DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communications filed on 10/18/2024. Claims 1-2, 8-9, 12, 14, 17, 20, 21, 22, 41 have been amended. Claims 4-6, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 18-19, 24-26, 28-26, 38-40, 42-65 are canceled. Claims 66-67 are newly added. Presently, Claims 1-3, 7-9, 12, 14, 17, 20-23, 27, 37, 41, 66-67 remain pending and are hereinafter examined on the merits.
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
Previous objections to the Drawings are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 10/18/2024.
Previous rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 10/18/2024.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on solely on Frankel (US 2019/0261959 A1) as applied in the prior rejection of record under 35 USC § 102 and the new grounds of rejection does not rely on Krieger et al (US 2020/0194117 A1) in view of Frankel (US 2019/0261959 A1) as applied in the prior rejection of record under 35 USC § 103 for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new grounds of rejection now relies on Krieger et al (US 2020/0194117 A1) in view of Black et al (US 2023/0218270 A1) in view of Nowlin et al (US 2006/0241414 A1), for Claims 1-3, 7-9, 17, 21-23, 27, and 37, and Frankel (US 2019/0261959 A1) in view of Black et al (US 2023/0218270 A1) in view of Nowlin et al (US 2006/0241414 A1), for claim 41.
Examiners Notes
The status of claim 20 should have been corrected to (Currently Amended).
Applicant is reminded of manner of making amendment in application according to 37 C.F.C. 1.121.(c). The current status of all the claims in the application, including any previously canceled or withdrawn claims, must be given. Status is indicated in a parenthetical expression following the claim number by one of the following status identifiers that includes (withdrawn). See MPEP 714,II,C,(A),
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 17, 21-23, 27, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krieger et al (US 2020/0194117 A1) in view of Black et al (US 2023/0218270 A1) in view of Nowlin et al (US 2006/0241414 A1).
Claim 1: Krieger discloses, A system for remote ultrasonography, (¶Abstract, Claim1) comprising:
-Krieger teaches remote ultrasonography described as remote trauma assessment using a robotic imaging system, ¶Abstract, ¶0077.
a local control system (computing device 106, FIG. 1-2) comprising an input device (haptic device 108) and at least one local processor (processor 124) coupled to the input device (FIG. 2),
-The computing device 106 constitutes as the local control system, ¶0079, ¶0088. This computing device 106, comprises a processor 124 and inputs 128, ¶0088-0089. A haptic device 108 serves as an input device for a remote user (e.g., an ultrasound technician or radiologist), is in communication with and coupled to the computing device 106, Claim 18, ¶0077, ¶0085-0087. The haptic device 108 can further be manipulated by a user to control the remote robotic system, ¶0077, ¶0085-0086.,
the input device comprises a plurality of joints, (¶0043, ¶0087)
a remote robotic ultrasound system (robotic imaging system 102) comprising a motion subsystem (robotic arms 122) and at least one remote processor (processor 144) coupled to the motion subsystem (FIG. 2),
-The robotic imaging system 102 is located remotely (e.g., within an medical vehicle), ¶0077, and is responsible for performing ultrasound scans, ¶0077-0079. The robotic imaging system 102 includes a mobile platform 110, containing processor 144 and other components, (146, 148, 150, 152, 154) and a robotic system 114, FIG. 1-2, ¶0078-0079, ¶0092. The robotic system 114, in turn, comprises one or more robotic arms 112, which serve as the motion subsystem, with an ultrasound probe 118 coupled to it, ¶Abstract, ¶0078-0079, ¶0081, Claim 1. The mobile platform 110’s processor 114 is coupled to an controls the robotic arm 122, ¶0078-0079, ¶0081.
wherein the at least one local processor, of the local control system, is operable to:
detect a new positional state for the input device;
-Processor 124 of the computing device 106 is programmed to receive input indicative of at least one of a position and orientation of the haptic device 108, ¶0087, Claim 18. This input reflects the user’s manipulation and thus the new positional state of the haptic device, ¶0085-0086.
obtain positional data corresponding to the new positional state;
-The computing device 106 received positional movement or movement information from the haptic device 108, ¶0086-0087, Claim 18.
generate, based on the positional data, input-side motion demand data; and
-The computing device 106 generates movement information or commands for the robotic arm 112 based on the input received from the haptic device, ¶0085-0087, Claim 18.
transmit the input-side motion demand data to the remote robotic ultrasound system,
-The computing device 106 is programmed to transmit movement information based on the haptic device input to the mobile platform 106, which is part of the remote robotic system, ¶0087, Claim 18. This transmission occurs over a communication network, Claim 18.
wherein the at least one remote processor, of the remote robotic ultrasound system, is operable to:
receive the input-side motion demand data; and
-The mobile platform 110 and its processor 144 is programmed to receive, from the remote computing device via a wireless communication system, movement information indicative of input provided via remotely operated haptic device 108, Claim 1, Claim 18, ¶0017, ¶0078-0079.
adjust a positional state of the motion subsystem, based on the input-side motion demand data.
-Processor 144 of the mobile platform 110 is programmed to cause the robot arm to move the ultrasound probe from one position to another based on the received movement information, Claim 1, Claim 11, ¶0079. This allows the remote user to manipulate the position and orientation of the ultrasound probe via the haptic device, ¶0105-0106.
Krieger fails to explicitly disclose that: the input device comprising a sensor subsystem comprising at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU); and to obtain the positional data comprising IMU data generated by the IMU;
However, Black in the context of remote and local system for remote ultrasound, discloses, the input device comprising a sensor subsystem comprising at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU); and to obtain the positional data comprising IMU data generated by the IMU; (¶0184)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input device of Krieger to be configured to include the teachings taught by Black. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improving facilitation of remote interaction by translating physical movements of the input device into control signals at the local site.
Krieger in view of Black fails to explicitly disclose that: the sensor subsystem comprising a plurality of rotary encoders; and to obtain the positional data comprising encoder data generated by the plurality of rotary encoders;
However, Nowlin in the context of master/slave relationship to telesurgery discloses, the sensor subsystem comprising a plurality of rotary encoders; and to obtain the positional data comprising encoder data generated by the plurality of rotary encoders; (¶0060, ¶0062, ¶0077, ¶0137, ¶0143, ¶0148, ¶0157-0158, ¶0161)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor subsystem of modified Krieger to be configured to include the teachings taught by Nowlin. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as enable joint positions to be determined to provide feedback thereby improving the surgeons facilitation of the medical examination, ¶0008, ¶0060, ¶0062, ¶0110.
Claim 2: Modified Krieger discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Krieger discloses, wherein the at least one remote processor (processor 144), of the remote robotic ultrasound system (robotic imaging system 102), is further operable to:
monitor for one or more changes in the positional state of the motion subsystem (robotic arms 112); and
-Mobile platform 110, FIG. 2, contains the remote processor 144, operable for “sensing a position of the robot arm 122”, ¶0079. Hence, the sensing capability allows the remote processor to monitor the current positional state of its motion subsystem (robot arm 122 and ultrasound probe 118), and thus detect any chances.
in response to detecting said one or more changes in the positional state of the motion subsystem, generate robot-side motion demand data corresponding to a new position state of the motion subsystem; and
-The “EE position feedback from the robot (e.g., the ultrasound probe 118) can be used”, ¶0116. The EE refers to the end effector, which is the ultrasound probe 118. The position feedback is the data gathered by the robot that corresponds to the its current or new positional state. While the robot-side motion data is the generation of the EE position feedback which directly indicates the robot’s ability to provide data about its new position after movement, ¶0108 and ¶0116-0117.
transmit the robot-side motion demand data to the local control system.
-The mobile platform 110 communicates with the computing device 106 (the local control system) over a communication network 104, ¶0085-0086. The system of Krieger receives and presents information from the mobile platform 11 to provide visual and/or haptic feedback to a user, ¶0086. More specifically, the mobile platform 110 is programmed to “the mobile platform 110 can provide (e.g., by transmitting) ultrasound images for the specific location 252 to the computing device 106, and/or can provide the force value from the force sensor 120 to the computing device 106.”, ¶0105. In addition, “the mobile platform 110 can receive force information from the force sensor 120, and can transmit the force information to the computing device 106 and/or the haptic device 108. […] the force information can be a decomposition of the normal force into magnitude and directional components along each dimensional axis (e.g., x, y, and z directions), based on the position and orientation of the robot arm 122”, ¶0106.
Claim 3: Modified Krieger discloses all the elements above in claim 2, Krieger discloses, wherein the at least one local processor (processor 124), of the local control system (computing device 106, FIG. 1-2), is further operable to:
receive the robot-side motion demand data; and
-The mobile platform 110 communicates with the computing device 106 (the local control system) over a communication network 104, ¶0085-0086. The system of Krieger receives and presents information from the mobile platform 11 to provide visual and/or haptic feedback to a user, ¶0086. More specifically, the mobile platform 110 is programmed to “the mobile platform 110 can provide (e.g., by transmitting) ultrasound images for the specific location 252 to the computing device 106, and/or can provide the force value from the force sensor 120 to the computing device 106.”, ¶0105. In addition, “the mobile platform 110 can receive force information from the force sensor 120, and can transmit the force information to the computing device 106 and/or the haptic device 108. […] the force information can be a decomposition of the normal force into magnitude and directional components along each dimensional axis (e.g., x, y, and z directions), based on the position and orientation of the robot arm 122”, ¶0106.
adjust a positional state of the input device (haptic device 108), based on the robot-side motion demand data, so as to generate a haptic feedback effect at the input device.
-The computing device 106 is programmed to reflect the force value along the normal axis through the tip of the stylus of the haptic device 108, ¶0107. This reflection is based on the magnitude and direction of the force received from the force sensor 120, ¶0106. The haptic device 108 received force values to resist movement of the joints or segments of the haptic device 108, ¶0106, based on the magnitude and direction of the force received. The haptic device then applies appropriate torques to its joints thereby generating a haptic feedback effect at the haptic device 108, ¶0106-0107.
Claim 7: Modified Krieger discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Krieger discloses, wherein generating the input-side motion demand data comprises determining an input-side transformation matrix, based on the positional data, wherein determining the input- side transformation matrix comprises solving a forward kinematics model.
-The ¶0018, “input indicative of at least one of a position and orientation of the haptic device; and in response to receiving the input indicative of actuation of the switch, transmit movement information based on the input indicative of at least one of the position and orientation of the haptic device to the mobile platform.”, see also ¶0087, serves as the input-side motion demand data. This data is received by the local computing device 106, ¶0018, ¶0087. The haptic device 108 has joints as previously mentioned, directs mean positions of each joints as described in ¶0118-0120 as examples of positional data from the input device. The ¶0109: “Phantom Omni driver available from 3D Systems can be used to determine forward kinematics for the haptic device 108 using the tip of the stylus of the haptic device 108 as the origin and mean positions of each joint of the haptic device 108.”. Krieger further indicates that ¶0109, ‘forward kinematics for translations of the haptic device can be calculated […] movements in the coordinate system of the haptic device 108 (e.g., defined by axes xH, yH, zH, where the axes intersect at the tip of the stylus) can be transformed and/or scaled (e.g., by computing device 106 and/or mobile platform 110) into a coordinate system of the robotic imaging system 114 and/or the robot arm 122 (e.g., defined by axes xR, zR, yR axes, where the axes intersect at the end of the ultrasound probe 118)”.
Claim 8: Modified Krieger discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Krieger discloses, wherein said adjusting the positional state of the motion subsystem comprises analyzing the input-side transformation matrix by solving an inverse kinematics model.
-Krieger discloses, the haptic device 108 provides input indicative of its position and orientation including positional displacements and displacements of wrist joints, ¶0115-0116. The input from the haptic device that is the coordinates transformed and or scaled, ¶0109, is used by the computing device 106 and/or mobile platform 110 to calculate the desired Cartesian pose of the robotic arm’s end effector, ¶¶0115-0119. The Cartesian pose is transformed into the world frame of the robot arm 122, ¶0113-0119, ¶0121. This transformed Cartesian pose of the robot arm’s EE is converted into joint space of the robot arm 112 using inverse kinematics, before instructing the robotic arm 122 to move, ¶0121.
Claim 9: Modified Krieger discloses all the elements above in claim 2, Krieger discloses, wherein said generating the robot-side motion demand data comprises determining a robot side transformation matrix, based on the new positional state,
-The system of Krieger discloses teachings the desired Cartesian position and orientation for the robot arm’s EE based on the haptic device input, ¶0113-0116. This defines a new positional sate for the input device (i.e., haptic device). The calculations of Cartesian pose of the EE constitutes “robot-side transformation matrix”.
wherein determining the robot-side comprises solving a forward kinematics model.
-The robot side transformation is based on the forward kinematics model indicative (i.e., for) the haptic device, ¶0113-0116.. Specifically, the forward kinematics for translation of the haptic device 108. The forward kinematics for translations of the haptic device occurs before the robot-side transformation matrix. The claim does not further constitute how the determining of the robot-side comprises solving a forward kinematics model. The haptic device 108 forward kinematics is an initial step which informa the calculations of the desired robot phase (i.e., the robot side transformation matrix).
Accordingly, Krieger discloses, the ¶0018, “input indicative of at least one of a position and orientation of the haptic device; and in response to receiving the input indicative of actuation of the switch, transmit movement information based on the input indicative of at least one of the position and orientation of the haptic device to the mobile platform.”, see also ¶0087, serves as the input-side motion demand data. This data is received by the local computing device 106, ¶0018, ¶0087. The haptic device 108 has joints as previously mentioned, directs mean positions of each joints as described in ¶0118-0120 as examples of positional data from the input device. The ¶0109: “Phantom Omni driver available from 3D Systems can be used to determine forward kinematics for the haptic device 108 using the tip of the stylus of the haptic device 108 as the origin and mean positions of each joint of the haptic device 108.”. Krieger further indicates that ¶0109, ‘forward kinematics for translations of the haptic device can be calculated […] movements in the coordinate system of the haptic device 108 (e.g., defined by axes xH, yH, zH, where the axes intersect at the tip of the stylus) can be transformed and/or scaled (e.g., by computing device 106 and/or mobile platform 110) into a coordinate system of the robotic imaging system 114 and/or the robot arm 122 (e.g., defined by axes xR, zR, yR axes, where the axes intersect at the end of the ultrasound probe 118)”.
Claim 17, Modified Krieger discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Krieger discloses, wherein the local control system (computing device 106, FIG. 1-2) further comprises an input interface (display 126), and wherein the at least one local processor (processor 124) of the local control system is further operable to:
receive one or more user inputs from the input interface; and (¶0018, ¶0087, ¶0089-0090, ¶0103, ¶0127-0128, ¶0132)
transmit the one or more user inputs to the remote robotic ultrasound system (robotic imaging system 102). (¶0018, ¶0087, ¶0089-0090, ¶0103, ¶0127-0128, ¶0132)
Claim 21: Krieger discloses, A method for remote ultrasonography, (¶Abstract, Claim1) comprising:
-Krieger teaches remote ultrasonography described as remote trauma assessment using a robotic imaging system, ¶Abstract, ¶0077.
detecting a new positional state for an input device (haptic device 108) and of a local control system (computing device 106, FIG. 1-2);
-Processor 124 of the computing device 106 is programmed to receive input indicative of at least one of a position and orientation of the haptic device 108, ¶0087, Claim 18. This input reflects the user’s manipulation and thus the new positional state of the haptic device, ¶0085-0086.
the input device comprises a plurality of joints, (¶0043, ¶0087)
obtaining positional data corresponding to the new positional state;
-The computing device 106 received positional movement or movement information from the haptic device 108, ¶0086-0087, Claim 18.
generating, based on the positional data, input-side motion demand data; and
-The computing device 106 generates movement information or commands for the robotic arm 112 based on the input received from the haptic device, ¶0085-0087, Claim 18.
transmitting, from the local control system, the input-side motion demand data to a remote robot system (robotic imaging system 102),
-The computing device 106 is programmed to transmit movement information based on the haptic device input to the mobile platform 106, which is part of the remote robotic system, ¶0087, Claim 18. This transmission occurs over a communication network, Claim 18.
receiving, at the remote robot system, the input-side motion demand data; and
adjusting a positional state of a motion subsystem (robotic arms 122) of the remote robot system, based on the input-side motion demand data.
-Processor 144 of the mobile platform 110 is programmed to cause the robot arm to move the ultrasound probe from one position to another based on the received movement information, Claim 1, Claim 11, ¶0079. This allows the remote user to manipulate the position and orientation of the ultrasound probe via the haptic device, ¶0105-0106.
Krieger fails to explicitly disclose that: the input device comprising a sensor subsystem comprising at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU); and to obtain the positional data comprising IMU data generated by the IMU;
However, Black in the context of remote and local system for remote ultrasound, discloses, the input device comprising a sensor subsystem comprising at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) and to obtain the positional data comprising IMU data generated by the IMU; (¶0184)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input device of Krieger to be configured to include the teachings taught by Black. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improving facilitation of remote interaction by translating physical movements of the input device into control signals at the local site.
Krieger in view of Black fails to explicitly disclose that: the sensor subsystem comprising a plurality of rotary encoders; and to obtain the positional data comprising encoder data generated by the plurality of rotary encoders;
However, Nowlin in the context of master/slave relationship to telesurgery discloses, the sensor subsystem comprising a plurality of rotary encoders; and to obtain the positional data comprising encoder data generated by the plurality of rotary encoders; (¶0060, ¶0062, ¶0077, ¶0137, ¶0143, ¶0148, ¶0157-0158, ¶0161)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor subsystem of modified Krieger to be configured to include the teachings taught by Nowlin. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as enable joint positions to be determined to provide feedback thereby improving the surgeons facilitation of the medical examination, ¶0008, ¶0060, ¶0062, ¶0110.
Claim 22: Modified Krieger discloses all the elements above in claim 21, Krieger discloses, further comprising:
monitoring, at the remote robot system, for one or more changes in the positional state of the motion subsystem; and
-Mobile platform 110, FIG. 2, contains the remote processor 144, operable for “sensing a position of the robot arm 122”, ¶0079. Hence, the sensing capability allows the remote processor to monitor the current positional state of its motion subsystem (robot arm 122 and ultrasound probe 118), and thus detect any chances.
in response to detecting said one or more changes in the positional state of the motion subsystem, generating robot-side motion demand data corresponding to a new position state of the motion subsystem; and
-The “EE position feedback from the robot (e.g., the ultrasound probe 118) can be used”, ¶0116. The EE refers to the end effector, which is the ultrasound probe 118. The position feedback is the data gathered by the robot that corresponds to the its current or new positional state. While the robot-side motion data is the generation of the EE position feedback which directly indicates the robot’s ability to provide data about its new position after movement, ¶0108 and ¶0116-0117.
transmitting the robot-side motion demand data to the local control system.
-The mobile platform 110 communicates with the computing device 106 (the local control system) over a communication network 104, ¶0085-0086. The system of Krieger receives and presents information from the mobile platform 11 to provide visual and/or haptic feedback to a user, ¶0086. More specifically, the mobile platform 110 is programmed to “the mobile platform 110 can provide (e.g., by transmitting) ultrasound images for the specific location 252 to the computing device 106, and/or can provide the force value from the force sensor 120 to the computing device 106.”, ¶0105. In addition, “the mobile platform 110 can receive force information from the force sensor 120, and can transmit the force information to the computing device 106 and/or the haptic device 108. […] the force information can be a decomposition of the normal force into magnitude and directional components along each dimensional axis (e.g., x, y, and z directions), based on the position and orientation of the robot arm 122”, ¶0106.
Claim 23: Modified Krieger discloses all the elements above in claim 22, Krieger discloses, further comprising:
receiving, at the local control system, the robot-side motion demand data; and
over a communication network 104, ¶0085-0086. The system of Krieger receives and presents information from the mobile platform 11 to provide visual and/or haptic feedback to a user, ¶0086. More specifically, the mobile platform 110 is programmed to “the mobile platform 110 can provide (e.g., by transmitting) ultrasound images for the specific location 252 to the computing device 106, and/or can provide the force value from the force sensor 120 to the computing device 106.”, ¶0105. In addition, “the mobile platform 110 can receive force information from the force sensor 120, and can transmit the force information to the computing device 106 and/or the haptic device 108. […] the force information can be a decomposition of the normal force into magnitude and directional components along each dimensional axis (e.g., x, y, and z directions), based on the position and orientation of the robot arm 122”, ¶0106.
adjusting, at the local control system, a positional state of the input device, based on the robot-side motion demand data, so as to generate a haptic feedback effect at the input device.
-The computing device 106 is programmed to reflect the force value along the normal axis through the tip of the stylus of the haptic device 108, ¶0107. This reflection is based on the magnitude and direction of the force received from the force sensor 120, ¶0106. The haptic device 108 received force values to resist movement of the joints or segments of the haptic device 108, ¶0106, based on the magnitude and direction of the force received. The haptic device then applies appropriate torques to its joints thereby generating a haptic feedback effect at the haptic device 108, ¶0106-0107.
Claim 27: Modified Krieger discloses all the elements above in claim 21, Krieger discloses, wherein generating the input-side motion demand data comprises determining an input-side transformation matrix, based on the positional data, wherein determining the input-side transformation matrix comprises solving a forward kinematics model.
-The ¶0018, “input indicative of at least one of a position and orientation of the haptic device; and in response to receiving the input indicative of actuation of the switch, transmit movement information based on the input indicative of at least one of the position and orientation of the haptic device to the mobile platform.”, see also ¶0087, serves as the input-side motion demand data. This data is received by the local computing device 106, ¶0018, ¶0087. The haptic device 108 has joints as previously mentioned, directs mean positions of each joints as described in ¶0118-0120 as examples of positional data from the input device. The ¶0109: “Phantom Omni driver available from 3D Systems can be used to determine forward kinematics for the haptic device 108 using the tip of the stylus of the haptic device 108 as the origin and mean positions of each joint of the haptic device 108.”. Krieger further indicates that ¶0109, ‘forward kinematics for translations of the haptic device can be calculated […] movements in the coordinate system of the haptic device 108 (e.g., defined by axes xH, yH, zH, where the axes intersect at the tip of the stylus) can be transformed and/or scaled (e.g., by computing device 106 and/or mobile platform 110) into a coordinate system of the robotic imaging system 114 and/or the robot arm 122 (e.g., defined by axes xR, zR, yR axes, where the axes intersect at the end of the ultrasound probe 118)”.
Claim 37: Modified Krieger discloses all the elements above in claim 21, Krieger discloses, wherein the local control system (computing device 106, FIG. 1-2) further comprises an input interface (display 126), and the method further comprises:
receiving, at the local control system, one or more user inputs from the input interface; and (¶0018, ¶0087, ¶0089-0090, ¶0103, ¶0127-0128, ¶0132)
transmitting, from the local control system, the one or more user inputs to the remote robotic ultrasound system. (robotic imaging system 102). (¶0018, ¶0087, ¶0089-0090, ¶0103, ¶0127-0128, ¶0132)
Claims 12 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krieger et al (US 2020/0194117 A1) in view of Black et al (US 2023/0218270 A1) in view of Nowlin et al (US 2006/0241414 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Simi et al (US 2023/0082871 A1).
Claim 12: Modified Krieger discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Krieger discloses, wherein the motion subsystem (robotic arms 122) comprises a tool-retaining end effector (¶0083, ‘the ultrasound probe 118 can be implemented as the end effector of the robotic system 114 (e.g., the ultrasound probe 118 can be mounted to the robotic segment most distal from the origin or base of the robot arm 122)’, - Specifically, the most distal segment of the robotic segment is the tool-retaining end effector.) for retaining a tool (ultrasound probe 118).
Krieger fails to disclose: and wherein the system further comprises a housing casing configured to be removably coupled to the tool-retaining end effector, the housing casing comprising a flexible sock portion for receiving a portion of said tool therein.
However, Sim in the context of instrument alignment discloses, wherein the system further comprises a housing casing (sterile adapter 101, FIG. 1, 4, 7) configured to be removably coupled to the tool-retaining end effector (slave assembly 100 (i.e., part of the robotic manipulator system), FIG. 1, 4, 7), the housing casing comprising a flexible sock portion (membrane 109, FIG. 1, 4, 7) for receiving a portion of said tool (surgical instrument 107, FIG. 1, 4, 7) therein.
-Simi teaches a sterile adapter (housing casing) configured to be removably coupled to a robotic manipulator (the tool-retaining end effector), the sterile adapter includes a membrane (flexible sock portion) for receiving the surgical instrument (tool). The sterile adapter is designed for a slave robot assembly or robotic surgery, ¶Abstract, ¶0032. The sterile adapter is configured to be detachably coupled (i.e., removably coupled) with a non-sterile robotic manipulator system, ¶0016, ¶0038. Regarding the flexible sock portion for receiving said tool, Simi specifies that the adapter comprises a membrane 109 which is “elastically stretchable” (i.e., flexible), ¶Abstract, ¶0025, ¶0072-0073. This membrane 109 seals a though opening in the adapter’s from to form a distal cavity, ¶0023-0024. The cavity is described as a “pouch” located between the stretchable membrane and the frame, ¶0025-0026, ¶0067-0068. Hence, a flexible sock portion. Additionally, Simi teaches that the cavity receives the instrument, ¶0026-0027.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool-retaining end effector of modified Krieger to be configured to include the teachings of Simi. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as providing sterility while effectively transmitting mechanical actuation and enabling miniaturization, as suggested by Simi, ¶Abstract, ¶0007, ¶0016.
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krieger et al (US 2020/0194117 A1) in view of Black et al (US 2023/0218270 A1) in view of Nowlin et al (US 2006/0241414 A1) in view of Simi et al (US 2023/0082871 A1), as applied to claim 12, in further view of von Pechmann et al (US 2010/0152749 A1).
Claim 14, Modified Krieger discloses all the elements above in claim 12, Krieger discloses, wherein the tool comprises one or more of an ultrasound transducer (ultrasound probe 118) (¶0083, ‘the ultrasound probe 118 can be implemented as the end effector of the robotic system 114 (e.g., the ultrasound probe 118 can be mounted to the robotic segment most distal from the origin or base of the robot arm 122)’),
Kreiger fails to disclose: a transvaginal probe.
However, van Pechmann in the context of surgical robotics discloses, a vaginal probe mounted to an adapter, ¶0036.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool of Kreiger to be a vaginal probe (i.e., transvaginal probe) as taught by von Pechmann. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as providing a stable probe during suturing of mesh to the vagina, as suggested by von Pechmann, ¶0021.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krieger et al (US 2020/0194117 A1) in view of Black et al (US 2023/0218270 A1) in view of Nowlin et al (US 2006/0241414 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Moreno (US 2016/0038080 A1).
Claim 20, Modified Krieger discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Krieger discloses,
wherein the remote robotic ultrasound system (robotic imaging system 102) further comprises a feedback device (force sensor 120) coupled to the at least one remote processor (processor 144) of the remote robotic ultrasound system, and wherein the at least one remote processor of the remote robotic ultrasound system is further operable to (FIG. 2): -The mobile platform 110 and its processor 144 is programmed to receive, from the remote computing device via a wireless communication system, movement information indicative of input provided via remotely operated haptic device 108, Claim 1, Claim 18, ¶0017, ¶0078-0079. -Processor 144 of the mobile platform 110 is programmed to cause the robot arm to move the ultrasound probe from one position to another based on the received movement information, Claim 1, Claim 11, ¶0079. This allows the remote user to manipulate the position and orientation of the ultrasound probe via the haptic device, ¶0105-0106.
monitor for an activation signal from the feedback device; and (¶0009, ¶0078, ¶0124-0125, ¶0188)
in response to detecting the activation signal, one of disabling the motion subsystem and reducing an applied force of the motion subsystem on a patient. (¶0009, ¶0078, ¶0124-0125, ¶0188)
Krieger fails to disclose: that the patient feedback device comprising a hand clamp mechanism, and monitoring the activation signal from the patient feedback device generated upon the hand clamp mechanism either squeezed or released.
However, Moreno in the context of patient monitoring discloses, a patient feedback device comprising a hand clamp mechanism, and monitoring the activation signal from the patient feedback device generated upon the hand clamp mechanism either squeezed or released. (¶Abstract, ¶0006-0008, ¶0015-0016, ¶0021, ¶0023, ¶0028 Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feedback device of modified Moreno with the known grip/clap mechanism taught by Moreno for the advantage of providing a device that allows a patient to require more pain control without speaking, ensuring the patient’s pain level is not exceed during a procedure, as suggested by, Moreno ¶0004.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankel (US 2019/0261959 A1) in view of Black et al (US 2023/0218270 A1) in view of Nowlin et al (US 2006/0241414 A1).
Claim 41: Frankel discloses, An input device (slave sonography device 200) comprising:
a mounting structure (base 808); (FIG. 3 & 8, ¶0063, “Although focusing on the slave sonography device 200, however, the illustration in FIG. 8 and the description below also apply to the master sonography device 300”)
a user-controllable arm system (¶Abstract, Claim 1, Claim 12, ¶0066, ‘a user can grasp the transducer head 208 or the distal-most segment 812 b and move it to the desired location, and the device 200 will mechanically follow the intended path.’), comprising:
a mechanical arm extending between a first arm end and a distal second arm end, and (FIG. 3: transducer arm 306 has a first arm end and a distal second arm end; FIG. 8: segments 812a and 812b extend between a first arm end and a distal second arm end)
a rotatable member rotatably coupled to the mounting structure, wherein the mechanical arm is secured to the rotatable member at the distal second arm end; (FIG 3 & 8, ¶0065-0066, the segments attaches to the joints 814a-c to tilt along the axis of the joint as well as rotate substantially. The mechanical arm is attached to the joints specifically at the second arm end.)
a motor subsystem comprising a plurality of motors for controlling a positional state of the arm system; (FIG 3 & 8, ¶0067, ‘Within the joints 814 a-814 c and/or the segments 812 a and 812 b can be one or more components (e.g., motors, servos, actuators, pumps, sensors, and the like) that sense and power movement of the arm 206.’)
a sensor subsystem for monitoring the positional state of the user-controllable arm system; (¶0045, ‘he master sonography device 300 can include one or more sensors that translate the positioning of the master sonography device 300 relative to the mock patient 304 into instructions for positioning the slave sonography device 200 relative to the patient 204’, see also ¶0046; see also ¶0067, ‘Within the joints 814 a-814 c and/or the segments 812 a and 812 b can be one or more components (e.g., motors, servos, actuators, pumps, sensors, and the like) that sense and power movement of the arm 206.’)
at least one local processor coupled to each of the motor subsystem and the sensor subsystem. (¶0067, ‘This information can then be delivered to a central processor associated with the device 300 and transmitted to other components within the device 300 to aid movement of the device 300 itself and/or to the slave sonography device 200.’)
Frankel fails to disclose that: the sensor subsystem comprising at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU)
However, Black in the context of remote and local system for remote ultrasound, discloses, the sensor subsystem comprising at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) (¶0184)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor subsystem of Frankel to be configured to include the teachings taught by Black. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improving facilitation of remote interaction by translating physical movements of the input device into control signals at the local site.
Frankel fails to disclose that: the sensor subsystem comprising a plurality of rotary encoders
However, Nowlin in the context of master/slave relationship to telesurgery discloses, the sensor subsystem comprising a plurality of rotary encoders (¶0060, ¶0062, ¶0077, ¶0137, ¶0143, ¶0148, ¶0157-0158, ¶0161)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor subsystem of modified Frankel to be configured to include the teachings taught by Nowlin. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as enable joint positions to be determined to provide feedback thereby improving the surgeons facilitation of the medical examination, ¶0008, ¶0060, ¶0062, ¶0110.
Claim 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krieger et al (US 2020/0194117 A1) in view of Black et al (US 2023/0218270 A1) in view of Nowlin et al (US 2006/0241414 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Son (US 2021/0078121 A1).
Claim 66: Krieger as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Krieger discloses: wherein the motion subsystem (robotic arms 122) comprises a tool-retaining end effector (¶0083, ‘the ultrasound probe 118 can be implemented as the end effector of the robotic system 114 (e.g., the ultrasound probe 118 can be mounted to the robotic segment most distal from the origin or base of the robot arm 122)’, - Specifically, the most distal segment of the robotic segment is the tool-retaining end effector.) for retaining a tool (ultrasound probe 118),
Krieger fails to disclose: and wherein the tool-retaining end effector comprises a first magnet configured to couple with second magnet located inside, or on top, of said tool.
However, Son in the context of tool changing in robotic systems discloses: wherein the tool-retaining end effector (tool changer 20, as it is designed to be mounted at the end of a robot’s manipulator to grasp, hold, and exchange various tools) comprises a first magnet (magnet 13-FIG. 8-9), configured to couple with second magnet (magnet 24’-FIG. 8-9) located inside, or on top (FIG. 8-9, second magnet is considered to be located inside and on top of said tool), of said tool (tool body 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool retaining end effector of modified Krieger to be configured to include the known teachings taught by Son. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as preventing detachment and ensuring the tool remains fasten even when no electrical current is applied, as suggested by Son, ¶0176.
Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankel (US 2019/0261959 A1) in view of Black et al (US 2023/0218270 A1) in view of Nowlin et al (US 2006/0241414 A1), as applied to claim 41, in further view of Krieger et al (US 2020/0194117 A1).
Claim 66: Frankel as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Frankel fails to disclose: further comprising a joystick having an activation toggle coupled to the at least one local processor, and wherein said activation toggle is configured to connect or disconnect the input device from a motion subsystem of a remote robot system.
However, Krieger discloses, further comprising a joystick having an activation toggle coupled to the at least one local processor, and wherein said activation toggle is configured to connect or disconnect the input device from a motion subsystem of a remote robot system. (¶0087, ¶0112-0113, ¶0147-0148, ¶0155)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote ultrasonography of modified Frankel to be configured to comprise the teachings of Krieger for the advantage of providing an improve apparatus with such an apparatus being able to recenter the haptic device while refraining from sending any commands to the robotic arm, as suggested by Krieger, ¶0113.
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 Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798