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 .
Drawings
Figures 4(a) is objected to for the following reasons:
The encoder 144 ([0037] of specification) cannot be clearly seen in the figure.
Black and white photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. Photographs or photomicrograph printed on sensitized paper are acceptable as drawings, in lieu of India ink drawings, as are photographic images submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, to illustrate inventions which are incapable of being accurately or adequately depicted by India ink drawings, e.g., electrophoresis gels, blots, (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), autoradiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, metallurgical microstructures, textile fabrics, grain structures and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects. The photographs or photomicrographs must show the invention more clearly than they can be done by India ink drawings and otherwise comply with the rules concerning such drawings.
Black and white photographs submitted in lieu of ink drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.84(b). There is no requirement for a petition or petition fee, and only one set of photographs is required. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
To be acceptable, such photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. If several photographs are used to make one sheet of drawings, the photographs must be contained on a single sheet.
See MPEP § 608.02(c) for information relating to the location of drawings in IFW applications. See MPEP § 1503.02 for discussion of photographs used in design patent applications.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 claims to “each of the plurality of robotic carts are kept perpendicular to plurality of robotic carts”, where the second mention of “the” plurality of robotic carts is missing a “the” or an “a” in case of a second plurality.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 6, and 10-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 claims “wherein the laser lines associated with each of the plurality of robotic carts are kept perpendicular to the plurality of robotic carts”. However, examiner cannot ascertain what is meant by “perpendicular” in this case. Perpendicularity of a line (laser lines) contacts a line or plane at an angle of 90 degrees. However, in this case, the plurality of robotic carts refers to a collection of three-dimensional objects instead of one or two-dimensional. Examiner suggests amending the language to better define what parts of the robotic carts the laser lines are perpendicular to. Furthermore, examiner suggests amending the claim to better distinguish whether each of the laser lines are perpendicular to each and every one of the plurality of the robot carts or if the laser line is perpendicular to its source cart. For prior art examination, examiner will interpret the claim to read “wherein the laser lines associated with each of the plurality of robotic carts are kept perpendicular to a face of each of the plurality of robotic carts”.
Claim 6 claims “as per the requirements of the surgical procedure to be performed”. However, there is no antecedent basis established for “the” requirements of “the” surgical procedure to be performed. Additionally, there also exists no antecedent basis for “the” surgical procedure to be performed as well. For prior art purposes, examiner will interpret the language as “as per a plurality of requirements of a surgical procedure to be performed”, and suggests amendments to address the antecedent bases.
Similar to claim 6, claim 10 claims “a class C laser module compatible with the medical standards”. However, no antecedent basis has been established regarding medical standards. Examiner suggests amending the claim to identify the medical standards referred to. For prior art examination, examiner will interpret the language as “a class C laser module compatible with a set of medical standards”.
Claim 11 claims a system claim. However, the limitations of the claim indicate a positive method step (“is obtained by visualization”) while the claim is directed towards a system. As the scope of the claim is unclear, the claim is rendered indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). For prior art examination, examiner will interpret the language of the claim as “configured to be obtained by visualization”.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2021247294A1 from the IDS (Balter).
Regarding claim 1, Balter discloses a multi-arm robotic surgical system for obtaining kinematics of a plurality of robotic carts with respect to a frame of reference comprising a plurality of robotic arms each mounted on one of a plurality of robotic carts, an endoscopic camera coupled to a robotic arm out of the plurality of robotic arms, a plurality of surgical instruments each detachably coupled to a distal end of a robotic arm out of the remaining robotic arms, an operating table, and a patient lying on the operating table, whereby the plurality of robotic carts are arranged along the operating table, comprising:
a laser module provided with each of the plurality of robotic carts, the laser module configured to generate a laser line associated with each of the plurality of robotic carts;
Balter discloses a laser module (Fig. 5, alignment unit 316 of each robotic arm 40) provided with each of the plurality of robotic carts (Fig. 1, each of the plurality of robotic carts 60 have an attached robotic arm 40).
a transmitter coupled to each of the plurality of robotic carts, the transmitter configured to encode values of angles between the generated laser line associated with each of the plurality of robotic carts and the frame of reference; and
Balter discloses a transmitter coupled to each of the plurality of robotic carts ([0098], controller 21a), the transmitter configured to encode values of angles between the generated laser line associated with each of the plurality of robotic carts and the frame of reference ([0099], “The controller 21a determines when the movable cart 60 and the robotic arm 40 have been registered, computes the registered yaw angle f, and handles event logic for controlling the alignment unit 316 and displaying the registered yaw angle on the cart display 69 of the movable cart 60.”, see also Fig. 9 of Balter).
a master controller operatively coupled to the plurality of robotic carts, the master controller configured to calculate the kinematics of the plurality of robotic carts with respect to the frame of reference, based on the encoded values of the angles.
Balter discloses a master controller ([0083], hand controller 38a) operatively coupled to the plurality of robotic carts ([0083], “calculated angles are then passed to the robotic arm controller 41c”), the master controller configured to calculate the kinematics of the plurality of robotic carts with respect to the frame of reference, based on the encoded values of the angles (see Fig. 8 of Balter, step 512).
Regarding claim 4, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
wherein the encoded values of angles between the laser line associated with each of the plurality of robotic carts and the frame of reference are transmitted to the master controller using either a wired or wireless communication.
Balter discloses the encoded values of angles between the laser line associated with each of the plurality of robotic carts and the frame of reference are transmitted to the master controller using either a wired or wireless communication ([0069], “computers 21, 31, 41 are interconnected to each other using any suitable communication network based on wired or wireless communication protocols.”).
Regarding claim 5, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
wherein the kinematics of the plurality of robotic carts with respect to the frame of reference is independent of the type of operating room.
Balter discloses the kinematics of the plurality of robotic carts without any mention of adjustment due to the type of operating room.
Regarding claim 8, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
wherein the laser module provided with each of the plurality of robotic carts is kept at an inclination to provide improved visualization
See Fig. 5 of Balter, where the laser module (alignment unit 316) provided with each of the plurality of robotic carts is kept at an inclination from the top face of setup arm 300 to provide visualization of the horizontal plane.
Regarding claim 9, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
wherein the length of the laser line can be up to 2m.
See Fig. 5 of Balter, alignment unit 316 is attached to the robotic arm 40 projects a laser line (alignment pattern 318) that can be “up to 2m” depending on the height of the alignment unit connected to a robotic arm 40 (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
wherein the kinematics of the plurality of robotic carts with respect to a frame of reference is configured to be obtained by visualization.
Examiner notes that claim 11 contained an indefiniteness issue explained in the section above under 35 USC 112. The language of claim 11 has been modified with examiner’s interpretation of the claim.
Balter discloses a plurality of robotic carts (Fig. 1). The kinematics with respect to a frame of reference of the plurality of robotic carts are configured to be obtainable by visualization as they are movable objects.
Regarding claim 16, Balter discloses a method for obtaining kinematics of a plurality of robotic carts with respect to a frame of reference in a multi-arm robotic surgical system comprising a plurality of robotic arms each mounted on one of a plurality of robotic carts, an endoscopic camera coupled to a robotic arm out of the plurality of robotic arms, a plurality of surgical instruments each detachably coupled to a distal end of a robotic arm out of the remaining robotic arms, an operating table, and a patient lying on the operating table, whereby the plurality of robotic carts are arranged along the operating table, comprising:
positioning, by an operator, the plurality of robotic carts near the operating table based on a surgical procedure to be performed.
Balter discloses positioning, by an operator, the plurality of robotic carts near the operating table based on a surgical procedure to be performed (see Fig. 8 of Balter, where step 502 provides instructions for positioning the movable cart 60 ([0092]) and adjusts the robotic cart in step 506).
adjusting, using a laser module provided with each of the plurality of robotic carts, a laser line associated with each of the plurality of robotic carts with respect to the frame of reference
See Fig. 8 of Balter, step 510.
transmitting, using a transmitter, encoded values of angles between the laser line associated with each of the plurality of robotic carts and the frame of reference, to a master controller
See citation in claim 1 regarding “a transmitter …”.
calculating, using the master controller, the kinematics of the plurality of robotic carts with respect to the frame of reference, based on the encode values of the angles.
See citation in claim 1 regarding “a master controller”.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021247294A1 from the IDS (Balter).
Regarding claim 2, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
wherein the frame of reference may be a robotic cart having a camera or any other robotic cart out of the plurality of robotic carts
While Balter discloses a robotic cart of the plurality of robotic (movable carts 60) having a camera ([0066], camera 51) and the use of a different frame of reference ([0091], representative coordinate system 11), Balter does not explicitly disclose the frame of reference as a robotic cart having a camera or any other robotic cart out of the plurality of robotic carts.
However, Balter discloses the use of an alignment unit 316 and an alignment pattern 318 to identify proper alignment. As shown in Fig. 5, the alignment unit’s position is dependent on the robotic arm 40, whose position is further dependent on the movable cart 60. As alignment is based off of position and orientation, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to have a frame of reference of the cart as the cart may need to be adjusted from any possible obstacles restricting arm movement required.
Regarding claim 3, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
wherein the laser lines associated with each of the plurality of robotic carts are kept perpendicular to the plurality of robotic carts
See Fig. 5 of Balter, where the laser emitted from projects a laser perpendicular ([0087], “project alignment pattern 318 onto a horizontal surface”) to the respective robotic cart of the plurality of robotic carts, where each cart appears to contain a flat surface perpendicular to the laser (see Fig. 1). In light of Balter’s disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try keeping the laser lines associated with each of the plurality of robotic carts perpendicular to a face of each of the plurality of robotic carts.
Regarding claim 6, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
wherein the placement of the plurality of robotic carts in the operating room can be done as per the requirements of the surgical procedure to be performed.
As Fig. 6 of balter discloses a plurality of configurations achievable with no obstacles around patient P, Balter shows that the placement of the plurality of robotic carts in the operating room can be done as per the requirements of the surgical procedure to be performed.
Regarding claim 7, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
wherein the maximum rotation for each of the plurality of robotic carts is within a range of ±160 degrees.
See Fig. 9 of Balter. The figure provides a full rotation of 360 degrees of motion around a patient lying on a table. Examiner notes that the maximum rotation is dependent on the distance from the patient to the robot, where the placement of the robots is a matter of the surgical procedure performed. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the maximum rotation for each of the plurality of robotic carts would be a matter of design choice. As seen in the figure, around 160 degrees and 200 degrees (equivalently negative 160 degrees), examiner notes that it appears as though the robotic cart 60 would abut the edge of the table in the current exemplary configuration if rotated to either of the listed angles, thus creating a potential stop at about ±160 degrees.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021247294A1 from the IDS (Balter) in further view of “Final. Classification of Medical Devices” (Somani).
Regarding claim 10, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
wherein the laser module provided with each of the plurality of robotic carts is class C laser module compatible with the medical standards.
While Balter does not disclose the laser is a class C laser module compatible with a set of medical standards, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try a class C laser module compatible with a set of medical standards as class C lasers are a known category of lasers appropriate for use in surgical applications, where the lasers for surgery taught by Somani can be tried with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021247294A1 from the IDS (Balter) further in view of KR101255534B1 (Koo).
PNG
media_image1.png
822
1181
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure i. The laser module of Koo’s disclosure
Regarding claim 12, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
wherein each of the laser module comprises of a knob gear, a laser gear, an encoder gear, an encoder, and a stopper.
While Balter does not disclose each of the laser modules comprising of a knob gear, a laser gear, an encoder gear, an encoder, and a stopper, Koo discloses a laser control system comprising a controller ([0035], microcomputer 264) in communication with a motor system ([0035], geared motor assembly 260) and a laser module (Fig. 1 of Koo, 200, see also [0035]) which further comprises a knob gear (Fig. i, “D”), a laser gear (Fig. i, “A”), an encoder gear (Fig. i, “E”), an encoder ([0036], motor unit 262_4), and a stopper ([0056]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, to combine the systems of Koo and Balter as Koo offers an automatic control system featuring a stopper in their disclosure that prevents the laser from leaving the operating range, permitting for an operator to focus more on other important variables of the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 13, with all of the limitations of claim 12, the system further comprises:
wherein the laser module has a base cover and a top cover.
While Balter does not explicitly disclose a base cover and a top cover, see Figs. 1-2 of Koo. The figure shows that laser radiator 200 contains a top cover and a base cover covering the components shown in Fig. 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, to integrate these covers to better protect the mechanical components inside.
Regarding claim 14, with all of the limitations of claim 12, the system further comprises:
wherein a gear ratio of 3:1 is provided between the knob gear and the laser gear.
In light of the rationale of claim 12, Koo does not explicitly disclose a gear ratio of 3:1 being provided between the knob gear and the laser gear. However, Koo discloses the use of the gear ratio to reduce the speed outputted by the encoder to a low speed ([0040] of Koo). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try a gear ratio of 3:1 between the knob gear and the laser gear (i.e. gear ratio of B and C) as said ratio is a well understood gear ratio to try in view of [0040] of Koo, where adjusting said ratios according to one’s needs is a common practice in the art.
Regarding claim 15, with all of the limitations of claim 12, the system further comprises:
wherein a gear ratio of 1:1 is provided between the laser gear and the encoder gear.
103
As it appears the gear ratio of gears C and D appear to be similar in size, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that a gear ratio of 1:1 is provided between the laser gear and the encoder gear.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAEWOOK JUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM..
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, Wade Miles can be reached on (571) 270-7777. 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.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656