The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on August 25, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Second Paragraph
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 8-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected because “the metaverse” lacks antecedent basis, since this term first appears in claim 2, but claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 1.
Claims 13 is rejected because it claims that the system is configured for a user computer to pilot the autonomous vehicle. However, if someone is piloting the vehicle, then it is not autonomous. Therefore, this appears contradictory.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hares et al. (GB 2577716) in view of Kamon (WO 2022/138695).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Hares discloses a “system 300 [that] comprises a surgical robot system 302 and an assistance module 304. The surgical robot system comprises at least one surgical robot having a base and an arm extending from the base to an attachment for an instrument” (see Abstract). Therefore, this teaches a robotic surgical system that includes a surgical tool. Hares also teaches in paragraph 94 that “To be able to perform an automated instrument change the surgical robot system may comprise: an instrument rack in which instruments that can be attached to a robot arm of the surgical robot system are situated; and a loading robot arm that is capable of (i) removing or detaching an instrument from a selected robot arm; (ii) retrieving a particular instrument from the instrument rack; and (iii) attaching the particular instrument to a selected robot arm.” Therefore, this teaches an additional robot arm that (i.e., the “loading robot arm”) “configured to remove the surgical tool from the robotic surgical system” as claimed.
However, Hares does not teach the loading robotic arm (or the surgical robot system 302 with respect to claim 12) as “an autonomous vehicle”.
Kamon teaches “a robot (100) comprising: a self-propelling carrier vehicle (110); at least one robot arm (120A, 120B) mounted on the carrier vehicle… a housing unit (160) that is mounted on the carrier vehicle and can house an end effector that has been removed from the at least one robot arm and an end effector that will be attached to the at least one robot arm (see Abstract). “The robot system 1 can be used in various service industries such as nursing care, medical care…” (see page 2, 1st paragraph after “Robot system configuration”). In other words, Kamon teaches that a robotic arm (i.e., such as the loading robot arm of Hares) could be an autonomous vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide (at least) the loading robotic arm (if not both the loading robotic arm and the surgical robot system 302 with respect to claim 12) of Hares on a motorized platform for automated operation in order to allow the surgical robotic system of Hares to move to any location around the patient during surgery and to allow the loading robotic arm to move to any location necessary with respect to the surgical robotic system so that the automated instrument change may occur, as such automated exchange is taught by Hares. This would improve efficiency and utility of the system of Hares, since the robotic arm(s) could move to any necessary position to perform any multitudes of surgical procedures without being impeded by a single position with respect to the patient.
Regarding claims 4-5, it is noted that paragraph 94 of Hares teaches to exchange a first surgical tool with a second surgical tool.
Regarding claim 6, it is noted that paragraph 18 of Hares explicitly teaches that “The surgical robot system may comprise at least two surgical robots” and that “the assistance module may be configured to determine that the surgical robot system is in a collision state when the assistance module determines, from the status data, that at least two surgical robot arms have collided or are about to collide, at least two instruments have collided or are about to collide, or an instrument and a surgical robot arm have collided or are about to collide.” The underlined portion makes it obvious that there can be two surgical instruments moving at the same time, upon different robotic arms of the at least two surgical robots. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that loading robotic arm of Hares is capable of replacing a surgical instrument on however many surgical robotic arms are part of the system, in order to “be able to perform an automated instrument change the surgical robot system”, where “The surgical robot system may comprise at least two surgical robots”.
Regarding claim 7, it is noted that the teachings of Hares allow for any number of surgical instruments to be removed and replaced based on the automated instrument change taught in paragraph 94.
Claims 2-3, 8-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hares in view of Kamon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meglan et al. (WO 2019/204013).
Hares in combination with Kamon is described above with respect to claim 1. While Kamon teaches that “image pickup devices 174, 175, and 176 each include a camera that captures a digital image, and are configured to send the data of the captured image to the control device 180” (see last paragraph on page 11 of the Machin Translation of Kamon), this does not teaches “a metaverse”.
Meglan teaches “systems and methods facilitating automated … means for locating and moving one or more surgical robotic cart assemblies towards a target location to optimally position one or more robotic arm(s) relative to a surgical table” (see paragraph 35). Meglan teaches that “robotic surgical system 1 further includes a database 12” and “Database 12 is provided to store one or more environmental maps l2a representing the locations of entities (e.g., surgical table ‘ST’ and first and second surgical robotic cart assemblies 100a, 100b) disposed within operating room ‘OR’” (see paragraph 42). “Visual sensor l4a may include one or more cameras, video cameras, and/or imagers configured to detect the three-dimensional geometry of a base portion 130 of surgical robotic cart assembly 100 (FIG. 2) and surgical table ‘ST’ (see paragraph 44). “[S]urgical robotic cart assembly 100 includes a camera 132” (see paragraph 49). Paragraphs 54 and 55 discuss the updating of the map(s), including determination of the position of the surgical robotic cart assemblies within the operating room “OR”, and the use of the updated map in determining optimal positioning of the for each robotic arm. Therefore, this teaches “a metaverse”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize sensors and/or cameras for the generation of an environment map of the operating room in which the robotic arm(s) of Hares and Kamon would move within, as taught by Meglan because “minimally invasive medical procedures require a high degree of accuracy, precision, and speed, and, therefore, movable surgical robotic systems used for minimally invasive medical procedures need to be precisely placed relative to the surgical table to achieve optimal positioning for specific surgical procedures” (see paragraph 4 of Meglan), as well as to detect and prevent “a potential collision along the path of the first surgical robotic cart assembly as the first surgical robotic cart assembly moves towards the second position thereof” (see Abstract of Meglan).
Regarding claim 3, it is noted that the robotic arm cart of Meglan comprises camera(s) 132, which collects data for use with the map(s).
Regarding claim 8, Meglan teaches that “Dynamic map portion 12a2 represents a current working environment generated by iteratively incorporating data informing of the current positions of movable entities such as, for example, first and second surgical robotic cart assemblies 100a, 100b” (see paragraph 42). It is also noted that in paragraph 71, an embodiment in which display 336 (see Figure 7) illustrates “a visual indication 337 of the direction to move first and second surgical robotic cart assemblies 300a, 300b… Display 336 is configured to continuously update the visual indication 337 until target locations ‘A2’ and ‘B2’ have been reached.” Therefore, it is obvious that the system of Meglan determines, in real-time, the positions of the robotic cart assemblies.
Regarding claim 9, it is re-iterated that the robotic arm cart of Meglan comprises camera(s) 132, which collects data for use with the map(s), and that positional information is updated continuously for the dynamic map portion.
Regarding claim 13, it is re-iterated that Meglan is incorporated for the teaching of a metaverse. Additionally, Meglan teaches that the metaverse is stored within the database 12, which is shown in Figure 1 as connected to controller/computer 4 (i.e., “a user computer system”). By the combination, the robotic arm(s) of Hares and Kamon would utilize the mapping (i.e., the metaverse) to ensure proper movement around the operating room (OR) and to prevent collision of the arms and the surgical end effectors, all based on the controller/computer 4 and the metaverse/database mappings. Therefore, this teaches the user computer system and the autonomous vehicle are connected to the metaverse and the user computer system is configured to pilot the autonomous vehicle.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hares in view of Kamon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2019/0254754).
Hares in combination with Kamon is described above with respect to claim 1. However, neither of these references teach the use of a medical imaging system and a metaverse.
Johnson teaches “an augmented reality navigation systems and methods of their use that, inter alia, address the need for systems and methods of robotic surgical system navigation” (see Abstract). “FIG. 10 is a block diagram of components of an augmented reality surgical system that include a position tracking system 810 (e.g., one or more detectors mounted on a head mounted display and, optionally, cameras spaced apart in the operating room) that track the location of a patient's anatomy, surgical tool 800 and/or surgical apparatus… In certain embodiments, computer subsystem 820 uses patient data from imaging equipment 830 to generate a two-dimensional (2D) or three dimensional (3D) model. Imaging equipment 830 may include, without limitation, x-ray equipment, endoscope cameras, magnetic resonance imaging equipment, computed tomography scanning equipment, three-dimensional ultrasound equipment, endoscopic equipment, and/or computer modeling equipment” (see paragraphs 124-125). “In certain embodiments, augmentation graphics generator module 918 transforms (e.g., scales, rotates, translates) a patient model (e.g., derived from medical image data) to a present perspective view of a wearer of an HMD 100 (e.g., mapped to a corresponding object within the FOV of a display screen 110). Likewise, a model of, for example, a robotic surgical system, a surgical tool, a surgical apparatus, or a trajectory of the same, may be transformed by an augmentation graphics generator module, in some embodiments” (see paragraph 134). How this is then used and viewed by a surgeon is described in paragraph 136 as follows:
Thus, for example, in some embodiments, when a surgeon's head is rotated so that a portion of a patient's body having a bone that is modeled through CT imagery data becomes within the field of view of the display screen 110 (e.g., within a field of view of a detector mounted to the same HMD as the display screen 110)), an augmentation graphics generator module 918 transforms a patient model of the bone to generate an augmentation graphical representation of the bone that is displayed in the display screen 110 as a graphical overlay that matches the orientation and size of the bone from the perspective of the surgeon as-if the surgeon could view the bone through intervening layers of tissue and/or organs. Likewise, in some embodiments, at least a portion of a surgical tool, at least a portion of a surgical apparatus, and/or at least a portion of a robotic surgical system (e.g., that is covered by a patient's anatomy) can appear as a graphical overlay matching the orientation and size of the physical object to the surgeon using augmentation graphics, in some embodiments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate a metaverse that utilizes medical imaging systems and a robotic surgical system, as taught by Johnson, into the system and methods of Hares in combination with Kamon because “using an HMD can enable a surgeon to minimize the size of an incision by observing where the incision needs to be made to reveal a targeted portion of the body” and “An HMD may operate to improve the efficiency, productivity, throughput, and/or accuracy, and/or safety of the wearer's performance of a medical procedure” (see paragraph 82 of Johnson for both quotes).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hares in view of Kamon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moskowitz et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2020/0281670).
Hares in combination with Kamon is described above with respect to claim 1. However, neither of these references teach the use of drones.
Similarly to Hares, Moskowitz discloses “systems and methods [that] are provided for autonomous robotic surgery… The robotic surgery systems and methods can be integrated with autonomous-assisted intraoperative body/limb positioning, and integrated with autonomous-assisted land and unmanned aerial vehicular patient transportation” (see Abstract). The system of Moskowitz comprises: a robotic surgical system that includes a surgical tool (see Figure 1A, which includes one or more surgical robots 102, ,and paragraph 113 teaches that “The surgical robots 102 can attach and automatically operate one or more surgical instruments”); and an autonomous vehicle configured to remove the surgical tool from the robotic system (paragraph 113 teaches that “The surgical robots 102 can attach and automatically operate one or more surgical instruments”, while paragraph 185 teaches that “Instruments held at the rail system 300 can be accessible by … robots for whom the instruments can be interchanged”; therefore, it is clear from the disclosure that instruments may be attached and exchanged/interchanged by the surgical robots 102; paragraph 262 discusses “an example hospital environment 2200 is illustrated in which one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones 2202 are operated to aerially deliver … equipment to desired locations for treatment and surgery”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize a drone as the autonomous vehicle in the combination of Hares with Kamon, since Moskowitz teaches that “one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones 2202 are operated to aerially deliver … equipment to desired locations for treatment and surgery” (see paragraphs 262, 370 and 397). In the combination, the “location for treatment and surgery” is the end effector of the surgical robot, and by delivering the equipment to the location for treatment would, by the combination, be obvious that this delivers the end effector to the robotic arm, where it is used for treatment. This would obviate the need for a second robotic arm, thereby improving efficiency of the overall system.
Conclusion
Additional prior art is made of record as considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but not relied upon in the rejections above, and are listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES KISH whose telephone number is (571)272-5554. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00a - 6p 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/JAMES KISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights