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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 06/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The aspects of "a second imaging range" and "a first imaging range" are not properly defined within the specification since these features can be interpreted several different ways despite reviewing the disclosure. The first imaging range is clearly defined as corresponding to an angle of view of the endoscope, however, it is not clearly defined whether the second imaging range corresponds to an angle of view of the endoscope or the treatment or even a simulated angle of view by the processor. Also, it is unclear whether or not the maximum pivoting ranges of the endoscope/ treatment tool define the bounds of the second imaging range. Furthermore, it is not made clear what “imaging range” even refers to, is an imaging range an image? Is it the pivoting range of the arm holding the imager? Is it the range that the field of view of the endoscope is capable of expanding as it pivots? Or is it something else entirely? Nonetheless, the claimed limitations are not reasonably described within the specification.
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 1 & 6 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 1 recites the limitation “to support” which is indefinite because it is not clearly established how the endoscope/ surgical instrument are supported and what the meets and bounds of the invention as claimed are. The examiner suggests amending the claim to more precisely limit the intended structures/ functions of the invention as claimed.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a second imaging range reflecting a positional deviation related to the distal end position of the surgical instrument…. a first imaging range” which is indefinite because it is unclear whether the second imaging range is an imaging view of the endoscope, an imaging view of the treatment tool, or even a simulated imaging view acquired from the processor. Moreover, it is overall unclear what the imaging ranges even are since neither the claims nor the disclosure adequately disclose the meets and bounds of the imaging ranges, i.e. the examiner can simply interpret them as being two separate images, and are therefore considered indefinite. The examiner suggests amending the claim language to more distinctly pronounce the structure and functions of the invention as intended.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “in response to a predetermined input to an input” which is confusing and unclear since it introduces one input and ties it to another input, making the claim indefinite because this does not follow a logical flow. The examiner is interpreting this to be a typo which was meant to recite only one input; however, the examiner suggests amending the claim to properly limit the intended structure of the invention as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Larkin et al. (US 20080004603 A1, hereinafter Larkin).
Regarding Claim 1, Larkin discloses
A surgical system (system 100, FIG. 1) comprising:
a first manipulator (robotic arm 122, FIG. 1) to support an endoscope (endoscope 140, FIG. 1);
a second manipulator (robotic arms 128/129, FIG. 1) to support a surgical instrument (tools 138/ 139, FIG. 1); and
a controller (Console C, FIG. 1) including one or more processors (processor 102, FIG. 1);
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to acquire a distal end position of the surgical instrument (par. 33 discloses processor indicates position/ identifies location of tools during operation, par. 50 discloses processor identifies position of distal end of tool),
acquire a second imaging range (boundary area 400, FIG. 4) reflecting a positional deviation related to the distal end position of the surgical instrument (FIG. 4, par. 37 discloses boundary area corresponds to out-of-view tool, i.e. position of tool that has deviated from field of view) and
a diameter of a shaft (shaft 217/ 222, FIG. 5) of the surgical instrument with respect to a first imaging range (viewing area 300, FIGS. 4-7) corresponding to an angle of view of the endoscope (par. 37 discloses viewing area corresponds to field of view of endoscope, FIGS. 4-5 depict shaft extending through boundary area with a potentially a different diameter than through viewing area, i.e. boundary area reflects diameter of shaft with respect to diameter of shaft within viewing area), and
determine whether or not the distal end position of the surgical instrument is within the second imaging range (par. 33 discloses processor determines whether or not tools are out-of-view, i.e. within boundary area, as depicted in FIGS. 4-5).
Regarding Claim 2, Larkin discloses
The surgical system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to display a first indication (first symbol 410, FIG. 4) indicating that the surgical instrument is outside a field of view of the endoscope when it is determined that the distal end position of the surgical instrument is outside the second imaging range (FIG. 4, par. 41 disclose first symbol indicates the position/ orientation of a tool out-of-view of the boundary area).
Regarding Claim 3, Larkin discloses
The surgical system according to claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to display a second indication (orientation indicator 411, FIG. 4) indicating that the surgical instrument is located around an area within a field of view of the endoscope (par. 41 discloses orientation indicator reveals the orientation of an end-effector, i.e. distal end, out-of-view tool with respect to the viewing area, par. 43 discloses size of the symbol may indicate the distance of the out-of-view tool away from the viewing area), or
located around an area outside the field of view of the endoscope in which the distal end position of the surgical instrument comes within the field of view when the endoscope is pulled toward a proximal end side of the endoscope when it is determined that the distal end position of the surgical instrument is within the second imaging range.
Regarding Claim 4, Larkin discloses
The surgical system according to claim 3,
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to display,
as the second indication,
an indication prompting an operator (Surgeon S, FIG. 1) to pull the endoscope toward the proximal end side of the endoscope when it is determined that the distal end position of the surgical instrument is within the second imaging range (par. 6 discloses if surgeon discovers instrument is out-of-view, i.e. via indication, surgeon may move the endoscope until the instrument appears in viewing area, i.e. symbols/ indicators inform/prompt the surgeon to pull endoscope back to zoom-out).
Regarding Claim 5, Larkin discloses
The surgical system according to claim 4, wherein the second indication includes a number to identify the second manipulator supporting the surgical instrument determined to be within the second imaging range (par. 38 discloses number indicators may be provided with the indicators/symbols and may identify the respective manipulator).
Regarding Claim 6, Larkin discloses
The surgical system according to claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, in response to a predetermined input to an input (control devices 108/ 109, FIG. 1, par. 28-29, 33 disclose processor acts according to inputs by control devices),
display a first indication (first symbol 410, FIG. 4) indicating that the surgical instrument is outside a field of view of the endoscope when it is determined that the distal end position of the surgical instrument is outside the second imaging range (FIG. 4, par. 41 disclose first symbol indicates the position/ orientation of a tool out-of-view of the boundary area), and
display a second indication (orientation indicator 411, FIG. 4) indicating that the surgical instrument is located around an area within the field of view of the endoscope (par. 41 discloses orientation indicator reveals the orientation of an end-effector, i.e. distal end, out-of-view tool with respect to the viewing area, par. 43 discloses size of the symbol may indicate the distance of the out-of-view tool away from the viewing area), or
located around an area outside the field of view of the endoscope in which the surgical instrument comes within the field of view when the endoscope is pulled toward a proximal end side of the endoscope when it is determined that the distal end position of the surgical instrument is within the second imaging range.
Regarding Claim 7, Larkin discloses
The surgical system according to claim 6,
wherein the input includes at least one of a first switch (input devices of control devices 108/ 109, FIG. 1) on an operation handle to operate the surgical instrument (par. 28-29 disclose input devices, i.e. switch, operate manipulators/ tools),
a second switch on the second manipulator, or
a third switch to move the endoscope using the operation handle.
Regarding Claim 8, Larkin discloses
The surgical system according to claim 1,
wherein the positional deviation related to the distal end position of the surgical instrument includes a first positional deviation caused by a positional deviation of a field-of-view range of the endoscope (par. 6 discloses surgeon can move endoscope to alter the viewing area and instrument may be outside of viewing area due to a zoom-in adjustment to the field of view of the endoscope, i.e. positional deviation of endoscope thereby altering its view) and
a second positional deviation that is a positional deviation of a distal end of the surgical instrument (depicted in FIGS. 4-5).
Regarding Claim 9, Larkin discloses
The surgical system according to claim 8,
wherein the controller is configured or programed to calculate the first positional deviation based on a positional deviation of the endoscope at a pivot position of the endoscope and a distance of a distal end of the endoscope from the pivot position of the endoscope (par. 30 discloses each robotic arm has linkages and motor-controlled joints, par. 57-58 disclose disparity, i.e. deviation, calculated from position of tools/ endoscope and a distance between two different cameras of the endoscope, i.e. potentially positioned between linkages/ joints), and
calculate the second positional deviation based on a positional deviation of the surgical instrument at a pivot position of the surgical instrument and a distance of the distal end of the surgical instrument from the pivot position of the surgical instrument (par. 30 discloses each robotic arm has linkages and motor-controlled joints, par. 52 discloses tool position and orientation, i.e. deviation of position, are estimated using information regarding the joints in the tool’s robotic arms, i.e. pivot position and distance from pivot position).
Regarding Claim 10, Larkin discloses
The surgical system according to claim 1, wherein the distal end position of the surgical instrument includes a tool center point position (central point 401, FIG. 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL HADI ABBASI whose telephone number is (571)272-4076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-4963. 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.
/ABDUL HADI ABBASI/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights