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 .
Response to Arguments
While applicant’s deletion of the previously recited “mounting portion” has overcome the previous specification objection, drawing objection, 112a written description rejection and 112b indefiniteness rejection related to this previously claimed mounting portion, applicant’s amendments have created a new specification objection and 112a written description rejection and 112b indefiniteness rejection.
Regarding the 103 rejection, applicant’s arguments 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. Specifically, the Rastegar reference is no longer being used in the current rejection. Furthermore, the examiner has found a new prior art reference to teach the amended limitations; see new 103 rejection. Furthermore, it is emphasized that applicant has no criticality or unexpected result to the position/location of the visual projection device, as applicant’s specification states “As shown, the projector 60 may be located on the orienting platform 53. In an embodiment, the projector 60 may be centrally located on the underside of the orienting platform 53. In some cases, the projector 60 may be located elsewhere. For example, the projector 60 may be located on one of the arms 54, on the telescoping column 57, on the drivable base 58, on the telescoping horizontal cantilever 52, or elsewhere.”
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification fails to provide support for the claimed “telescoping arm”. While the specification discloses a telescoping column, this is not the same thing as an arm, as understood in the robotic field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 48-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As noted above, the specification fails to provide antecedent basis for the newly claimed telescoping arm. It is the examiner’s understanding that the claimed telescoping arm is meant to refer to the disclosed telescoping column (57). However, the claimed telescoping arm is much broader than the disclosed telescopic column. Specifically, it is well understood, especially in the robotic field, that an arm can have multiple joints and can bend, twist and flex (similar to the way a human arm moves) which is much broader than the telescoping column (57) possessed by applicant that just moves up and down. The claim language is broader than what applicant has support for and therefore fails the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 48-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Based on the conflict between what is claimed and what is disclosed (as detailed above), the scope of the claimed “telescoping arm” is unclear. Specifically, it’s unclear if the BRI of the claimed arm includes an arm that has joints that can bend, rotate and flex (as is understood/routine in the robotic field) or if it is limited to the disclosed column/stand that merely moves up and down.
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 48-54 and 56-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/142933 to Hanuschik et al. in view of US 2016/0081753 to Kostrzewski and further in view of US 2010/0275719 to Ortmaier.
[Claim 48] Hanuschik discloses a teleoperational system (teleoperational medical system 10; Figs. 1A-E, 4 and 5A-E) in a surgical environment comprising:
a teleoperational assembly (teleoperational assembly 100; best seen in Figs. 1B, 4 and 5A, described on page 12):
a telescoping arm movable (telescoping support column 104) relative to a base (base 102) of the teleoperational assembly;
an orienting platform (orienting platform 107) coupled to the telescoping arm; and
a first teleoperational arm (arms 106) coupled to the orienting platform.
Hanuschik fails to teach the claimed visual projection device, sensor and processor. However, in the same field of endeavor, specifically surgical robots, Kostrzewski discloses a teleoperational assembly (100, Fig. 1) that includes:
a visual projection device (input device 102; disclosed as a display; at least Pars 0069 and 0079-080) coupled to the teleoperation assembly (Par 0071; Fig. 1);
a sensor (tracking detector 208; Pars 0079-80); and
one or more processors (Par 0010) configured to:
receive first sensor information from the sensor (position/location of the patient and different components of the surgical robot; Pars 0079-80);
determine a first visual aid based upon the first sensor information (“a projected trajectory and/or proposed trajectory”);
operate the visual projection device to project the first visual aid into the surgical environment (“based on the patient and robot position, the display screen displays a projected trajectory and/or a proposed trajectory for the robotic arm of surgical robot 202 from its current location to a patient operation site”); and
operate the visual projection device to change the first visual aid to a second visual aid based on second sensor information received from the sensor (“By continuously monitoring the patient and robotic arm positions, using tracking detector 208, the surgical system can calculate updated trajectories and visually display these trajectories on display screen 210 to inform and guide surgeons and/or technicians in the operating room using the surgical robot.” This updated trajectory is a change from the first/original trajectory to a new trajectory, i.e. the display changes the first visual aid to a second visual aid based on the sensor information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hanuschik to include the visual projection device, sensor and processor taught by Kostrzewski, in order to “inform and guide surgeons and/or technicians in the operating room using the surgical robot” of projected, proposed and/or updated trajectories of the robotic arm (Par 0071); thereby providing the benefit/advantage of “ensuring the proper trajectory of the tool” (Par 0067)
Hanuschik and Kostrzewski fail to explicitly teach “operate the visual projection device to project the first visual aid onto an object in the surgical environment”. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ortmaier discloses a surgical robot that projects an image onto a patient undergoing a surgical procedure, including information normally displayed on a monitor/display during surgery (Abstract; Pars 0002-4 and 0036; Fig. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teleoperational system of Hanuschik and Kostrzewski to additionally or alternatively project the same information displayed on the screen, e.g. the visual aid/projected trajectory, onto an object/patient in the surgical environment, as taught by Ortmaier, in order to allow for easier acquisition of visual information during robotic surgery.
