DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 time wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21 – 25,27 – 32, 37 and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 - 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,023,119 (hereinafter 119 patent).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the each of the limitations of the instant claims can be mapped to a claim or a claim limitation of 119 patent. This instant application’s claims are an obvious variant of 119 patent claims. Please see below for claim mapping comparison.
In this instant case, both instant application limitation and 119 patent provides overlapping claim limitation yet only in one obvious variant term differ regarding, “instrument driver” in claim 21 of instant application, and, “driver mechanism” in claim 11 of 119 patent;
however, this “instrument driver” term in instant application is alternative substitution of “driver mechanism” within in 119 patent per applicant’s disclosure.
Thus, this “instrument driver” recited in claim 1 of provides overlapping scope with respect to “driver mechanism” within claims of 119 patent where the claim structure in clams 21 – 40 of instant application is also identical with respect to claims 1 – 20 of 119 patent.
Thus, this instant application is deemed to be obvious variant under and covering the claim scope of nonstatutory double patenting over 119 patent.
Please also see MPEP 804. The specification can be used as a dictionary to learn the meaning of a term in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("[W]ords in patent claims are given their ordinary meaning in the usage of the field of the invention, unless the text of the patent makes clear that a word was used with a special meaning."); Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("Where there are several common meanings for a claim term, the patent disclosure serves to point away from the improper meanings and toward the proper meanings.")…Further, those portions of the specification which provide support for the reference claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in the application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the reference patent or application (as distinguished from an obvious variation of the subject matter disclosed in the reference patent or application). In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441-42, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970).
See Chart below:
Instant Application Claims
U.S. Patent No. 12,023,119
Claim 21
A robotic surgery system comprising:
a robotic arm;
an instrument driver attached to the robotic arm;
a first sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the instrument driver,
the first sensor being configured to detect relative spatial positions of the instrument driver and a cannula placed in a patient;
and one or more processors configured to cause the system to at least:
constrain movement of the instrument driver along a line between a position of the instrument driver and a position of the cannula;
and direct movement of the instrument driver along the line by which movement of the instrument driver is constrained to dock the robotic arm to the cannula based on data collected by the first sensor.
Claim 1
A robotic surgery system comprising:
a robotic arm…
a drive mechanism attached to the robotic arm…
a first sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the drive mechanism…
the first sensor is configured to detect relative spatial positions of the drive mechanism and the cannula…
one or more processors…cause the system to at least…
constrain movement of the drive mechanism along a straight line between the position of the drive mechanism to the position of the cannula;
and direct movement of the drive mechanism along the straight line by which movement of the drive mechanism is constrained to dock the robotic arm to the cannula based on the
data collected by…the first sensor…
Claim 22
The robotic surgery system of claim 21, wherein the first sensor comprises a vision-based sensor.
Claim 2
The robotic surgery system of claim 1, wherein the first sensor comprises a vision-based sensor.
Claim 23
The robotic surgery system of claim 22, wherein the vision-based sensor comprises a camera.
Claim 3
The robotic surgery system of claim 2, wherein the vision-based sensor comprises a camera.
Claim 24
the vision-based sensor is attached to the instrument driver.
Claim 4
the vision-based sensor is attached to the driver mechanism.
Claim 25
the cannula further comprises a fiducial configured to be detected by the vision-based sensor.
Claim 5
the cannula further comprises a fiducial configured to be detected by the vision-based sensor.
Claim 27
the second sensor comprises a non-vision based sensor.
Claim 6
the second sensor comprises a non-vision based sensor.
Claim 28
the non-vision based sensor comprises a force or torque sensor.
Claim 7
the non-vision based sensor comprises a force or torque sensor.
Claim 29
the non-vision based sensor is attached to the instrument driver.
Claim 8
the non-vision based sensor is attached to the drive mechanism.
Claim 30
the non-vision based sensor comprises a switch.
Claim 9
the non-vision based sensor comprises a switch.
Claim 31
the non-vision based sensor is positioned on a front end of the instrument driver.
Claim 10
the non-vision based sensor is positioned on a front end of the drive mechanism.
Claim 32
the non-vision based sensor is positioned on a back end of the instrument driver.
Claim 11
the non-vision based sensor is positioned on a back end of the drive mechanism.
Claim 37
A robotic surgery system comprising:
a robotic arm;
a device manipulator attached to the robotic arm,
wherein the device manipulator is configured to hold a surgical instrument and drive a first end of the surgical instrument into a patient via a cannula placed in the patient;
a first sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the device manipulator,
the first sensor being configured to detect relative spatial positions of the device manipulator and the cannula;
a second sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the device manipulator; and
one or more processors configured to cause the system to at least:
direct a position of the device manipulator towards a position of the cannula based on data collected by at least one of the first sensor or the second sensor;
constrain movement of the device manipulator along a line between the position of the device manipulator and the position of the cannula; and
direct movement of the device manipulator along the line by which movement of the device manipulator is constrained to dock the robotic arm to the cannula based on data collected by at least one of the first sensor or the second sensor.
Claim 17
A robotic surgery system comprising:
a robotic arm;
a drive mechanism attached to the robotic arm,
wherein the drive mechanism is configured to hold a surgical instrument and drive a first end of the surgical instrument into a patient via a
cannula placed in the patient,
a first sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the drive mechanism
the first sensor is configured to detect relative spatial positions of the drive mechanism and the cannula;
a second sensor, that is different than the first sensor, coupled to either the robotic arm or the drive mechanism
one or more processors…cause the system to at least:
direct a position of the drive mechanism towards a position of the cannula based on data collected by at least one of the first sensor or the second sensor;
constrain movement of the drive mechanism along a straight line between the position of the drive mechanism to the position of the cannula;
direct movement of the drive mechanism along the straight line by which movement of the drive mechanism is constrained to dock the robotic arm to the cannula based on the
data collected by at least one of the first sensor or the second sensor.
Claim 39
A robotic surgery system comprising:
a robotic arm;
a drive mechanism attached to the robotic arm;
a first sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the drive mechanism, the first sensor being configured to detect relative spatial positions of the drive mechanism and a cannula placed in a patient;
a second sensor, that is different than the first sensor, coupled to either the robotic arm or the drive mechanism,
the second sensor being configured to collect data when an operator applies a force to a first portion of the robotic arm or the drive mechanism and manually moves the robotic arm or the drive mechanism; and
one or more processors configured to cause the system to at least:
direct a position of the drive mechanism towards a position of the cannula based on data collected by at least one of the first sensor or the second sensor;
constrain movement of the drive mechanism along a line between the position of the drive mechanism and the position of the cannula;
and direct movement of the drive mechanism along the line by which movement of the drive mechanism is constrained to dock the robotic arm to the cannula based on data collected by at least one of the first sensor or the second sensor.
Claim 1
A robotic surgery system comprising:
a robotic arm;
a drive mechanism attached to the robotic arm…
a first sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the drive mechanism, wherein the first sensor is configured to detect relative spatial positions of the drive mechanism and the cannula;
a second sensor, that is different than the first sensor, coupled to either the robotic arm or the drive mechanism
the second sensor is configured to collect data when an operator applies
a force to a first portion of the robotic arm or the drive mechanism and manually moves the robotic
arm or the drive mechanism;
one or more processors…configured to… cause the system to at least:
direct a position of the drive mechanism towards a position of the cannula based on data collected by at least one of the first sensor or the second sensor;
constrain movement of the drive mechanism along a straight line between the position of the drive mechanism to the position of the cannula;
and direct movement of the drive mechanism along the straight line by which movement of the drive mechanism is constrained to dock the robotic arm to the cannula based on the data collected by at least one of the first sensor or the second sensor.
In this instant case, both instant application limitation and 119 patent discussed overlapping claim limitation yet only in one obvious variant term differ regarding, “instrument driver” in the claims of instant application, and, drive mechanism of claims of 119 patent.
In the same vein, this “instrument driver” claimed in the instant application provided interchange claim term regarding “drive mechanism” in claims of 119 patent/parent application based on the written description context.
Thus, this instant application is deemed to be obvious variant under nonstatutory double patenting over 119 patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21 – 24 and 26 - 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Draper et al (US Pat Pub No. 2018/0289431).
Regarding claim 21, Draper er al shows a robotic surgery system comprising (See at least Para 0023 and 0024 for surgical robot system): a robotic arm (See at least Para 0029 for robotic arm);
an instrument driver attached to the robotic arm (See at least Para 0030 for instrument device manipulator IDM 190 with changer interface coupled to robot arm);
a first sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the instrument driver ( See at least Para 0066 for acoustic sensor included with instrument manipulator 190, Para 0067 for magnetic sensor on manipulator assembly IDM 190, Para 0030, positional alignment; Para 0068 for EM sensor on IDM 190),
the first sensor being configured to detect relative spatial positions (See at least claims 15 for EM sensor sense EM field based on positioning of the EM sensor relative to EM generator; claim 16 for alignment member with acoustic reflector receive reflect acoustic waves relative to acoustic emitter; claim 17 for alignment using magnet for positioning of magnet relative to a magnetic field sensor in the manipulator assembly) of the instrument driver and a cannula placed in a patient (See at least Para 0042 for patient introducer 301 attached to patient via cannula port 320 also shown on figure 3A; Para 0007 for alignment member connected to the introducer tube and interface with manipulator assembly; also on Para 0047, 0048 and 0052 for alignment member 309 as marking marker for geometrically three dimensional space defined and recorded; Para 0054 spatial positioning of IDM with respective in relation to alignment member 309);
processor configured to cause the system to at least (See at least Para 0086 for processor for robot actuation function instruction):
constrain movement of the instrument driver along a line between a position of the instrument driver and a position of the cannula (See at least Para 0005 for patient introducer with introducer tube guide the surgical tool into the cannula tube along the curved line on Para 0020; also at least Para 0045 for patient introducer 30 includes alignment member 309 align with IDM 190 with virtual rail 330 also exhibited on Figure 3B);
direct movement of the instrument driver along the line by which movement of the instrument driver is constrained to dock the robotic arm to the cannula based on data collected by the first sensor (See at least Para 0064 for alignment member 309 as laser sensor, Para 0065 - 0067 for LED sensor, acoustic sensor and magnetic sensor; also at least Para 0005 for patient introducer with introducer tube guide the surgical tool into the cannula tube along the curved line on Para 0020; also at least Para 0045 for patient introducer 30 includes alignment member 309 align with IDM 190 with virtual rail 330 also exhibited on Figure 3B).
Regarding claim 37, Draper et al shows a robotic surgery system (See at least Para 0023 and 0024 for surgical robot system) comprising:
a robotic arm (See at least Para 0029 for robotic arm);
a device manipulator attached to the robotic arm (See at least Para 0030 for instrument device manipulator IDM 190 with changer interface coupled to robot arm),
the device manipulator is configured to hold a surgical instrument (See at least Para 0039 for IDM 190 manipulate an endoscope) and drive a first end of the surgical instrument into a patient via a cannula placed in the patient (See at least Para 00020 for surgical tool as endoscope, operated by IDM 190, into port/cannula via patient introducer);
a first sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the device manipulator (See at least Para 0066 for acoustic sensor included with instrument manipulator 190, Para 0067 for magnetic sensor on manipulator assembly IDM 190, Para 0030, positional alignment; Para 0068 for EM sensor on IDM 190),
the first sensor being configured to detect relative spatial positions of the device manipulator and the cannula (See at least claims 15 for EM sensor sense EM field based on positioning of the EM sensor relative to EM generator; claim 16 for alignment member with acoustic reflector receive reflect acoustic waves relative to acoustic emitter; claim 17 for alignment using magnet for positioning of magnet relative to a magnetic field sensor in the manipulator assembly);
a second sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the device manipulator (See at least Para 0080 for robotic system 110 feedback control with sensor as input to the feedback during alignment; also on Para 0039 for aligning portion using force feedback and inertia control from user 205 where the force feedback input using force sensor);
processors configured to cause the system to at least(See at least para 0033 for processor and control circuitry to move robot):
direct a position of the device manipulator towards a position of the cannula based on data collected by the first or the second sensor (See at least Para 0048 for alignment position/orientation with respect to patient introducer 301, attached to Pot 320 on Para 0073, to align IDM 190);
constrain movement of the device manipulator along a line between the position of the device manipulator and the position of the cannula (See at least Para 0005 for patient introducer with introducer tube guide the surgical tool into the cannula tube along the curved line on Para 0020; also at least Para 0045 for patient introducer 30 includes alignment member 309 align with IDM 190 with virtual rail 330 also exhibited on Figure 3B);
direct movement of the device manipulator along the line by which movement of the device manipulator is constrained to dock the robotic arm to the cannula based on data collected by the first or second sensor (See at least Para 0064 for alignment member 309 as laser sensor, Para 0065 - 0067 for LED sensor, acoustic sensor and magnetic sensor; also at least Para 0005 for patient introducer with introducer tube guide the surgical tool into the cannula tube along the curved line on Para 0020; also at least Para 0045 for patient introducer 30 includes alignment member 309 align with IDM 190 with virtual rail 330 also exhibited on Figure 3B).
Regarding claim 39, Draper et al shows a robotic surgery system (See at least Para 0023 and 0024 for surgical robot system) comprising:
a robotic arm (See at least Para 0029 for robotic arm);
a drive mechanism attached to the robotic arm(See at least Para 0030 for instrument device manipulator IDM 190 with changer interface coupled to robot arm);
a first sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the drive mechanism (See at least Para 0066 for acoustic sensor included with instrument manipulator 190, Para 0067 for magnetic sensor on manipulator assembly IDM 190, Para 0030, positional alignment; Para 0068 for EM sensor on IDM 190),
the first sensor being configured to detect relative spatial positions (See at least claims 15 for EM sensor sense EM field based on positioning of the EM sensor relative to EM generator; claim 16 for alignment member with acoustic reflector receive reflect acoustic waves relative to acoustic emitter; claim 17 for alignment using magnet for positioning of magnet relative to a magnetic field sensor in the manipulator assembly) of the drive mechanism and a cannula placed in a patient (See at least Para 0042 for patient introducer 301 attached to patient via cannula port 320 also shown on figure 3A; Para 0007 for alignment member connected to the introducer tube and interface with manipulator assembly; also on Para 0047, 0048 and 0052 for alignment member 309 as marking marker for geometrically three dimensional space defined and recorded; Para 0054 spatial positioning of IDM with respective in relation to alignment member 309);
a second sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the drive mechanism different than the first sensor (See at least Para 0080 for robotic system 110 feedback control with sensor as input to the feedback during alignment; also on Para 0039 for aligning portion using force feedback and inertia control from user 205 where the force feedback input using force sensor),
the second sensor being configured to collect data when an operator applies a force to a first portion of the robotic arm or the drive mechanism and manually moves the robotic arm or the drive mechanism (See at least Para 0080 for robotic system 110 feedback control with sensor as input to the feedback during alignment; also on Para 0039 for aligning portion using force feedback and inertia control from user 205 where the force feedback input using force sensor while user moves robotic arm cause force data feedback)
processors configured to cause the system (See at least para 0033 for processor and control circuitry to move robot) to:
direct a position of the drive mechanism towards a position of the cannula based on data collected by the first or second sensor(See at least Para 0048 for alignment position/orientation with respect to patient introducer 301, attached to Pot 320 on Para 0073, to align IDM 190);
constrain movement of the drive mechanism along a line between the position of the drive mechanism and the position of the cannula (See at least Para 0005 for patient introducer with introducer tube guide the surgical tool into the cannula tube along the curved line on Para 0020; also at least Para 0045 for patient introducer 30 includes alignment member 309 align with IDM 190 with virtual rail 330 also exhibited on Figure 3B);
direct movement of the drive mechanism along the line by which movement of the drive mechanism is constrained to dock the robotic arm to the cannula based on data collected by the first or second sensor (See at least Para 0064 for alignment member 309 as laser sensor, Para 0065 - 0067 for LED sensor, acoustic sensor and magnetic sensor; also at least Para 0005 for patient introducer with introducer tube guide the surgical tool into the cannula tube along the curved line on Para 0020; also at least Para 0045 for patient introducer 30 includes alignment member 309 align with IDM 190 with virtual rail 330 also exhibited on Figure 3B).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Draper et al shows the first sensor comprises a vision-based sensor with camera (See at least Para 0070 for alignment using camera sensor).
Regarding claim 24, Draper et al shows the vision-based sensor is attached to the instrument driver (See at least Para 0052 for physical feature in curved surface of alignment member 309 to be visually shape matched using camera for alignment by instrument driver IDM 190 on Para 0070).
Regarding claims 26 - 28, Draper et al shows a second sensor as non – vision based force or torque sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the instrument driver (See at least Para 0039 for force feedback with moving the robotic arm; also on Para 0080 for sensor implemented as input to the feedback; also on Para 0030 for robotic arm 175 with joint torque sensing),
Regarding claim 29, Draper et al shows the non-vision based sensor is attached to the instrument driver (See at least Para 0066 for acoustic sensor included with instrument manipulator 190, Para 0067 for magnetic sensor on manipulator assembly IDM 190, Para 0030, positional alignment; Para 0068 for EM sensor on IDM 190).
Regarding claim 30, Draper et al shows the non-vision based sensor comprises a switch (See at least Para 0038 for IDM 190 includes admittance button 410).
Regarding claim 31, Draper et al shows non-vision based sensor is positioned on a front end of the instrument driver (See at least figure 4B for admittance button located at the front end of IDM 190).
Regarding claim 32, Draper et al shows the non-vision based sensor is positioned on a back end of the instrument driver (See at least Para 0030 for robotic arm 175 with joint level torque sensing at the joint coupled with IDM 190 on Para 0030 as at the back end of the instrument driver).
Regarding claim 33, Draper et al shows the second sensor is configured to collect data when an operator applies a force to a first portion of the robotic arm or the instrument driver and manually moves the robotic arm or the instrument driver (See at least Para 0038 for user apply physical force to IDM 190 or robotic arm 175; also on Para 0039 for force feedback with sensors as input to feedback on Para 0080).
Regarding claim 34, Draper et al shows the instrument driver is configured to hold a surgical instrument (See at least Para 0030 for IDM 190 manipulate surgical tools and instruments),
the instrument driver is configured to drive a first end of the surgical instrument into the patient via the cannula placed in the patient (See at least Para 0043 for patient introducer 301 with first opening receive surgical tool 115 from IDM 190 and second opening guide tool 115 into cannula port).
Regarding claim 35, Draper et al shows the instrument driver is attached to a distal end of the robotic arm that is away from the first end of the surgical instrument (See at least Para 0043 for patient introducer 301 with first opening receive surgical tool 115 from IDM 190 and second opening guide tool 115 into cannula port).
Regarding claim 36, Draper et al shows processor is configured to cause the system to direct a position of the instrument driver towards a position of the cannula based on data collected by the first sensor (See at least Para 0044 for alignment for cannular port 320 with respect to patient introducer 301 and surgical tool 115 from IDM 190; also on at least Para 0066 for acoustic sensor included with instrument manipulator 190, Para 0067 for magnetic sensor on manipulator assembly IDM 190, Para 0030, positional alignment; Para 0068 for EM sensor on IDM 190).
Regarding claim 38, Draper et al shows the device manipulator is attached to a distal end of the robotic arm (See at least Para 0030 for robot arm 175 coupled with IDM 190) that is away from the first end of the surgical instrument (See at least Para 0043 for surgical tool 115 at patient introducer proximal end 303).
Regarding clam 40, Draper et al shows the drive mechanism is configured to hold a surgical instrument (See at least Para 0030 for IDM 190 manipulated surgical tool 115),
the drive mechanism is configured to drive a first end of the surgical instrument into the patient via the cannula placed in the patient (See at least Para 0044 for alignment for cannular port 320 with respect to patient introducer 301 and surgical tool 115 from IDM 190; also on at least Para 0066 for acoustic sensor included with instrument manipulator 190, Para 0067 for magnetic sensor on manipulator assembly IDM 190, Para 0030, positional alignment; Para 0068 for EM sensor on IDM 190),
the drive mechanism is attached to a distal end of the robotic arm that is away from the first end of the surgical instrument (See at least Para 0030 for robot arm 175 coupled with IDM 190; also at least Para 0043 for surgical tool 115 at patient introducer proximal end 303).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draper et al (US Pat Pub No. 2018/0289431) in view of Davids et al (US Pat Pub No. 2018/0161024).
Regarding claim 25, Draper et al shows fiducial configured to be detected by the vision-based sensor (See at least Para 0052 and 0055 for markings and protrusion to be alignment with IDM 190 with visual shape matching using camera for alignment by instrument driver IDM 190 on Para 0070); Draper does not further specify the cannula comprise a fiducial.
Davis et al further shows cannula comprises a fiducial (See at least Para 0049 for fiducial marker 58 imposed on obturator mounted upon cannula as a cannula and obturator assembly for imaging and visualization purpose on Para 0004).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide fiducial marker upon cannula, as taught by Davis, for the fiducial visual detection of Draper, in order to provide clear and near vision capture for surgical procedure, as desired by both surgery medical device of both Draper and Davis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian JEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3274. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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.
/Ian Jen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657