize the movement of the two or more EMDs where the at least two EMDs are driven by independent drive modules, command received from a controller or an operator input may cause driving of the first EMD 110, in response to the measured movement of the first EMD 110, the controller may cause the second EMD 120 to be driven for translation by the same magnitude and same direction as the first EMD 110).
Bydlon, Clark, Wenderow, and Stepanauskas are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the device synchronization of Stepanauskas in order to provide a means of properly controlling devices in sync. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the interventional devices are operated safely and effectively during the course of the procedure.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bydlon, Clark, and Wenderow teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 12, but fails to teach wherein the one or more controls comprise a first control operatable in a first drive mode and a second drive mode, wherein movement of the first control is configured to cause a responsive movement of a first subset of the plurality of interventional devices in the first drive mode and operation of the first control is configured to cause a responsive movement of a second subset of the plurality of interventional devices in the second drive mode.
Stepanauskas, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the one or more controls comprise a first control operatable in a first drive mode and a second drive mode, wherein movement of the first control is configured to cause a responsive movement of a first subset of the plurality of interventional devices in the first drive mode and operation of the first control is configured to cause a responsive movement of a second subset of the plurality of interventional devices in the second drive mode (0047, input modules 28 may include a touch screen, one or more joysticks, scroll wheels, and/or buttons, buttons may include a device selection button, device selection buttons allow the user to select which of the percutaneous intervention devices loaded into the robotic drive 24 are controlled by input modules 28).
Bydlon, Clark, Wenderow, and Stepanauskas are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the device selection of Stepanauskas in order to provide a means of properly controlling devices when necessary. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the interventional devices are operated only when desired by the operator.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bydlon, Clark, Wenderow, and Stepanauskas teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 16, and Wenderow further teaches wherein the first subset of the plurality of interventional devices comprises a guide catheter, a procedure catheter, and an access catheter (Col. 4, Line 55 - Col. 5, Line 3, guide wire control 32 is a joystick configured to advance, retract, or rotate a guide wire, working catheter control 25 is a joystick configured to advance, retract, or rotate a working catheter, and guide catheter control 29 is a joystick configured to advance, retract, or rotate a guide catheter).
Bydlon, Clark, Wenderow, and Stepanauskas are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., surgical robotic systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the guide catheter and working catheter control of Wenderow in order to provide further means of controlling interventional devices. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the proper interventional devices are able to be controlled properly.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Bydlon, Clark, Wenderow, and Stepanauskas teaches the robotic interventional device control system of claim 17, and Wenderow further teaches wherein the second subset of the plurality of interventional devices comprises the guide catheter and the procedure catheter (Col. 4, Line 55 - Col. 5, Line 3, guide wire control 32 is a joystick configured to advance, retract, or rotate a guide wire, working catheter control 25 is a joystick configured to advance, retract, or rotate a working catheter, and guide catheter control 29 is a joystick configured to advance, retract, or rotate a guide catheter).
Bydlon, Clark, Wenderow, and Stepanauskas are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., surgical robotic systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the guide catheter and working catheter control of Wenderow in order to provide further means of controlling interventional devices. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the proper interventional devices are able to be controlled properly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM 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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/B.A.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658