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, see pg. 8-12, filed 6/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 14, 18, under U.S.C. 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 US Patent Application Publicaiton 2019/0231458 to DiMaio. DiMaio teaches in paragraph [0062] and [0082-[0083] a co-manipulation mode as limited by the examiner.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to claims 9-12, Hufford discloses in paragraph [0036] that the force/torque of the dissection device is applied long a surgical path. This path, as discussed in [0020], is set using imaging data, including the keep-out zones. Therefore, Hufford has taught using imaging data as a precondition for changes in the impedance to the robot arm.
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(s) 1-2, 6, 8-16, 18-19, and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0000568 to Hufford (hereinafter “Hufford”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0231458 to DiMaio (hereinafter “DiMaio”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hufford discloses a computer implemented system and method or operating a robot arm comprising a proximal end coupled to a base, a plurality of links, a plurality of joints, and a distal end configured to be removably coupled to a surgical instrument ([0004] [0007]), the system comprising at least one processor (Fig. 4, Element 12) configured to: calculate a first force applied to the surgical instrument in a first position by an anatomical structure at a first time when the surgical instrument is coupled to the robot arm ([0015] [0027]); establish a constant tension force based on the first force, the constant tension force configured to provide a target tension on the anatomical structure ([0015] [0020] [0027]); calculate a second force applied to the surgical instrument by the anatomical structure at a second time, the second time after the first time ([0021] [0022] [0028]); and cause, if the second force falls outside of a predetermined threshold based on the constant tension force, the robot arm to move the surgical instrument in a direction to a second position to apply the constant tension force on the anatomical structure and maintain the target tension on the anatomical in a constant tension mode ([0025] [0028] [0029] [0031]). However, Hufford does not disclose that the at least one processor is configured to permit the robot arm to be freely moveable in a co-manipulation mode responsive to movement at a handle of the surgical instrument for performing surgery using the surgical instrument while applying an impedance to the robot arm to compensate for gravity of the surgical instrument, and wherein the robot arm is not teleoperated via user input received at a remote surgeon console.DiMaio discloses a surgical robot wherein the at least one processor is configured to permit the robot arm to be freely moveable in a co-manipulation mode responsive to movement at a handle of the surgical instrument for performing surgery using the surgical instrument while applying an impedance to the robot arm to compensate for gravity of the surgical instrument ([0083]), and wherein the robot arm is not teleoperated via user input received at a remote surgeon console ([0062] [0082] [0083]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hufford to include a co-manipulation mode such as that taught by DiMaio in order for the surgeons to move the surgical tool from one surgical opening to another ([0083]).
Regarding Claim 2, Hufford teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to limit movement of the surgical instrument via the robot arm within a predetermined distance from the first position of the surgical instrument ([0029]-[0031])
Regarding Claim 6, Hufford teaches wherein the plurality of joints of the robot arm comprises one or more motorized joints, each motorized joint operatively coupled to a respective motor, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to: calculate the first and second forces based on motor current measurements of the respective motors; and cause the robot arm to move via the one or more motorized joints of the robot arm ([0013])
Regarding Claim 8, Hufford teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive image data from a laparoscope having a field of view of at least one of the anatomical structure or the surgical instrument ([0006] [0016])
Regarding Claim 9, Hufford teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: detect a predetermined condition of the anatomical structure based on the image data; and apply increased impedance to the robot arm to maintain the distal end of the robot arm in a static position upon detection of the predetermined condition ([0033] [0036] [0038])
Regarding Claim 10, Hufford teaches wherein the predetermined condition comprises a complete dissection of the anatomical structure ([0033] [0036] [0038])
Regarding Claim 11, Hufford teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify a type of the surgical instrument within the field of view of the laparoscope based on the image data; and automatically switch to the constant tension mode responsive to the type of the surgical instrument ([0024] [0025])
Regarding Claim 12, Hufford teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify a phase of a surgical procedure; and automatically switch to the constant tension mode based on the type of the surgical instrument and the phase of the surgical procedure ([0025] [0028] [0033])
Regarding Claim 13, Hufford teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to switch to the constant tension mode responsive to user input ([0016])
Regarding Claim 14, Hufford teaches wherein the user input comprises at least one of a predefined gestural pattern configured to be detected by one or more depth sensors operatively coupled to the at least one processor, user input received via a graphical user interface operatively coupled to the at least one processor, voice command, or one or more actuators associated with the robot arm ([0016] [0020] [0028] [0032])
Regarding claim 15, Hufford does not teach that the at least one processor is configured to automatically transition the robot arm to the co-manipulation mode responsive to determining that force applied at the robot arm due to force applied at the handle of the surgical instrument exceeds a predetermined threshold. However, DiMaio discloses that the at least one processor is configured to automatically transition the robot arm to the co-manipulation mode responsive to determining that force applied at the robot arm due to force applied at the handle of the surgical instrument exceeds a predetermined threshold ([0083] [0084]).
Regarding Claim 16, Hufford teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to automatically cause the robot arm to move the surgical instrument in a direction to the second position upon detection of one or more predefined conditions ([0027])
Regarding Claim 18, Hufford teaches a method of operating a robot arm comprising: calculating, via a controller, a first force applied to the surgical instrument in a first position by an anatomical structure at a first time when the surgical instrument is coupled to the robot arm ([0015] [0027]); establishing, via the controller, a constant tension force based on the first force, the constant tension force configured to provide a target tension on the anatomical structure ([0015] [0020] [0027]); calculating, via the controller, a second force applied to the surgical instrument by the anatomical structure at a second time, the second time after the first time ([0021] [0022] [0028]; and causing, via the controller, the robot arm to move the surgical instrument in a direction to a second position if the second force falls outside of a predetermined threshold based on the constant tension force to apply the constant tension force on the anatomical structure and maintain the target tension on the anatomical in a constant tension mode ([0025] [0028] [0029] [0031]).However, Hufford does not teach permitting the robot arm to be freely moveable in a co-manipulation mode responsive to movement at a handle of the surgical instrument for performing surgery using the surgical instrument while applying an impedance to the robot arm to compensate for gravity of the surgical instrument; and wherein the robot arm is not teleoperated via user input received at a remote surgeon console. DiMaio teaches a method of operating a robotic arm comprising permitting the robot arm to be freely moveable in a co-manipulation mode responsive to movement at a handle of the surgical instrument for performing surgery using the surgical instrument while applying an impedance to the robot arm to compensate for gravity of the surgical instrument ([0083]); and wherein the robot arm is not teleoperated via user input received at a remote surgeon console ([0062] [0082] [0083]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hufford to include a co-manipulation mode such as that taught by DiMaio in order for the surgeons to move the surgical tool from one surgical opening to another ([0083]).
Regarding claim 19, Hufford teaches limiting, via the controller, movement of the surgical instrument via the robot arm within a predetermined distance from the first position of the surgical instrument ([0029]-[0031])
Regarding claim 21, Hufford teaches calculating, via the controller, the first and second forces based on motor current measurements of one or more motors operatively coupled to one or more motorized joints of the plurality of joints of the robot arm; and causing, via the controller, the robot arm to move via the one or more motorized joints of the robot arm ([0013])
Regarding Claim 22, Hufford teaches receiving, via the controller, image data from a laparoscope having a field of view of at least one of the anatomical structure or the surgical instrument ([0006] [0016])
Regarding Claim 23, Hufford teaches detecting, via the controller, a predetermined condition of the anatomical structure based on the image data; and applying, via the controller, increased impedance to the robot arm to maintain the distal end of the robot arm in a static position upon detection of the predetermined condition ([0033] [0036] [0038])
Regarding Claim 24, Hufford teaches identifying, via the controller, a type of the surgical instrument within the field of view of the laparoscope based on the image data identifying, via the controller, a phase of a surgical procedure; and automatically switching, via the controller, to the constant tension mode responsive to the type of the surgical instrument ([0024] [0025] [0028] [0033])
Regarding Claim 25, Hufford does not teach automatically switching, via the controller, the robot arm to the co-manipulation mode responsive to determining that force applied at the robot arm due to force applied at the handle of the surgical instrument exceeds a predetermined threshold. However, DiMaio discloses automatically switching, via the controller, the robot arm to the co-manipulation mode responsive to determining that force applied at the robot arm due to force applied at the handle of the surgical instrument exceeds a predetermined threshold ([0082] [0084]).
Claim(s) 3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hufford in view of DiMaio as applied to claims 2 and 19 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2010/0093412 to Morales. While Hufford and DiMaio disclose the limitation of claims 2 and 19 above, Hufford and DiMaio do not disclose applying, via the controller, a haptic boundary based on the predetermined distance; and applying, via the controller, increased impedance to the robot arm when the robot arm approaches the haptic boundary to thereby limit movement of the surgical instrument. Morales, in the analogous art of robotic surgery, teaches a system and method of applying, via the controller, a haptic boundary based on the predetermined distance; and applying, via the controller, increased impedance to the robot arm when the robot arm approaches the haptic boundary to thereby limit movement of the surgical instrument ([0057]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hufford and DiMaio to include haptic feedback to the user based on boundary proximity such as that taught by Morales in order to avoid damaging organs not in the surgical plan in real-time during the surgery.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hufford in view of DiMaio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morales. Hufford and DiMaio disclose the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not disclose that:
the at least one processor is configured to: apply a haptic boundary based on the predetermined distance; and apply increased impedance to the robot arm when the robot arm approaches the haptic boundary to thereby limit movement of the surgical instrument
the at least one processor is configured to: determine when a distance between a distal tip of the surgical instrument and a trocar through which the surgical instrument extends falls below a predetermined distance threshold; and generate an alert when the distance between the distal tip of the surgical instrument and the trocar falls below the predetermined distance threshold.
However, Morales discloses an analogous robotic surgery system wherein:
the at least one processor is configured to: apply a haptic boundary based on the predetermined distance ([0074]-[0083]); and apply increased impedance to the robot arm when the robot arm approaches the haptic boundary to thereby limit movement of the surgical instrument ([0088])
the at least one processor is configured to: determine when a distance between a distal tip of the surgical instrument and a trocar through which the surgical instrument extends falls below a predetermined distance threshold; and generate an alert when the distance between the distal tip of the surgical instrument and the trocar falls below the predetermined distance threshold ([0016] [0028] [0025] [0057]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hufford and DiMaio to include monitoring the distance between a surgical instrument and a trocar and providing feedback to the user such as that taught by Morales as Morales discloses in paragraph [0025] “Knowledge of the force exerted onto the tissue of a patient at the incision level, of which the force exerted at the fulcrum is the reaction (with opposite sign), allows among others automated (re)adjustment of the fulcrum coordinates, which are e.g. used by a robot controller for reducing stresses and loads exerted onto the tissue of the patient at the incision level.”
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hufford and DiMaio as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0297444 to Camarillo et al (hereinafter “Camarillo”). While Hufford and DiMaio disclose the limitations of claim 6, Hufford and DiMaio do not disclose that the respective motors are disposed within the base. However, Camarillo discloses a comparable robotic surgical device wherein the respective motors are disposed within the base ([0062]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hufford to include motors contained within the base such as that taught by Camarillo in order to protect the motors from damage due to environmental factors.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hufford and DiMaio as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US Patent 11,510,733 to Roh et al (hereinafter “Roh”). Hufford and DiMaio disclose the limitations of claim 16, but do not disclose that the at least one processor is configured to determine the second position of the surgical instrument using machine learning algorithms executed at the at least one processor, the machine learning algorithms configured to compare the one or more predefined conditions with a trained database of historical data of the same or similar surgical procedures. However, Roh teaches an analogous robotic surgical method wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the second position of the surgical instrument using machine learning algorithms executed at the at least one processor, the machine learning algorithms configured to compare the one or more predefined conditions with a trained database of historical data of the same or similar surgical procedures (Col 20 Ln 11 – Col 21 Ln 13, Col 23 Ln 58 – Col 24 Ln 3, Col 27 Ln 1-13 and 41-57, Col 30 Ln 44-59). It would have been obvious before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Hufford and DiMaio to include selection of the second position using a trained machine learning model such as that taught by Roh in order to provide the user with the most up-to-date and accurate surgical plan information based on a history of success of other similar surgical plans.
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 MICHAEL JAMES CAREY whose telephone number is (571)270-7235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8am-5pm).
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, Michael Carey can be reached at 571-270-7235. 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.
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights