DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received 4 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10, and 12-22 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 4 June 2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because Claim 22 replaces “a main branch” with “the main branch and “a target branch” with “the target branch” but lacks appropriate markings for these changes. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
…
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
…
The reply filed on 4 June 2026 is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the matters discussed above See 37 CFR 1.111. Since the reply filed on 4 June 2026 appears to be bona fide and the scope of the claims can be determined, the amendments are entered and the claims have been considered as follows.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “anatomical-structure” in line 4 should be “anatomical structure”. 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.
Claim 22 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.
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 10 and 16 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 1-2, 4-6, 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 (s 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:
the memory storing 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 selected from the library of 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 path is displayed such that the predefined motions of the portion are represented according to an order in the sequence.
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:
“the memory storing 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 selected from the library of 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 path is displayed such that the predefined motions of the portion are represented according to an order in the sequence” 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 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 further discloses 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 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 predefined 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 anatomical structure (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 anatomical structure (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 1. 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, the combination of Walker and Dahdouh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 21. 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 the imaging device (16), the image including a portion of the interventional device (18/920/1320/1510) and the branched 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), 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) 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 branched 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 rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 June 2026 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that objections to the Drawings should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 8 of Amendment). These arguments are persuasive. Therefore, these objections are not maintained.
Applicant argues that objections to the Specification should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 8 of Amendment). These arguments are persuasive. Therefore, these objections are not maintained.
Applicant argues that objections to the Claims should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 8-9 of Amendment). These arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the previous objections are not maintained. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 112 should not be maintained (page 9 of Amendment). Unless otherwise indicated above, these arguments are persuasive. Therefore, unless otherwise indicated above, these rejections are not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because Walker does not disclose “determining ‘a path … using modules selected from the library of the plurality of modules of the predefined motions stored in the memory …’ [as claimed]” (page 10 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Walker individually discloses the limitations at issue. As such, Applicant’s assertion is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because Dahdouh does “not disclose or suggest the specific claimed relationship of determining ‘a path … using modules …’ and displaying ‘at least a portion of the path …’ [as claimed]” (page 11 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Dahdouh individually discloses the limitations at issue. As such, Applicant’s assertion is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because the rationale identified in the rejections “does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Walker’s recommended-path system to determine the path itself using stored modules of predefined motions and then display a portion of that path with the predefined motions represented according to their order in the sequence” (page 11 of Amendment). Consistent with the citations in the rejections (see 3 March 2026 Office action at page 8), among other teachings Walker discloses embodiments in which “the controller 34 may ensure that the instrument follows the recommended path by supplementing or adjusting the user-commanded movements with robot-determined course-correcting movement” (Walker at ¶113). Further, the rejections expressly identify among other teachings disclosure of Dahdouh explaining that using the template selection and programming system of Dahdouh reduces fatigue during surgery (see 4 March 2026 Office action at page 9). As set forth in the rejections (see 4 March 2026 Office action at page 10), 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. As such, Applicant’s argument is not consistent with the written record. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “A general benefit of automation does not supply the missing ordered path-representation architecture required by amended claim 1” (page 11 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion regarding a general benefit of automation. As such, Applicant’s assertion is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “The proposed combination therefore does not provide an articulated reason with rational underpinning to arrive at the claimed arrangement” (page 11 of Amendment). However, the claims expressly identify the rationale to apply the teachings of Dahdouh to the system of Walker (see 4 March 2026 Office action at page 9-10). As such, Applicant’s argument is not consistent with the written record. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights