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 .
Drawings
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 elongate shape that “partially overlaps” the field of view displayed to the user must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner notes the elongate shapes depicted in Figs. 27B-G all completely overlap the field of view displayed to the user.
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.
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 1-2, 6-8, 11 and 14-27 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. Claim 1 is rejected because the specification, as originally filed, fails to support the amended limitation of “the first visual indicator has an elongate shape that partially overlaps the field of view displayed on the viewer” as now claimed. Examiner notes the limitation of “partially overlapping” implies some of the elongate shape is not on the field of view, however, Figs. 27B-G all depict the elongate shape completely within the field of view displayed on the display. Claims 19-20 appear to have similar issues.
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 6-8 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. Claim 6 is rejected because it is unclear how the visual indicator is both an elongate shape and identifies the type of surgical tool as now claimed. Figs. 27B-G only depict numbering the elongate shape. Claim 8 has a similar issue with respect to the visual indicator including a graphical representation of the tool. In other words, it is unclear how the visual indictor is both an elongate shape that changes dimension and also a graphical representation of the tool.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11, 14-16, 19-25 and 27 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,773,388 to Larkin et al. “Larkin” in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0030257 to Ishihara.
As for Claims 1-2, 19-20, 23, 25 and 27, Larkin discloses a robotic system and method comprising a first robotic arm coupled to a first surgical tool (129 in Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions), a second robotic arm coupled to a second surgical tool (128 in Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions), a third robotic arm coupled to a scope (122 in Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions) and one or more processors (102 in Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions) configured to display a view of the surgical site from the scope (104 in Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions; Column 5, Lines 3-16). Larkin discloses various GUI’s which display robotic arm position data to the user (Figs. 4-7). When tools are within the field of view, they are displayed in viewing area 300 with bold lines (Column 5, Lines 3-15) and when the robotic arm and tool is not within the scope’s field of view, a visual indicator is displayed in a boundary area to indicate the position of the out-of-view tool (Column 5, Lines 37-67). Larkin explains and depicts that the position of the visual indicator relates to the current position of the tool to a central point of the viewing area, may change and that a distance that the out-of-plane tool is from the viewing area may be indicated in a number of ways including size, color, brightness, blinking frequency or oscillating frequency of the symbol when the distance changes (Column 6, Lines 1-30).
However, Larkin does not expressly depict where the visual indicators representing out of view tool positions are elongate in shape and fails to disclose changing only the length of the elongate shape when the tool moves closer/away to the field of view while maintaining the width of the elongate shape as now claimed.
Ishihara teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to surgical robotic systems and methods (Abstract) where tool indicators are displayed in an overlapping manner on a field of view display (Figs. 8-10 for example).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the display means described by Larkin to overlap the visual indicators on the displayed field of view as described by Ishihara in order to expand the displayed field of view image and enhance the user’s visual experience.
Regarding the shape of the visual indicators, Larkin explains “Although show as circles, the non-depictive symbols 420, 410, 510, 610 and 710 may be displayed in any one or more of many different shapes” (Column 7, Lines 43-45). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have used other shapes such as an elongate shape (e.g. rectangle, stretched oval, etc.) in order to allow the user to customize the visual indicator appearance according to preference. In addition, it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
With respect to the limitation of only changing the length of the elongate shape and maintaining the width of the elongate shape when a distance between the surgical tool and the field of view changes, Larkin makes it clear that the dimensions of the shape change relative to the tool’s distance to the field of view such that the visual indicator gets larger as the tool moves closer to entering the viewing area (Column 6, Lines 1-30). Thus, Larkin teaches the inventive concept of growing/shrinking an indicator as a function of the tool’s distance to a viewing area. While Larkin appears to change both the length and width of the visual indicator, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have only modified one dimension of the shape such as the length in order to allow the user to customize the visual appearance of the visual indicators. In addition, such a modification is a matter of pure design choice in the absence of showing any criticality or unexpected result.
As for Claims 6, Larkin depicts wherein the visual indicator may include an orientation indicator superimposed thereon (511 in Fig. 5 and corresponding descriptions). Such a disclosure is considered to read on the limitation of the visual indicator including information identifying the first robotic arm (e.g. orientation of the first arm) in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
With respect to Claims 7-8, Larkin discloses where indicators may be displayed in any number of shapes or may be symbols depictive of the respective tool (Column 7, Lines 40-67) which is considered to read on information identifying a robotic arm and a visual indictor to identify a type of tool in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Larkin also explains that the indicators may be “clickable” and provide additional displayed information about the tool (Column 7, Lines 20-40).
As for Claim 11, Examiner notes the modified device includes the visual indicators overlaid onto the displayed field of view as described above. Larkin explains the visual indicators may be colored (e.g. highlighted) (Column 5, Lines 15-35; Column 6, Lines 10-30). Thus, the modified device would highlight a predefined region on the field of view (e.g. where the visual indicator is) in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Ishihara also discloses coloring icons on a predetermined area of the field of view image (Figs. 6 and 8-11).
Regarding Claim 14, Examiner notes the user’s action to click the symbol is considered to be a request in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
As for Claims 15-16, Larkin provides visual indicators for the surgical tools as explained above. In addition, Larkin explains a surgeon may instruct an assistant to remove a tool no longer being used from its robotic arm and replace it with another tool (Column 4, Lines 3-15). Examiner notes that if a remove instruction has been issued and no tool replaces it, the visual indicators would be removed in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
As for Claims 21-22, Ishihara depicts various embodiments where visual indicators are displayed adjacent to a border of the field of view (Figs. 8-13) or alternatively where visual indicators are displayed “inward” from the border (e.g. 328 in Fig. 10, 324 in Figs. 11-12, 328c in Fig. 16). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have positioned the modified elongate visual indicators anywhere on the displayed field of view in order to allow the user to customize the display screen layout.
As for Claim 24, Examiner notes the modified system and method would read on the indicator being on two sides of the field of field of view display (e.g. corners) if and when the tool is positioned accordingly.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin and Ishihara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,862,268 to Robinson et al. “Robinson”.
As for Claim 6, Larkin and Ishihara disclose a robotic surgical system and method including visual indicators for the robotic arms as described above.
Robinson teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to surgical systems and methods (Abstract) where a GUI may include tool number icons (504L and 504R in Fig. 5A).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the visual indicators described by Larkin and Ishihara to include overlaid tool number icons described by Robinson in order to improve the user’s visualization and understanding of robotic arm locations during a procedure. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
As for Claims 7-8, Examiner notes the modified icons would appear to identify the type of robot (e.g. first, second, etc.) in its broadest reasonable interpretation. In addition, Larkin discloses where indicators may be displayed in any number of shapes or may be symbols depictive of the respective tool (Column 7, Lines 40-67) which is considered to read on information identifying a robotic arm and a visual indictor to identify a type of tool in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Larkin also explains that the indicators may be “clickable” and provide additional displayed information about the tool (Column 7, Lines 20-40).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin and Ishihara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of WO 2014/151621 to Kilroy et al. “Kilroy”.
Regarding Claims 17-18, Larkin and Ishihara discloses a robotic system and method for displaying tool positions in and out of displayed views as described above. Larkin further discloses wherein the robotic system may be controlled by an operator sitting at a da Vinci surgical system which includes a console with user inputs (Column 1, Lines 25-45 and Column 3, Lines 40-50). However, Larkin does not expressly disclose a “birds-eye” view on the display.
Kilroy teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to robotic systems and methods (Abstract) where a display may provide the user a birds eye view (Paragraph [0108]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated other conventionally known display views as described by Kilroy in order to enhance operation and user control of the robotic system.
As for Claim 18, Kilroy discloses wherein the system can include a foot pedal (Paragraph [0124]). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the surgical console described by Larkin to include a foot pedal in order to provide additional user inputs as necessary. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 24 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin and Ishihara as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0307270 to Pantel.
Regarding Claim 24, Larkin and Ishihara discloses a robotic system and method for displaying tool positions in and out of displayed views as described above Examiner notes the modified system and method would read on the indicator being on two sides of the field of field of view display (e.g. corners) if and when the tool is positioned accordingly.
Nonetheless, Pantel teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to graphical user interfaces (Abstract) where a graphical symbol or status indicator may surround the corner of a display (3601 in Fig. 36).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the visual indicators described by Larkin and Ishihara to bend around corners as described by Pantel in order to accurately reflect the position of the out of plane tool. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 14-16 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin and Ishihara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0092700 to Itkowitz et al. “Itkowitz”.
Regarding Claim 26, Larkin and Ishihara discloses a robotic system and method for displaying tool positions in and out of displayed views as described above. However, Larkin appears to continue to display the visual indicator even when the tool is in the displayed field of view.
Itkowitz teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to surgical robotic systems and methods where out-of-view indicators may be disabled or selectively enabled by the user (Paragraph [0055]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have allowed the user to disable the modified indicators as described by Larkin and Ishihara if and when the tool is within the field of view in order to reduce clutter on the displayed images. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Examiner notes the modified device described by Larkin, Ishihara and Itkowitz to allow the user to disable and/or selectively enable the visual indicators would read on the claimed limitations of Claims 14-16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11 and 14-27 have been considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approximately 8AM-5PM.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797