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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group A, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 7/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The use of the terms Bluetooth and Zigbee, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2024/0299111 to Mao (hereinafter “Mao”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0080454 to Hameed (hereinafter “Hameed”) and US Patent Application Publication 2020/0281670 to Moskowitz (hereinafter “Moskowitz”).
In regards to claim 1, Mao discloses a surgical robot system comprising:
a surgical console (Fig. 1, Element 31); a control tower in communication with the surgical console (Element 30); and a autonomous robotic endoscope cart in communication with the control tower and the surgical console (Element 11), the autonomous robotic endoscope cart including: a robotic arm (Element 12); an endoscope operably coupled to the robotic arm and configured to capture images of a colon (Element 13); and a computing device ([0071]) configured to: control autonomous advancement or retraction of the endoscope through the patient ([0055]); transmit images captured by the endoscope to the control tower for display on the surgical console ([0062] [0063]); analyze the images captured by the endoscope as the endoscope is advanced or retracted through the patient ([0119]); wherein at least one of the surgical console or the control tower is configured to switch one autonomous robotic endoscope cart from autonomous control to manual control ([0130] [0137] [0152]). However, Mao does not disclose that there are multiple autonomous carts in the system. Mao also does not disclose that the computing device tags an image analyzed as corresponding to an area of interest within the colon; and causes the surgical console to display the tagged image while the endoscope is within a vicinity of the area of interest within the colon in response to an image being tagged.
Moskowitz discloses a surgical robotic system wherein a plurality of autonomous robotic carts are used to carry out various procedures including endoscopy while communicating with a base station ([0016] [0252]). It would have been obvious to modify Mao to include a plurality of robotic carts communicating with a base station such as taught by Moskowitz as these systems can provide increased safety and accuracy for surgical applications in rural areas and in others locations where there may be a lack of trained human surgeons (Moskowitz [0021]).
Additionally, Hameed discloses a colonoscope configured to capture images of the colon ([0004]), wherein a computing device tags an image analyzed as corresponding to an area of interest within the colon ([0027]); and causes the surgical console to display the tagged image while the endoscope is within a vicinity of the area of interest within the colon in response to an image being tagged ([0036] [0042]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mao to include investigating the colon, tagging images, and displaying them to a practitioner such as that taught by Hameed as imaging polyps in the colon can lead to a patient’s improved prognosis from diseases related to the colon (Hameed [0002]).
In regards to claim 2, Mao teaches that the endoscope includes at least one of a surgical instrument for treating the colon or a working channel for receipt of a surgical instrument therethrough ([0101])
In regards to claim 4, Mao does not teach that the tagged image is tagged with data including a location of the area of interest in the colon and a classification of a polyp within the tagged image. However, Hameed discloses a colonoscope wherein the tagged image is tagged with data including a location of the area of interest in the colon and a classification of a polyp within the tagged image ([0031]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mao to include tagging the image with location of the location and classification of a polyp such as that taught by Hameed as imaging polyps in the colon can lead to a patient’s improved prognosis from diseases related to the colon (Hameed [0002]).
In regards to claim 5, Mao does not disclose that the computing device is configured to cause the surgical console to display images preceding and following the area of interest within the colon for review when an image is tagged. However, Hameed discloses a colonoscope wherein the computing device is configured to cause the surgical console to display images preceding and following the area of interest within the colon for review when an image is tagged ([0031] [0032] [0036]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify Mao to include that the computing device is configured to cause the surgical console to display images preceding and following the area of interest within the colon for review when an image is tagged such as that taught by Hameed as imaging polyps in the colon can lead to a patient’s improved prognosis from diseases related to the colon (Hameed [0002]).
In regards to claim 6, Mao teaches that the computing device stops the autonomous advancement or retraction of the endoscope within the patient when an image is tagged for a preconfigured period of time or until intervention is received ([0056] [0057]). However, Mao does not teach that the endoscope is within the colon. Hameed teaches a colonoscope system where the scope is placed in the colon and polyps are identified ([0004] [0027]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify Mao to include that the scope was imaging the colon such as that taught by Hameed as imaging polyps in the colon can lead to a patient’s improved prognosis from diseases related to the colon (Hameed [0002]).
In regards to claim 7, Mao teaches that the surgical console includes a handle controller configured to override the autonomous advancement or retraction of the endoscope and control movement of the endoscope through the colon ([0152]).
In regards to claim 9, Mao teaches that at least one of the surgical console, the control tower, or the plurality of autonomous robotic colonoscope carts is configured to determine which images from which autonomous robotic colonoscope cart is displayed on the surgical console ([0126]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao, Hameed, and Moskowitz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0352424 to Rentschler (hereinafter “Rentschler”). Mao discloses recognizing visual patterns in an image ([0143]), but Mao, Moskowitz, and Hameed do not specifically disclose recognizing surface mucosa and washing the mucosa when it is recognized. However, Rentschler discloses an endoscope system wherein a computing device is configured to determine whether an image includes surface mucosa and cause the autonomous robotic colonoscope cart to wash the surface mucosa when it is determined that the image includes surface mucosa ([0058]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mao, Moskowitz, and Hameed to include determining whether an image includes surface mucosa and causing the autonomous robotic colonoscope cart to wash the surface mucosa when it is determined that the image includes surface mucosa such as that taught by Rentschler as there are typically objects or obstructions that prevent a full view ([0058]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao, Hameed, and Moskowitz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2010/0228100 to Vining (hereinafter “Vining”). Mao, Moskowitz, and Hameed do not disclose that the computing device is configured to detect a collapse in a colon wall and generate an alert when the collapse is detected. However, Vining discloses a method of imaging the colon wherein the computing device is configured to detect a collapse in a colon wall and generate an alert when the collapse is detected ([0027]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mao, Moskowitz, and Hameed to include that the computing device is configured to detect a collapse in a colon wall and generate an alert when the collapse is detected such as that taught by Vining as a collapse may invalidate the imaging and insufflation may be needed ([0027]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JAMES CAREY whose telephone number is (571)270-7235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8am-5pm).
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, Michael Carey can be reached at 571-270-7235. 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.
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights