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 .
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 31-32 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 31 recites the limitation "The surgical system of claim 26" in line 1. This claim has improper dependency on canceled claim 26 and is rendered indefinite. Examiner will interpret as dependent from claim 28 and suggests amending.
Claim 32 is rejected based on dependency on claim 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 14-15, 28-37, and 51-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0047347 Maughan et al., hereinafter “Maughan”.
Regarding claim 1, Maughan discloses a surgical system (Abstract and Figure 1, element 100), comprising: an actuator system (Para 33 and Figure 5, element 238j) and a control system operatively coupled to the actuator system (Figure 1, element 130, Para 33 and 59), the actuator system being operable to drive a first movable operating component (Para 33 and 35; Figure 4A, element 401A) and a second movable operating component (Para 33 and 35; Figure 4A, element 401B); wherein the control system includes a memory and instructions stored in the memory (Para 79); and wherein the instructions cause the control system to perform actions including: commanding the actuator system to operate in a first control mode (Para 59 and 33; examiner interprets that the first control mode is the closed configuration shown in Figure 4A, this includes “opposing grippers for holding a needle”), receiving a first signal containing a first kinematic parameter value of the first movable operating component (Para 59, 88-89, and Figure 4A, elements 405A-D; the actuators are coupled to cables 405 each two cables represent one of the grippers; 405A and D are connected to 401B and 405C and B are connected to 401A. Torque is measured on the actuators controlling the cables and from torque, cable tension is measured. Para 59 also discloses velocity feedback on the cables), receiving a second signal containing a second kinematic parameter value of the second movable operating component (Para 59, 88-89, and Figure 4A, elements 405A-D; the actuators are coupled to cables 405 each two cables represent one of the grippers; 405A and D are connected to 401B and 405C and B are connected to 401A. Torque is measured on the actuators controlling the cables and from torque, cable tension is measured. Para 59 also discloses velocity feedback on the cables; second cables are measured; moving forward in this rejection examiner will cite from the reference without explaining that all the calculations done occur on both sides of the end effector, therefore measuring first and second values), determining a compared value derived from both the first kinematic parameter value and the second kinematic parameter value (Para 91), and on a condition in which the compared value is within a defined value range, causing the control system to operate the actuator system in a second control mode (Para 105 and 108; when threshold is met, disengagement occurs and the surgical tool is disabled).
Regarding claim 2, Maughan discloses the actions include: on a condition in which the compared value is outside the defined value range, causing the control system to continue to operate the actuator system in the first control mode (Para 105 and 108; if not above threshold it is inherent that operation is not disabled and will continue, see Para 38 “grip force between the jaw 401A and jaw 401B can be achieved by continuing to tension both cable 405A and cable 405C”).
Regarding claim 3, Maughan discloses determining the compared value derived from both the first kinematic parameter value and the second kinematic parameter value includes combining the first kinematic parameter value and the second kinematic parameter value (Para 113; “In another example, the threshold tension value is assigned to a pair of antagonistic cables and the comparison is for the sum of the tension vales for the pair of antagonistic cables”).
Regarding claim 4, Maughan discloses determining the compared value derived from both the first kinematic parameter value and the second kinematic parameter value includes determining a difference between the first kinematic parameter value and the second kinematic parameter value (Para 101-103).
Regarding claim 5, Maughan discloses the compared value is a first compared value derived from both the first kinematic parameter value and the second kinematic parameter value according to a first calculation (Para 91 and 113; see para 6 “first comparison”); the defined value range is a first defined value range (Para 105 and 108); and the actions include: determining a second compared value derived from both the first kinematic parameter value and the second kinematic parameter value according to a second calculation (Para 91 and 113; see para 6 “second comparison” and claim 1), and on a condition in which the first compared value is within the first defined value range or the second compared value is within a second defined value range, causing the control system to operate the actuator system in the instrument second mode (Para 105 and 108; when threshold is met, disengagement occurs and the surgical tool is disabled).
Regarding claim 6, Maughan discloses the first calculation includes combining the first kinematic parameter value and the second kinematic parameter value (Para 113; “In another example, the threshold tension value is assigned to a pair of antagonistic cables and the comparison is for the sum of the tension vales for the pair of antagonistic cables”; see para 6 “first comparison”); and the second calculation includes determining a difference between the first kinematic parameter value and the second kinematic parameter value (Para 101-103; see para 6 “second comparison” and claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Maughan discloses the first defined value range is defined by values above a first threshold value above zero (Para 91; “a first value (e.g., high value or 1)”); and the second defined value range is defined between zero and a second threshold value (Para 91; “a second value (e.g., low value or 0)”).
Regarding claim 8, Maughan discloses the first kinematic parameter value corresponds to a first kinematic parameter, the first kinematic parameter being one of a torque of the first movable operating component, a speed of the first movable operating component, or a position of the first movable operating component (Para 88 and 91; Torque); and the second kinematic parameter value corresponds to a second kinematic parameter, the second kinematic parameter being one of a torque of the second movable operating component, a speed of the second movable operating component, or a position of the second movable operating component (Para 88 and 91; Torque).
Regarding claim 9, Maughan discloses the first kinematic parameter value is a moving average value of the first signal over time; and the second kinematic parameter value is a moving average value of the second signal over time (Para 101, 113, 116; kinematic value could be torque or velocity, both can be variable over time).
Regarding claim 10, Maughan discloses the first kinematic parameter value is associated with a position of the first movable operating component; the second kinematic parameter value is associated with a position of the second movable operating component (Para 59); and the actions include: latching the first kinematic parameter value and the second kinematic parameter value to determine a baseline prior to determining the compared value relative to the baseline (Para 24 “initial positioning”; Para 40 “reference position”; Para 78 “’relaxed’ position”; Para 97; norm value.
Regarding claim 14, Maughan discloses the first mode is a system locked mode (Para 59 and 33; examiner interprets that the first control mode is the closed configuration shown in Figure 4A, this includes “opposing grippers for holding a needle”); and the second mode is an instrument release mode (Para 105 and 108; tool disengagement occurs and the surgical tool is disabled).
Regarding claim 15, Maughan discloses the first mode is a teleoperated input following control mode (Para 59 and 33; examiner interprets that the first control mode is the closed configuration shown in Figure 4A, this includes “opposing grippers for holding a needle”, see also Para 25); and the second mode is an instrument release mode (Para 105 and 108; tool disengagement occurs and the surgical tool is disabled).
Regarding claim 28, Maughan discloses a surgical system (Abstract and Figure 1, element 100) comprising: an actuator system (Para 33 and Figure 5, element 238j) and a control system operatively coupled to the actuator system (Figure 1, element 130, Para 33 and 59), the actuator system being operable to drive a movable operating component (Para 33 and 35; Figure 4A, element 401A-B); wherein the control system includes a memory and instructions stored in the memory (Para 79); and wherein the instructions cause the control system to perform actions including: commanding the actuator system to operate in a first control mode (Para 59 and 33; examiner interprets that the first control mode is the closed configuration shown in Figure 4A, this includes “opposing grippers for holding a needle”), receiving one or more kinematic parameter values of the movable operating component (Para 59, 88-89, and Figure 4A, elements 405A-D; the actuators are coupled to cables 405 each two cables represent one of the grippers; 405A and D are connected to 401B and 405C and B are connected to 401A. Torque is measured on the actuators controlling the cables and from torque, cable tension is measured. Para 59 also discloses velocity feedback on the cables), on a first condition in which the one or more kinematic parameter values of the movable operating component is outside a defined range, causing the control system to continue to operate the actuator system in the first control mode (Para 105 and 108; if not above threshold it is inherent that operation is not disabled and will continue, see Para 38 “grip force between the jaw 401A and jaw 401B can be achieved by continuing to tension both cable 405A and cable 405C”), and on a second condition in which the one or more kinematic parameter values of the movable operating component is within the defined range, causing the control system to operate the actuator system in a second control mode (Para 105 and 108; when threshold is met, disengagement occurs and the surgical tool is disabled).
Regarding claim 29, Maughan discloses the surgical system includes a sensor (Para 78) and a manual control input (Figure 1, element 110); the one or more kinematic parameter values of the movable operating component is based on information from the sensor (Para 78 and 88) and is associated with a state change of the manual control input (Para 25 and 26); and the manual control input is operable to drive the movable operating component (Para 23 and 25-26).
Regarding claim 30, Maughan discloses the sensor is a switch that is actuated in response to movement of the manual control input (Para 81; this is inherent a sensor can only measure torque if movement is inflicted, otherwise the measurement is non-existent).
Regarding claim 31, Maughan discloses the one or more kinematic parameter values is part of a plurality of kinematic parameter values of the movable operating component (Para 59, 88-89, and Figure 4A, elements 405A-D; the actuators are coupled to cables 405 each two cables represent one of the grippers; 405A and D are connected to 401B and 405C and B are connected to 401A. Torque is measured on the actuators controlling the cables and from torque, cable tension is measured. Para 59 also discloses velocity feedback on the cables; second cables are measured; moving forward in this rejection examiner will cite from the reference without explaining that all the calculations done occur on both sides of the end effector, therefore measuring first and second values); and the actions include: receiving the plurality of kinematic parameter values, and determining if the plurality of kinematic parameter values are associated with surgical instrument end effector movement driven by a manual input device (Para 91, 105, 108).
Regarding claim 32, Maughan discloses the defined one or more kinematic parameter is a repeating pattern; and the plurality of kinematic parameter values correspond to the repeating pattern (Para 113 and 33; open and closing creates less and more tension on the cables, therefore forming a pattern over time).
Regarding claim 33, Maughan discloses the surgical system includes a manual control input (Figure 1, element 110); the manual control input is operable to drive the movable operating component (Para 23 and 25-26); and the one or more kinematic parameter values (Para 78 and 88) are associated with a kinematic state change of the manual control input (Para 25-26).
Regarding claim 34, Maughan discloses the surgical system includes a manual control input (Figure 1, element 110); the manual control input is operable to drive the movable operating component (Para 23 and 25-26); and the one or more kinematic parameter values (Para 78 and 88) are associated with a kinematic state change of the movable operating component driven by the manual control input (Para 25-26).
Regarding claim 35, Maughan discloses the surgical system includes a manual control input (Figure 1, element 110); the manual control input is operable to drive the movable operating component (Para 23 and 25-26); and the one or more kinematic parameter values are associated with position (Para 59), orientation (Para 62), torque (Para 88), speed, linear velocity, or angular velocity (Para 92) of the movable operating component driven by the manual control input (Para 25-26).
Regarding claim 36, Maughan discloses the one or more kinematic parameter values include a repeating pattern (Para 113 and 33; open and closing creates less and more tension on the cables, therefore forming a pattern over time) associated with the position (Para 59), orientation (Para 62), torque (Para 88), speed, linear velocity, or angular velocity (Para 92) of the movable operating component (Figure 4A, element 401A-B).
Regarding claim 37, Maughan discloses the movable operating component is a first movable operating component (Para 33 and 35; Figure 4A, element 401A) the surgical system includes a second movable operating component (Para 33 and 35; Figure 4A, element 401B); the one or more kinematic parameter values includes a first plurality of kinematic parameter values of the first movable operating component (Para 59, 88-89, and Figure 4A, elements 405A-D; the actuators are coupled to cables 405 each two cables represent one of the grippers; 405A and D are connected to 401B and 405C and B are connected to 401A. Torque is measured on the actuators controlling the cables and from torque, cable tension is measured. Para 59 also discloses velocity feedback on the cables) and a second plurality of kinematic parameter values of the second movable operating component (Para 59, 88-89, and Figure 4A, elements 405A-D; the actuators are coupled to cables 405 each two cables represent one of the grippers; 405A and D are connected to 401B and 405C and B are connected to 401A. Torque is measured on the actuators controlling the cables and from torque, cable tension is measured. Para 59 also discloses velocity feedback on the cables; second cables are measured; moving forward in this rejection examiner will cite from the reference without explaining that all the calculations done occur on both sides of the end effector, therefore measuring first and second values); and the first plurality of kinematic parameter values and the second plurality of kinematic parameter values (Para 78 and 88) are associated with a kinematic state change of a manual control input operable to drive the first movable operating component and the second movable operating component (Para 25-26).
Regarding claim 51, Maughan discloses the first mode is a system locked control mode (Para 59 and 33; examiner interprets that the first control mode is the closed configuration shown in Figure 4A, this includes “opposing grippers for holding a needle”); and the second mode is an instrument release control mode (Para 105 and 108; tool disengagement occurs and the surgical tool is disabled).
Regarding claim 52, Maughan discloses the first mode is a teleoperated input following control mode (Para 59 and 33; examiner interprets that the first control mode is the closed configuration shown in Figure 4A, this includes “opposing grippers for holding a needle”; see also Para 25); and the second mode is an instrument release control mode (Para 105 and 108; tool disengagement occurs and the surgical tool is disabled).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0214223 Turner also discloses a similar system to claims 1 and 28.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYA ZIAD BAKKAR whose telephone number is (313)446-6659. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 5:00 pm M-Th.
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, Carl Layno can be reached on (571) 272-4949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AYA ZIAD BAKKAR/
Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights