DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the claims filed 11 August 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 17 are independent claims.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 12-15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 2018/0214223 A1) hereinafter known as Turner in view of Krieger (US 2020/0194117 A1) hereinafter known as Krieger.
Regarding independent claim 1, Turner teaches:
A method for controlling a robotic system for medical or surgical teleoperation, wherein said robotic system comprises at least one master device, which is hand-held, mechanically unconstrained and adapted to be moved by an operator, and at least one slave device comprising a surgical instrument adapted to be controlled by the master device, so that movements of the slave device, or of the surgical instrument of the slave device, referred to one or more of a plurality of N controllable degrees of freedom, are controlled by respective movements of the master device , according to a master-slave control architecture, (Turner: Figs. 1-3 and ¶[0020]-¶[0023]; Turner teaches a master device (surgeon console 120) which controls the slave device (end effector). Fig. 4 and ¶[0024]-¶[0025] teaches the master device which includes master controls. Fig. 3 and ¶[0022] further teach controlling the slave device within degrees of freedom of motion.)
wherein the method comprises: defining a first state of the system, corresponding to a state of teleoperation with fully enslaved following, in which the surgical instrument of the slave device, or at least a control point, belonging to or integral with the surgical instrument of the slave device, is enslaved and follows the master device in each of the degrees of freedom of said plurality of N controllable degrees of freedom; (Turner: Figs. 6-7B and ¶[0030]-¶[0033]; Turner teaches a mode where the slave follows the master.)
defining a second state of the system, corresponding to a limited teleoperation state, in which the surgical instrument of the slave device, or at least said control point of the surgical instrument of the slave device, is decoupled from the master device with reference to at least one decoupled degree of freedom, and is enslaved to the master device only in a subset of said plurality of N controllable degrees of freedom which excludes said at least one decoupled degree of freedom; (Turner: Figs. 7A-8 and ¶[0042]; Turner teaches exiting out of clutch mode which prevents further manual or uncontrolled movement of the slave.)
providing, in said robotic system, a controller for controlling system state transitions; (Turner: Fig. 8 and ¶[0038]-¶[0040]; Turner teaches a controller for transitioning out of clutch mode.)
controlling transitions between said first state of the system and second state of the system, by the operator, by actuating said controller for controlling system state transition; (Turner: Figs. 7A-8 and ¶[0032]-¶[0040]; Turner teaches initiating following mode or clutch mode.)
...
Turner does not explicitly teach but Krieger teaches:
wherein the plurality of controllable degrees of freedom comprises degrees of freedom of translation and degrees of freedom of orientation, and wherein said second limited teleoperation state is a state of repositioning of the master device, wherein said at least one decoupled degree of freedom comprises all the degrees of freedom of translation, and therefore said surgical instrument of the slave device, or said at least one control point of the surgical instrument of the slave device, does not follow the master device in translation. (Krieger: ¶[0125]; Krieger teaches locking the robot arm to inhibit translation motion while still allowing orientation control.)
Turner and Krieger are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as the references are directed to telemanipulation of a robot arm. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a method for teleoperation of a surgical device which has two modes for a set of degrees of freedom and a subset of degrees of freedom as taught in Turner with further the subset being restricted to orientation as taught in Krieger. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Turner to include teachings of Krieger, because the combination would allow keeping the probe stable, as suggested by Krieger: ¶[0125].
Regarding claim 2, Turner in view of Krieger further teaches the method according to claim 1.
Krieger further teaches:
wherein said subset of controllable degrees of freedom comprises at least two degrees of freedom of orientation, and wherein said surgical instrument of the slave device, or the at least one control point of the surgical instrument of the slave device, thus follows the master device in said at least two degrees of freedom of orientation. (Krieger: ¶[0125]; Krieger teaches locking the robot arm to inhibit translation motion while still allowing orientation control. ¶[0111] further teaches orientation consisting of commands for pitch, yaw, and roll.)
Regarding claim 3, Turner in view of Krieger further teaches the method according to claim 2.
Krieger further teaches:
wherein said at least two degrees of freedom of orientation, with reference to which the surgical instrument of the slave device, or the at least one control point of the surgical instrument of the slave device, follows the master device, and is enslaved thereto to the master device, comprise a degree of freedom of pitch and a degree of freedom of yaw. (Krieger: ¶[0125]; Krieger teaches locking the robot arm to inhibit translation motion while still allowing orientation control. ¶[0111] further teaches orientation consisting of commands for pitch, yaw, and roll.)
Regarding claim 4, Turner in view of Krieger further teaches the method according to claim 1.
Krieger further teaches:
wherein: in said second limited teleoperation state, said surgical instrument of the slave device, or said at least one control point of the surgical instrument of the slave device, follows the master device in all the degrees of freedom of orientation and does not follow the master device in translation, wherein said degrees of freedom of orientation comprise a degree of freedom of pitch, a degree of freedom of yaw, and a degree of freedom of roll. (Krieger: ¶[0125]; Krieger teaches locking the robot arm to inhibit translation motion while still allowing orientation control. ¶[0111] further teaches orientation consisting of commands for pitch, yaw, and roll.)
Regarding claim 8, Turner in view of Krieger further teaches the method according to claim 5.
Turner further teaches:
wherein the plurality of controllable degrees of freedom further comprises at least one degree of freedom of open/close, and wherein, in said second limited teleoperation state, said surgical instrument of the slave device, or said at least one control point of the slave device, follows the master device in all the degrees of freedom of orientation and does not follow the master device in the degree of freedom of open/close and does not follow the master device in translation. (Turner: Fig. 3; Turner teaches the jaws being able to open/close. Figs. 7A-8 and ¶[0042] further teach exiting out of clutch mode which prevents further manual or uncontrolled movement of the slave.)
Regarding claim 9, Turner in view of Krieger further teaches the method according to claim 1.
Krieger further teaches:
said first state of the system corresponds to an operating state in which the slave device acts during a surgery; said second state of the system corresponds to a preparation and/or accommodation and/or repositioning state of the master device in a workspace thereof; said transitions are adapted to allow establishing a desired relationship, determined by the operator during the second state of the system, between a master device workspace, corresponding to the workspace in which the control movement of the master device is defined in the second state of the system, and the slave device workspace, in which the corresponding movement of the surgical instrument of the slave device, or of the control point of the surgical instrument, is defined. (Krieger: ¶[0125]; Krieger teaches locking the robot arm to inhibit translation motion while still allowing orientation control. ¶[0111] further teaches orientation consisting of commands for pitch, yaw, and roll.)
Regarding claim 10, Turner in view of Krieger further teaches the method according to claim 1.
Krieger further teaches:
wherein, in the second limited teleoperation state, translation of said control point is inhibited, while a possibility of rotation of said control point is maintained, in order to vary the orientation of the surgical instrument of the slave device depending on the orientation of the master device, maintaining an alignment condition, having a same orientation, between the master device and the surgical instrument of the slave device, while the position of said control point, in a slave device reference space, remains unchanged. (Krieger: ¶[0125]; Krieger teaches locking the robot arm to inhibit translation motion while still allowing orientation control. ¶[0111] further teaches orientation consisting of commands for pitch, yaw, and roll.)
Regarding claim 12, Turner in view of Krieger further teaches the method according to claim 1.
Krieger further teaches:
wherein, at an end of a transition from said second state to said first state, the master device and the surgical instrument of the slave device are aligned, and have a same orientation. (Krieger: ¶[0125]; Krieger teaches locking the robot arm to inhibit translation motion while still allowing orientation control. ¶[0111] further teaches orientation consisting of commands for pitch, yaw, and roll.)
Regarding claim 13, Turner in view of Krieger further teaches the method according to claim 1.
Turner further teaches:
wherein, at an end of a transition from said first state to said second state, the master device and the surgical instrument of the slave device are aligned, and have a same orientation. (Turner: Figs. 7A-8 and ¶[0032]-¶[0040]; Turner teaches initiating following mode or clutch mode.)
Regarding claim 14, Turner in view of Krieger further teaches the method according to claim 1.
Turner further teaches:
wherein during said transitions between said first state and said second state, the kinematic parameters of speed and accelerations are limited to make regular locking/unlocking of the decouplable degrees of freedom. (Turner: Figs. 7A and ¶[0031]; Turner teaches measuring the movement of the master and determining definitive control, i.e. velocities or accelerations of degrees of freedom of a master control, to determine whether to exit the following mode.)
Regarding claim 15, Turner in view of Krieger further teaches the method according to claim 14.
Turner further teaches:
wherein said kinematic parameters are limited differently depending on whether the transition is a state transition towards said second limited teleoperation state or is a state transition towards said first state. (Turner: ¶[0032]; Turner teaches the user initiating a “following” mode of a medical system in which the slave follows the movement of the master. Since exiting the following mode is based on the parameters of the definitive input, the parameters are different in following mode and transitioning out of following mode.)
Regarding claims 17 and 20, these claims recite a robotic system that performs the method of claims 1 and 2; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner in view of Krieger in view of Overmyer (US 2022/0202437 A1) hereinafter known as Overmyer.
Regarding claim 5, Turner in view of Krieger further teaches the method according to claim 1.
Krierger further teaches:
... wherein, in said second limited teleoperation state, said surgical instrument of the slave device, or said at least one control point of the slave device, follows the master device in all the degrees of freedom of orientation ... and does not follow the master device in translation. (Krieger: ¶[0125]; Krieger teaches locking the robot arm to inhibit translation motion while still allowing orientation control.)
Turner in view of Krieger does not explicitly teach but Overmyer teaches:
wherein the plurality of controllable degrees of freedom further comprises at least one degree of freedom of open/close, and ... and in the degree of freedom of open/close ... (Overmyer: ¶[0299]; Overmyer teaches exceeding a threshold non-opening angle and preventing unclamping or opening of the jaws.)
Overmyer is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to telemanipulation of a robot arm. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a method for teleoperation of a surgical device which has two modes for a set of degrees of freedom and a subset of degrees of freedom and further the subset being restricted to orientation as taught in Turner in view of Krieger with further limiting the opening of the jaws as taught in Overmyer. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Turner and Krieger to include teachings of Overmyer, because the combination would allow efficient operation of the jaws, as suggested by Overmyer: ¶[0299].
Regarding claim 7, Turner in view of Krieger further teaches the method according to claim 5.
Krieger further teaches:
wherein, in said second limited teleoperation state, said surgical instrument of the slave device, or said at least one control point of the slave device, operates as follows: said surgical instrument of the slave device, or said at least one control point of the slave device follows the master device in all the degrees of freedom of orientation, does not follow the master device in translation, and, ... , and does not follow the master device in the opening direction. (Krieger: ¶[0125]; Krieger teaches locking the robot arm to inhibit translation motion while still allowing orientation control.)
Turner in view of Krieger does not explicitly teach but Overmyer teaches:
... with reference to the degree of freedom of open/close, follows the master device only in the closing direction ... (Overmyer: ¶[0299]; Overmyer teaches exceeding a threshold non-opening angle and preventing unclamping or opening of the jaws.)
Overmyer is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to telemanipulation of a robot arm. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a method for teleoperation of a surgical device which has two modes for a set of degrees of freedom and a subset of degrees of freedom and further the subset being restricted to orientation as taught in Turner in view of Krieger with further limiting the opening of the jaws as taught in Overmyer. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Turner and Krieger to include teachings of Overmyer, because the combination would allow efficient operation of the jaws, as suggested by Overmyer: ¶[0299].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner in view of Krieger in view of Kirk (US 2018/0168681 A1) hereinafter known as Kirk.
Regarding claim 6, Turner in view of Krieger further teaches the method according to claim 5.
Krieger further teaches:
wherein, in said second limited teleoperation state, said surgical instrument of the slave device, or said at least one control point of the slave device, operates as follows: said surgical instrument of the slave device, or said at least one control point of the slave device follows the master device in all the degrees of freedom of orientation, does not follow the master device in translation, and, ... , and does not track the master device in the closing direction. (Krieger: ¶[0125]; Krieger teaches locking the robot arm to inhibit translation motion while still allowing orientation control. ¶[0111] further teaches orientation consisting of commands for pitch, yaw, and roll.)
Turner in view of Krieger does not explicitly teach but Kirk teaches:
with reference to the degree of freedom of open/close, follows the master device only in the opening direction (Kirk: ¶[0045]; Kirk teaches allowing the jaws to return to the open configuration.)
Kirk is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to telemanipulation of a robot arm. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a method for teleoperation of a surgical device which has two modes for a set of degrees of freedom and a subset of degrees of freedom and further the subset being restricted to orientation as taught in Turner in view of Krieger with further allowing the jaws to open as taught in Kirk. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Turner and Krieger to include teachings of Kirk, because the combination would allow efficient operation of the jaws, as suggested by Kirk: ¶[0045].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner in view of Krieger in view of Yu (US 2023/0355261 A1) hereinafter known as Yu.
Regarding claim 11, Turner in view of Krieger further teaches the method according to claim 1.
Turner in view of Krieger does not explicitly teach but Yu further teaches:
wherein the surgical instrument of the slave device comprises a distal joint for connection with the slave device and two tips configured to grip and guide a surgical needle, and wherein said control point of the surgical instrument corresponds to a point located between said distal joint and an end of the tips. (Yu: Figs. 12 and 28 and ¶[0119] and ¶[0172]; Yu teaches a distal portion of the second jaw to grip a suture needle when the end effector is in a closed configuration, for suturing operations.)
Yu is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to telemanipulation of a robot arm. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a method for teleoperation of a surgical device which has two modes as taught in Turner in view of Krieger with the surgical device gripping and guiding a needle as taught in Yu. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Turner and Krieger to include teachings of Yu, because the combination would allow suturing operations, as suggested by Yu: ¶[0119].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner in view of Krieger in view of Prisco (US 2017/0156806 A1) hereinafter known as Prisco.
Regarding claim 16, Turner in view of Krieger further teaches the method according to claim 1.
Turner in view of Krieger does not explicitly teach but Prisco further teaches:
wherein, before entering into the first state of the system, of teleoperation with fully enslaved following, a zero point is defined, which correlates a master device reference space and a slave device reference space, for translation, and wherein, at an exit from the second state, at an end of the limited teleoperation step, the resulting translation offset between the master device and the slave device is stored and added to a current zero point, so that, in a subsequent teleoperation step with fully enslaved following, control of the slave device by the master device obeys a relationship which takes into account said translation offset which occurred during the limited teleoperation step. (Prisco: Fig. 4 and ¶[0053]; Prisco teaches interrupting following mode and locking both the slave and master until the control is lightened and then reentering following mode afterwards. Since both the master and slave are locked the offset is zero.)
Prisco is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to telemanipulation of a robot arm. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a method for teleoperation of a surgical device which has two modes as taught in Turner in view of Krieger with returning into following mode with zero offset as taught in Prisco. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Turner and Krieger to include teachings of Prisco, because the combination would allow resetting the following mode, as suggested by Prisco: ¶[0053].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner in view of Krieger in view of Thompson (US 2019/0142530 A1) hereinafter known as Thompson.
Regarding claim 18, Turner in view of Krieger further teaches the robotic system according to claim 1.
Turner in view of Krieger does not explicitly teach but Thompson teaches:
controller for controlling state transitions comprises a control button, or a control pedal, which are pressable and/or kept pressed and/or released by the operator, and wherein the second limited teleoperation state is activated, during the teleoperation, by keeping said control button pressed, and is deactivated by releasing said control button. (Thompson: ¶[0045] and ¶[0094]; Thompson teaches a button which is pressed to enter non-controlling mode and released to go back into controlling mode.)
Thompson is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to telemanipulation of a robot arm. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a method for teleoperation of a surgical device which has two modes as taught in Turner in view of Krieger with further allowing the switching of modes by pressing and releasing a button as taught in Thompson. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Turner and Krieger to include teachings of Thompson, because the combination would allow efficient operation between modes, as suggested by Thompson: ¶[0094].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner in view of Krieger in view of Bovay (US 2016/0287279 A1) hereinafter known as Bovay.
Regarding claim 19, Turner in view of Krieger further teaches the robotic system according to claim 17.
Turner in view of Krieger does not explicitly teach but Bovay teaches:
wherein the system is a robotic system for teleoperated microsurgery, and wherein said surgical instrument of the slave device is a microsurgical instrument. (Bovay: ¶[0003]-¶[0006] and ¶[0041]; Bovay teaches a microsurgical tool for robotic teleoperations.)
Bovay is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to robotic surgery. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to substitute the surgical device that is capable of being teleoperated as taught in Turner in view of Krieger with a microsurgical device as taught in Bovay. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Turner and Krieger to include teachings of Bovay, because the combination would allow different types of robotic applications, as suggested by Bovay: ¶[0041].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118