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
Claim 1 has been cancelled. Claims 2-21 has/have been added. Claims 2-21 are pending and examined below.
Priority
The actual filing date for the instant application is 4 Mar 24. However, the instant application requests domestic benefit to a provisionally filed application 63/345287, filed 24 May 22. As such, the effective filing date of each of the instant application’s claims under examination may be as recent as the instant application’s actual filing date of 4 Mar 24, or potentially as early as the filing date of 24 May 22 (filing date of 63/345287), depending on whether there is appropriate specification support for each particular claim in the earlier-filed specification. In the case that a prior art rejection to one or more claims made in an Office action during prosecution of the instant application includes one or more prior art references that fall somewhere between 4 Mar 24 and 24 May 22 (an "intervening" reference), if Applicant can specifically identify appropriate specification support for each of these claims in the earlier filed provisional application, then the Examiner may determine that one or more of these prior art rejections against one or more of these claims will need to be withdrawn.
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.
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.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180289431 A1 (“Draper”) in view of US 20230092980 A1 (“Rockrohr”).
As per Claim 2, Draper discloses a method for controlling a robotic endoscope system, the method comprising:
actuating a robotic support system to a desired location relative to a patient bed based at least in part on a 3D map (¶ 32—“The base 180 can be positioned such that the robotic arm 175 has access to perform or assist with a surgical procedure on a patient”; ¶ 37—“In position control mode, the command console 200 uses a three-dimensional (3D) map of a patient luminal network and input from navigational sensors as described herein to control a surgical tool or instrument, e.g., the endoscope 115. The command console 200 provides control signals to robotic arms 175 of the surgical robotic system 110 to manipulate the endoscope 115 to a target location. Due to the reliance on the 3D map, position control mode may require accurate mapping of the anatomy of the patient 101.”);
autonomously aligning an instrument driving mechanism (IDM) to a component coupled to or as a part of the patient bed, wherein the IDM is releasably coupled to a distal end of a robotic arm of the robotic support system (¶ 30—“The robotic arm 175 may be coupled to a manipulator assembly (e.g., an instrument device manipulator (IDM) 190)”; ¶ 74—“Block 620 involves aligning (spatially and/or rotationally) the manipulator assembly (e.g., the IDM 190) of the robotic arm 175 with an alignment member 309 of the patient introducer 301. This step may be done manually by the user, automatically by the surgical robotic system 110”; ¶ 76—“the patient introducer 301 may be secured adjacent to and in alignment with the port 325”); and
positioning the IDM at a pre-determined distance from the component coupled to or as a part of the patient bed (¶ 48—“The surgical robotic system 110 may record the spatial position and/or orientation of the IDM 190 during alignment so that the surgical robotic system 110 is aware of the spatial position and/or orientation of the patient introducer 301 during a surgical procedure”).
Rockrohr teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Draper, including namely that the 3D map includes that of an environment surrounding the robotic endoscope system (¶ 71—“An imaging device, such as endoscopic camera 51, or other suitable camera, may be used to capture images (2D and/or 3D) of the surgical site, and/or the OR”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Draper to include the limitations as taught by Rockrohr to prevent the relative positioning and operational status of each robotic arm from being difficult for users to associate with the actual movable cart (Rockrohr: ¶ 3).
As per Claim 3, Draper further discloses wherein the IDM is autonomously aligned to the component based at least in part on a fiducial marker located on the component (¶ 47—“the alignment member 309 may be configured to physically contact one of the IDMs 190 and/or may include markings (also referred to as markers) for which complementary markings may be formed on at least one IDM 190 to facilitate the alignment”).
As per Claim 4, Draper further discloses wherein the IDM is autonomously aligned to the component by generating a command to actuate one or more actuators of the robotic arm to move the IDM into a position or an orientation in alignment with the component (¶ 29—“The robotic arm 175 includes multiple arm segments 170 coupled at joints 165… the robotic arm 175 includes set up joints that use a combination of brakes and counter-balances”; ¶ 33—“actuators such as motors to move the robotic arm 175”).
As per Claim 5, Draper further discloses aligning an anti-buckling mechanism to the component (¶ 26—“The endoscope 115 may be, for example, a tubular and flexible surgical instrument”). Examiner asserts that a flexible surgical instrument is to at least some amount resistant to buckling.
As per Claim 6, Draper further discloses wherein the anti-buckling mechanism is in a collapsed state (¶ 26—“The endoscope 115 may be, for example, a tubular and flexible surgical instrument”). Examiner asserts that the flexible surgical instrument can be pushed beyond its resistance to buckling.
As per Claim 7, Draper further discloses automatically adjusting a position or a distance of the IDM relative to the component upon detection of a buckling event (¶ 62—“automatic alignment of the IDM 190 with the patient introducer 301”).
As per Claim 8, Draper further discloses detecting a buckling of a flexible catheter coupled to the IDM while the flexible catheter is inserted into a body of a patient (¶ 27—“a steerable catheter”; ¶ 62—“automatic alignment of the IDM 190 with the patient introducer 301”).
As per Claim 9, Draper further discloses controlling a velocity of the tip of the flexible catheter to automatically correct a deformation caused by the buckling (¶ 36—“velocity mode”).
As per Claim 10, Draper further discloses wherein the robotic arm is controlled in an autonomous mode and a compliant mode (¶ 60—"These techniques may assist in the manual or automatic alignment of the IDM 190 with the patient introducer 301”).
As per Claim 11, Draper further discloses wherein the robotic support system operates in an autonomous mode or a semi-autonomous mode (¶ 70—“a number of examples of different sensors which may be used to aid a user in aligning the IDM 190 with the patient introducer 301 and/or for automatic alignment of the IDM 190 with the patient introducer 301 performed by the surgical robotic system 110”).
As per Claim 12, Draper discloses a system for controlling a robotic endoscope system, the system comprising:
a memory storing computer-executable instructions (¶ 33—“memory”); one or more processors (¶ 33—“processor”) in communication with the robotic endoscope system (¶ 35—“endoscope”) and configured to execute the computer- executable instructions to:
actuate a robotic support system to a desired location relative to a patient bed based at least in part on a 3D map (¶ 32—“The base 180 can be positioned such that the robotic arm 175 has access to perform or assist with a surgical procedure on a patient”; ¶ 37—“In position control mode, the command console 200 uses a three-dimensional (3D) map of a patient luminal network and input from navigational sensors as described herein to control a surgical tool or instrument, e.g., the endoscope 115. The command console 200 provides control signals to robotic arms 175 of the surgical robotic system 110 to manipulate the endoscope 115 to a target location. Due to the reliance on the 3D map, position control mode may require accurate mapping of the anatomy of the patient 101.”);
autonomously align an instrument driving mechanism (IDM) to a component coupled to or as a part of the patient bed, wherein the IDM is releasably coupled to a distal end of a robotic arm of the robotic support system (¶ 30—“The robotic arm 175 may be coupled to a manipulator assembly (e.g., an instrument device manipulator (IDM) 190)”; ¶ 74—“Block 620 involves aligning (spatially and/or rotationally) the manipulator assembly (e.g., the IDM 190) of the robotic arm 175 with an alignment member 309 of the patient introducer 301. This step may be done manually by the user, automatically by the surgical robotic system 110”; ¶ 76—“the patient introducer 301 may be secured adjacent to and in alignment with the port 325”); and
position the IDM at a pre-determined distance from the component coupled to or as a part of the patient bed (¶ 48—“The surgical robotic system 110 may record the spatial position and/or orientation of the IDM 190 during alignment so that the surgical robotic system 110 is aware of the spatial position and/or orientation of the patient introducer 301 during a surgical procedure”).
Rockrohr teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Draper, including namely that the 3D map includes that of an environment surrounding the robotic endoscope system (¶ 71—“An imaging device, such as endoscopic camera 51, or other suitable camera, may be used to capture images (2D and/or 3D) of the surgical site, and/or the OR”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Draper to include the limitations as taught by Rockrohr to prevent the relative positioning and operational status of each robotic arm from being difficult for users to associate with the actual movable cart (Rockrohr: ¶ 3).
As per Claim 13, Draper further discloses wherein the IDM is autonomously aligned to the component based at least in part on a fiducial marker located on the component (¶ 47—“the alignment member 309 may be configured to physically contact one of the IDMs 190 and/or may include markings (also referred to as markers) for which complementary markings may be formed on at least one IDM 190 to facilitate the alignment”).
As per Claim 14, Draper further discloses wherein the IDM is autonomously aligned to the component by generating a command to actuate one or more actuators of the robotic arm to move the IDM into a position or an orientation in alignment with the component (¶ 29—“The robotic arm 175 includes multiple arm segments 170 coupled at joints 165… the robotic arm 175 includes set up joints that use a combination of brakes and counter-balances”; ¶ 33—“actuators such as motors to move the robotic arm 175”).
As per Claim 15, Draper further discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions further comprise aligning an anti-buckling mechanism to the component (¶ 26—“The endoscope 115 may be, for example, a tubular and flexible surgical instrument”). Examiner asserts that a flexible surgical instrument is to at least some amount resistant to buckling.
As per Claim 16, Draper further discloses wherein the anti-buckling mechanism is in a collapsed state (¶ 26—“The endoscope 115 may be, for example, a tubular and flexible surgical instrument”). Examiner asserts that the flexible surgical instrument can be pushed beyond its resistance to buckling.
As per Claim 17, Draper further discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions further comprise automatically adjusting a position or a distance of the IDM relative to the component upon detection of a buckling event (¶ 62—“automatic alignment of the IDM 190 with the patient introducer 301”).
As per Claim 18, Draper further discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions further comprise detecting a buckling of a flexible catheter coupled to the IDM while the flexible catheter is inserted into a body of a patient (¶ 27—“a steerable catheter”; ¶ 62—“automatic alignment of the IDM 190 with the patient introducer 301”).
As per Claim 19, Draper further discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions further comprise controlling a velocity of the tip of the flexible catheter to automatically correct a deformation caused by the buckling (¶ 36—“velocity mode”).
As per Claim 20, Draper further discloses wherein the robotic arm is controlled in an autonomous mode and a compliant mode (¶ 60—"These techniques may assist in the manual or automatic alignment of the IDM 190 with the patient introducer 301”).
As per Claim 21, Draper further discloses wherein the robotic support system operates in an autonomous mode or a semi-autonomous mode (¶ 70—“a number of examples of different sensors which may be used to aid a user in aligning the IDM 190 with the patient introducer 301 and/or for automatic alignment of the IDM 190 with the patient introducer 301 performed by the surgical robotic system 110”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BASIL T JOS whose telephone number is (571)270-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 8:00 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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/Basil T. Jos/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658