DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received 20 May 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowling (US Pub. No. 2021/0298795).
As per Claim 1, Bowling discloses a method for controlling a robot (20) (Figs. 3, 11A, 15A; ¶82-91, 172-188, 244-257), the method comprising:
inputting a user command (as per “manual mode in which an operator applies force to the surgical tool 30 to cause movement of the robotic arm 20 and a semi-autonomous mode in which the operator holds a pendant to control the robotic arm 20 to autonomously follow a tool path” in ¶73; as per “instructions, the correspond to the desired pose of the pedicle screws PS to control movement of the robotic arm 20 so that the drill 42 and driver 44 of the surgical tool 30 are controlled in a manner that ultimately places the pedicle screws PS according to the operator’s plan” in ¶99; as per “Once the operator is satisfied with the trajectory, the operator can provide input (e.g., touchscreen, button, foot pedal, etc.) to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory” in ¶100) to the robot (20) (Figs. 1, 4-6; ¶71-73, 99-100);
generating an action sequence (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188) towards an action target (as per “The operator can plan where to place the pedicle screws … Once the plan is set, then the plan is transferred to the robotic surgical system 10 for execution” in ¶97; as per “the operator may intra-operatively plan the desired trajectory and/or screw placement … the operator can provide input … to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory … the desired trajectory may be a line haptic object LT … The line haptic object LH may have a starting point SP … a target point TP, which defines a desired depth of the … pedicle screws PS … and an exit point EP” in ¶100) based at least in part on the user command (as per “manual mode in which an operator applies force to the surgical tool 30 to cause movement of the robotic arm 20 and a semi-autonomous mode in which the operator holds a pendant to control the robotic arm 20 to autonomously follow a tool path” in ¶73; as per “instructions, the correspond to the desired pose of the pedicle screws PS to control movement of the robotic arm 20 so that the drill 42 and driver 44 of the surgical tool 30 are controlled in a manner that ultimately places the pedicle screws PS according to the operator’s plan” in ¶99; as per “Once the operator is satisfied with the trajectory, the operator can provide input (e.g., touchscreen, button, foot pedal, etc.) to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory” in ¶100) and an action representation (as per “The navigation system 12 tracks these objects for purposes of displaying their relative positions and orientations in the target coordinate system to the operator and … for purposes of controlling or constraining movement of the surgical tool” in ¶74; as per “Displays 18 … generate images that allow the operator and staff to view the relative position of the surgical tool 30 to the surgical site” in ¶88; as per “the screw position and depth could be displayed on the display device for any control mode” in ¶135) (Figs. 1, 4-6, 11A-11B; ¶71-73, 92-100, 172-188); and
controlling the robot (20) by executing the action sequence (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188) in a first execution mode (as per “Manual Control Mode”) and in a second execution mode (as per “Autonomous Check Mode”) to achieve the action target (as per “The operator can plan where to place the pedicle screws … Once the plan is set, then the plan is transferred to the robotic surgical system 10 for execution” in ¶97; as per “the operator may intra-operatively plan the desired trajectory and/or screw placement … the operator can provide input … to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory … the desired trajectory may be a line haptic object LT … The line haptic object LH may have a starting point SP … a target point TP, which defines a desired depth of the … pedicle screws PS … and an exit point EP” in ¶100) (Figs. 4-6, 11A-B, 12A, 15A-C; ¶71-73, 92-100, 133-134, 172-188, 244-259).
As per Claim 2, Bowling further discloses wherein the first execution mode (as per “Manual Control Mode”) and the second execution mode (as per “Autonomous Check Mode”) are executed sequentially (Fig. 15A; ¶244-250, 257), or {the first execution mode and the second execution mode are executed in parallel}.
As per Claim 3, Bowling further discloses wherein the first execution mode (as per “Manual Control Mode”) is a first support mode (¶180-188) and the second execution mode (as per “Autonomous Check Mode”) is a second support mode (¶172-179), wherein the robot (20) is under shared control (as per “In response to control input from the haptic device 51, the one or more controllers 33 control he surgical tool” in ¶181) in the first support mode (as per “Manual Control Mode”) and the robot (20) is controlled autonomously under user supervision (as per “the robotic surgical system 10 provides haptic feedback to the operator to emulate a present interaction between pedicle screws PS and a target site pursuant to autonomous insertion” in ¶173) in the second support mode (as per “Autonomous Check Mode”) (Figs. 3, 11A, 15A; ¶82-91, 172-188, 244-257).
As per Claim 5, Bowling further discloses wherein the user command (as per “manual mode in which an operator applies force to the surgical tool 30 to cause movement of the robotic arm 20 and a semi-autonomous mode in which the operator holds a pendant to control the robotic arm 20 to autonomously follow a tool path” in ¶73; as per “instructions, the correspond to the desired pose of the pedicle screws PS to control movement of the robotic arm 20 so that the drill 42 and driver 44 of the surgical tool 30 are controlled in a manner that ultimately places the pedicle screws PS according to the operator’s plan” in ¶99; as per “Once the operator is satisfied with the trajectory, the operator can provide input (e.g., touchscreen, button, foot pedal, etc.) to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory” in ¶100) is based on an input (as per “the operator can provide input” in ¶100) (Figs. 1, 4-6; ¶71-73, 81-93, 98-100) and/or {on a selection by a user}.
As per Claim 7, Bowling further discloses wherein at least one of an action definition (as per “controllers 33 autonomous control the insertion of the pedicle screw PS along the planned trajectory LH … the pedicle screw PS is inserted to depth A along the planned trajectory LH” in ¶175; as per “resistive feedback to rotational interface 53 can be changed to reflect near-real time present interaction between pedicle screw PS and the vertebra” in ¶176) or an object definition (as per “3-D model of the pedicle screw PS with respect to the 3-D model of the patient’s anatomy” in ¶97) is used in the generating the action sequence (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188).
As per Claim 8, Bowling further discloses wherein generating the action sequence (as per “The robotic controller 32 is configured to autonomously control the insertion of the pedicle screw PS so that the rotational rate and the rate of advancement along the trajectory LH are proportional to the thread geometry of the pedicle screw PS … exemplary pedicle screws PS may have 8, 10, 14, 16 or other number of threads per inch” in ¶113) comprises selecting an action definition from a plurality of action definitions (as per “the robotic controller is configured to ensure a proper rotational rate and advancement speed for inserting a pedicle screw PS having a particular thread pitch” in ¶113).
As per Claim 9, Bowling further discloses wherein generating the action sequence (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188) comprises using at least one of declarative knowledge (as per “The relationship between the pedicle screw thread pitch, the angular, or rotational, position and the depth of insertion, or advancement along the trajectory, is governed by the equation θ=D*(Pitch/2π)” in ¶115) or procedural knowledge (as per “The additional data may comprise calibration data, such as geometric data relating positions and/or orientations of the trackers 16 or markers M thereof to the working end of the surgical tool 30” in ¶87; as per “The robotic controller 32 is configured to autonomously control the insertion of the pedicle screw PS so that the rotational rate and the rate of advancement along the trajectory LH are proportional to the thread geometry of the pedicle screw PS” in ¶113).
As per Claim 11, Bowling further discloses performing a planning phase (as per “The operator can plan where to place the pedicle screws … Once the plan is set, then the plan is transferred to the robotic surgical system 10 for execution” in ¶97; as per “the operator may intra-operatively plan the desired trajectory and/or screw placement … the operator can provide input … to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory … the desired trajectory may be a line haptic object LT … The line haptic object LH may have a starting point SP … a target point TP, which defines a desired depth of the … pedicle screws PS … and an exit point EP” in ¶100), wherein the planning phase (as per “The operator can plan where to place the pedicle screws … Once the plan is set, then the plan is transferred to the robotic surgical system 10 for execution” in ¶97; as per “the operator may intra-operatively plan the desired trajectory and/or screw placement … the operator can provide input … to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory … the desired trajectory may be a line haptic object LT … The line haptic object LH may have a starting point SP … a target point TP, which defines a desired depth of the … pedicle screws PS … and an exit point EP” in ¶100) comprises generating (as per “the surgical plan including target trajectory and depths of insertion can be provided in the simulation for reference” in ¶234), simulating (as per “During execution of the Simulated Modes, the one or more controllers provide haptic feedback to the haptic device 51 … to emulate a simulated present interaction between the pedicle screw PS and the target site” in ¶238), and testing (as per “the surgeon may set, confirm, or modify any operational parameters of the system 10 that are experienced during the simulation” in ¶236) a preliminary action sequence (as per “the surgical plan including target trajectory and depths of insertion can be provided in the simulation for reference” in ¶234).
As per Claim 12, Bowling further discloses wherein the step of testing (as per “the surgeon may set, confirm, or modify any operational parameters of the system 10 that are experienced during the simulation” in ¶236) the preliminary action sequence (as per “the surgical plan including target trajectory and depths of insertion can be provided in the simulation for reference” in ¶234) produces a negative test result (as per “the surgeon may … modify any operational parameters of the system 10 that are experienced during the simulation” in ¶236) or a positive test result (as per “the surgeon may … confirm … any operational parameters of the system 10 that are experienced during the simulation” in ¶236); and
wherein the planning phase (as per “The operator can plan where to place the pedicle screws … Once the plan is set, then the plan is transferred to the robotic surgical system 10 for execution” in ¶97; as per “the operator may intra-operatively plan the desired trajectory and/or screw placement … the operator can provide input … to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory … the desired trajectory may be a line haptic object LT … The line haptic object LH may have a starting point SP … a target point TP, which defines a desired depth of the … pedicle screws PS … and an exit point EP” in ¶100) is repeated until the step of testing (as per “the surgeon may set, confirm, or modify any operational parameters of the system 10 that are experienced during the simulation” in ¶236) the preliminary action sequence (as per “the surgical plan including target trajectory and depths of insertion can be provided in the simulation for reference” in ¶234) produces the positive test result (as per “the surgeon may … confirm … any operational parameters of the system 10 that are experienced during the simulation” in ¶236).
As per Claim 13, Bowling further discloses wherein the preliminary action sequence (as per “the surgical plan including target trajectory and depths of insertion can be provided in the simulation for reference” in ¶234) that produces the positive test result (as per “the surgeon may … confirm … any operational parameters of the system 10 that are experienced during the simulation” in ¶236) within the planning phase (as per “The operator can plan where to place the pedicle screws … Once the plan is set, then the plan is transferred to the robotic surgical system 10 for execution” in ¶97; as per “the operator may intra-operatively plan the desired trajectory and/or screw placement … the operator can provide input … to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory … the desired trajectory may be a line haptic object LT … The line haptic object LH may have a starting point SP … a target point TP, which defines a desired depth of the … pedicle screws PS … and an exit point EP” in ¶100) is executed in an execution phase (as per “executing the actual surgical procedure” in ¶233) as the action sequence (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188).
As per Claim 15, Bowling discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (as per “memory suitable for storage of data” in ¶79) comprising instructions (as per “computer-readable instructions” in ¶79), which when executed by a computing device (as per “The robotic controller 32 and the navigation controller 36 … comprise one or more personal computers or laptop computers” in ¶79), cause the computing device (as per “The robotic controller 32 and the navigation controller 36 … comprise one or more personal computers or laptop computers” in ¶79) to perform a method for controlling a robot (20) (Figs. 3, 11A, 15A; ¶82-91, 172-188, 244-257), the method comprising:
inputting a user command (as per “manual mode in which an operator applies force to the surgical tool 30 to cause movement of the robotic arm 20 and a semi-autonomous mode in which the operator holds a pendant to control the robotic arm 20 to autonomously follow a tool path” in ¶73; as per “instructions, the correspond to the desired pose of the pedicle screws PS to control movement of the robotic arm 20 so that the drill 42 and driver 44 of the surgical tool 30 are controlled in a manner that ultimately places the pedicle screws PS according to the operator’s plan” in ¶99; as per “Once the operator is satisfied with the trajectory, the operator can provide input (e.g., touchscreen, button, foot pedal, etc.) to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory” in ¶100) to the robot (20) (Figs. 1, 4-6; ¶71-73, 99-100);
generating an action sequence (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188) towards an action target (as per “The operator can plan where to place the pedicle screws … Once the plan is set, then the plan is transferred to the robotic surgical system 10 for execution” in ¶97; as per “the operator may intra-operatively plan the desired trajectory and/or screw placement … the operator can provide input … to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory … the desired trajectory may be a line haptic object LT … The line haptic object LH may have a starting point SP … a target point TP, which defines a desired depth of the … pedicle screws PS … and an exit point EP” in ¶100) based at least in part on the user command (as per “manual mode in which an operator applies force to the surgical tool 30 to cause movement of the robotic arm 20 and a semi-autonomous mode in which the operator holds a pendant to control the robotic arm 20 to autonomously follow a tool path” in ¶73; as per “instructions, the correspond to the desired pose of the pedicle screws PS to control movement of the robotic arm 20 so that the drill 42 and driver 44 of the surgical tool 30 are controlled in a manner that ultimately places the pedicle screws PS according to the operator’s plan” in ¶99; as per “Once the operator is satisfied with the trajectory, the operator can provide input (e.g., touchscreen, button, foot pedal, etc.) to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory” in ¶100) and an action representation (as per “The navigation system 12 tracks these objects for purposes of displaying their relative positions and orientations in the target coordinate system to the operator and … for purposes of controlling or constraining movement of the surgical tool” in ¶74; as per “Displays 18 … generate images that allow the operator and staff to view the relative position of the surgical tool 30 to the surgical site” in ¶88; as per “the screw position and depth could be displayed on the display device for any control mode” in ¶135) (Figs. 1, 4-6, 11A-11B; ¶71-73, 92-100, 172-188); and
controlling the robot (20) by executing the action sequence (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188) in a first execution mode (as per “Manual Control Mode”) and in a second execution mode (as per “Autonomous Check Mode”) to achieve the action target (as per “The operator can plan where to place the pedicle screws … Once the plan is set, then the plan is transferred to the robotic surgical system 10 for execution” in ¶97; as per “the operator may intra-operatively plan the desired trajectory and/or screw placement … the operator can provide input … to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory … the desired trajectory may be a line haptic object LT … The line haptic object LH may have a starting point SP … a target point TP, which defines a desired depth of the … pedicle screws PS … and an exit point EP” in ¶100) (Figs. 4-6, 11A-B, 12A, 15A-C; ¶71-73, 92-100, 133-134, 172-188, 244-259).
As per Claim 16, Bowling further discloses wherein the action sequence (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188) includes using a shared control module (as per “AS the operator manipulates the surgical tool 30, the navigation system 12 tracks the location of the surgical tool 30 and/or the robotic arm 20 and provides haptic feedback … to the operator to limit the operator’s ability to move … the surgical tool 30 beyond one of more predefined virtual boundaries that are registered … to the patient’s anatomy” in ¶90) to produce a first input command (as per “haptic feedback” in ¶90) based on the user command (as per “manual mode in which an operator applies force to the surgical tool 30 to cause movement of the robotic arm 20 and a semi-autonomous mode in which the operator holds a pendant to control the robotic arm 20 to autonomously follow a tool path” in ¶73; as per “instructions, the correspond to the desired pose of the pedicle screws PS to control movement of the robotic arm 20 so that the drill 42 and driver 44 of the surgical tool 30 are controlled in a manner that ultimately places the pedicle screws PS according to the operator’s plan” in ¶99; as per “Once the operator is satisfied with the trajectory, the operator can provide input (e.g., touchscreen, button, foot pedal, etc.) to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory” in ¶100) and using a supervised autonomy module (as per “a semi-autonomous mode in which the operator holds a pendant to control the robotic arm 20 to autonomously follow a tool path” in ¶73) to produce a second input command (as per “follow a tool path” in ¶73) based on the user command (as per “manual mode in which an operator applies force to the surgical tool 30 to cause movement of the robotic arm 20 and a semi-autonomous mode in which the operator holds a pendant to control the robotic arm 20 to autonomously follow a tool path” in ¶73; as per “instructions, the correspond to the desired pose of the pedicle screws PS to control movement of the robotic arm 20 so that the drill 42 and driver 44 of the surgical tool 30 are controlled in a manner that ultimately places the pedicle screws PS according to the operator’s plan” in ¶99; as per “Once the operator is satisfied with the trajectory, the operator can provide input (e.g., touchscreen, button, foot pedal, etc.) to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory” in ¶100).
As per Claim 17, Bowling discloses a planning system (32, 36) for controlling a robot (20) (Fig. 1; ¶71-79), comprising:
a processor (as per “one or more processors” in ¶79) in communication with a non-transitory memory (as per “memory” in ¶79) storing instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶79), which instructions (as per “instructions” in ¶79) when executed cause the processor (as per “one or more processors” in ¶79) to:
receive a user command (as per “manual mode in which an operator applies force to the surgical tool 30 to cause movement of the robotic arm 20 and a semi-autonomous mode in which the operator holds a pendant to control the robotic arm 20 to autonomously follow a tool path” in ¶73; as per “instructions, the correspond to the desired pose of the pedicle screws PS to control movement of the robotic arm 20 so that the drill 42 and driver 44 of the surgical tool 30 are controlled in a manner that ultimately places the pedicle screws PS according to the operator’s plan” in ¶99; as per “Once the operator is satisfied with the trajectory, the operator can provide input (e.g., touchscreen, button, foot pedal, etc.) to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory” in ¶100) (Figs. 1, 4-6; ¶71-73, 99-100);
generate an action sequence (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188) towards an action target (as per “The operator can plan where to place the pedicle screws … Once the plan is set, then the plan is transferred to the robotic surgical system 10 for execution” in ¶97; as per “the operator may intra-operatively plan the desired trajectory and/or screw placement … the operator can provide input … to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory … the desired trajectory may be a line haptic object LT … The line haptic object LH may have a starting point SP … a target point TP, which defines a desired depth of the … pedicle screws PS … and an exit point EP” in ¶100) based at least in part on the user command (as per “manual mode in which an operator applies force to the surgical tool 30 to cause movement of the robotic arm 20 and a semi-autonomous mode in which the operator holds a pendant to control the robotic arm 20 to autonomously follow a tool path” in ¶73; as per “instructions, the correspond to the desired pose of the pedicle screws PS to control movement of the robotic arm 20 so that the drill 42 and driver 44 of the surgical tool 30 are controlled in a manner that ultimately places the pedicle screws PS according to the operator’s plan” in ¶99; as per “Once the operator is satisfied with the trajectory, the operator can provide input (e.g., touchscreen, button, foot pedal, etc.) to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory” in ¶100) and an action representation (as per “The navigation system 12 tracks these objects for purposes of displaying their relative positions and orientations in the target coordinate system to the operator and … for purposes of controlling or constraining movement of the surgical tool” in ¶74; as per “Displays 18 … generate images that allow the operator and staff to view the relative position of the surgical tool 30 to the surgical site” in ¶88; as per “the screw position and depth could be displayed on the display device for any control mode” in ¶135) (Figs. 1, 4-6, 11A-11B; ¶71-73, 92-100, 172-188); and
control the robot (20) by executing the action sequence (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188) in a first execution mode (as per “Manual Control Mode”) and in a second execution mode (as per “Autonomous Check Mode”) to achieve the action target (as per “The operator can plan where to place the pedicle screws … Once the plan is set, then the plan is transferred to the robotic surgical system 10 for execution” in ¶97; as per “the operator may intra-operatively plan the desired trajectory and/or screw placement … the operator can provide input … to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory … the desired trajectory may be a line haptic object LT … The line haptic object LH may have a starting point SP … a target point TP, which defines a desired depth of the … pedicle screws PS … and an exit point EP” in ¶100) (Figs. 4-6, 11A-B, 12A, 15A-C; ¶71-73, 92-100, 133-134, 172-188, 244-259).
As per Claim 18, Bowling discloses a method for controlling a robot (20) (Figs. 3, 11A, 15A; ¶82-91, 172-188, 244-257), the method comprising:
inputting a user command (as per “manual mode in which an operator applies force to the surgical tool 30 to cause movement of the robotic arm 20 and a semi-autonomous mode in which the operator holds a pendant to control the robotic arm 20 to autonomously follow a tool path” in ¶73; as per “instructions, the correspond to the desired pose of the pedicle screws PS to control movement of the robotic arm 20 so that the drill 42 and driver 44 of the surgical tool 30 are controlled in a manner that ultimately places the pedicle screws PS according to the operator’s plan” in ¶99; as per “Once the operator is satisfied with the trajectory, the operator can provide input (e.g., touchscreen, button, foot pedal, etc.) to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory” in ¶100) to the robot (20) (Figs. 1, 4-6; ¶71-73, 99-100);
generating an action sequence (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188) towards an action target (as per “The operator can plan where to place the pedicle screws … Once the plan is set, then the plan is transferred to the robotic surgical system 10 for execution” in ¶97; as per “the operator may intra-operatively plan the desired trajectory and/or screw placement … the operator can provide input … to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory … the desired trajectory may be a line haptic object LT … The line haptic object LH may have a starting point SP … a target point TP, which defines a desired depth of the … pedicle screws PS … and an exit point EP” in ¶100) based at least in part on the user command (as per “manual mode in which an operator applies force to the surgical tool 30 to cause movement of the robotic arm 20 and a semi-autonomous mode in which the operator holds a pendant to control the robotic arm 20 to autonomously follow a tool path” in ¶73; as per “instructions, the correspond to the desired pose of the pedicle screws PS to control movement of the robotic arm 20 so that the drill 42 and driver 44 of the surgical tool 30 are controlled in a manner that ultimately places the pedicle screws PS according to the operator’s plan” in ¶99; as per “Once the operator is satisfied with the trajectory, the operator can provide input (e.g., touchscreen, button, foot pedal, etc.) to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory” in ¶100) and an action representation (as per “The navigation system 12 tracks these objects for purposes of displaying their relative positions and orientations in the target coordinate system to the operator and … for purposes of controlling or constraining movement of the surgical tool” in ¶74; as per “Displays 18 … generate images that allow the operator and staff to view the relative position of the surgical tool 30 to the surgical site” in ¶88; as per “the screw position and depth could be displayed on the display device for any control mode” in ¶135) (Figs. 1, 4-6, 11A-11B; ¶71-73, 92-100, 172-188); and
controlling the robot (20) by executing the action sequence (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188) in an original execution mode (as per “Manual Control Mode”) or in an other execution mode (as per “Autonomous Check Mode”) to achieve the action target (as per “The operator can plan where to place the pedicle screws … Once the plan is set, then the plan is transferred to the robotic surgical system 10 for execution” in ¶97; as per “the operator may intra-operatively plan the desired trajectory and/or screw placement … the operator can provide input … to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory … the desired trajectory may be a line haptic object LT … The line haptic object LH may have a starting point SP … a target point TP, which defines a desired depth of the … pedicle screws PS … and an exit point EP” in ¶100), wherein the controlling comprises selectively switching (as per “Input devices … can be used to input information into the navigation controller 36 or otherwise select/control certain aspects of the navigation controller 36” in ¶75; as per “The method proceeds to step 208 where the one or more controllers 33 determine which Haptic Device Operation Mode is selected” in ¶250; as per “The robotic surgical system 10 may include a variety of components for command the initiating of a Haptic Device Operation Mode” in ¶257) between the original execution mode (as per “Manual Control Mode”) and the other execution mode (as per “Autonomous Check Mode”), which switching (as per “Input devices … can be used to input information into the navigation controller 36 or otherwise select/control certain aspects of the navigation controller 36” in ¶75; as per “The method proceeds to step 208 where the one or more controllers 33 determine which Haptic Device Operation Mode is selected” in ¶250; as per “The robotic surgical system 10 may include a variety of components for command the initiating of a Haptic Device Operation Mode” in ¶257) comprises activating (as per modes corresponding to Yes at 210 in Fig. 15A) or deactivating (as per No at 210 in Fig. 15A) a submodule (as per each of modes in Fig. 15A) (Figs. 4-6, 11A-B, 12A, 15A-C; ¶71-73, 92-100, 133-134, 172-188, 244-259).
As per Claim 19, Bowling further discloses wherein the switching (as per “Input devices … can be used to input information into the navigation controller 36 or otherwise select/control certain aspects of the navigation controller 36” in ¶75; as per “The method proceeds to step 208 where the one or more controllers 33 determine which Haptic Device Operation Mode is selected” in ¶250; as per “The robotic surgical system 10 may include a variety of components for command the initiating of a Haptic Device Operation Mode” in ¶257) between the original execution mode (as per “Manual Control Mode”) and the other execution mode (as per “Autonomous Check Mode”) is bidirectional (as per The Haptic Device Operational Mode may be selected in response to any condition or a command” in ¶250).
As per Claim 20, Bowling further discloses wherein the original execution mode (as per “Manual Control Mode”) and the other execution mode (as per “Autonomous Check Mode”) are executed sequentially (Fig. 15A; ¶244-250, 257), or {the original execution mode and the other execution mode are executed in parallel}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling (US Pub. No. 2021/0298795) in view of Stricko (US Pub. No. 2020/0345438).
As per Claim 6, Bowling discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Bowling does not expressly disclose wherein the user selects a plurality of possible action targets, and the plurality of possible action targets are restricted to a plurality of restricted action targets based on at least one precondition, and the user selects the action target from the plurality of restricted action targets.
Stricko discloses a control unit (130) coupled to a robotic arm (120) having an end effector (125) and further coupled to an operator workstation (170) having a display system (180) (Fig. 1; ¶26-30). The control unit (130) includes a processor (140) coupled to memory (150), the memory (150) having a port placement module (160) that supports identification and selection of ports for operating the end effector (125) within a workspace (Fig. 1; ¶27, 29). In operation, the processor (140) performs operations (300) including receiving a patient model (310), identifying possible port locations (320), evaluating by iterating through possible port locations (350-356), displaying in the display system (180) to the operator the potential port locations (370), and receiving (380) a selection of port location from the operator (Fig. 3; ¶41-53, 62, 64). In one embodiment, the possible port locations are limited to those that are reachable (¶43). As such, Stricko discloses wherein the user selects a plurality of possible action targets (as per 370, 380), and the plurality of possible action targets (as per potential port locations) are restricted to a plurality of restricted action targets based on at least one precondition (as per possible port locations limited to those that are reachable), and the user selects (as per 370, 380) the action target from the plurality of restricted action targets (as per potential port locations). Like Bowling, Stricko is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Bowling and Stricko, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Stricko to the system of Bowling since doing so would enhance the system by aiding the operator in placement of ports
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling (US Pub. No. 2021/0298795) in view of Quere (“Shared Control Templates for Assistive Robotics”; 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA); pages 1956-1962; 2020).
As per Claim 10, Bowling discloses all imitations of Claim 1. Bowling does not expressly disclose wherein generating the action sequence comprises creating finite state machines in the form of shared control templates.
Quere discloses a robotic system (EDAN in Fig. 1, part a) with which a user conveys commands to an end-effector (as per “allow the user to intuitively control the end-effector” on 1956, right column). The robotic system is adapted to solve tasks using skills including: pour liquid (Fig. 1, part b); tilt towards goal (page 1957, left column); and open drawer (Fig. 6). The skills are defined as finite state machines which in turn are defined by a shared control template (page 1956, right column; page 1959, left column). As such, Quere discloses wherein generating the action sequence (Fig. 1, part b; page 1957, left column; Fig. 6) comprises creating finite state machines in the form of shared control templates (page 1956, right column; page 1959, left column). In this way, the system provides an intuitive way of reducing the workload of the user (page 1961, right column). Like Bowling, Quere is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Bowling and Quere, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Quere to the system of Bowling since doing so would enhance the system by providing an intuitive way of reducing the workload of the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 May 2026 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that the objections to the Drawings should not be maintained in that “the framework schematically shown in FIG. 1 clearly illustrates an embodiment of the presently claimed method as currently amended in a manner easily understood by a person of skill in the art” (page 7 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive. Therefore, these objections are not maintained.
Applicant argues that the objection to the Abstract should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 7 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive. Therefore, this objection is not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112 should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 8 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive. Therefore, these rejections are not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained because “Utilizing the same representation within both the first execution mode and the second execution mode of the robot control methodology provides benefits, including allowing a seamless switch between a shared control 144 and a supervised autonomy 148” and “Applicant finds no disclosure or suggestion of the same within Bowling” (page 8-9 of Amendment). However, no claim recites “seamless switch”. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are directed to unclaimed embodiments. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Stricko does not resolve the shortcomings of Bowling” (page 9 of Amendment) and “Quere does not resolve the shortcomings of Bowling” (page 10 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, the shortcomings alleged by Applicant describe unclaimed embodiments. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Payton (US Pub. No. 2015/0336268) discloses rapid robotic imitation learning of force-torque tasks. Strauss (US Patent No. 11,154,985) discloses null space jog control for robotic arm
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights