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
Claims 16-25 remain withdrawn as being directed towards a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 3-15, 26 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.
Regarding Claim 1, line 8 and line 10, each of “a first one of the plurality of robotic arms” and “a second one of the plurality of robotic arms” does not maintain antecedent basis with the previously defined “a first robotic arm” in line 6 and “a second robotic arm” in line 7, respectively. It is not clear if these are meant to be the first and second robotic arms, respectively, or any robotic arm selected from the set of the first, second, and third robotic arms. Both interpretations are addressed in the prior art rejection below.
Claims 3-15 and 26 are rejected based on their dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-15, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160302871 to Gregerson.
PNG
media_image1.png
734
1010
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Gregerson teaches a multi-arm surgical robotic platform comprising:
a support structure (gantry 40 together with gimbal 30, Figure 1A) comprising an upper wall, a lower wall, and two sidewalls, the support structure defining a central aperture (as shown in the annotated Figure 1A above with bore 16 as the central aperture);
an operating table mounted to the support structure (patient support table 60 is mounted to the supporting structure 30 via base 20) and extending at least partially into the central aperture (patient support table 60, Figure 1A extends into the bore 16, as better seen in Figures 2A-2C);
a plurality of robotic arms, including a first robotic arm mounted to a first one of the two sidewalls (robotic arm 101b, Figure 1A), a second robotic arm mounted to a second one of the two sidewalls (robotic arm 101a, Figure 1A), and a third robotic arm mounted to the lower wall (gimbal 30 is considered as part of the support structure lower wall which is attached to robot arm 20, 50);
wherein a first one of the plurality of robotic arms is capable of manipulating an emitter of an imaging device and a second one of the plurality of arms is capable of manipulating a detector of the imaging device to provide between and including 0 to 360-degree imaging of an patient positioned on the operating table with respect to a first axis (robotic components 20, 50 actuate to position the gantry 40 with respect to the patient; the gantry contains emitter and detector of an imaging device 125, i.e. x-ray imaging, par. 0031-0032; base 20 translates the gantry in the x direction while column 50 translates the patient in the y direction, while the emitter and detector are rotated inside the gantry to capture 360 degrees of imaging at the precise x, y, z position for CT images, par. 0031; as such, the third robotic arm is capable of manipulating both the detector and emitters of an imaging device. Further, the first robotic arm 101b and second robotic arm 101a are capable of gripping emitters and detectors of an imaging device and rotating around the patient to perform imaging, e.g. holding and positioning an ultrasound probe or endoscope, as the robotic arms 101a, 101b have selective end effectors of a variety of surgical tools, par. 0028. Examiner notes the claim does not include the imaging device components as part of the claim but rather only requires their operative capability with the robotic platform. See MPEP 2114(II). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Regarding Claim 3, Gregerson further teaches wherein the operating table is mounted to the support structure such that a pose of the operating table relative to the support structure is selectively adjustable (column 50 and patient support 60 are translated together with respect to the support structure, par. 0034; column 50 also raises and lowers the patient support 60 with respect to the support structure, par. 0034).
Regarding Claim 6, Gregerson further teaches an imaging device mounted to the upper wall (camera 131, Figure 1A).
Regarding Claim 7, Gregerson further teaches wherein the imaging device corresponds to a navigation system (camera 131 is used for navigation and tracking, par. 0036-0037).
Regarding Claim 8, Gregerson further teaches wherein the imaging device is a depth camera (moire phase tracking is considered a type of depth information for sensing 3D position including depth, par. 0037, therefore the camera 131 is a type of depth camera).
Regarding Claim 9, Gregerson further teaches
a controller comprising:
a processor (par. 0042); and
a memory (par. 0042) storing instructions for execution by the processor that, when executed, cause the processor to control the plurality of robotic arms to manipulate the emitter and the detector of the imaging device to capture between and including 0 to 360-degree imaging of the patient positioned on the operating table (as described in par. 0042-0043, the controllers 105, 205, 213, each with processor and memory, are linked and provide the instructions to control the robot arms as shown schematically in Figure 3, e.g. controllers 205, 213 control the imaging device 125).
Regarding Claim 10, Gregerson further teaches a plurality of robotic arm sensors, each of the plurality of robotic arm sensors configured to detect at least one of force, torque, or position (par. 0037 the robot arm include passive sensors, i.e. markers 133, for tracking their position, par. 0037; the robotic arms also include active sensors, i.e. encoder, for tracking position, par. 0038); and an operating table sensor (par. 0039 teaches position of the patient support 60 is tracked, using the markers 133, par. 0037).
Regarding Claim 11, Gregerson further teaches a controller configured to receive information from the plurality of robotic arm sensors and the operating table sensor and to control each of the plurality of robotic arms in a single coordinate system (common coordinate system, par. 0041).
Regarding Claim 12, Gregerson further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of robotic arms comprises an end effector configured to selectively grasp and release surgical tools (robotic arms 101a, 101b have selective end effectors of a variety of surgical tools, par. 0028).
Regarding Claim 14, Gregerson further teaches wherein at least one of the first robotic arm, the second robotic arm, or the third robotic arm is capable of selectively disengaging an imaging device and engaging a surgical tool (end effector 121 is selected from invasive surgical tool, such as needle, cannula, cutting or gripping instrument, endoscope; endoscope is recognized as an imaging device, par. 0028; as such, the robot arms 101a, 101b are capable of switching between an imaging device/endoscope and surgical tool).
Regarding Claim 15, Gregerson further teaches wherein at least one of the first robotic arm, the second robotic arm, or the third robotic arm is capable of selectively disengaging a surgical tool and engaging an imaging device (end effector 121 is selected from invasive surgical tool, such as needle, cannula, cutting or gripping instrument, endoscope; endoscope is recognized as an imaging device, par. 0028; as such, the robot arms 101a, 101b are capable of switching between an imaging device/endoscope and surgical tool).
Regarding Clam 13, Gregerson further teaches wherein the support structure is fixedly securable to an operating room wall (Figure 1A-2C the support structure is fixedly securable to the floor wall of the operating room, i.e. it does not move relative to the operating room wall).
Regarding Claim 26, Gregerson further teaches wherein the third robotic arm is configured to manipulate one of the emitter of the imaging device or the detector of the imaging device (robotic components 20, 50 actuate to position the gantry 40 with respect to the patient; the gantry contains emitter and detector of an imaging device 125, i.e. x-ray imaging, par. 0031-0032; base 20 translates the gantry in the x direction while column 50 translates the patient in the y direction, while the emitter and detector are rotated inside the gantry to capture 360 degrees of imaging at the precise x, y, z position for CT images, par. 0031; as such, the third robotic arm is capable of manipulating both the detector and emitters of an imaging device.), and wherein at least one of the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm is configured to manipulate the other of the emitter of the imaging device or the detector of the imaging device (e.g. holding an endoscope, as in par. 0028, or other imaging device, e.g. ultrasound probe, is capable of being held by the robotic arm, which implicitly have emitters/detectors to perform imaging.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160302871 to Gregerson in view of US 20200121267 to Deutschmann.
Regarding Claim 4, Gregerson does not teach wherein the operating table is detachably mounted to the support structure.
However, Deutschmann teaches a robotically controlled imaging gantry wherein a patient support operating table is detachably mounted along a support structure base, as shown in Figure 29 copied below.
PNG
media_image2.png
410
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to make the operating table of Gregerson detachably mounted as in Deutschmann, so that the patient can be separately prepped on the table and moved into position in the operating room, thereby improving operating efficiency with minimal disturbance to the patient.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160302871 to Gregerson in view of WO 2020079596 to Zehavi (published April 23, 2020 and cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 5, Gregerson does not teach a tool carousel mounted to a position on the upper wall, above the operating table. However, Zehavi, in the same field of endeavor with respect to multi-arm surgical robots, teaches interchanging tools on the end of the robot arm based on which tool is needed (Figure 2, interchanging between the tools 16, 17) in the same manner as a tool exchanger in a machine tool operates (page 5, lines 5-12). Although a carousel is not explicitly recited to contain the instruments, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that some kind of holder/carousel must be present to provide the selection of tools to the robot arm. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it a routine matter of design choice to position the carousel mounted to a position on the upper wall above the operating table of Gregerson in order to provide access for tool section to the robot arm as taught by Zehavi. One of ordinary skill would select the upper wall as a suitable place for positioning the carousel since it is out of the way of the patient surgical area and still within access for the robot to reach. Courts have ruled the positioning of an element is design choice when the arrangement performs the same function and solves no new problem (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner agrees the previously raised issues under USC 112(b) are resolved.
Applicant argues Gregerson does not teach wherein a first one of the plurality of robotic arms are capable of manipulating a detector of the imaging device, and a second one of the plurality of robotic arms capable of manipulating a detector of the imaging device, as required by claim 1. However, the connection between the patient and gantry is motorized and can be considered itself a robotic arm (i.e. third robotic arm). As such, it teaches supporting and controlling imaging components. Further, even if the robotic arms 101a, 101b of Gregerson are considered as the claimed “a first one of the plurality of robotic arms” and “a second one of the plurality of robot arms”, they are both capable of holding either a detector or emitter of an imaging device, e.g. endoscope, ultrasound probe, etc., since they are capable of interchanging instruments in their grippers. Examiner notes the claim does not include the imaging device components as part of the claim but rather only requires their operative capability with the robotic platform. See MPEP 2114(II). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). As such, Gregerson still anticipates claim 1. Examiner acknowledges Gregerson teaches a different arrangement than what is disclosed (e.g. Figure 2 of the instant application compared to Figure 1A of Gregerson). However, the differences are not yet in the claims.
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 ANGELA MARIE HOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-7408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571)270-1790. 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.
ANGELA M. HOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/Angela M Hoffa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights