DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Effective Filing Date
The effective filing date for the application is 09/17/2021 based on a claim to domestic benefit to provisional application 63/245,306, which appears to reasonably provide written description support for the pending claims (so that filing date of the provisional application is the effective filing date being given to the current claims).
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 7, 9, 11 – 14, 16, 18 – 21, 23 – 26, 28, 30 and 34 - 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mozes et al. (US Pub No: 2014/0272789 A1, hereinafter Mozes) in view of Farritor et al. (US Pub No: 2008/0004634 A1, hereinafter Farritor).
Regarding Claim 11:
Mozes discloses:
A dental robotic system, comprising: a fiducial marker adapted to engage an object; an articulating arm having. Paragraph [0024] describes a fiducial device designed to form a fiducial marker within the mount of a patient. Paragraph [0023] describes a guided robotic assistance system. Paragraph [0026] describes an articulating arm member 350.
a dental tool operably engaged with a distal end thereof and having an end effector adapted to interact with the object. Paragraph [0030] describes a cutting device 150 connected to the arm member 350 and designed to provide 6 degrees of freedom or to restrict the movement of the cutting device as needed.
a controller arranged in communication with the articulating arm, the dental tool, and the fiducial marker, the controller being arranged to: determine a disposition of the end effector in relation to the fiducial marker during movement of the end effector to interact with the object. Paragraph [0032] describes a start position being dictated by the controller device 450. Once the start is determined, the orientation of the path of the cutting element and the direction/distance/depth from the origin is determined. The cutting device 150 is guided through the entire incision process.
and direct the articulating arm to physically control allowable movement of the dental tool, directly relative to the disposition of the end effector with respect to the fiducial marker engaged with the object. Paragraph [0032] describes a start position being dictated by the controller device 450. Once the start is determined, the orientation of the path of the cutting element and the direction/distance/depth from the origin is determined. The cutting device 150 is guided through the entire incision process. Paragraph [0033] describes a tactile or haptic feedback provided to the user so that is the user deviates from the plan they are alerted.
Mozes does not disclose a field of view of a camera and displaying a real time image on a display.
Farritor, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
and an optical imaging device engaged with the dental tool or the end effector, and arranged such that a field-of-view thereof includes an interaction between the end effector and the object. Paragraph [0139] describes a camera with an expanded and adjustable field of view, meaning that the system can have a field of view that includes an interaction between the end effector and the object.
and a display in communication with the optical imaging device and arranged to display a real-time image of the interaction between the end effector and the object received from the optical imaging device. Paragraph [0606] describes a surgeon performing the surgery in real time using the stereoscopic display.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Mozes to incorporate the teachings of Farritor to show a field of view of a camera and displaying a real time image on a display. One would have been motivated to do so to solve the issues of limited mobility and limited visual feedback when performing operations ([0004] of Farritor).
Claim 11’s limitations are more descriptive than claim 1, however, claim 1 is included in claim 11. Therefore claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as in claim 11.
Claim 23 is substantially similar to claim 11 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 12:
Mozes discloses:
The system of Claim 11, wherein the dental tool is a drill and the end effector is a drill bit or an abrading bit, wherein the dental tool is an ultrasonic cleaner and the end effector is a cleaning tip, or wherein the dental tool is a pneumatic polisher and the end effector is a polishing tip. Paragraph [0021] describes a drill or boring bit used for perforating the sinus membrane 20 with the tip of the bit.
Claims 2 and 24 are substantially similar to claim 12 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 13:
Farrior teaches:
The system of Claim 11, wherein the display is mounted on the dental tool, is disposed remotely to the dental tool, or is mounted within a headset adapted to be worn by a user. Paragraph [0201] describes an image display component that can be a TV, which is therefore remote of the dental tool.
The reason to combine Farritor with Mozes is for the same reason as in claim 11.
Claims 3 and 25 are substantially similar to claim 12 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 4:
Mozes discloses:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the dental tool is engaged with an articulating arm of a dental robotic system. Paragraph [0026] describes an articulating arm member 350.
Regarding Claim 14:
Farritor teaches:
The system of Claim 11, wherein the optical imaging device includes a camera, an imaging array, or an optical fiber disposed adjacent the end effector of the dental tool. Paragraph [0277] describes a camera used to allow the surgeon to easily view the area.
The reason to combine Farritor with Mozes is for the same reason as in claim 11.
Claims 5 and 26 are substantially similar to claim 12 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 16:
Farritor teaches:
The system of Claim 11, comprising a light-emitting device arranged to illuminate the object or the end effector. Paragraph [0122] describes a device 30 that has a light component to illuminate an area.
The reason to combine Farritor with Mozes is for the same reason as in claim 11.
Claims 7 and 28 are substantially similar to claim 12 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 18:
Mozes and Farritor teach:
The system of Claim 11, further comprising a detector engaged with a distal end of a tracking arm, the tracking arm and the detector being in communication with the controller, the detector being arranged in a spaced-apart relationship with the fiducial marker to detect the fiducial marker and to cooperate with the controller to determine a spatial relationship between the optical imaging device and the fiducial marker or between the end effector and the fiducial marker. Paragraph [0024] of Mozes describes a fiducial device designed to form a fiducial marker within the mount of a patient. Figure 5 of Mozes shows a arm 200 that is connected to a fiducial device 250. Paragraph [0139] of Farritor describes a camera with an expanded and adjustable field of view, meaning that the system can have a field of view that includes an interaction between the end effector and the object.
The reason to combine Farritor with Mozes is for the same reason as in claim 11.
Claim 34 is substantially similar to claim 18 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 19:
Mozes discloses:
The system of Claim 18, wherein the detector is an electrical detector, an electromechanical detector, an electromagnetic detector, an optical detector, an infrared detector, or combinations thereof. Paragraph [0033] describes a system that has haptic feedback, which is electromechanical.
Claim 35 is substantially similar to claim 19 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 20:
Mozes and Farritor teach:
The system of Claim 11, comprising a tracking arm having a distal end physically engaged with the fiducial marker, the tracking arm being in communication with the controller and arranged to cooperate with the controller to determine a spatial relationship between the optical imaging device and the fiducial marker or between the end effector and the fiducial marker. Paragraph [0024] of Mozes describes a fiducial device designed to form a fiducial marker within the mount of a patient. Figure 5 of Mozes shows a arm 200 that is connected to a fiducial device 250. Paragraph [0139] of Farritor describes a camera with an expanded and adjustable field of view, meaning that the system can have a field of view that includes an interaction between the end effector and the object.
Regarding Claim 21:
Farritor teaches:
The system of Claim 11, wherein the optical imaging device is arranged in communication with the display via a wireless communication system. Paragraph [0182] describes a wireless connection component which allows the robot to communicate wirelessly with a controller or any other external component.
The reason to combine Farritor with Mozes is for the same reason as in claim 11.
Claims 9 and 30 are substantially similar to claim 12 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 6, 15 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mozes in view of Farritor and further in view of Wang (US Pub No: 2021/0282895 A1, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding Claim 15:
Mozes and Farritor teach the above limitations in claim 11. Mozes and Farritor do not teach an optical fiber being run axially and being connected to the distal end of the dentist tool.
Wang, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The system of Claim 14, wherein the end effector defines an axial channel extending toward a distal end of the dental tool, and wherein the optical fiber is disposed within and extends along the axial channel such that a distal end of the optical fiber is disposed proximate the distal end of the dental tool. Paragraph [0029] describes an optical fiber 3-2 connected to the endoscope. Figure 1 and figure 4 show the optical fiber being near the distal end of the dental tool.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Mozes to incorporate the teachings of Wang to show an optical fiber being run axially and being connected to the distal end of the dentist tool. One would have been motivated to do so that the cables are organized well and do not intrude on anything.
Claims 6 and 27 are substantially similar to claim 12 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 8, 17 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mozes in view of Farritor and further in view of Ramirez Luna et al. (US Pub No: 2019/0327394 A1, hereinafter Ramirez).
Regarding Claim 17:
Mozes and Farritor teach the above limitations in claim 11. Mozes and Farritor do not teach an optical imaging device to automatically focus within the field-of-view.
Ramirez, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The system of Claim 11, wherein the optical imaging device is arranged to automatically focus within the field-of-view. Paragraph [0563] describes a camera 300 and a processor 4102 that can automatically move the robotic arm 506 and focus/magnification of the camera.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Mozes to incorporate the teachings of Ramirez to show an optical imaging device to automatically focus within the field-of-view. One would have been motivated to do so to align the camera 300 with an object of interest to provide for recognition of a desired object and its position and orientation within a image ([0563 of Ramirez).
Claims 8 and 29 are substantially similar to claim 12 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 10, 22, 31 - 33 and 36 - 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mozes in view of Farritor and further in view of Wang et al. (US Pub No: 2016/0166333 A1, hereinafter Wang 2).
Regarding Claim 22:
Mozes and Farriotor teach the above limitations in claim 11. Mozes and Farritor do not teach an augmented virtual representation between an end effector and an object combined with an image not obtained from the optical imaging device.
Wang 2, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The system of Claim 11, wherein the display is arranged to display the real-time image of the interaction between the end effector and the object combined with an image of the object not obtained from the optical imaging device, so as to form an augmented virtual representation of the interaction. Paragraph [0190] describes a screen device 2100 that utilizes 3D map for registration with other 3D images of the patient to create and display augmented virtual images of the patient with overlays of planned trajectories and segmented anatomical structures.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Mozes to incorporate the teachings of Wang 2 to show an augmented virtual representation between an end effector and an object combined with an image not obtained from the optical imaging device. One would have been motivated to do so help the operator visualize, target and plan trajectories for structures deep inside the patient ([0190] of Wang 2).
Claims 10 and 31 are substantially similar to claim 22 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 32:
Wang 2 teaches:
The system of Claim 23, wherein the controller is arranged to associate the position data associated with the articulating arm from the one or more sensors, and the imaging data associated with each of a plurality of two-dimensional images of the object or the interaction between the end effector and the object captured by the optical imaging device. Paragraph [0190] describes a screen device 2100 that utilizes 3D map for registration with other 3D images of the patient to create and display augmented virtual images of the patient with overlays of planned trajectories and segmented anatomical structures. Figure 11A – 11B describe 2D images. Paragraph [0164] describes stitching these images together to create 3D surface maps.
The reason to combine Wang 2 with Mozes is for the same reason as in claim 22.
Regarding Claim 33:
Wang 2 teaches:
The system of Claim 32, wherein the controller is arranged to combine together the plurality of two-dimensional images of the object or the interaction between the end effector and the object, based on the position data and the imaging data, and to form a three-dimensional augmented virtual representation of the object or the interaction between the end effector and the object. Paragraph [0190] describes a screen device 2100 that utilizes 3D map for registration with other 3D images of the patient to create and display augmented virtual images of the patient with overlays of planned trajectories and segmented anatomical structures. Figure 11A – 11B describe 2D images. Paragraph [0164] describes stitching these images together to create 3D surface maps.
The reason to combine Wang 2 with Mozes is for the same reason as in claim 22.
Regarding Claim 36:
Wang 2 teaches:
The system of Claim 34, wherein the controller is arranged to associate the position data associated with the articulating arm from the one or more sensors, the imaging data associated with an image of the object captured by the optical imaging device, and the spatial relationship between the optical imaging device and the fiducial marker with each of a plurality of two-dimensional images of the object or the interaction between the end effector and the object captured by the optical imaging device. Paragraph [0190] describes a screen device 2100 that utilizes 3D map for registration with other 3D images of the patient to create and display augmented virtual images of the patient with overlays of planned trajectories and segmented anatomical structures. Figure 11A – 11B describe 2D images. Paragraph [0164] describes stitching these images together to create 3D surface maps.
The reason to combine Wang 2 with Mozes is for the same reason as in claim 22.
Regarding Claim 37:
Wang 2 teaches:
The system of Claim 36, wherein the controller is arranged to combine the plurality of two-dimensional images of the object or the interaction between the end effector and the object together, based on the position data, the imaging data, and the spatial relationship between the optical imaging device and the fiducial marker, and form a three-dimensional augmented virtual representation of the object or the interaction of the end effector with the object. Paragraph [0190] describes a screen device 2100 that utilizes 3D map for registration with other 3D images of the patient to create and display augmented virtual images of the patient with overlays of planned trajectories and segmented anatomical structures. Figure 11A – 11B describe 2D images. Paragraph [0164] describes stitching these images together to create 3D surface maps.
The reason to combine Wang 2 with Mozes is for the same reason as in claim 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pingali (US Pub No: 2005/0128437 A1): A positioning system for locating at least one interactive projection unit, and methods for operation thereof is disclosed. The positioning system includes equipment for providing multiple degrees of freedom for locating the at least one projection unit. The at least one projection unit is equipped with various components and capabilities to provide for projection onto surfaces within a variety of settings, and thus provide for display, information, interaction and computing in the variety of settings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY KHANDPUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5090. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 6:30.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/JAY KHANDPUR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658