DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ultrasound scanning images" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim further recites “ultrasound scan images” in lines 10 and 12. It is not clear if these are the same images as the ultrasound “scanning” images in line 7. The claim further recites the limitation "the spatial positioning and orientation of the end effector" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does earlier recite spatial positioning and orientation information of the end effector. It is also not clear as to what is meant by mirror[ing] the relative spatial positions of the first and second arms. Furthermore, the limitations in the final wherein clause are generally vague and indefinite. It is not clear as to who or what is doing the sensing and moving, and the term “higher priority” is not clearly defined in the context of the claim.
Regarding claim 3, there appears to be lack of antecedent basis for the term “the first user images”.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “preferably a foot switch” is indefinite because it does not properly establish the scope of the claim and whether the foot switch falls within or outside the bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites limitations akin to those in lines 10-17 of claim 1, using substantially equivalent language, and is thus rejected for the same reasons as those outlined with respect to claim 1, above. Claim 12 also lacks antecedent basis for the terms “the spatial positioning and orientation of the end effector”, “the two displays”, and “the first and second robotic arm”.
Regarding claim 13, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the first user recording”.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-16 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims through their dependencies, and are thus rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meglan (US 2020/0281675 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11-13 and 15-16, Meglan discloses a bidirectional feedback system for remote spatial positioning correction of a robotic arm for ultrasound scanning, comprising:
a first robotic arm for ultrasound scanning comprising an end effector for the displacement of the first robotic arm by a first user; and a second robotic arm for mirroring the first robotic arm comprising at least one handle for the displacement of the second robotic arm by a second user (arms/linkages 12, 52 of robot 10, with end effectors 16, 56, configured for imaging – see Par. 27, Fig. 1);
a first and second display (44, 144) for displaying the ultrasound scanning images to the first and second users, respectively (see Fig. 1); and
an electronic data processor configured to:
receive ultrasound scan images (imaging devices 12 and 56 may be ultrasound devices – Par. 28) corresponding to the spatial positioning and orientation of the end effector; and send the received ultrasound scan images to the two displays (Par. 28);
mirror the relative spatial positions of the first and second robotic arm, wherein: sensing a first relative spatial position from the first robotic arm, and moving the second robotic arm to the first relative spatial position have a higher priority than sensing a second relative spatial position from the second robotic arm and moving the first robotic arm to the second relative spatial position (mirroring performed so as to control slave console controls and movements based on master console movements – Par’s. 34, 42-43) (as per claim 1),
a first set of cameras (56) for recording the first user and/or the position of the first robotic arm, and a second set of cameras for recording the second user and/or the position of the second robotic arm (Par. 32) (as per claim 2),
one of the two displays is configured for displaying the ultrasound scanning images, the first user images, the position of the first robotic arm, or a combination of these, to the second user (Par. 28, 53) (as per claim 3),
the end effector is an ultrasound scanning probe (Par. 28) (as per claim 5),
the first robotic arm further comprises a switch, preferably a foot switch, to turn on/off the spatial position input from the second user (Par. 32) (as per claim 6),
a method of remote hands-on user training comprising use of the system according to claim 1 (Par. 5) (as per claim 11),
a method of operation of a bidirectional feedback system for remote spatial positioning correction of a robotic arm for ultrasound scanning, comprising the steps of: receiving ultrasound scan images corresponding to the spatial positioning and orientation of the end effector; sending the received ultrasound scan images to the two displays (Par. 28); and mirroring the relative spatial positions of the first and second robotic arm, wherein sensing a first relative spatial position from the first robotic arm and moving the second robotic arm to the first relative spatial position have a higher priority than sensing a second relative spatial position from the second robotic arm, and moving the first robotic arm to the second relative spatial position (Par’s. 34, 42-43) (as per claim 12),
displaying the ultrasound scanning images, the first user recording, the position of the first robotic arm, or a combination of these, into a display to the first and/or second user (Par. 28, 53) (as per claim 13), and
sensing the first relative spatial position from the first robotic arm; moving the second robotic arm to the first relative spatial position; sensing the second relative spatial position from the second robotic arm; and moving the first robotic arm to the second relative spatial position (mirroring to sense position of slave and master controls and moving arms accordingly – Par. 34, 42-43) (as per claims 15 and 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan (US 2020/0281675 A1) in view of Frankel (US 2019/0261959 A1).
Regarding claim 4, to the extent that Meglan does not disclose a first microphone and speaker, and second microphone and speaker for voice communication between the first and second users, Frankel discloses such an arrangement in a remote, master/slave-based surgery system (see Par. 42). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Meglan by utilizing a microphone and speaker for communication between the users. Such a modification would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
9. Claims 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan (US 2020/0281675 A1) in view of Fisher (US 2022/0293014 A1)
Regarding claims 7, 9 and 10, Meglan does not appear to disclose the first and second displays are head mounted devices (HMD) to deliver extended reality (XR) interfaces (as per claim 7), the second display is a touchscreen for the second user interact with (as per claim 9), the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm are connected to the electronic data processor via a wireless internet connection (as per claim 10). However, Fisher discloses a virtual reality medical simulation system that utilizes master slave systems (Par’s. 85-88) that utilizes head mounted devices (Par. 78) and touchscreens (Par. 52) for communication, and connects the systems using wireless internet (Par. 131). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Meglan by utilizing these features of Fisher, to obtain predictable results of improving communication between the participants and facilitating remote participation.
10. Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan (US 2020/0281675 A1) in view of Jarc et al. (US 2019/0090969 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Meglan does not appear to disclose a keyboard and/or a mouse to input at least one annotation and/or a pointer position from the second user on the received ultrasound scan images. However, Jarc discloses such a feature of using a mouse or keyboard to annotate images of a surgical site during a real or simulated medical procedure (Par’s. 65-67). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Meglan by including this feature of Jarc. Such a modification would involve applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday Eastern.
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, Xuan Thai, can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights