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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application, and claims 22-35 have been cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims and Specification have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 2/10/2026. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 2/13/2026 has been acknowledged by the Office. This communication is a Non Final Office Action on the on merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the combination of Siemionow and Navab fail to teach robotic arms carrying an imaging device and a display that are controlled by a robotic controller. Applicant’s arguments are persuasive in regards to the deficiencies of Siemionow and Navab to teach or disclose the claim combinations of claims 1 and 14. The arguments, however, do not apply to the current combination of references used in this rejection.
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) 1-7, 10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siemionow et al., hereinafter Siemionow (Document ID: US 20190175285 A1) in view of Meglan (Document ID: US 20190088162 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Siemionow teaches a surgical robotic system comprising:
a chassis (see at least P [0052]: “mounted to an adjustable and/or movable floor-supported structure (such as a tripod)”);
Siemionow further teaches a first surgical arm configured to carry an imaging device (see at least FIG. 1A for a tracker 125 on an arm), a second surgical arm configured to carry a display screen (see at least FIG. 1A for an adjustable holder (surgical boom) 149 which acts as arm to carrying the display system 140 including a screen), and a third surgical robotic arm configured to carry a surgical tool (robot arm 191, see also FIG. 3J). Siemionow also discloses in P [0052] a robust system that mounts robotic arm components to the ceiling 102, to the floor 101, the side wall 103 of the room, or on an adjustable and/or movable floor-supported structure (such as a tripod), the latter of which most closely fits the description of a “chassis”. But Siemionow does not explicitly teach that the first and second arms are surgical robotic arms nor that each and every arm is mounted on the chassis.
Instead, Meglan teaches in at least FIG. 1 and P [0058] “one or more robotic arms 20” capable of holding a “surgical tool 27… and/or camera 30”, as well as numerous display systems for the robotic system, wherein each arm is mounted on a single chassis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple arm system, display device, tracker, and robotic arm with tools of Siemionow with the multiple robotic arm system on a single chassis of Meglan in order to implement real, complex surgical robotic systems with multiple arms in a setting for training a user or introducing virtual/augmented reality assistance, as in P [0005] of Meglan.
In view of the modification, Siemionow further teaches
a robotic controller (see at least P [0054] wherein the robotic arm has a controller “used with the optical tracker”, as well as P [0065]: “All system components are controlled by one or more computers”);
Siemionow further teaches that the imaging sensor is used to view a target location on a patient anatomy in at least P [0062]: “the tracking system comprises means for real-time tracking of the position and orientation of… a patient anatomy 105,”. Additionally, note that in P [0010] it is established that the disclosure aims to provide a visualization for a “region of interest (ROI) of the surgical field”, which specifically relates to a region of interest, or target location, of the patient’s anatomy. Siemionow additionally teaches a predetermined spatial relationship with the target location on the patient anatomy in at least P [0057] through tracking position and orientation of the display system, as well as moving the see-through mirror 141; see also FIG. 1B which establishes a predetermined spatial relationship with the target location on the patient anatomy. Finally Siemionow teaches the ability to display an image of the patient's anatomy on the anatomical display screen in at least P [0066]-[0068] wherein the image of the patient’s anatomy is displayed. But Siemionow does not explicitly teach that the robotic controller is configured to perform control movement of the first surgical robotic arm to position the imaging sensor nor control movement of the second surgical robotic arm to orient the display screen.
Instead, Meglan further teaches in at least P [0060]-[0061] direct control articulation of each robotic arm, including for robotic tools and for camera control. Meglan also teaches in P [0064]-[0067] a series of known augmented reality interface options and control methods, including the ability “to project images onto surgical robot 25”, which works directly adjacent to the patient.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adjustable arms and display in the surgical environment of Siemionow with the robotically articulated arms for positioning surgical devices and cameras, as well as implementation with an AR display of Meglan in order to implement real, complex surgical robotic systems with multiple arms in a setting for training a user or introducing virtual/augmented reality assistance, as in P [0005] of Meglan.
Regarding claim 2, modified Siemionow teaches the surgical robotic system of claim 1, and Siemionow further teaches that
the image of the patient's anatomy at least partly comprises a preoperative image (see at least P [0002] which discloses the goal of “presenting preoperative diagnostic information and images in useful formats”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Siemionow teaches the surgical robotic system of claim 1, and Siemionow further teaches that
the image of the patient's anatomy at least partly comprises a real-time image (see at least P [0067]: “the real world image: the patient anatomy, surgeon's hands and the instrument currently in use (which may be partially inserted into the patient's body and hidden under the skin)”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Siemionow teaches the surgical robotic system of claim 1, and in view of the modification, Siemionow further teaches that
the predetermined spatial relationship comprises locating the anatomical display screen along a user's line-of-sight (see at least P [0083]: “aligning the line of sight of the surgeon onto the see-through mirror with the patient anatomy”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Siemionow teaches the surgical robotic system of claim 4, and Siemionow further teaches that
the display screen is at least partly transparent and configured to allow a user to view an image on the display while maintaining a line-of-sight view of the target anatomy through the display screen (see at least P [0096]: “The see-through mirror (also called a half-silvered mirror) 141 is at least partially transparent and partially reflective, such that the viewer can see the real world behind the mirror but the mirror also reflects the surgical navigation image generated by the display apparatus located above it.”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Siemionow teaches the surgical robotic system of claim 1, and in view of the modification, Siemionow further teaches that
the predetermined relationship comprises locating the display screen over the target anatomy and the anatomical display image comprises internal structures not externally visible (see at least P [0071] which indicates toggling the section of anatomy displayed, as well as FIG. 3B, and 3F-3Jwhich show internal structures not externally visible).
Regarding claim 7, modified Siemionow teaches the surgical robotic system of claim 6, and in view of the modification, Siemionow further teaches that
the display screen is located over the surgical tool, allowing a user to align the tool with a target internal anatomical structure visible on the anatomical display image (see at least P [0069] wherein the image indicates “the suggested position and orientation of the robot arm 191” in order to help a user align the tool with the target internal structure).
Regarding claim 10, modified Siemionow teaches the surgical robotic system of claim 1, but Siemionow does not explicitly teach that
the display screen includes an additional imaging device.
Instead, Meglan teaches in P [0066]-[0067] various AR interface methodologies that integrate an additional camera with the display screen or projection system for augmented reality visualization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the movable display of Siemionow with the camera embedded in a display element of Meglan in order to execute a design choice for known AR camera implementation systems as in P [0064]-[0067] of Meglan.
Regarding claim 12, modified Siemionow teaches the surgical robotic system of claim 1, and Siemionow further teaches that
the controller is further configured to receive position information for the user's eyes (see at least P [0108]: “eye tracker 148 module... to track the position and orientation of the eyes of the surgeon”).
Regarding claim 13, modified Siemionow teaches the surgical robotic system of claim 1, and Siemionow further teaches that
the controller is further configured to determine a line-of-sight from the position of the user's eyes to the target location (see at least P [0108] wherein eye tracking is used “via the gaze input interface to control the display parameters at the surgical navigation image generator 131.” The gaze is the line of sight of the user, and P [0109] defines a gaze vector directly).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siemionow in view Meglan, and further in view of Tesar (Document ID: US 20160220324 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Siemionow teaches the surgical robotic system of claim 1, and Siemionow further teaches the use of numerous imaging techniques known in the art in P [0003], but Siemionow and Meglan do not explicitly teach that
the imaging device is a surgical microscope and the controller is configured to display an output of the surgical microscope on the display screen while the display screen and the target location are in the user's line-of-site.
Instead, Tesar, whose invention pertains to a medical apparatus that uses proximal cameras mounted on a frame to allow a user to view a surgical site, teaches in at least P [0266] the use of a surgical microscope view in tandem with an optical system that allows the surgeon to view the patient target location and the microscope view using gaze direction detection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging and tracking methods and devices of Siemionow and Meglan with the microscopic imaging device of Tesar in order to implement a design choice to provide a surgical user with a surgical microscope view as part of the augmented reality display system. Note that Tesar teaches both a viewing apparatus and a head mounted display as the primary methods for viewing the microscopic view. In contrast, Siemionow teaches a display that is moved by an arm to hover above the patient. Meglan teaches numerous augmented reality configurations including head mounted display and projection techniques. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention that the combined augmented reality system of Siemionow and Meglan, as well as the system of Tesar, depend on gaze detection, and that the combination of references is intended to simply incorporate the microscopic camera used by Tesar to the optical system of Siemionow and Meglan.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siemionow in view of Meglan, and further in view of Navab et al., hereinafter Navab (Document ID: US 20210378750 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Siemionow teaches the surgical robotic system of claim 1, and Siemionow further teaches in P [0052] that the devices in the surgical environment have numerous control systems and methods, and P [0002] establishes that the control and display is all taking place in real time. Meglan teaches allowing a user to control a surgical robotic arm in real time in at least P [0060]. Siemionow and Meglan are not explicitly teaching that
the controller is configured to (1) at least in part automatically control the first and second robot surgical arms and (2) allow a user to at least in part control the third surgical robotic arm in real-time.
Instead, Navab, whose invention pertains to a dynamic mirror view for rendering operation images in real time, teaches the use of a navigation localizer 44 with a camera unit 46 as well as a display 100 for displaying graphical representations, see at least P [0069]. In P [0099] Navab then establishes that “the control system 60 can receive signals from the camera (C) and recognize changes to position and/or orientation of the user's face, eyes, head, or other feature using pose estimation algorithms.” Essentially, in the camera and screen embodiment the controller automatically controls the first and second movement of camera and screen respectively, while the user is controlling a surgical instrument.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tracker, movable display, and gaze tracking system on one chassis of Siemionow and Meglan with the automatic localizer and movable display of Navab in order to execute a design choice to implement autonomous control for a surgical robotic system in response to "changes to position and/or orientation of the user's face, eyes, head, or other features" as in P [0099] of Navab.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siemionow in view of Meglan, and further in view of Slagmolen et al., hereinafter Slagmolen (Document ID: US 20220125519 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Siemionow teaches the surgical robotic system of claim 10, but Siemionow and Meglan do not explicitly teach that
the controller is configured to align the display screen with the patient anatomy based at least in part on an output of the additional image sensor.
Instead, Slagmolen teaches in P [0026] a process for bringing the display device and the virtual environment “into a common coordinate system”. Then, in P [0027] the embedded camera is “used to track the movement of the display unit and deduce from this movement the display unit's coordinate system in relation to (parts of) the environment (e.g. SLAM).” Finally, in P [0029], specifically “an anatomical part of the patient,” is used to perform proper tracking and alignment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the movable display of Siemionow and Meglan with the camera embedded in a display element and coordinate tracking process of Slagmolen in order to execute a design choice for known AR camera implementation systems as in P [0024]-[0025] of Slagmolen, as well as maintain accurate positioning when using an AI surgical system.
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siemionow in view Meglan, and further in view of Navab.
Examiner Note: Statement of Rejection #5 is the same as Statement of Rejection #3, but is restated here for clarity of the rejection, in order to keep claim 14 with its dependents.
Regarding claim 14, Siemionow teaches a method for performing robotic surgery on a patient, said method comprising: a first surgical arm using an imaging sensor to scan a target surgical site on a patient anatomy (see at least FIG. 1A for a tracker 125 on an arm), a second surgical arm to orient a display screen in a predetermined relationship with the target surgical site on the patient anatomy (see at least FIG. 1A for an adjustable holder (surgical boom) 149 which acts as arm to carrying the display system 140 including a screen), and a third surgical robotic arm to position a surgical tool to be used in performing the robotic surgery robot arm 191, see also FIG. 3J).
Siemionow also discloses in P [0052] a robust system that mounts robotic arm components to the ceiling 102, to the floor 101, the side wall 103 of the room, or on an adjustable and/or movable floor-supported structure (such as a tripod). But Siemionow does not explicitly teach that the first and second arms are controlled and articulated surgical robotic arms.
Instead, Meglan teaches in at least FIG. 1 and P [0058] “one or more robotic arms 20” capable of holding a “surgical tool 27… and/or camera 30”, as well as numerous display systems for the robotic system, wherein each arm is mounted on a single chassis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple arm system, display device, tracker, and robotic arm with tools of Siemionow with the multiple robotic arm system on a single chassis of Meglan in order to implement real, complex surgical robotic systems with multiple arms in a setting for training a user or introducing virtual/augmented reality assistance, as in P [0005] of Meglan.
Siemionow then further teaches a user is positioned adjacent to the patient at a location which allows direct viewing of the display screen and the target location in at least FIG. 1A, and Meglan teaches allowing a user to control a surgical robotic arm in real time in at least P [0060]. But Siemionow and Meglan do not explicitly teach that the first and second surgical robotic arms are at least in part automatically controlled by a robotic controller and the third surgical robotic arm is at least in part controlled by real-time input from the user to the controller as the user views the display and the patient anatomy.
Instead, Navab teaches the use of a navigation localizer 44 with a camera unit 46 as well as a display 100 for displaying graphical representations, see at least P [0069]. In P [0099] Navab then establishes that “the control system 60 can receive signals from the camera (C) and recognize changes to position and/or orientation of the user's face, eyes, head, or other feature using pose estimation algorithms.” Essentially, in the camera and screen embodiment the controller automatically controls the first and second movement of camera and screen respectively, while the user is controlling a surgical instrument.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tracker, movable display, and gaze tracking system on one chassis of Siemionow and Meglan with the automatic localizer and movable display of Navab in order to execute a design choice to implement autonomous control for a surgical robotic system in response to "changes to position and/or orientation of the user's face, eyes, head, or other features" as in P [0099] of Navab.
Regarding claim 15, modified Siemionow teaches the method of claim 14, and Siemionow further teaches
displaying a preoperative image on the display screen (see at least P [0002] which discloses the goal of “presenting preoperative diagnostic information and images in useful formats”).
Regarding claim 16, modified Siemionow teaches the method of claim 14, and Siemionow further teaches
displaying a real-time image on the display screen (see at least P [0067]: “the real world image: the patient anatomy, surgeon's hands and the instrument currently in use (which may be partially inserted into the patient's body and hidden under the skin)”).
Regarding claim 17, modified Siemionow teaches the method of claim 14, and Siemionow further teaches
the display screen is at least partly transparent allowing the user to view an image on the display while maintaining a line-of-sight view of the surgical site through the display screen (see at least P [0096]: “The see-through mirror (also called a half-silvered mirror) 141 is at least partially transparent and partially reflective, such that the viewer can see the real world behind the mirror but the mirror also reflects the surgical navigation image generated by the display apparatus located above it.”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Siemionow teaches the method of claim 14, but Siemionow and Meglan do not explicitly teach that
the robotic controller controls at least the second surgical robotic arm to align the display screen along a line-of-sight from the user's eyes to the surgical site on the patient's anatomy.
Instead, Navab teaches the use of a navigation localizer 44 with a camera unit 46 as well as a display 100 for displaying graphical representations, see at least P [0069]. In P [0099] Navab then establishes that “the control system 60 can receive signals from the camera (C) and recognize changes to position and/or orientation of the user's face, eyes, head, or other feature using pose estimation algorithms.” Essentially, in the camera and screen embodiment the controller automatically controls the first and second movement of camera and screen respectively, while the user is controlling a surgical instrument.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tracker, movable display, and gaze tracking system of Siemionow and Meglan with the automatic localizer and movable display of Navab in order to execute a design choice to implement autonomous control for a surgical robotic system in response to "changes to position and/or orientation of the user's face, eyes, head, or other features" as in P [0099] of Navab.
Regarding claim 19, modified Siemionow teaches the method of claim 14, and Siemionow further teaches
scanning the user with an imaging device to determine a position of the user's eyes (see at least P [0108]: “eye tracker 148 module... to track the position and orientation of the eyes of the surgeon”).
Regarding claim 20, modified Siemionow teaches the method of claim 14, and in view of the modification, Siemionow further teaches
the imaging device is the imaging device carried by the first surgical robotic arm (see at least FIG. 1A for a tracker 125 on an arm, which is considered a robotic arm in view of the modification).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siemionow in view of Meglan and Navab, and further in view of Tesar.
Regarding claim 21, modified Siemionow teaches the method of claim 14, and Siemionow further teaches the use of numerous imaging techniques known in the art in P [0003], but Siemionow, Meglan, and Navab do not explicitly teach that
the imaging sensor comprises a surgical microscope and the robotic controller delivers an image from the microscope to the display screen and positions the display screen in line-of-sight with the patient anatomy being viewed by the surgical microscope.
Instead, Tesar teaches in at least P [0266] the use of a surgical microscope view in tandem with an optical system that allows the surgeon to view the patient target location and the microscope view using gaze direction detection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging and tracking methods and devices of Siemionow and Navab with the microscopic imaging device of Tesar in order to implement a design choice to provide a surgical user with a surgical microscope view as part of the augmented reality display system. Note that Tesar teaches both a viewing apparatus and a head mounted display as the primary methods for viewing the microscopic view. In contrast, Siemionow teaches a display that is moved by an arm to hover above the patient, and both Meglan and Navab also teach a movable display in addition to a wearable eyepiece configuration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention that each augmented reality system depends on gaze detection, and that the combination of references is intended to simply incorporate the microscopic camera used by Tesar to the optical system of Siemionow, Meglan, and Navab.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights