The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
The following claim limitations have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (any paragraphs cited come from PGPUB 2024/0358466, representative of the specification of the instant application):
Claims 1 and 11
A linear sensing device … configured to connect to an operating table and sense vertical movement of the operating table relative to the base assembly
This limitation utilizes the generic placeholder “device”, transitional phrase “configured to” and functional language “sense vertical movement”. The preceding term “linear sensing” does not apply specific structure that performs the function.
The specification states the following in paragraph 60:
The linear sensing device 540 is configured to be connected to any suitable operating room table, such as the table 104. When connected to the table 104, the linear sensing device 540 is configured to sense when the table 104 is raised and lowered, and the distance that the table 104 is raised and lowered. The linear sensing device 540 may be any suitable device configured to identify vertical movement or z-axis movement of the table 104. For example, the linear sensing device 540 may define a track 542 that extends vertically. In cooperation with the track 542 is a link, tab or post 544, which is configured to be coupled to the table 104. The post 544 moves vertically within the track 542 as the table 104 moves up and down when the post 544 is coupled to the table 104. The vertical movement of the post 544 within the track 540 is sensed by the linear sensing device 540 in any suitable manner, such as with a linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT), or an optical sensing device. The linear sensing device 540 is in cooperation with a control module 550 of the mobile cart 510 to send signals to the control module 550 identifying the height of the table 104.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Patent Pub No. 2023/0114137) in view of Azizian et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2017/0079730), and further in view of Lagree (US Patent Pub. No. 2016/0166870).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a surgical system comprising:
A base assembly (see system 200 in Figure 2) including an actuator vertically movable along a z-axis between a first position and a second position (see vertical extenders 106a, 106b in Figure 2; “Each stage may include vertical extenders, e.g., vertical extender 106a or vertical extender 106b, for independently moving robot arm 300a or robot arm 300b” - paragraph 154);
A support member mounted to the actuator and configured to support a robotic arm (see paragraph 37, “The system further may include a support platform for supporting at least the base”; see reproduction of Figure 2 below), the support member movable by the actuator to vertically move the robotic arm along the z-axis (see reproduction of Figure 2 below, where support members are shown connected to vertical and horizontal extenders to move robot arms (see paragraph 154)):
PNG
media_image1.png
674
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wu teaches that “For example, as the system is being setup to start a procedure, optical scanner 1100 may detect the height and orientation of the surgical table. This information may allow the system to automatically configure the degrees of freedom of platform 100 supporting robot arms 300 to the desired or correct positions relative to the surgical table. Specifically, optical scanner 1100 may be used to ensure that the height of platform 100 is optimally positioned to ensure that robot arms 300 overlap with the intended surgical workspace. In addition, as described above, the system may automatically reconfigure the degrees of freedom of platform 100 as well as the arrangement of robot arms 300 responsive to movement of the surgical table” (see paragraph 197, emphasis added; also see paragraph 229). Therefore, Wu teaches automatic vertical adjustment of the surgical robot based on vertical adjustment of the patient table.
Wu teaches a control module configured to receive sensor signals from the optical scanner to identify movement of one or more objects and to move the surgical robot in response to the movement of the one or more objects, and in addition “the controller may be programmed to cause the base to move in at least one degree of freedom” (see paragraph 48). As stated and underlined in the preceding paragraph, Wu teaches that the system can automatically reconfigure the platform 100 (i.e., the surgical cart of Wu) as well as the arrangement of the robot arms responsive to movement of the surgical table. This would obviously be performed via the controller as stated in paragraph 48.
However, Wu teaches an optical scanner (e.g., LiDAR, see paragraph 20 and 46), from which depth maps are created, rather than a “linear sensing device … configured to connect to an operating table”.
Azizian teaches “Methods and systems for registering a manipulator assembly and independently positionable surgical table” (see Abstract). “Methods of registration include determining a position and/or orientation of the surgical table relative the manipulator assembly based on a sense of a registration feature of the surgical table. The registration features may include various contact or non-contact means to determine a position and/or orientation of the surgical table relative to the manipulator assembly or relative to a common frame of reference. In one approach, the registration feature comprises a registration device mounted to the table at a particular location through which a manipulator of the assembly attaches to the table” (see paragraph 11). Figure 11 illustrates one embodiment in which registration feature 300 “allows the system to register the surgical table relative the Patient Side Cart such that a spatial relationship between the manipulators of the Patient Side Cart and the surgical table patient surface 210 can be determined and may be utilized in calculated manipulator movements” (see paragraph 61). Figure 14 illustrates another embodiment in which “the registration feature 300 is a table-mounted registration device 310 to which a distal portion of a manipulator 82 can be releasably coupled” (see paragraph 70). Additionally, Figures 19, 20 and 21 illustrate additionally embodiments in which the position and orientation of the surgical table may be determined. Figure 20, in particular, teaches “an alternative contact-based approach, spring-loaded linear encoders can be mounted on the Patient Side Cart. As illustrated in FIG. 20, each of the spring-loaded linear encoders 330 can be stretched and attached to hooks on the side of the table so as to extend between the surgical table and the Patient Side Cart, or an associated component. In one aspect, at least three linear encoders are used so that readings from the linear encoders can be triangulated to determine the position and pose of the surgical table relative Patient Side Cart and surgical table” (see paragraph 75-76).
Therefore, Azizian teaches a linear sensing device mounted to the base assembly, the linear sensing device configured to connect to an operating table and sense vertical movement of the operating table relative to the base assembly (see, for example, either one of figures 14 and/or 20 of Azizian and explanations above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize contact-based registration features, as taught by Azizian, in place of the optical scanner in Wu in order to determine the position and orientation of the surgical table in the methods of Wu, as Azizian teaches these as functional alternatives to one another (see Abstract of Azizian, which states “In another aspect, methods for registration include tracking of one or more optical or radio markers with a sensor associate with the manipulator assembly to determine a spatial relationship between the surgical table and manipulator assembly”; see paragraph 81-82), while also teaching the contact-based examples discussed in more detail in the body of the rejection above. Such a modification amounts to substitution of known equivalents for registration and determination of surgical table position, including height, to yield predictable results (KSR v. Teleflex).
While Wu teaches vertical extenders 106a, 106b, and that reconfiguration of the system of Wu is controlled by a controller, there is no explicit teaching that the vertical extenders are moved via a motor.
In analogous art, Lagree, it teaches a lifting mechanism (“A controller 501 is used to send the actuation signal to the actuator, the signal generally being one to increase the length of the actuator, or to decrease it. Through the lifting mechanism linkage, the increased or decreased length translates to increased or decreased height” – see paragraph 51). “The actuator may be comprised a hydraulic actuator, electric actuator, pneumatic actuator or mechanical actuator. The actuator is preferably provides motorized power using a motor (e.g. electric motor, hydraulic motor, pneumatic motor)” (see paragraph 75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that a motor would be present in the system and methods of Wu, which teaches automated raising and lowering of the robotic arm via vertical extenders, for which such function would require a component such as a motor. However, in the lack of explicit teaching by Wu, Lagree teaches a system for raising and lower objects which includes control via a controller, and an actuator controlled by a motor. Therefore, Lagree fills in the missing pieces of Wu, which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the system illustrated in Figure 2 of Wu includes wheels 104.
Regarding claim 3, the system 200 of Wu includes the controller, which is coupled to all aspects of the system 200 (see paragraph 188 discussing the controller generating a map, controlling the display, etc.; see paragraph 7 discussing the controller operatively coupled to the robot arm; see paragraph 8-9 discussing the controller coupled to multiple motors within the base).
Regarding claim 4, Wu teaches that “As shown in FIG. 2, system 200 further may include graphical user interface display 110 for displaying operational information as well as receiving user input.” Additionally, paragraph 197 teaches that the table height and the robot arm’s relative thereto may be setup prior to the start of a procedure and may update automatically during the procedure.
Regarding claims 5-7, it is noted that Lagree teaches that the actuator for raising and lower an object may include a linear actuator, such as a telescoping linear actuator, or rotary actuators such as a stepper motor (see paragraph 75 for both), and alternatively the lift assembly may be comprised of a scissor jack (see paragraph 76). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the vertical extenders taught by Wu with any of these as functional equivalents thereof, where is it noted that Lagree teaches “mechanical linear actuators” as an option in paragraph 75 which is the extenders used by Wu, and As such a modification amounts to substitution of known equivalents for raising and/or lowering an object to yield predictable results (KSR v. Teleflex).
Regarding claim 8, it is noted that each robotic arm of Wu is mounted to its own support member, as illustrated in this reproduction of Figure 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
674
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Wu teaches “coupler interfaces 400a, 400b”, which are provided to couple surgical instruments thereto (see paragraph 157).
Regarding claim 10, Wu teaches that “As platform 2700 is being moved toward the patient, the scene may be directly observed by a depth mapping sensor, e.g., optical scanner 1100′, which may be mounted on platform 2700. From the depth maps observed and generated by optical scanner 1100′, key features may be identified such as, for example, the height and/or location of patient table PT,… the base of robot arms 300a′, 300b′, e.g., base portions 302a′, 302b′ and shoulder portions 304a′, 304b′, robot arms 300a′, 300b′, and/or one or more surgical instruments coupled with the robot arms… As each feature is registered, its position and orientation may be assigned a local co-ordinate system and transformed into the global co-ordinate system” (see paragraph 314). Additionally, paragraphs 229-230 teaches that when the patient table is adjusted various actions are taken to ensure that the robot arm and distal end thereof are maintained in relative position to a trocar, and therefore to the patient and therefore to the table.
With respect to claims 11 and 15, it is noted that this claim includes the same limitations as that of claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference. Claim 11 then adds “a surgical tracking system defining a navigation space having a navigation coordinate system”, which Wu teaches in paragraph 314 as described above in the rejection of claim 10. In paragraph 314, it discusses features of the robot arms and how each determined feature, including of the robot arms and other features in the surgical suite, are assigned a local co-ordinate system before being transformed to a global co-ordinate system. These functions are performed by a processor of the co-manipulation robot platform. Additionally, Wu teaches that “As platform 2700 is being moved toward the patient, the scene may be directly observed by a depth mapping sensor, e.g., optical scanner 1100′, which may be mounted on platform 2700. From the depth maps observed and generated by optical scanner 1100′, key features may be identified such as, for example, the height and/or location of patient table PT,… the base of robot arms 300a′, 300b′, e.g., base portions 302a′, 302b′ and shoulder portions 304a′, 304b′, robot arms 300a′, 300b′, and/or one or more surgical instruments coupled with the robot arms… As each feature is registered, its position and orientation may be assigned a local co-ordinate system and transformed into the global co-ordinate system” (see paragraph 314). Additionally, paragraphs 229-230 teaches that when the patient table is adjusted various actions are taken to ensure that the robot arm and distal end thereof are maintained in relative position to a trocar, and therefore to the patient and therefore to the table.
Regarding claims 12 and 17, the system illustrated in Figure 2 of Wu includes wheels 104.
Regarding claim 13, the system 200 of Wu includes the controller, which is coupled to all aspects of the system 200 (see paragraph 188 discussing the controller generating a map, controlling the display, etc.; see paragraph 7 discussing the controller operatively coupled to the robot arm; see paragraph 8-9 discussing the controller coupled to multiple motors within the base).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Wu teaches that “As shown in FIG. 2, system 200 further may include graphical user interface display 110 for displaying operational information as well as receiving user input.” Additionally, paragraph 197 teaches that the table height and the robot arm’s relative thereto may be setup prior to the start of a procedure and may update automatically during the procedure.
Regarding claim 18, Wu teaches “coupler interfaces 400a, 400b”, which are provided to couple surgical instruments thereto (see paragraph 157).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES KISH whose telephone number is (571)272-5554. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00a - 6p EST.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/JAMES KISH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792