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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “preferred position and orientation for first robotic manipulator base”. For further prosecution it will be assumed that the limitation reads “preferred position and orientation for the first robotic manipulator base”.
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: “display, as an overlay to the displayed live image, a graphical indication of the”. The claim is not complete. For further prosecution it will be assumed that claim 4 recites the same limitations as claim 1.
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: “The method of claim 4”. Claim 4 recites a system, not a method. For further prosecution, it will be assumed that claim 8 recites “The system of claim 4, wherein…” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst (US 20200054412) in view of Stricko (US 20200345438) and further in view of Pack (US 20220338807) and further in view of Sen (US 20210290317).
Regarding claim 1, Fuerst teaches a method for providing feedback to guide setup of a surgical robotic system (Paragraph 10, augmented live video for guiding the arm setup, and stream the augmented live video to a display to visually guide the user through arm setup to the target pose), the method comprising the steps of:
Receiving a live image (Paragraph 10, augmented live video) of a medical procedure site in an operating room (Paragraph 23, A “real surgical environment” as used herein describes the local physical space of the setup, which can include robotic arms, mounts, surgical tables, lamps, trays, medical personnel, the room and objects in the room) in which at least one first subject comprising a first robotic manipulator, and at least one second subject comprising at least one of a second robotic manipulator, patient table, patient, and bedside staff are located (Paragraph 27, a robotic surgical system 100 for assisting in the setup of a surgical robotic arm or arms 110 in a surgical environment using a display 104 can include a camera 140, configured to capture video of a user 106 setting up the robotic arm 110 mounted on a surgical table 114 in a real surgical environment; Paragraph 23, A “real surgical environment” as used herein describes the local physical space of the setup, which can include robotic arms, mounts, surgical tables, lamps, trays, medical personnel, the room and objects in the room);
Receiving procedure-related input comprising at least a surgical procedure type (Paragraph 31, data structures to correlate different poses of robotic arms to different surgical procedures, tables, and patients);
Displaying the live image in real time on an image display (Paragraph 35, display the augmented live video on display);
Retrieving, from a database of procedure-specific operating-room configurations, preferred relative positions and orientations for the robotic manipulator and the second subject parameterized by the procedure-related input (Paragraph 31, As shown in FIG. 2, the augmented reality processor 150 can include one or more database(s) 154 or having access to such a database through the network 202. The database(s) can include models of different robotic arms, poses for robotic arms, surgical tables, patient data, and data structures to correlate different poses of robotic arms to different surgical procedures, tables, and patients).
Displaying, as an overlay to the displayed live image, a graphical indication, the target position determined based on the procedure-related input (Paragraph 53, Referring now to FIG. 7 (showing features that can be additional to those of FIG. 6), the AR processor can also be also be configured to determine 710 whether a pose of a real surgical robotic arm is at the target pose of the virtual surgical robotic arm. The processor can trigger 720 an indication when the pose of the real surgical robotic arm is at, or overlaid upon, the virtual robotic arm; Paragraph 49, the processor can adjust the target pose, automatically, based on a size of a patient, or based on an input from a user).
While Fuerst fails to disclose the following, Stricko teaches:
Preferred relative positions and orientations for the robotic manipulator base (Paragraph 69, the possible locations for the base of the computer-assisted device may include possible locations and/or orientations of a rolling cart relative to a workspace (e.g., a surgical table), possible locations for the mounting of the computer-assisted device relative to the workspace. In some examples, the possible locations for the mounting of the computer-assisted device may include one or more of possible mounting locations on a floor); Note: Fuerst teaches determining relative positions.
Preferred position and orientation for the first robotic manipulator base on the floor on the operating room (Paragraph 69, the possible locations for the base of the computer-assisted device may include possible locations and/or orientations of a rolling cart relative to a workspace (e.g., a surgical table), possible locations for the mounting of the computer-assisted device relative to the workspace. In some examples, the possible locations for the mounting of the computer-assisted device may include one or more of possible mounting locations on a floor);
Stricko and Fuerst are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surgical imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fuerst to incorporate the teachings of Stricko and determine a desired position of the robotic manipulator base. Doing so would allow for determining an optimal layout to create a safe and successful surgery.
While the combination of Fuerst and Stricko fails to disclose the following, Pack teaches:
A first robotic manipulator on a wheeled base (Paragraph 46, The surgical robot 202 may include a movable base 208, a manipulator arm 210 connected to the base 208, an end-effector 211 located at a distal end 212 of the manipulator arm 210, and a force sensor 214 positioned proximal to the end-effector 211 for sensing forces experienced on the end-effector 211. The base 208 includes a set of wheels 217 to maneuver the base 20).
Pack and the combination of Fuerst and Stricko are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surgical imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Fuerst and Stricko to incorporate the teachings of Pack and use a robotic manipulator with a wheeled base. Doing so would allow for easily relocating the robotic manipulator to create the optimal layout.
While the combination of Fuerst, Stricko, and Pack fails to disclose the following, Sen teaches:
Using computer vision to recognize the first subject and the second subject in the image without the user of optical markers, and to determine the relative positions of the first subject and the second subject along a floor of the operating room (Paragraph 21, such precision, accuracy, efficiency, and/or reliability may be provided by an exemplary surgical instrument tracking system without using dedicated computer vision markers on surgical instruments (e.g., bar codes, colors, patterns, etc. integrated on or otherwise attached to surgical instruments), which may be referred to as “marker-less” tracking of surgical instruments); Note: Fuerst teaches determining relative positions and Stricko teaches the operating room floor.
Sen and the combination of Fuerst, Stricko, and Pack are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surgical imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Fuerst, Stricko, and Pack to incorporate the teachings of Sen and use computer vision without optical markers to recognize a first and second subject in an image. Doing so would allow for creating an exemplary surgical instrument tracking system in real time with precision, accuracy, efficiency, and/or reliability (Sen, Paragraph 21).
System claim 4 corresponds to method claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Fuerst, Stricko, Pack, and Sen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method includes retrieving preferred relative positions of the first subject and the second subject from a database based on the procedure-related input and determining the target position based on the preferred relative positions (Fuerst, Paragraph 24, Referring now to FIG. 7 (showing features that can be additional to those of FIG. 6), the AR processor can also be also be configured to determine 710 whether a pose of a real surgical robotic arm is at the target pose of the virtual surgical robotic arm. The processor can trigger 720 an indication when the pose of the real surgical robotic arm is at, or overlaid upon, the virtual robotic arm).
System claim 5 corresponds to method claim 2. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fuerst, Stricko, Pack, and Sen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining step determines the relative 3D positions of the first subject and the second subject (Fuerst, Paragraph 25, The “virtual robotic arm” can be a complex 3D model of the real robotic arm. Alternatively, or additionally, a “virtual robotic arm” can include visual aids such as arrows, tool tips, or other representation relating to providing pose information about a robotic arm such as a geometrically simplified version of the real robotic arm).
System claim 6 corresponds to method claim 3. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst in view of Stricko and further in view of Pack and further in view of Sen as applied to claim 1-6 above and further in view of Yoshinaka (US 20210169576).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fuerst, Stricko, Pack, and Sen teaches the method of claim 1. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Yoshinaka teaches:
Wherein the procedure-related input includes the surgical procedure type and at least one or patient body-mass index, an operative instrument length, and bed parameters including height and Trendelenburg angle (Paragraph 5, the surgical techniques each include a description of at least a surgery type, surgical procedure, surgical approach, and secondary surgical decisions in performing a surgical operation. In some implementations, the image showing the region where surgery is to be performed includes a medical image of a computed tomography (CT) scan, a magnetic imaging resonance (MRI) scan, an X-ray image, a positron emission tomography (PET) scan, an ultrasound image, and/or a three-dimensional reconstruction of the foregoing. In some implementations, the patient information about the patient includes patient age, gender, weight, height, race, body mass index (BMI)).
Yoshinaka and the combination of Fuerst, Stricko, Pack, and Sen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surgical imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Fuerst, Stricko, Pack, and Sen to incorporate the teachings of Yoshinaka and procedure type along with patient body-mass index as procedure-related input. Doing so would allow for customizing the surgery plan for the given patient.
System claim 8 corresponds to method claim 7. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 1, first Applicant argues that Fuerst does not teach determining floor-based placement of a mobile base. However, Fuerst teaches determining placement of surgical instruments and Stricko teaches floor-based mobile bases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings to determine floor-based placement of a mobile base. Second, Applicant argues that Fuerst does not teach retrieving preferred positions and orientation from a database of configurations. However, Fuerst does teach using a database for this information in Paragraph 31 as cited above. Third, Applicant argues that Fuerst teaches computer vision using optical markers. However, Sen teaches using computer vision in a surgical environment without using optical markers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use this technique of computer vision without optical markers to identify first and second subjects. Fourth, Applicant argues that Fuerst does not teach determining positions along the floor of the operating room. However, Stricko addresses this limitation in Paragraph 69 as cited above. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching of Stricko with the teachings of Fuerst to determine the preferred position and orientation for the first robotic manipulator base on the floor on the operating room.
Conclusion
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 SNIGDHA SINHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6618. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 12pm-8pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at 571-272-3022. 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.
/SNIGDHA SINHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2619
/JASON CHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2619
