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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 1-5, 7-18 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), in view of Choi et al. (WO 2010/068005), 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 that 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), this does not explicitly teach that it “maintains a fixed distance between a robotic base of the robotic arm and an upper surface of the operating table throughout vertical movement of the operating table”, as now claimed.
Choi teaches a surgical robot (see Title), which may be mounted to the bed, but Choi also teaches and illustrates embodiments in which the surgical robot is separate from the table (see, for example, Figures 1 and 5 especially, but also Figures 6 and 7-8). In each of these embodiments, Choi teaches that “in cases where the height is adjusted for the table 9 of the operating bed 3, the height of the robot can be adjusted in linkage with the height of the table 9, or the information on how much the height of the table 9 was adjusted can be transferred immediately to the surgical robot, so that the robot arm 20 may be manipulated using the same or a corresponding set of coordinates regardless of the adjustment in height” (see page 7, paragraph 46). This explicitly teaches that “the height of the robot can be adjusted in linkage with the height of the table 9”, which means that the table and the robot would adjust simultaneously and in unison when the table is adjusted in height.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adjust the robot vertically in unison with the vertical adjustment of the table, as taught in Choi, and that doing so would meet the requirements of Wu (i.e., “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”), and that any adjustments to the height of the table that are synchronized by the robotic arm base (and therefore the robotic arm itself) would maintain position and orientation of the end effector within or proximate to a trocar, as taught by Wu. Direct height adjustment of the robot in unison with the table height is one of multiple automatic adjustments that would achieve the objectives of Wu, and because the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yields nothing more than predictable results (KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395).
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 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. It is noted though, that by the additional teaching of Choi in which a change in the height of the table causes the same change in height of the robotic arm, then this “relative” height would therefore be a fixed height.
Regarding claims 5 and 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 “the robotic arm including a robotic base” which is shown as numeral 302a,b in Figure 2 of Wu. Claim 11 also 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. It is additionally noted that in Figure 5 of Choi, element 10 of the surgical robot is considered the “base” of the robot in Choi, which is shown as moving up and/or down based on the arrow near the bottom of element 10. Hence, the robot base moves up and down with the changing height of the table 9 in Choi.
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. It is noted though, that by the additional teaching of Choi in which a change in the height of the table causes the same change in height of the robotic arm, then this “relative” height would therefore be a fixed height.
Regarding claim 18, Wu teaches “coupler interfaces 400a, 400b”, which are provided to couple surgical instruments thereto (see paragraph 157).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The following prior art is herein made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but not relied upon in the rejections above:
Love et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2023/0062720)
Abstract: Devices, assemblies, systems, and methods are disclosed for stabilizing a cart. An example cart is a surgical cart having a robotic arm thereon. A stabilizer system may be part of or used with the cart to stabilize the cart at a location. The stabilizer system may include a stabilizer and an actuator. The stabilizer may have a foot and a biaser configured to bias the foot to a retracted position and contribute to an amount of force applied to a floor supporting the cart when the foot is in a deployed position. The actuator acts on the stabilizer to overcome a bias force biasing the stabilizer to the retracted position and cause feet of the stabilizer to contact the floor. Once the feet of the stabilizer contact the floor, a spring of the biaser causes the foot to apply a predetermined force amount to the floor.
Gang et al. (CN 107468293 A)
Abstract: The invention claims a minimally invasive surgery robot and using the surgical device, relating to the technical field of medical appliance, which solves the problem of minimally invasive surgery robot usually cannot be flexibly applied to the technical problem of all kinds of endoscopic surgery. The minimally invasive surgery robot of the invention, movable platform for driving the minimally invasive surgery robot moves between the operating room, the height adjusting mechanism is in the movable platform; for adjusting the height of the minimally invasive surgery robot to adapt different surgical bed height, the position adjusting mechanism is connected with the height adjusting mechanism, and is located above the movable platform, comprising a horizontal rotary joint and a rotary joint in two vertical surface; the posture adjusting mechanism connected with the position adjusting mechanism. the double-parallelogram mechanism; the tail end executing mechanism connected with the posture adjusting mechanism, comprising a holder, a feeding driving device of moving joint and driving instrument is rotated around its own axis of rotation joint.
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 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
Prosecution Insights