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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,881 in view of Raffi-Tari et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0183585 – “Raffi-Tari”).
Claim 1 of parent patent 12,035,881 does not include the feature of upon detecting the buckling event, generating and delivering a warning message to a user, as claimed in Claim 1 of the present patent application.
Rafii-Tari teaches upon detecting the buckling event, generating and delivering a warning message to a user (Rafii -Tari paragraph [0148], “the method 200 can also include providing an indication or alert that the instrument 100 has experienced a hysteresis or buckling condition. For example, when the motion estimate disparity indicates hysteresis or buckling, an indication (e.g., a visual or audio alert) can be provided to the physician.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rafii-Tari’s buckling detection method with the method described in Claim 1 of parent patent 12,035,881. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the prior art elements taught by Rafii-Tari with method described in Claim 1 of parent patent 12,035,881 according to known methods to the yield predictable result of a system/method that is able to detect buckling within an endoscope in order to “provide increased accuracy for a position estimate in cases where the instrument experiences buckling” (Rafii-Tari Abstract).
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,881 in view of Raffi-Tari et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0183585 – “Raffi-Tari”).
Claim 19 of parent patent 12,035,881 does not include the feature of upon detecting the buckling event, generate and deliver a warning message to a user, as claimed in Claim 12 of the present patent application.
Rafii-Tari teaches upon detecting the buckling event, generating and delivering a warning message to a user (Rafii -Tari paragraph [0148], “the method 200 can also include providing an indication or alert that the instrument 100 has experienced a hysteresis or buckling condition. For example, when the motion estimate disparity indicates hysteresis or buckling, an indication (e.g., a visual or audio alert) can be provided to the physician.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rafii-Tari’s buckling detection system with the system described in Claim 19 of parent patent 12,035,881. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the prior art elements taught by Rafii-Tari with system described in Claim 19 of parent patent 12,035,881 according to known methods to the yield predictable result of a system/method that is able to detect buckling within an endoscope in order to “provide increased accuracy for a position estimate in cases where the instrument experiences buckling” (Rafii-Tari Abstract).
A mapping of elements in Claims 1 and 12 of the present patent application to respective Claims 1 and 19 of parent patent 12,035,881 are shown in the table below:
Current patent application 18/657,531
Parent patent 12,035,881
Claim 1.
Claim 1.
A method for responsive controlling a tip motion of an articulating flexible endoscope, the method comprising:
A method for controlling a tip motion of an articulating flexible endoscope, the method comprising:
driving an elongated member of the articulating flexible endoscope along an anatomical pathway via an instrument driving mechanism (IDM);
generating a command to drive an elongated member of the articulating flexible endoscope along an anatomical pathway via an instrument driving mechanism (IDM);
obtaining a motion of a distal portion of the elongate member based at least in part on sensor data projected in a heading direction;
receiving sensor data acquired by a position sensor disposed at a distal tip portion of the elongated member;
upon determining the distal tip portion is at a pre-selected location within the anatomical pathway, setting a motion of the distal tip to zero and calculating the motion of the distal tip portion within a time window;
detecting a buckling event based at least in part on a disparity between the motion of the distal tip portion of the elongate member and a motion of the IDM; and
calculating a disparity between the motion of the distal tip portion projected in a heading direction and a motion of the IDM along an insertion direction within the same time window; determining a dynamic threshold along the insertion direction, wherein the dynamic threshold is varied based at least in part on an insertion distance; and detecting a buckling event by comparing the disparity to the dynamic threshold.
upon detecting the buckling event, generating and delivering a warning message to a user.
Claim 12.
Claim 19.
A system for responsive controlling a tip motion of an articulating flexible endoscope, the system comprising: a memory storing computer-executable instructions; one or more processors in communication with the articulating flexible endoscope and configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to:
A system for controlling a tip motion of an articulating flexible endoscope, the system comprising: a memory storing computer-executable instructions; one or more processors in communication with the articulating flexible endoscope and configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to:
drive an elongated member of the articulating flexible endoscope along an anatomical pathway via an instrument driving mechanism (IDM);
generate a command to drive an elongated member of the articulating flexible endoscope along an anatomical pathway via an instrument driving mechanism (IDM);
obtain a motion of a distal portion of the elongate member based at least in part on sensor data projected in a heading direction;
receive sensor data acquired by a position sensor disposed at a distal tip portion of the elongated member;
upon determining the distal tip portion is at a pre-selected location within the anatomical pathway, set a motion of the distal tip to zero and calculate the motion of the distal tip portion within a time window;
detect a buckling event based at least in part on a disparity between the motion of the distal tip portion of the elongate member and a motion of the IDM; and
calculate a disparity between the motion of the distal tip portion projected in a heading direction and a motion of the IDM along an insertion direction within the same time window; determine a dynamic threshold along the insertion direction, wherein the dynamic threshold is varied based at least in part on an insertion distance; and detect a buckling event by comparing the disparity to the dynamic threshold.
upon detecting the buckling event, generate and deliver a warning message to a user.
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.
Claims 2, 8, 10, 12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0365209 – “Ye”) in view of Rafii-Tari et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0183585 – “Rafii-Tari”).
Regarding Claim 2, Ye discloses:
A method for controlling a tip motion of an articulating flexible endoscope (Ye FIG. 1B, flexible endoscope 118; Ye FIG. 2, joystick 204; Ye paragraph [0049], “movement on the joystick 204 may be mapped to yaw and pitch movement in the distal end of the endoscope 118”), the method comprising:
driving an elongated member of the articulating flexible endoscope along an anatomical pathway via an instrument driving mechanism (IDM) (Ye FIG. 2, command console 200; Ye paragraph [0047], “user 205, e.g., a physician, remotely controls the surgical robotic system 100 from an ergonomic position using the command console 200”); and
obtaining a motion of a distal portion of the elongate member based at least in part on sensor data projected in a heading direction (Ye FIG. 4B, EM coils 434; Ye paragraph [0061], “Electromagnetic (EM) coils 434 located on the tip 430 may be used with an EM tracking system to detect the position and orientation of the endoscope tip 430 while it is disposed within an anatomical system.”).
Ye does not explicitly disclose detecting a buckling event based at least in part on a disparity between the motion of the distal tip portion of the elongate member and a motion of the IDM; and
upon detecting the buckling event, generating and delivering a warning message to a user.
Rafii-Tari teaches detecting a buckling event based at least in part on a disparity between the motion of the distal tip portion of the elongate member and a motion of the IDM (Rafii-Tari paragraph [0142], “motion estimate based on the robotic data 94 exceeding the motion estimate based on the position sensor data 93 may indicate that the instrument 100 has experienced a buckling condition”); and
upon detecting the buckling event, generating and delivering a warning message to a user (Rafii -Tari paragraph [0148], “the method 200 can also include providing an indication or alert that the instrument 100 has experienced a hysteresis or buckling condition. For example, when the motion estimate disparity indicates hysteresis or buckling, an indication (e.g., a visual or audio alert) can be provided to the physician.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rafii-Tari’s buckling detection method with Ye’s method. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the prior art elements taught by Rafii-Tari with the method disclosed by Ye according to known methods to the yield predictable result of a system/method that is able to detect buckling within an endoscope in order to “provide increased accuracy for a position estimate in cases where the instrument experiences buckling” (Rafii-Tari Abstract).
Regarding Claim 8, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Ye further discloses wherein the sensor data is acquired by a sensor disposed at a distal tip portion of the elongated member (Ye FIG. 4B, EM coils 434; Ye paragraph [0061], “Electromagnetic (EM) coils 434 located on the tip 430 may be used with an EM tracking system to detect the position and orientation of the endoscope tip 430 while it is disposed within an anatomical system.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Rafii-Tari further teaches wherein the warning message comprises a recommendation for triggering an autonomous movement of the articulating flexible endoscope (Rafii-Tari paragraph [0148], “upon detection of a hysteresis or buckling condition, the method 200 can move (or modify movement) of the instrument 100 “).
Regarding Claim 12, Ye discloses;
A system (Ye FIG. 1, surgical robotic system 100 having an endoscope 118 attached to a robotic arm 102; Ye Fig. 5, surgical robotic system 500 having a system control unit 517 within command module 515) for responsive controlling a tip motion of an articulating flexible endoscope (Ye paragraph [0040], “a physician may control the surgical robotic system 100…from…the command console”), the system comprising:
a memory storing computer-executable instructions (Ye paragraph [0008], “in one aspect, there is provided a medical robotic system, comprising a set of one or more processors; and at least one computer-readable memory in communication with the set of processors and having stored thereon computer-executable instructions”);
one or more processors in communication with the articulating flexible endoscope and configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to (Ye paragraph [0008], “in one aspect, there is provided a medical robotic system, comprising a set of one or more processors; and at least one computer-readable memory in communication with the set of processors and having stored thereon computer-executable instructions”) :
drive an elongated member of the articulating flexible endoscope along an anatomical pathway via an instrument driving mechanism (IDM) (Ye FIG. 2, command console 200; Ye paragraph [0047], “user 205, e.g., a physician, remotely controls the surgical robotic system 100 from an ergonomic position using the command console 200”); and
obtain a motion of a distal portion of the elongate member based at least in part on sensor data projected in a heading direction (Ye FIG. 4B, EM coils 434; Ye paragraph [0061], “Electromagnetic (EM) coils 434 located on the tip 430 may be used with an EM tracking system to detect the position and orientation of the endoscope tip 430 while it is disposed within an anatomical system.”).
Ye does not explicitly disclose executing instructions to:
detect a buckling event based at least in part on a disparity between the motion of the distal tip portion of the elongate member and a motion of the IDM; and
upon detecting the buckling event, generate and deliver a warning message to a user.
Rafii-Tari teaches executing instructions to:
detect a buckling event based at least in part on a disparity between the motion of the distal tip portion of the elongate member and a motion of the IDM (Rafii-Tari paragraph [0142], “motion estimate based on the robotic data 94 exceeding the motion estimate based on the position sensor data 93 may indicate that the instrument 100 has experienced a buckling condition”); and
upon detecting the buckling event, generate and deliver a warning message to a user (Rafii -Tari paragraph [0148], “the method 200 can also include providing an indication or alert that the instrument 100 has experienced a hysteresis or buckling condition. For example, when the motion estimate disparity indicates hysteresis or buckling, an indication (e.g., a visual or audio alert) can be provided to the physician.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rafii-Tari’s buckling detection system with Ye’s endoscope. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the prior art elements taught by Rafii-Tari with the endoscope disclosed by Ye according to known methods to the yield predictable result of a system/method that is able to detect buckling within an endoscope in order to “provide increased accuracy for a position estimate in cases where the instrument experiences buckling” (Rafii-Tari Abstract).
Regarding Claim 18, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari teaches the features of Claim 12, as described above.
Ye further discloses wherein the sensor data is acquired by a sensor disposed at a distal tip portion of the elongated member (Ye FIG. 4B, EM coils 434; Ye paragraph [0061], “Electromagnetic (EM) coils 434 located on the tip 430 may be used with an EM tracking system to detect the position and orientation of the endoscope tip 430 while it is disposed within an anatomical system.”).
Regarding Claim 20, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari teaches the features of Claim 12, as described above.
Rafii-Tari further teaches wherein the warning message comprises a recommendation for triggering an automatic movement of the articulating flexible endoscope (Rafii-Tari paragraph [0148], “upon detection of a hysteresis or buckling condition, the method 200 can move (or modify movement) of the instrument 100 “).
Claims 3-6, 11, 13-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0365209 – “Ye”) in view of Rafii-Tari et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0183585 – “Rafii-Tari”) and Noonan et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0177383 – “Noonan”).
Regarding Claim 3, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari teach the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Ye in view of Rafii-Tari does not explicitly teach detecting an insertion force and comparing the insertion force to a force threshold.
Noonan teaches detecting an insertion force and comparing the insertion force to a force threshold (Noonan paragraph [0137], “The surgical robotic system compares the insertion force with the determined insertion force threshold. The insertion force can be detected by one or more force sensors coupled to a robotic arm of the surgical robotic system.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Noonan’s force comparison with the method taught by Ye in view of Rafii-Tari. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that provides a “warning indicating that the insertion force is very close to the insertion force threshold” (see paragraph [0137] of Noonan) in order to improve the safety of the method. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable for providing a safer method of controlling an endoscope.
Regarding Claim 4, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari and Noonan teaches the features of Claim 3, as described above.
Noonan teaches wherein the insertion force is measured based on force sensor data (Noonan paragraph [0137], “The insertion force can be detected by one or more force sensors coupled to a robotic arm of the surgical robotic system.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari and Noonan teaches the features of Claim 3, as described above.
Rafii-Tari further teaches wherein the warning message comprises at least one of the following: an indication of the buckling event (Rafii -Tari paragraph [0148], “the method 200 can also include providing an indication or alert that the instrument 100 has experienced a hysteresis or buckling condition.), an indication of the insertion force is approaching, equal to or greater than the force threshold, and a recommendation.
Regarding Claim 6, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari and Noonan teaches the features of Claim 5, as described above.
Noonan further teaches wherein the recommendation comprises retracting the articulating flexible endoscope (Noonan Claim 15, “the recommendation comprises at least one of: retracting the elongate body”) or taking a fluoroscopy image.
Regarding Claim 11, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari teaches the features of Claim 10, as described above.
Ye in view of Rafii-Tari does not explicitly teach upon receiving a user input indicative of following the recommendation, automatically retracking the articulating flexible endoscope.
Noonan teaches upon receiving a user input indicative of following the recommendation (Noonan paragraph [0124], “controller 120 generates feedback for a user indicating that the endoscope has buckled and provides the feedback to users…The controller 120 can also generate a recommendation to users…For example, the controller 120 may adjust the command to smooth the buckled portion of the endoscope. Examples of command include moving the endoscope backward, adjusting movement of the tip, adjusting insertion force provided by the IDM, another suitable command that adjusts endoscope's movements, stopping movement of the endoscope, or some combination thereof”), automatically retracking the articulating flexible endoscope (Noonan paragraph [0070], “the distal end of the endoscope may be tracked by EM sensors located in the tip”; Examiner interprets tracking the endoscope as being continuous, such that Noonan teaches automatically retracking the articulating flexible endoscope).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Noonan’s recommendation to reduce the buckling with the method taught by Ye in view of Rafii-Tari. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope that automatically cures buckling of the endoscope in situ.
Regarding Claim 13, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari teach the features of Claim 12, as described above.
Ye in view of Rafii-Tari does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to detect an insertion force and compare the insertion force to a force threshold.
Noonan teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to detect an insertion force and compare the insertion force to a force threshold (Noonan paragraph [0137], “The surgical robotic system compares the insertion force with the determined insertion force threshold. The insertion force can be detected by one or more force sensors coupled to a robotic arm of the surgical robotic system.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Noonan’s force comparison with the device taught by Ye in view of Rafii-Tari. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a device that provides a “warning indicating that the insertion force is very close to the insertion force threshold” (see paragraph [0137] of Noonan) in order to improve the safety of the method. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable for providing a safer method of controlling an endoscope.
Regarding Claim 14, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari and Noonan teaches the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Noonan teaches wherein the insertion force is measured based on force sensor data (Noonan paragraph [0137], “The insertion force can be detected by one or more force sensors coupled to a robotic arm of the surgical robotic system.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari and Noonan teaches the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Raffi-Tari further teaches wherein the warning message comprises at least one of the following: an indication of the buckling event (Rafii -Tari paragraph [0148], “the method 200 can also include providing an indication or alert that the instrument 100 has experienced a hysteresis or buckling condition.), an indication of the insertion force is approaching, equal to or greater than the force threshold, and a recommendation.
Regarding Claim 16, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari and Noonan teaches the features of Claim 15, as described above.
Noonan further teaches wherein the recommendation comprises retracting the articulating flexible endoscope (Noonan Claim 15, “the recommendation comprises at least one of: retracting the elongate body”) or taking a fluoroscopy image.
Regarding Claim 21, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari teaches the features of Claim 20, as described above.
Ye in view of Rafii-Tari does not explicitly teach upon receiving a user input indicative of following the recommendation, automatically retrack the articulating flexible endoscope.
Noonan teaches upon receiving a user input indicative of following the recommendation (Noonan paragraph [0124], “controller 120 generates feedback for a user indicating that the endoscope has buckled and provides the feedback to users…The controller 120 can also generate a recommendation to users…For example, the controller 120 may adjust the command to smooth the buckled portion of the endoscope. Examples of command include moving the endoscope backward, adjusting movement of the tip, adjusting insertion force provided by the IDM, another suitable command that adjusts endoscope's movements, stopping movement of the endoscope, or some combination thereof”), automatically retrack the articulating flexible endoscope (Noonan paragraph [0070], “the distal end of the endoscope may be tracked by EM sensors located in the tip”; Examiner interprets tracking the endoscope as being continuous, such that Noonan teaches automatically retracking the articulating flexible endoscope).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Noonan’s recommendation to reduce the buckling with the device taught by Ye in view of Rafii-Tari. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope that automatically cures buckling of the endoscope in situ.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0365209 – “Ye”) in view of Rafii-Tari et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0183585 – “Rafii-Tari”) and Inkpen et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0148808 – “Inkpen”).
Regarding Claim 7, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Ye in view of Rafii-Tari does not explicitly teach wherein the motion of the distal portion of the elongate member is calculated as a filtered time derivative of the sensor data projected in the heading direction.
Inkpen teaches wherein the motion of the distal portion of the elongate member is calculated as a filtered time derivative of the sensor data projected in the heading direction (Inkpen paragraph [0141], “Monitoring the current position and orientation of a first sensor…calculating their time derivatives, and calculating selected characteristics of the position and orientation data from the first sensor over a selected time period”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Inkpen’s time derivative for calculating tip motion with the method taught by Ye in view of Rafii-Tari. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscopic system that accurately determines tip velocity, in order to provide a warning to the user if the tip velocity exceeds a predefined parameter (see paragraph [0394] of Inkpen – “Parameters may include position and orientation of the reference sensor, or their time derivatives, or any other function thereof. Warning functions may be visual warning on the user interface, suspension of navigation, an alarm, and the like.”).
Regarding Claim 17, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari teaches the features of Claim 12, as described above.
Ye in view of Rafii-Tari does not explicitly teach wherein the motion of the distal portion of the elongate member is calculated as a filtered time derivative of the sensor data projected in the heading direction.
Inkpen teaches wherein the motion of the distal portion of the elongate member is calculated as a filtered time derivative of the sensor data projected in the heading direction (Inkpen paragraph [0141], “Monitoring the current position and orientation of a first sensor…calculating their time derivatives, and calculating selected characteristics of the position and orientation data from the first sensor over a selected time period”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Inkpen’s time derivative for calculating tip motion with the device taught by Ye in view of Rafii-Tari. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscopic system that accurately determines tip velocity, in order to provide a warning to the user if the tip velocity exceeds a predefined parameter (see paragraph [0394] of Inkpen – “Parameters may include position and orientation of the reference sensor, or their time derivatives, or any other function thereof. Warning functions may be visual warning on the user interface, suspension of navigation, an alarm, and the like.”).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0365209 – “Ye”) in view of Rafii-Tari et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0183585 – “Rafii-Tari”) and Duindam (US PGPUB 2019/0239723 – “Duindam”).
Regarding Claim 9, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Ye in view of Rafii-Tari do not explicitly teach wherein detecting the buckling event comprises comparing the disparity to a threshold that is a function of a tortuosity of the anatomical pathway.
Duindam teaches detecting the buckling event comprises comparing the disparity to a threshold that is a function of a tortuosity of the anatomical pathway (Duindam paragraph [0077], “FIGS. 7A and 7B illustrate an expected boundary 602 that may be used for detecting buckling of an elongated flexible instrument 604 (e.g. an instrument 404)…The expected boundary 602 represents a predefined threshold, which if exceeded by the shape data 604, causes a mitigation action to be triggered”, Duindam paragraph [0074], “The predefined threshold may be variably dependent upon a measurement or upon a known or detected condition. For example, the catheter may be expected to bend inside a shape constraint device when experiencing friction inside the anatomic passageways due to… a tortuous path. Under such conditions, the predefined threshold may be widened. For example, the threshold may be increased when a high input force is measured with a sensor or with reference to insertion motor currents. For example, the threshold may be increased when a distal end of the catheter has a sufficiently curved shape within the patient anatomy. For example, the threshold may be increased when the planned navigation path is predicted to be tortuous.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Duindam’s tortuosity-based threshold for Rafii-Tari’s threshold used in the method taught by Ye in view of Rafii-Tari. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of a method that moves an insertion device within variable parameters based on the topology/tortuosity of a current location of the insertion device.
Regarding Claim 19, Ye in view of Rafii-Tari teaches the features of Claim 12, as described above.
Ye in view of Rafii-Tari do not explicitly teach wherein the buckling event comprises comparing the disparity to a threshold that is a function of a tortuosity of the anatomical pathway.
Duindam teaches wherein the buckling event comprises comparing the disparity to a threshold that is a function of a tortuosity of the anatomical pathway (Duindam paragraph [0077], “FIGS. 7A and 7B illustrate an expected boundary 602 that may be used for detecting buckling of an elongated flexible instrument 604 (e.g. an instrument 404)…The expected boundary 602 represents a predefined threshold, which if exceeded by the shape data 604, causes a mitigation action to be triggered”, Duindam paragraph [0074], “The predefined threshold may be variably dependent upon a measurement or upon a known or detected condition. For example, the catheter may be expected to bend inside a shape constraint device when experiencing friction inside the anatomic passageways due to… a tortuous path. Under such conditions, the predefined threshold may be widened. For example, the threshold may be increased when a high input force is measured with a sensor or with reference to insertion motor currents. For example, the threshold may be increased when a distal end of the catheter has a sufficiently curved shape within the patient anatomy. For example, the threshold may be increased when the planned navigation path is predicted to be tortuous.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Duindam’s tortuosity-based threshold for Rafii-Tari’s threshold used in the system taught by Ye in view of Rafii-Tari. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of a method that moves an insertion device within variable parameters based on the topology/tortuosity of a current location of the insertion device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Tojo et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0231444 – “Tojo”), which teaches in Tojo paragraph [0086] and Tojo FIG. 6 the display of attention state information 48, which includes buckling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
12/27/25