CTNF 18/874,452 CTNF 85952 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. Pursuant to communications filed on 12 December 2024, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits. Prior to initial examination, a preliminary amendment was filed cancelling claims 3-4, 9, 11, 13-14, 17-19, 21-25, 27-28, 30-41, 43-46, 48-52, 54 and 55 and adding new claims 57 and 58 . Therefore, claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 12, 15-16, 20, 26, 29, 42, 47, 53 and 56-58 are currently pending in the instant application. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 December 2024 and 03 January 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) have been considered by the Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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, 2, 5-8, 10, 12, 15-16, 20, 26, 29, 42, 47, 53 and 56-58 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. Regarding claim 1 , Applicant provides the limitation, “determine a pose of a portion of the computer-assisted system…”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of this limitation encompass, and therefore claim 1 is rendered indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what the claimed “ portion ” of the claimed “ computer-assisted system ” correlates to, and therefore claim 1 is rejected under this section. For example, does the claimed “ portion ” correlate to a manipulator, tool/instrument, wheel, base, body, cleaning element, part of a toy, limb of a robot or some other element thereof, and therefore one skilled in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. Examiner notes wherein given the broad terminology of “computer-assisted system”, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, may be construed by one skilled in the art as any one or more of a vehicle (i.e. autonomous vehicle, drone, unmanned watercraft, etc.), telesurgical robotic system, mobile robot (i.e. walking/humanoid robot(s), cleaning/vacuum robots, industrial/mobile manipulators, etc.), remote-controlled toy, augmented reality glasses, or some other computer-assisted system thereof. Examiner further notes wherein more distinctly indicating the type of computer-assisted system within the claim limitation(s) would help contribute towards understanding what the claimed “portion” may reasonably be construed as, by one skilled in the art, although clarifying the what the claimed “portion” actually is would be encouraged . Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited. Regarding claims 2, 5-8, 12, 15-16, 20 and 26 , these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claim 1 , and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited. Regarding claim 29 , Applicant provides the limitation, “determining a pose of a portion of a computer-assisted system…”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of this limitation encompass, and therefore claim 29 is rendered indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what the claimed “ portion ” of the claimed “ computer-assisted system ” correlates to, and therefore claim 29 is rejected under this section. For example, does the claimed “ portion ” correlate to a manipulator, tool/instrument, wheel, base, robot/vehicle body, cleaning element, part of a toy, limb of a robot or some other element thereof, and therefore one skilled in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. Examiner notes wherein given the broad terminology of “computer-assisted system”, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, may be construed by one skilled in the art as any one or more of a vehicle (i.e. autonomous vehicle, drone, unmanned watercraft, etc.), telesurgical robotic system, mobile robot (i.e. walking/humanoid robot(s), cleaning/vacuum robots, industrial/mobile manipulators, etc.), remote-controlled toy, augmented reality glasses, or some other computer-assisted system thereof. Examiner further notes wherein more distinctly indicating the type of computer-assisted system within the claim limitation(s) would help contribute towards understanding what the claimed “portion” may reasonably be construed as, by one skilled in the art, although clarifying the what the claimed “portion” actually is would be encouraged . Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited. Regarding claims 42, 47 and 53 , these claims are dependent upon independent claim 29 , and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited. Regarding claim 56 , Applicant provides the limitation, “determining a pose of a portion of a computer-assisted system…”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of this limitation encompass, and therefore claim 56 is rendered indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what the claimed “ portion ” of the claimed “ computer-assisted system ” correlates to, and therefore claim 56 is rejected under this section. For example, does the claimed “ portion ” correlate to a manipulator, tool/instrument, wheel, base, robot/vehicle body, cleaning element, part of a toy, limb of a robot or some other element thereof, and therefore one skilled in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. Examiner notes wherein given the broad terminology of “computer-assisted system”, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, may be construed by one skilled in the art as any one or more of a vehicle (i.e. autonomous vehicle, drone, unmanned watercraft, etc.), telesurgical robotic system, mobile robot (i.e. walking/humanoid robot(s), cleaning/vacuum robots, industrial/mobile manipulators, etc.), remote-controlled toy, augmented reality glasses, or some other computer-assisted system thereof. Examiner further notes wherein more distinctly indicating the type of computer-assisted system within the claim limitation(s) would help contribute towards understanding what the claimed “portion” may reasonably be construed as, by one skilled in the art, although clarifying the what the claimed “portion” actually is would be encouraged . Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited. Regarding claims 57 and 58 , these claims are dependent upon independent claim 56 , and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited. Examiner notes wherein the claims have been addressed below in view of the prior art, as best understood by the Examiner , in light of the 35 USC 112(b), or second paragraph rejections provided herein. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 12, 15-16, 20, 26, 29, 42, 47, 53 and 56-58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by DIMAIO et al (US 2021/0228282 A1, hereinafter DIMAIO) . Regarding claim 1 , DIMAIO teaches a computer-assisted system (Figures 1A-1B, computer-assisted medical system 100; at least as in paragraphs 0003 and 0021) comprising: a sensor system (Figure 4, sensor system 137, wherein the sensor system includes at least an obstacle sensor 144 and/or image capture device 146) configured to capture sensor data of an environment (Figure 4; at least as in paragraphs 0039 and 0043-0044, wherein “the obstacle sensor 144 is an image capture device mounted in the environment 10 and configured to detect when obstacles are moved win the vicinity of the manipulator assembly 102”, and further wherein “image capture device 146 is positioned within the environment 10 to capture imagery of the environment 10”) ; and a control system (Figure 4, controller 122) communicably coupled to the sensor system (Figure 4; at least as in paragraph 0034, wherein “controller 122 includes one or more computer processors. In some implementations, the controller 122 corresponds to a combination of processors of the manipulator assembly 102, the user device 108, and other systems of the medical system 100. The controller 122 directs operations of the various systems of the medical system 100”) , wherein the control system is configured to: determine a pose of a portion of an object in the environment based on the sensor data, the pose of the portion of the object comprising at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of: a position of the portion of the object and an orientation of the portion of the object (Figure 6; at least as in paragraphs 0067 and 0083, wherein “controller 122 receives, for example, other contextual information pertaining to objects in the environment 10… contextual information can include equipment information, operator information, obstacle information” and further wherein “obstacle data 600e include data indicative of poses (e.g. one or more parameters for positions or orientations) of the patient and obstacles in the environment 10 relative to the manipulator assembly 102”) , determine a pose of a portion of the computer-assisted system, the pose of the portion of the computer-assisted system comprising at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of: a position of the portion of the computer-assisted system and an orientation of the portion of the computer-assisted system (Figure 6; at least as in paragraphs 0067 and 0079, wherein “controller 122 receives, for example, other contextual information pertaining to objects in the environment 10… contextual information can include equipment information, operator information, obstacle information” and further wherein “pose data 600c include data indicative of poses of portions of the medical system 100. The pose data 600c include the position and orientation information received at the operations 502A and 502B. In some implementations, the pose data 600c further include position or orientation information for the manipulator assembly 102 or portions of the manipulator assembly 102, such as the joints 118, the links 120, the instrument holder 114, or other components of the manipulator assembly 102”) , determine at least one characteristic associated with a potential collision between the portion of the object and the portion of the computer-assisted system based on the pose of the portion of the object and the pose of the portion of the computer-assisted system (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0023-0026, specifically as in at least paragraph 0025 wherein “display device 124 presents imagery that indicates a path 150 along the floor surface 20…path 150 is indicative of a recommended path along which the manipulator assembly 102 should be manually moved to arrive at its recommended location. The recommended location and the recommended path can be determined based on various forms of input data, e.g., including input data 600 described with respect to FIG. 6” and further as in paragraph 0026 wherein “an obstacle, e.g., a chair 158, is located in the environment 10 between the manipulator assembly 102 and the patient 104. The waypoints 156 are selected so that the manipulator assembly 102 is