DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-25 are pending.
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, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15-17, 21, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0016759) in view of Diolaiti (US Publication No. 2013/0211588), and Qiu et al. (CN 102909728, citations are to the translation provided herewith).
Kim teaches:
Re claim 1. A computer-assisted system comprising:
a repositionable arm (robots R1-R4, Fig. 1); and
a control unit coupled to the repositionable arm (Fig. 3, the controllers are communicatively coupled to the robots R1-R4);
wherein the control unit is configured to:
receive, from an imaging device, image data of an instrument, the instrument mounted to the repositionable arm (S12, Fig. 5; and paragraph [0111]: “the vision controller VC scans an apex of the correction tool T fixed to the leading end of the arm of each of the first, second, and third hanger robots R1, R2, and R3 at the three predetermined locations according to the three-point behavior of the first, second, and third robots R1, R2, and R3 through the camera 11 and outputs image information by controlling the vision unit VU (S12).”);
determine an observed geometric property of a feature set of the instrument based on the image data, the feature set comprising at least one feature (S13, Fig. 5; and paragraph [0112]: “the vision controller VC analyzes the image information of the correction tools T at the three predetermined three-point locations of the first, second, and third hanger robots R1, R2, and R3 and generates first, second and third location coordinates (Vx, Vy, Vz) of the apexes of the correction tools T in the vision coordinate system (S13).”);
determine an expected geometric property of the feature set based on at least kinematic data of the repositionable arm (S14, Fig. 5; and paragraphs [0089-0090 and 0114]: “the vision controller VC receives first, second, and third location coordinates (Rx, Ry, Rz) of the apexes of the correction tools T in the robot coordinate system at the three predetermined three-point locations of the first, second, and third hanger robots R1, R2, and R3 from the robot controller RC (S14).”);
determine a difference between the observed geometric property and the expected geometric property (S15, Fig. 5; and paragraph [0117]: “the vision controller VC compares the values of the first, second, and third location coordinates (Rx, Ry, Rz) in the robot coordinate system with the values of the first, second, and third location coordinates (Vx, Vy, Vz) in the vision coordinate system, and calculates a first correction value that is a correction coordinate value for a difference value between the location coordinates in the robot coordinate system and the location coordinates in the vision coordinate system (S15).”);
update […] a registration transform to produce an updated registration transform associated with the instrument, (S16, Fig. 5; and paragraphs [0107 and 0118]: “Through the first correction operation S1, the robot coordinate system set in the robot controller RC as the unique coordinate system is corrected with the first correction value to be matched to the vision coordinate system.”; and “The vision controller VC transmits the first correction value to the robot controller RC, and the robot controller RC applies the first correction value to the robot coordinate system to correct the robot coordinate system to a first correction robot coordinate system and sets the robot coordinate system again (S16).”); and
control the instrument using the updated registration transform (S1 and S7, Fig. 4; and paragraph [0119]: “Referring back to FIG. 4, the first correction robot coordinate system is set through the first correction operation S1 and then the component restriction operation S2 is performed.”).
Kim fails to specifically teach: (re claim 1) wherein the registration transform is between a base coordinate system […] and an imaging device coordinate system associated with the imaging device.
Diolaiti teaches, at paragraph [0060] and Fig. 3, using an endoscope to correct the pose of a working end of a medical instrument in a camera reference frame using a known transformation between the tool reference frame and a world reference frame and a known transformation between the camera reference frame and the world reference frame, wherein the world reference frame is, for example, a Cartesian reference frame having its origin at a stationary point at the work site. Diolaiti uses an error transform, which is determined from a difference between a tool pose based on kinematics and a tool pose based on image processing. The error transform may be first determined with a pre-operative calibration step, and periodically updated when the working end of the instrument is in the field of view of the camera.
In view of Diolaiti’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Kim, (re claim 1) wherein the registration transform is between a base coordinate system […] and an imaging device coordinate system associated with the imaging device, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Diolaiti teaches using an endoscope to correct the pose of a working end of a medical instrument in a camera reference frame using a known transformation between the tool reference frame and a world reference frame and a known transformation between the camera reference frame and the world reference frame, wherein the world reference frame is, for example, a Cartesian reference frame having its origin at a stationary point at the work site. Diolaiti uses an error transform, which is determined from a difference between a tool pose based on kinematics and a tool pose based on image processing. The error transform may be first determined with a pre-operative calibration step, and periodically updated when the working end of the instrument is in the field of view of the camera. Diolaiti teaches such transforms are useful in the field of robotic surgery so that instruments may be properly located in an endoscope’s field of view.
Kim fails to specifically teach: (re claim 1) update, in response to the difference being within a configurable range, a registration transform; and
a base coordinate system having its origin located at a point on a base associated with the repositionable arm.
Qiu teaches, at paragraphs [0008 and 0037], calculating a deviation between an estimated tool center point position P0 and an actual tool center point position P1 and comparing this deviation with a maximum allowable deviation range. If the deviation is less than or equal to the maximum allowable deviation range, the coordinate correction process is complete. If the deviation is greater than the maximum allowable deviation range, parameters of the estimated tool center point in the controller are modified to compensate for the deviation distance. This allows for correction of the controller’s parameters used for estimating the tool center point until the estimated tool center point is within an allowable range of the actual tool center point as detected by the vision system.
Qiu teaches, at paragraph [0039], a tool coordinate system T can be established at the robot base 11 of Fig. 2. Positioning the origin of a repositionable arm’s base coordinate system at a point on a base associated with the repositionable arm yields the predictable result of having the repositionable arm’s base coordinate system at a known and commonly used location, thus reducing confusion regarding the location of the base coordinate system.
In view of Qiu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Kim, (re claim 1) update, in response to the difference being within a configurable range, a registration transform; and a base coordinate system having its origin located at a point on a base associated with the repositionable arm, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Qiu teaches calculating a deviation between an estimated tool center point position P0, calculated by a robot controller, and an actual tool center point position P1, calculated based on a vision system, and comparing this deviation with a maximum allowable deviation range. If the deviation is less than or equal to the maximum allowable deviation range, the coordinate correction process is complete. If the deviation is greater than the maximum allowable deviation range, parameters of the estimated tool center point in the controller are modified to compensate for the deviation distance. This allows for correction of the controller’s parameters used for estimating the tool center point until the estimated tool center point is within an allowable range of the actual tool center point as detected by the vision system. This prevents endless corrections in pursuit of perfection. Additionally, Qiu teaches a tool coordinate system can be established at the robot base. Positioning the origin of a repositionable arm’s base coordinate system at a point on a base associated with the repositionable arm yields the predictable result of having the repositionable arm’s base coordinate system at a known and commonly used location, thus reducing confusion regarding the location of the base coordinate system.
Kim further teaches:
Re claim 2. Wherein the observed geometric property comprises an observed position of the feature of the instrument (S13, Fig. 5).
Re claim 4. Wherein the feature set comprises a fiducial or an alignment feature of the instrument (apex of the correction tool T, Fig. 6).
Re claim 6. Wherein the feature set comprises a primary feature directly observable in successive images from the image data (Fig. 4; and apex of the correction tool T, Fig. 6).
Re claim 8. Wherein the observed geometric property and the expected geometric property are for a same period in time (paragraphs [0110-0112]).
Kim fails to specifically teach (re claim 9) wherein:
the instrument is a medical instrument and the imaging device is an endoscope; and (re claim 13) wherein to update the registration transform based on the difference, the control unit is configured to:
initialize the registration transform using a seed transform or another registration method; or
update the registration transform in response to the difference being smaller than a configurable upper limit; or
update the registration transform in response to the difference being larger than a configurable lower limit.
Diolaiti teaches, at paragraphs [0056 and 0060], Figs. 3 and 7a, using an endoscope to correct the pose of a working end of a medical instrument in a camera reference frame using an error transform, which is determined from a difference between a tool pose based on kinematics and a tool pose based on image processing. The error transform may be first determined with a pre-operative calibration step, and periodically updated when the working end of the instrument is in the field of view of the camera.
In view of Diolaiti’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Kim, (re claim 9) wherein: the instrument is a medical instrument and the imaging device is an endoscope; and the registration transform is between a base coordinate system associated with the repositionable arm and a coordinate system associated with the imaging device; and (re claim 13) wherein to update the registration transform based on the difference, the control unit is configured to: initialize the registration transform using a seed transform or another registration method; or update the registration transform in response to the difference being smaller than a configurable upper limit; or update the registration transform in response to the difference being larger than a configurable lower limit, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Diolaiti teaches using an endoscope to correct the pose of a working end of a medical instrument in a camera reference frame using an error transform, which is determined from a difference between a tool pose based on kinematics and a tool pose based on image processing. Diolaiti teaches such transforms are useful in the field of robotic surgery so that instruments may be properly located in an endoscope’s field of view.
Kim further teaches:
Re claim 11. Wherein the control unit is further configured to:
determine the expected geometric property further based on kinematic data of the instrument (paragraph [0021]).
Re claim 15. A method of operating a computer-assisted system, the method comprising:
receiving, by a control unit from an imaging device, image data of an instrument, the instrument mounted to a repositionable arm of the computer-assisted system (S12, Fig. 5; and paragraph [0111]: “the vision controller VC scans an apex of the correction tool T fixed to the leading end of the arm of each of the first, second, and third hanger robots R1, R2, and R3 at the three predetermined locations according to the three-point behavior of the first, second, and third robots R1, R2, and R3 through the camera 11 and outputs image information by controlling the vision unit VU (S12).”);
determining, by the control unit, an observed geometric property of a feature set of the instrument based on the image data, the feature set comprising at least one feature (S13, Fig. 5; and paragraph [0112]: “the vision controller VC analyzes the image information of the correction tools T at the three predetermined three-point locations of the first, second, and third hanger robots R1, R2, and R3 and generates first, second and third location coordinates (Vx, Vy, Vz) of the apexes of the correction tools T in the vision coordinate system (S13).”);
determining, by the control unit, an expected geometric property of the feature set based on at least kinematic data of the repositionable arm (S14, Fig. 5; and paragraph [0114]: “the vision controller VC receives first, second, and third location coordinates (Rx, Ry, Rz) of the apexes of the correction tools T in the robot coordinate system at the three predetermined three-point locations of the first, second, and third hanger robots R1, R2, and R3 from the robot controller RC (S14).”);
determining, by the control unit, a difference between the observed geometric property and the expected geometric property (S15, Fig. 5; and paragraph [0117]: “the vision controller VC compares the values of the first, second, and third location coordinates (Rx, Ry, Rz) in the robot coordinate system with the values of the first, second, and third location coordinates (Vx, Vy, Vz) in the vision coordinate system, and calculates a first correction value that is a correction coordinate value for a difference value between the location coordinates in the robot coordinate system and the location coordinates in the vision coordinate system (S15).”);
updating, by the control unit […], a registration transform associated with the instrument (S16, Fig. 5; and paragraphs [0107 and 0118]: “Through the first correction operation S1, the robot coordinate system set in the robot controller RC as the unique coordinate system is corrected with the first correction value to be matched to the vision coordinate system.”; and “The vision controller VC transmits the first correction value to the robot controller RC, and the robot controller RC applies the first correction value to the robot coordinate system to correct the robot coordinate system to a first correction robot coordinate system and sets the robot coordinate system again (S16).”); and
controlling, by the control unit, the instrument using the updated registration transform (S1 and S7, Fig. 4; and paragraph [0119]: “Referring back to FIG. 4, the first correction robot coordinate system is set through the first correction operation S1 and then the component restriction operation S2 is performed.”).
Kim fails to specifically teach: (re claim 15) wherein the registration transform is between a base coordinate system […] and an imaging device coordinate system associated with the imaging device.
Diolaiti teaches, at paragraph [0060] and Fig. 3, using an endoscope to correct the pose of a working end of a medical instrument in a camera reference frame using a known transformation between the tool reference frame and a world reference frame and a known transformation between the camera reference frame and the world reference frame, wherein the world reference frame is, for example, a Cartesian reference frame having its origin at a stationary point at the work site. Diolaiti uses an error transform, which is determined from a difference between a tool pose based on kinematics and a tool pose based on image processing. The error transform may be first determined with a pre-operative calibration step, and periodically updated when the working end of the instrument is in the field of view of the camera.
In view of Diolaiti’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Kim, (re claim 15) wherein the registration transform is between a base coordinate system […] and an imaging device coordinate system associated with the imaging device, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Diolaiti teaches using an endoscope to correct the pose of a working end of a medical instrument in a camera reference frame using a known transformation between the tool reference frame and a world reference frame and a known transformation between the camera reference frame and the world reference frame, wherein the world reference frame is, for example, a Cartesian reference frame having its origin at a stationary point at the work site. Diolaiti uses an error transform, which is determined from a difference between a tool pose based on kinematics and a tool pose based on image processing. The error transform may be first determined with a pre-operative calibration step, and periodically updated when the working end of the instrument is in the field of view of the camera. Diolaiti teaches such transforms are useful in the field of robotic surgery so that instruments may be properly located in an endoscope’s field of view.
Kim fails to specifically teach: (re claim 15) updating, in response to the difference being within a configurable range, a registration transform associated with the instrument; and
a base coordinate system having its origin located at a point on a base associated with the repositionable arm.
Qiu teaches, at paragraphs [0008 and 0037], calculating a deviation between an estimated tool center point position P0, calculated by a robot controller 30, and an actual tool center point position P1, calculated based on a vision system, and comparing this deviation to a maximum allowable deviation range. If the deviation is less than or equal to the maximum allowable deviation range, the coordinate correction process is complete. If the deviation is greater than the maximum allowable deviation range, parameters of the estimated tool center point in the controller are modified to compensate for the deviation distance. This allows for correction of the controller’s parameters used for estimating the tool center point until the estimated tool center point is within an allowable range of the actual tool center point as detected by the vision system.
Qiu teaches, at paragraph [0039], a tool coordinate system T can be established at the robot base 11 of Fig. 2. Positioning the origin of a repositionable arm’s base coordinate system at a point on a base associated with the repositionable arm yields the predictable result of having the repositionable arm’s base coordinate system at a known and commonly used location, thus reducing confusion regarding the location of the base coordinate system.
In view of Qiu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Kim, (re claim 15) updating, in response to the difference being within a configurable range, a registration transform associated with the instrument; and a base coordinate system having its origin located at a point on a base associated with the repositionable arm, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Qiu teaches calculating a deviation between an estimated tool center point position P0, calculated by a robot controller, and an actual tool center point position P1, calculated based on a vision system, and comparing this deviation with a maximum allowable deviation range. If the deviation is less than or equal to the maximum allowable deviation range, the coordinate correction process is complete. If the deviation is greater than the maximum allowable deviation range, parameters of the estimated tool center point in the controller are modified to compensate for the deviation distance. This allows for correction of the controller’s parameters used for estimating the tool center point until the estimated tool center point is within an allowable range of the actual tool center point as detected by the vision system. This prevents endless corrections in pursuit of perfection. Additionally, Qiu teaches a tool coordinate system can be established at the robot base. Positioning the origin of a repositionable arm’s base coordinate system at a point on a base associated with the repositionable arm yields the predictable result of having the repositionable arm’s base coordinate system at a known and commonly used location, thus reducing confusion regarding the location of the base coordinate system.
Kim further teaches:
Re claim 16. Wherein the observed geometric property comprises:
an observed position of the feature of the instrument (S13, Fig. 5); or
an observed velocity of the feature of the instrument.
Re claim 17. wherein the feature set comprises:
a primary feature directly observable in successive images from the image data (Fig. 4; and apex of the correction tool T, Fig. 6); or
a secondary feature determined from one or more primary features directly observable in successive images from the image data.
Re claim 21. A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising a plurality of machine-readable instructions which when executed by one or more processors associated with a computer-assisted device, are adapted to cause the one or more processors to perform a method comprising:
receiving, from an imaging device, image data of an instrument, the instrument mounted to a repositionable arm of the computer-assisted device (S12, Fig. 5; and paragraph [0111]: “the vision controller VC scans an apex of the correction tool T fixed to the leading end of the arm of each of the first, second, and third hanger robots R1, R2, and R3 at the three predetermined locations according to the three-point behavior of the first, second, and third robots R1, R2, and R3 through the camera 11 and outputs image information by controlling the vision unit VU (S12).”);
determining an observed geometric property of a feature set of the instrument based on the image data, the feature set comprising at least one feature (S13, Fig. 5; and paragraph [0112]: “the vision controller VC analyzes the image information of the correction tools T at the three predetermined three-point locations of the first, second, and third hanger robots R1, R2, and R3 and generates first, second and third location coordinates (Vx, Vy, Vz) of the apexes of the correction tools T in the vision coordinate system (S13).”);
determining an expected geometric property of the feature set based on at least kinematic data of the repositionable arm (S14, Fig. 5; and paragraph [0114]: “the vision controller VC receives first, second, and third location coordinates (Rx, Ry, Rz) of the apexes of the correction tools T in the robot coordinate system at the three predetermined three-point locations of the first, second, and third hanger robots R1, R2, and R3 from the robot controller RC (S14).”);
determining a difference between the observed geometric property and the expected geometric property (S15, Fig. 5; and paragraph [0117]: “the vision controller VC compares the values of the first, second, and third location coordinates (Rx, Ry, Rz) in the robot coordinate system with the values of the first, second, and third location coordinates (Vx, Vy, Vz) in the vision coordinate system, and calculates a first correction value that is a correction coordinate value for a difference value between the location coordinates in the robot coordinate system and the location coordinates in the vision coordinate system (S15).”);
updating […] a registration transform associated with the instrument (S16, Fig. 5; and paragraphs [0107 and 0118]: “Through the first correction operation S1, the robot coordinate system set in the robot controller RC as the unique coordinate system is corrected with the first correction value to be matched to the vision coordinate system.”; and “The vision controller VC transmits the first correction value to the robot controller RC, and the robot controller RC applies the first correction value to the robot coordinate system to correct the robot coordinate system to a first correction robot coordinate system and sets the robot coordinate system again (S16).”); and
controlling the instrument using the updated registration transform (S1 and S7, Fig. 4; and paragraph [0119]: “Referring back to FIG. 4, the first correction robot coordinate system is set through the first correction operation S1 and then the component restriction operation S2 is performed.”).
Kim fails to specifically teach: (re claim 21) wherein the registration transform is between a base coordinate system […] and an imaging device coordinate system associated with the imaging device.
Diolaiti teaches, at paragraph [0060] and Fig. 3, using an endoscope to correct the pose of a working end of a medical instrument in a camera reference frame using a known transformation between the tool reference frame and a world reference frame and a known transformation between the camera reference frame and the world reference frame, wherein the world reference frame is, for example, a Cartesian reference frame having its origin at a stationary point at the work site. Diolaiti uses an error transform, which is determined from a difference between a tool pose based on kinematics and a tool pose based on image processing. The error transform may be first determined with a pre-operative calibration step, and periodically updated when the working end of the instrument is in the field of view of the camera.
In view of Diolaiti’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the medium as taught by Kim, (re claim 21) wherein the registration transform is between a base coordinate system […] and an imaging device coordinate system associated with the imaging device, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Diolaiti teaches using an endoscope to correct the pose of a working end of a medical instrument in a camera reference frame using a known transformation between the tool reference frame and a world reference frame and a known transformation between the camera reference frame and the world reference frame, wherein the world reference frame is, for example, a Cartesian reference frame having its origin at a stationary point at the work site. Diolaiti uses an error transform, which is determined from a difference between a tool pose based on kinematics and a tool pose based on image processing. The error transform may be first determined with a pre-operative calibration step, and periodically updated when the working end of the instrument is in the field of view of the camera. Diolaiti teaches such transforms are useful in the field of robotic surgery so that instruments may be properly located in an endoscope’s field of view.
Kim fails to specifically teach: (re claim 21) updating, in response to the difference being within a configurable range, a registration transform associated with the instrument; and
a base coordinate system having its origin located at a point on a base associated with the repositionable arm.
Qiu teaches, at paragraphs [0008 and 0037], calculating a deviation between an estimated tool center point position P0, calculated by a robot controller 30, and an actual tool center point position P1, calculated based on a vision system, and comparing this deviation to a maximum allowable deviation range. If the deviation is less than or equal to the maximum allowable deviation range, the coordinate correction process is complete. If the deviation is greater than the maximum allowable deviation range, parameters of the estimated tool center point in the controller are modified to compensate for the deviation distance. This allows for correction of the controller’s parameters used for estimating the tool center point until the estimated tool center point is within an allowable range of the actual tool center point as detected by the vision system.
Qiu teaches, at paragraph [0039], a tool coordinate system T can be established at the robot base 11 of Fig. 2. Positioning the origin of a repositionable arm’s base coordinate system at a point on a base associated with the repositionable arm yields the predictable result of having the repositionable arm’s base coordinate system at a known and commonly used location, thus reducing confusion regarding the location of the base coordinate system.
In view of Qiu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the medium as taught by Kim, (re claim 21) updating, in response to the difference being within a configurable range, a registration transform associated with the instrument; and a base coordinate system having its origin located at a point on a base associated with the repositionable arm, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Qiu teaches calculating a deviation between an estimated tool center point position P0, calculated by a robot controller, and an actual tool center point position P1, calculated based on a vision system, and comparing this deviation with a maximum allowable deviation range. If the deviation is less than or equal to the maximum allowable deviation range, the coordinate correction process is complete. If the deviation is greater than the maximum allowable deviation range, parameters of the estimated tool center point in the controller are modified to compensate for the deviation distance. This allows for correction of the controller’s parameters used for estimating the tool center point until the estimated tool center point is within an allowable range of the actual tool center point as detected by the vision system. This prevents endless corrections in pursuit of perfection. Additionally, Qiu teaches a tool coordinate system can be established at the robot base. Positioning the origin of a repositionable arm’s base coordinate system at a point on a base associated with the repositionable arm yields the predictable result of having the repositionable arm’s base coordinate system at a known and commonly used location, thus reducing confusion regarding the location of the base coordinate system.
Kim further teaches:
Re claim 22. Wherein the observed geometric property comprises:
an observed position of the feature of the instrument (S13, Fig. 5); or
an observed velocity of the feature of the instrument.
Kim fails to specifically teach: (re claim 25) wherein the imaging device coordinate system has an origin located at a second point on a second base associated with a second repositionable arm that supports the imaging device.
Diolaiti teaches, at paragraphs [0034 and 0059] and Fig. 9, both an instrument and an endoscope camera are held and manipulated by separate robotic arms, and both tool joint sensors and camera joint sensors are used to determine the pose of the working end of the instrument and the camera using kinematics calculations. This allows for independent manipulation of both a tool and a camera providing a view of a working area.
Qiu teaches, at paragraph [0039], such robotic arms have their base coordinate system’s origin located at the base of the robotic manipulator, which is helpful in setting up a procedure to translate from camera pixel coordinates to robot coordinates. Positioning the origin of a repositionable arm’s base coordinate system at a point on a base associated with the repositionable arm yields the predictable result of having the repositionable arm’s base coordinate system at a known and commonly used location, thus reducing confusion regarding the location of the base coordinate system.
In view of Diolaiti and Qiu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Kim, (re claim 25) wherein the imaging device coordinate system has an origin located at a second point on a second base associated with a second repositionable arm that supports the imaging device, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Diolaiti teaches both an instrument and an endoscope camera are held and manipulated by separate robotic arms, and both tool joint sensors and camera joint sensors are used to determine the pose of the working end of the instrument and the camera using kinematics calculations. This allows for independent manipulation of both a tool and a camera providing a view of a working area. Qiu teaches such robotic arms have their base coordinate system’s origin located at the base of the robotic manipulator, which is helpful in setting up a procedure to translate from camera pixel coordinates to robot coordinates. Positioning the origin of a repositionable arm’s base coordinate system at a point on a base associated with the repositionable arm yields the predictable result of having the repositionable arm’s base coordinate system at a known and commonly used location, thus reducing confusion regarding the location of the base coordinate system.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0016759) as modified by Diolaiti (US Publication No. 2013/0211588) and Qiu et al. (CN 102909728) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sela et al. (US Publication No. 2016/0000515).
The teachings of Kim have been discussed above. Kim fails to specifically teach (re claim 5) wherein the feature set comprises a plurality of features; (re claim 7) wherein the feature set comprises a secondary feature determined from one or more primary features directly observable in successive images from the image data.
Sela teaches, at Figs. 18(a) and 18(b) and paragraphs [0064 and 0077], markers 1830 and template 1840 may be included for visually identifying a tracking reference marker for a tracked tool, and that four such markers are preferred. This allows for tracking a location and orientation of such tools.
In view of Sela’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Kim, (re claim 5) wherein the feature set comprises a plurality of features; (re claim 7) wherein the feature set comprises a secondary feature determined from one or more primary features directly observable in successive images from the image data, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Sela teaches markers 1830 and template 1840 may be included for visually identifying a tracking reference marker for a tracked tool, and that four such markers are preferred. This allows for tracking a location and orientation of such tools.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10, 12, 14, 18-20, 23, and 24 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 6/17/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15-17, 21, 22, and 25 under 35 USC § 103 in view of Kim et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0016759) as modified by Diolaiti (US Publication No. 2013/0211588) and jbm et al. (“Base coordinate system documentation”) 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 Kim et al. as modified by Diolaiti and Qiu et al. (CN 102909728) as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights