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 05/21/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 17, 22-24, and 30 have been amended. Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 15-17, and 20-30 are addressed in the following office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the robotic arm holds itself in a particular pose” should read “the robotic arm held in a particular pose”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 15-16, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon et al. (US 2007/0089557) in view of Kilroy et al. (US 2015/0038982), both cited in previous office action, and Prisco et al. (US 2007/0142823).
Regarding claim 1, an invention relating to surgical robotic systems, Solomon discloses (Figs. 1-6E) a robotic surgical system (100), comprising: a robotic arm (156 & 158) comprising: a first arm segment (156) comprising a first plurality of links (Par. 0032); and a second arm segment (158) comprising a second plurality of links providing the robotic arm with at least two degrees of freedom (Par. 0046); an instrument driver (434) configured to hold a surgical instrument (430), wherein the instrument driver is coupled to a distal end of the second arm segment (Par. 0043 & 0045); a plurality of joint modules (601 & 602) configured to actuate the first plurality of links or the second plurality of links (Par. 0075-0076); and a controller (160) configured to actuate at least one joint module of the plurality of joint modules based on at least one of a plurality of control modes [i.e. enabled and disabled modes] (Par. 0039-0040). However, Solomon fails to disclose the first plurality of links providing the robotic arm with at least five degrees of freedom; and wherein at least one of the plurality of control modes comprises a friction compensation mode in which the controller determines a presence of a user-applied force on the first plurality of links or the second plurality of links acting to back-drive at least one of the plurality of joint modules, and actuates the at least one joint module to reduce the user-applied force required to back-drive the at least one joint module.
In the same field of endeavor, which is surgical robotic systems, Kilroy teaches a first plurality of links (126) providing the robotic arm with at least five degrees of freedom [i.e. centers of rotation and tilt axes] (Par. 0144 & 0147).
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 Solomon to have the first plurality of links providing the robotic arm with at least five degrees of freedom. Doing so would allow the remote center to established and would facilitate the positioning of the surgical arm (Par. 0145 & 0147), as taught by Kilroy.
In the same field of endeavor, which is surgical robotic systems, Prisco teaches (Figs. 1-2) wherein at least one of a plurality of control modes [i.e. Clutch Mode, Normal Mode, etc…] comprises a friction compensation mode [i.e. clutch mode] in which a controller (102 & 200) determines a presence of a user-applied force [i.e. measure displacement of manual movement of the slave manipulator and generating estimates for angular velocity, angular acceleration, and external torque] on a first plurality of links or the second plurality of links [i.e. elements 128 or 129 made up of linkages and joints (Par. 0027-0028)] acting to back-drive at least one of a plurality of joint modules (205; Par. 0028), and actuates the at least one joint module to reduce the user-applied force required to back-drive the at least one joint module (Par. 0041-0042 & 0048-0051).
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 Solomon, in view of Kilroy, to have wherein at least one of the plurality of control modes comprises a friction compensation mode in which the controller determines a presence of a user-applied force on the first plurality of links or the second plurality of links acting to back-drive at least one of the plurality of joint modules, and actuates the at least one joint module to reduce the user-applied force required to back-drive the at least one joint module. Doing so would provide the desired lightness of feel to the operator moving the manipulator without inducing a feeling of activeness when manually moving at least a portion of the slave manipulator in order to position and/or orientate the surgical instrument at a surgical site within a patient (Par. 0012 & 0051), as taught by Prisco.
Regarding claim 4, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy and Prisco, discloses the system of claim 1. Solomon further discloses (Fig. 6A) wherein the second plurality of links comprises a roll link (541), a first link (542) rotatable within a first plane and having a proximal end coupled to a distal end of the roll link (Par. 0046, 0066, 0076), and a second link (543) rotatable within a second plane and having a proximal end coupled to a distal end of the first link such that the instrument driver is not parallel to at least one of the first and second planes (Par. 0046, 0066, 0140) [i.e. coupled via elements 544-546 & 610] (Fig. 6A), the second arm segment is coupled to a distal end of the first arm segment [i.e. element 540 of the second segment electrically and mechanically connects to the base support of coupled to the first segment] (Figs. 1-2; Par. 0032 & 0075) and configured to move the surgical instrument within a generally spherical workspace [i.e. spherical workspace defined about the remote center of rotation (666)] (Par. 0068), and wherein the first arm segment is configured to move a location of the generally spherical workspace (Fig. 1; Par. 0032-0033).
Regarding claim 5, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy and Prisco, discloses the system of claim 1. Solomon further discloses (Fig. 6A) wherein the second plurality of links comprises a roll link (541), a first link (542) rotatable within a first plane and having a proximal end coupled to a distal end of the roll link (Par. 0046, 0066, 0076), and a second link (543) rotatable within a second plane and having a proximal end coupled to a distal end of the first link (Par. 0046), and a first degree of freedom [i.e. pivotally rotated] of the robotic arm is provided by rotation of the roll link relative to the first arm segment (Par. 0068 & 0075).
Regarding claim 6, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy and Prisco, discloses the system of claim 5. Solomon further discloses wherein rotation of the roll link relative to the first arm segment causes movement of the instrument driver in a roll direction (Par. 0068 & 0075).
Regarding claim 7, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy and Prisco, discloses the system of claim 5. Solomon further discloses wherein a second degree of freedom of the robotic arm is provided by synchronous rotation of the first and second links relative to the roll link, and synchronous rotation of the first and second links causes movement of the instrument driver in a pitch direction (Par. 0068, 0076, 0078).
Regarding claim 9, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy and Prisco, discloses the system of claim 1. Solomon further discloses (Fig. 8A) wherein the instrument driver is configured to rotate the surgical instrument around a remote center of motion (666), and the second arm segment is configured to rotate the instrument driver around a roll axis (656) and a pitch axis [i.e. axis that is perpendicular to the page), wherein the roll axis and the pitch axis are offset from each other [i.e. rotationally offset] (Par. 0067).
Regarding claim 15, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy and Prisco, discloses the system of claim 1. Solomon further discloses wherein the first and second links are operatively coupled with a pulley arrangement (Par. 0054-0055).
Regarding claim 16, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy and Prisco, discloses the system of claim 1. Solomon further discloses wherein the robotic arm is coupled to a table (Par. 0033).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy and Prisco, discloses the system of claim 1. However, Solomon fails to further disclose wherein the at least one of the plurality of control modes comprises a gravity compensation mode in which the controller determines a gravity force acting on at least a portion of the links, and actuates at least one joint module to counteract the determined gravity force [Claim 21]; and wherein in the gravity compensation mode the robotic arm is held in a particular position [Claim 23].
Prisco further teaches wherein the at least one of the plurality of control modes comprises a gravity compensation mode in which the controller determines a gravity force acting on at least a portion of the links, and actuates at least one joint module to counteract the determined gravity force [i.e. a gravity compensation control system including a gravity model based on a rigid body model for the links of a serial manipulator may be used to counteract such gravity imbalance]; and wherein in the gravity compensation mode the robotic arm is held in a particular position [i.e. rigid body model] (Par. 0043-0044 & 0050-0051).
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 Solomon, in view of Kilroy and Prisco, to have wherein the at least one of the plurality of control modes comprises a gravity compensation mode in which the controller determines a gravity force acting on at least a portion of the links, and actuates at least one joint module to counteract the determined gravity force [Claim 21]; and wherein in the gravity compensation mode the robotic arm is held in a particular position [Claim 23]. Doing so would provide a system to counteract gravity imbalance of the slave manipulator (Par. 0043), as taught by Prisco.
Regarding claim 22, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy and Prisco, discloses the system of claim 1. Solomon further discloses wherein in the friction compensation mode, the controller sends a dithering current signal [i.e. torque command signal] to the at least one joint module such that the at least one joint module is primed to overcome friction in the direction needed to achieve the pose desired (Par. 0050-0051).
Regarding claim 24, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy and Prisco, discloses the system of claim 1. Solomon further discloses wherein in the friction compensation mode, the controller further determines a direction [i.e. displacement] of the user-applied force on the at least one joint module, and actuates the at least one joint module in a same direction as the user- applied force (Par. 0040-0042 & 0050-0051).
Claims 17, 20, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon et al. (US 2007/0089557) cited in previous office action, in view of Prisco et al. (US 2007/0142823).
Regarding claim 17, an invention relating to surgical robotic systems, Solomon discloses (Figs. 1-6E) a robotic surgical system (100), comprising: a robotic arm (156 & 158) comprising a roll link (656), a first link (542) rotatable within a first plane and having a proximal end coupled to a distal end of the roll link (Par. 0046, 0066, 0076), and a second link (543) rotatable within a second plane and having a proximal end coupled to a distal end of the first link (Par. 0046, 0066, 0140); an instrument driver (434) configured to hold a surgical instrument (430), wherein the instrument driver is coupled to a distal end of the second link such that the instrument driver is not parallel to at least one of the first and second planes (Par. 0046, 0066, 0140) [i.e. coupled via elements 544-546 & 610] (Fig. 6A); a plurality of joint modules (601 & 602) configured to actuate the first link or the second link (Par. 0075-0076); and a controller (160) configured to actuate at least one joint module of the plurality of joint modules based on at least one of a plurality of control modes [i.e. enabled and disabled modes] (Par. 0039-0040). However, Solomon fails to disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of control modes comprises a friction compensation mode which enables the robotic arm to assist a user in directly moving at least a portion of the robotic arm by actively back- driving the at least one joint module in a direction needed to achieve a pose desired by the user.
In the same field of endeavor, which is surgical robotic systems, Prisco teaches (Figs. 1-2) wherein at least one of a plurality of control modes [i.e. Clutch Mode, Normal Mode, etc…] comprises a friction compensation mode [i.e. clutch mode] which enables a robotic arm (128) to assist a user in directly moving at least a portion of the robotic arm [i.e. linkages and joints (Par. 0027-0028)] by actively back- driving at least one joint module (205; Par. 0028) in a direction needed to achieve a pose desired by the user (Par. 0041-0042 & 0048-0051).
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 Solomon to have wherein at least one of the plurality of control modes comprises a friction compensation mode which enables the robotic arm to assist a user in directly moving at least a portion of the robotic arm by actively back- driving the at least one joint module in a direction needed to achieve a pose desired by the user. Doing so would provide the desired lightness of feel to the operator moving the manipulator without inducing a feeling of activeness when manually moving at least a portion of the slave manipulator in order to position and/or orientate the surgical instrument at a surgical site within a patient (Par. 0012 & 0051), as taught by Prisco.
Regarding claim 20, Solomon, as modified by Prisco, discloses the system of claim 17. Solomon further discloses (Fig. 6A) wherein the instrument driver is configured to rotate the surgical instrument around a remote center of motion (666; Par. 0067).
Regarding claim 29, Solomon, as modified by Prisco, discloses the system of claim 17. Solomon fails to further disclose wherein the at least one of the plurality of control modes comprises a gravity compensation mode in which in the robotic arm holds itself in a particular pose without drifting downward due to gravity.
Prisco further teaches wherein the at least one of the plurality of control modes comprises a gravity compensation mode in which in the robotic arm holds itself in a particular pose without drifting downward due to gravity [i.e. a gravity compensation control system including a gravity model based on a rigid body model for the links of a serial manipulator may be used to counteract such gravity imbalance] (Par. 0043-0044 & 0050-0051).
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 Solomon, in view of Prisco, to have wherein the at least one of the plurality of control modes comprises a gravity compensation mode in which in the robotic arm holds itself in a particular pose without drifting downward due to gravity. Doing so would provide a system to counteract gravity imbalance of the slave manipulator (Par. 0043), as taught by Prisco.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon et al. (US 2007/0089557) in view of Kilroy et al. (US 2015/0038982) and Prisco et al. (US 2007/0142823), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2013/0224710), cited in previous office action.
Regarding claim 25, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy and Prisco, discloses the system of claim 1. Solomon fails to further disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of control modes comprises a trajectory following mode in which the robotic arm moves to follow a sequence of one or more cartesian trajectory commands.
In the same field of endeavor, which is surgical robotic systems, Yang teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of control modes comprises a trajectory following mode in which the robotic arm moves to follow a sequence of one or more cartesian trajectory commands (Par. 0050).
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 Solomon, in view of Kilroy and Prisco, to have wherein at least one of the plurality of control modes comprises a trajectory following mode in which the robotic arm moves to follow a sequence of one or more cartesian trajectory commands. Doing so would allow the trainee surgeon to operate on the anatomical model with the learnt surgical procedure on his/her own accord (Par. 0049), as taught by Yang.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon et al. (US 2007/0089557) in view of Kilroy et al. (US 2015/0038982) and Prisco et al. (US 2007/0142823), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Quaid, III (US 2004/0024311), cited in previous office action.
Regarding claim 26, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy and Prisco, discloses the system of claim 1. Solomon fails to further disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of control modes comprises an impedance control mode which allows the robotic arm to be compliant to a virtual environment without using a force sensor or a torque sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, which is surgical robotic systems, Quaid teaches an impedance control mode which allows the robotic arm to be compliant to a virtual environment without using a force sensor or a torque sensor (Par. 0028).
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 Solomon, in view of Kilroy and Prisco, to have wherein at least one of the plurality of control modes comprises an impedance control mode which allows the robotic arm to be compliant to a virtual environment without using a force sensor or a torque sensor. Doing so would constrain the arm such that sensitive anatomical regions would not be penetrated (Par. 0059), as taught by Quaid.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon et al. (US 2007/0089557) in view of Kilroy et al. (US 2015/0038982) and Prisco et al. (US 2007/0142823), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ROMO et al. (US 2016/0184032), cited in previous office action.
Regarding claim 27, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy and Prisco, discloses the system of claim 1. Solomon fails to further disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of control modes comprises an admittance control mode which allows the robot arm to respond to a sensed user force according to a virtual model.
In the same field of endeavor, which is surgical robotic systems, Romo teaches an admittance control mode which allows the robot arm to respond to a sensed user force according to a virtual model (Par. 0319 & 0337-0339).
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 Solomon, in view of Kilroy and Prisco, to have wherein at least one of the plurality of control modes comprises an admittance control mode which allows the robot arm to respond to a sensed user force according to a virtual model. Doing so would simplify human-to-robot interaction and make it more instinctive (Par. 0318), as taught by Romo.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon et al. (US 2007/0089557) in view of Kilroy et al. (US 2015/0038982) and Prisco et al. (US 2007/0142823), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hourtash et al. (US 2014/0276952), cited in previous office action.
Regarding claim 28, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy and Prisco, discloses the system of claim 1. Solomon fails to further disclose comprising a fine positioning clutch configured to substantially restrict relative positions of at least a portion of the second plurality of links in the second arm segment while enabling relative movement among the first plurality of links in the first arm segment.
In the same field of endeavor, which is surgical robotic systems, Hourtash teaches a fine positioning clutch configured to substantially restrict relative positions of at least a portion of the second plurality of links in the second arm segment while enabling relative movement among the first plurality of links in the first arm segment (Par. 0088-0089 & 0102).
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 Solomon, in view of Kilroy and Prisco, to have a fine positioning clutch configured to substantially restrict relative positions of at least a portion of the second plurality of links in the second arm segment while enabling relative movement among the first plurality of links in the first arm segment. Doing so would allow the remote center to be repositioned (Par. 0088-0089 & 0102), as taught by Hourtash.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon et al. (US 2007/0089557) in view of Prisco et al. (US 2007/0142823), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kang et al. (US 2013/0096573).
Regarding claim 30, Solomon, as modified by Prisco, discloses the system of claim 17. However, Solomon fails to further discloses wherein in the friction compensation mode, the controller is configured to incorporate a pre-defined parameter to distinguish between a movement of the robotic arm that is accidental and a movement of the robotic arm that is intentional, and correct a position of the robotic arm when the movement is determined to be accidental.
In the analogous art of surgical robots, Kang teaches (Fig. 3) wherein a controller (60) is configured to incorporate a pre-defined parameter [i.e. a predetermined cutting/no-cutting or touch/no-touch plan relative to the pertinent tissue structures] to distinguish between a movement of the robotic arm that is accidental and a movement of the robotic arm that is intentional, and correct a position of the robotic arm when the movement is determined to be accidental (Abstract & Par. 0023).
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 Solomon, in view of Prisco, to have wherein in the friction compensation mode, the controller is configured to incorporate a pre-defined parameter to distinguish between a movement of the robotic arm that is accidental and a movement of the robotic arm that is intentional, and correct a position of the robotic arm when the movement is determined to be accidental. Doing so would provide corrective motion as an operator tries to move the surgical instrument along a path that strays from a predetermined cutting/no-cutting or touch/no-touch plan relative to the pertinent tissue structures., as taught by Kang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 05/21/26, with respect to claims 4 and 23-24 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection and 35 USC § 112 rejection of claims 4 and 23-24 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 05/21/26, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 USC § 102 & 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of newly cited prior art.
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 Examiner Chima Igboko whose telephone number is (571)272-8422. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.U.I/ Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/KATHLEEN S HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights