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 .
Remarks
The claims being considered in this application are those submitted on 08/20/2024. Claims 1-18 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-18 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.
Claims 1 and 10 recites the limitation “a force relative to a tissue contact shared between the first surgical instrument and the second surgical instrument” without beforehand reciting “a” second surgical instrument. The claim later recites “a user control input to a second surgical instrument” which is believed to be intended to read as “the” second surgical instrument. Thus, there is antecedent basis issues in the claims. The dependent claims are further rejected based on the dependency of parent claims 1 and 10 that are rejected under 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 20150045812 A1) in view of Swayze et. al. (US 20180049817 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Seo discloses:
A first surgical instrument comprising a processor and a movable component, wherein the processor is configured to: (See at least ¶0073 via "a slave controller (see 260 of FIG. 7) of the slave device 200 may control an operation of the first surgical instrument 212 in response to one of the first operation control signals transmitted from the master device 100, for example, a control signal corresponding to the state information of the first handle unit 120L and may control an operation of the second surgical instrument 214 in response to a control signal corresponding to the state information of the second handle unit 120R.")
receive a motion control parameter, wherein the motion control parameter comprises one or more of: surgical instrument and the second surgical instrument; (See at least ¶0016 via " if the surgical instruments include at least two surgical instruments and the control signal indicates that a spread between the target positions of the at least two surgical instruments can fit within the working space". Additionally, see ¶0185 via "…due to a limitation in a distance between the second surgical instrument 214 and the first surgical instrument 212…" and ¶0186 via "A maximum distance between the first surgical instrument 212 and the second surgical instrument 214 exists. That is, there is a limitation in a distance between the first surgical instrument 212 and the second surgical instrument 214 diverged from the guide tube (not shown). For example, in FIG. 13, it will be understood that the first surgical instrument 212 and the second surgical instrument 214 that are close to the boundary surface of the working space W are spaced apart from each other by a maximum distance.")
sense a motion event caused by a user control input to a second surgical instrument; and autonomously adjust motion of the movable component based on the motion control parameter and the motion event (See at least ¶0051 via "The master device 100 generates a control signal according to the manipulator's manipulation and transmits the generated control signal to the slave device 200. The slave device 200 receives the control signal from the master device 100 and operates according to the received control signal." and also ¶0187 via "Thus, as the second surgical instrument 214 is moved to the target position, as described above, since the first surgical instrument 212 cannot be spaced apart from the second surgical instrument 214 any more, the first surgical instrument 212 intends to be moved to the direction of the second surgical instrument 214". And also ¶0012 via "a controller operating the surgical instrument in response to a control signal transmitted from the master device and if a target position of the surgical instrument according to the control signal corresponds to a position out of a range of a current working space for the surgical instrument").
However, although Seo discloses a feedback force to the user based on the position and velocity differences, and Seo discloses the first and second surgical instrument, corresponding to: shared between the first surgical instrument and the second surgical instrument; (See at least the first surgical instrument 212 and the second surgical instrument 214 as well as ¶0016 via "a spread between the target positions of the at least two surgical instruments");
Seo does not explicitly disclose the force relative to a tissue contact.
Nevertheless, Swayze--who is directed towards a robotic surgical system with energy application controls--discloses: motion control parameter comprises one or more of: a force relative to a tissue contact(See at least ¶0010 via " In some embodiments, the plurality of parameters include force exerted by the tissue on the end effector. The end effector can also include a strain gauge adapted to measure the force by measuring a load on the end effector. The force exerted by the tissue on the end effector can correspond to a velocity of a movement of the end effector through and/or along the tissue.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Seo in view of Swayze's force parameter in order to ensure that a proper amount of tension and energy is applied to avoid unintended tissue damage: " The adjusting of the power can include decreasing the power when the tension at the tissue is below a first threshold value and increasing the power when the tension at the tissue is above a second threshold value" [¶0018 Swayze] and "Failure to deliver a proper amount of energy by moving the surgical instrument at an improper speed (e.g., too fast or too slow) can lead to insufficient cutting or sealing (e.g., cold cut), or to unintended tissue damage if too much energy is applied to the tissue" [¶0099 Swayze].
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Seo discloses:
A method performed by a first surgical instrument comprising a movable component, wherein the method comprises: (See at least Figs 8-9 and ¶0195 via "FIG. 8 is a flowchart of a method of controlling a surgical robot system in accordance with an example embodiment, and FIG. 9 is a flowchart of a method of controlling a surgical robot system, in accordance with another example embodiment.")
(Regarding the method steps, see Claim 1 rejection as the steps are the same).
Regarding Claim 2 and 11 respectively, Modified Seo discloses the first surgical instrument of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 10.
Furthermore, Seo discloses: wherein the first surgical instrument is an endoscopic instrument, and wherein the second surgical instrument is a laparoscopic instrument (See at least ¶0097 via " As illustrated in FIG. 5, a working space for the first surgical instrument 212 and the second surgical instrument 214 that is unfolded from the guide tube 210 in a state in which the guide tube 210 may be fixed as W.").
However, Seo does not explicitly disclose the endoscopic instrument or laparoscopic instrument using those terms.
Nevertheless, Swayze discloses: wherein the (See at least ¶0002 via "…Laparoscopic surgery is one type of MIS procedure in which one or more small incisions are formed in the abdomen and a trocar is inserted through the incision to form a pathway that provides access to the abdominal cavity. The trocar is used to introduce various instruments and tools into the abdominal cavity, as well as to provide insufflation to elevate the abdominal wall above the organs. The instruments and tools can be used to engage and/or treat tissue in a number of ways to achieve a diagnostic or therapeutic effect. Endoscopic surgery is another type of MIS procedure in which elongate flexible shafts are introduced into the body through a natural orifice.", as well as ¶0067 via "The end effector 438 can include any of a variety of surgical tools, such as a stapler, a clip applier, forceps, a needle driver, a cautery device, a cutting tool, a pair of jaws, an imaging device (e.g., an endoscope or ultrasound probe), or a combined device that includes a combination of two or more various tools.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Seo in view of the specific surgical instruments disclosed by Swayze in order to provide specific end effectors for specific surgical tasks: "For example, at least one surgical end effector is shown and described in various figures. An end effector is the part of a surgical instrument or assembly that performs a specific surgical function, e.g., forceps/graspers, needle drivers, scissors, electrocautery hooks, staplers, clip appliers/removers, suction tools, irrigation tools, etc. Any end effector can be utilized with the surgical systems described herein. Further, in exemplary embodiments, an end effector can be configured to be manipulated by a user input tool." [Swayze ¶0084].
Regarding Claims 3 and 12 respectively, Modified Seo discloses the first surgical instrument of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 10.
Furthermore, Seo discloses: wherein the processor being configured to autonomously adjust motion of the movable component based on the motion control parameter and the motion event comprises the processor being configured to: determine an effect of the motion event based on a quantity defined by the motion control parameter; and (See at least ¶0186 via "A maximum distance between the first surgical instrument 212 and the second surgical instrument 214 exists. That is, there is a limitation in a distance between the first surgical instrument 212 and the second surgical instrument 214 diverged from the guide tube (not shown). For example, in FIG. 13, it will be understood that the first surgical instrument 212 and the second surgical instrument 214 that are close to the boundary surface of the working space W are spaced apart from each other by a maximum distance." and also ¶0187 via "Thus, as the second surgical instrument 214 is moved to the target position, as described above, since the first surgical instrument 212 cannot be spaced apart from the second surgical instrument 214 any more, the first surgical instrument 212 intends to be moved to the direction of the second surgical instrument 214.")
determine a way in which to adjust the motion of the moveable component to provide a corresponding canceling effect to cancel out the determine effect of the motion event (See at least ¶0187 via "the first surgical instrument 212 intends to be moved to the direction of the second surgical instrument 214" as well as ¶140 via "The position/velocity error compensation unit 250 may be configured to compare the target position and the target velocity to be followed by each joint…The position/velocity error compensation unit 250 may further be configured to generate a control signal for compensating for a difference between the target position/velocity and the current position/velocity." **wherein the compensation corresponds to canceling the difference/error. Also see ¶0017 via "...reposition the guide tube to a new working space in such a way that a deficiency between an actual position of the at least two surgical instruments and the target positions is minimized…" and ¶0018. Additionally see Figure 9 vis S907, S915, and S919).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13 respectively, Modified Seo discloses the first surgical instrument of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 10.
Furthermore, Swayze discloses: wherein: the movable component is a grasping device; (See at least ¶0084 via "An end effector is the part of a surgical instrument or assembly that performs a specific surgical function, e.g., forceps/graspers…" as well as ¶0104 via "The tissue-facing surface of the clamp member 1410 can have one or more surface features adapted to facilitate the grasping and securing of the tissue 1440")
the motion event comprises a change in tissue tension associated with tissue held by the grasping device; (See at least ¶0055 via "For instance, in some embodiments, the instrument can be configured to sense parameters including, for example, tissue temperature and tension. The tension exhibited by the tissue can indicate a velocity of the instrument's movement through tissue. The robotic system can adjust an amount of energy applied to the tissue based on the parameters sensed by the instrument." and ¶0018 via "The adjusting of the power can include decreasing the power when the tension at the tissue is below a first threshold value and increasing the power when the tension at the tissue is above a second threshold value.")
the motion control parameter comprises a tensile range; and (See at least ¶0018 via "The adjusting of the power can include decreasing the power when the tension at the tissue is below a first threshold value and increasing the power when the tension at the tissue is above a second threshold value.")
the processor being configured to adjust motion of the movable component based on the motion control parameter and the motion event comprises the processor being configured to adjust a load control of the movable component to keep the tissue tension within the tensile range (See at least ¶0130 via "A corresponding amount of tension present in the tissue (or vessel) is shown in the force curve 1820. In some embodiments, the force exerted by the tissue (e.g., against an end effector applying the energy) can correspond to the tension present in the tissue. The force exerted by the tissue can further correspond to a velocity at which the end effector moves (e.g., advances, drags) through the tissue" and additionally see ¶0131 via "As shown, at this point, the force is within an acceptable force range 1825, which is a range between the first threshold force value F.sub.1 and a second threshold force value F.sub.2. While the force values, which can vary, stay within this range, the power applied to tissue remains constant…However, when the force exerted by the tissue is below the first threshold force value F.sub.1, indicating that a thinner portion of tissue is being treated and/or that the end effector does not move sufficiently (e.g., by advancing, dragging, etc.) fast, the power can be decreased. Thin tissue is easier to cut than thick tissue. Thus, on thin tissue, the end effector can move faster and/or have less force exerted on it. For this reason, when the tissue is thin and/or the force is low, the power can be decreased." and ¶0132 via "Further, when the force exerted by the tissue exceeds the second threshold force value F.sub.2, (1830 in FIG. 18A), indicating that there may be an excessive amount of tissue and/or the end effector may be moving (e.g., advancing, dragging, etc.) too slow, the power can be increased, as shown in FIG. 18A. In this way, when the force exerted on the end effector is below or above certain values (in this example, the first and second thresholds F.sub.1, F.sub.2), the power is adjusted by being decreased or increased accordingly.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Seo in view of Swayze's tissue tension and corresponding adjustment to keep the tension within the range in order to consider the different types of tissue and other characteristics: " The first and second threshold values F.sub.1, F.sub.2 can be selected in many different ways. For example, they can be selected based on a type of tissue, a type of surgical procedure, patient's characteristics, and/or any other suitable factors" [¶0133 Swayze] and to avoid damaging the tissue: "Failure to deliver a proper amount of energy by moving the surgical instrument at an improper speed (e.g., too fast or too slow) can lead to insufficient cutting or sealing (e.g., cold cut), or to unintended tissue damage if too much energy is applied to the tissue" [¶0099 Swayze].
Regarding Claims 5 and 14 respectively, Modified Seo discloses the first surgical instrument of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 10.
Furthermore, Seo discloses: wherein: the motion event comprises the second surgical instrument moving away from the first surgical instrument; the motion control parameter comprises a maximum distance between the first surgical instrument and the second surgical instrument; and (See at least see ¶0185 via "…due to a limitation in a distance between the second surgical instrument 214 and the first surgical instrument 212…" and ¶0186 via "A maximum distance between the first surgical instrument 212 and the second surgical instrument 214 exists. That is, there is a limitation in a distance between the first surgical instrument 212 and the second surgical instrument 214 diverged from the guide tube (not shown)." and also ¶0187 via "Thus, as the second surgical instrument 214 is moved to the target position, as described above, since the first surgical instrument 212 cannot be spaced apart from the second surgical instrument 214 any more, the first surgical instrument 212 intends to be moved to the direction of the second surgical instrument 214")
the processor being configured to adjust motion of the movable component based on the motion control parameter and the motion event comprises the processor being configured to move the movable component toward the second surgical instrument to keep a distance between the first surgical instrument and the second surgical instrument below the maximum distance (See at least ¶0187 via "…the first surgical instrument 212 intends to be moved to the direction of the second surgical instrument 214". ).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 20150045812 A1) and Swayze et. al. (US 20180049817 A1) in view of Weir (US 20170189131 A1).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15 respectively, Modified Seo discloses the first surgical instrument of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 10.
Furthermore, Seo discloses: first surgical instrument…the second surgical instrument (See at least ¶0097 via " As illustrated in FIG. 5, a working space for the first surgical instrument 212 and the second surgical instrument 214 that is unfolded from the guide tube 210 in a state in which the guide tube 210 may be fixed as W.").
However, Modified Seo does not explicitly disclose the minimum distance control parameter.
Nevertheless, Weir--who is directed towards controlling movement of a robotic surgical system--discloses: wherein: the motion event comprises the second surgical instrument moving towards the first surgical instrument; the motion control parameter comprises a minimum distance between the first surgical instrument and the second surgical instrument; and (See at least ¶0009 via "The first sensor can be configured to detect an impending collision between the first and second arms by determining when the second arm is within a threshold minimum distance of the first arm.")
the processor being configured to adjust motion of the movable component based on the motion control parameter and the motion event comprises the processor being configured to move the movable component away from the second surgical instrument to keep a distance between the first surgical instrument and the second surgical instrument above the minimum distance (See at least ¶0021 via "The surgical method can include determining in real time with the movement of the first electrosurgical arm whether the first electrosurgical arm is within a threshold minimum distance of another portion of the robotic surgical system, and, in response to determining that the first electrosurgical arm is within the threshold minimum distance, triggering performance of a remedial action to reduce a chance of a collision between the moving first electrosurgical arm and the other portion of the robotic surgical system" **wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the remedial action to avoid collision corresponds to maneuvering above the minimum distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Seo in view of the minimum distance threshold in order to ensure that remedial action can be taken to avoid collisions if the distance between the two robot arms/instruments falls below the threshold: "Detecting the collision before it occurs may allow the robotic surgical system to trigger performance of a corrective action aimed at preventing the collision from occurring, thereby reducing chances of the collision occurring and, in the event that the collision nevertheless occurs, reduce chances of the colliding objects from being damaged by reducing severity of the collision (e.g., by reducing an impact force between the colliding objects, by reorienting the position of the collided portion of the robotic surgical system prior to the collision, etc.)" [¶0068 Weir].
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 20150045812 A1) and Swayze et. al. (US 20180049817 A1) in view of Rafii-Tari (US 20190183585 A1).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16 respectively, Modified Seo discloses the first surgical instrument of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 10.
Furthermore, Seo discloses: (See at least ¶0187 via " Thus, as the second surgical instrument 214 is moved to the target position…")
the motion control parameter comprises(See at least ¶0186 via "there is a limitation in a distance between the first surgical instrument 212 and the second surgical instrument 214 diverged from the guide tube (not shown)" and ¶0016 via "if the surgical instruments include at least two surgical instruments and the control signal indicates that a spread between the target positions of the at least two surgical instruments can fit within the working space")
the processor being configured to adjust motion of the movable component based on the motion control parameter and the motion event comprises the processor being configured to: on a condition that the first surgical instrument moves a distance smaller than the displacement threshold (See at least Figure 9 via "generate force in handle unit using differences between current position and current velocity and target position and target velocity" wherein the comparison of positional differences corresponds to a displacement evaluation. Also see ¶0018 via " the controller is configured to minimize the deficiency by minimizing a vector sum of the target positions and current positions of each of the at least two surgical instruments")
on a condition that the first surgical instrument moves a distance greater than the displacement threshold (See at least ¶0186 via " A maximum distance between the first surgical instrument 212 and the second surgical instrument 214 exists. That is, there is a limitation in a distance between the first surgical instrument 212 and the second surgical instrument 214 diverged from the guide tube (not shown)." and ¶0187 via "Thus, as the second surgical instrument 214 is moved to the target position, as described above, since the first surgical instrument 212 cannot be spaced apart from the second surgical instrument 214 any more, the first surgical instrument 212 intends to be moved to the direction of the second surgical instrument 214. ")
However, Seo does not explicitly disclose the change in tissue tension or load control.
Nevertheless, Swayze discloses: wherein: the movable component is a grasping device; (See at least ¶0084 via "An end effector is the part of a surgical instrument or assembly that performs a specific surgical function, e.g., forceps/graspers…" as well as ¶0104 via "The tissue-facing surface of the clamp member 1410 can have one or more surface features adapted to facilitate the grasping and securing of the tissue 1440")
and a change in tissue tension associated with tissue held by the grasping device; (See at least ¶0055 via "For instance, in some embodiments, the instrument can be configured to sense parameters including, for example, tissue temperature and tension. The tension exhibited by the tissue can indicate a velocity of the instrument's movement through tissue. The robotic system can adjust an amount of energy applied to the tissue based on the parameters sensed by the instrument." and ¶0018 via "The adjusting of the power can include decreasing the power when the tension at the tissue is below a first threshold value and increasing the power when the tension at the tissue is above a second threshold value.")
motion control parameter comprises a tensile range (See at least ¶0018 via "The adjusting of the power can include decreasing the power when the tension at the tissue is below a first threshold value and increasing the power when the tension at the tissue is above a second threshold value.")
adjust a load control of the movable component to keep the tissue tension within the tensile range; and (See at least ¶0130 via "A corresponding amount of tension present in the tissue (or vessel) is shown in the force curve 1820. In some embodiments, the force exerted by the tissue (e.g., against an end effector applying the energy) can correspond to the tension present in the tissue. The force exerted by the tissue can further correspond to a velocity at which the end effector moves (e.g., advances, drags) through the tissue" and additionally see ¶0131 via "As shown, at this point, the force is within an acceptable force range 1825, which is a range between the first threshold force value F.sub.1 and a second threshold force value F.sub.2. While the force values, which can vary, stay within this range, the power applied to tissue remains constant…However, when the force exerted by the tissue is below the first threshold force value F.sub.1, indicating that a thinner portion of tissue is being treated and/or that the end effector does not move sufficiently (e.g., by advancing, dragging, etc.) fast, the power can be decreased. Thin tissue is easier to cut than thick tissue. Thus, on thin tissue, the end effector can move faster and/or have less force exerted on it. For this reason, when the tissue is thin and/or the force is low, the power can be decreased." and ¶0132 via "Further, when the force exerted by the tissue exceeds the second threshold force value F.sub.2, (1830 in FIG. 18A), indicating that there may be an excessive amount of tissue and/or the end effector may be moving (e.g., advancing, dragging, etc.) too slow, the power can be increased, as shown in FIG. 18A. In this way, when the force exerted on the end effector is below or above certain values (in this example, the first and second thresholds F.sub.1, F.sub.2), the power is adjusted by being decreased or increased accordingly.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Seo in view of Swayze's load control to maintain the tissue tension within the tensile range in a situation where the surgical instrument has a smaller movement because Swayze accounts for adjusting the load or power in order to reduce undesirable effects associated with the movement of surgical instruments: "The robotic system can adjust an amount of energy applied to the tissue based on the parameters sensed by the instrument. This automatic adjustment of energy based on sensed parameters can eliminate operational errors (e.g., cold cutting, overheating) that stem from a human operator's subjective control over the movement of the surgical instrument" [Swayze ¶0055]; so a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that maintaining the desired tissue tension during a small displacement reduces unnecessary instrument adjustment while maintaining stability during the procedure.
However, modified Seo does not explicitly disclose the window of time.
Nevertheless, Rafii-Tari--who is directed towards a system and method for estimating instrument location--discloses: a window of time (See at least ¶0132 via " The interval may be a rolling window or frame of time or distance, providing a motion estimate for the instrument 100 over a time or distance window immediately preceding the current time point. For example, at each time point, block 201 can involve determining a new motion estimate representing a change in position over a time interval immediately preceding the each time point.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Seo in view of the time window as disclosed by Rafii-Tari in order to aid in determining an estimation of the distance of instrument motion: "providing a motion estimate for the instrument 100 over a time" [¶0132 Rafii-Tari].
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 20150045812 A1) and Swayze et. al. (US 20180049817 A1) in view of Tam et. al. (US 20230190394 A1).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17 respectively, Modified Seo discloses the first surgical instrument of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 10.
Furthermore, Seo discloses: the second surgical instrument (See at least ¶0187 via " Thus, as the second surgical instrument 214 is moved to the target position…").
However, Modified Seo does not explicitly disclose the instrument moving out of a field of view of the scope.
Nevertheless, Tam--who is directed towards an instrument insertion assistant--discloses: wherein: the moveable component comprises a scope; (See at least ¶0006 via " In a robotic system that includes multiple robotic arms, at least one robotic arm can be coupled to a camera or scope that provides a surgical field of view.")
the motion event comprises the second surgical instrument is moving out of a field of view of the scope; (See at least ¶0209 via " In accordance with a determination that the tool insertion axis does not overlap with (e.g., is outside, does not intersect, does not align with, is misaligned with, etc.) the field of view of the camera (or does not overlap with the operative view)" **Which corresponds with a tool moving outside of the field of view)
the motion control parameter comprises a maximum distance that the second surgical instrument can be away from the center of the field of view of the scope; and (See at least ¶0212 via "In some embodiments, the surgical robotic system determines (812) (e.g., constructs, generates, identifies, etc.) a safety region (e.g., an operative view, such as operative view 620) based on the field of view of the camera. The tool insertion axis is deemed (814) to overlap with the field of view of the camera when the tool insertion axis intersects the safety region." and ¶0209 via " In some embodiments, the determination that the tool insertion axis does not overlap with the field of view of the camera is made based on a distance between the tool insertion axis and a center of the field of view of the camera exceeding a distance threshold.")
the processor being configured to adjust motion of the movable component based on the motion control parameter and the motion event comprises the processor being configured to move the scope to keep the second surgical instrument within the maximum distance away from the center of the field of view of the scope (See at least ¶0034 via "determine a target pose of the second robotic arm; and (iii) cause movement of the second robotic arm from the current pose to the target pose. The movement of the second robotic arm causes an adjustment to the tool insertion axis such that the adjusted tool insertion axis overlaps with the field of view of the camera.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Seo in view of Tam's scope and processes to keep the surgical instrument(s) in the field of view of a scope: "It is desirable to have the instruments be within the surgical field of view (e.g., for safety reasons). For example, if an instrument is not in the surgical field of view (e.g., not within the camera field of view), it is possible that such blind insertion of instrument can lead to a contact between the instrument and an unintended tissue or organ." [¶0006 Tam].
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 20150045812 A1) and Swayze et. al. (US 20180049817 A1) in view of Kostrzewski et. al. (US 20150100066 A1).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18 respectively, Modified Seo discloses the first surgical instrument of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 10.
However, Modified Seo does not explicitly disclose a station-keeping mode.
Nevertheless, Kostrzewski--who is directed towards precise guidance of surgical tools--discloses: wherein the processor is further configured to: receive an indication to enter a station-keeping mode; and maintain a global position of the moveable component in response to the indication (See at least ¶0128 via "A signal (e.g., visual, audible, or combination) may be provided when the desired position of the end effector is achieved, in accordance with the desired, computed trajectory, to indicate to the surgeon or other operator that the end effector is properly aligned for the procedure, and the system can be switched from force control mode to active holding position, where the end effector may be held in place by the robot without any movement" and ¶0133 via "In some embodiments, the surgical robot is placed into an active holding position by the processor of surgical system 1600 upon determining that the tool guide 1608 has been positioned within sufficient alignment with the target trajectory such that a tool positioned in the tool holder (end effector) makes contact with the patient at a target contact point 1612 in alignment with the target trajectory").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Seo in view of Kostrzewski's holding position mode in order to enable the end effector/tool to maintain the desired position/setup for proper alignment for surgical procedures, while improving rigidity: "In some implementations, the active holding position does not activate a lock and instead the robot controller monitors the position of the end effector and instructs the actuator to compensate actively (e.g., using axis motors) for movement's out of the pre-defined position. This improves rigidity as active motors are used instead of passive brakes." [¶0110 Kostrzewski].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA RENEE DOROS whose telephone number is (703)756-1415. The examiner can normally be reached Generally: M-F (8-5) EST.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/K.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ABBY LIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights