DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 20 January 2026. Claims 1, 10, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 1, filed 20 January 2026, with respect to objected claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments filed on 20 January 2026. The objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 6-9, filed 20 January 2026 with respect to rejected claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments,
Liang [0038]. None of the proposed interventions in Liang include the claimed, "(a) simulating, using image data of the print surface at least partially inside the patient's body, execution of the printing instructions to simulate the structure being printed on the print surface at least partially inside the patient's body; (b) determining whether the simulated printing of the structure on the print surface at least partially inside the patient's body was successful; and (c) validating the printing instructions based at least on a determination that the simulated printing of the structure on the print surface at least partially inside the patient's body was successful.' (Emphases added). Liang (in combination with Veils, DeMuth, and Umeyama) cannot achieve the limitations alleged in the Office Action because Liang does not discuss printing at all, let alone that the simulating involves a simulation of the structure being printed on the print surface at least partially within the patient's body. (see Remarks, pg. 8, paragraph 2)
DeMuth similarly lacks any discussion of the simulating that involves a simulation of the structure being printed on the print surface at least partially within the patient's body. DeMuth states, "[t]he AM process is then simulated and resultant stress distribution, crystal structure, and other relevant properties are evaluated from the simulation 402. The simulation results are evaluated (step 410) and if not acceptable, the manufacturing parameters and/or design of the part are modified and the manufacturing process is re-simulated 411, as incorporated in an overall simulation feedback loop 409. If the results are acceptable, then they are passed to the AM machine to perform the manufacturing operation 412." DeMuth [0069]. DeMuth's simulation step 402 and input step 401 are silent regarding a print surface at least partially inside a patient's body, and clearly lack simulating, using image data of the print surface at least partially inside the patient's body, execution of the printing instructions to simulate the structure being printed on the print surface at least partially within the patient's body. Indeed, the combination of Velis, Liang, and DeMuth lacks in situ printing of a structure within a patient's body using generated printing instructions, where the printing instructions are generated by simulating, using image data of a print surface at least partially inside the patient's body, execution of the printing instructions to validate successful printing of the structure inside the patient's body; and upon determination of successfully simulating, generating the printing instructions. Umeyama fails to cure the deficiencies of Velis, Liang, and DeMuth. (see Remarks, pg. 9, paragraph 2)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner recognizes the Applicant's arguments are against the references individually, wherein one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below.
Applicant’s Interview Request
Upon review of the Applicant’s reply filed on 20 January 2026, the Applicant’s interview request (Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 1) has been denied since it does not appear an interview would result in expediating an allowance of the instant application (see MPEP 713.01(IV)).
Additionally, the Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner to schedule an interview to address any outstanding issues in the instant application in accordance with MPEP 713 and 713.09.
Examiner’s Note: The Applicant was previously invited (see Non-Final Office Action mailed on 17 October 2025, pg. 9, paragraph 8) to contact the Examiner to schedule an interview.
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.
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 1-3, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0251704 A1 (hereinafter Velis) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0015070 A1 (hereinafter Liang) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0232515 A1 (hereinafter DeMuth) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0001491 A1 (hereinafter Umeyama).
As per claim 1, Velis substantially teaches the applicant’s claimed invention. Velis teaches the limitations of a surgical robot (pg. 7, par. [0134] and [0135] and Fig. 9, element 200; i.e. a robotic system) for printing a structure in situ within a patient's body (pg. 6, par. [0124] and pg. 7, par. [0134]; i.e. [0124]: “… an exemplary robotic arm 40 that can be used to control a 3D printer head. … robotic arm 40 may have many axes to allow the robot to have sufficient degrees of freedom to access the regions needed to print an object such as a spacer, scaffold or implant.” and [0134]: “As shown in FIG. 9, a multifunctional robotic system for performing in vivo procedures is generally designated by the numeral 200.”), the surgical robot (pg. 7, par. [0134] and [0135] and Fig. 9, element 200; i.e. the robotic system) comprising:
at least one robotic arm (Fig. 4A, element 40) configured to perform one or more operations during a surgical procedure (pg. 6, par. [0124] and [0125]; i.e. [0124]: “… an exemplary robotic arm 40 that can be used to control a 3D printer head. … robotic arm 40 may have many axes to allow the robot to have sufficient degrees of freedom to access the regions needed to print an object such as a spacer, scaffold or implant.” and [0125]: “Robotic arm 40 may be a 6-axis robotic arm.”);
a printing device (Fig. 6, element 125 and Fig. 5, element 95; i.e. a 3D printer and a printer head, respectively) configured to print a structure on a print surface at a print site at least partially inside a patient's body during the surgical procedure (pgs. 6-7, par. [0127] and [0130], and pg. 8, par. [0140] and [0142]; i.e. [0127]: “Printer head 95 has an orifice 100 for extruding material for printing.” and [0130]: “… the robotic 3D printer 125 for printing”; and a surgery plan and 3D computer model of an object that will be printed; and [0140]: “… the contour and dimensions of the receiving surface 260F including the location of soft and hard tissue, is obtained via the imaging system 242A); and
a controller (Fig. 9, element 212 of Fig. 9, element 210; i.e. a computer processor of a control unit) configured to execute instructions, during the surgical procedure, that cause:
(i) the controller (Fig. 9, element 210; i.e. the computer processor of a control unit) to receive image data of the print site at least partially inside the patient’s body (i.e. a pre-operative CT MRI scan to produce a computer model of an anatomy including diseased or damage tissue and in vivo measure of a cavity for receiving an object) where the structure is to be printed (pgs. 6-7, par. [0130] and [0135] and pgs. 7-8, par. [0140]; i.e. [0130]: a surgery plan and 3D computer model of an object that will be printed; [0140]: “… the contour and dimensions of the receiving surface 260F including the location of soft and hard tissue, is obtained via the imaging system 242A …”i.e.);
(ii) the controller (Fig. 9, element 210; i.e. the computer processor of a control unit) to identify based on the received image data, the print surface of the print site at least partially withing the patient’s (pgs. 7-8, par. [0140]; i.e. “The computer processor 212 includes a display configured to display three-dimensional images of the cavity 250C and the receiving surface 260F and to overlay images of the object 205 to verify proper sizing of the object 205.”),
(iii) the at least one robotic arm to perform the one or more operations (pgs. 6-7, par. [0130] and [0135] and pg. 8, par. [0142]; i.e. [0130]: “Prior to surgery, the patient may undergo a pre-operative CT/MRI scan 115 to produce a computer model of the anatomy including the diseased or damaged tissue. This computer model can be run through a computer 120 which accounts for the patient's age, height, weight, adjacent anatomy, and other physiology to produce a surgery plan and 3D computer model of the object that will be printed. This model is then sent to the robotic 3D printer 125 for printing.” and [0142]: “… The executable software 214 is configured to receive signals from the measuring system, the executable software being configured to control the printer head and the measuring system to position the object in an in vivo location based upon the signals from the measuring system.”), and
(iv) the printing device to print the structure on the print surface at least partially inside the patient's body (pg. 7, par. [0135]; i.e. “The robotic arm 240 is configured for multi-axis movement as described herein with respect to FIGS. 4A and 4B. While the multifunctional robotic system 200 is described as being used for in vivo procedures …”).
Velis does not expressly teach print the structure on the print surface at least partially inside the patient’s body according to printing instructions, wherein the printing instructions have been validated by:
(a) simulating, using image data of the print surface at least partially inside the patient’s body, execution of the printing instructions to simulate the structure being printed on the print surface at least partially inside the patient’s body;
(b) determining whether the simulated printing of the structure on the print surface at least partially inside the patient’s body was successful; and
(c) validating the printing instructions based at least on a determination that the simulated printing of the structure on the print surface at least partially inside the patient’s body was successful; and
a communications interface configured to provide communication between components of the surgical robot.
However Liang, in an analogous art of simulating a proposed medical treatment/intervention (pg. 3, par. [0036]), teaches the missing limitations of performing a medical intervention at least partially inside a patient’s body according to planned results, wherein the planned results have been validated by:
(a) simulating, using image data, the medical intervention on a surface at least partially inside the patient’s body (pg. 1, par. [0012], pg. 3, par. [0037], and pg. 4, par. [0049] and [0050]; i.e. [0012]: “In one application, the planning of surgery to correct aural atresia, the region in the image includes the ear and the at least one anatomical structure includes at least one of the temporal bone, facial nerve, and stapes.”, [0037]: “… the initial step of generating a three dimensional (3D) image representation of a region for which some form of medical treatment or intervention is contemplated (step 102). Generating such a 3D image representation generally involves acquiring a sequential series of 2D images, such as from a spiral computed tomography (CT) scanner or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner and transforming this 2D image data into a volumetric data set which provides a 3D representation of the region on a 2D display, such as a computer monitor.”, [0049]: “… the various structures of the ear present a similar image intensity in the image scan data, it is preferable that the 3D rendering step include an image segmentation process to distinguish the various tissue types of the ear, such as the facial nerve, temporal bone and the like. From the segmented image data, a volume based rendering can be presented to the user, such as on a computer display, where the various structures of the ear are delineated, as is illustrated in FIG. 8.”, and [0050]: “The main display portion 805 illustrates the segmented image data showing the various structures of the ear including the cochlea 806, stapes 808, malleus 810, and the facial nerve 812.”), execution of the medical intervention to simulate the medical intervention on the surface at least partially inside the patient’s body (pg. 3, par. [0038]; i.e. “After the 3D image is presented to a user, such as a physician, some form of virtual intervention, which simulates at least a portion of a proposed treatment, is applied to the 3D image (step 104).”);
(b) determining whether the simulated medical intervention on the surface at least partially inside the patient’s body was successful (pg. 3, par. [0039]; i.e. “Using the resulting 3D image, and possibly the assistance of computer generated models of the applied intervention, the results of the virtual intervention can be evaluated and warnings can be generated indicative of high levels of risk attendant with the proposed intervention (step 106). Based on the displayed results, and any warnings provided, the user can repeatedly modify the proposed intervention (step 108) and apply the modified intervention to the 3D image (step 104) until a satisfactory result is ascertained or it is determined that the proposed treatment is not feasible.”); and
(c) validating the simulated medical intervention based at least on a determination that the simulated medical intervention on the surface at least partially inside the patient’s body was successful (pg. 3, par. [0040]; i.e. “After the proposed intervention is finalized, the final intervention can be simulated and the results fully applied to the 3D image (step 110). The user can then view the results and navigate in and around the region to determine the efficacy of the proposed treatment (step 112). The planned results can then be used as a guide for the actual treatment with coordinate registration between the virtual model and the patient and as a gold standard to evaluate the actual intervention during post-intervention follow up examinations.”) for the purpose of visualizing a region for treatment (pg. 1, par. [0002]).
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 modify the teaching of Velis to include the addition of the limitations of performing a medical intervention at least partially inside a patient’s body according to planned results, wherein the planned results have been validated by: (a) simulating, using image data the medical intervention on a surface at least partially inside the patient’s body, execution of the medical intervention to simulate the medical intervention on the surface at least partially inside the patient’s body; (b) determining whether the simulated medical intervention on the surface at least partially inside the patient’s body was successful; and (c) validating the simulated medical intervention based at least on a determination that the simulated medical intervention on the surface at least partially inside the patient’s body was successful to advantageously optimize medical treatment planning to maximize a likelihood of a successful surgery (Liang: pg. 1, par. [0002], [0003] and [0006]).
Velis in view of Liang does not expressly teach print the structure according to printing instructions, wherein the printing instructions have been validated by:
(a) simulating, using image data, execution of the printing instructions to simulate the structure;
(b) determining whether the simulated printing of the structure was successful; and
(c) validating the printing instructions based at least on a determination that the simulated printing of the structure was successful; and
a communications interface configured to provide communication between components of the surgical robot.
However DeMuth, in an analogous art of simulation and additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitations of print a structure according to printing instructions, wherein the printing instructions have been validated by:
(a) simulating, using image data (i.e. “… a Computer Aided Design (CAD) model …”), execution of the printing instructions to simulate the structure (pg. 5, par. [0058] and pg. 6, par. [0069]; i.e. [0058]: “For example, in one embodiment the additive manufacturing process can be simulated using data related to the Computer Aided Design (CAD) geometry for the powder bed, material type, printer model (or printer capabilities), and desired resultant material properties such as stress distribution, thermal warpage, or crystal structure.” and [0069]: “First, a Computer Aided Design (CAD) model, material type, Additive Manufacturing (AM) process type, and desired results are input into an optimization algorithm 401. … The AM process is then simulated and resultant stress distribution, crystal structure, and other relevant properties are evaluated from the simulation 402.”);
(b) determining whether the simulated printing of the structure was successful (pg. 6, par. [0069]; i.e. “The AM process is then simulated and resultant stress distribution, crystal structure, and other relevant properties are evaluated from the simulation 402. The simulation results are evaluated (step 410) and if not acceptable, the manufacturing parameters and/or design of the part are modified and the manufacturing process is re-simulated 411, as incorporated in an overall simulation feedback loop 409. If the results are acceptable, then they are passed to the AM machine to perform the manufacturing operation 412.”); and
(c) validating the printing instructions based at least on a determination that the simulated printing of the structure was successful (pgs. 6-7, par. [0070]; i.e. “A user 517 is able to exchange data 519 with a remotely accessed computer 520 by sending CAD files, specifying an additive process to simulate, and providing a resultant acceptable stress map and allowable manufacturing tolerances. Using multi-physics numerical analysis software 521, the computer 520 can evaluate the manufacturing process of the desired CAD part to be printed. Once completed, a comparative metric 522 compares the output of the simulation with the user supplied requirements and tolerances. … However, if the results of 521 meet the user specified comparative metrics 522, then the successful manufacturing information can be passed to the additive manufacturing machine 526 via data channel 524.) for the purpose of carrying out a manufacturing process (pgs. 5-6, par. [0062]).
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 modify the teaching of Velis in view of Liang to include the addition of the limitations of print a structure according to printing instructions, wherein the printing instructions have been validated by: (a) simulating, using image data, execution of the printing instructions to simulate the structure; (b) determining whether the simulated printing of the structure was successful; and (c) validating the printing instructions based at least on a determination that the simulated printing of the structure was successful to advantageously produce a part with minimal residual stresses (DeMuth: pgs. 5-6, par. [0062]).
Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth does not expressly teach a communications interface configured to provide communication between components of the surgical robot.
However Umeyama, in an analogous art of robots (pgs. 1-2, par. [0001] and [0028]), teaches the missing limitation of a communications interface (pg. 2, par. [0032] and [0033] and Fig. 2, element 131; [0033]: “… data transmission/reception unit 131 is a communication interface …”) configured to provide communication between components of a robot (pgs. 1-2, par. [0082] and pg. 6, par. [0102] and [0103]; i.e. [0102]: “First, the abnormality detection unit 132 acquires, from the data transmission/reception unit 131, the actual current in the motor 114 and the driving current target value of the motor 114 of the finger units 111a to 111c that are control parameters.” and [0103]: “The control parameter is transmitted/received between the control apparatus 130, and both of the robot hand main body 110 and the robot arm main body 120 at a predetermined interval using the data transmission/reception unit 131 as the interface.”) for the purpose of controlling a robot (pg. 2, par. [0033] and detecting abnormalities (pg. 6, par. [0103]).
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 modify the teaching of Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth to include the addition of the limitation of a communications interface configured to provide communication between components of a robot to move the robot with high accuracy (Umeyama: pg. 4, par. [0077]).
As per claim 2, Velis teaches the at least one robotic arm (Fig. 4A, element 40) includes at least one end effector (Fig. 6, element 125 and Fig. 5, element 95; i.e. the 3D printer and the printer head, respectively) configured to perform the one or more operations (pg. 4, par. [0063], pgs. 6-7, par. [0125], [0127] and [0130], and pg. 8, par. [0142]; i.e. [0063]: “The device includes a multi-axial robotic arm, a three-dimensional printer head secured to a distal end of the robotic arm …”; [0125]: “The R-axis 60 works in conjunction with the B-axis 65 to aid in the positioning of the end effector (in this example a 3D printer head). This axis, known as the wrist roll, rotates the upper arm 90 in a circular motion.”; [0127]: “Printer head 95 has an orifice 100 for extruding material for printing.” and [0130]: “… the robotic 3D printer 125 for printing”).
As per claim 3, Velis teaches the printing device (Fig. 6, element 125 and Fig. 5, element 95; i.e. the 3D printer and the printer head, respectively) is attached to the at least one robotic arm (pg. 4, par. [0063] and Fig. 4A, element 40; i.e. [0063]: “The device includes a multi-axial robotic arm, a three-dimensional printer head secured to a distal end of the robotic arm …”).
As per claim 9, Velis in view of Liang does not expressly teach generating, based on a determination that the result of simulating the printing instructions indicates unsuccessful printing, an error report including indications of issues during the simulated execution of one or more of the printing instructions; and
modifying, based on the error report, the printing instructions.
However DeMuth, in an analogous art of simulation and additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitations of generating, based on a determination that the result of simulating the printing instructions indicates unsuccessful printing, an error report including indications of issues during the simulated execution of one or more of the printing instructions (pgs. 6-7, par. [0069] and [0070]; i.e. [0069]: “The AM process is then simulated and resultant stress distribution, crystal structure, and other relevant properties are evaluated from the simulation 402. The simulation results are evaluated (step 410) and if not acceptable, the manufacturing parameters and/or design of the part are modified and the manufacturing process is re-simulated 411, as incorporated in an overall simulation feedback loop 409.” and [0070]: “A user 517 is able to exchange data 519 with a remotely accessed computer 520 by sending CAD files, specifying an additive process to simulate, and providing a resultant acceptable stress map and allowable manufacturing tolerances. Using multi-physics numerical analysis software 521, the computer 520 can evaluate the manufacturing process of the desired CAD part to be printed. Once completed, a comparative metric 522 compares the output of the simulation with the user supplied requirements and tolerances. If the simulated part is out of compliance, the nature of the non-compliance is sent to a parameter modification algorithm 523 which can modify the machine parameters used in the simulation by 521 both globally and temporally. Modified parameters can include laser intensities, pulse shapes, pulse durations, gas pressures, gas compositions, bed temperatures, powder temperatures, print order in a given layer, and specific to diode additive manufacturing, print order within a given image. Geometrical parameters that can be modified can include the support structure used or orientation of the part. In certain embodiments, if intent for part design is given and coupled into the model, then overall part topology could be modified. Once the appropriate modifications are made to the simulation parameters, the numerical analysis software 521 is re-run, and the results re-compared with the comparative metric 522. If the solution is not achieved, then the process is repeated. However, if the results of 521 meet the user specified comparative metrics 522, then the successful manufacturing information can be passed to the additive manufacturing machine 526 via data channel 524.”); and
modifying, based on the error report (pgs. 6-7, par. [0070]; i.e. “Once completed, a comparative metric 522 compares the output of the simulation with the user supplied requirements and tolerances. If the simulated part is out of compliance, the nature of the non-compliance is sent to a parameter modification algorithm 523 which can modify the machine parameters used in the simulation by 521 both globally and temporally.”), the printing instructions (pgs. 6-7, par. [0069] and [0070]; i.e. [0070]: “A user 517 is able to exchange data 519 with a remotely accessed computer 520 by sending CAD files, specifying an additive process to simulate, and providing a resultant acceptable stress map and allowable manufacturing tolerances. Using multi-physics numerical analysis software 521, the computer 520 can evaluate the manufacturing process of the desired CAD part to be printed. Once completed, a comparative metric 522 compares the output of the simulation with the user supplied requirements and tolerances. If the simulated part is out of compliance, the nature of the non-compliance is sent to a parameter modification algorithm 523 which can modify the machine parameters used in the simulation by 521 both globally and temporally. Modified parameters can include laser intensities, pulse shapes, pulse durations, gas pressures, gas compositions, bed temperatures, powder temperatures, print order in a given layer, and specific to diode additive manufacturing, print order within a given image. Geometrical parameters that can be modified can include the support structure used or orientation of the part. In certain embodiments, if intent for part design is given and coupled into the model, then overall part topology could be modified. Once the appropriate modifications are made to the simulation parameters, the numerical analysis software 521 is re-run, and the results re-compared with the comparative metric 522. If the solution is not achieved, then the process is repeated. However, if the results of 521 meet the user specified comparative metrics 522, then the successful manufacturing information can be passed to the additive manufacturing machine 526 via data channel 524.”) for the purpose of carrying out a manufacturing process (pgs. 5-6, par. [0062]).
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 modify the teaching of Velis in view of Liang to include the addition of the limitations of generating, based on a determination that the result of simulating the printing instructions indicates unsuccessful printing, an error report including indications of issues during the simulated execution of one or more of the printing instructions; and modifying, based on the error report, the printing instructions to advantageously produce a part with minimal residual stresses (DeMuth: pgs. 5-6, par. [0062]).
As per claim 15, Velis teaches printing instructions include at least one of (ii) at least one substrate material to use for printing the structure (pg. 4, par. [0063] and [0070]; i.e. [0063]: “… three-dimensional printer head is configured to coordinate with the control unit to control motion of the robotic arm and operation of the three-dimensional printer head for depositing of material via three-dimensional printing, in-vivo.”; and [0070]: “… method includes controlling motion of the robotic arm and the three-dimensional printer head and in-vivo depositing material by the three-dimensional printer head.”), (iii) a location on the print surface to print the structure with the at least one substrate material (pg. 14, claim 1; i.e. “… the executable software being configured to control the printer head and the measuring system to position the object in an in vivo location based upon the signals from the measuring system.”), (v) tool pathing for the printing device to print the structure on the print surface (pg. 4, par. [0063] and [0070]; i.e. [0063]: “… three-dimensional printer head is configured to coordinate with the control unit to control motion of the robotic arm and operation of the three-dimensional printer head for depositing of material via three-dimensional printing, in-vivo.”; and [0070]: “… method includes controlling motion of the robotic arm and the three-dimensional printer head and in-vivo depositing material by the three-dimensional printer head.”), and (vii) instructions for extruding the at least one substrate material on the print surface (pg. , par. [0127]; i.e. “Printer head 95 has an orifice 100 for extruding material for printing. Material feed line 105 transports raw material to the printer head for use in printing.”).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth, Umeyama and Netherland Patent Publication No. 2017088 A (hereinafter Laarman).
As per claim 4, Velis teaches the printing device (Fig. 6, element 125 and Fig. 5, element 95; i.e. the 3D printer and the printer head, respectively) comprises an extruder and a nozzle (pg. 6, par. [0127] and [0129]; i.e. [0127]: “Printer head 95 has an orifice 100 for extruding material for printing. Material feed line 105 transports raw material to the printer head for use in printing.” and [0129]: “Depending on the material being printed, the extrusion nozzle may heat the material sufficiently to make it printable. This may be accomplished with thermal resistive heating or ultrasonic energy.”), the printing device (Fig. 6, element 125 and Fig. 5, element 95; i.e. the 3D printer and the printer head, respectively) being configured to:
draw, using the extruder (i.e. an extrusion nozzle), at least one substrate material for use in printing the structure on the print surface at least partially inside the patient's body (pg. 6, par. [0127] and [0129]; i.e. [0127]: “Printer head 95 has an orifice 100 for extruding material for printing. Material feed line 105 transports raw material to the printer head for use in printing.” And [0129]: “Depending on the material being printed, the extrusion nozzle may heat the material sufficiently to make it printable. This may be accomplished with thermal resistive heating or ultrasonic energy.”); and
deposit, using the nozzle (i.e. the extrusion nozzle), the at least one substrate material onto the print surface (pg. 6, par. [0127] and [0129]; i.e. [0127]: “Printer head 95 has an orifice 100 for extruding material for printing. Material feed line 105 transports raw material to the printer head for use in printing.” and [0129]: “Depending on the material being printed, the extrusion nozzle may heat the material sufficiently to make it printable. This may be accomplished with thermal resistive heating or ultrasonic energy.”), wherein an operation of the printing device are defined by the instructions (pgs. 6-7, par. [0130] and [0135] and pg. 8, par. [0142]; i.e. [0130]: “Prior to surgery, the patient may undergo a pre-operative CT/MRI scan 115 to produce a computer model of the anatomy including the diseased or damaged tissue. This computer model can be run through a computer 120 which accounts for the patient's age, height, weight, adjacent anatomy, and other physiology to produce a surgery plan and 3D computer model of the object that will be printed. This model is then sent to the robotic 3D printer 125 for printing.” and [0142]: “… The executable software 214 is configured to receive signals from the measuring system, the executable software being configured to control the printer head and the measuring system to position the object in an in vivo location based upon the signals from the measuring system.”).
Velis does not expressly teach the printing device being configured to:
draw, using the extruder and from a supply, a predetermined quantity of at least one substrate material for use in printing the structure on the print surface at least partially inside the patient's body; and
deposit, using the nozzle, the predetermined quantity of the at least one substrate material onto the print surface at a predetermined position and orientation of the printing device, wherein the predetermined position and orientation of the printing device are defined by the instructions.
Velis in view of Liang does not expressly teach the printing device being configured to:
draw, using the extruder and from a supply, a predetermined quantity of at least one substrate material for use in printing the structure on the print surface at least partially inside the patient's body; and
deposit, using the nozzle, the predetermined quantity of the at least one substrate material onto the print surface at a predetermined position and orientation of the printing device, wherein the predetermined position and orientation of the printing device are defined by the instructions.
Velis in view of Liang in further view of Demuth does not expressly teach the printing device being configured to:
draw, using the extruder and from a supply, a predetermined quantity of at least one substrate material for use in printing the structure on the print surface at least partially inside the patient's body; and
deposit, using the nozzle, the predetermined quantity of the at least one substrate material onto the print surface at a predetermined position and orientation of the printing device, wherein the predetermined position and orientation of the printing device are defined by the instructions.
Velis in view of Liang in further view of Demuth and Umeyama does not expressly teach the printing device being configured to:
draw, using the extruder and from a supply, a predetermined quantity of at least one substrate material for use in printing the structure on the print surface at least partially inside the patient's body; and
deposit, using the nozzle, the predetermined quantity of the at least one substrate material onto the print surface at a predetermined position and orientation of the printing device, wherein the predetermined position and orientation of the printing device are defined by the instructions.
However Laarman, in an analogous art of a robotic printer (pg. 9, lines 2-4 and Fig. 1a, element 10; i.e. a robotic 3D printing device), teaches the missing limitations of
a printing device (pg. 9, lines 2-4 and Fig. 1a, element 10; i.e. a robotic 3D printing device) being configured to:
draw, from a supply (pg. 9, lines 4-6 and Fig. 1a, element 14; i.e. a structure material supply unit), a predetermined quantity of at least one substrate material for use in printing a structure on a print surface (pg. 9, lines 7-9, pg. 10, lines 26-30, and pg. 11, line 32 - pg. 12, line 7; i.e. pg. 9, lines 7-9: “… the structure material supply unit 14 is provided with suitable supply passageway through which structure material to be printed is to be supplied towards the printing tool head 13.”; pg. 10, lines 26-30: “Furthermore, the control print unit 16 points to each virtual dwell point 200i-200n, 2011...201 n, 20yi...20yn one or more printing parameters bases on which the driving unit 15, the structure supply unit 14, the articulated boom 12 and the printing tool head 13 are operated and positioned within that three-dimensional working space in accordance which each virtual dwell point and the corresponding one or more printing parameters.”; and pg. 11, line 32 - pg. 12, line 7: “The one or more printing parameters to be appointed to each virtual dwell point and based on which the printing tool head 13 is to be controlled and operated at the corresponding actual print dwell position within the working space 17 comprise … a specific amount of structure material to be supplied by the structure material supply unit 14 towards the printing tool head 13 …”); and
deposit, using a printer head (Fig. 1, element 13), the predetermined quantity of the at least one substrate material onto the print surface at a predetermined position and orientation of the printing device, wherein the predetermined position and orientation of the printing device are defined by the instructions (pg. 9, lines 14-22 and pg. 11, line 24 - pg. 12, line 11; i.e. pg. 9, lines 14-22: “The control print unit 16 can be provided with suitable operating instructions, based on which the driving unit 15, the structure material supply unit and the printing tool head 13 as well as the articulated boom 12 are properly operated and manipulated, thus displacing the printing tool head 13 by means of the articulated boom 12 relative to the working position 17 for conducting 3D-printing operations.” and pg. 11, line 24 - pg. 12, line 11: “The one or more printing parameters to be appointed to each virtual dwell point and based on which the printing tool head 13 is to be controlled and operated at the corresponding actual print dwell position within the working space 17 comprise … the orientation of the virtual dwell point relative to the working space 17…, a specific amount of structure material to be supplied by the structure material supply unit 14 towards the printing tool head 13 … . Each actual print dwell position is identified and categorized within the working space 17 according to the corresponding virtual print dwell position within the virtual representation 20’ based on which the structure printing device 10 is properly controlled and operated.”) for the purpose of conducting 3D-printing operations (pg. 9, lines 14-18).
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 modify the teaching of Velis in view of Liang in further view of Demuth and Umeyama to include the addition of the limitations of a printing device being configured to: draw, from a supply, a predetermined quantity of at least one substrate material for use in printing a structure on a print surface; and deposit, using a printer head, the predetermined quantity of the at least one substrate material onto the print surface at a predetermined position and orientation of the printing device, wherein the predetermined position and orientation of the printing device are defined by the instructions to advantageously reduce printing time, material usage, and operation cost while properly operating and manipulating a 3D printing device (Laarman: pg. 2, lines 18-22 and 29-30 and pg. 9, lines 14-18).
As per claim 6, Velis teaches the surgical robot (pg. 7, par. [0134] and [0135] and Fig. 9, element 200; i.e. the robotic system).
Velis does not expressly teach the supply is attached to the surgical robot.
Velis in view of Liang does not expressly teach the supply is attached to the surgical robot.
Velis in view of Liang in further view of Demuth does not expressly teach the supply is attached to the surgical robot.
Velis in view of Liang in further view of Demuth and Umeyama does not expressly teach the supply is attached to the surgical robot.
However Laarman, in an analogous art of a robotic printer (pg. 9, lines 2-4 and Fig. 1a, element 10; i.e. a robotic 3D printing device), teaches the missing limitation of the supply (Fig. 1a, element 14; i.e. a structure material supply unit) is attached to a robot (pg. 9, lines 2-5 and Fig. 1a, element 10; i.e. “Also provided is a structure material supply unit 14, which in this embodiment is mounted to the boom 12 and supports the printing tool head 13.”) for the purpose of conducting 3D-printing operations (pg. 9, lines 14-18).
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 modify the teaching of Velis in view of Liang in further view of Demuth and Umeyama to include the addition of the limitation of the supply is attached to a robot to advantageously reduce printing time, material usage, and operation cost while properly operating and manipulating a 3D printing device (Laarman: pg. 2, lines 18-22 and 29-30 and pg. 9, lines 14-18).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velis in view of Liang in further of DeMuth, Umeyama, Laarman and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0136534 A1 (hereinafter Austin).
As per claim 5, Velis in view of Liang in further of DeMuth, Umeyama, and Laarman does not expressly teach the supply is at least one of a reservoir, a spool of filament, and a hopper of raw pellets.
However Austin, in an analogous art of robots which dispense materials (abstract and pg. 24, par. [0303] and [0304]), teaches the missing limitation of a supply is a reservoir (pg. 24, par. [0304]; i.e. “… dispensing fluid from external reservoirs into arrays of smaller receptacles, such as micro-centrifuge tubes or microplates”) for the purpose of disposition of a material (pg. 1, par. [0002] and pg. 24, par. [0303]).
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 modify the teaching of Velis in view of Liang in further of DeMuth, Umeyama, and Laarman to include the addition of the limitation of a supply is a reservoir to advantageously print in a large quantity, rapidly, at a reasonable cost, and with uniform and consistent deposition properties (Austin: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
As per claim 7, Velis teaches the surgical robot (pg. 7, par. [0134] and [0135] and Fig. 9, element 200; i.e. the robotic system).
Velis does not expressly teach the supply is separate from the surgical robot and fluidically connected to the printing device via a tubing structure attached to a portion of the surgical robot.
Velis in view of Liang does not expressly teach the supply is separate from the surgical robot and fluidically connected to the printing device via a tubing structure attached to a portion of the surgical robot.
Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth does not expressly teach the supply is separate from the surgical robot and fluidically connected to the printing device via a tubing structure attached to a portion of the surgical robot.
Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth and Umeyama does not expressly teach the supply is separate from the surgical robot and fluidically connected to the printing device via a tubing structure attached to a portion of the surgical robot.
However Laarman, in an analogous art of a robotic printer (pg. 9, lines 2-4 and Fig. 1a, element 10; i.e. a robotic 3D printing device), teaches the missing limitation of the supply (Fig. 1a, element 14; i.e. a structure material supply unit) is fluidically connected to the printing device (Fig. 1, element 10; i.e. the robotic 3D printing device) via a structure attached to a portion of the robot (pg. 9, lines 5-6 and Fig. 1a, element 10; i.e. “In another embodiment the structure material supply unit 14 can be mounted near or at the base 11. In both embodiments the structure material supply unit 14 is provided with suitable supply passageway through which structure material to be printed is to be supplied towards the printing tool head 13.”) for the purpose of conducting 3D-printing operations (pg. 9, lines 14-18).
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 modify the teaching of Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth and Umeyama to include the addition of the limitation of the missing limitation of the supply is fluidically connected to the printing device via a structure attached to a portion of the robot to advantageously reduce printing time, material usage, and operation cost while properly operating and manipulating a 3D printing device (Laarman: pg. 2, lines 18-22 and 29-30 and pg. 9, lines 14-18).
Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth, Umeyama, and Laarman does not expressly teach the supply is separate from the surgical robot and fluidically connected to the printing device via a tubing structure attached to a portion of the surgical robot.
However Austin, in an analogous art of robots which dispense materials (abstract and pg. 24, par. [0303] and [0304]), teaches the missing limitation of a supply is separate from a robot (Fig. 16, element 810, element 810; a fluidic robot) and fluidically connected to a dispenser head (Fig. 16, element 812) via a tubing structure attached to a portion of the robot (pg. 24, par. [0304] and pg. 25, par. [0314]; i.e. [0304]: “… dispensing fluid from external reservoirs into arrays of smaller receptacles, such as micro-centrifuge tubes or microplates” and [0314]: “The robot 810 includes a dispensing head 812 that is mobile in a vertical axis. In one embodiment, the dispensing head 812 includes dispensing tubes 890 connected to external fluid reservoirs (not shown).”) for the purpose of disposition of a material (pg. 1, par. [0002] and pg. 24, par. [0303]).
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 modify the teaching of Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth, Umeyama, and Laarman to include the addition of the limitation of a supply is separate from a robot and fluidically connected to a dispenser head via a tubing structure attached to a portion of the robot to advantageously print in a large quantity, rapidly, at a reasonable cost, and with uniform and consistent deposition properties (Austin: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth, Umeyama and U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180348730 A1 (hereinafter Reekmans).
As per claim 8, Velis teaches a computer system (Fig. 6, element 120) being configured to generate the instructions to be executed by the controller (pgs. 6-7, par. [0130] and [0135], pg. 8, par. [0142] and Fig. 9, element 212 of Fig. 9, element 210; i.e. the computer processor of a control unit; i.e. [0130]: “Prior to surgery, the patient may undergo a pre-operative CT/MRI scan 115 to produce a computer model of the anatomy including the diseased or damaged tissue. This computer model can be run through a computer 120 which accounts for the patient's age, height, weight, adjacent anatomy, and other physiology to produce a surgery plan and 3D computer model of the object that will be printed. This model is then sent to the robotic 3D printer 125 for printing.” and [0142]: “… The executable software 214 is configured to receive signals from the measuring system, the executable software being configured to control the printer head and the measuring system to position the object in an in vivo location based upon the signals from the measuring system.”).
Velis does not expressly teach the communications interface is configured to provide communication between the components of the surgical robot and a computer system.
Velis in view of Liang does not expressly teach the communications interface is configured to provide communication between the components of the surgical robot and a computer system.
Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth does not expressly teach the communications interface is configured to provide communication between the components of the surgical robot and a computer system.
Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth and Umeyama does not expressly teach the communications interface is configured to provide communication between the components of the surgical robot and a computer system.
However Reekmans, in an analogous art of robots (pg. 1, par. [0001] and [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of a communications interface is configured to provide communication between components of a robot and a computer system (pg. 1, par. [0004], pg. 4, par. [0043], and pg. 11, par. [0109]; i.e. [0004]: “The system includes at least one communication interface for communication with a robotic device, where the robotic device comprises an end-effector configured to interact with object surfaces. The system also includes at least one communication interface for communication with a scanner device, and at least one processor.”; [0043]: “The controller 150 may be incorporated in whole or in part into the robotic device 110 or may take the form of a desktop computer, a laptop, a tablet, a wearable computing device, and/or a mobile phone, among other possibilities.”; and [0109]: “… sending, via the at least one communication interface, the one or more updated instructions to the robotic device, so as to cause the robotic device to perform the path-based task on the surface.”) for the purpose communicating information (pg. 1, par. [0004] and pg. 11, pr. [0109]).
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 modify the teaching of Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth and Umeyama to include the addition of the limitation of a communications interface is configured to provide communication between components of a robot and a computer system ability to advantageously adjust tasks of a system on-the-fly without significant delays (Reekmans: pg. 3, par. [0031]).
Claims 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth, Umeyama and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0113473 A1 (hereinafter Pettis).
As per claim 10, the limitation of “… according to the printing instructions validated by steps (a), (b), and (c)” stands rejected for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 by virtue of its incorporation of the printing instructions have been validated by steps (a), (b), and (c) of claim 1.
Further, Velis teaches the controller is further configured to execute instructions, during the surgical procedure, that cause:
the printing device (Fig. 6, element 125 and Fig. 5, element 95; i.e. the 3D printer and the printer head, respectively) to apply a substrate material to a prepared print surface at the print site (pg. 6, par. [0127] and [0129] and pg. 7, par. [0134]; i.e. [0127]: “Printer head 95 has an orifice 100 for extruding material for printing. Material feed line 105 transports raw material to the printer head for use in printing.”, [0129]: “Depending on the material being printed, the extrusion nozzle may heat the material sufficiently to make it printable. This may be accomplished with thermal resistive heating or ultrasonic energy.”, [0134]: “The multi-function head 295 is configured to survey a target site and prepare the site accordingly. For example, the multi-function head 295 includes a material evacuation system that is configured to remove material such as damaged or diseased tissue. The multifunctional robotic system 200 employs direct visualization and instant feedback for entire procedure. The clinician cleans disc nucleus space and removes soft bone marrow with a flexible instrument using the direct visualization and feedback.”); and
the surgical robot to receive, from at least one imaging device, image data of the print surface as the print surface is prepared and the substrate material is applied to the prepared print surface (pg. 7, par. [0132] and [0134]; i.e. [0132]: “The system for creating orthopedic implants in-vivo during a surgical procedure further includes imaging system 152 for measuring the size, hardness, shape of the implants (e.g., spacer 5) in real time as they are being formed and after they cure, as well recording images of the implants and transmitting such images and measurements, in some cases, in real-time to a computer processor 153, 153′ located in the head 95 and/or outside of the body.” and [0134]: “The multifunctional robotic system 200 employs direct visualization and instant feedback for entire procedure. The clinician cleans disc nucleus space and removes soft bone marrow with a flexible instrument using the direct visualization and feedback. For example, the clinician uses a laser scanner to visualize a cavity to determine cleanliness thereof, to obtain images of the cavity and to determine where the bone is to place deploy the medical scaffold 205, as described herein. Sensors or other tools are used to determine the density of the bone to distinguish which is bone and which is soft bone marrow.”).
Velis does not expressly teach the controller to determine, based on the received image data, whether the structure is being printed by the printing device according to the printing instructions; and
the controller to return, based on a determination that the structure is being printed according to the printing instructions, an indication that the structure is printed at least partially inside the patient’s body during a surgical procedure.
Velis in view of Liang does not expressly teach the controller to determine, based on the received image data, whether the structure is being printed by the printing device according to the printing instructions; and
the controller to return, based on a determination that the structure is being printed according to the printing instructions, an indication that the structure is printed at least partially inside the patient’s body during a surgical procedure.
Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth does not expressly teach the controller to determine, based on the received image data, whether the structure is being printed by the printing device according to the printing instructions; and
the controller to return, based on a determination that the structure is being printed according to the printing instructions, an indication that the structure is printed at least partially inside the patient’s body during a surgical procedure.
Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth and Umeyama does not expressly teach the controller to determine, based on the received image data, whether the structure is being printed by the printing device according to the printing instructions; and
the controller to return, based on a determination that the structure is being printed according to the printing instructions, an indication that the structure is printed at least partially inside the patient’s body during a surgical procedure.
However Pettis, in an analogous art of three-dimensional fabrication (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitations of determine, based on received image data, whether a structure is being printed by a printing device according to printing instructions (pg. 12, par. [0098]; i.e. “… the visualization area 510 may display a current tool path of the printer that is executing the print job, such as a two-dimensional layer of the object showing a path of a print head as it traverses that layer. The visualization area 510 may also or instead show a simulated print object, such as a rendering of a three-dimensional model depicting a current state of the completion of an object being fabricated according to a print job. The visualization area 510 may also or instead show an image of a working volume of a three-dimensional printer or other fabrication resource captured during execution of the print job. This may, for example, include a digital still image (which may be updated periodically) or a video image captured from a video camera at the three-dimensional printer. Thus a user may visually monitor progress or status of a remote print job through the user interface 500. A status area 512 may also be provided that shows current status information (e.g., percentage completion, time until start, time until completion, and so forth) for the active resource.”); and
return, based on a determination that the structure is being printed according to the printing instructions, an indication that the structure is printed (pgs. 13-14, par. [0113], [0115], and [0116]; i.e. [0115]: “… monitor operation of the three-dimensional printer based upon a comparison of the two-dimensional projection with the image of the build volume. Using this type of image analysis, it may be possible to track actual progress against predicted progress to identify equipment malfunctions or other interference that might cause the physical object to deviate from the model used to fabricate the physical object. For example, a temperature change in an extruder, an air bubble in a path of melted supply material, or a tool misstep might cause an unrecoverable error in a fabrication process. By comparing actual to expected two-dimensional or three-dimensional results, a fabrication process can be expeditiously aborted and restarted or otherwise addressed without waiting for completion and physical inspection of the constructed object. In addition, more subtle fabrication errors such as misalignment of layers, surface holes, inaccurate material build-ups or deposits, rotational distortion, and so forth may also be detected and address prior to completion of a build. More generally, a variety of machine vision functions may be implemented locally, or with cooperation between a local printer and a remote print server, using a video camera or digital still camera as a source of visual input.”, [0116]: “As another example, the user interface may provide status information for the three-dimensional printer. This may include status information for a build process executing on the three-dimensional printer currently, or an anticipated build. The user interface may usefully display a two-dimensional tool path for the three-dimensional printer, the two-dimensional tool path corresponding to a current layer of the object during a fabrication of the object by the three-dimensional printer, or any other useful two-dimensional information.”) for the purpose of detecting and addressing issues prior to completion of a build (pgs. 13-14, par. [0115]).
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 modify the teaching of Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth and Umeyama to include the addition of the limitations of determine, based on received image data, whether a structure is being printed by a printing device according to printing instructions; and return, based on a determination that the structure is being printed according to the printing instructions, an indication that the structure is printed to expeditiously abort and restart or otherwise address without for completion and physical inspection of a constructed object (Pettis: pgs. 13-14, par. [0115]).
As per claim 12, Velis teaches to the surgical robot (pg. 7, par. [0134] and [0135] and Fig. 9, element 200; i.e. a robotic system).
Velis does not expressly teach obtains second instructions generated based on a determination that the structure is not printed according to the printing instructions.
Velis in view of Liang does not expressly teach does not expressly teach obtains second instructions generated based on a determination that the structure is not printed according to the printing instructions.
Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth does not expressly teach obtains second instructions generated based on a determination that the structure is not printed according to the printing instructions.
Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth and Umeyama does not expressly teach obtains second instructions generated based on a determination that the structure is not printed according to the printing instructions.
However Pettis, in an analogous art of three-dimensional fabrication (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of obtains second instructions generated based on a determination that the structure is not printed according to the printing instructions (pgs. 13-14, par. [0115]; i.e. “… monitor operation of the three-dimensional printer based upon a comparison of the two-dimensional projection with the image of the build volume. Using this type of image analysis, it may be possible to track actual progress against predicted progress to identify equipment malfunctions or other interference that might cause the physical object to deviate from the model used to fabricate the physical object. For example, a temperature change in an extruder, an air bubble in a path of melted supply material, or a tool misstep might cause an unrecoverable error in a fabrication process. By comparing actual to expected two-dimensional or three-dimensional results, a fabrication process can be expeditiously aborted and restarted or otherwise addressed without waiting for completion and physical inspection of the constructed object. In addition, more subtle fabrication errors such as misalignment of layers, surface holes, inaccurate material build-ups or deposits, rotational distortion, and so forth may also be detected and address prior to completion of a build. More generally, a variety of machine vision functions may be implemented locally, or with cooperation between a local printer and a remote print server, using a video camera or digital still camera as a source of visual input.”, [0116]: “As another example, the user interface may provide status information for the three-dimensional printer. This may include status information for a build process executing on the three-dimensional printer currently, or an anticipated build. The user interface may usefully display a two-dimensional tool path for the three-dimensional printer, the two-dimensional tool path corresponding to a current layer of the object during a fabrication of the object by the three-dimensional printer, or any other useful two-dimensional information.”) for the purpose of detecting and addressing issues prior to completion of a build (pgs. 13-14, par. [0115]).
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 modify the teaching of Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth and Umeyama to include the addition of the limitation of obtains second instructions generated based on a determination that the structure is not printed according to the printing instructions to expeditiously abort and restart or otherwise address without for completion and physical inspection of a constructed object (Pettis: pgs. 13-14, par. [0115]).
As per claim 13, Velis teaches the printing instructions include instructions that cause the printing device to prepare the print surface, the printing instructions comprising at least one of (i) removing soft tissue near the print surface within the patient’s body (pg. 7, par. [0134]; i.e. “The multi-function head 295 is configured to survey a target site and prepare the site accordingly. For example, the multi-function head 295 includes a material evacuation system that is configured to remove material such as damaged or diseased tissue. The multifunctional robotic system 200 employs direct visualization and instant feedback for entire procedure. The clinician cleans disc nucleus space and removes soft bone marrow with a flexible instrument using the direct visualization and feedback.) and (iv) removing a portion of the bone surface, or (v) removing failing internal structures of the patient’s body to be replaced by the structure (pg. 7, par. [0132] and [0134]; i.e. [0132]: “The system for creating orthopedic implants in-vivo during a surgical procedure further includes imaging system 152 for measuring the size, hardness, shape of the implants (e.g., spacer 5) in real time as they are being formed and after they cure, as well recording images of the implants and transmitting such images and measurements, in some cases, in real-time to a computer processor 153, 153′ located in the head 95 and/or outside of the body.” and [0134]: “The multi-function head 295 is configured to survey a target site and prepare the site accordingly. For example, the multi-function head 295 includes a material evacuation system that is configured to remove material such as damaged or diseased tissue. The multifunctional robotic system 200 employs direct visualization and instant feedback for entire procedure. The clinician cleans disc nucleus space and removes soft bone marrow with a flexible instrument using the direct visualization and feedback.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth, Umeyama, Pettis, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0054757 A1 (hereinafter Zuo).
As per claim 11, Velis teaches the printing device to apply a layer to the prepared print surface (pgs. 6-7, par. [0127], [0130], [0132] and [0134] and pg. 8, par. [0142]; i.e. [0127]: “Printer head 95 has an orifice 100 for extruding material for printing.”, [0130]: “… the robotic 3D printer 125 for printing”, [0132]: “The system for creating orthopedic implants in-vivo during a surgical procedure further includes imaging system 152 for measuring the size, hardness, shape of the implants (e.g., spacer 5) in real time as they are being formed and after they cure, as well recording images of the implants and transmitting such images and measurements, in some cases, in real-time to a computer processor 153, 153′ located in the head 95 and/or outside of the body.” and [0134]: “The multi-function head 295 is configured to survey a target site and prepare the site accordingly. For example, the multi-function head 295 includes a material evacuation system that is configured to remove material such as damaged or diseased tissue. The multifunctional robotic system 200 employs direct visualization and instant feedback for entire procedure. The clinician cleans disc nucleus space and removes soft bone marrow with a flexible instrument using the direct visualization and feedback.”).
Velis does not expressly teach second instructions are generated, based on the printing instructions, which are executable by the printing device to apply an adhesion layer to the prepared print surface before applying the substrate material.
Velis in view of Liang does not expressly teach second instructions are generated, based on the printing instructions, which are executable by the printing device to apply an adhesion layer to the prepared print surface before applying the substrate material.
However DeMuth, in an analogous art of simulation and additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of instructions are generated, based on the printing instructions, which are executable by a printing device (Fig. 5, element 526; i.e. an additive manufacturing machine that performs a print process) to apply a layer to a print surface (pgs. 6-7, paragraph [0069] and [0070]; i.e. [0069]: “The AM process is then simulated and resultant stress distribution, crystal structure, and other relevant properties are evaluated from the simulation 402. The simulation results are evaluated (step 410) and if not acceptable, the manufacturing parameters and/or design of the part are modified and the manufacturing process is re-simulated 411, as incorporated in an overall simulation feedback loop 409. If the results are acceptable, then they are passed to the AM machine to perform the manufacturing operation 412.” and [0070]: “A user 517 is able to exchange data 519 with a remotely accessed computer 520 by sending CAD files, specifying an additive process to simulate, and providing a resultant acceptable stress map and allowable manufacturing tolerances. Using multi-physics numerical analysis software 521, the computer 520 can evaluate the manufacturing process of the desired CAD part to be printed. Once completed, a comparative metric 522 compares the output of the simulation with the user supplied requirements and tolerances. … However, if the results of 521 meet the user specified comparative metrics 522, then the successful manufacturing information can be passed to the additive manufacturing machine 526 via data channel 524.) for the purpose of carrying out a manufacturing process (pgs. 5-6, par. [0062]).
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 modify the teaching of Velis in view of Liang to include the addition of the limitation of instructions are generated, based on the printing instructions, which are executable by a printing device to advantageously produce a part with minimal residual stresses (DeMuth: pgs. 5-6, par. [0062]).
Velis in view of Liang in further view of Demuth does not expressly teach second instructions which are executable by the printing device to apply an adhesion layer to the prepared print surface before applying the substrate material.
Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth and Umeyama does not expressly teach second instructions which are executable by the printing device to apply an adhesion layer to the prepared print surface before applying the substrate material.
Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth, Umeyama, and Pettis does not expressly teach second instructions which are executable by the printing device to apply an adhesion layer to the prepared print surface before applying the substrate material.
However Zuo, in an analogous art of bioprinting (pg. 1, par. [0002]) teaches the missing limitation of second instructions (i.e. an instruction for ejecting the adhesive) which are executable by a printing device (pg. 5, par. [0104], pgs. 5-6, par. [0116], Figs. 1-4, element 100 and Fig. 25, element 1000; i.e. a bioprinter nozzle of a bioprinter) to apply an adhesion layer to a print surface before applying a substrate material (pg. 4, par. [0099]; i.e. “… the medical adhesive is ejected at first, and then along with relative movement of the bioprinter nozzle and the artificial lumen for the lumen tissue construct, and the inner wall of the artificial lumen for the lumen tissue construct is coated with the medical adhesive to form a medical adhesive layer. The bio-ink is ejected within a short time interval from the time of medical adhesive ejection.”) for the purpose of immediate adherence of bio-ink (pg. 4, par. [0099]).
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 modify the teaching of Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth, Umeyama, and Pettis to include the addition of the limitation of second instructions which are executable by a printing device to apply an adhesion layer to a print surface before applying a substrate material to ensure the facilitation of simultaneous formation of an adhesive layer and bio-ink layer to form a desired construct (Zuo: pg. 4, par. [0099]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth, Umeyama, Pettis, and Laarman.
As per claim 14, Velis teaches the surgical robot (pg. 7, par. [0134] and [0135] and Fig. 9, element 200; i.e. a robotic system) is configured to:
draw, by an extruder of the printing device (pg. 6, par. [0127] and [0129]; i.e. [0127]: “Printer head 95 has an orifice 100 for extruding material for printing. Material feed line 105 transports raw material to the printer head for use in printing.” and [0129]: “Depending on the material being printed, the extrusion nozzle may heat the material sufficiently to make it printable. This may be accomplished with thermal resistive heating or ultrasonic energy.”), the substrate material (pg. 6, par. [0127] and [0129]; i.e. [0127]: “Printer head 95 has an orifice 100 for extruding material for printing. Material feed line 105 transports raw material to the printer head for use in printing.” And [0129]: “Depending on the material being printed, the extrusion nozzle may heat the material sufficiently to make it printable. This may be accomplished with thermal resistive heating or ultrasonic energy.”); and
deposit, by the extruder via a nozzle (i.e. the extrusion nozzle) of the printing device (Fig. 6, element 125 and Fig. 5, element 95; i.e. the 3D printer and the printer head, respectively), the drawn substrate material onto the prepared print surface (pg. 6, par. [0127] and [0129]; i.e. [0127]: “Printer head 95 has an orifice 100 for extruding material for printing. Material feed line 105 transports raw material to the printer head for use in printing.” and [0129]: “Depending on the material being printed, the extrusion nozzle may heat the material sufficiently to make it printable. This may be accomplished with thermal resistive heating or ultrasonic energy.”).
Velis does not expressly teach draw, by an extruder of the printing device, the substrate material from a supply; and
deposit, by the extruder via a nozzle of the printing device, a predetermined amount of the drawn substrate material onto the prepared print surface, wherein the extruder is set to a predetermined position and a predetermined orientation defined by the printing instructions.
Velis in view of Liang does not expressly teach draw, by an extruder of the printing device, the substrate material from a supply; and
deposit, by the extruder via a nozzle of the printing device, a predetermined amount of the drawn substrate material onto the prepared print surface, wherein the extruder is set to a predetermined position and a predetermined orientation defined by the printing instructions.
Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth does not expressly teach draw, by an extruder of the printing device, the substrate material from a supply; and
deposit, by the extruder via a nozzle of the printing device, a predetermined amount of the drawn substrate material onto the prepared print surface, wherein the extruder is set to a predetermined position and a predetermined orientation defined by the printing instructions.
Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth and Umeyama does not expressly teach draw, by an extruder of the printing device, the substrate material from a supply; and
deposit, by the extruder via a nozzle of the printing device, a predetermined amount of the drawn substrate material onto the prepared print surface, wherein the extruder is set to a predetermined position and a predetermined orientation defined by the printing instructions.
Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth, Umeyama, and Pettis does not expressly teach draw, by an extruder of the printing device, the substrate material from a supply; and
deposit, by the extruder via a nozzle of the printing device, a predetermined amount of the drawn substrate material onto the prepared print surface, wherein the extruder is set to a predetermined position and a predetermined orientation defined by the printing instructions.
However Laarman, in an analogous art of a robotic printer (pg. 9, lines 2-4 and Fig. 1a, element 10; i.e. a robotic 3D printing device), teaches the missing limitations of draw a substrate material from a supply (pg. 9, lines 7-9, pg. 10, lines 26-30, and pg. 11, line 32 - pg. 12, line 7; i.e. pg. 9, lines 7-9: “… the structure material supply unit 14 is provided with suitable supply passageway through which structure material to be printed is to be supplied towards the printing tool head 13.”; pg. 10, lines 26-30: “Furthermore, the control print unit 16 points to each virtual dwell point 200i-200n, 2011...201 n, 20yi...20yn one or more printing parameters bases on which the driving unit 15, the structure supply unit 14, the articulated boom 12 and the printing tool head 13 are operated and positioned within that three-dimensional working space in accordance which each virtual dwell point and the corresponding one or more printing parameters.”; and pg. 11, line 32 - pg. 12, line 7: “The one or more printing parameters to be appointed to each virtual dwell point and based on which the printing tool head 13 is to be controlled and operated at the corresponding actual print dwell position within the working space 17 comprise … a specific amount of structure material to be supplied by the structure material supply unit 14 towards the printing tool head 13 …”); and
deposit, by a printer head (Fig. 1, element 13) of the printing device (pg. 9, lines 2-4 and Fig. 1a, element 10; i.e. the robotic 3D printing device), a predetermined amount of the drawn substrate material onto a print surface, wherein the printer head is set to a predetermined position and a predetermined orientation defined by printing instructions (pg. 9, lines 14-22 and pg. 11, line 24 - pg. 12, line 11; i.e. pg. 9, lines 14-22: “The control print unit 16 can be provided with suitable operating instructions, based on which the driving unit 15, the structure material supply unit and the printing tool head 13 as well as the articulated boom 12 are properly operated and manipulated, thus displacing the printing tool head 13 by means of the articulated boom 12 relative to the working position 17 for conducting 3D-printing operations.” and pg. 11, line 24 - pg. 12, line 11: “The one or more printing parameters to be appointed to each virtual dwell point and based on which the printing tool head 13 is to be controlled and operated at the corresponding actual print dwell position within the working space 17 comprise … the orientation of the virtual dwell point relative to the working space 17…, a specific amount of structure material to be supplied by the structure material supply unit 14 towards the printing tool head 13 … . Each actual print dwell position is identified and categorized within the working space 17 according to the corresponding virtual print dwell position within the virtual representation 20’ based on which the structure printing device 10 is properly controlled and operated.”) for the purpose of conducting 3D-printing operations (pg. 9, lines 14-18).
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 modify the teaching Velis in view of Liang in further view of DeMuth, Umeyama, and Pettis to include the addition of the limitations of draw a substrate material from a supply; and deposit, by a printer head of the printing device, a predetermined amount of the drawn substrate material onto a print surface, wherein the printer head is set to a predetermined position and a predetermined orientation defined by printing instructions to advantageously reduce printing time, material usage, and operation cost while properly operating and manipulating a 3D printing device (Laarman: pg. 2, lines 18-22 and 29-30 and pg. 9, lines 14-18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to surgical planning, simulating, and fabrication systems/methods.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0078093 A1 discloses systems and methods for configuring an apparatus comprising a three-dimensional printer and computing device to construct a base synthetic anatomical model with specific predefined anatomic, biomechanical, and physiological properties, which may be supplemented with additional synthetic anatomical components before, during, or post-processing.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0177600 A1 discloses additive-manufacturing systems and processes for forming patient implants in-situ.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0029806 A1 discloses one or more in-situ monitoring systems of an additive manufacturing machine for one or more parts.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0115347 A1 discloses methods and materials for in-situ 4D printing of high-temperature materials.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0325379 A1 discloses systems and methods for training an implant plan evaluation model.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2026/0026926 A1 discloses endoscopic devices for bioprinting material in-situ.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117