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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 23-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 has the same limitations as claim 21.
Claim 24 has the same limitations as claim 22.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 4 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 4 recites the limitation "the second arm segment is coupled to a distal end of the second link" in lines 5-6. It is unclear how the second arm is coupled to the second link, when the second arm comprises the second link.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solomon et al. (US 2007/0089557).
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 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).
Regarding claim 20, Solomon 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).
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, and 15-16 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).
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 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.
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.
Regarding claim 4, Solomon, in view of Kilroy, 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 second link 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 spherical workspace (Fig. 1; Par. 0032-0033).
Regarding claim 5, Solomon, in view of Kilroy, 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, in view of Kilroy, 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, in view of Kilroy, 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, in view of Kilroy, 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, in view of Kilroy, 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, in view of Kilroy, discloses the system of claim 1. Solomon further discloses wherein the robotic arm is coupled to a table (Par. 0033).
Claims 21 and 23 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TSUBOI et al. (US 2017/0007336).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy, discloses the system of claim 1. However, Solomon fails to 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.
In the same field of endeavor, which is surgical robotic systems, Tsuboi teaches 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 (Par. 0489).
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 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. Doing so would allow the surgeon to operate the arm unit as though the arm unit is weightless (Par. 0146), as taught by Tsuboi.
Claims 22 and 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fung et al. (US 5,116,180).
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy, discloses the system of claim 1. However, Solomon fails to further disclose 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 acting to back-drive at least one joint module, and actuate 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, Fung teaches a friction compensation mode in which the controller determines a presence of a user- applied force acting to back-drive at least one joint module, and actuate the at least one joint module to reduce the user-applied force required to back-drive the at least one joint module (Col. 9, lines 15-29).
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 acting to back-drive at least one joint module, and actuate 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 result in velocity feedback means which constrain the rate at which the operator will move the joystick (Col. 9, lines 15-29), as taught by Fung.
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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2013/0224710).
Regarding claim 25, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy, 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, 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Quaid, III (US 2004/0024311).
Regarding claim 26, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy, 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, 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ROMO et al. (US 2016/0184032).
Regarding claim 27, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy, 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, 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hourtash et al. (US 2014/0276952).
Regarding claim 28, Solomon, as modified by Kilroy, 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, 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 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon et al. (US 2007/0089557) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of TSUBOI et al. (US 2017/0007336).
Regarding claim 29, Solomon 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.
In the same field of endeavor, which is surgical robotic systems, Tsuboi teaches a gravity compensation mode in which in the robotic arm holds itself in a particular pose without drifting downward due to gravity (Par. 0489).
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 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 allow the surgeon to operate the arm unit as though the arm unit is weightless (Par. 0146), as taught by Tsuboi.
Claim 30 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) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Fung et al. (US 5,116,180).
Regarding claim 30, Solomon discloses the system of claim 17. Solomon fails to further 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 moving at least a portion of the robotic arm by actively back-driving at least one of the plurality of joint modules in a direction needed to achieve a pose desired by the user.
In the same field of endeavor, which is surgical robotic systems, Fung teaches a friction compensation mode which enables the robotic arm to assist a user in moving at least a portion of the robotic arm by actively back-driving at least one of the plurality of joint modules in a direction needed to achieve a pose desired by the user (Col. 9, lines 15-29).
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 moving at least a portion of the robotic arm by actively back-driving at least one of the plurality of joint modules in a direction needed to achieve a pose desired by the user. Doing so would result in velocity feedback means which constrain the rate at which the operator will move the joystick (Col. 9, lines 15-29), as taught by Fung.
Conclusion
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
/TAN-UYEN T HO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771