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 .
Benefit/Priority
The application is a National Stage entry, filed under 35 USC 371, of PCT/US2023/010766 (13 January 2023), which claims benefit to US Provisional 63/299,304 (13 January 2022).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 8 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Requirement for Restriction Election treats the method and computer readable medium claims as patentably distinct. Applicant argues MPEP 802 and 808.02, which is directed to US Restriction practice. Applicant also argues that the citation of Glozman et al., US 2020179066 (11 June 2020), to break unity of invention qualifies as a search that weighs against any serious search burden. Applicant argues that the system, method, and computer-readable medium claims recite the same image-guided robotic system and method with needle-insertion mechanism, expressed in different claim formats. Applicant argues that these are not distinct groupings representing different subject matter, but merely different categories of claims directed to the same subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive because the application is a National Stage entry under 35 USC 371 and Lack of Unity rules under 37 CFR 1.475(a) are applicable, as explained of record in the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed 12 January 2026.
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Unity of invention exists only when there is a technical relationship among the claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” is defined in PCT Rule 13.2 as meaning those technical features that define a contribution which each of the inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination is made on the contents of the claims as interpreted in light of the description and drawings (if any). Whether or not any particular technical feature makes a “contribution” over the prior art, and therefore constitutes a “special technical feature,” is considered with respect to novelty and inventive step. See MPEP 1850, especially at II.
The requirement for restriction election was made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, under PCT Rule 13.1, because under PCT Rule 13.2, the claims lack the same or corresponding special technical feature in light of the teachings of Glozman et al., US 2020179066 (11 June 2020), as explained on p. 3, of the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed 12 January 2026. Whether or not any particular technical feature makes a “contribution” over the prior art, and therefore constitutes a “special technical feature,” is considered with respect to novelty and inventive step. See also, MPEP 1850(II).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Formal Matters
Claim 21 is cancelled. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8 April 2026. Claims 1-10 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 July 2024, 16 January 2025, and 16 January 2025 have been considered by the examiner. Signed copies are attached.
Advisory Notice – References Listed in the Specification
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Objections – Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. See Specification pages 31 and 35. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the drawings contain multiple images for each designated figure label as set forth below. There is no corresponding explanation in the Brief Description of the Drawings for all of these separate images. For example, reference character “FIG 5B” has been used to designate multiple images. There are sub-labels within in the images, but those sublabels are not disclosed in the specification and the six (6) images are subsumed under one label as “FIG 5B”. Appropriate correction is required.
Objections - Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character “FIG 1” has been used to designate three separate images.
Reference character “FIG 2A” has been used to designate both two views of one image and a 3D-indicative geometric figure (a separate image).
Reference character “FIG 2B” has been used to designate multiple images.
Reference character “FIG 2C” has been used to designate multiple images performing distinct functions.
Reference character “FIG 2D” has been used to designate two separate images.
Reference character “FIG 3B” has been used to designate multiple images.
Reference character “FIG 3C” has been used to designate multiple images.
Reference character “FIG 5A” has been used to designate multiple images.
Reference character “FIG 5B” has been used to designate multiple images. There are sub-labels in the images, but those sublabels are not disclosed in the specification and the six (6) images are subsumed under one label as “FIG 5B”.
Reference character “FIG 6F” has been used to designate two separate images (graphs). These two different graphs are noted in the specification, but are not separately labeled in the drawings.
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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 10, and claim 2, line 4, the word “advance” should be “advances” (plural). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 was amended on 28 March 2025 to depend from claim 1. However, it appears that the number “4” which was deleted in the claim set of 28 March 2025 was inadvertently included in the claim set submission on 8 April 2026. This appears to be a typographical error or inadvertent inclusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Glozman et al., US 20200179066 (11 June 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Glozman teaches a system comprising:
a robotic instrument (FIG 3, robot 11, ¶45) comprising:
a needle to be employed in a procedure (FIG 3, needle 31, ¶45; biopsy ¶2);
a multi-degree of freedom motion control (DOF by orienting platform 32, ¶45) and actuator assembly comprising a base (FIG 3, base 41, ¶45) and
a movable platform coupled to the base via a set of two or more actuate-able linkages (FIG 3, actuated platform 32, ¶45); and
a needle insertion mechanism (¶47) coupled to a base of the multi-degree of freedom motion control and actuator assembly (FIG 5, ¶47),
the needle insertion mechanism (FIGs 3, 4) being configured to
(i) rotate two or more cams or rollers (FIG 5, two or more rollers 51, ¶47) to move the needle (31), during a sensor-detected period of rest (respiration cycle, ¶20; sensor detected motion ¶29-32), along a delivery axis (¶48) in a controlled step-wise manner (¶13) that advance the needle into a pre-defined target (biopsy, ¶2) and
(ii) halt rotation (constrained motion, ¶30) of the two or more cams or rollers (51) during a period of sensor-detected body movement (respiration cycle, ¶20; sensor detected motion ¶29-32).
Regarding claim 2, Glozman teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above, wherein the robotic instrument (11) comprises a controller (robotic control ¶¶6, 38), wherein the controller is configured to direct (i) the rotation (needle rotation mechanism 54, ¶47) of the two or more cams or rollers (FIG 5, two or more rollers 51, ¶47) to move the needle (31), during the sensor-detected period of rest (respiration cycle, ¶¶20, 21; sensor detected motion ¶29-32), along the delivery axis (¶48) in a controlled step-wise manner (¶13) that advance the needle (¶21) toward the pre-defined target (biopsy, ¶2) and (ii) halt rotation (constrained motion, ¶30) of the two or more cams or rollers (51) during a period of sensor-detected body movement (respiration cycle, ¶20; sensor detected motion ¶29-32).
Regarding claim 6, Glozman teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above, wherein the robotic instrument is made of a material that is compatible with an X-ray scanner, MRI, or CT scanner (¶41).
Regarding claim 7, Glozman teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above, wherein the robotic instrument (FIG 3, 11) is sized to be attached to a subject, including at least one of an abdomen region, a back region, a torso region, a head region, a pelvic region, an arm region, and a leg region (FIG 1).
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 3, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glozman et al., US 20200179066 (11 June 2020) in view of Glozman et al., WO 2007141784 A2 (13 December 2007) (hereinafter Glozman ‘784).
Regarding claim 3, Glozman teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above.
Glozman teaches wherein the robotic instrument includes a central body (FIG 3, actuated platform 32, ¶45).
Glozman does not expressly teach that the system mounts a probe manipulation mechanism to direct an ultrasound probe to provide intraoperative image guidance for needle insertion.
Glozman ‘784 teaches that the system mounts a probe manipulation mechanism (position sensors, p. 16, first full paragraph) to direct an ultrasound probe to provide intraoperative image guidance for needle insertion (p. 16, first full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Glozman and Glozman ‘784, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference.
Glozman and Glozman ‘784 teach in the same field of endeavor, robotic needle steering devices.
Although, Glozman discloses the claimed base robotic needle steering device (robotic instrument, needle, 6 DOF motion control assembly, actuator assembly, base platform, needle insertion mechanism), Glozman does not disclose that the system mounts a probe manipulation mechanism to direct an ultrasound probe to provide intraoperative image guidance for needle insertion.
Glozman ‘784 specifically addresses that the system mounts a probe manipulation mechanism (position sensors, p. 16, first full paragraph) to direct an ultrasound probe to provide intraoperative image guidance for needle insertion (p. 16, first full paragraph). Because Glozman ‘784 includes a robotic needle steering device and components that for a robotic needle manipulation and insertion mechanism, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to more precisely control needle insertion orientation and needle control in Glozman’s architecture would reasonably consult Glozman ‘784’s position sensor solution that utilizes ultrasonic intraoperative image guidance. Glozman ‘784’s position sensors can be incorporated alongside Glozman’s device components (same general location of the actuator assembly, motion control assembly, base platform, or needle insertion mechanism, to assess the position of the advancing needle in a cartesian framework) using known assembly methods without redesigning Glozman’s core device architecture or needle delivery path.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (robotic-based needle-insertion/guidance systems) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding a position sensor to the existing platform and components), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 4, Glozman modified by Glozman ‘784 teaches the system of claim 3, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Glozman wherein the needle insertion mechanism is mounted to the central body (FIG 3, actuated platform 32, ¶45).
Regarding claim 8, Glozman modified by Glozman ‘784 teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Glozman teaches wherein the needle insertion mechanism comprises a motor configured with PID controls (FIG 4, FIG 15).
Regarding claim 9, Glozman modified by Glozman ‘784 teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Glozman does not expressly teach the system further comprising a navigation system configured to connect to a robot control module over a high-speed communication channel via a data communication protocol wherein the robot control module is configured with drivers to actuate one or more motors of the needle insertion mechanism.
Glozman ‘784 teaches a navigation system (p. 4, last paragraph to p. 5, first paragraph; claim 8) configured to connect to a robot control module (FIG 4, PID) over a high-speed communication channel via a data communication protocol (FIG 9A, intranet using DFG/1394-le video-to-FireWire converter; p. 14, second full paragraph), wherein the robot control module (FIG 4, PID) is configured with drivers (FIG 10, trajectory, inverse kinematics and sensor measurements; claim 19) to actuate one or more motors of the needle insertion mechanism (FIG 10, elements 55 and 65).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glozman et al., US 20200179066 (11 June 2020) in view of Loser, US 7,175,635 (13 February 2007).
Regarding claim 5, Glozman teaches the system of 4 [sic] claim 1, as set forth above.
Glozman does not teach wherein at least one of the two or more cams or rollers is adjustable via the needle insertion mechanism to accept different needles of different diameters.
Loser teaches a robotic needle insertion system (col 2, lines 16-20) where at least one of the two or more cams or rollers is adjustable via the needle insertion mechanism to accept different needles of different diameters (col 4, lines 25-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Glozman and Loser, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference.
Glozman and Loser teach in the same field of endeavor, robotic needle steering devices.
Although, Glozman discloses the claimed base robotic needle steering device (robotic instrument, needle, 6 DOF motion control assembly, actuator assembly, base platform, needle insertion mechanism), Glozman does not disclose that the system mounts a probe manipulation mechanism to direct an ultrasound probe to provide intraoperative image guidance for needle insertion.
Loser specifically addresses robotic needle insertion system (col 2, lines 16-20) where at least one of the two or more cams or rollers is adjustable via the needle insertion mechanism to accept different needles of different diameters (col 4, lines 25-30). Loser explains that to be able to use needles of different diameters, the guide cannula 7 can easily be made exchangeable. Additionally, Loser teaches that when using rubber rollers, these generally have sufficient flexibility in order to be able to use needles of different diameter at least to a limited extent with the same pair of rollers.
Because Loser includes a robotic needle steering device and components that for a robotic needle manipulation and insertion mechanism along with guidance about how to use needles of different diameters, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to more precisely control needle insertion using needles with different diameters while using Glozman’s architecture (FIG 5, two or more rollers 51, ¶47) would reasonably consult Loser’s rubber roller solution. Loser’s rubber rollers can be incorporated alongside Glozman’s roller components (same general location, simple substitution of one or both) using known assembly methods without redesigning Glozman’s core device architecture or needle delivery path.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (robotic-based needle-insertion/guidance systems) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (substituting one or both of Glozman’s rollers with a rubber roller taught by Loser), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glozman et al., US 20200179066 (11 June 2020) in view of Glozman et al., WO 2007141784 A2 (13 December 2007), and further in view of Balicki et al., WO 2021250141 A1 (16 December 2021).
Regarding claim 10, Glozman modified by Glozman ‘784, teaches the system of claim 9, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Neither Glozman nor Glozman ‘784 expressly teach wherein the navigation system includes a deep-learning-based model that integrates an attention-aware long short-term memory (LSTM) framework trained with low contrast and SNR ultrasound images.
Balicki teaches wherein the navigation system includes deep-learning-based models (p. 14, lines 18-20) that integrates attention-aware long short-term memory (LSTM) frameworks (p. 13, lines 27-29 and p. 14, lines 13-21).
Balicki does not expressly teach that the navigation system is trained with low contrast and SNR ultrasound images, but teaches general data-driven models (p. 13, line 23; and data streams input process, p. 13, line 33 to p. 14, line 9).
Training processes in deep learning models are use-case and data-specific such that they are result-effective variables which can be optimized. In the case of training deep learning models, such as the ones taught by Balicki, one of skill in the art would clearly recognize that the data will be variable and is readily optimized by a machine learning engineer, a data engineer, computer engineer, or electrical engineer, or a person having sufficient experience with machine learning and deep learning datasets. The data can be gathered, cleaned, organized, and assessed based on the goals of the use-case or project. Different use-cases, projects, and goals are highly variable. As such, the processing of data for analysis by a deep learning model would amount to nothing more than routine experimentation that can be optimized on an individual use-case basis and optimized according to need and goal alignment (see In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977; and In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Glozman and Glozman ‘784, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference.
Glozman and Glozman ‘784 teach in the same field of endeavor, robotic needle steering devices.
Although, Glozman discloses the claimed base robotic needle steering device (robotic instrument, needle, 6 DOF motion control assembly, actuator assembly, base platform, needle insertion mechanism), Glozman does not disclose that the system mounts a probe manipulation mechanism to direct an ultrasound probe to provide intraoperative image guidance for needle insertion.
Glozman ‘784 specifically addresses that the system mounts a probe manipulation mechanism (position sensors, p. 16, first full paragraph) to direct an ultrasound probe to provide intraoperative image guidance for needle insertion (p. 16, first full paragraph). Because Glozman ‘784 includes a robotic needle steering device and components that for a robotic needle manipulation and insertion mechanism, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to more precisely control needle insertion orientation and needle control in Glozman’s architecture would reasonably consult Glozman ‘784’s position sensor solution that utilizes ultrasonic intraoperative image guidance. Glozman ‘784’s position sensors can be incorporated alongside Glozman’s device components (same general location of the actuator assembly, motion control assembly, base platform, or needle insertion mechanism, to assess the position of the advancing needle in a cartesian framework) using known assembly methods without redesigning Glozman’s core device architecture or needle delivery path.
Balicki discloses robotic control of tools, including needle insertion systems (FIG 2) comprising navigation systems including deep-learning-based models (p. 14, lines 18-20) that integrate attention-aware long short-term memory (LSTM) frameworks (p. 13, lines 27-29 and p. 14, lines 13-21). A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to render Glozman’s robot compatible with data-based machine learning and deep learning models would look for established algorithmic models to avoid creating a software-based robot interface. Balicki’s algorithmic model systems are modular and can be adapted to the software related to the position sensors and robotic positioning of Glozman and Glozman ‘784 to enable a robotically control navigation system.
Although Balicki does not expressly teach that the navigation system is trained with low contrast and SNR ultrasound images, Balicki teaches general data-driven models (p. 13, line 23; and data streams input process, p. 13, line 33 to p. 14, line 9), the model training processes taught by Balicki using deep learning models are use-case and data-specific result-effective variables which can be optimized without undue experimentation.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (robotic-based needle-insertion/guidance systems) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding a position sensor to the existing platform and components), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Toporek et al., WO 2019008127 A1 (10 January 2019) teaches a system for guiding an interventional instrument to an internal target.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERIE M POLAND whose telephone number is (703)756-1341. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm (CST).
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/CHERIE M POLAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights