DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed Jul. 9, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14, 16, and 18-22 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed Apr. 9, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Drawings:
Applicant amended claims and addressed all previous drawing objections and the objections have been withdrawn.
Specification:
Applicant amended specification and addressed all previous specification objections and the objections have been withdrawn.
35 USC § 112:
Applicant amended claims and addressed all previous 35 USC 112 rejections and the rejections have been withdrawn.
35 USC § 103:
Applicant amended claims and overcomes the previous independent claim rejections with respect to Tse and Soto for claim 1 and Soto and Tse for claim 14. A new 35 USC 103 rejection below is being applied using Tse and Soto in light of the amendments to the claims.
On pg. 13-14 of Applicant’s response, applicant argues that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Applicant also argues that Soto does not teach the added limitations. Although examiner agrees that Soto does not teach using the drape to prevent the arms from moving, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Soto does teach sensors that determine position of the draping. Fuerst teaches us that it is a known process to move the arms manually into position from a storage position to facilitate operation of the device and making a process automatic is not enough to overcome nonobviousness. Further, when combined with the teachings of Shelton, the controller is capable of determining whether the drape is properly attached or not and control the arms to prevent or allow movement depending on the way it is programmed with a finite number of options: “allow” or “prevent” movement. Therefore, in combination, the prior art has all of the components required to satisfy the claims as the components are capable of performing the steps in the amended claims.
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 14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 limitation (e) is unclear how the steps of sensing an absence of the first target sensor and therefore steps (f) and (g) are happening in the claim. As written, removing the stowage cover is not positively claimed in the method however, in order for limitations e-g to occur, the stowage cover would need to be removed. Applicant is recommended to positively claim the step of removing the stowage cover to aid in clarity. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to include a step of removing the stowage cover.
Claims 16 and 18-20 depend from claim 14 and are rejected for the same reason as claim 14.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tse et al. (US 20200268460 A1, published Aug. 27, 2020, hereinafter referred to as “Tse”) in view of Soto et al. (US 20190099232 A1, published Apr. 4, 2019, hereinafter referred to as “Soto”), in even further view of Fuerst et al. (US 20210068907 A1, published Mar. 11, 2021, hereinafter referred to as “Fuerst”), and in even further view of Shelton et al. (US 20200405408 A1, published Dec. 31, 2020, hereinafter referred to as “Shelton”).
Regarding claim 1 and 3, Tse teaches a robotic surgical system (Fig. 8A “surgical robotics system 800A… an embodiment of surgical robotics system 400B in Fig. 4B” in ¶[0157]) comprising: (a) a surgical bed comprising a table configured to receive a patient (Fig.’s 4B and 8A “the surgical robotics system 400B accommodates a variety of surgical procedures because the robotic arms can access any area (e.g., upper body, core body, or lower body) of the body of a patient lying on the table 401B” in ¶[0134]); (b) a first movable robotic arm coupled with the surgical bed and movable between a stowed configuration and a deployed configuration (Fig. 4B “The surgical robotics system 400B includes multiple robotic arms, i.e., a first robotic arm 470B, second robotic arm 470C” in ¶[0128] and “Robotic surgical systems can include adjustable arm supports … for supporting one or more robotic arms. The adjustable arm supports can be configured to attach to, for example, either a table, a column support of the table, or a base of the table to deploy the adjustable arm supports and robotic arms from a position below the table. In some embodiments, the adjustable arm supports can be attached to a bed” In ¶[0183]), wherein the first movable robotic arm is positioned under the table in the stowed configuration and is configured to interact with the patient in the deployed configuration (Fig. 8C “The surgical robotics system 800B stores column-mounted robotic arms 470B and 470D and column rings 405B and 405C inside the base 403B when the robotic arms are not in use.” ¶[0159]); (c) a stowage cover (Fig. 8A “base 403B includes a first panel 820A and a second panel 820B” In ¶[0157]) comprising: (i) a body configured to selectively cover the first movable robotic arm in the stowed configuration (Fig. 8A “The base 403B includes a first panel 820A and a second panel 820B that cover stored robotic arms. The first panel 820A and the second panel 820B are advantageous because they prevent waste materials from de-sterilizing or otherwise contaminating stored robotic arms.” In ¶[0157]), wherein the body is removable from the surgical bed to permit the first movable robotic arm to transition from the stowed configuration to the deployed configuration; and (e) a controller (“the command may be a command to stow or deploy the system.” In ¶[0238] and Fig. 19 “the method 1900 is executed by a controller for executing one or more commands” in ¶[0242]).
Tse does not disclose wherein the stowage cover comprises (i) a flexible body, and (ii) a first sensor target operatively coupled with the flexible body, the first sensor target includes a proximity sensor target configured to be sensed by the proximity sensor, the proximity sensor target including a magnet configured to be sensed by the Hall effect sensor; and the robotic surgical system further comprises (d) a first sensor configured to generate a first signal in response to sensing a presence of the first sensor target, wherein: the first sensor includes a proximity sensor, the proximity sensor including a Hall effect sensor; and (e) a controller configured to receive the first signal from the first sensor to determine that the stowage cover is positioned on the first movable robotic arm in the stowed configuration; wherein the controller is configured to prevent the first movable robotic arm from transitioning from the stowed configuration to the deployed configuration in response to determining, based on presence of the first signal from the first sensor, that the stowage cover is positioned on the first movable robotic arm in the stowed configuration, and wherein the controller is configured to allow the first movable robotic arm to transition from the stowed configuration to the deployed configuration in response to determining, based on absence of the first signal from the first sensor, that the stowage cover is absent from the first movable robotic arm in the stowed configuration.
Soto’s invention relates to sterile barrier assemblies for surgical components and, more specifically, to a sterile drape assembly for a surgical robot (¶[0002]). Referring to Fig.’s 13-14, the surgical drape 22 (flexible body) may include a magnetic material (first sensor target) associated with the indicia 80 that may produce an indication when the surgical drape 22 is correctly mounted to the LED 64 by being in close proximity to a corresponding sensor on the support, e.g., a hall-effect sensor (first sensor that generates a signal in response to the target) (¶[0068]). The controller 89 is coupled to an indicator 90 to be activated by the controller 89 to indicate to the user that proper placement of the surgical drape 22 has been achieved (¶[0067]). The surgical drape 22 protects the robotic surgical system 10 (Fig. 2) and reduces the potential for migration of contaminants (¶[0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a flexible stowage cover and first sensor target (in particular a magnet) on the flexible body and a first sensor (in particular a Hall-effect sensor) on the surgical unit with a controller that receives information from the sensor to determine that the cover is properly positioned as taught by Soto in the robotic surgical system of Tse in order to protect the robotic surgical system and reduce the potential for migration of contaminants.
Tse and Soto do not disclose wherein the controller is configured to prevent the first movable robotic arm from transitioning from the stowed configuration to the deployed configuration in response to determining, based on presence of the first signal from the first sensor, that the stowage cover is positioned on the first movable robotic arm in the stowed configuration, and wherein the controller is configured to allow the first movable robotic arm to transition from the stowed configuration to the deployed configuration in response to determining, based on absence of the first signal from the first sensor, that the stowage cover is absent from the first movable robotic arm in the stowed configuration. Fuerst’s invention relates to robotics and surgical systems, and more specifically to a screen-based interface to identify and manipulate components such as surgical robotic arms or other components such as the table of a surgical robotic system for preparing or performing minimally invasive surgeries (¶[0001]). Prior to initiating surgery with the surgical robotic system 1, the surgical team can perform the preoperative setup. During the preoperative setup, the main components of the surgical robotic system (table 5 and robotic arms 4, control tower 3, and user console 2) are positioned in the operating room, connected, and powered on. The table 5 and robotic arms 4 may be in a fully-stowed configuration with the arms 4 under the table 5 for storage and/or transportation purposes. The surgical team can extend the arms from their stowed position for sterile draping. After draping, the arms 4 can be partially retracted until needed for use (¶[0028]).
Therefore, it is a known process to remove the robotic arms from storage before being operation and then powering the device on when in position. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.) (MPEP2144.04(III)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to automate transition from storage to deployment.
Tse and Soto and Fuerst do not disclose wherein the controller is configured to prevent the first movable robotic arm from moving based on presence of the first signal from the first sensor and wherein the controller is configured to allow the first movable robotic arm to move based on absence of the first signal from the first sensor.
Shelton’s invention relates to robotic surgical systems, including a central control unit, command console, and a robot having one or more robotic arms (¶[0001]). Referring to Fig.’s 51-53, improperly connected or misaligned components can cause failures of the surgical system 13000 and unsafe operational conditions. Therefore, it can be desirable for the robotic surgical system 13000 to include detection systems to ensure proper connections and alignment of components. In response to detecting an improper or misaligned connection, the robotic surgical system 13000 can take various actions, including providing alerts or prompts to users or preventing the robotic surgical system 13000 (or components thereof) from being activated until all components or the relevant components of the robotic surgical system 13000 are properly connected together (¶[0475]) (prevent movement). In the aspect illustrated in FIGS. 57A and 57B, the sterile shell or barrier 40060 can include a sensor assembly configured to detect whether a corresponding detection element is within a threshold proximity to the sensor assembly (or a particular sensor thereof). The sensors 3230a, 3230b, 3230c, 3230d can include Hall effect sensors and the detection elements 3228a, 3228b, 3228c, 3228d can include magnets (¶[0476]). A control circuit, such as the processor 15004 of the robotic surgical system 15000 illustrated in FIG. 22, can be configured to monitor a detection assembly, such as the detection assembly illustrated in FIGS. 57A and 57B (¶[0480]). If proximity of mating components is not sensed, then the process 3232 proceeds along the NO branch and the processor 15004 causes 3236 a display (e.g., a surgeon console's display 15014 (FIG. 22)) to display that the component is missing and/or instructions for assembling the robotic surgical system 13000 (¶[0481]). For example, the control circuit could prevent the robotic arm to which the robotic surgical assembly 40100 is coupled from activating or moving unless it determines that all of the components of the robotic surgical assembly 40100 are properly connected together (¶[0486]) (therefore, it can be programmed to do the opposite as well). In various aspects, a control circuit can be configured to take various actions in response to detecting the presence and orientation of a surgical instrument 40200 and/or components of a robotic surgical system 40100, such as providing instructions to users or only permitting activation or operation of the robotic surgical system 15000 when all components are properly connected together (¶[0496]) (allow movement). Therefore, the device is capable of allowing or preventing movement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure the controller to use sensors to determine if the flexible cover is properly attached before determining operation as the prior art demonstrates the capability of performing these actions. The recitation of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional language, then it meets the claim. see MPEP 2114(I) and In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2s at 1432.
Further, there are a finite number of known ways to implement the feature as taught by Shelton since the program can only be configured for an “on” and “off” mode having two options depending on if the sensors are properly attached or not and a person having ordinary skill in the art could have pursued this pathway with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Tse does not teach wherein, in response to the first sensor not sensing the presence of the first sensor target, the controller is configured to provide an alert to a user.
Soto teaches the indicator LED remains illuminated a second color (e.g., red/orange) until the surgical drape 22 is properly aligned. The indicator 90 may comprise one or more of an audible indicator (e.g., speaker), visual indicator (e.g., LED), and/or a tactile indicator (e.g., a piezoelectric element) (¶[0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an alert to the user when the sensor does not sense a first sensor target as taught by Soto in the robotic surgical system of Tse in order to make sure the drape is adjusted until it is correctly placed (¶[0067]).
Regarding claim 4, Tse teaches the robotic surgical system further comprising an arm support operatively coupled with the first movable robotic arm (“Robotic surgical systems can include adjustable arm supports for supporting one or more robotic arms. The adjustable arm supports can be configured to attach to, for example, either a table, a column support of the table, or a base of the table to deploy the adjustable arm supports and robotic arms from a position below the table.” In ¶[0183] and “FIGS. 13A and 13B are isometric and end views, respectively, of a surgical robotics system 1300 that includes an adjustable arm support 1305 according to one embodiment. The adjustable arm support 1305 can be configured to support one or more robotic arms (see, for example, FIGS. 14A-15B) relative to a table 1301.” In ¶[0184]).
Tse does not disclose wherein the arm support includes a magnetic feature configured to magnetically couple with the magnet to couple the stowage cover with the arm support.
Soto discloses the sterile drape assembly 18 in Fig. 2 includes a cart retaining mechanism, generally indicated at 30, to retain the cart drape portion 26 of the surgical drape 22 to the cart 14. The cart retaining mechanism 30 may include one or more metal strips 31 coupled to the cart drape portion 24 and one or more magnets 32 coupled to the cart 14 (vice versa in other embodiments, or combinations thereof). The metal strips 31/magnets 32 are coupled to the cart drape portion 26/cart 14 by a suitable mechanism such as an adhesive. The metal strips 31 and magnets 32 are spaced from each other and located at various points on the cart drape portion 26 and cart 14 to retain the cart drape portion 26 to a top and sides of the cart 14 (¶[0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a magnetic feature in the surgical system to magnetically couple with magnets in the cover as taught by Soto in the robotic surgical system of Tse in order to retain the drape over the surgical system.
Regarding claims 5-6, Tse does not disclose the robotic surgical system further comprising a second sensor, wherein: the stowage cover includes a second sensor target operatively coupled with the flexible body, the second sensor is configured to sense a presence of the second sensor target, and the controller is configured to determine that the stowage cover is positioned on the first movable robotic arm based on a combination of the first sensor sensing the presence of the first sensor target and the second sensor sensing the presence of the second sensor target, wherein: the first sensor includes a first Hall effect sensor, the second sensor includes a second Hall effect sensor, the first sensor target includes a first magnet, the second sensor target includes a second magnet, and the controller is configured to: determine that the stowage cover is positioned on the first movable robotic arm based on a combination of the first Hall effect sensor sensing the presence of the first magnet and the second Hall effect sensor sensing the presence of the second magnet, and in response to either the first sensor not sensing the presence of the first sensor target or the second sensor not sensing the presence of the second sensor target, the controller is configured to provide an alert to a user.
As described in claim 1, Soto’s the surgical drape 22 in Fig. 2 may include a magnetic material associated with the indicia 80 in Fig.’s 13-14 that may produce an indication when the surgical drape 22 is correctly mounted to the LED 64 by being in close proximity to a corresponding sensor on the support, e.g., a hall-effect sensor (¶[0068]). As shown in Fig.’s 11-12, there are multiple LED 64 elements. Fig. 13 shows the surgical drape 22 and/or the drape belts 58, 60 may include indicia 80 (e.g., arrows) to match up with a corresponding element 82 associated with each of the LEDs 64. In the embodiment shown, the indicia 80 is located on the drape belts 58, 60. The corresponding element 82 may be matching indicia, other indicia, or structure to which the surgical drape 22 is being mounted. The corresponding element 82 may be located on the LEDs 64 (e.g., the base portion 72), on another support 86 to which the base portion 72 is attached, or any other part associated with the LEDs 64 (¶[0065]). Therefore, each LED/indicia has its own Hall effect sensor and there would be a second target and second sensor which would each produce an indication when the drape is correctly mounted. Further, the controller 89 in Fig.’s 13-14 is coupled to an indicator 90 to be activated by the controller 89 to indicate to the user that proper placement of the surgical drape 22 has been achieved. The indicator 90 may comprise an indicator LED that is illuminated a first color (e.g., green/blue) for indicating proper alignment and/or the indicator LED remains illuminated a second color (e.g., red/orange) until the surgical drape 22 is properly aligned. The indicator 90 may comprise one or more of an audible indicator (e.g., speaker), visual indicator (e.g., LED), and/or a tactile indicator (e.g., a piezoelectric element). In the embodiment shown, the LED 64 itself may be coupled to the controller 89 and be illuminated by the controller 89 when the surgical drape 22 is properly placed (¶[0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a second sensor (a Hall effect sensor) with a paired second sensor target (a magnet) on the cover and determine when both the first and second hall effect sensors detect the respective magnetic sensor targets that the cover is on properly, or issue an alert when either is not detected as taught by Soto in the robotic surgical system of Tse in order to protect the robotic surgical system and reduce the potential for migration of contaminants.
Regarding claim 7, Tse teaches wherein the body includes opposing first and second ends (inherent property), and wherein an arm support operatively coupled with the first movable robotic arm (“Robotic surgical systems can include adjustable arm supports for supporting one or more robotic arms. The adjustable arm supports can be configured to attach to, for example, either a table, a column support of the table, or a base of the table to deploy the adjustable arm supports and robotic arms from a position below the table.” In ¶[0183] and “FIGS. 13A and 13B are isometric and end views, respectively, of a surgical robotics system 1300 that includes an adjustable arm support 1305 according to one embodiment. The adjustable arm support 1305 can be configured to support one or more robotic arms (see, for example, FIGS. 14A-15B) relative to a table 1301.” In ¶[0184]).
Tse does not disclose the flexible body, wherein the first magnet is positioned at the first end, wherein the second magnet is positioned at the second end, and the arm support includes opposing first and second magnetic features configured to magnetically couple with the first and second magnets to couple the stowage cover with the arm support.
Soto teaches the flexible body as shown in claim 1. Soto also discloses the sterile drape assembly 18 in Fig. 2 includes a cart retaining mechanism, generally indicated at 30, to retain the cart drape portion 26 of the surgical drape 22 to the cart 14. The cart retaining mechanism 30 may include one or more metal strips 31 coupled to the cart drape portion 24 and one or more magnets 32 coupled to the cart 14 (vice versa in other embodiments, or combinations thereof). The metal strips 31/magnets 32 are coupled to the cart drape portion 26/cart 14 by a suitable mechanism such as an adhesive. The metal strips 31 and magnets 32 are spaced from each other and located at various points on the cart drape portion 26 and cart 14 to retain the cart drape portion 26 to a top and sides of the cart 14 (¶[0038]). Therefore, these magnets can be on opposite edges. As shown in Fig 2, the magnets are in two separate locations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a flexible body with a magnetic feature in the surgical system to magnetically couple with magnets in the cover as taught by Soto in the robotic surgical system of Tse in order to retain the drape over the surgical system.
Regarding claim 8, Tse teaches the robotic surgical system further comprising a second movable robotic arm that is independently movable relative to the first movable robotic arm, wherein the stowage cover is configured to cover each of the first and second movable robotic arms simultaneously (Fig. 8C “The surgical robotics system 800B stores column-mounted robotic arms 470B and 470D and column rings 405B and 405C inside the base 403B when the robotic arms are not in use.” in ¶[0159]).
Regarding claim 11, Tse teaches wherein: the first and second movable robotic arms are operable to transition between a stowed configuration and a deployed configuration (Fig. 4B “The surgical robotics system 400B includes multiple robotic arms, i.e., a first robotic arm 470B, second robotic arm 470C” in ¶[0128] and “Robotic surgical systems can include adjustable arm supports … for supporting one or more robotic arms. The adjustable arm supports can be configured to attach to, for example, either a table, a column support of the table, or a base of the table to deploy the adjustable arm supports and robotic arms from a position below the table.” In ¶[0183]), and the stowage cover is configured to cover the first and second movable robotic arms in at least the stowed configuration (Fig. 8C “The surgical robotics system 800B stores column-mounted robotic arms 470B and 470D and column rings 405B and 405C inside the base 403B when the robotic arms are not in use.” in ¶[0159]).
Regarding claim 21, Tse teaches a robotic surgical system (Fig. 8A “surgical robotics system 800A… an embodiment of surgical robotics system 400B in Fig. 4B” in ¶[0157]) comprising: at least one robotic arm movable between a stowed configuration and a deployed configuration (Fig. 4B “The surgical robotics system 400B includes multiple robotic arms, i.e., a first robotic arm 470B, second robotic arm 470C” in ¶[0128] and “Robotic surgical systems can include adjustable arm supports … for supporting one or more robotic arms. The adjustable arm supports can be configured to attach to, for example, either a table, a column support of the table, or a base of the table to deploy the adjustable arm supports and robotic arms from a position below the table. In some embodiments, the adjustable arm supports can be attached to a bed” In ¶[0183]), the at least one robotic arm configured to interact with a patient in the deployed configuration (Fig. 8C “The surgical robotics system 800B stores column-mounted robotic arms 470B and 470D and column rings 405B and 405C inside the base 403B when the robotic arms are not in use.” ¶[0159]); a stowage cover configured to cover the at least one robotic arm when the at least one robotic arm is in the stowed configuration (Fig. 8A “The base 403B includes a first panel 820A and a second panel 820B that cover stored robotic arms. The first panel 820A and the second panel 820B are advantageous because they prevent waste materials from de-sterilizing or otherwise contaminating stored robotic arms.” In ¶[0157]).
Tse does not disclose a removable stowage cover configured to be folded and stored off-robot when the at least one robotic arm is in the deployed configuration; at least one sensor configured to detect the removable stowage cover; and a controller configured to: determine, based on the at least one sensor, that the removable stowage cover is in a covered configuration where the removable stowage cover positioned on the at least one robotic arm in the stowed configuration; prevent the at least one robotic arm from transitioning from the stowed configuration to the deployed configuration in response to determining that the removable stowage cover is in the covered configuration; determine, based on the at least one sensor, that the removable stowage cover is in a non-covered configuration where the removable stowage cover is absent from the at least one robotic arm in the stowed configuration; and allow the at least one robotic arm to transition from the stowed configuration to the deployed configuration in response to determining that the removable stowage cover is in the non-covered configuration.
Soto’s invention relates to sterile barrier assemblies for surgical components and, more specifically, to a sterile drape assembly for a surgical robot (¶[0002]). Referring to Fig.’s 13-14, the surgical drape 22 (flexible body) may include a magnetic material (first sensor target) associated with the indicia 80 that may produce an indication when the surgical drape 22 is correctly mounted to the LED 64 by being in close proximity to a corresponding sensor on the support, e.g., a hall-effect sensor (first sensor that generates a signal in response to the target) (¶[0068]). The controller 89 is coupled to an indicator 90 to be activated by the controller 89 to indicate to the user that proper placement of the surgical drape 22 has been achieved (¶[0067]). The surgical drape 22 protects the robotic surgical system 10 (Fig. 2) and reduces the potential for migration of contaminants (¶[0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a first sensor target (in particular a magnet) on the flexible body and a first sensor (in particular a Hall-effect sensor) on the surgical unit with a controller that receives information from the sensor to determine that the cover is properly positioned as taught by Soto in the robotic surgical system of Tse in order to protect the robotic surgical system and reduce the potential for migration of contaminants.
Regarding the limitation of a removable stowage cover configured to be folded and stored off-robot when the at least one robotic arm is in the deployed configuration, the recitation of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional language, then it meets the claim. In this case, the device of Soto contains all of the structural components of the claim and is capable of being folded and stored off the robotic arm; see MPEP 2114(I) and In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2s at 1432.
Tse and Soto do not disclose to prevent the at least one robotic arm from transitioning from the stowed configuration to the deployed configuration in response to determining that the removable stowage cover is in the covered configuration; determine, based on the at least one sensor, that the removable stowage cover is in a non-covered configuration where the removable stowage cover is absent from the at least one robotic arm in the stowed configuration; and allow the at least one robotic arm to transition from the stowed configuration to the deployed configuration in response to determining that the removable stowage cover is in the non-covered configuration.
Fuerst’s invention relates to robotics and surgical systems, and more specifically to a screen-based interface to identify and manipulate components such as surgical robotic arms or other components such as the table of a surgical robotic system for preparing or performing minimally invasive surgeries (¶[0001]). Prior to initiating surgery with the surgical robotic system 1, the surgical team can perform the preoperative setup. During the preoperative setup, the main components of the surgical robotic system (table 5 and robotic arms 4, control tower 3, and user console 2) are positioned in the operating room, connected, and powered on. The table 5 and robotic arms 4 may be in a fully-stowed configuration with the arms 4 under the table 5 for storage and/or transportation purposes. The surgical team can extend the arms from their stowed position for sterile draping. After draping, the arms 4 can be partially retracted until needed for use (¶[0028]).
Therefore, it is a known process to remove the robotic arms from storage before being operation and then powering the device on when in position. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.) (MPEP2144.04(III)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to automate transition from storage to deployment.
Tse and Soto and Fuerst do not disclose wherein the controller is configured to prevent the first movable robotic arm from moving based on presence of the first signal from the first sensor and wherein the controller is configured to allow the first movable robotic arm to move based on absence of the first signal from the first sensor.
Shelton’s invention relates to robotic surgical systems, including a central control unit, command console, and a robot having one or more robotic arms (¶[0001]). Referring to Fig.’s 51-53, improperly connected or misaligned components can cause failures of the surgical system 13000 and unsafe operational conditions. Therefore, it can be desirable for the robotic surgical system 13000 to include detection systems to ensure proper connections and alignment of components. In response to detecting an improper or misaligned connection, the robotic surgical system 13000 can take various actions, including providing alerts or prompts to users or preventing the robotic surgical system 13000 (or components thereof) from being activated until all components or the relevant components of the robotic surgical system 13000 are properly connected together (¶[0475]) (prevent movement when improperly connected). In the aspect illustrated in FIGS. 57A and 57B, the sterile shell or barrier 40060 can include a sensor assembly configured to detect whether a corresponding detection element is within a threshold proximity to the sensor assembly (or a particular sensor thereof). The sensors 3230a, 3230b, 3230c, 3230d can include Hall effect sensors and the detection elements 3228a, 3228b, 3228c, 3228d can include magnets (¶[0476]). A control circuit, such as the processor 15004 of the robotic surgical system 15000 illustrated in FIG. 22, can be configured to monitor a detection assembly, such as the detection assembly illustrated in FIGS. 57A and 57B (¶[0480]). If proximity of mating components is not sensed, then the process 3232 proceeds along the NO branch and the processor 15004 causes 3236 a display (e.g., a surgeon console's display 15014 (FIG. 22)) to display that the component is missing and/or instructions for assembling the robotic surgical system 13000 (¶[0481]). For example, the control circuit could prevent the robotic arm to which the robotic surgical assembly 40100 is coupled from activating or moving unless it determines that all of the components of the robotic surgical assembly 40100 are properly connected together (¶[0486]) (therefore, it can be programmed to do the opposite as well). In various aspects, a control circuit can be configured to take various actions in response to detecting the presence and orientation of a surgical instrument 40200 and/or components of a robotic surgical system 40100, such as providing instructions to users or only permitting activation or operation of the robotic surgical system 15000 when all components are properly connected together (¶[0496]) (deployed configuration when sensors meet correct configuration). Therefore, the device is capable of sensing whether something is attached or not and be in a deployed or prevent state depending on the configuration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure the controller to use sensors to determine if the flexible cover is properly attached before determining operation as the prior art demonstrates the capability of performing these actions. The recitation of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional language, then it meets the claim. see MPEP 2114(I) and In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2s at 1432.
Further, there are a finite number of known ways to implement the feature as taught by Shelton since the program can only be configured for an “on” and “off” mode having two options depending on if the sensors are properly attached or not and a person having ordinary skill in the art could have pursued this pathway with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 22, Tse teaches wherein the at least one robotic arm is positioned under a table of a surgical bed in the stowed configuration and is configured to move relative to the table of the surgical bed in the deployed configuration (Fig. 8C “The surgical robotics system 800B stores column-mounted robotic arms 470B and 470D and column rings 405B and 405C inside the base 403B when the robotic arms are not in use.” ¶[0159]; “Robotic surgical systems can include adjustable arm supports … for supporting one or more robotic arms. The adjustable arm supports can be configured to attach to, for example, either a table, a column support of the table, or a base of the table to deploy the adjustable arm supports and robotic arms from a position below the table. In some embodiments, the adjustable arm supports can be attached to a bed” In ¶[0183]).
Claims 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tse in view of Soto, in even further view of Fuerst, and in even further view of Shelton (hereinafter referred to as “Modified Tse”), as applied to claim 8 above, and in even further view of Murakami et al. (US 20200070336 A1, published Mar. 5, 2020, hereinafter referred to as “Murakami”).
Modified Tse teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Tse teaches wherein: the body defines a first compartment the first compartment is configured to simultaneously cover the first and second movable robotic arms in the stowed configuration (Fig. 8C “The surgical robotics system 800B stores column-mounted robotic arms 470B and 470D and column rings 405B and 405C inside the base 403B when the robotic arms are not in use.” in ¶[0159]), and an arm support operatively coupled with the first and second movable robotic arms (“Robotic surgical systems can include adjustable arm supports for supporting one or more robotic arms. The adjustable arm supports can be configured to attach to, for example, either a table, a column support of the table, or a base of the table to deploy the adjustable arm supports and robotic arms from a position below the table.” In ¶[0183] and “FIG. 14B is an isometric view of a surgical robotics system 1400B… a second adjustable arm support 1305B supports a second robotic arm 1402B, a third robotic arm 1402C, and a fourth robotic arm 1402D.” ¶[0218]).
Soto teaches the flexible body in claim 1 above.
Modified Tse does not disclose the flexible body defines a second compartment, and the second compartment is configured to cover an arm support operatively coupled with the first and second movable robotic arms in the stowed configuration.
Murakami’s invention relates to a robot and a bag used for the robot ¶[0001]. Fig.’s 6(A) to 6(D) are views illustrating a structure of a bag which accommodates a robotic arm, and Fig. 7 is a perspective view illustrating a structure of a bag which accommodates a base (¶[0033]-[0031]). FIG. 6(A) is a perspective view illustrating a structure of a bag 3A which accommodates the arm 13. As illustrated in FIG. 6(A), the bag 3A of this embodiment differs from the first embodiment (refer to FIGS. 2(A) to 2(D)) in that both the pair of arms 13 are accommodated (¶[0068]). FIG. 7 is a developed view illustrating a structure of a bag 4A which accommodates the base 12 (¶[0075]). FIG. 8 is a front view of the robot 11 equipped with the bag 3A and the bag 4A (¶[0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a second compartment configured to cover the arm support/base that is coupled to the first and second robotic arms as taught by Murakami in the robotic surgical system of Modified Tse in order to protect the base from preventing waste materials from de-sterilizing or otherwise contaminating stored robotic arms and base.
Regarding claim 12, Tse teaches the robotic surgical system further comprising a bar that is coupled with the first and second movable robotic arms (“FIG. 14B is an isometric view of a surgical robotics system 1400B… a second adjustable arm support 1305B supports a second robotic arm 1402B, a third robotic arm 1402C, and a fourth robotic arm 1402D.” ¶[0218]), wherein the bar is configured to transition between an upper position and a lower position ( “Robotic surgical systems can include adjustable arm supports … for supporting one or more robotic arms. The adjustable arm supports can be configured to attach to, for example, either a table, a column support of the table, or a base of the table to deploy the adjustable arm supports and robotic arms from a position below the table.” In ¶[0183]).
Modified Tse does not disclose wherein the stowage cover is configured to cover the first and second movable robotic arms and the bar in the upper position, in the lower position, and during the transition between the upper position and the lower position.
Murakami teaches Fig. 1 robot 11 has each arm 13 is a horizontal articulated robotic arm constructed to be movable with respect to the base, and includes an arm part 15, a wrist part 17, and an end effector 18. Note that the right arm 13 and the left arm 13 may have substantially the same structure. Moreover, the right arm 13 and the left arm 13 can operate independently and/or can operate collaboratively (¶[0039]). Therefore, according to this embodiment, by covering the arms 13 with the bags 3 having flexibility (refer to FIG. 4), it can prevent that the scrap meat and the cleaning water infiltrate into the robot 11 from the arms 13 when processing meat at the food processing site. Moreover, since the robot 11 has the pair of arms 13, it can perform the work jointly in the same workspace with the worker (refer to FIGS. 1 and 4). Therefore, both the hygiene management and the productivity improvement can be achieved (¶[0055]). FIG. 6(A) is a perspective view illustrating a structure of a bag 3A which accommodates the arm 13. As illustrated in FIG. 6(A), the bag 3A of this embodiment differs from the first embodiment (refer to FIGS. 2(A) to 2(D)) in that both the pair of arms 13 are accommodated (¶[0068]). Therefore, the flexible cover covers both arms simultaneously throughout use and is capable of moving with the robotic arm actuation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a stowage cover that covers the first and second movable robotic arms and the base in the upper position, and transition to lower position as taught by Murakami in the surgical robotic system of Modified Tse in order to protect the device from contaminants at each position.
Regarding claim 13, Tse does not disclose wherein the flexible body includes indicia indicating surfaces to facilitate positioning of the stowage cover over the first and second movable robotic arms, and wherein the indicia are positioned on each of the first and second compartments and are configured to aid a user in installing of the stowage cover over the first and second movable robotic arms.
Soto discloses that the ring assembly 44 also includes a plurality of indicia 50 in Fig. 5 on the arm drape portion 24 of the surgical drape 22 adjacent the snap-ring 48 to facilitate alignment of the coupling 38 and snap-ring 48 when mating the two together. In one embodiment, the indicia 50 is configured as arrows. In another embodiment, the indicia 50 may be numbers such as 1, 2, and 3 (¶[0044]). Referring to FIG. 13, in another embodiment, the surgical drape 22 and/or the drape belts 58, 60 may include indicia 80 (e.g., arrows) to match up with a corresponding element 82 associated with each of the LEDs 64. In the embodiment shown, the indicia 80 is located on the drape belts 58, 60. The corresponding element 82 may be matching indicia, other indicia, or structure to which the surgical drape 22 is being mounted. The corresponding element 82 may be located on the LEDs 64 (e.g., the base portion 72), on another support 86 to which the base portion 72 is attached, or any other part associated with the LEDs 64. The other support 86 may be rigidly mounted to the robotic arm 12. The indicia 80 and corresponding element 82 guides the user to install the surgical drape 22 properly (¶[0065]). Referring to FIG. 14, the indicia 80 for alignment and indication thereof could be employed on drapes for other components (¶[0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include indicia indicating surfaces to facilitate positioning of the cover as taught by Soto in the device of Modified Tse in order to install the drape properly.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Tse, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Gharib (US 20110301459 A1, published Dec. 8, 2011).
Regarding claim 10, modified Tse teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 1.
Modified Tse does not disclose wherein the flexible body includes a liquid-impermeable material.
Gharib’s invention relates to apparatus used to create a sterile environment during surgical procedures, and more specifically to medical-grade coverings that eliminate the need for a conventional surgical drape (¶[0003]). Referring to Fig.’s 5-6, the bag 10 or at least the bottom 4 should be impermeable to liquids to prevent patient's body fluids from leaking into the bag 10 and contaminating the sterile environment. Further, being soft and collapsible also makes packaging and storing the bag 10 simpler. (¶[0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the flexible body out of a liquid-impermeable material at taught by Gharib in the robotic surgical system of modified Tse allows the contents of the covering to be protected from bodily fluids and prevents compromising the cleanliness of the environment.
Claims 14, 16, 18, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto in view of Tse, in even further view of Fuerst, and in even further view of Shelton.
Regarding claim 14, Soto teaches a method of operating a robotic surgical system (Fig. 1 “robotic surgical system 10” in ¶[0034]), the method comprising: (a) receiving a cover over at least one movable robotic arm of the robotic surgical system (Fig. 1 “the sterile drape assembly 18 includes a surgical drape 22 to cover the surgical robot 11.” In ¶[0036]); (b) sensing a presence of a first sensor target of the cover (Fig.’s 13-14 “the surgical drape 22 may include a magnetic material associated with the indicia 80” in ¶[0068]) via a first sensor of the robotic surgical system (“corresponding sensor on the support, e.g., a hall-effect sensor” ¶[0068]); (c) determining, via a controller, that the cover is in a covered configuration where the cover is present on the at least one movable robotic arm based on the presence of the first sensor target (Fig.’s 13-14 “the surgical drape 22 may include a magnetic material associated with the indicia 80 that may produce an indication when the surgical drape 22 is correctly mounted to the LED 64 by being in close proximity to a corresponding sensor on the support, e.g., a hall-effect sensor” ¶[0068]); (e) sensing an absence of the first sensor target of the cover via the first sensor of the robotic surgical system, the absence being sensed in response to the cover being removed from the at least one movable robotic arm of the robotic surgical system (Fig.’s 13-14 “the surgical drape 22 may include a magnetic material associated with the indicia 80 that may produce an indication when the surgical drape 22 is correctly mounted to the LED 64 by being in close proximity to a corresponding sensor on the support, e.g., a hall-effect sensor” ¶[0068]).
Soto does not disclose the cover being a stowage cover and (d) in response to determining that the stowage cover is in the covered configuration, preventing movement of the at least one movable robotic arm via the controller; (f) determining, via the controller, that the stowage cover is in a non-covered configuration where the stowage cover is absent from the at least one movable robotic arm based on the absence of the first sensor target; and (g) in response to determining that the stowage cover is in the non-covered configuration, allowing movement of the at least one movable robotic arm via the controller.
Tse’s invention relates to medical systems, and particularly to surgical or medical platforms, tables, or beds with motorized arms for adjustable robotic arm supports (¶[0002]). Referring to Fig. 8C, the surgical robotics system 800B stores column-mounted robotic arms 470B and 470D and column rings 405B and 405C inside the base 403B when the robotic arms are not in use (¶[0159]). The first panel 820A and the second panel 820B are advantageous because they prevent waste materials from de-sterilizing or otherwise contaminating stored robotic arms (¶[0157]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to receive a stowage cover over at least one movable robotic arm of the robotic surgical system as taught by Tse in the device of Soto in order to prevent waste materials from desterilizing the robotic arms.
Soto and Tse do not disclose (d) in response to determining that the stowage cover is in the covered configuration, preventing movement of the at least one movable robotic arm via the controller; (f) determining, via the controller, that the stowage cover is in a non-covered configuration where the stowage cover is absent from the at least one movable robotic arm based on the absence of the first sensor target; and (g) in response to determining that the stowage cover is in the non-covered configuration, allowing movement of the at least one movable robotic arm via the controller.
Fuerst’s invention relates to robotics and surgical systems, and more specifically to a screen-based interface to identify and manipulate components such as surgical robotic arms or other components such as the table of a surgical robotic system for preparing or performing minimally invasive surgeries (¶[0001]). Prior to initiating surgery with the surgical robotic system 1, the surgical team can perform the preoperative setup. During the preoperative setup, the main components of the surgical robotic system (table 5 and robotic arms 4, control tower 3, and user console 2) are positioned in the operating room, connected, and powered on. The table 5 and robotic arms 4 may be in a fully-stowed configuration with the arms 4 under the table 5 for storage and/or transportation purposes. The surgical team can extend the arms from their stowed position for sterile draping. After draping, the arms 4 can be partially retracted until needed for use (¶[0028]).
Therefore, it is a known process to remove the robotic arms from storage before being operation and then powering the device on when in position. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.) (MPEP2144.04(III)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to automate transition from storage to deployment.
Tse and Soto and Fuerst do not disclose preventing movement of the at least one movable robotic arm via the controller based on the absence of the first sensor target and allowing movement of the at least one movable robotic arm via the controller based on sensing the first target sensor.
Referring to Fig.’s 51-53 of Shelton’s invention, improperly connected or misaligned components can cause failures of the surgical system 13000 and unsafe operational conditions. Therefore, it can be desirable for the robotic surgical system 13000 to include detection systems to ensure proper connections and alignment of components. In response to detecting an improper or misaligned connection, the robotic surgical system 13000 can take various actions, including providing alerts or prompts to users or preventing the robotic surgical system 13000 (or components thereof) from being activated until all components or the relevant components of the robotic surgical system 13000 are properly connected together (¶[0475]) (prevent movement when improperly connected). In the aspect illustrated in FIGS. 57A and 57B, the sterile shell or barrier 40060 can include a sensor assembly configured to detect whether a corresponding detection element is within a threshold proximity to the sensor assembly (or a particular sensor thereof). The sensors 3230a, 3230b, 3230c, 3230d can include Hall effect sensors and the detection elements 3228a, 3228b, 3228c, 3228d can include magnets (¶[0476]). A control circuit, such as the processor 15004 of the robotic surgical system 15000 illustrated in FIG. 22, can be configured to monitor a detection assembly, such as the detection assembly illustrated in FIGS. 57A and 57B (¶[0480]). If proximity of mating components is not sensed, then the process 3232 proceeds along the NO branch and the processor 15004 causes 3236 a display (e.g., a surgeon console's display 15014 (FIG. 22)) to display that the component is missing and/or instructions for assembling the robotic surgical system 13000 (¶[0481]). For example, the control circuit could prevent the robotic arm to which the robotic surgical assembly 40100 is coupled from activating or moving unless it determines that all of the components of the robotic surgical assembly 40100 are properly connected together (¶[0486]) (therefore, it can be programmed to do the opposite as well). In various aspects, a control circuit can be configured to take various actions in response to detecting the presence and orientation of a surgical instrument 40200 and/or components of a robotic surgical system 40100, such as providing instructions to users or only permitting activation or operation of the robotic surgical system 15000 when all components are properly connected together (¶[0496]) (deployed configuration when sensors meet correct configuration). Therefore, the device is capable of sensing whether something is attached or not and be in a deployed or prevent state depending on the configuration.
Therefore, the device is capable of detecting the presence or absence of the covering and able to prevent or enable movement depending on the output and therefore are a finite number of known ways to implement this feature (two ways: “on” and “off”) based on the sensor readings as taught by Shelton in the device of Soto and Tse and a person having ordinary skill in the art could have pursued this with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Soto and Tse do not disclose the method further comprising, alerting a user to remove the stowage cover from the at least one movable robotic arm in response to both determining that the stowage cover is in the covered configuration and a receiving a signal to the robotic surgical system to move the at least one movable robotic arm.
Referring to Fig.’s 51-53 of Shelton’s invention, improperly connected or misaligned components can cause failures of the surgical system 13000 and unsafe operational conditions. Therefore, it can be desirable for the robotic surgical system 13000 to include detection systems to ensure proper connections and alignment of components. In response to detecting an improper or misaligned connection, the robotic surgical system 13000 can take various actions, including providing alerts or prompts to users or preventing the robotic surgical system 13000 (or components thereof) from being activated until all components or the relevant components of the robotic surgical system 13000 are properly connected together (¶[0475]). In various aspects, a control circuit can be configured to take various actions in response to detecting the presence and orientation of a surgical instrument 40200 and/or components of a robotic surgical system 40100, such as providing instructions to users or only permitting activation or operation of the robotic surgical system 15000 when all components are properly connected together. In another aspect, a control circuit, such as the processor 15004 of the robotic surgical system 15000 illustrated in FIG. 22, can operate the robotic surgical system 15000 in different modes according to whether a compatible surgical instrument 40200 (e.g., a trocar) are connected to the robotic surgical system 15000 by, for example, executing the process 3310 illustrated in FIG. 64 (¶[0496]). A processor 15004 executing the process 3310 can determine 3312 that the robotic surgical system 15000 has been activated and then energize 3314 or operate the robotic surgical system 15000 in an initial or first operational mode. If the surgical instrument 40200 is not compatible or the processor 15004 is not able to determine whether the surgical instrument is compatible 40200 (e.g., due to the instrument being improperly oriented with respect to the robotic arm 13120, causing the detection elements to not be identifiable), then the process 3310 proceeds along the NO branch and the processor 15004 alerts 3318 the surgical staff to attach the surgical instrument 40200 or confirm that the surgical instrument 40200 is attached properly. The processor 15004 can provide the alert via the surgeon console's display 15014, for example. The processor 15004 can thereafter continue monitoring to determine 3316 whether the surgical instrument 40200 is fully seated and respond accordingly (¶[0497]). Therefore, the device is capable of sensing whether something is attached or not after receiving a command to operate and then alerting the user to fix the attachment if the condition is not correct for operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to alerting a user to do an action such as remove the stowage cover in response to both determining that the stowage cover is in the covered configuration and a receiving a signal to the robotic surgical system to activate the robot as taught by Shelton in the device of modified Soto to prevent the device from being operated in an unsafe condition.
Regarding claim 18, Soto teaches a surgical drape with indicia to indicate proper connection as described in claims 5-6 above, however Soto and Tse do not disclose the method further comprising, in response to sensing the presence of the first sensor target and an absence of a second sensor target of the stowage cover, instructing a user to reposition the stowage cover over the at least one movable robotic arm of the robotic surgical system.
Shelton teaches improperly connected or misaligned components can cause failures of the surgical system 13000 and unsafe operational conditions in reference to Fig.’s 51-53. Therefore, it can be desirable for the robotic surgical system 13000 to include detection systems to ensure proper connections and alignment of components. In response to detecting an improper or misaligned connection, the robotic surgical system 13000 can take various actions, including providing alerts or prompts to users or preventing the robotic surgical system 13000 (or components thereof) from being activated until all components or the relevant components of the robotic surgical system 13000 are properly connected together (¶[0475]). A control circuit, such as the processor 15004 of the robotic surgical system 15000 illustrated in FIG. 22, can be configured to monitor a detection assembly, such as the detection assembly illustrated in FIGS. 57A and 57B (¶[0480]). If proximity of mating components is not sensed, then the process 3232 proceeds along the NO branch and the processor 15004 causes 3236 a display (e.g., a surgeon console's display 15014 (FIG. 22)) to display that the component is missing and/or instructions for assembling the robotic surgical system 13000 (¶[0481]). Therefore, the system detects when one sensor is present and another is not.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to instruct a user to reposition a component such as the stowage cover in response to sensing a presence of a first target and absence of the second target as taught by Shelton since there are a finite number of ways to implement the feature (two ways: “on” and “off”) based on the sensor readings in the surgical unit of Soto and Tse in order to ensure safe conditions.
Regarding claim 19, Soto teaches wherein: the first sensor includes a first Hall effect sensor (“corresponding sensor on the support, e.g., a hall-effect sensor” ¶[0068]), the first sensor target includes a first magnet (Fig.’s 13-14 “the surgical drape 22 may include a magnetic material associated with the indicia 80” in ¶[0068]), and the act of sensing the presence of the first sensor target further comprises sensing the presence of the first magnet of the stowage cover via the first Hall effect sensor (Fig.’s 13-14 “the surgical drape 22 may include a magnetic material associated with the indicia 80 that may produce an indication when the surgical drape 22 is correctly mounted to the LED 64 by being in close proximity to a corresponding sensor on the support, e.g., a hall-effect sensor” ¶[0068]).
Regarding claim 20, Soto does not disclose wherein the act of receiving the stowage cover further comprises receiving the stowage cover under a table of the robotic surgical system, wherein the table is configured to receive a patient.
Tse teaches in Fig.’s 4B and 8A that the surgical robotics system 400B accommodates a variety of surgical procedures because the robotic arms can access any area (e.g., upper body, core body, or lower body) of the body of a patient lying on the table 401B (¶[0134]). Referring to Fig. 8A, the base 403B includes a first panel 820A and a second panel 820B that cover stored robotic arms. The first panel 820A and the second panel 820B are advantageous because they prevent waste materials from de-sterilizing or otherwise contaminating stored robotic arms (¶[0157]). FIG. 8D is an isometric view of robotic arms stowed underneath the table 701 of the surgical robotics system 700A according to one embodiment. Specifically, the arm segments of each robotic arm rotate such that the robotic arm is in a compact configuration for stowage. The surgical robotics system 700A raises the first column ring 705A and the second column ring 705B, and lowers the third column ring 705C toward the center of the column 702. This way, the robotic arms have enough space in the stowed configuration without interfering with each other. In one embodiment, the column 702 includes covers (e.g., similar to panels 820A and 820B) over the robotics arms to protect the robotic arms from contamination or damage (¶[0161]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to position the stowage cover under the table which is configured to receive a patient as taught by Tse in the device of Soto because it allows the arms to have enough space without interfering with each other while also protecting the arms from contamination and damage in a compact manner.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Seemann et al. (US 20240277418 A1, EFD 2021) – detecting and monitoring drape configuration using indicia
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily N Cirulnick whose telephone number is (571)272-9734. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5:30 and every other F 8-4:30ET.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/E.N.C./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/ALLEN PORTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights