DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action in response to U.S. application 18/867,850. All claims are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramadorai (WO 2020055707 A1) in view of Lim (US 20130289767 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ramadorai teaches a surgical robotic system (surgical robotic system 1) comprising:
a robotic arm including an instrument and an instrument drive unit configured to couple to and to actuate the instrument ([0031] “a plurality of surgical robotic arms 2, 3; an instrument drive unit 20 and an electromechanical instrument 10 attached to an end of the robotic arm 2”);
a display configured to output a graphical user interface ([0031] “The operating console 5 includes a display device 6, which is set up in particular to display three- dimensional images; and manual input devices 7, 8, by means of which a person (not shown), for example a surgeon, is able to telemanipulate robotic arms 2, 3 in a first operating mode”);
a surgeon console including a handle controller configured to control the robotic arm and the instrument ([0031] “The operating console 5 includes a display device 6, which is set up in particular to display three- dimensional images; and manual input devices 7, 8, by means of which a person (not shown), for example a surgeon, is able to telemanipulate robotic arms 2, 3 in a first operating mode”); and
a processor configured to calculate a current level of use of the instrument ([0039] “the processor determines a degree of usage of the surgical instrument 10 based on data acquired by one or more of the sensors 45 of the surgical instrument 10 and/or other sensors of the surgical robotic system 1.” with [0043] “The robotic surgical system 1 may display on a display device 6 (FIG. 1) the stage in the life cycle of the surgical instrument 10. It is contemplated that the stage in the life cycle may be displayed as a number, a percentage, a word, a color, a bar indicator, or using any other suitable indicia.”).
While Ramadorai teaches using other sensors of the surgical robotic system to determine a degree of usage, it does not explicitly teach the current level of use of the instrument being based on movement of the handle controller.
Lim teaches the current level of use of the instrument being based on movement of the handle controller ([0034] discusses determining a level of use of the instrument based on the force input through the controller by the user with Fig. 1 showing the controllers as handles).
Ramadorai teaches using other sensors of the surgical robotic system to determine a degree of usage. Lim teaches determining a level of use of an instrument based on force input through a controller. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ramadorai with the system of Lim as it utilizes each respective teaching in a conventional obvious to try manner such that no undue experimentation is required and yielded nothing more than predictable results, the predictable results being detecting use of a surgical instrument using a sensor.
Regarding claim 2, Ramadorai teaches wherein the indicator is a hysteresis gauge ([0043] discusses the current level of use displayed as a bar indicator which is supported as a hysteresis gauge with the hysteresis gauge 254 in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 6, Ramadorai teaches wherein the current level of use is at least one of an instantaneous value or a running average value ([0043] discusses the current level of use displayed as a number or percentage).
Regarding claim 7, Ramadorai teaches a method for controlling a surgical robotic system (Fig. 3), the method comprising:
receiving an input at a handle controller for moving an instrument coupled to an instrument drive unit disposed on a robotic arm, the instrument drive unit configured to couple to and to actuate the instrument ([0031] “a plurality of surgical robotic arms 2, 3; an instrument drive unit 20 and an electromechanical instrument 10 attached to an end of the robotic arm 2”);
displaying a graphical user interface on a display ([0031] “The operating console 5 includes a display device 6, which is set up in particular to display three- dimensional images; and manual input devices 7, 8, by means of which a person (not shown), for example a surgeon, is able to telemanipulate robotic arms 2, 3 in a first operating mode”);
receiving a user input from the graphical user interface ([0031] “The operating console 5 includes a display device 6, which is set up in particular to display three- dimensional images; and manual input devices 7, 8, by means of which a person (not shown), for example a surgeon, is able to telemanipulate robotic arms 2, 3 in a first operating mode”); and
calculating a current level of use of the instrument ([0039] “the processor determines a degree of usage of the surgical instrument 10 based on data acquired by one or more of the sensors 45 of the surgical instrument 10 and/or other sensors of the surgical robotic system 1.”); and
outputting on the graphical user interface an indicator showing the current level of use of the instrument ([0043] “The robotic surgical system 1 may display on a display device 6 (FIG. 1) the stage in the life cycle of the surgical instrument 10. It is contemplated that the stage in the life cycle may be displayed as a number, a percentage, a word, a color, a bar indicator, or using any other suitable indicia.”).
While Ramadorai teaches using other sensors of the surgical robotic system to determine a degree of usage, it does not explicitly teach the current level of use of the instrument being based on movement of the handle controller.
Lim teaches the current level of use of the instrument being based on movement of the handle controller ([0034] discusses determining a level of use of the instrument based on the force input through the controller by the user with Fig. 1 showing the controllers as handles).
Ramadorai teaches using other sensors of the surgical robotic system to determine a degree of usage. Lim teaches determining a level of use of an instrument based on force input through a controller. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ramadorai with the system of Lim as it utilizes each respective teaching in a conventional obvious to try manner such that no undue experimentation is required and yielded nothing more than predictable results, the predictable results being detecting use of a surgical instrument using a sensor.
Regarding claim 8, Ramadorai teaches wherein calculating the current level of use includes calculating at least one of an instantaneous value or a running average value ([0043] discusses the current level of use displayed as a number or percentage).
Regarding claim 9, Ramadorai teaches wherein outputting on the graphical user interface includes displaying a hysteresis gauge (([0043] discusses the current level of use displayed as a bar indicator which is supported as a hysteresis gauge with the hysteresis gauge 254 in Fig. 9).
Claims 3-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramadorai in view of Lim and further in view of Thornycroft (WO 2021205178 A2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ramadorai teaches displaying a usage of a surgical instrument as described above but does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to:
monitor a parameter of the instrument;
select a power mode from a plurality of power modes for the instrument drive unit based on an instrument parameter, the plurality of power modes includes a full power mode during which the instrument drive unit is fully powered and a low power mode during which the instrument drive unit is partially powered; and
set the instrument drive unit to the selected power mode.
Thornycroft teaches wherein the processor (control unit 510) is further configured to:
monitor a parameter of the instrument ([0117] discusses the control unit detecting energization of the surgical instrument);
select a power mode from a plurality of power modes for the instrument drive unit based on an instrument parameter, the plurality of power modes includes a full power mode during which the instrument drive unit is fully powered and a low power mode during which the instrument drive unit is partially powered ([0096]-[0098] discuss a quasi control mode where a progressive gripping force is used to determine the gain relating the lever force to the gripper force to maintain a non-linear relationship between the operator’s applied force and the gripping force where [0117]-[0118] discuss an example where this is implemented, determining the optimum grasping force (maximum or reduced) based on a detected energization where the maximum force is interpreted as full power mode and the reduced force is interpreted as a low power mode where the unit is partially powered); and
set the instrument drive unit to the selected power mode ([0117]-[0118] discuss powering the instrument drive based on the selected grasping force).
Modified Ramadorai teaches displaying a usage of a surgical instrument. Thornycroft discusses using a detected use of a surgical instrument to select a power mode. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified Ramadorai with the power mode selection of Thornycroft as Thornycroft teaches that this allows the system to select an optimum grasping force based on the use of the surgical instrument, making the system more dynamic and reliable for the user [0117]-[0118].
Regarding claim 4, Ramadorai teaches wherein the processor is further configured to receive a user input from the graphical user interface (), but does not explicitly teach the user input selecting a power mode from the plurality of power modes for the instrument drive unit.
Thornycroft teaches wherein the processor is further configured to receive a user input from the graphical user interface, the user input selecting a power mode from the plurality of power modes for the instrument drive unit ([0096]-[0098] discuss the control unit providing a GUI to the operator to allow them to input either a maximum and minimum grasping force or a quasi control parameter relating to a relationship between a user’s input and the grasping force).
Modified Ramadorai teaches displaying a usage of a surgical instrument. Thornycroft discusses using a detected use of a surgical instrument to select a power mode. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified Ramadorai with the power mode selection of Thornycroft as Thornycroft teaches that this allows the system to select an optimum grasping force based on the use of the surgical instrument, making the system more dynamic and reliable for the user [0117]-[0118].
Regarding claim 5, modified Ramadorai teaches displaying a usage of a surgical instrument as described above but does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to calculate the level of use based on the selected power mode.
Thornycroft teaches wherein the processor is further configured to calculate the level of use based on the selected power mode ([0096]-[0098] discuss a quasi control mode where a progressive gripping force is used to determine the gain relating the lever force to the gripper force to maintain a non-linear relationship between the operator’s applied force and the gripping force where either the operator’s applied force or the related gripping force can be interpreted as a level of use).
Modified Ramadorai teaches displaying a usage of a surgical instrument. Thornycroft discusses using a detected use of a surgical instrument to select a power mode. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified Ramadorai with the power mode selection of Thornycroft as Thornycroft teaches that this allows the system to select an optimum grasping force based on the use of the surgical instrument, making the system more dynamic and reliable for the user [0117]-[0118].
Regarding claim 10, modified Ramadorai teaches displaying a usage of a surgical instrument as described above but does not explicitly teach monitoring a parameter of the instrument ([0117] discusses the control unit detecting energization of the surgical instrument);
selecting a power mode from a plurality of power modes for the instrument drive unit based on an instrument parameter, the plurality of power modes includes a full power mode during which the instrument drive unit is fully powered and a low power mode during which the instrument drive unit is partially powered ([0096]-[0098] discuss a quasi control mode where a progressive gripping force is used to determine the gain relating the lever force to the gripper force to maintain a non-linear relationship between the operator’s applied force and the gripping force where [0117]-[0118] discuss an example where this is implemented, determining the optimum grasping force (maximum or reduced) based on a detected energization where the maximum force is interpreted as full power mode and the reduced force is interpreted as a low power mode where the unit is partially powered); and
setting the instrument drive unit to the selected power mode([0117]-[0118] discuss powering the instrument drive based on the selected grasping force).
Modified Ramadorai teaches displaying a usage of a surgical instrument. Thornycroft discusses using a detected use of a surgical instrument to select a power mode. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified Ramadorai with the power mode selection of Thornycroft as Thornycroft teaches that this allows the system to select an optimum grasping force based on the use of the surgical instrument, making the system more dynamic and reliable for the user [0117]-[0118].
Regarding claim 11, modified Ramadorai teaches displaying a usage of a surgical instrument as described above but does not explicitly teach wherein calculating the current level of use is based on the selected power mode.
Thornycroft teaches wherein calculating the current level of use is based on the selected power mode ([0096]-[0098] discuss a quasi control mode where a progressive gripping force is used to determine the gain relating the lever force to the gripper force to maintain a non-linear relationship between the operator’s applied force and the gripping force where either the operator’s applied force or the related gripping force can be interpreted as a level of use).
Modified Ramadorai teaches displaying a usage of a surgical instrument. Thornycroft discusses using a detected use of a surgical instrument to select a power mode. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified Ramadorai with the power mode selection of Thornycroft as Thornycroft teaches that this allows the system to select an optimum grasping force based on the use of the surgical instrument, making the system more dynamic and reliable for the user [0117]-[0118].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Namiki (US 20240091945 A1) teaches an industrial machine system which allows a user to execute a program based on an operation state and Shelton (US 20220331051 A1) teaches a surgical hub that determines if a device is in active operation mode and if a change in user inputs or power level is detected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE M JACKSON whose telephone number is (303) 297-4364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:30 MT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/D.M.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/DYLAN M KATZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights