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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see remarks and claims, filed 07/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the following:
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100168562 to Zhao et al. (hereinafter “Zhao” – previously presented) in view of US 20220292815 to Donnelly et al. (hereinafter “Donnelly”).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao as modified by Donnelly as applied to claims above, and in view of US 20160278875 to Crawford et al. (hereinafter “Crawford” – previously presented).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100168562 to Zhao et al. (hereinafter “Zhao”) in view of US 20220292815 to Donnelly et al. (hereinafter “Donnelly”).
Regarding claims 1, 22, 23. (currently amended) Zhao discloses a system/method (abstract, 0015) comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions (para 0026) to: identify, based on data representative of a scene as captured by one or more sensors (para 0092 “imaging device”), a group of surgical accessory elements within the scene (para 0092 “captured image(s) are processed so as to determine positional data associated with one or more marker(s) []two or more markers having different identifications are used on one or more surgical tools”), wherein each surgical accessory element included in the group of surgical accessory elements (para 0082, 0094, discusses that the “tool(s) 26” can be replaceable and therefore both attached and unattached) includes one or more markers for use in the identifying the group of surgical accessory elements within the scene (para 0092 “a tool, such as the tool 26, can include one or more markers so as to provide features that can be imaged and processed to provide an image-derived tool pose estimate”); and perform, based on information representative of one or more positions of the group of surgical accessory elements within the scene, an operation for setup of one or more components of a robotic system relative to the group of surgical accessory elements (para 0092 “the positional data and any identification can be used to determine tool state data []).
Zhao fails to disclose wherein the identifying the group of surgical accessory elements is performed while the group of surgical accessory elements are unattached to the robotic system.
Donnelly, from a similar field of endeavor teaches the system to identify objects, such as surgical instruments, tools, implants, and the like, in images (photograph or video) or real-world surgical trays [] thereby allowing the system to analyze the image: (a) a tray classifier; and (b) a surgical item detector and to select the specific surgical item detector(s) intended for a specific tray (para 0078-0079). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Zhao with the teachings of Donnelly to provide the predictable result of selecting the specific surgical item detector(s) intended for a specific tray.
Regarding claim 3. (currently amended) Zhao as modified by Donnelly renders obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the identifying the group of surgical accessory elements includes detecting the one or more markers in the scene (para 0092 “imaging of one or more markers attached to a tool [] two or more markers having different identifications are used on one or more surgical tools”).
Regarding claim 7. (original) Zhao as modified by Donnelly renders obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the information representative of one or more positions of the group of surgical accessory elements includes depth data representative of one or more distances of the group of surgical accessory elements relative to one or more components of the robotic system (para 0083 “depth perception”).
Regarding claim 8. (original) Zhao as modified by Donnelly renders obvious the system of claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to update the depth data over time as one or more components of the robotic system is moved relative to the group of surgical accessory elements (para 0083, 0009, 0089 “update”).
Regarding claim 9. (original) Zhao as modified by Donnelly renders obvious the system of claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a quality value associated with the depth data and provide, for display by a display device, a notification when the quality value is below a threshold (para 0083, para 0093, “tool state data determined in step 108 can be rejected if it is insufficiently consistent with an expected tool state data range”).
Regarding claim 10. (original) Zhao as modified by Donnelly renders obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the identifying the group of surgical accessory elements includes identifying a pose of each surgical accessory element of the group of surgical accessory elements within the scene (para 0076, 0079, 0081, etc.).
Regarding claim 11. (original) Zhao as modified by Donnelly renders obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the operation for setup of one or more components of the robotic system includes positioning one or more components of the robotic system relative to the group of surgical accessory elements (para 0078, the claim does not provide any details regarding the “positioning one or more components of the robotic system relative to the group of surgical accessory elements”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, any repositioning of the tool would be relative to other tools that are not repositioned.).
Regarding claim 12. (original) Zhao as modified by Donnelly renders obvious the system of claim 11, wherein the positioning of one or more components of the robotic system includes aligning one or more components of the robotic system with the group of surgical accessory elements (para 0076, 0103-0104, etc. “alignment”).
Regarding claim 13. (original) Zhao as modified by Donnelly renders obvious the system of claim 11, wherein the positioning of one or more components of the robotic system includes aligning one or more components of the robotic system with an individual surgical accessory element of the group of surgical accessory elements (para 0076, 0103-0104, etc. “alignment”).
Regarding claim 14. (original) Zhao as modified by Donnelly renders obvious the system of claim 11, wherein the positioning of one or more components of the robotic system includes directing, based on kinematic data of the robotic system, one or more components of the robotic system to move relative to the group of surgical accessory elements (para 0083, 0103, 0168, ).
Regarding claim 15. (original) Zhao as modified by Donnelly renders obvious the system of claim 11, wherein the positioning of one or more components of the robotic system is based on a directional alignment of the surgical accessory elements within the group of surgical accessory elements relative to each other (para 0092, 0168).
Regarding claim 16. (original) Zhao as modified by Donnelly renders obvious the system of claim 11, wherein the positioning of one or more components of the robotic system is based on a number of the surgical accessory elements within the group of surgical accessory elements (para 0092, 0168).
Regarding claim 17. (original) Zhao as modified by Donnelly renders obvious the system of claim 11, wherein the positioning of one or more components of the robotic system is based on detecting a user input associated with the group of surgical accessory elements (para 0026).
Regarding claim 18. (original) Zhao as modified by Donnelly renders obvious the system of claim 11, wherein the positioning of one or more components of the robotic system further includes providing, for display by a display device, a notification when one or more components of the robotic system are positioned relative to the group of surgical accessory elements (para 0029, 0081, 0082, etc.).
Regarding claim 19. (original) Zhao as modified by Donnelly renders obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the operation for setup of one or more components of the robotic system includes providing instructions to a user interface for positioning one or more components of the robotic system relative to the group of surgical accessory elements (para 0029, 0081, 0082, etc.).
Regarding claim 20. (original) Zhao as modified by Donnelly renders obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to display the scene on a display device (para 0029, 0081, 0082, etc.), wherein the display of the scene includes one or more virtual overlays associated with the group of surgical accessory elements on the scene, the one or more virtual overlays configured to assist with positioning the robotic system relative to the group of surgical accessory elements (para 0091, 0158).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao as modified by Donnelly as applied to claims above, and in view of US 20160278875 to Crawford et al. (hereinafter “Crawford”).
Regarding Claim 4. (original) Zhao as modified by Donnelly renders obvious the system of claim 3, wherein each of the one or more markers include a reflective material (para 00140-0144) but fails to explicitly disclose using retroreflective.
Crawford, from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known to use retroreflective markers to be tracked by a camera system to determine relative spatial locations (abstract, para 0111, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Zhao as modified by Donnelly with the known teachings of Crawford to provide the predictable result of determining relative spatial locations.
Regarding claim 5. (original) Zhao as modified by Donnelly renders obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the group of surgical accessory elements includes: a first surgical accessory element comprising a first reflective marker; and a second surgical accessory element comprising a second reflective marker different from the first retroreflective marker (para 0079, “any particular marker in a collection of markers can include identification features associated with an identification for the particular marker”, para 0168) but fails to explicitly disclose using retroreflective.
Crawford, from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known to use retroreflective markers to be tracked by a camera system to determine relative spatial locations (abstract, para 0111, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Zhao as modified by Donnelly with the known teachings of Crawford to provide the predictable result of determining relative spatial locations.
Conclusion
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 SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 pm.
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, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights