DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-22 as originally filed are pending and have been considered as follows.
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
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “S230” has been used to designate both “DETERMINE PATH” in Fig. 2A and “the parameterized device is co-registered” on 14:26.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: “S231” in Fig. 2C; “S650” in Fig. 6B; and “S750” in Fig. 7A.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of proper language and format for an abstract (See MPEP § 608.01(b)):.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: the Abstract contains, according to MS Word, 160 words exceeding the maximum of 150 words; and “comprising” is the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims and should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
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;
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
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 19 are objected to because “anatomy” in line 3 of each claim should be “anatomical structure” as per 10 of Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the branch intersection” in line 17 should be “the branched intersection” consistent with “a branched intersection” in line 10-11 of Claim 1. 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 1-8, 10, and 12-22 are 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.
As per Claim 1, “an intersection” in line 16 does not clearly relate back to “a branched intersection” in line 10-11. If the same intersection is at issue, amendment to “the branched intersection” in line 16 is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required. Claims 2-8, 10, and 12-22 depending from Claim 1 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 22, “an imaging device” in line 6 does not clearly relate back to “an imaging device” in 9 of Claim 1. If the same device is at issue, amendment to “the imaging device” in in line 6 of Claim 22 is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 22, “a branched intersection” in line 6-7 does not clearly relate back to “a branched intersection” in line 10-11 of Claim 1 or “an intersection” in line 16 of Claim 1. If the same intersection is at issue, amendment to “the branched intersection” in line 6-7 of Claim 22 is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 22, “a plurality of branches” in line 7 does not clearly relate back to “a plurality of branches” in line 11 of Claim 1. If the same intersection is at issue, amendment to “the plurality of branches” in line 7 of Claim 22 is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 22, “a main branch” in line 7-8 does not clearly relate back to “a main branch” in line 11-12 of Claim 1. If the same intersection is at issue, amendment to “the main branch” in line 7-8 of Claim 22 is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 22, “a target branch” in line 8 does not clearly relate back to “a target branch” in line 12 of Claim 1. If the same intersection is at issue, amendment to “the target branch” in line 8 of Claim 22 is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 22, “the subject” in line 11 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 22, “a robotic device controller of claim 21” lacks proper antecedent basis in that Claim 21 does not recite a robotic device controller. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 22, “the robotic device controller” in line 12-13 and 19-20 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10, 12-16, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US Pub. No. 2017/0151027) in view of Dahdouh (US Pub. No. 2020/0383734).
As per Claim 1, Walker discloses a controller (34) for controlling a robotic device (18, 22) (Fig. 1; ¶42-43), the controller (34) comprising:
a memory (52) that stores instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶51) (Figs. 1, 4; ¶42, 51); and
a processor (50) that executes the instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶51) (Figs. 1, 4; ¶42, 51), wherein, when executed by the processor (50), the instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶51) cause the controller (34) to:
receive, from an imaging device (16), image data (as per “Images of the anatomical space may be acquired using any suitable imaging system 16” in ¶45; as per “the accuracy of the virtual instrument 920 may be improved by tracking the elongate instrument via computer vision in a fluoroscopy image” in ¶76) from an image of a portion of an interventional device (18/920/1320/1510) operated by the robotic device (18, 22) in an anatomical structure (910/1300/1500) and a branched intersection (as per junction of target ostium 1302 and aorta 1304; as per junction of lumen 1502 and side branch vessel 1504) of a plurality of branches (1302, 1304; 1502, 1504) of the anatomical structure (910/1300/1500), including a main branch (1304, 1502) and a target branch (as per “target ostium 1302” in ¶129; as per “The end target 1530 for the instrument 1510 is in the side branch vessel 1504” in ¶135) which is branched from the main branch (1304, 1502) (Figs. 1, 3, 9, 13, 15A-B; ¶42-47, 50, 71-76, 113, 129, 134-135);
analyze the image data (as per “Images of the anatomical space may be acquired using any suitable imaging system 16” in ¶45; as per “the accuracy of the virtual instrument 920 may be improved by tracking the elongate instrument via computer vision in a fluoroscopy image” in ¶76) to measure at least one of a location (as per “these calculates are computer for multiple components simultaneously” in ¶60) or an orientation (as per “Once the target 1534 for the outer member is set, any movements of the outer member 1516 determined and command by the robot will be selected to direct the tip of the outer member 1516 towards the target” in ¶135) of a distal portion (as per “tip of the outer member 1516” in ¶135) of an outer device (as per “outer member” in ¶60; as per “outer member 1516” in ¶134-138) of the interventional device (18/920/1320/1510) and of a distal portion (as per “one the target 1532 is set for the inner member 1514, any movements of the inner member 1514 determined and commanded by the robot will be selected to direct the inner member 1514 towards the target 1532” in ¶135) of an inner device (as per “inner member” in ¶60; as per “inner member 1514” in ¶134-138), movably positioned (as per “retracting an inner member 1324 before articulating the outer member 1326” in ¶130) within the outer device (as per “outer member” in ¶60), in the image, with respect to a vasculature including the main branch (1304, 1502) and the target branch (as per “target ostium 1302” in ¶129; as per “The end target 1530 for the instrument 1510 is in the side branch vessel 1504” in ¶135) and an intersection of the main branch (1304, 1502) and the target branch (as per “target ostium 1302” in ¶129; as per “The end target 1530 for the instrument 1510 is in the side branch vessel 1504” in ¶135) in the image (Figs. 1, 3, 6, 9, 13, 15A-B; ¶42-47, 50, 56-62, 71-76, 113, 129, 134-138);
determine, based on analyzing the image data (as per “Images of the anatomical space may be acquired using any suitable imaging system 16” in ¶45; as per “the accuracy of the virtual instrument 920 may be improved by tracking the elongate instrument via computer vision in a fluoroscopy image” in ¶76), a path (as per 1520, 1522) for the interventional device (18/920/1320/1510) through the anatomical structure (910/1300/1500) (Figs. 1, 3, 6, 9, 13, 15A-B; ¶42-47, 50, 56-62, 71-76, 113, 129, 134-138); and
display at least a portion of the path (as per 1520, 1522) on a display (35) (Figs. 1, 3, 9, 13, 15A-B; ¶42-47, 50, 71-76, 113, 129, 134-138).
Walker does not expressly disclose:
wherein the memory stores a library of a plurality of modules of predefined motions for navigating through anatomical structures;
wherein the path is determined using the plurality of the modules of the predefined motions stored in the memory, the path defined by a sequence of the predefined motions; and
wherein the display is such that the predefined motions are represented.
Dahdouh discloses a surgical robotic system (100) that includes a user console (110) and robotic arms (122) that deploy end effectors for executing a surgical procedure (Fig. 1; ¶18). The system (100) further includes a user interface (212) and memory (208), the memory (208) including a library of available task templates (210) defining repeatable steps for automating specified surgical tasks performed by the robot arms (122) (Figs. 2-3; ¶26-27, 35-38). The user interface (212) is used to select one or more of the task templates (210) (¶55) by way of a menu selection, a list of options, input boxes, drop down lists, windows tabs and the like (¶56) and display a calculated path (¶58). In one embodiment, a sequence of tasks for a specified procedure is defined using the selected templates (210) and such templates are used for all position and trajectories of the surgical procedure (¶76). In this way, the system reduces fatigue (¶2). Like Walker, Dahdouh is concerned with surgical control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Walker and Dahdouh, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker since doing so would enhance the system by reducing fatigue. Applying the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the memory stores a library of a plurality of modules of predefined motions for navigating through anatomical structures” in that the system of Walker would include a suitable library of selectable templates as per Dahdouh;
“wherein the path is determined using the plurality of the modules of the predefined motions stored in the memory, the path defined by a sequence of the predefined motions” in that the system of Walker would operate in view of a sequence corresponding to selected templates as per Dahdouh; and
“wherein the display is such that the predefined motions are represented” in that the system of Walker would display a path corresponding to the sequence of selected templates as per Dahdouh.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Walker and Dahdouh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walker further discloses wherein the instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶51) further cause the controller (34) to: control the robotic device (18, 22) to operate the interventional device (18/920/1320/1510) through at least a portion of the path (as per 1520, 1522).
Walker does not expressly disclose:
wherein the control is based on the sequence or a selection by a user of a displayed predefined motion of the sequence; and
wherein the path is determined by the sequence or selection.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Dahdouh.
Therefore, from these teachings of Walker and Dahdouh, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker since doing so would enhance the system by reducing fatigue. Applying the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the control is based on the sequence or a selection by a user of a displayed predefined motion of the sequence” in that the system of Walker would operate in view of a sequence corresponding to selected templates as per Dahdouh; and
“wherein the path is determined by the sequence or selection” in that the system of Walker would determine a path corresponding to the sequence of selected templates as per Dahdouh.
As per Claim 3, the combination of Walker and Dahdouh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walker further discloses wherein the instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶51) further cause the controller (34) to: display a portion of the path (as per 1520, 1522) on a display (35).
Walker does not expressly disclose wherein the path is such that predefined motions of the portion are represented according to an order in the sequence.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Dahdouh.
Therefore, from these teachings of Walker and Dahdouh, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker since doing so would enhance the system by reducing fatigue. Applying the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the path is such that predefined motions of the portion are represented according to an order in the sequence” in that the system of Walker would operate to display in accordance with a sequence of selected templates as per Dahdouh.
As per Claim 4, the combination of Walker and Dahdouh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walker further discloses wherein the display (35) comprises future expected or recommended predefined motions (as per 1520, 1522).
Walker does not expressly disclose wherein the displayed motions are within the sequence.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Dahdouh.
Therefore, from these teachings of Walker and Dahdouh, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker since doing so would enhance the system by reducing fatigue. Applying the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker would result in a system that operates: “wherein the displayed motions are within the sequence” in that the system of Walker would operate to display in accordance with a sequence of selected templates as per Dahdouh.
As per Claim 5, the combination of Walker and Dahdouh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 4. Walker does not expressly disclose wherein the display further comprises current and past predefined motions within the sequence.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Dahdouh. In one embodiment, the tasks may be repeated for different patients, different times in a surgery, and/or for different types of surgery (¶38).
Therefore, from these teachings of Walker and Dahdouh, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker since doing so would enhance the system by reducing fatigue. Applying the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker would result in a system that operates: “wherein the display further comprises current and past predefined motions within the sequence” in that the system of Walker would operate to display in accordance with a sequence of selected templates as per Dahdouh.
As per Claim 6, the combination of Walker and Dahdouh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 5. Walker further discloses wherein the instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶51) further cause the controller (34) to highlight (as per “a target may be highlighted” in ¶106).
Walker does not expressly disclose wherein the highlight is a currently active predefined motion.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Dahdouh.
Therefore, from these teachings of Walker and Dahdouh, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker since doing so would enhance the system by reducing fatigue. Applying the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker would result in a system that operates: “wherein the highlight is a currently active predefined motion” in that the system of Walker would operate to display in accordance with a sequence of selected templates as per Dahdouh.
As per Claim 10, the combination of Walker and Dahdouh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walker does not expressly disclose wherein the motions include at least one of:
{aligning the distal portion of the outer device with the distal portion of the inner device to provide coincident distal portions of the interventional device};
rotating (as per “bending radius of the instrument” in ¶134) the aligned (as per “once the inner member 1514 and outer member 1516 are aligned” in ¶137) coincident distal portions (as per “tip of the outer member 1516” in ¶135; as per “one the target 1532 is set for the inner member 1514, any movements of the inner member 1514 determined and commanded by the robot will be selected to direct the inner member 1514 towards the target 1532” in ¶135) of the interventional device (18/920/1320/1510) to a point (1530) in a direction toward the target branch (as per “target ostium 1302” in ¶129; as per “The end target 1530 for the instrument 1510 is in the side branch vessel 1504” in ¶135); and
{retracting the aligned coincident distal portions of the interventional device to a target point in an image plane of the image, wherein the target point has a known relationship relative to the target branch}.
Walker does not expressly disclose wherein the motions are predefined.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Dahdouh.
Therefore, from these teachings of Walker and Dahdouh, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker since doing so would enhance the system by reducing fatigue. Applying the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker would result in a system that operates: “wherein the motions are predefined” in that the system of Walker would operate in accordance with a sequence of selected templates as per Dahdouh.
As per Claim 12, the combination of Walker and Dahdouh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 10. Walker further discloses {wherein aligning the distal portion of the outer device with the distal portion of the inner device comprising retracting the inner device into the outer device, and wherein the instructions further cause the controller to retract the inner device into the outer device of corresponding predefined motion, comprising: determine an exposed length in pixels of the inner device extending from the distal portion of the outer device; determine an error metric based on the exposed length of the inner device, and retract the inner device relative to the outer device using the error metric in a proportional-integral-derivative control loop, thereby decreasing the exposed length of the inner device until a tolerance error is satisfied} (these limitations are directed to alternative embodiments of Claim 10 involving “aligning” and “retracting”).
As per Claim 13, the combination of Walker and Dahdouh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 10. Walker further discloses {wherein the instructions further cause the controller to retract the aligned coincident distal portions of the interventional device to the target point of corresponding predefined motion, comprising: receive selection of a location of the target point in the image of the portion of the interventional device and the branched intersection; measure a length in pixels of the interventional device extending beyond the location of the target point; initially retract the interventional device by shortening the length in pixels at a first velocity when the length in pixels exceeds a predetermined distance; and further retract the interventional device by shortening the length in pixels at a second velocity when the length in pixels no longer exceeds the predetermined distance, wherein the second velocity is slower than the first velocity} (these limitations are directed to alternative embodiments of Claim 10 involving “retracting”).
As per Claim 14, the combination of Walker and Dahdouh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walker further discloses wherein the motions include:
separately (as per movements between 15A and 15D) rotating (as per “bending radius of the instrument” in ¶134) the inner device (as per “inner member” in ¶60; as per “inner member 1514” in ¶134-138) relative to the outer device (as per “outer member” in ¶60) to align curvatures (as per “once the inner member 1514 and outer member 1516 are aligned” in ¶137) of the inner device (as per “inner member” in ¶60; as per “inner member 1514” in ¶134-138) and the outer device (as per “outer member” in ¶60).
Walker does not expressly disclose wherein the motions are predefined.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Dahdouh.
Therefore, from these teachings of Walker and Dahdouh, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker since doing so would enhance the system by reducing fatigue. Applying the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker would result in a system that operates: “wherein the motions are predefined” in that the system of Walker would operate in accordance with a sequence of selected templates as per Dahdouh.
As per Claim 15, the combination of Walker and Dahdouh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walker further discloses wherein the motions include:
advancing (as per Figs. 15A-D) the inner device (as per “inner member” in ¶60; as per “inner member 1514” in ¶134-138) to a target point (1532) in a target branch (as per “target ostium 1302” in ¶129; as per “The end target 1530 for the instrument 1510 is in the side branch vessel 1504” in ¶135) of the anatomy (910/1300/1500).
Walker does not expressly disclose wherein the motions are predefined.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Dahdouh.
Therefore, from these teachings of Walker and Dahdouh, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker since doing so would enhance the system by reducing fatigue. Applying the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker would result in a system that operates: “wherein the motions are predefined” in that the system of Walker would operate in accordance with a sequence of selected templates as per Dahdouh.
As per Claim 16, the combination of Walker and Dahdouh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walker further discloses wherein the instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶51) further cause the controller (34) to:
separately (as per movements between 15A and 15D) rotate (as per “bending radius of the instrument” in ¶134) the inner device (as per “inner member” in ¶60; as per “inner member 1514” in ¶134-138) and the outer device (as per “outer member” in ¶60) to align curvatures (as per “once the inner member 1514 and outer member 1516 are aligned” in ¶137) of the inner device (as per “inner member” in ¶60; as per “inner member 1514” in ¶134-138) and the outer device (as per “outer member” in ¶60).
As per Claim 19, the combination of Walker and Dahdouh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walker further discloses wherein the instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶51) further cause the controller (34) to:
maintain (as per “operator involvement in setting the targets and driving towards or through the targets” in ¶140) the inner device (as per “inner member” in ¶60; as per “inner member 1514” in ¶134-138) at a target point (1530) in a target branch (as per “target ostium 1302” in ¶129; as per “The end target 1530 for the instrument 1510 is in the side branch vessel 1504” in ¶135) of the anatomy (910/1300/1500), when operation of the interventional device (18/920/1320/1510) causes retraction (as per “user may control instrument translation” in ¶109) of the outer device (as per “outer member” in ¶60; as per “outer member 1516” in ¶134-138), by further advancing (as per “user may control instrument translation” in ¶109) the inner device (as per “inner member” in ¶60; as per “inner member 1514” in ¶134-138) by an amount compensating for the retraction (as per “user may control instrument translation” in ¶109) of the outer device (as per “outer member” in ¶60; as per “outer member 1516” in ¶134-138).
As per Claim 20, the combination of Walker and Dahdouh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walker further discloses wherein the motions include: at least one of advancing (as per “user may control instrument translation” in ¶109) or retracting the inner device (as per “inner member” in ¶60; as per “inner member 1514” in ¶134-138) independent (as per Figs. 15A-D) of the outer device (as per “outer member” in ¶60; as per “outer member 1516” in ¶134-138) to maintain the inner device (as per “inner member” in ¶60; as per “inner member 1514” in ¶134-138) at a target location (1530).
Walker does not expressly disclose wherein the motions are predefined.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Dahdouh.
Therefore, from these teachings of Walker and Dahdouh, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker since doing so would enhance the system by reducing fatigue. Applying the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker would result in a system that operates: “wherein the motions are predefined” in that the system of Walker would operate in accordance with a sequence of selected templates as per Dahdouh.
As per Claim 21, the combination of Walker and Dahdouh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 10. Walker further discloses wherein the instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶51) further cause the controller (34) to provide a servo-command (as per “closed loop control” in ¶127) to the robotic device (18, 22).
Walker does not expressly disclose wherein the robotic device moves in accordance with the sequence of predefined motions.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Dahdouh.
Therefore, from these teachings of Walker and Dahdouh, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker since doing so would enhance the system by reducing fatigue. Applying the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker would result in a system that operates: “wherein the robotic device moves in accordance with the sequence of predefined motions” in that the system of Walker would operate in accordance with a sequence of selected templates as per Dahdouh.
As per Claim 22, Walker further discloses a system (10) for controlling (as per 34) a robotic device (18, 22) (Fig. 1; ¶42-43), the system (10) comprising:
an imaging interface (as per arrow from 16 to 34 in Fig. 1) configured to receive image data (as per “Images of the anatomical space may be acquired using any suitable imaging system 16” in ¶45; as per “the accuracy of the virtual instrument 920 may be improved by tracking the elongate instrument via computer vision in a fluoroscopy image” in ¶76) corresponding to an image from an imaging device (16), the image including a portion of the interventional device (18/920/1320/1510) and a branched intersection (as per junction of target ostium 1302 and aorta 1304; as per junction of lumen 1502 and side branch vessel 1504) of a plurality of branches (1302, 1304; 1502, 1504) of the anatomical structure (910/1300/1500), including a main branch (1304, 1502) and a target branch (as per “target ostium 1302” in ¶129; as per “The end target 1530 for the instrument 1510 is in the side branch vessel 1504” in ¶135) which is branched from the main branch (1304, 1502) (Figs. 1, 3, 9, 13, 15A-B; ¶42-47, 50, 71-76, 113, 129, 134-135);
a user interface (31) configured to receive input from a user (Fig. 1; ¶42, 50, 53);
an interface (as per arrows between 31, 16, 36, 34, 22 in Fig. 1) arranged to connect the system (10) with a robotic device (18, 22) for operating the interventional device (18/920/1320/1510) into the anatomical structure (910/1300/1500) of the subject (Figs. 1, 3, 9, 13, 15A-B; ¶42-47, 50, 71-76, 113, 129, 134-135);
a display (35) configured to display at least the branch intersection (as per junction of target ostium 1302 and aorta 1304; as per junction of lumen 1502 and side branch vessel 1504) of the plurality of branches (1302, 1304; 1502, 1504) of the anatomical structure (910/1300/1500), the distal portion (as per “tip of the outer member 1516” in ¶135) of the outer device (as per “outer member” in ¶60; as per “outer member 1516” in ¶134-138) and the distal portion (as per “one the target 1532 is set for the inner member 1514, any movements of the inner member 1514 determined and commanded by the robot will be selected to direct the inner member 1514 towards the target 1532” in ¶135) of the inner device (as per “inner member” in ¶60; as per “inner member 1514” in ¶134-138) of the interventional device (18/920/1320/1510), while the robotic device controller (34) controls the robotic device (18, 22).
The combination of Walker and Dahdouh further teaches or suggests a robotic device controller of claim 21 (See rejection of Claims 1, 10, and 21), the robotic device controller being further configured to control, based on the sequence or on a selection by a user of a displayed predefined motion (as per sequence of selected templates as per Dahdouh), the robotic device (as per 18, 22 of Walker) to operate the interventional device (as per 18/920/1320/1510 of Walker) through at least a portion of the path determined by the sequence or selection (as per system of Walker operating in view of a sequence corresponding to selected templates as per Dahdouh).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US Pub. No. 2017/0151027) in view of Dahdouh (US Pub. No. 2020/0383734), further in view of Simon (US Pub. No. 2007/0249911).
As per Claim 7, the combination of Walker and Dahdouh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walker does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the controller to:
determine, based on analyzing the image data, a plurality of future recommended paths for the interventional device through the anatomical structure using the modules of the predefined motions stored in the memory, each future recommended path defined by a corresponding sequence of predefined motions; and
display representations of portions of the plurality of future recommended paths, each representation of a path comprising predefined motions of at least a part of the corresponding sequence.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Dahdouh.
Simon discloses an optimized therapy planner (1) for an image-guided navigation system (10) used to navigate catheters, probes, needles, and the like (Figs. 1-2; ¶24-30). The planner (1) includes a patient plan optimizer (4) that determines candidate plans, rates the goodness of the plans, and proposes numerous plans to the user from which the user can choose the plan to be used (¶24-27). The candidate plans (156) include entry and target points, trajectory, and instrument data (Fig. 5; ¶77, 110). The candidate plans are displayed relative to image data (99) (Figs, 6, 10; ¶92-93, 109-110, 115, 121-129). In this way, the system is adapted to facilitate operation in accordance with prior knowledge and experience of the user (¶111). Like Walker, Simon is concerned with surgical control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Walker, Dahdouh, and Simon, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Dahdouh and Simon to the system of Walker since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing fatigue; and facilitating operation in accordance with prior knowledge and experience of the user. Applying the teachings of Dahdouh and Simon to the system of Walker would result in a system wherein the instructions further cause the controller to:
“determine, based on analyzing the image data, a plurality of future recommended paths for the interventional device through the anatomical structure using the modules of the predefined motions stored in the memory, each future recommended path defined by a corresponding sequence of predefined motions” in that the system of Walker would determine candidate plans as per Simon and operate in view of a sequence corresponding to selected templates as per Dahdouh; and
“display representations of portions of the plurality of future recommended paths, each representation of a path comprising predefined motions of at least a part of the corresponding sequence” in that the system of Walker would determine and display candidate plans as per Simon and operate in view of a sequence corresponding to selected templates as per Dahdouh.
As per Claim 8, the combination of Walker and Dahdouh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 7. Walker does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the controller to provide an option to a user to at least one of change and accept a recommended path or predefined motions.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Dahdouh.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Simon.
Therefore, from these teachings of Walker, Dahdouh, and Simon, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Dahdouh and Simon to the system of Walker since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing fatigue; and facilitating operation in accordance with prior knowledge and experience of the user. Applying the teachings of Dahdouh and Simon to the system of Walker would result in a system “wherein the instructions further cause the controller to provide an option to a user to at least one of change and accept a recommended path or predefined motions” in that the system of Walker would determine and output candidate plans for selection by a user as per Simon and operate in view of a sequence corresponding to selected templates as per Dahdouh.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if: (1) the rejections under 35 USC 112 identified above were overcome through amendment and/or argument; and (2) the claims were rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim (US Pub. No. 2016/0058517) discloses automated surgical and interventional procedures. Hofmann (US Pub. No. 2018/0360479) discloses an autonomous catheterization assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656