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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 05/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 19-24 and 28 are pending in the application. In response to Applicant's amendments, Examiner withdraws the previous objections and the previous rejections under 112. Examiner notes that all previous objections and rejections pertaining to canceled claims 1-18 and 25-27 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claims 19-24 and 28 under 112(a), Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 05/12/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection of claim 21 is made in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding the rejections of claims 19-24 and 28 under 103, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The Background section of Nixon describes the setup of a surgical procedure in which the disclosed measuring techniques are used and names a specific surgical system which the applicant of the publication manufactures. Therefore, the Background, and paragraph [0006] in particular, are an extension of the disclosed methods/system, not “unrelated” as alleged (footnote, page 11 of Applicant’s Arguments and Remarks). Moreover, Examiner did not find any specific evidence that surgical instruments/tools 138, 139 and endoscope 140 “are [only] working tools used to perform a surgical procedure, not positioning probes as claimed” (page 12, Applicant’s Arguments and Remarks). Nixon simply describes that tools 138, 139 are used during a medical procedure and how tools 138, 139 are manipulated and attached to the surgical system (see [0034-0035] and [0047-0051]). Even if tools 138, 139 are the working tools, a positioning probe is a tool, and a working tool can be a positioning probe (“The tool 600 may be any one of a number of standard surgical tools such as forceps or scissors that are manipulated by a slave manipulator of a robotic arm assembly in a similar manner that the tools 138, 139 are manipulated by slave manipulators of the robotic arm assemblies 128, 129” [0065]. “Rather than using a specialized tool such as the tool 1200, a tool being using for performing a medical procedure such as the tool 600 may be used instead for performing the measurement described in reference to FIGS. 10 and 11” [0075].). The tools 1200-1, 1200-2 (the specialized positioning probes) are “coupled to a robotic arm assembly in the same manner as the tools 138, 139 are coupled to and robotically manipulated by slave manipulators of their respective robotic arm assemblies 128, [129]” [0072]. Therefore, the tools 1200-1, 1200-2 are “inserted into the cannulae and properly positioned and oriented in order to perform the procedure” [0006] and can be removed and replaced during a procedure [0035]. Nonetheless, Examiner has added the reference Yates, which more explicitly teaches surgical tools placed in cannulas (see [0051] and [0088]), as a result of Applicant’s amendments.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that any location of the tools 1200-1, 1200-2 can be used to define the absolute zero point as described in [0074] of Nixon, and that location is kinematically determined because the control and location tracking of the tools is kinematically determined (see [0048-0057], and in particular, [0051], [0054], and Fig. 3). Nixon further discloses “determining a kinematically predicted distance” in [0061] and [0094-0095].
Regarding Arata, Examiner notes that both the mechanical interface and instrument are surgical tools. The combination of references teaches contact of robotically manipulated surgical tools and determination of proximity between positioning probes (see [0074] of Nixon, for example). Since Arata discloses comparison of the difference between “an actual offset” (actual distance) and “an ideal offset” (distance between expected positions) to a predetermined threshold [0094], the combination of references teaches the condition “if the kinematically predicted distance and the actual distance differ by less than a threshold amount,” where the ideal offset is determined by the kinematically-predicted positions/distance of the tips of the tools 1200-1, 1200-2 of Nixon.
Therefore, the combination of Yates/Yates/Nixon/Arata teaches all of the limitations of claim 19. Since the arguments against the rejections of claims 20-24 and 28 are significantly similar to those of amended claim 19, Examiner continues to reject claims 20-24 and 28 under the same reasoning as the rejection of amended claim 19.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/14/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Rejection on 02/26/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [00031], “preforming” should read “performing”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 19, the amendment submitted on 05/12/2026 has changed a colon to a semicolon in “if the kinematically predicted distance and the actual distance differ by less than a threshold amount; (a) removing…”. It is therefore unclear if all of steps (a)-(d) are performed under this condition. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that all of steps (a)-(d) are performed “if the kinematically predicted distance and the actual distance differ by less than a threshold amount”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the surgical space". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “A surgical robotic coordinate space” is previously recited in the claim. However, the context of the claim around this limitation suggests that “the surgical space” actually refers to a target surgical site inside a patient, as in [00030-00031]. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that “the surgical space” is a surgical site of a patient.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 21, the limitation “wherein the threshold amount is 2 mm or less” does not have support in the disclosure of application 18/742,817 as originally filed on 06/13/2024. The Final Rejection of 02/26/2026 reads, “In view of [00012], [00023], and [00077], the ‘threshold amount’ recited in claim 19 is interpreted as the detected or kinematically determined proximity (e.g., 2 mm, 5 mm, etc.) and not the ‘threshold’ recited in [00077], which refers to the allowable positioning error of the measured distance as compared to the kinematically determined distance, for the purpose of compliance with the written description requirement” (page 9). However, Applicant has amended claim 19 such that this interpretation is no longer valid. Claim 19 now recites the condition “if the kinematically predicted distance and the actual distance differ by less than a threshold amount”. Therefore, the claimed threshold amount is now the “threshold amount” recited in [00077]—that is, the threshold amount is the allowable positioning error of the measured distance as compared to the kinematically determined distance. However, each instance of the length “2 mm” in the specification refers to the distance between the positioning probes, not the difference between the kinematically-predicted distance and the actual, measured distance between the positioning probes:
“In some instances, at least one of the first and second probes comprises a proximity sensor at a tip thereof. For example, the central control unit is configured to detect a proximity of at least 2 mm, of at least 5 mm, of at least 10 mm, or at least 20mm” [00012].
“In some instances, confirming that the distal portions of the first and second positioning probes are both present in the target site comprises detecting proximity between said distal portions, where for example "proximity" may comprise a minimum distance between said distal portions of 2 mm or less” [00023].
“Proper kinematic positioning of the surgical robotic components can also be checked without bringing the probes 150 into contact. As shown in FIGS. 8 and 8A, the probe tips 154 can be brought into proximity, typically within typically within 20 mm, more typically within 10 mm, often within 5mm, and preferably within 2 mm based as kinematic determined by the controller 32. Once positioned, either or both proximity sensors 155 can be used to determine an actual distance d between the distal portions of the probes. So long as the actual, measured distance d is the same as or within a threshold amount of the kinematically determined distance, proper alignment of the robotic arms and cannulas can be assumed. If the actual position falls outside this threshold expectation, the system may have to be recalibrated” [00077].
Therefore, there is not sufficient support for the particular limitation “wherein the threshold amount is 2 mm or less.” Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates et al. (US 20180049830 A1; hereafter “Yates”) in view of Nixon et al. (US 20090171371 A1; hereafter “Nixon”) and Arata et al. (US 20080004633 A1; hereafter “Arata”).
Regarding claim 19, Yates discloses
A method for positioning first and second cannulas prior to performing a robotic surgical procedure in a surgical robotic coordinate space, said method comprising: positioning a first robotic arm of a surgical robot to locate a distal portion of a first positioning probe carried in a working channel of the first cannula at a first kinematically determined location in the surgical robotic coordinate space; positioning a second robotic arm of the surgical robot to locate a distal portion of a second positioning probe carried by a working channel of the second cannula at a second kinematically determined location in the surgical robotic coordinate space (The robotic arms comprise “an entry guide 432 (e.g., a cannula mount or cannula) [with a working channel]… A shaft 436 of the tool assembly 430 [e.g., a positioning probe] can be inserted through the entry guide [432] for insertion into a patient” [0051]. See “The control system 315 can include components that enable a user… to control one or more parts of the patient-side portion 310 (e.g., to perform a surgical procedure at the surgical site 312)… These input devices can control teleoperated motors which, in turn, control the movement of the surgical system, including the robotic arms 320 and tool assemblies 330” [0048]. This control is based on the velocity and position (kinematics) of the tools [0046]; a particular location of a controlled tool is therefore kinematically determined. The robotic arms move in a coordinate space of the surgical robotic system, specifically “along one or [more] mechanical degrees of freedom (e.g., all six Cartesian degrees of freedom…)” [0050]. To locate: see various methods of detecting position and/or proximity (relative location) of surgical tools/end-effectors (probes) inside and outside of a patient described in [0075-0086]. See various surgical tools which can act as positioning probes in [0055] and [0090]. See also Fig. 2, [0014], [0061-0063], [0087-0088], and [0096].);
determining an actual distance between the distal portion of the first probe and the distal portion of the second probe (Various methods of detecting proximity of surgical tools/end-effectors (probes) inside and outside of a patient are described in [0075-0086]. For example, see “FIG. 19 also illustrates tools 2406 and 2408 and a binocular scope 2410 operating within a magnetic field 2404 within a body of a patient” (subcutaneous surgical site) [0081] and “The controller can be configured to monitor the location of the tools 2406, 2408 and binocular scope 2410 relative to a fixed point and/or each other [based on the detected magnetic field] and reduce the velocities with which the tools 2406, 2408 and binocular scope 2410 move toward each other when the tools 2406, 2408 and binocular scope 2410 move within close proximity of each other” [0083]. See also Figs. 17, 19, and 20.); and
(a) removing the probes from the working channels (See “This permits removal of tool assemblies 430 from the robotic arm 420 to exchange with other tool assemblies 430 during the course of a surgery without compromising the sterile surgical field” [0052]. To remove a tool assembly 430 from the robotic arm 420, the tool assembly 430 must be removed from the entry guide 432 having a working channel; see Fig. 2.);
(c) inserting working tools into the working channels (The robotic arms each comprise “an entry guide 432 (e.g., a cannula mount or cannula)… A shaft 436 of the tool assembly 430 can be inserted through the entry guide [432] for insertion into a patient” [0051]. The interiors of the entry guides 432 are the working channels. See various surgical tools which can act as working tools in [0055] and [0090]. See also [0087-0088] and Fig. 19.); and
(d) performing the robotic surgical procedure using the working tools (See, for example, tools 2406, 2408 gripping tissue in a patient in Fig. 19 [0081]. See also “The control system 315 can include components that enable a user… to control one or more parts of the patient-side portion 310 (e.g., to perform a surgical procedure at the surgical site 312). In some embodiments, the control system 315 can also include one or more manually-operated input devices… which, in turn, control the movement of the surgical system, including the robotic arms 320 and tool assemblies 330” [0048]. See also [0004] and [0053].).
However, Yates does not explicitly teach “determining a kinematically predicted distance between the first and second kinematically determined locations of the distal portion of the first probe and the distal portion of the second probe; if the kinematically predicted distance and the actual distance differ by less than a threshold amount: (a) removing the probes from the working channels; (b) advancing the cannulas into the surgical space; (c) inserting working tools into the working channels; and (d) performing the robotic surgical procedure using the working tools.”
Nixon discloses
A method for positioning first and second cannulas prior to performing a robotic surgical procedure in a surgical robotic coordinate space, said method comprising: positioning a first robotic arm of a surgical robot to locate a distal portion of a first positioning probe carried in a working channel of the first cannula at a first kinematically determined location in the surgical robotic coordinate space; positioning a second robotic arm of the surgical robot to locate a distal portion of a second positioning probe carried by a working channel of the second cannula at a second kinematically determined location in the surgical robotic coordinate space (See “Prior to making a measurement using the two tools 1200-1, 1200-2, the operator may first touch their tip/sensors together in order to define an absolute zero point for displacement/measurement purposes” [0074]. This absolute zero point is in the surgical robotic coordinate space; any given location can be the absolute zero point. The two tools 1200-1,1200-2 (positioning probes) “are coupled to and robotically manipulated by slave manipulators of their respective robotic arm assemblies 128, 139” [0072]. Kinematically-determined location: see [0048-0057] for kinematic control of the slave manipulators. Specifically, “A simulated slave processor 308 receives desired slave tool frame position and velocity commands… and limits the desired slave tool frame position, orientation, and velocities to assigned Cartesian Limits” [0051] via inverse kinematics (Fig. 3). Then, “A joint control unit 320 receives the slave joint positions from the slave input processor 309 and the simulated joint position commands provided from the simulated slave processor 308 and generates slave torque command signals for the slave joint motors” [0054]. The probes are inserted through cannulas having working channels attached to each of the slave manipulators to perform a surgery [0006]. See also positioning the probes at other locations in [0074], [0095], and Fig. 11. See also Figs. 1, 13 and 19, and [0061], [0073], [0091], and [0094].);
determining a kinematically predicted distance between the first and second kinematically determined locations of the distal portion of the first probe and the distal portion of the second probe (See “when two tools 1200-1, 1200-2 are used (as shown in FIG. 11)… to indicate the points (X1, Y1, Z1), (X2, Y2, Z2) on the anatomic structure 520, a single measurement command may be provided by the operator (as opposed to the start and stop indications used with the single tool 1200) to indicate the points (X1, Y1, Z1), (X2, Y2, Z2) that are to be used by the distance determination processor 402 for its distance calculation” [0074]. As shown in Fig. 11, the reference points (X1, Y1, Z1) and (X2, Y2, Z2) are at the tips (distal portions) of the two positioning probes 1200-1, 1200-2. Kinematically predicted: the “distance determination processor 402 processes slave joint positions… to determine distances moved by their manipulated tool. To determine the distances that the tool moves, the slave joint positions are processed using forward kinematics of the slave manipulator [and] transformed from slave joint space to corresponding positions and velocities of the tool frame in Cartesian space relative to a fixed reference frame which may be defined at a fixed position in the operating room” [0061]. See also [0072-0073], [0094-0095], and Fig. 12.);
determining an actual distance between the distal portion of the first probe and the distal portion of the second probe (See “Prior to making a measurement using the two tools 1200-1, 1200-2, the operator may first touch their tip/sensors together in order to define an absolute zero point for displacement/measurement purposes” [0074]. The tips of the tools are the distal portions of the probes, and the determined distance is zero.); and…
(a) removing the probes from the working channels (See “Each of the tools 138, 139, as well as the Endoscope 140, is conventionally inserted through a tool guide [cannula] into the Patient so as to extend down to the surgical site through a corresponding minimally invasive incision… If it is necessary to change a tool being used during a procedure, the Assistant may remove the tool no longer being used from its robotic arm assembly, and replace it with another tool 131 from a Tray ("T") in the operating room” [0035]. Removing a tool (probe) from the surgical site inside the patient involves removing the tool from the tool guide/cannula having a working channel. See also [0006] and [0072].);
(b) advancing the cannulas into the surgical space (See “To perform a minimally invasive surgical procedure on a patient, one or more incisions are first made in the patient and cannulae inserted therein to gain access to a surgical site within the patient” [0006].);
(c) inserting working tools into the working channels (See “Surgical instruments engaged on the slave manipulators are then inserted into the cannulae and properly positioned and oriented in order to perform the procedure” [0006]. See also [0035] and [0065].); and
(d) performing the robotic surgical procedure using the working tools (See “A surgeon may then manipulate… the slave manipulators and their respective surgical instruments through one or more controllers to perform the surgical procedure” [0006]. See also [0034-0035].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the proximity detection method of Yates with the distance determination method of Nixon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to measure the size of an object or a distance between objects in vivo” (Nixon, [0007]) and “to indicate movement of the tool and visually associate the information of the distance with the movement of the tool” by “displaying the captured images and information of the distance on a monitor of the medical robotic system” (Nixon, [0010]).
However, Nixon does not explicitly teach “if the determined distance is less than a threshold amount: (a) removing the probes from the working channels; (b) advancing the cannulas into the surgical space; (c) inserting working tools into the working channels; and (d) performing the robotic surgical procedure using the working tools.”
Arata, in the same field of endeavor (robotic surgical systems), teaches
if the kinematically predicted distance and the actual distance differ by less than a threshold amount… performing the robotic surgical procedure using the working tools (See “contacting the mechanical interface with an instrument can verify whether or not a position of the surgical tool has an expected correspondence to a position of the checkpoint (or datum)” [0093]. The mechanical interface is itself a surgical tool, with its position registered in [0090-0092]. See “the verification checkpoint system compares an actual offset (the distance between the tip of the instrument or the center of the tip of the instrument and the checkpoint of the mechanical interface)) to an ideal offset (a predetermined distance between the expected (or ideal) position of the tip of the instrument or the center of the tip of the instrument and the checkpoint of the mechanical interface when all three conditions are met)… the difference between the actual offset and the ideal offset should be below a predetermined threshold. For example, a predetermined threshold of 1.0 mm could be used to verify” the position of the instrument is correct [0094]. After verification, the verified instrument is used to perform a robotic surgical procedure: “In operation, the user can contact the femoral and tibial checkpoint verification interfaces any time the user wants to validate the configuration of the surgical system 10, such as when the tool 50 is withdrawn from and then reinserted into the patient” [0121]. For example, a working tool inserted into a patient: “In step S11, the first bone (e.g., the tibia T) is prepared to receive the first implant (e.g., the tibial component 74) by manipulating the tool 50 to sculpt the first bone” [0129]. Examples of tools, including probes and burrs, are given in [0063] and [0092]. See also [0093], [0097], and [0124]).
Using the positioning probes of Nixon as the mechanical interface and surgical instrument of Arata, the position of the probes is verified by comparing the difference between the expected, kinematically-predicted distance (calculated by Nixon) and an actual, measured distance (determined by Yates and/or Arata) between the probes to the predetermined threshold. After the verification, the surgical procedure is performed/continued. Thus, the combination as a whole teaches the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the robotic positioning method of Yates/Nixon with the instrument verification method of Arata. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “quickly provide a user with information useful for determining if the system is performing as intended and/or being used properly before any non-reversible cuts are made to the patient's anatomy,” including verifying “if an instrument is in the correct position relative to a patient's anatomy” (Arata, [0093]).
Regarding claim 20, Yates/Nixon/Arata discloses the limitations of claim 19 as addressed above, and Yates additionally discloses
wherein determining the actual distance comprises detecting the distance between said distal portions using at least one sensor on at least one of the first and second positioning probes (Various methods of detecting proximity of surgical tools/end-effectors (probes) comprising sensors are described in [0075-0086]. For example, see “Each tool 2302, 2304 can include a sensor 2308. The sensor 2308 can be configured to facilitate a determination by a controller, such as controller 2306, of the location of one or more of the tools 2302, 2304” [0078]. See “The sensor 2308 can be configured to detect motion of the tools 2302, 2304 and continually transmit motion information back to a controller” [0078]. “By tracking the motion of the tools 2302, 2304, the controller can be configured to determine when one tool assembly, for example, tool 2302, is within a general proximity zone of another tool assembly, for example, tool 2304” [0079]. See also [0082-0083], [0085-0086], and Figs. 17, 19, and 20.).
See also [0072], [0074], and [0094-0095] of Nixon.
Regarding claim 21, Yates/Nixon/Arata discloses the limitations of claim 20 as addressed above, and Arata additionally discloses
wherein the threshold amount is 2 mm or less (See “the verification checkpoint system compares an actual offset (the distance between the tip of the instrument or the center of the tip of the instrument and the checkpoint of the mechanical interface)) to an ideal offset (a predetermined distance between the expected (or ideal) position of the tip of the instrument or the center of the tip of the instrument and the checkpoint of the mechanical interface when all three conditions are met)… the difference between the actual offset and the ideal offset should be below a predetermined threshold. For example, a predetermined threshold of 1.0 mm could be used to verify” the position of the instrument is correct [0094]. See also [0121] and [0124]. Nixon teaches calculating an expected, kinematically-predicted distance and Yates and Arata disclose determining an actual, measured distance.).
Regarding claim 22, Yates/Nixon/Arata discloses the limitations of claim 19 as addressed above, and Yates additionally discloses
wherein determining the actual distance comprises detecting contact between said distal portions (See “in response to a determination that the tool 2302 is within a threshold distance of another tool… the controller can be configured to reduce the velocity of the tool 2302 to a collision velocity… at which collisions would not cause damage to the tool(s)… Upon a detection that the tool 2302 has collided with another tool… the controller can be configured to stop the motion of the tool” [0079]. When the controller detects tools 2302 and 2304 have collided, the controller detects contact of the distal portions of the probes. See Fig. 2: the distal portion of the tool is passed through the entry guide 432 (cannula). See also [0075].).
See also “different-sized instruments can be contacted with the mechanical interface to determine if a distance between a tip of the instrument… and the checkpoint is less than a predetermined tolerance” (Arata, [0093]). See also [0074] of Nixon.
Regarding claim 23, Yates/Nixon/Arata discloses the limitations of claim 22 as addressed above, and Yates additionally discloses
wherein detecting contact of the first and second probes comprises assessing one or more of electrical, mechanical, visual, and fluoroscopic characteristics (The sensors 2308 used to detect when tools 2302 and 2304 have collided “can be a six-axis sensor. A six-axis sensor can include a multi-axis accelerometer, a multi-axis magnetic sensor, or the like” [0078]. See also magnetic field sensors 2412 in Fig. 19 [0081-0083] and transmitting motion sensors 2614, 2616 in Fig. 20 [0085]. See also [0014].).
See also [0072], [0074], [0076] and Figs. 15-18 of Nixon.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates in view of Nixon and Arata, and further in view of Iida.
Regarding claim 24, Yates/Nixon/Arata discloses the limitations of claim 22 as addressed above. However, Yates/Nixon/Arata does not explicitly teach “wherein detecting contact of the first and second probes comprises measuring electrical resistance between the first and second probes, wherein a drop in the measured resistance indicates contact between the probes is present.”
Iida, in the same field of endeavor (robotic surgical systems), teaches
wherein detecting contact of the first and second probes comprises measuring electrical resistance between the first and second probes, wherein a drop in the measured resistance indicates contact between the probes is present (See “The grip detector 110 can detect the gripping state where the manipulator 19A grips the hook-shaped knife 112 in a state where the gripper-side electrode 111 and the sheath-side electrode 115 [of the hook-shaped knife 112] come into contact with each other, using well-known methods, such as measuring the electric resistance between the gripper-side electrode 111 and the sheath-side electrode 115” [0169]. In Fig. 12, the grip detector 110 is in the control apparatus 70 (central control unit). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a drop in the measured electric resistance indicates contact between the instruments. See also [0088], [0095], [0120], and [0192].).
Given Yates discloses detecting contact of the first and second probes (see rejection of claim 22 above), the combination of Yates/Nixon/Arata/Iida teaches “wherein the central control unit is configured to measure electrical resistance between the first and second probes.” Thus, the combination as a whole teaches the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the robotic surgical method of Yates/Nixon/Arata to measure electrical resistance to detect contact between instruments as taught by Iida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to confirm instrument contact when performing a surgery with a high-frequency current (Iida, [0170]). Detecting electrical resistance through necessary parts eliminates the need for a separate sensor and simplifies the surgical instrument.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates in view of Nixon and Arata, and further in view of Han.
Regarding claim 28, Yates/Nixon/Arata discloses the limitations of claim 19 as addressed above, including “performing the robotic surgical procedure” (See “The control system 315 can include components that enable a user… to control one or more parts of the patient-side portion 310 (e.g., to perform a surgical procedure at the surgical site 312). In some embodiments, the control system 315 can also include one or more manually-operated input devices… which, in turn, control the movement of the surgical system, including the robotic arms 320 and tool assemblies 330” [0048] of Yates. See also [0006] and [0034-0035] of Nixon.).
However, Yates/Nixon/Arata does not explicitly teach “wherein the cannulas are advanced beneath a patient's nerve root in the patient's spine before performing the robotic surgical procedure on the spine with the working tools introduced through the working channels of the cannulas.”
Han, in the same field of endeavor (spinal surgery), teaches
wherein the cannulas are advanced beneath a patient's nerve root in the patient's spine before performing the… surgical procedure on the spine with the working tools introduced through the working channels of the cannulas (A cannula is inserted to a disc before performing a discectomy (spinal procedure) with an endoscope [p. 184, col. 2 to p. 185, col. 1]. See “when the obturator is inserted between the exiting nerve root and the facet” [p. 184, col. 2]. There exists at least one point of view where the cannula is inserted over the obturator and beneath the nerve root. See also p. 183, col. 1, “Surgical procedure”, Fig. 6, and Table 1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the robotic surgical method of Yates/Nixon/Arata to advance cannulas under a nerve root as taught by Han. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to perform a safer discectomy procedure (Han; p. 182, col. 1, “Introduction”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moya Ly whose telephone number is (571)272-5832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am-6:00 pm ET.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/MOYA LY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
