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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENABLING A VIRTUAL MANIPULATOR MODE OF
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 29-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 29 is directed to: “A method of operating a surgical control system, the method comprising” with the steps of displaying, detecting, determining and enabling, which are nothing more than software instructions. Software instructions are non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 30-42 comprise further steps, for example claim 30 comprises the step of displaying, therefore claims 30-42 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 29.
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 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.
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) 29-31, 34-35, 42-43 and 46-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOPP (US2017/0224428A1) in view of POPOVIC (US2020/0268462A1 from IDS submitted on 8/20/24) in view of LEE (US2011/0306986A1).
Regarding claim 29, KOPP teaches:
29. (New) A method of operating a surgical control system, the method comprising (KOPP: par. 10 lines 1-5):
displaying, on a display system, an image of a surgical environment (KOPP: par. 18 lines 1-5);
detecting a manipulator input motion (KOPP: par. 20 lines 1-4);
determining if the manipulator input motion is within a boundary corresponding to a range of motion of a manipulator, the manipulator coupled to a medical instrument and configured to control motion of the medical instrument (KOPP: fig. 1 see pars. 19 and 24 lines 1-6); and
if the manipulator input motion exceeds the boundary, dynamically scaling the control signals (KOPP: pars. 24 and 25 lines 1-17).
KOPP doesn’t teach however the analogous prior art POPOVIC teaches:
the display system configured to move with a head of a user (POPOVIC: par. 20 lines 11-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display system configured to move with a head of a user as shown in POPOVIC with KOPP for the benefit of fulfilling a need in the prior art for an apparatus, systems, methods, and computer-readable storage media for control of a surgical robot using a combination of live imagery and tracking information provided from a virtual reality device enabling target selection using motion detection, while not depending on use of the user's hands or dexterity, generally [7].
The previous combination of KOPP and POPOVIC remains as above but doesn’t teach however the analogous prior art LEE teaches:
enabling a virtual manipulator mode (LEE: par. 189 lines 1-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine enabling a virtual manipulator mode as shown in LEE with the previous combination for the benefit of addressing a shortcoming in the prior art in that the conventional surgical robot system was limited in that the operator had to manipulate the controller equipped on the master robot with a high level of concentration throughout the entire period of operating on the surgery patient. This may cause severe fatigue to the operator, and an imperfect operation due to lowered concentration may cause severe aftereffects to the surgery patient [12].
Regarding claim 30, KOPP in view of POPOVIC as modified by LEE (with the same motivation from claim 29) further teaches:
30. The method of claim 29, further comprising: while the surgical control system is in the virtual manipulator mode, displaying, on the display system, a ghost image of the medical instrument (LEE: par. 189 lines 8-15; note: the examiner has interpreted the virtual surgical tool as the ghost image).
Regarding claim 31, KOPP in view of POPOVIC as modified by LEE (with the same motivation from claim 29) further teaches:
31. The method of claim 30, further comprising: while the surgical control system is in the virtual manipulator mode and responsive to the manipulator input motion, displaying the ghost image of the medical instrument moving on the display system, wherein motion of the ghost image of the medical instrument corresponds to the detected manipulator input motion (LEE: par. 189 lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 34, KOPP in view of POPOVIC as modified by LEE (with the same motivation from claim 29) further teaches:
34. The method of claim 29, further comprising: disabling operation of the medical instrument in the surgical environment while the surgical control system is in the virtual manipulator mode (LEE: par. 189 lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 35, KOPP in view of POPOVIC as modified by LEE (with the same motivation from claim 29) further teaches:
35. The method of claim 29, further comprising: disabling operation of the manipulator in the surgical environment while the surgical control system is in the virtual manipulator mode (LEE: par. 189 lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 42, KOPP teaches:
42. The method of claim 29, wherein the medical instrument is an imaging instrument (KOPP: fig. 1: 16 and 20 see par. 18 lines 1-13 and lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 43, KOPP teaches:
43. A medical system comprising (KOPP: abstract lines 1-2):
a display (KOPP: par. 18 lines 1-2);
a manipulator coupled to a medical instrument and configured to control motion of the medical instrument (KOPP: fig. 1 see pars. 19 and 24 lines 1-6); and
a control system configured to:
display, on the display, an image of a surgical environment (KOPP: par. 18 lines 1-5);
detect a manipulator input motion (KOPP: par. 20 lines 1-4);
determine if the manipulator input motion is within a boundary corresponding to a range of motion of the manipulator (KOPP: fig. 1 see pars. 19 and 24 lines 1-6); and
if the manipulator input motion exceeds the boundary, dynamically scaling the control signals (KOPP: pars. 24 and 25 lines 1-17).
KOPP doesn’t teach however the analogous prior art POPOVIC (with the same motivation from claim 29) teaches:
a display configured to be mounted to a head of a user (POPOVIC: par. 20 lines 11-15).
The previous combination of KOPP and POPOVIC remains as above but doesn’t teach however the analogous prior art LEE (with the same motivation from claim 29) teaches:
enabling a virtual manipulator mode (LEE: par. 189 lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 46, KOPP in view of POPOVIC as modified by LEE (with the same motivation from claim 29) further teaches:
46. The medical system of claim 43, wherein the control system is further configured to: disable operation of the medical instrument in the surgical environment while the medical system is in the virtual manipulator mode. (LEE: par. 189 lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 47, KOPP in view of POPOVIC as modified by LEE (with the same motivation from claim 29) further teaches:
47. The medical system of claim 43, wherein the control system is further configured to: disable operation of the manipulator in the surgical environment while the medical system is in the virtual manipulator mode (LEE: par. 189 lines 10-15).
Claim(s) 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOPP in view of POPOVIC in view of LEE in view of OLSON (US2013/0096575A1 from IDS submitted on 8/20/24).
Regarding claim 40, the previous combination of KOPP in view of POPOVIC in view of LEE don’t teach however the analogous prior art OLSON teaches:
40. The method of claim 29, wherein detecting the manipulator input motion includes detecting a movement of an arm of the user (OLSON: par. 95 lines 1-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein detecting the manipulator input motion includes detecting a movement of an arm of the user as shown in OLSON with the previous combination for the benefit of providing methods and apparatuses with an advantage in that they provide an EP physician or other user with the capability of directly controlling a robotic catheter system [11].
Regarding claim 41, KOPP in view of POPOVIC in view of LEE as modified by OLSON (with the same motivation from claim 40) further teaches:
41. The method of claim 29, wherein detecting the manipulator input motion includes detecting a movement of a hand of the user (OLSON: par. 95 lines 1-13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32-33 and 36-39 would be objected to (except for the 101 rejection) as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 44-45 and 48 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 32-33, 36-39, 44-45 and 48 the prior art doesn’t teach:
32. The method of claim 29, further comprising:
while the surgical control system is in the virtual manipulator mode, displaying, on the display system, a ghost image of the manipulator.
33. The method of claim 32, further comprising:
while the surgical control system is in the virtual manipulator mode and responsive to the manipulator input motion, displaying the ghost image of the manipulator moving on the display system, wherein motion of the ghost image of the manipulator corresponds to the detected manipulator input motion.
36. The method of claim 29, further comprising:
providing directions for exiting the virtual manipulator mode, wherein the directions guide a movement of a user to a position that matches a last position of the manipulator within the boundary corresponding to the range of motion of a manipulator.
37. The method of claim 36, wherein the directions include audible directions.
38. The method of claim 36, wherein the directions include visual images presented on the display system.
39. The method of claim 36, further comprising:
providing an indication to the user that the surgical control system has exited the virtual manipulator mode.
44. The medical system of claim 43, wherein the control system is further configured to:
while the medical system is in the virtual manipulator mode, display, on the display, a ghost image of the manipulator.
45. The medical system of claim 44, wherein the control system is further configured to:
while the medical system is in the virtual manipulator mode and responsive to the manipulator input motion, displaying the ghost image of the manipulator moving on the display, wherein motion of the ghost image of the manipulator corresponds to the detected manipulator input motion.
48. The medical system of claim 43, wherein the control system is further configured to:
provide directions for exiting the virtual manipulator mode, wherein the directions guide a movement of the user to a position that matches a last position of the manipulator within the boundary corresponding to the range of motion of a manipulator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
COSTE-MANIERE (US2003/0109780A1) discloses methods and apparatus for enhancing surgical planning provide enhanced planning of entry port placement and/or robot position for laparoscopic, robotic, and other minimally invasive surgery. Various embodiments may be used in robotic surgery systems to identify advantageous entry ports for multiple robotic surgical tools into a patient to access a surgical site. Generally, data such as imaging data is processed and used to create a model of a surgical site, which can then be used to select advantageous entry port sites for two or more surgical tools based on multiple criteria. Advantageous robot positioning may also be determined, based on the entry port locations and other factors. Validation and simulation may then be provided to ensure feasibility of the selected port placements and/or robot positions. Such methods, apparatus, and systems may also be used in non-surgical contexts, such as for robotic port placement in munitions diffusion or hazardous waste handling; PEINE (US2018/0310999A1) discloses a robotic surgical system includes a linkage, an input device, and a processing unit. The linkage moveably supports a surgical tool relative to a base. The input device is rotatable about a first axis of rotation and a second axis of rotation. The processing unit is in communication with the input device and is operatively associated with the linkage to rotate the surgical tool about a first axis of movement based on a scaled rotation of the input device about the first axis of rotation by a first scaling factor and to rotate the surgical tool about a second axis of movement based on a scaled rotation of the input device about the second axis of rotation by a second scaling factor that is different from the first scaling factor; POLEY et. al., “MOTION ANALYSIS OF ROBOT ARM WITH MOVEMENT RESTRICTION”, Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition IMECE2016, November 11-17, 2016, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, discloses as the medical robotics field matures, robots are increasingly being used to assist surgeons during procedures requiring intricate precision. A number of different path planning algorithms have been proposed over the last decade for surgical procedures such as minimally invasive, endoscopic, cochlear implantation, and numerous others. As minimally invasive procedures become more common, a surgeon loses the natural visibility, movement, and dexterity that would have been available in a traditionally open surgery. This may cause the surgeon to become tired, and potentially lead to other complications due to lack of visibility. With these issues in mind, path planning algorithms have been created and tested specifically for these surgical procedures, so that with a robotic manipulator arm, the movement, dexterity, and visibility for the surgical procedure can be enhanced [1]. In such cases, path planning can be used to develop optimal paths despite the motion constraints that are caused due to the dimensions of the human body. The authors’ aim is to determine the effectiveness of a unique constraint equation on robotic manipulator arms such as the KUKA LWR IV+ through simulations; GILLERAN et. al., “Robotic-assisted laparoscopic mesh sacrocolpopexy”, Therapeutic Advances in Urology 2.5-6 (2010): 195-208, discloses the current ‘gold standard’ surgical repair for apical prolapse is the abdominal mesh sacrocolpopexy. Use of a robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgical approach has been demonstrated to be feasible as a minimally invasive approach and is gaining popularity amongst pelvic floor reconstructive surgeons. Although outcome data for robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) is only just emerging, several small series have demonstrated anatomic and functional outcomes, as well as complication rates, comparable to those reported for open surgery. The primary advantages thus far for RASC over open surgery include decreased blood loss and shorter hospital stay.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE L MCDOWELL, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur & Sat: 2pm-10pm.
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, Said A. Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/MAURICE L. MCDOWELL, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612