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 .
This communication is in response to the Application No. 18/700,849 filed 04/12/2024. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35. U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/25/2024 has been entered and considered. Initialed copies of the PTO-1449 by the examiner are attached.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification contains typographical errors, including the words “minimise” at [0011] of application’s Pre-Grant PUB as well as “minimisation”, “minimise”, “minimising” and “minimised” at [0030] and at [0051].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should recite, in part, “which has at least one external camera, in relation to the medical robot, comprising
Claim 9 should recite, in part, “error minimization is carried out” to avoid typographical and/or clarity errors.
Claim 11 should recite, in part, “a static transformation to the optical calibration pattern which is stored in a storage unit” to avoid typographical and/or clarity errors.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a “computer-readable storage medium” that is non-statutory subject matter.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01.
When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. The claims, as defined in the specification, cover both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. A claim drawn to such a computer-readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claims 10 and 11, recites limitations that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language and do invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claims 10 and 11; recites the limitation, “a control unit adapted to….”.
Claim 11; recites the limitation, “a storage unit ….”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification the following limitations in claims 10 and 11:
(i) “control unit” (Figs. 1 and 2, #20. Paragraph [0061]- “The surgical assistance system 1 comprises, for a function and/or configuration of an automated calibration, furthermore a control unit 20 which is specifically adapted to carry out an automatic calibration between the robot camera 10, the external camera 16, and the robot 2.” Wherein, the control unit have sufficient structure associated with it such that the Examiner is interpreting the drawing as a computer laptop to perform the functions).
(ii) “storage unit” (Figs. 1 and 2, #24. Paragraph [0061]- “Concretely, the control unit 20 is adapted to detect, in the capturing A of the robot camera 10, the optical calibration pattern 22 which is also stored in a storage unit 24 and provided to the control unit 20.” Wherein, the storage unit does not have sufficient structure associated with it).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 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 11 recites the limitations:
Claim 11; recites the limitation, “a storage unit….”.
Claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of the ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performed(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function in the recited limitation.
Claim 11 recites the limitations:
Claim 11; recites the limitation, “a storage unit….”.
The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 10, 12-13 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action.
Claims 11 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and/or 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance:
The present invention comprises a method and system for an automated calibration of a medical robot consisting of a camera on the robot’s flange of the robot’s arm and an external camera system.
The closets prior art Ozguner et al. (“Camera-robot calibration for the da vinci robotic surgery system”, 2020) discloses a calibration method for autonomous or semiautonomous surgical robots. Specifically, the presented work was performed using a Polaris Vicra optical tracking system and da Vinci robotic surgery system, which can be used to calibrate any remote-center-of-motion(RCM)-based robot with any tracking system and obtain transformation between the base frame of the robot manipulators (“hands”) and the stereo endoscopic camera (“eye”). The transformation gMcC is computed offline using a custom-built visual calibration board that includes a tracking marker (see Fig. 3), which serves as a connection between the camera and the Polaris tracker. The board is positioned such that it is visible to both the Polaris tracker and the endoscopic camera. Using the images from the endoscope, the grid corner locations are then detected in the camera frame (see Fig. 6).
Prior art such as Tenney et al. (US 9542743 B2) discloses determining transformations between a robot’s coordinate system and a camera system’s coordinate system and/or a tool extending from an arm of the robot based on the tool location in the camera’s coordinate system. More specifically, the system uses stereo camera pairs mounted on robot tool flange or attached at other locations, for example, somewhere else on the robotic arm, or may be fixed in a 3D space external to the system for calibration. A position of the target is fixed and the transformation between the movable arm's coordinate system and the camera system's coordinate system is determined (e.g., by the processor) by iteratively selecting a value for the transformation between the movable arm's coordinate system and the camera system's coordinate system and comparing (A) a product of the selected value for the transformation, a position of the movable arm.
However, Ozguner and Tenney fail to disclose determining, based on the pose of the external camera, a transformation between the robot camera and the external camera, and determining a field of view of the external camera; moving the robot flange into at least three different poses in the field of view of the external camera, and sensing the at least three poses of the robot flange via the external camera, and simultaneously sensing a transformation between the robot base and the robot flange; and carrying out, on the basis of the at least three sensed poses and the at least three sensed transformations, a hand-eye calibration, more particularly with determination of a transformation from the robot flange to the robot camera and/or of a transformation from the external camera to the robot base and/or a transformation between the robot flange and the tracker.
The references stated above and in the conclusion section neither alone, nor in combination teach or suggest the uniquely combined elements and method steps in the order of the named method and system for an automated calibration of a medical robot consisting of a camera on the robot’s flange of the robot’s arm and an external camera system, wherein determining, based on the pose of the external camera, a transformation between the robot camera and the external camera, and determining a field of view of the external camera; moving the robot flange into at least three different poses in the field of view of the external camera, and sensing the at least three poses of the robot flange via the external camera, and simultaneously sensing a transformation between the robot base and the robot flange; and carrying out, on the basis of the at least three sensed poses and the at least three sensed transformations, a hand-eye calibration, more particularly with determination of a transformation from the robot flange to the robot camera and/or of a transformation from the external camera to the robot base and/or a transformation between the robot flange and the tracker, nor the motivation to do so.
The present invention has advantages over cited prior art by providing a calibration between a camera mounted on a robot and an external camera system in an automated manner and in particular the calibrations and their variants may thus be combined to minimize an error.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220383547 A1 discloses a generic framework for hand-eye calibration of camera-guided apparatuses wherein rigid 3D transformations between apparatus and the camera must be determined.
US 20220401178 A1 discloses a stereoscopic camera and a robotic arm having an end-effector connected to the camera and includes a first transformation between the stereoscopic camera and a target surgical site, a second transformation between the end-effector and a robotic base of the robotic arm, and a third transformation between the robotic base and the target surgical site.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL SILVA-AVINA whose telephone number is (571)270-0729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 AM - 8 PM EST.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/EMMANUEL SILVA-AVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673