maneuvered away from the chair 158. In some implementations, the imagery presented by the user device 108 includes an indicator 160 that the chair 158 is proximate to the path 150. This indicator 160 notifies the operator 106 of potential obstacles with which the manipulator assembly 102 could collide when moved along the path 150”) , select the potential collision for display based on the at least one characteristic (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0023-0026, specifically as in at least paragraph 0025 wherein “display device 124 presents imagery that indicates a path 150 along the floor surface 20…path 150 is indicative of a recommended path along which the manipulator assembly 102 should be manually moved to arrive at its recommended location. The recommended location and the recommended path can be determined based on various forms of input data, e.g., including input data 600 described with respect to FIG. 6” and further as in paragraph 0026 wherein “an obstacle, e.g., a chair 158, is located in the environment 10 between the manipulator assembly 102 and the patient 104. The waypoints 156 are selected so that the manipulator assembly 102 is maneuvered away from the chair 158. In some implementations, the imagery presented by the user device 108 includes an indicator 160 that the chair 158 is proximate to the path 150. This indicator 160 notifies the operator 106 of potential obstacles with which the manipulator assembly 102 could collide when moved along the path 150”) , and cause an extended reality (XR) indication of the potential collision to be displayed to an operator via a display system (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0023-0026, specifically as in at least paragraph 0025 wherein “display device 124 presents imagery that indicates a path 150 along the floor surface 20…path 150 is indicative of a recommended path along which the manipulator assembly 102 should be manually moved to arrive at its recommended location. The recommended location and the recommended path can be determined based on various forms of input data, e.g., including input data 600 described with respect to FIG. 6” and further as in paragraph 0026 wherein “an obstacle, e.g., a chair 158, is located in the environment 10 between the manipulator assembly 102 and the patient 104. The waypoints 156 are selected so that the manipulator assembly 102 is maneuvered away from the chair 158. In some implementations, the imagery presented by the user device 108 includes an indicator 160 that the chair 158 is proximate to the path 150. This indicator 160 notifies the operator 106 of potential obstacles with which the manipulator assembly 102 could collide when moved along the path 150”) . Regarding claim 2 , DIMAIO further teaches wherein to select the potential collision, the control system is configured to: determine that a first characteristic included in the at least one characteristic satisfies one or more criteria (Figures 1A-1B, 4 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0023-0026, 0043-0044 and 0083-0085) , wherein the first characteristic is based on at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of: a priority associated with the potential collision, a likelihood of the potential collision, a time to the potential collision, a distance to the potential collision, a measure of safety associated with the potential collision, a type of the object, a type of the portion of the object, a type of the portion of the computer-assisted system, a frequency of collisions between the type of the object and a type of the computer-assisted system, a frequency of collisions between the type of the portion of the object and the type of the portion of the computer-assisted system, a distance between the portion of the object and the portion of the computer-assisted system, a configuration of the computer-assisted system, a preference of the operator, an operating procedure, a direction of relative motion between portion of the object and the portion of the computer-assisted system, and whether the portion of the object is within a field of view of the sensor system (Figures 1A-1B, 4 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0023-0026, 0043-0044 and 0083-0085) . Regarding claim 5 , DIMAIO further teaches wherein to select the potential collision, the control system is configured to: compute a score value based on a function of the at least one characteristic system (Figures 1A-1B, 4 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0023-0026, 0043-0044 and 0083-0085, at least wherein a distance between an object and path of the manipulator assembly is determined (i.e. a score value)) ; and determine that the score value satisfies one or more criteria system (Figures 1A-1B, 4 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0023-0026, 0043-0044 and 0083-0085, at least wherein the determined distance is compared to a threshold (i.e. criterion)) . Regarding claim 6 , DIMAIO further teaches wherein to select the potential collision, the control system is configured to: process the at least one characteristic using a decision tree (Figures 1A-1B, 4 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0023-0026, 0043-0044 and 0083-0085) . Regarding claim 7 , DIMAIO further teaches wherein to select the potential collision, the control system is configured to: select the potential collision further