DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/20/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference number 312 in figure 3.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed “displaying (714), using the graphical user interface (306), the detected location of the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR)” in claim 1, the claimed “wherein the tracker (310) may be any one of an optical tracker, a laser based tracker, or a RFID based tracker, and like” in claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is substantially in the form of a claim and is not in narrative form. Additionally, the abstract’s length is over 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “graphical user interface” in claims 1, 10, and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). The claims are directed to a person, i.e., a “real patient” lying on the operating table (as recited in claims 1 and 13) that receives a surgical procedure, i.e., Prostatectomy, Hysterectomy, Nephrectomy, Coronary artery bypass graft, Mitral valve repair, and the like (as recited in claims 1 and 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the specification fails to provide specific support for “identifying … an appropriate model out of the set of models indicating an optimum placement of ports on the body of the patient”. Paragraphs [0048, 0053] of the specification indicate to identify an appropriate model indicating an optimum placement of ports on the body of the patient based on comparing set of models indicating placement of ports on the body of a patient based on the various human anatomical data and body habitus with various models. However, the specification does not have specific support for selecting an appropriate model based on comparing various model and further how the appropriate model indicates an optimum placement of ports on the body of the patient. Therefore, the examiner believes that applicant has not demonstrated, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only described a “desired result”, and the claim is rejected under this section. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 1, the specification fails to provide specific support for “detecting, using a tracker … a location of the plurality of robotic carts … with respect to the robotic cart (CA) having the camera (C)”. Paragraph [0054] of the specification states, “At step (712), a tracker (310) provided in the cart (300) (as shown in FIG. 3), detects a location of the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR) each having a surgical instrument (110, 112, 114, 116), with respect to the robotic cart (CA) having the camera (C). The locations of the plurality of robotic carts may be identified with at least a reference point. The reference may be a robotic cart (CA) having the camera (C), an operating table (104), and the like”. However, figure 3 illustrated reference number 310 as a monitor. It is unclear how a monitor is any one of an optical tracker, a laser based tracker, or a RFID based tracker. Moreover, the specification does not provide support for tracking a location of the plurality of robotic carts with respect to the robotic cart since the specification discloses the location of the plurality of robotic carts is identified with a reference point. However, it is unclear whether the reference point belongs to the robotic cart, e.g., a component of the robotic cart or a reference point on the robotic cart. Therefore, the examiner believes that applicant has not demonstrated, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only described a “desired result”, and the claim is rejected under this section. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 1, the specification fails to provide specific support for “calculating … an optimum configuration of each of the robotic arm … and a desired location of each of the plurality of robotic carts … based on the identified model and the detected location of the plurality of robotic carts.” Paragraph [0054] of the specification repeats the claim language, but no sufficient detail is provided describing by what algorithm, or by what steps or procedure, an optimum configuration of each of the robotic arm and a desired location of each of the plurality of robotic carts are calculated based on the identified model and the detected location of the plurality of robotic carts. And there is apparently no sufficient detail provided a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of the terms “optimum configuration” and “desired location” using the identified model and the detected location of the plurality of robotic carts. Therefore, the examiner believes that applicant has not demonstrated, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only described a “desired result” , and the claim is rejected under this section. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 1, the specification fails to provide specific support for “manipulating … the distal end of the plurality of robotic arms … according to the identified optimum placement of ports on the body of the patient”. Paragraph [0054] of the specification discloses, “The plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR) are placed at the desired location with each of the robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e) having the optimum configuration in step (718). The robotic surgical carts may be automatically placed to the desired optimum locations or maybe the assistant manually moves the robotic surgical carts.” However, the specification is silent on the specific step to manipulate the distal end of the plurality of robotic arms according to the identified optimum placement of ports on the body of the patient. Therefore, the examiner believes that applicant has not demonstrated, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only described a “desired result” , and the claim is rejected under this section. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 1, the specification fails to provide specific support for “configuring … the plurality of robotic arms … in the best optimum position with respect to a remote centre of motion.” Paragraph [0054] of the specification repeats the claim language. However, the specification is silent on the specific step to configure the plurality of robotic arms in the best optimum position with respect to a remote centre of motion. Additionally, there is apparently no sufficient detail provided to define “a remote centre of motion” and further by what algorithm, or by what steps or procedure, to determine “the best optimum position with respect to a remote centre of motion.” Therefore, the examiner believes that applicant has not demonstrated, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only described a “desired result”, and the claim is rejected under this section. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the specification fails to provide specific support for “wherein the processor (308) is provided with various parameters to calculate the optimum configuration of each of the robotic arm … wherein the parameters indicate reachability of the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e), limits of configuration of the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e), singularities of the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e), dexterity of the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e), manipulability of the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e), and robustness of the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e).” Paragraphs [0049, 0054] repeat the claim language. Paragraphs [0050-0051] of the specification discloses, “For achieving optimization in multi arm robotic surgical system, various parameters may be required but not limited to as described herein. The robotic arm parameters as illustrated in FIG. 5 may be considered as depicted by entity (604). Further, the robotic parameters as depicted at step (604) may be sent to entity (610) which is robustness index and further sent to a multi arm robotic surgical system optimization framework (622) … An entity (606) depicts robot performance index which is sent to the robustness index (610) and further sent to the multi arm robotic surgical system optimization framework (622)”, but no sufficient detail is provided to define robustness index and further by what algorithm, or by what steps or procedure to determine the optimum configuration of each of the robotic arm based on various parameters and robustness index. Therefore, the examiner believes that applicant has not demonstrated, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only described a “desired result”, and the claim is rejected under this section. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
The dependent claims are also rejected for being dependent on previously rejected based claim. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “a plurality of robotic arms (102a, 102b, 102c, 102d, 102e) each mounted on one of a plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, CA, PR, SR)”. It is unclear whether each robotic cart is equipped with a robotic arm or one robotic cart is equipped with a plurality of robotic arms, or otherwise. Additionally, it is unclear what the claimed “SL, PL, CA, PR, SR) are referring to. Therefore, this renders the claim scope unclear and indistinct. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant further provides the claim limitation, “storing (702), using a server (302), in a database (304), at least one of various human anatomical data and body habitus”. It is unclear if the server stores the data, the database stores the data, or otherwise. Therefore, this renders the claim scope unclear and indistinct. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant further provides the claim limitation, “storing (702), using a server (302), in a database (304), at least one of various human anatomical data and body habitus; creating (704), using the server (302), a set of models indicating placement of ports on the body of the patient, based on the stored human anatomical data and body habitus”. It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “at least one of various human anatomical data and body habitus” and further how the claimed “at least one of various human anatomical data and body habitus” is used to create a set of models indicating placement of ports on the body of the patient. Therefore, this renders the claim scope unclear and indistinct. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant further provides the claim limitation, “a required patient data and details of a surgical procedure to be performed”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the phrase “required patient data and details of a surgical procedure” and further how the phrase is applied. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant further provides the claim limitation, “identifying (710), using the processor (308), an appropriate model out of the set of models indicating an optimum placement of ports on the body of the patient”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “appropriate model” and “optimum placement of ports” and further how the claimed limitations are applied. The specification is silent as to the specifics of how to identify an appropriate model indicating an optimum placement of ports on the body of the patient. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant further provides the claim limitation, “detecting (712), using a tracker (310), a location of the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR) each having a surgical instrument (110, 112, 114, 116), with respect to the robotic cart (CA) having the camera (C)” is referring to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear whether “the camera (C)” is referring to “an endoscopic camera (C) coupled to a robotic arm (102a)”. Moreover, it is unclear whether the claimed “a surgical instrument (110, 112, 114, 116)” is referring to the claimed “a plurality of surgical instruments (110, 112, 114, 116) each detachably coupled to a distal end of a robotic arm out of the remaining robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e)”. It is also unclear whether each of the plurality of the robotic carts is equipped with a surgical instrument beside the mounted robotic arm. Additionally, it is unclear what is used to track the location of the plurality of robotic carts as the claim recites a tracker and robotic cart having a camera. Paragraph [0054] of the specification states, “At step (712), a tracker (310) provided in the cart (300) (as shown in FIG. 3), detects a location of the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR) each having a surgical instrument (110, 112, 114, 116), with respect to the robotic cart (CA) having the camera (C). The locations of the plurality of robotic carts may be identified with at least a reference point. The reference may be a robotic cart (CA) having the camera (C), an operating table (104), and the like.” However, as illustrated in figure 3, reference number 310 refers to a monitor. It is unclear how the reference number 310 any one of an optical tracker, a laser based tracker, or a RFID based tracker. It is also unclear how the monitor 310 is configured to track location of the plurality of robotic carts. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant further provides the claim limitation, “calculating (716), using the processor (308), an optimum configuration of each of the robotic arm (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e) and a desired location of each of the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR), based on the identified model and the detected location of the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR)”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “optimum configuration of each of the robotic arm” and “desired location of each of the plurality of robotic carts” and further how the claimed limitations are applied. The specification is silent as to the specifics of how to identify an optimum configuration of each of the robotic arm and a desired location of each of the plurality of robotic carts based on the identified model and the detected location of the plurality of robotic carts. Moreover, it is unclear whether the claimed “the identified model” is referring to the claimed “appropriate model”. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant further provides the claim limitation, “placing (718), the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR), at the desired location of the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR) having the optimum configuration of each of the robotic arm (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e)”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the phrase “placing … the plurality of robotic carts … at the desired location of the plurality of robotic carts … having the optimum configuration of each of the robotic arm” and further how the phrase is applied. The specification is silent as to the specifics of how to determine whether the plurality of robotic carts having the optimum configuration of each of the robotic arm when the plurality of robotic carts is at the desired location. Moreover, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “desired location” and “optimum configuration”. The specification is silent as to the specifics of how to determine a desired location of the plurality of robotic carts and the optimum configuration of the robotic arm. Moreover, it is unclear who or what places the plurality of robotic carts at the desired location. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant further provides the claim limitation, “manipulating (720), the distal end of the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e) according to the identified optimum placement of ports on the body of the patient”. It is unclear who or what manipulates the distal end of the plurality of robotic arms. Additionally, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “manipulating … the distal end of the plurality of robotic arms … according to the identified optimum placement of ports on the body of the patient”. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant further provides the claim limitation, “docking (722), the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e)”. It is unclear who or what docks the plurality of robotic arms. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant further provides the claim limitation, “configuring (724), the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e), in the best optimum position with respect to a remote centre of motion”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “best optimum position” and “remote centre of motion” and further how the claimed limitations are applied. The specification is silent as to the specifics of how to determine the best optimum position of the plurality of robotic arms with respect to a remote centre of motion. Moreover, it is unclear what the remote centre of motion is referring to. Paragraph [0054] of the specification states, “At step (724), the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e) is configured in the best optimum position with respect to a remote centre of motion (RCM) constraints”, but the specification does not disclose what the remote centre of motion constraints are referring to and further how to determine the best optimum position of the plurality of robotic arms with respect to a remote centre of motion. Additionally, it is unclear who or what configures the plurality of robotic arms. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “wherein the patient data may include at least one of anatomy of the patient, name, age, sex, body mass index, height etc.” The use of the phrase “may” is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is intending the claim limitations using the phrase “may” to be optional or that the phrase should be interpreted as a definite statement (for example, simply deleting the phrase). Additionally, the phrase “etc” renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “etc”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “wherein the details of a surgical procedure to be performed may include the name of the procedure.” The use of the phrase “may” is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is intending the claim limitations using the phrase “may” to be optional or that the phrase should be interpreted as a definite statement (for example, simply deleting the phrase). Additionally, it is unclear what the claimed “the name of the procedure” is referring to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “wherein the tracker (310) may be any one of an optical tracker, a laser based tracker, or a RFID based tracker, and like.” The use of the phrase “may be” is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is intending the claim limitations using the phrase “may be” to be optional or that the phrase should be interpreted as a definite statement (for example, using “is” or simply deleting the phrase). Additionally, the phrase “and like” renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “and like”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. Moreover, figure 3 illustrates reference number 310 as a monitor. It is unclear how the monitor is any one of an optical tracker, a laser based tracker, or a RFID based tracker. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “wherein the tracker (310) can detect the location of the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR) with respect to at least one of a robotic cart (CA) having the camera (C), an operating table (104), and the like.” The use of the phrase “can” is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is intending the claim limitations using the phrase “can” to be optional or that the phrase should be interpreted as a definite statement (for example, simply deleting the phrase). The use of the term “can” is indefinite because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to be present in the invention or whether it refers to a system capability that is mere possibility that is not required. The verb form of the word “can” carries multiple meanings in the English language. It can be used to indicate a physical ability or some other specified capability. It can also be used to indicate a possibility or probability. Additionally, the phrase “and the like” renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “and the like”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. Moreover, it is unclear whether the claimed “at least one of a robotic cart (CA)” is referring to the claimed “the robotic cart (CA)” in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear whether the claimed “the camera (C)” is referring to the claimed “an endoscopic camera (C) coupled to a robotic arm (102a)” in claim 1. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “wherein the surgical procedure to be performed may be Prostatectomy, Hysterectomy, Nephrectomy, Coronary artery bypass graft, Mitral valve repair, and the like .” The use of the phrase “may be” is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is intending the claim limitations using the phrase “may be” to be optional or that the phrase should be interpreted as a definite statement (for example, using “are” or simply deleting the phrase). Additionally, the phrase “and the like” renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “and the like”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “wherein the placing of the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR) at the desired location may be done either automatically or manually.” The use of the phrase “may be” is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is intending the claim limitations using the phrase “may be” to be optional or that the phrase should be interpreted as a definite statement (for example, using “is” or simply deleting the phrase). Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “wherein the graphical user interface (306) displays surgical instruments which can be used for the surgical procedure to be performed, position of the patient lying on the operating table (104), and the placement of ports on the body of the patient.” The use of the phrase “can be” is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is intending the claim limitations using the phrase “can be” to be optional or that the phrase should be interpreted as a definite statement (for example, using “are” or simply deleting the phrase). The use of the term “can” is indefinite because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to be present in the invention or whether it refers to a system capability that is mere possibility that is not required. The verb form of the word “can” carries multiple meanings in the English language. It can be used to indicate a physical ability or some other specified capability. It can also be used to indicate a possibility or probability. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “wherein the graphical user interface (306) further can display a simulation video based on the received patient data and details of the surgical procedure to be performed.” The use of the phrase “can” is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is intending the claim limitations using the phrase “can” to be optional or that the phrase should be interpreted as a definite statement (for example, simply deleting the phrase). The use of the term “can” is indefinite because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to be present in the invention or whether it refers to a system capability that is mere possibility that is not required. The verb form of the word “can” carries multiple meanings in the English language. It can be used to indicate a physical ability or some other specified capability. It can also be used to indicate a possibility or probability. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “wherein the patient lying on the operating table (104) can be real or a mannequin used for training purposes.” The use of the phrase “can be” is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is intending the claim limitations using the phrase “can be” to be optional or that the phrase should be interpreted as a definite statement (for example, using “are” or simply deleting the phrase). The use of the term “can” is indefinite because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to be present in the invention or whether it refers to a system capability that is mere possibility that is not required. The verb form of the word “can” carries multiple meanings in the English language. It can be used to indicate a physical ability or some other specified capability. It can also be used to indicate a possibility or probability. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear whether the claimed “the parameters” is referring to the claimed “various parameters” in claim 14. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
The dependent claims are also rejected for being dependent on previously rejected based claim. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al. (US 20240415590 A1, hereinafter Murphy), and further in view of Russell (US 20230081437 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murphy discloses a method (700) for pre-operative planning for a multi-arm robotic surgical system (100) comprising a plurality of robotic arms (102a, 102b, 102c, 102d, 102e) each mounted on one of a plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, CA, PR, SR) (Murphy, see at least Figs. 1, 2, 5, 7, par. [abstract, 0040], method for pre-operative planning for a multi-arm robotic surgical system 10 comprising a plurality of robotic arms 40 each mounted on one of a plurality of robotic carts 60a/b/c/d), an endoscopic camera (C) coupled to a robotic arm (102a) out of the plurality of robotic arms (102a, 102b, 102c, 102d, 102e) (Murphy, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0020-0021], endoscopic camera 51), a plurality of surgical instruments (110, 112, 114, 116) each detachably coupled to a distal end of a robotic arm out of the remaining robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e) (Murphy, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0020-0021], “…the surgical instrument 50 may be a surgical stapler including a pair of jaws configured to grasp and clamp tissue while deploying a plurality of tissue fasteners, e.g., staples, and cutting stapled tissue …”), an operating table (104) (Murphy, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0040], surgical table 100), and a patient lying on the operating table (104) (Murphy, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0040], patient lying on the surgical table 100), whereby the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, CA, PR, SR) are arranged along the operating table (104) (Murphy, see at least Fig. 5, the plurality of robotic carts 60a/b/c/d), the method comprising:
storing (702), using a server (302), in a database (304), information collected from a plurality of surgeries previously performed by the system (Murphy, see at least Figs. 1, 4, par. [0054], one or more servers coupled to controller 21a, the servers store information collected from a plurality of surgeries previously performed by the system 10);
detecting (712), using a tracker (310), a location of the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR) each having a surgical instrument (110, 112, 114, 116), with respect to the robotic cart (CA) having the camera (C) (Murphy, see at least Fig. 3, par. [0047-0049, 0056], detecting, using sensors 140 and cameras 142, a location of the mobile cart 60 relative to another object, e.g., another mobile cart);
displaying (714), using the graphical user interface (306), the detected location of the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR) (Murphy, see at least Figs. 5, 6, par. [0041-0046, 0056], “…positional feedback information from one or more of the sensors 140 and/or one or more cameras 142 is provided to the controller 21a and is displayed on the GUI 150 …”);
calculating (716), using the processor (308), an optimum configuration of each of the robotic arm (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e) and a desired location of each of the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR), based on the identified model and the detected location of the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR) (Murphy, see at least Figs. 4, 7, par. [0050-0056], analyzing and calculating, using a controller 21a, a position and/or location of the mobile carts 60 (see e.g., FIG. 5), including position and/or angles of each of the joints the setup arm 61, and/or the robotic arm 40 to avoid collision between robotic arms and increase dexterity of the instruments 50 by increasing the range of motion, based on determined placement of access ports 55a-d and positional feedback information from one or more of the sensors 140 and/or one or more cameras 142);
placing (718), the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR), at the desired location of the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR) having the optimum configuration of each of the robotic arm (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e) (Murphy, see at least par. [0058], “…At step 210, the manual and/or automated movement commands are provided to the mobile cart 60, the setup arm 61, and/or the robotic arm 40 to achieve the desired, i.e., commanded, configuration …”);
manipulating (720), the distal end of the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e) according to the identified optimum placement of ports on the body of the patient (Murphy, see at least par. [0040, 0058], “… Once the port placement is determined, the ports 55a-d are inserted into the patient, and carts 60a-d are positioned and aligned relative to the surgical table 100. The setup arms 61a-d and robotic arms 40a-d of each of the mobile carts 60a-d are attached to the corresponding ports 55a-d and the instruments 50 as well as the endoscopic camera 51 are inserted into corresponding ports 55a-d …”);
docking (722), the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e) (Murphy, see at least par. [0059], docking the robotic arms 40a-d to the access ports 50a-d); and
configuring (724), the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e), in the best optimum position with respect to a remote centre of motion (Murphy, see at least par. [0030], “More specifically, links 42b, 42c, and the holder 46 are passively coupled to the actuator 48b which enforces rotation about a pivot point “P” which lies at an intersection of the first axis defined by the link 42a and the second axis defined by the holder 46. In other words, the pivot point “P” is a remote center of motion (RCM) for the robotic arm 40”; par. [0057], “The algorithm may also enable all joints 160, 162, 164 to position themselves, automatically or with user guidance, towards a central position. The position may be user-selected or centered on a predetermined point, e.g., the camera 51. This centering facilitates improved robotic arm configuration for instrument insertion. The algorithm may also enable automated, or with user guidance, repositioning of the robotic arm 40 such that the instrument 50 will be on the display 32 after insertion. This centering also enables intra-operative adjustment of the robotic arm 40”).
Murphy discloses a method for configure the mobile carts and the plurality of robotic arms according to procedure data including placement of a plurality of ports, however, Murphy fail to explicitly teach storing (702), using a server (302), in a database (304), at least one of various human anatomical data and body habitus; creating (704), using the server (302), a set of models indicating placement of ports on the body of the patient, based on the stored human anatomical data and body habitus; receiving (706), using a graphical user interface (306), a required patient data and details of a surgical procedure to be performed; analysing (708), using a processor (308), the received patient data and details of the surgical procedure to be performed with respect to the set of models; identifying (710), using the processor (308), an appropriate model out of the set of models indicating an optimum placement of ports on the body of the patient.
Russell discloses a method for pre-operative planning for a multi-arm robotic surgical system. Russell further teaches:
storing (702), using a server (302), in a database (304), at least one of various human anatomical data and body habitus (Russell, see at least par. [0226], “In some embodiments, the robotic medical system 200 compares (e.g., matches) (e.g., automatically or manually based on a user input) the 3-D scan data with previous generalized imaging data (e.g., heuristics data, prior imaging data, imaging data from a database, etc.), such as MRI imaging data and/or CT scan data … the robotic medical system 200 identifies one or more anatomical structures in accordance with a determination that an anatomical structure shown in the 3-D scan data matches an anatomical structure in a database of imaging data”);
creating (704), using the server (302), a set of models indicating placement of ports on the body of the patient, based on the stored human anatomical data and body habitus (Russell, see at least Fig. , par. [0226, 0231], “In some embodiments, as illustrated in operation 512 of FIG. 25, the robotic medical system combines the 3-D scan data (e.g., operation 504) with registered anatomy (e.g., obtained from operation 508) and the intended (or selected) procedure and/or target anatomy (e.g., obtained from operation 510) to generate (514) one or more recommended (e.g., optimized) port locations that are specific to the patient. For example, the robotic medical system […]identifies a number of ports associated with the intended (or selected) procedure and orientations of the ports relative to the target anatomy (e.g., from memory of the robotic medical system storing the number and orientations of the ports), selects locations that are within the predefined distance from the target anatomy in the identified orientations”);
receiving (706), using a graphical user interface (306), a required patient data and details of a surgical procedure to be performed (Russell, see at least Fig. 27A, par. [0230], “In some embodiments, the workflow 500 includes, in operation 510, receiving user input from a user of the robotic medical system 200, such as a surgeon, a nurse, or a surgeon assistant. The input can include identification of a medical procedure to be performed on the patient, a target anatomy (or target anatomies), and/or a number of robotic arms (and/or a selection of robotic arms) to be used for the procedure. FIG. 27A illustrates user input of a target anatomy or procedure in accordance with some embodiments. As shown in FIG. 27A, the operator may provide the user input through a user interface 700”);
analysing (708), using a processor (308) (Russell, see at least Fig. 30, par. [0216], “In some embodiments, the workflow 500 is implemented as a set of instructions that are executed by one or more processors of a robotic medical system (e.g., processors 380, FIG. 30)”), the received patient data and details of the surgical procedure to be performed with respect to the set of models (Russell, see at least Fig. 25, par. [0231], analyzing, using a controller, the received patient data, i.e., the 3D scan data with registered anatomy, and the intended (or selected) procedure and/or target anatomy with respect to a number of ports associated with the intended (or selected) procedure and orientations of the ports relative to the target anatomy (e.g., from memory of the robotic medical system storing the number and orientations of the ports));
identifying (710), using the processor (308), an appropriate model out of the set of models indicating an optimum placement of ports on the body of the patient (Russell, see at least Fig. 25, par. [0231], selecting locations for port placement that are within the predefined distance from the target anatomy and/or exclusion regions in the identified orientations for optimizing the port locations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Murphy to include, determining the optimized port locations on the patient based on analyzing the received patient data and details of the surgical procedure to be performed with respect to the number of ports associated with the selected procedure and orientations of the ports relative to the target anatomy, as taught by Russell. This modification would allow to project the optimized port locations on the patient and display the recommended port locations on a user interface the robotic medical system.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Murphy and Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Murphy and Russell further teaches wherein the server (302) comprises a cloud-based database (314) (Murphy, see at least par. [0054], “The controller 21a may be connected to a cloud (i.e., one or more remote data servers)”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Murphy and Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Murphy and Russell further teaches wherein the patient data may include at least one of anatomy of the patient (Russell, see at least par. [0226], “In some embodiments, the robotic medical system 200 compares (e.g., matches) (e.g., automatically or manually based on a user input) the 3-D scan data with previous generalized imaging data (e.g., heuristics data, prior imaging data, imaging data from a database, etc.), such as MRI imaging data and/or CT scan data … the robotic medical system 200 identifies one or more anatomical structures in accordance with a determination that an anatomical structure shown in the 3-D scan data matches an anatomical structure in a database of imaging data”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Murphy and Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Murphy and Russell further teaches wherein the details of a surgical procedure to be performed may include the name of the procedure (Russel, see at least Fig. 27A, par, [0230], “The input can include identification of a medical procedure to be performed on the patient”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Murphy and Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Murphy and Russell further teaches wherein the tracker (310) may be any one of an optical tracker, a laser based tracker, or a RFID based tracker, and like (Murphy, see at least par. [0047], “Sensors and cameras may be used to aid in remote movement and adjustment of the mobile cart 60, the setup arm 61, and the robotic arm 40 … The proximity sensors 140 may be any sensor that emits electromagnetic signal (e.g., infrared light) and measures changes in a reflected signal”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Murphy and Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Murphy and Russell further teaches wherein the tracker (310) can detect the location of the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR) with respect to at least one of a robotic cart (CA) having the camera (C), an operating table (104), and the like (Murphy, see at least Fig. 3, par. [0040, 0047-0049, 0056], detecting, using sensors 140 and cameras 142, a location of the mobile cart 60 relative to another object, e.g., another mobile cart or surgical table).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Murphy and Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Murphy and Russell further teaches wherein the tracker (310) sends the detected location of the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR) to the processor (308) (Murphy, see at least par. [0056], “At step 206, positional feedback information from one or more of the sensors 140 and/or one or more cameras 142 is provided to the controller 21a and is displayed on the GUI 150. The feedback may be used by the user controlling the system 10 and the system 10 could also adjust the setup arm 61 and/or mobile cart 60 position automatically based on this information”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Murphy and Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Murphy and Russell further teaches wherein the surgical procedure to be performed may be Prostatectomy (Russel, see at least par. [0131], “laparoscopic prostatectomy”), Hysterectomy, Nephrectomy, Coronary artery bypass graft, Mitral valve repair, and the like (Russel, see at least par. [0118], “After insertion into the urethra, using similar control techniques as in bronchoscopy, the ureteroscope 32 may be navigated into the bladder, ureters, and/or kidneys for diagnostic and/or therapeutic applications”. Russell further discloses the surgical procedure is a vascular procedure in par. [0119]. It would have been obvious to use Russell’s disclosure in different surgical procedure such as Coronary artery bypass graft, Mitral valve repair, and the like).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Murphy and Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Murphy and Russell further teaches wherein the placing of the plurality of robotic carts (SL, PL, PR, SR) at the desired location may be done either automatically or manually (Murphy, see at least par. [0056, 0058], “At step 210, the manual and/or automated movement commands are provided to the mobile cart 60, the setup arm 61, and/or the robotic arm 40 to achieve the desired, i.e., commanded, configuration”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Murphy and Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Murphy and Russell further teaches wherein the graphical user interface (306) displays surgical instruments which can be used for the surgical procedure to be performed (Murphy, see at least par. [0022], “The surgeon console 30 includes a first display 32, which displays a video feed of the surgical site provided by camera 51 of the surgical instrument 50 disposed on the robotic arms 40”), position of the patient lying on the operating table (104), and the placement of ports on the body of the patient (Murphy, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0022], first display 32 is configured to display a video feed of the surgical site, e.g., the placement of ports 55a-d on the body of the patient).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Murphy and Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Murphy and Russell further teaches wherein the graphical user interface (306) further can display a simulation video based on the received patient data and details of the surgical procedure to be performed (Murphy, see at least Figs. 5, 6, par. [0041-0046], the GUI 150, e.g., a virtual reality or augmented reality headset, may be used to project the virtual mobile cart 60, setup arm 61, and robotic arm 40 onto the physical space; Russell, see at least Figs. 27A, 28A, par. [0232, 0233], displaying the recommended port locations 802using augmented reality (AR) glasses 806 based on the user inputs target anatomy and procedure).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Murphy and Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Murphy and Russell further teaches wherein the server is configured to store the patient data (Russell, see at least par. [0226], storing patient data in a database, e.g., heuristics data, prior imaging data, imaging data from the database) and the pre-operative planning for the patient for record keeping and future reference (Murphy, see at least par. [0054], “The controller 21a may be connected to a cloud (i.e., one or more remote data servers), which may be used to perform more complex position and/or location calculations for the mobile carts 60a-d using a larger data set based on information collected from a plurality of surgeries previously performed by the system 10”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Murphy and Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Murphy and Russell further teaches wherein the patient lying on the operating table (104) can be real (Murphy, see at least Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Murphy and Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Murphy and Russell further teaches wherein the processor (308) is provided with various parameters to calculate the optimum configuration of each of the robotic arm (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e) (Murphy, see at least par. [0053], “At step 202, the controller 21a calculates a position and/or location of the mobile carts 60 (see e.g., FIG. 5), including position and/or angles of each of the joints the setup arm 61, and/or the robotic arm 40. The algorithm uses localization information about where the arms are relative to each other and the patient. Joint position may be embodied as a range of motion calculation, which may be used to limit manual movement commands from the user, i.e., through the GUI 150”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Murphy and Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Murphy and Russell further teaches wherein the parameters indicate reachability of the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e), limits of configuration of the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e), singularities of the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e), dexterity of the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e), manipulability of the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e), and robustness of the plurality of robotic arms (102b, 102c, 102d, 102e) (Murphy, see at least par. [0051], “Analytics may be used to aid in avoiding collisions between robotic arm 40a-d and increase dexterity of the instruments 50 by increasing the range of motion”; par. [0052], “The guidance may include providing guiding lines that show an expected future position to which the mobile cart 60, the setup arm 61, and/or the robotic arm 40 is moving, and indicating if such expected movement is toward any potential collisions”; par. [0053], “At step 202, the controller 21a calculates a position and/or location of the mobile carts 60 (see e.g., FIG. 5), including position and/or angles of each of the joints the setup arm 61, and/or the robotic arm 40. The algorithm uses localization information about where the arms are relative to each other and the patient. Joint position may be embodied as a range of motion calculation, which may be used to limit manual movement commands from the user, i.e., through the GUI 150”; par. [0057], “The algorithm may also enable all joints 160, 162, 164 to position themselves, automatically or with user guidance, towards a central position”; par. [0059], “Using sensor and/or camera data about the relative positions of the mobile cart 60, the setup arm 61, and/or the robotic arm 40 and the intended procedure or internal workspace, the system 10 enables automated or surgeon-assisted exploration of the workspace of the robotic arms 40a-d. This may be done after docking the robotic arms 40a-d to the access ports 50a-d, but before inserting instruments. Moving the robotic arms 40a-d through their intended ranges of motion enables the surgeon to ensure that the risk of external arm-to-arm collisions has been minimized and/or eliminated”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ida et al. (US 20210315637 A1) discloses a method and system for planning a position of a port to be perforated on a body surface of a subject which is a target of the robotic surgery according to patient’s data and surgical procedure, and displaying the planned position of the port in the subject illustrated in the captured image, on a display unit.
McDonald et al. (US 20140148816 A1) discloses a method and system for storing parameter sets respectively associated with past surgical procedures, generating a surgical port placement model based upon the parameter sets, receiving a given parameter set for a given surgical procedure for a given patient, the given parameter set having physical characteristics of the given patient, and generating a surgical port placement position for the given patient for the given surgical procedure based upon the given parameter set and the surgical port placement model.
Stricko et al. (US 20220287776 A1) discloses a method and system for planning port locations to be perforated on a body surface of a subject based on reachability metric of the port locations, collision volume indicates a potential for collisions during a procedure, and anthropomorphic metric for the port locations.
Russell et al. (US 20230363826 A1) discloses a method and system for recommending poses for robotic arms based on patient and medical procedure information and communicating the recommended poses to users of the robotic medical systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG DANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1049. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/TRANG DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights