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 filed 05/02/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because document C1 Chollangi, Ravikiran is not complete. It ends abruptly on page 40. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 10-11, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosenberg US 2005/0162383
Claim 1: The Rosenberg reference provides a teaching of a system for simulating insertion of a trocar (see col. Paragraph 41 “… to simulate a laparoscopic medical procedure“ and … interface apparatus 12 may include a barrier 22 and a standard laparoscopic trocar 24 (or a facsimile of a trocar) “ ) , the system comprising:
a planar member (see FIG. 3 item 50);
an elongated member coupled to the planar member (see FIG. 3 item 40);
a force transducer coupled to the elongated member and the planar member (see paragraph 59 item 66a and 66b pair of transducers that include sensors);
a plurality of support members coupled to the planar member (see FIG 3 item 62 pair of support member); and
a plurality of actuators, wherein each actuator is coupled to a support member (see paragraph 59 item 66a and 66b transducers that includes actuators as well and paragraph 73 as an examples of the 66b actuators performing action “Rotational force is applied from transducer 66b to pulley 76 when the actuator of transducer 66b rotates the shaft”);
a computer processor (see paragraph 44 item 16 computer), wherein:
the system is configured to provide an admittance haptic feedback in response to an external force input applied to the elongated member (see paragraph 73, 98 providing force feedback that moves against the user’s directional input); and
the admittance haptic feedback is configured to simulate penetration of and advancement through a plurality of tissue layers (see paragraph 69 “Forces can be applied preferably in the first three degrees of freedom by the computer system to simulate the tool impacting a portion of subject body, experiencing resistance moving through tissues, etc.”)
Claims 10 and 16: The Rosenberg reference provides a teaching of wherein the system provides the admittance haptic feedback by sensing the external force input and outputting a corresponding displacement of the elongated member (see paragraph 83 and 86 providing feedback forces against the external forces).
Claim 11: The Rosenberg reference provides a teaching of wherein the wherein the plurality of actuators are configured as servomotors (see FIG. 6 item 68, 99 and paragraph 81-82 showing cable belt for transferring precise forces).
Claim 14: The Rosenberg reference provides a teaching of a method of simulating insertion of a trocar (see col. Paragraph 41 “… to simulate a laparoscopic medical procedure“ and … interface apparatus 12 may include a barrier 22 and a standard laparoscopic trocar 24 (or a facsimile of a trocar) “ ), the method comprising:
providing an admittance haptic feedback in response to an external force input applied to an elongated member (see paragraph 73, 98 providing force feedback that moves against the user’s directional input), wherein the admittance haptic feedback is configured to simulate penetration of and advancement through a plurality of layers of tissue of a patient (see paragraph 69 “Forces can be applied preferably in the first three degrees of freedom by the computer system to simulate the tool impacting a portion of subject body, experiencing resistance moving through tissues, etc.”).
Claim 17: The Rosenberg reference provides a teaching of wherein the corresponding displacement of the elongated member is generated by a plurality of actuators (see paragraph 94 “Actuators 126 are preferably DC servo motors incorporated into the transducers 66a, 66b, and 68” ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg US 2005/0162383 and in view of Foster 20150206456
Claim 2: The Rosenberg is silent on the teaching of comprising a visual display of the elongated member and the plurality of tissue layers.
The Foster reference provides a teaching of a visual display of the elongated member and the plurality of tissue layers (see FIG. 5 item 590 showing needles 232 in a different layers/area of the skin 592 and paragraph 81 “The user interface/display device 140 integrates the communicated position information into a digital model of the head bust injection apparatus 105. The user interface/display device 140 may be configured to present a visual representation of the position of the needle tip 233 relative to the injection site on the injection apparatus 105”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Rosenberg with the feature of a visual display of the elongated member and the plurality of tissue layers, as taught by the Foster reference, in order to provide the user with feedback on the technique performed by the user (see paragraph 50).
Claim 5: The Rosenberg reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the visual display communicates with the computer processor such that a simulated movement of the elongated member in the visual display is synchronized with a movement of the elongated member.
However, the Foster reference provides a teaching of wherein the visual display communicates with the computer processor such that a simulated movement of the elongated member in the visual display is synchronized with a movement of the elongated member (see paragraph 81 provide visual feedback as the student inserts the syringe needle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Rosenberg with the feature of wherein the visual display communicates with the computer processor such that a simulated movement of the elongated member in the visual display is synchronized with a movement of the elongated member, as taught by the Foster reference, in order to provide the user with feedback on the technique performed by the user (see paragraph 50).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg US 2005/0162383 and in view of Park US 20120301858
Claims 3 and 15: The Rosenberg rference is silent on the teaching of wherein the admittance haptic feedback is configured to simulate penetration of and advancement through a skin layer, a muscle and fat layer, and a peritoneum layer.
However, the Park reference wherein the admittance haptic feedback is configured to simulate penetration of and advancement through a skin layer, a muscle and fat layer, and a peritoneum layer (see paragraph 29 “ the motor unit 304 is driven by a haptic force corresponding to the insertion depth as if the injection needle passes through the skin, muscle”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Rosenberg reference with the feature of wherein the admittance haptic feedback is configured to simulate penetration of and advancement through a skin layer, a muscle and fat layer, and a peritoneum layer, as taught by the Park reference, in order to , in order to provide realistic feedback in performing the procedure.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg US 2005/0162383, in view of Park 20120301858, and furtherin view of Chollangi “Design and Development of a Haptic Device for a Trocar Insertion Minimum Invasive Procedure Simulator”
Claims 4 and 18: The Rosenberg reference provides a teaching of force feedback when the elongated member is moved with respect to the planar member (see paragraph 73). However, the Rosenberg reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the admittance haptic feedback provides: a first decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the skin layer; a second decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the skin layer; and a third decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the skin layer.
However, the Chollangi reference of wherein the admittance haptic feedback provides:
a first decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the skin layer (see Chollangi Fig. 3.1 around time 3(s)) ;
a second decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the skin layer (see Chollangi FIG. 3.1 around time 4(s)); and
a third decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the skin layer (see Chollangi FIG. 3.1 around time (4.5(s)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the feature of a first decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the skin layer; a second decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the skin layer; and a third decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the skin layer; as taught by the Chollangi reference, in order to provide a realistic feedback as the trocar is inserted to a human body.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg US 2005/0162383, in view of Park 20120301858, in view of Chollangi “Design and Development of a Haptic Device for a Trocar Insertion Minimum Invasive Procedure Simulator” and further in view of Foster 20150206456
Claims 6 and 19: The Rosenberg reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the visual display communicates with the computer processor such that a simulated movement of the elongated member in the visual display is synchronized with a movement of the elongated member.
However, the Foster reference provides a teaching of wherein the visual display communicates with the computer processor such that a simulated movement of the elongated member in the visual display is synchronized with a movement of the elongated member (see paragraph 81 provide visual feedback as the student inserts the syringe needle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Rosenberg with the feature of wherein the visual display communicates with the computer processor such that a simulated movement of the elongated member in the visual display is synchronized with a movement of the elongated member, as taught by the Foster reference, in order to provide the user with feedback on the technique performed by the user (see paragraph 50).
Claims 7-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg US 2005/0162383, in view of Chollangi “Design and Development of a Haptic Device for a Trocar Insertion Minimum Invasive Procedure Simulator”, in view of Foster 20150206456 and further in view of Park US 20120301858
Claim 7: The Rosenberg reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the simulated movement of the elongated member in the visual display simulates a visual display of penetration of the skin layer by the elongated member. when the admittance haptic feedback provides the first decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the skin layer
However, the Park reference wherein the simulated movement of the elongated member in the visual display simulates a visual display of penetration of the skin layer by the elongated member (see paragraph 29 “ the motor unit 304 is driven by a haptic force corresponding to the insertion depth as if the injection needle passes through the skin, muscle” and paragraph 40 having a display for displaying the information about injection method, the virtual or actual image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Rosenberg reference with the feature of wherein the simulated movement of the elongated member in the visual display simulates a visual display of penetration of the skin layer by the elongated member when the admittance haptic feedback provides the first decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the skin layer, as taught by the Park reference, in order to provide realistic feedback in performing the procedure.
The Chollangi reference provides a teaching when the admittance haptic feedback provides the first decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the skin layer (see Chollangi Fig. 3.1 around time 3(s)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Rosenberg reference with the feature of when the admittance haptic feedback provides the first decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the skin layer; as taught by the Chollangi reference, in order to provide a realistic feedback as the trocar is inserted to a human body.
Claim 8: The Rosenberg reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the simulated movement of the elongated member in the visual display simulates a visual display of penetration of the muscle and fat layer by the elongated member when the admittance haptic feedback provides the second decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the muscle and fat layer.
However, the Park reference provide a teaching of wherein the simulated movement of the elongated member in the visual display simulates a visual display of penetration of the muscle and fat layer by the elongated member (see paragraph 29 “ the motor unit 304 is driven by a haptic force corresponding to the insertion depth as if the injection needle passes through the skin, muscle” and paragraph 40 having a display for displaying the information about injection method, the virtual or actual image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Rosenberg reference with the feature of wherein the simulated movement of the elongated member in the visual display simulates a visual display of penetration of the skin layer by the elongated member when the admittance haptic feedback provides the first decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the skin layer, as taught by the Park reference, in order to provide realistic feedback in performing the procedure.
However, the Chollangi reference provides a teaching of when the admittance haptic feedback provides the second decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the muscle and fat layer (see Chollangi FIG. 3.1 around time 4(s)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Chollangi reference with the feature of when the admittance haptic feedback provides the second decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the muscle and fat layer; as taught by the Chollangi reference, in order to provide a realistic feedback as the trocar is inserted to a human body.
Claim 9: The Rosenberg reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the simulated movement of the elongated member in the visual display simulates a visual display of penetration of the peritoneum layer by the elongated member when the admittance haptic feedback provides the third decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the peritoneum layer.
However, the Park reference wherein the simulated movement of the elongated member in the visual display simulates a visual display of penetration of the peritoneum layer(see paragraph 29 “ the motor unit 304 is driven by a haptic force corresponding to the insertion depth as if the injection needle passes through the skin, muscle” and paragraph 40 having a display for displaying the information about injection method, the virtual or actual image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Rosenberg reference with the feature of wherein the simulated movement of the elongated member in the visual display simulates a visual display of penetration of the skin layer by the elongated member when the admittance haptic feedback provides the first decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the skin layer, as taught by the Park reference, in order to provide realistic feedback in performing the procedure.
However, the Chollangi reference provides a teaching of when the admittance haptic feedback provides the third decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the peritoneum layer (see Chollangi FIG. 3.1 around time (4.5(s)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Chollangi reference with the feature of when the admittance haptic feedback provides the third decrease in force feedback to simulate penetration of the peritoneum layer; as taught by the Chollangi reference, in order to provide a realistic feedback as the trocar is inserted to a human body.
Claim 20: The Rosenberg reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the simulated movement of the elongated member is synchronized with the force feedback when the elongated member is moved.
However, the Park reference provides a teaching of wherein the simulated movement of the elongated member is synchronized with the force feedback when the elongated member is moved (see paragraph 29, 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the feature of wherein the simulated movement of the elongated member is synchronized with the force feedback when the elongated member is moved, as taught by the Park reference, in order to provide realistic feedback in performing the procedure.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg US 2005/0152383 and in view of Irion US 20040024418
Claim 12: The Rosenberg reference is silent on the teaching of a second planar member comprising an aperture; and the elongated member extends through the aperture.
However, the Irion reference provides a teaching of a second planar member comprising an aperture (see FIG 3 item 30 second planar member and paragraph 66 elongated hole 54); and the elongated member extends through the aperture (see paragraph 66 “sleeve 52 in the longitudinal direction of the elongated hole 54 when the instrument 12 is swiveled about the second swivel axis 28”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Rosenberg reference with the feature of second planar member comprising an aperture; and the elongated member extends through the aperture, as taught by the Irion reference, in order to provide a durable and transportable training medium (see paragraph 14).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg US 2005/0152383 and in view of Johannsonn US 20150325147
Claim 13: The Rosenberg reference is silent on the teaching of a third planar member, wherein the plurality of actuators are coupled to the third planar member.
However, the Johansonn reference provides a teaching of wherein the plurality of actuators are coupled to the third planar member (see FIG. 1 item 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Rosenberg reference with the feature of a third planar member, wherein the plurality of actuators are coupled to the third planar member, as taught by the Johansson reference, a stable base where the user can operate the system (see paragraph 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715