based on a predefined point associated with the portion of the computer-assisted system (Figures 1A-1B, 4 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0023-0026, 0043-0044 and 0083-0085) . Regarding claim 8 , DIMAIO further teaches wherein the XR indication of the potential collision indicates an intersection between the portion of the object and a projected position of the portion of the computer-assisted system in the environment (Figure 1B; at least as in paragraphs 0026-0028 and 0115, specifically regarding indicator 160) . Regarding claim 10 , DIMAIO further teaches wherein the XR indication comprises at least one indication selected from the group consisting of: a geometrical indication, an indication of a trajectory of the computer-assisted system, an indication of a potential collision point, a target position indication, an indication of a recommended adjustment to the computer- assisted system, an indication of a range of motion or workspace of a repositionable structure, an indication of a state of the computer-assisted system, an indication of a state of an environment, an indication of a target position for a first portion of the computer-assisted system, an indication of a tolerance in positioning the first portion of the computer-assisted system, an indication of allowed directions of motion of the computer-assisted system, a color indication, text, an animation, an avatar, an icon, a physical measurement, and a rendering of the object (Figures 1A-1B; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0028, 0093 and 0112-0115) . Regarding claim 12 , DIMAIO teaches the system further comprising: a helm that includes the display system, wherein the helm is disposed on an opposite side of the computer-assisted system relative to a repositionable structure (Figures 1A-1B, 3, 4 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0023, 0032-0034 and 0058-0059) . Regarding claim 15 , DIMAIO further teaches wherein, to determine the potential collision, the control system is further configured to: determine the potential collision based on the post of the portion of the object and the portion of the computer-assisted system by tracing trace a ray from the portion of the computer-assisted system to the portion of the object in a reference frame (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0028, 0063, 0067, 0071, 0093 and 0112-0115) . Regarding claim 16 , DIMAIO further teaches wherein the ray is traced in a current direction of motion or a predicted direction of motion of the portion of the computer-assisted system (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0028, 0063, 0067, 0071, 0093 and 0112-0115) . Regarding claim 20 , DIMAIO further teaches wherein the control system is further configured to: determine the at least one characteristic further based on one or more weight values that are assigned to at least one of the portion of the computer-assisted system or the portion of the object (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0028, 0063, 0067, 0071, 0093 and 0112-0115) . Regarding claim 26 , DIMAIO further teaches wherein to determine the at least one characteristic, the control system is configured to: determine a plurality of intermediate characteristics that are associated with different pairs of portions of the object and portions of the computer-assisted system (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0028, 0063, 0067 0071, 0093 and 0112-0115) ; and aggregate the intermediate characteristics to determine the at least one characteristic (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0028, 0063, 0067 0071, 0093 and 0112-0115) . Regarding claim 29 , DIMAIO teaches a method comprising: determining a pose of a portion of an object in an environment based on sensor data captured by a sensor system (Figure 4, sensor system 137, wherein the sensor system includes at least an obstacle sensor 144 and/or image capture device 146; at least as in paragraphs 0039 and 0043-0044, wherein “the obstacle sensor 144 is an image capture device mounted in the environment 10 and configured to detect when obstacles are moved win the vicinity of the manipulator assembly 102”, and further wherein “image capture device 146 is positioned within the environment 10 to capture imagery of the environment 10”) , the pose of the portion of the object comprising at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of: a position of the portion of the object and an orientation of the portion of the object (Figure 6; at least as in paragraphs 0067 and 0083, wherein “controller 122 receives, for example, other contextual information pertaining to objects in the environment 10… contextual information can include equipment information, operator information, obstacle information” and further wherein “obstacle data 600e include data indicative of poses (e.g. one or more parameters for positions or orientations) of the patient and obstacles in the environment 10 relative to the manipulator assembly 102”) ; determining a pose of a portion of a computer-assisted system (Figures 1A-1B, computer-assisted medical system 100; at least as in paragraphs 0003 and 0021) , the pose of the portion of the computer-assisted system comprising at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of: a position of the portion of the computer-assisted system and an orientation of the portion of the computer-assisted system (Figure 6; at least as in paragraphs 0067 and 0079, wherein “controller 122 receives, for example, other contextual information pertaining to objects in the environment 10… contextual information can include equipment information, operator information, obstacle information” and further wherein “pose data 600c include data indicative of poses of portions of the medical system 100. The pose data 600c include the position and orientation information received at the operations 502A and 502B. In some implementations, the pose data 600c further include position or orientation information for the manipulator assembly 102 or portions of the manipulator assembly 102, such as the joints 118, the links 120, the instrument holder 114, or other components of the manipulator assembly 102”) ; determining at least one characteristic associated with a potential collision between the portion of the object and the portion of the computer-assisted system based on the pose of the portion of the object and the pose of the portion of the computer-assisted system (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0023-0026, specifically as in at least paragraph 0025 wherein “display device 124 presents imagery that indicates a path 150 along the floor surface 20…path 150 is indicative of a recommended path along which the manipulator assembly 102 should be manually moved to arrive at its recommended location. The recommended location and the recommended path can be determined based on various forms of input data, e.g., including input data 600 described with respect to FIG. 6” and further as in paragraph 0026 wherein “an obstacle, e.g., a chair 158, is located in the environment 10 between the manipulator assembly 102 and the patient 104. The waypoints 156 are selected so that the manipulator assembly 102 is maneuvered away from the chair 158. In some implementations, the imagery presented by the user device 108 includes an indicator 160 that the chair 158 is proximate to the path 150. This indicator 160 notifies the operator 106 of potential obstacles with which the manipulator assembly 102 could collide when moved along the path 150”) ; selecting the potential collision for display based on the at least one characteristic (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0023-0026, specifically as in at least paragraph 0025 wherein “display device 124 presents imagery that indicates a path 150 along the floor surface 20…path 150 is indicative of a recommended path along which the manipulator assembly 102 should be manually moved to arrive at its recommended location. The recommended location and the recommended path can be determined based on various forms of input data, e.g., including input data 600 described with respect to FIG. 6” and further as in paragraph 0026 wherein “an obstacle, e.g., a chair 158, is located in the environment 10 between the manipulator assembly 102 and the patient 104. The waypoints 156 are selected so that the manipulator assembly 102 is maneuvered away from the chair 158. In some implementations, the imagery presented by the user device 108 includes an indicator 160 that the chair 158 is proximate to the path 150. This indicator 160 notifies the operator 106 of potential obstacles with which the manipulator assembly 102 could collide when moved along the path 150”) ; and causing an extended reality (XR) indication of the potential collision to be displayed to an operator via a display system (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0023-0026, specifically as in at least paragraph 0025 wherein “display device 124 presents imagery that indicates a path 150 along the floor surface 20…path 150 is indicative of a recommended path along which the manipulator assembly 102 should be manually moved to arrive at its recommended location. The recommended location and the recommended path can be determined based on various forms of input data, e.g., including input data 600 described with respect to FIG. 6” and further as in paragraph 0026 wherein “an obstacle, e.g., a chair 158, is located in the environment 10 between the manipulator assembly 102 and the patient 104. The waypoints 156 are selected so that the manipulator assembly 102 is maneuvered away from the chair 158. In some implementations, the imagery presented by the user device 108 includes an indicator 160 that the chair 158 is proximate to the path 150. This indicator 160 notifies the operator 106 of potential obstacles with which the manipulator assembly 102 could collide when moved along the path 150”) . Regarding claim 35 , DIMAIO further teaches wherein selecting the potential collision comprises: selecting the potential collision further based on a predefined point associated with the portion of the computer-assisted system (Figures 1A-1B, 4 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0023-0026, 0043-0044 and 0083-0085) . Regarding claim 42 , DIMAIO teaches the method further comprising determining the potential collision based on the pose of the portion of the object and the pose of the portion of the computer-assisted system by wherein determining the potential collision comprises tracing a ray from the portion of the computer-assisted system to the portion of the object in a reference frame (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0028, 0063, 0067, 0071, 0093 and 0112-0115) . Regarding claim 47 , DIMAIO teaches the method further comprising determining the at least one characteristic further based on one or more weight values that are assigned to at least one of the portion of the computer-assisted system or the portion of the object (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0028, 0063, 0067, 0071, 0093 and 0112-0115) . Regarding claim 53 , DIMAIO further teaches wherein determining the at least one characteristic comprises: determining a plurality of intermediate characteristics that are associated with different pairs of portions of the object and portions of the computer-assisted system (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0028, 0063, 0067 0071, 0093 and 0112-0115) ; and aggregating the intermediate characteristics to determine the at least one characteristic (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0028, 0063, 0067 0071, 0093 and 0112-0115) . Regarding claim 56 , DIMAIO teaches one or more non-transitory machine-readable media comprising a plurality of machine-readable instructions which when executed by one or more processors are adapted to cause the one or more processors to perform a method comprising: determining a pose of a portion of an object in an environment based on sensor data captured by a sensor system (Figure 4, sensor system 137, wherein the sensor system includes at least an obstacle sensor 144 and/or image capture device 146; at least as in paragraphs 0039 and 0043-0044, wherein “the obstacle sensor 144 is an image capture device mounted in the environment 10 and configured to detect when obstacles are moved win the vicinity of the manipulator assembly 102”, and further wherein “image capture device 146 is positioned within the environment 10 to capture imagery of the environment 10”) , the pose of the portion of the object comprising at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of: a position of the portion of the object and an orientation of the portion of the object (Figure 6; at least as in paragraphs 0067 and 0083, wherein “controller 122 receives, for example, other contextual information pertaining to objects in the environment 10… contextual information can include equipment information, operator information, obstacle information” and further wherein “obstacle data 600e include data indicative of poses (e.g. one or more parameters for positions or orientations) of the patient and obstacles in the environment 10 relative to the manipulator assembly 102”) ; determining a pose of a portion of a computer-assisted system (Figures 1A-1B, computer-assisted medical system 100; at least as in paragraphs 0003 and 0021) , the pose of the portion of the computer-assisted system comprising at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of: a position of the portion of the computer-assisted system and an orientation of the portion of the computer-assisted system (Figure 6; at least as in paragraphs 0067 and 0079, wherein “controller 122 receives, for example, other contextual information pertaining to objects in the environment 10… contextual information can include equipment information, operator information, obstacle information” and further wherein “pose data 600c include data indicative of poses of portions of the medical system 100. The pose data 600c include the position and orientation information received at the operations 502A and 502B. In some implementations, the pose data 600c further include position or orientation information for the manipulator assembly 102 or portions of the manipulator assembly 102, such as the joints 118, the links 120, the instrument holder 114, or other components of the manipulator assembly 102”) ; determining at least one characteristic associated with a potential collision between the portion of the object and the portion of the computer-assisted system based on the pose of the portion of the object and the pose of the portion of the computer-assisted system (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0023-0026, specifically as in at least paragraph 0025 wherein “display device 124 presents imagery that indicates a path 150 along the floor surface 20…path 150 is indicative of a recommended path along which the manipulator assembly 102 should be manually moved to arrive at its recommended location. The recommended location and the recommended path can be determined based on various forms of input data, e.g., including input data 600 described with respect to FIG. 6” and further as in paragraph 0026 wherein “an obstacle, e.g., a chair 158, is located in the environment 10 between the manipulator assembly 102 and the patient 104. The waypoints 156 are selected so that the manipulator assembly 102 is maneuvered away from the chair 158. In some implementations, the imagery presented by the user device 108 includes an indicator 160 that the chair 158 is proximate to the path 150. This indicator 160 notifies the operator 106 of potential obstacles with which the manipulator assembly 102 could collide when moved along the path 150”) ; selecting the potential collision for display based on the at least one characteristic (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0023-0026, specifically as in at least paragraph 0025 wherein “display device 124 presents imagery that indicates a path 150 along the floor surface 20…path 150 is indicative of a recommended path along which the manipulator assembly 102 should be manually moved to arrive at its recommended location. The recommended location and the recommended path can be determined based on various forms of input data, e.g., including input data 600 described with respect to FIG. 6” and further as in paragraph 0026 wherein “an obstacle, e.g., a chair 158, is located in the environment 10 between the manipulator assembly 102 and the patient 104. The waypoints 156 are selected so that the manipulator assembly 102 is maneuvered away from the chair 158. In some implementations, the imagery presented by the user device 108 includes an indicator 160 that the chair 158 is proximate to the path 150. This indicator 160 notifies the operator 106 of potential obstacles with which the manipulator assembly 102 could collide when moved along the path 150”) ; and causing an extended reality (XR) indication of the potential collision to be displayed to an operator via a display system (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0023-0026, specifically as in at least paragraph 0025 wherein “display device 124 presents imagery that indicates a path 150 along the floor surface 20…path 150 is indicative of a recommended path along which the manipulator assembly 102 should be manually moved to arrive at its recommended location. The recommended location and the recommended path can be determined based on various forms of input data, e.g., including input data 600 described with respect to FIG. 6” and further as in paragraph 0026 wherein “an obstacle, e.g., a chair 158, is located in the environment 10 between the manipulator assembly 102 and the patient 104. The waypoints 156 are selected so that the manipulator assembly 102 is maneuvered away from the chair 158. In some implementations, the imagery presented by the user device 108 includes an indicator 160 that the chair 158 is proximate to the path 150. This indicator 160 notifies the operator 106 of potential obstacles with which the manipulator assembly 102 could collide when moved along the path 150”) . Regarding claim 57 , DIMAIO further teaches wherein determining the potential collision comprises tracing a ray from the portion of the computer-assisted system to the portion of the object in a reference frame (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0028, 0063, 0067, 0071, 0093 and 0112-0115) . Regarding claim 58 , DIMAIO further teaches wherein determining the at least one characteristic comprises: determining a plurality of intermediate characteristics that are associated with different pairs of portions of the object and portions of the computer-assisted system (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0028, 0063, 0067 0071, 0093 and 0112-0115) ; and aggregating the intermediate characteristics to determine the at least one characteristic (Figures 1A-1B & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0028, 0063, 0067 0071, 0093 and 0112-0115) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 – Notice of References Cited form. Examiner additionally notes the following prior art references, which also appear to read on several of the currently provided claim limitations above; US 12,390,929 B2 , issued to Danielczuk et al , which is directed towards apparatuses, systems and techniques for determining whether collisions will occur in potential paths of an object within a scene. US 2022/0160445 A1 , issued to Meglan et al , which is directed towards robotic systems and methods for collision avoidance for a robotic surgical system. US 2013/0178980 A1 , issued to Chemouny et al , which is directed towards an anti-collision system for moving an object around a congested environment. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN L SAMPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5925. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm. 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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571)270-5376. 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. /JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 2 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 3 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 4 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 5 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 6 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 7 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 8 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 9 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 10 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 11 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 12 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 13 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 14 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 15 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 16 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 17 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 18 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 19 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 20 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 21 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 22 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 23 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 24 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 18/874,452 Page 25 Art Unit: 3657
Prosecution Insights