Regarding the limitation “a visual projection device coupled to the orienting platform”, none of Hanuschik, Kostrzewski or Ortmaier explicitly teach such a location/position for the visual projection device. It is emphasized that Kostrzewski specifically contemplates different locations/positions for the visual projection device (102; Pars 0070-72) including on the robot. Furthermore, when considering Ortmaier, a POSITA would readily understand/recognize that the position of the visual projection device (18) would need to be somewhere that can easily and effectively project an image onto a patient. Therefore, when considering where the visual projection device should be placed/located on the teleoperational assembly (100) of Hanuschik, there are only a few logical locations to choose from that can provide the desired functionality, including on the arms (106), the orienting platform (107) or the telescoping column (104). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose/try any desired location for the visual projection device (taught by the combination of Kostrzewski and Ortmaier) on the teleoperation assembly (100) of Hanuschik, including the orienting platform, as this choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success or a mere rearrangement of parts; MPEP 2144.04. It is emphasized that applicant themselves have no criticality or unexpected result to the claimed position of the visual projection device, as the specification discloses that it can be located in any desired position on the robot/teleoperational assembly (See Pars 0040-41). Therefore, a POSITA would find it obvious to place the visual projection device at any logical/plausible location on the robot/teleoperation assembly that 1. allows for projection of information onto a patient undergoing surgery (as taught by Ortmaier) and 2. is near the surgeon/end effector performing the surgery (as taught by Kostrzewski; Par 0071). As seen clearly in Figs. 1A-B of Hanuschik, the orienting platform (107) meets both of these requirements, making this a logical choice.
[Claim 49] Kostrzewski discloses “The tracking detector may be a camera, a video camera, an infrared detector, field generator and sensors for electro-magnetic tracking or any other motion detecting apparatus” (Par 0080). The examiner interprets any one of these sensors as a depth sensor, as they are capable of detecting depth/distance.
[Claims 50-52] As discussed above, in relation to claim 49, the disclosed tracking detectors, e.g. a video camera, are capable of indicating a presence or absence of any object/obstruction, e.g. operating table, and providing a direction indicator, i.e. updated trajectory, based on the presence/absence of such an obstruction. MPEP 2114 states… "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. If applicant disagrees with the examiner’s position, see alternative 103 below.
[Claim 53] There is no indication that the visual projection device, i.e. display, changes the size or orientation of any of the visual aids/images relative to the operating table as the visual projection device is physically moved. At the very least the display device is capable of performing the claimed function; MPEP 2114.
[Claim 54] Par 0068 of Kostrzewski states “if the robot is guiding surgical instruments, the user interface may be used for selecting trajectories along which to guide the instruments, planning trajectories”. The examiner takes the position that the selected trajectories of the robotic includes an orienting platform orientation mode and the second visual aid, i.e. updated trajectories, is an orienting platform orientation indicator that accounts for “the position of the patient and different components of the surgical robot 202” (including the orienting platform), and then “displays, for example, real time patient data and/or real time surgical robot trajectories”
[Claim 56] As discussed above, the sensor of Kostrzewski detects the position/location of the patient and different components of the surgical robot to change the displayed trajectory. Clearly, the updated trajectory will change if/when the position/location of the patient/robot is detected, i.e. real time surgical robot trajectories (Pars 0079-80). This is considered operating the visual projection device based on a change in condition, i.e. change in position/location of the patient/robot.
[Claim 57] It is noted that this functional limitation is not tied to the processor, nor does it require any sort of automated response. All the claim requires is that the visual projection device is capable of directing the first visual aid/image toward the robotic arm in any situation/scenario, including responsive to the first second information indicating information about the first teleoperational arm. Kostrzewski discloses all of the necessary structure to be capable of performing the claimed function; MPEP 2114. For example, Kostrzewski discloses that the display can be releasably connected to any portion of the robotic surgical system (Pars 0086-88). Additionally or alternatively, the display (210) is directed at the surgical site/patient (204) and therefore directed at the robotic arm (202) when the robotic arm is performing the surgery/operation (moved via mobile cart; Par 0074).
[Claim 58] See explanation related to claim 53, above. The image/visual aid on the display screen (equivalent to 102) remains unchanged, at least in relation to the display device, when the orienting platform is rotated. Stated differently, if/when the orienting platform is rotated, the image on the screen/display does not change. It is noted that “when the orienting platform is rotated” is a contingent limitation. MPEP 2111.04 states “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur”. Therefore, the prior art does not have to teach a platform that rotates, instead the prior art needs to teach a visual projection device where an image/first visual aid remains unchanged if/when the table rotates.
Claims 50-52 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanuschik, Kostrzewski and Ortmaier as applied to claim 48 above, and further in view of US 2016/0242585 to Moctezuma de la Barrera.
[Claims 50-52] Hanuschik, Kostrzewski and Ortmaier are discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach changing the visual aid/image (from a first trajectory to a second/updated trajectory) based on the presence or absence of an obstacle. It is noted that the claims do not require an operating table, only sensor that can provide information that indicates the presence of one. In the same field of endeavor, Moctezuma de la Barrera discloses a surgical robot with a collision detector (120) to avoid physical objects in a surgical environment and providing a visual projection device/display (feedback generator 122), including arrows/directions as to how to avoid the collision (Pars 0080-89). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Hanuschik, Kostrzewski and Ortmaier to include the collision detector of Moctezuma de la Barrera in order to avoid collisions between the surgical robot and physical objects within the surgical environment, as taught by Moctezuma de la Barrera.
[Claim 55] Hanuschik, Kostrzewski and Ortmaier are discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach the second sensor information indicates a system error and wherein the second visual aid includes a warning or instructions for correcting the system error. However, in the same field of endeavor, Moctezuma de la Barrera discloses a surgical robot that includes detecting a system error and displaying a warning (Pars 0066-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Hanuschik, Kostrzewski and Ortmaier to include error detection and display of a warning (based on the error detection), as taught by Moctezuma de la Barrera, as a known way to “ensure accurate movement of the surgical tool to the desired positions and/or orientation”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lynsey C Eiseman whose telephone number is (571)270-7035. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternating Fridays 7 to 4 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights