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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, claims 10-20 have been withdrawn from consideration, and claims 1-9 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a video processing device” in claims 2 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2013/0046137), in view of Moll (US 6,837,883) and Levi (US 2022/0273164).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses a surgical robotic system, comprising: a surgical robotic arm (manipulator arm [0072]) configured to movably support a surgical instrument (226, figure 2b); and a first trocar (202, figures 2) including: a head (208, figure 2a); a cannula (209, figure 2a) extending distally from the head and configured to receive the surgical instrument (see figure 2b); and a plurality of cameras (220-221, figure 2b | two or more image capture sensors [0063] | interpreted there to be more than 2 cameras) circumferentially spaced from one another about an outer surface of a distal end portion of the cannula (see figures 5 | interpreted the two or more image capture sensors to be circumferentially spaced about an outer surface of the distal end portion of the cannula). Zhao further discloses the displacement of the image capture units from the central axis upon deployment is selected to facilitate stitching captures images together to form a panoramic view ([0063]). Zhao is silent regarding the surgical robotic arm having an elongated rail, the head configured for attachment to the elongated rail; the plurality of cameras having overlapping fields of view that collectively provide a 360-degree view around the first trocar.
Moll teaches a robotic manipulator arm assembly (310, figure 5) with a linear guide formation (316, figure 5) and a cannula (see cannula attached to the distal end of 316, figures 5). An instrument (100, figure 5) is driven to translate along a linear guide formation of the arm (312, figure 5).
Levi teaches a medical imaging endoscope (305, figure 3) with three cameras ([0050]) and connected to a main control unit (415, figure 4). The three video streams can be stitched together into a single, panoramic video frame based on an overlap between field of views of the cameras ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the system of Zhao to have the arm assembly (310, figure 5) with the linear guide formation (316, figure 5) as taught by Moll. Doing so would allow an instrument to be driven to translate along a linear guide (see figure 5). It also would have been obvious to modify the system of Zhao to be able to stitch together multiple video streams into a single panoramic video frame for each trocar as taught by Levi ([0055]). Doing so would stitch together the video streams based on the overlap between the field of views of the cameras ([0055]). The modified system would have the surgical robotic arm having an elongated rail (316, figure 5; Moll), the head configured for attachment to the elongated rail (see cannula attached to the distal end of 316, figures 5); the plurality of cameras having overlapping fields of view (overlap between field of views [0055]; Levi) that collectively provide a 360-degree view around the first trocar (two or more image capture sensors [0063]; Zhao | interpreted there to be more than two cameras circumferentially spaced about the outer surface area, where the stitched together image could provide a 360 degree view around the trocar).
Regarding claim 2, Zhao and Levi further disclose a video processing device (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a computing device for image processing | see control system 310 with a display module 330 that is executing on a processor 320, figure 3) in communication with the plurality of cameras of the first trocar (stitched together…by display module 330 [0077]), wherein the video processing device is configured to stitch together images taken by each of the plurality of cameras of the first trocar to form a single image (stitched together…[0077]); and a display (351 or 360, figure 3) in communication with the video processing device and configured to display the single image (stitched together…single panoramic image 451 [0077]; Zhao | [0055] Levi).
Regarding claim 3, Zhao further discloses the plurality of cameras (two or more image capture sensors [0063]) is mounted to the distal end portion of the cannula in an annular array (image capture elements…radially outward [0055]; see figures 5).
Regarding claim 4, Zhao further discloses the first trocar includes a lens (lens…[0112]) enclosing the plurality of cameras.
Regarding claim 5, Zhao further discloses the distal end portion of the cannula defines a distal port (see 509, figure 5b), the plurality of cameras being disposed adjacent the distal port (see figure 5b).
Regarding claim 6, Zhao further discloses the first trocar includes at least one light (534-535, figures 5) disposed adjacent the plurality of cameras.
Regarding claim 7, Zhao further discloses a second trocar (another 202, figures 2) including: a cannula (209, figure 2a) defining a channel (channel for 226, figure 2b) therethrough; and a plurality of cameras (220-221, figure 2b | two or more image capture sensors [0063]) circumferentially spaced from one another about an outer surface of a distal end portion of the cannula of the second trocar (see figures 5 | interpreted the two or more image capture sensors to be circumferentially spaced about an outer surface of the distal end portion of the cannula) and directed radially outward (image capture elements…radially outward [0055]), the plurality of cameras having overlapping fields of view (overlap between field of views [0055]; Levi) that collectively provide a 360-degree view around the second trocar (two or more image capture sensors [0063]; Zhao | interpreted there to be more than two cameras circumferentially spaced about the outer surface area, where the stitched together image could provide a 360 degree view around the trocar).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2013/0046137) and Moll (US 6,837,883) and Levi (US 2022/0273164) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Herzlinger (US 2014/0024951).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao and Moll and Levi disclose all of the features in the current invention as shown above in claim 7. They are silent regarding a video processing device in communication with the plurality of cameras of the first trocar and the second trocar, wherein the video processing device is configured to stitch together images taken by each of the plurality of cameras of the first and second trocars to form a single image and display the single image on a display.
Herzlinger teaches cannulas (611-613, figure 6) with vision systems (621-623, figure 6). A computer may merge the images from the cameras together to form two more natural rectilinear views of at least a portion of the surgical site ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to modify the system of Zhao and Moll and Levi to have more than one cannula (611-613, figure 6) and a computer (image processing…computer [0024]; [0040]) to merge the images from the cannulas together ([0040]) as taught by Herzlinger. Doing so would provide views of the surgical site from perspectives other than the actual/main camera data ([0040]). The modified system would have a video processing device (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a computing device for image processing | see control system 310 with a display module 330 that is executing on a processor 320, figure 3 of Zhao; image processing…computer [0024] of Herzlinger) in communication with the plurality of cameras of the first trocar and the second trocar (images…at least two cameras…computer [0040]), wherein the video processing device is configured to stitch together images taken by each of the plurality of cameras of the first and second trocars to form a single image (merge the images together [0040]) and display the single image on a display (display to a surgeon [0040]).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2013/0046137) and Moll (US 6,837,883) and Levi (US 2022/0273164) and Herzlinger (US 2014/0024951) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Scheib (US 2020/0289205).
Regarding claim 9, Zhao, Moll, Levi, and Herzlinger disclose all of the features in the current invention as shown above in claim 8. They are silent regarding the video processing device is further configured to focus the plurality of cameras of the first trocar or the second trocar on the other of the first trocar or the second trocar during insertion of the surgical instrument into the other of the first trocar or the second trocar.
Scheib teaches a surgical visualization system (1500, figure 8) with a surgical device (1502, figure 8) and an imaging device (1520, figure 8). The surgical device and the imaging device are on separate robotic arms ([0172]). The system can have more than one camera (3220, figure 13j), where one camera can be a follower camera on a follower arm ([0186]). The follower arm, and camera thereon, can be programmed to track the other camera and to maintain a particular distance and/or lens angle ([0186]).
It would have been obvious to modify the system of Zhao, Moll, Levi, and Herzlinger with separate robotic arms for each cannula ([0186]) and to control the arms to have one arm be a follower arm to track the other camera and arm as taught by Scheib ([0186]). Doing so would maintain a particular distance and/or lens angle of the follower arm and camera thereon ([0186]). The modified system would have the video processing device is further configured to focus the plurality of cameras of the first trocar or the second trocar on the other of the first trocar or the second trocar during insertion of the surgical instrument into the other of the first trocar or the second trocar (follower arm…lens angle [0186]; Scheib).
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 PAMELA F WU whose telephone number is (571)272-9851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4 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, Michael Carey can be reached at 571-270-7235. 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.
PAMELA F. WU
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
July 23, 2026
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights