DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Bailey, et. al. (US 20190060008 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bailey.
Regarding Claim 1:
A robotic surgical system comprising:
a robot arm having a distal end to which a surgical instrument is attached;
Bailey discloses “The positioning arm 140 may include an end effector 146 coupled to the second arm end.” (Bailey, [0032]), and “The end effector 146 may be configured to receive surgical instruments” (Bailey, [0036]).
an operation unit attached to the robot arm to operate the robot arm;
Bailey discloses “the equipment tower 110 may be positioned adjacent the positioning arm 140, as illustrated in FIG. 1. As will be described herein, the equipment tower 110 may include a control and processing unit for the surgical navigation system.” (Bailey, [0019]).
a pivot position setter to set a first pivot position that serves as a fulcrum for movement of the surgical instrument attached to the robot arm;
Bailey discloses “The arm may include a plurality of joints for connecting the plurality of arm segments.” (Bailey, [0047]), and “Fixing end effector movements to the stand-off axis 504 may be useful when… retracting the imaging camera from a narrow opening of the surgical orifice when other surgical instruments may need to be inserted into the narrow opening of the surgical orifice.” (Bailey, 0077]).
a storage; and
Bailey discloses “The control and processing unit 200 may include one or more processors 202, memory 204,” (Bailey, [0038]).
control device; wherein
Bailey discloses “Reference is now made to FIG. 1, which illustrates components of a surgical navigation system 100” (Bailey, [0029]).
the control device is configured or programmed to:
cause the storage to store the first pivot position based on the pivot position setter being operated;
Bailey discloses “with the memory mode, the positioning arm 1100 may save joint positions of each joint in the plurality of joints, such that the position of the end effector in the task-coordinate space may be retrieved at a later time.” (Bailey, [0114]).
make a transition to a pivot position change mode for changing the first pivot position stored in the storage based on the pivot position setter being operated in a state in which the surgical instrument is passed through the first pivot position and is inserted into a body of a patient; and
Bailey discloses “the processor may determine an end effector velocity for returning the positioning arm 1100 to saved joint positions, such that the end effector may return to a first end effector position 1116A.” (Bailey, [0114]).
cause the storage to store, as a second pivot position, a first different position, when the pivot position setter is operated after a position where the surgical instrument passes through the first pivot point is moved to the first different position by moving the surgical instrument by operating the operation unit in the pivot position change mode.
Bailey discloses “with the memory mode, the positioning arm 1100 may save joint positions of each joint in the plurality of joints, such that the position of the end effector in the task-coordinate space may be retrieved at a later time.” (Bailey, [0114]).
Regarding Claim 10:
The robotic surgical system according to claim 1, wherein
the operation unit includes a mode switch to switch between a translational movement mode for translationally moving the surgical instrument and a rotational movement mode for rotationally moving the surgical instrument; and
Bailey discloses “The medical professional may provide, via the touch-screen display, a desirable surgical mode for constraining movement of the end effector in the task-coordinate space. In some other examples, the medical professional may provide the desirable surgical mode via other input devices, such as pointing devices, trackpad devices, keyboard devices, voice command input, etc. In some embodiments, the surgical modes may include a free motion mode, a roll mode, a translate mode, a stand-off mode, and an orbit mode.” (Bailey, [0065 – 0066]). “Roll” is interpreted as “rotational movement”.
the control device is configured or programmed to make a transition to the pivot position change mode when both the pivot position setter and the mode switch are operated.
Bailey discloses “The orbit mode may fix the end effector position or orientation such that the end effector 316 may move about a previously defined point of interest at a fixed distance.” (Bailey, [0066]).
Regarding Claim 20:
A control method for a robotic surgical system, the control method comprising:
causing a storage to store a first pivot position that serves as a fulcrum for movement of a surgical instrument attached to a robot arm based on a pivot position setter being operated;
Bailey discloses “with the memory mode, the positioning arm 1100 may save joint positions of each joint in the plurality of joints, such that the position of the end effector in the task-coordinate space may be retrieved at a later time.” (Bailey, [0114]).
making a transition to a pivot position change mode for changing the first pivot position stored in the storage based on the pivot position setter being operated in a state in which the surgical instrument is passed through the first pivot position and is inserted into a body of a patient; and
Bailey discloses “the processor may determine an end effector velocity for returning the positioning arm 1100 to saved joint positions, such that the end effector may return to a first end effector position 1116A.” (Bailey, [0114]).
causing the storage to store, as a second pivot position, a different position, when the pivot position setter is operated after a position where the surgical instrument passes through the first pivot point is moved to the different position by moving the surgical instrument by operating an operation unit in the pivot position change mode.
Bailey discloses “with the memory mode, the positioning arm 1100 may save joint positions of each joint in the plurality of joints, such that the position of the end effector in the task-coordinate space may be retrieved at a later time.” (Bailey, [0114]).
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 6 and 9 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey, et. al. (US 20190060008 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bailey, in view of Dahdouh (US 20200383734 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dahdouh.
Regarding Claim 6:
The robotic surgical system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a display; wherein
Bailey discloses “The display 130 may be configured to display images of a surgical site/point of interest to the medical professional, such that the surgical site/point of interest may be enlarged for easier viewing. The tracking detector 120 and the display 130 may be in communication with the equipment tower 110.” (Bailey, [0030]).
Dahdouh discloses “The user interface 212 is a graphics user interface for interaction of the surgeon with the surgical robot system, such as with the processor 206 for controlling the robotic arms 122. The user interface 212 includes a user input 214 and a display 216. The user input 214 and/or the display 216 are provided at the user console 110 and/or control tower 130 but may be at other locations.” (Dahdouh, [0053]).
the control device is configured or programmed to cause the display to display a distance from the first pivot position to the second pivot position.
Dahdouh discloses “For example, the parameters are for a force level. The magnitude of the force, such as for pulling, pressing, or moving of tissue, is limited using the value. The robotic arms 122 and surgical instruments 202 are limited to (e.g., not exceed, or not to go below) or used to apply the set force level within tolerance. Other examples include the distance of movement, trajectory or pathing of the surgical instrument 202 during movement, waypoint location, an order of motions, operations, speed, or which tasks or steps to achieve the task.” (Dahdouh, [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Claim 1 taught by Bailey with the ability to display “distance of movement, trajectory or pathing of the surgical instrument” taught by Dahdouh because displaying information regarding distances from one position to another is merely displaying data that all robot controllers have already (information that is essential for controlling a robot arm). Dahdouh is merely displaying the information to the operator.
Regarding Claim 9:
The robotic surgical system according to claim 1, wherein
the robot arm is a first robot arm; and
Bailey discloses “The positioning arm 140 may include a base 142 and an arm 144. The arm 144 may include a plurality of arm segments extending from a first arm end to a second arm.” (Bailey, [0031]).
the robotic surgical system further comprises:
a second robot arm to which an endoscope is attached; and
Dahdouh discloses “For example, two robot arms 122 may have graspers, a third robot arm 122 may have a scalpel, and a fourth robot arm 122 may have an endoscope.” (Dahdouh, [0032]).
an arm base to which the first and second robot arms are attached.
Bailey discloses “The positioning arm 140 may include a base 142 and an arm 144. The arm 144 may include a plurality of arm segments extending from a first arm end to a second arm.” (Bailey, [0031]).
Dahdouh discloses “The robotic arms 122 mount to a table, such as a base of an operating table.” (Dahdouh, [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the robot arm system taught by Bailey with the “base” taught by Dahdouh because although Bailey does not specify a specific “arm base to which the first and second robot arms are attached”, the robot must be attached to something,
Claims 7 – 8 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey, et. al. (US 20190060008 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bailey, in view of Blake, et. al. (US 20230320798 A1), hereinafter referred to as Blake.
Regarding Claim 7:
The robotic surgical system according to claim 1, wherein the control device is configured or programmed to notify an operator of an abnormality when a deviation between the second pivot position on the surgical instrument and the first pivot position is not within a pivot deviation monitoring range.
Bailey discloses “At operation 620, the processor 202 may determine a radial distance from the end effector 516 to the surgical point of interest 510” (Bailey, [0080]).
Blake discloses “It is therefore necessary to control the drive source using an algorithm that incorporates multiple feedback terms, those feedback terms corresponding to sensor data measured at both the input and output of the drivetrain. Sensor data can therefore be used to provide an indication of the performance of the joint.”, (Blake, [0004]) and “feedback terms are used within control systems to indicate a deviation between the desired configuration of a joint and its actual configuration, and to compensate for disturbances that may take the joint further from steady state.” (Blake, [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Claim 1 taught by Bailey with the ability to measure the deviation from one pivot position to a surgical instrument taught by Blake because it is important during surgery for robots to be able to detect simple offsets from one pivot position on a robot to another, to prevent collisions. Blake teaches utilizing this offset as feedback for a robot control system.
Regarding Claim 8:
The robotic surgical system according to claim 7, wherein the control device is configured or programmed to notify the operator of the abnormality when the deviation between second pivot position and the first pivot position is not within the pivot deviation monitoring range in a normal mode.
Blake discloses “feedback terms are used within control systems to indicate a deviation between the desired configuration of a joint and its actual configuration, and to compensate for disturbances that may take the joint further from steady state.” (Blake, [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Claim 1 taught by Bailey with the ability to measure the deviation from one pivot position to a another taught by Blake because it is important during surgery for robots to be able to detect simple offsets from one pivot position on a robot to another, to prevent collisions. Blake teaches utilizing this offset as feedback for a robot control system.
Claim 11 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey, et. al. (US 20190060008 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bailey, in view of Aldridge, et. al. (US 20180101166 A1), hereinafter referred to as Aldridge.
Regarding Claim 11:
The robotic surgical system according to claim 1, wherein
the operation unit includes:
a joystick to receive an operation to move a distal end of the surgical instrument along a plane; and
Although Bailey is silent to expressly state "a joystick device", Bailey teaches at paragraph [0065] “...the medical professional may provide the desirable surgical mode via other input devices, such as pointing devices, trackpad devices, keyboard devices, voice command input, etc." - Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement a "joystick" in the system of Bailey as an input device to change the modes as claimed.
Aldridge discloses “The RPMC system may also allow the user to seamlessly switch from macro movements to fine “jog” type movements, which are controlled by a pointing device (e.g., a joystick) on the controller device.” (Aldridge, [0032]).
a linear switch to receive an operation to move the surgical instrument along a longitudinal direction of the surgical instrument; and
Bailey discloses “The medical professional may provide, via the touch-screen display, a desirable surgical mode for constraining movement of the end effector in the task-coordinate space. In some other examples, the medical professional may provide the desirable surgical mode via other input devices, such as pointing devices, trackpad devices, keyboard devices, voice command input, etc. In some embodiments, the surgical modes may include a free motion mode, a roll mode, a translate mode, a stand-off mode, and an orbit mode.” (Bailey, [0065 – 0066]).
the control device is configured or programmed to cause the storage to store, as the second pivot position, the first different position, when the pivot position setter is operated after the position where the surgical instrument passes through the first pivot point is moved to the first different position by moving the surgical instrument by operating at least one of the joystick or the linear switch in the pivot position change mode.
Aldridge discloses “[0030] In one embodiment, an RPMC system may facilitate a training mode where the controller device is capable of learning and capturing points in space at various locations being traversed during the training mode. The captured points may be stored on a memory device as points and/or as programs for later retrieval during an execution mode. The user may press the pressure sensitive trigger to gain control of the robot. The robot may be moved into the desired position and orientation of a point in space and then the trigger is released.” (Aldridge, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Claim 1 with the joystick controlled system of Aldridge because using a joystick is just one of many commonly utilized methods for controlling a robot arm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 5, and 12 – 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Although the prior art teaches the system of Claim 1, it does not teach the ability to define a “pivot correction possible range set” specified in Claims 2, 3, 14, 15, 17 and 18. The prior art discloses measuring a simple deviation or offset, such as Blake disclosing “feedback terms are used within control systems to indicate a deviation between the desired configuration of a joint and its actual configuration, and to compensate for disturbances that may take the joint further from steady state.”. The prior art however, does not disclose the idea of setting “a sphere having a radius r1 centered on the first pivot position PP1 stored in the storage 35”.
With regards to Claim 12 and 13, the prior art does teach “switch[ing] between a translational movement mode for translationally moving the surgical instrument and a rotational movement mode for rotationally moving the surgical instrument” disclosed by the applicant in Claim 12, however, the prior art does not disclose switching from a “pivot position change mode and make a transition to a pivot position change interruption mode” from Claim 12.
The prior art of record does not disclose the combinations of limitations found in Claims 2 – 5, and 12 – 19. The combination of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over the prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the applicant’s claimed invention of Claims 2 – 5, and 12 – 19. A hypothetical prior art rejection would require impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES B CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday | 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Wade Miles can be reached at (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.B.C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights