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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
No claim elements are interpreted under 112 sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Quaid et al (US Pub No. 20060142657 – cited by applicant).
In regard to Claim 1, Quaid et al disclose a surgical robotic system, comprising:
a robotic operating head 33 (arm) having a robotic mechanism 33c, 36 (0113-0114) – defined as the segment 33c and wrist 36 component of the haptic device 30 – “the computing system 20 implements control parameters for controlling the haptic device 30 based, for example, on a relationship between an anatomy of the patient and a position, an orientation, a velocity, and/or an acceleration of a portion of the haptic device 30 (e.g., the surgical tool 50)” (0107);
“arm 33 may also be adapted to house and/or route components of the haptic device 30, such as, for example, instrumentation, power lines, motors, transmission components, controllers, actuators, amplifiers, brakes, clutches, power supplies, sensors, and/or computer hardware. For example, the segments 33a, 33b, and 33c may include internal channels and/or hollow portions within which components of the haptic device 30 may be disposed” (0113);
configured to engage a surgical tool, 35, 50, best seen in Figure 2A (0118); and
a controller 20 that controls the robotic mechanism according to one or more signals received from a tracking system 40, the tracking system comprising:
a tracking target 41 configured to be mounted on an external object, i.e. stand in Figure 1, or tracker 43 mounted on patient anatomy, best seen in Figure 1 (0133-0134), and to indicate a pose of the external object when mounted thereon – “the detection device 41 may include, for example, a stereo camera pair sensitive to infrared radiation and positionable in an operating room where the surgical procedure will be performed” (0131); and
a tracker head 45, 47, 49 mounted on the robotic operating head, the tracker head configured to detect the tracking target and enable the tracking system to provide information regarding a pose of the surgical tool relative to the external object – “a haptic device tracker 45 (to track a global or gross position of the haptic device 30), an end effector tracker 47 (to track a distal end of the haptic device 30), and an instrument tracker 49 (to track an instrument/tool held manually by the user)” (0133); “The detection device 41 can then acquire pose data for the instrument tracker 49 and the end effector tracker 47, and the surgical system 10 can compare an actual geometric relationship between the trackers 47 and 49 to an expected geometric relationship” which is necessarily relative to the external object and is calibrated as such (0144).
2. The surgical robotic system according to claim 1, wherein the external object is a bone of a patient, i.e. patient anatomy, best seen in Figure 1 (0133-0134), and the surgical tool 35, 50 is configured to operate on the bone (0109, 0118).
3. The surgical robotic system according to claim 1, wherein a proximity of the tracker head 45, 47, 49 to the tracking target 41 enables the tracking system to provide the information while reducing line of sight issues between the tracker head and the tracking target (0135-0145).
4. The surgical robotic system according to claim 1, wherein a proximity of the tracker head 45, 47, 49 to the tracking target 41 enables the tracking system to provide the information, the information having a higher accuracy than corresponding pose information from a system having a remote tracker head since the tracking target is adjacent to the tracker head, best seen in Figure 1.
5. The surgical robotic system according to claim 1, wherein the robotic operating head 33 includes a platform 37 (at 33e portion), and wherein the tracker head 45 is mounted on the platform in the manner shown, best seen in Figure 2A.
6. The surgical robotic system according to claim 5, wherein the platform 37 (at 33e portion) forms part of a distal end portion of the robotic mechanism 33c, 36, since portion 33e is not at the proximal end and is therefore considered a distal end portion as broadly as has been claimed, best seen in Figure 2A.
7. The surgical robotic system according to claim 6, wherein the surgical tool 35, 50 engages with the robotic mechanism 33c, 36 at the distal end portion of the robotic mechanism, best seen in Figure 2A.
8. The surgical robotic system according to claim 1, wherein the robotic operating head 33 comprises a handle 37 that enables an operator to hold the robotic operating head – “interface 37 may be a separate component affixed to the haptic device 30 (such as a handle or hand grip)” (0120).
9. The surgical robotic system according to claim 8, wherein the tracker head 45 is mounted on the handle 37 in the manner shown, best seen in Figure 2A.
10. The surgical robotic system according to claim 1, wherein the tracking system comprises a proximity sensor for determining a distance of the surgical tool 35, 50 from a damage-sensitive region of the external object – “As the HIP approaches the target point, a distance from a current location of the HIP to the target point is monitored. When the distance is smaller than a confine radius, the behavior of the HIP is restricted, for example, by implementing a uni-directionally constrained virtual confining sphere 724. A radius of the confining sphere 724 is reduced as the HIP moves closer to the target point. When the distance from the HIP to the target point is smaller than a switch radius (represented in FIG. 47 by a switch sphere 725), haptic rendering of the virtual object begins” (0161).
12. The surgical robotic system according to claim 1, wherein the tracking system detects a position of at least one of a platform of the robotic operating head or the surgical tool 35, 50 – “The non-mechanical tracking system may include a trackable element (or tracker) for each object the user desires to track. For example… an end effector tracker 47 (to track a distal end of the haptic device 30), and an instrument tracker 49 (to track an instrument/tool held manually by the user)” (0133).
13. The surgical robotic system according to claim 1, wherein the robotic operating head 33 includes a platform 37 (at 33e portion) attached to the robotic mechanism 33c, 36 and configured to engage the surgical tool 35, 50, best seen in Figure 2A.
14. The surgical robotic system according to claim 13, wherein the controller 20 is configured to control the robotic mechanism 33c, 36 to selectively move the platform 37 – “as the tool 50 approaches or contacts the haptic boundary, the controller commands torques to the motors so as to exert the appropriate wrench on the user's hand via the interface 37… as the tool 50 approaches the haptic boundary, the haptic device 30 may exert a force in a direction opposite a direction of movement of the user interface 37 such that the user perceives a repulsive or counteracting force that slows and/or stops movement of the tool 50” (0179).
Claim 17 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Plaskos et al (US Pub No. 20110130761).
Plaskos et al surgical robotic system (0002, 0107), comprising:
a tracking system (0040-0043) comprising:
a tracking target 140, 142, 150, 152 configured to be mounted on an external object, i.e. femur and tibia of a patient, best seen in Figure 2, and
to indicate a pose of the external object when mounted thereon – “The position of the patient's bones, such as the patient's femur 2 and the patient's tibia 4, can be determined and tracked by attaching reference bodies 140, 150, which include respective markers 142,152” (0044); and
a tracker head 202 mounted on a robotic operating head 120 (device) configured to engage a surgical tool 212, best seen in Figure 2,
the tracker head configured to detect the tracking target and enable the tracking system to provide information regarding a pose of the surgical tool relative to the external object – “a milling or drilling device or any other type of cutting device 210 also has a tip 212 having a known spatial relationship relative to markers 202. Position measuring device 110 determines the position and orientation of markers 202 in the three dimensional coordinate system 170. Based upon the known spatial relationship between the tip 212 and markers 202, the position of the tip 212 is determined” (0047); “the position of the cutting tool with respect to the bone surface can be displayed in real time… the milling tool can be displayed with respect the boundary of the cut, so that the surgeon known where they are cutting with respect to the edge of the bone, and can pay particular attention so as not to exit outside this boundary in certain zones and injure soft tissues” (0113); and
a controller 120 (computer) that controls the robotic operating head according to one or more signals received from the tracking system – “the device 210 is guided to allow the computer 120 to control the milling or drilling path” (0048).
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.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Quaid et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nycz et al (US Pub No. 20080228072).
Quaid et al disclose the invention above but do not expressly disclose said proximity sensor comprises either of a blood flow sensor or a neural monitor.
Nycz et al teach that it is well known in the art to use an ultrasound Doppler blood flow sensor to indicate proximity to blood vessels, which is needed in Quaid et al (0047). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the proximity sensor of Quaid et al be an ultrasound Doppler blood flow sensor as taught by Nycz et al as an equally as effective means to indicate the proximity of the tool to blood vessels or other tissue that should be avoided in the procedure.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Plaskos et al as applied to claim 17 above, further in view of Quaid et al.
Plaskos et al disclose the surgical robotic system above but do not expressly disclose
the robotic operating head comprises: a robotic mechanism; and a platform attached to the robotic mechanism and configured to engage the surgical tool, wherein the controller is configured to control the robotic mechanism to selectively move the platform.
Quaid et al teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous surgical robotic system comprising a robotic operating head 33 (arm) having a robotic mechanism 33c, 36 (0113-0114) – defined as the segment 33c and wrist 36 component of the haptic device 30 – “the computing system 20 implements control parameters for controlling the haptic device 30 based, for example, on a relationship between an anatomy of the patient and a position, an orientation, a velocity, and/or an acceleration of a portion of the haptic device 30 (e.g., the surgical tool 50)” (0107);
“arm 33 may also be adapted to house and/or route components of the haptic device 30, such as, for example, instrumentation, power lines, motors, transmission components, controllers, actuators, amplifiers, brakes, clutches, power supplies, sensors, and/or computer hardware. For example, the segments 33a, 33b, and 33c may include internal channels and/or hollow portions within which components of the haptic device 30 may be disposed” (0113);
a platform 37 (at 33e portion) attached to the robotic mechanism 33c, 36 and configured to engage the surgical tool 35, 50, best seen in Figure 2A (0118);
the controller 20 is configured to control the robotic mechanism 33c, 36 to selectively move the platform 37 – “as the tool 50 approaches or contacts the haptic boundary, the controller commands torques to the motors so as to exert the appropriate wrench on the user's hand via the interface 37… as the tool 50 approaches the haptic boundary, the haptic device 30 may exert a force in a direction opposite a direction of movement of the user interface 37 such that the user perceives a repulsive or counteracting force that slows and/or stops movement of the tool 50” (0179). Quaid et al thus allows this configuration to effectively control the surgical tool using haptics to prevent unwanted movement of the surgical tool during the procedure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Plaskos et al such that the robotic operating head comprises: a robotic mechanism and a platform attached to the robotic mechanism and configured to engage the surgical tool, wherein the controller is configured to control the robotic mechanism to selectively move the platform as taught by Quaid et al to effectively enable the robotic operating head to prevent unwanted movement of the surgical tool during the procedure with the use of haptics.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shoham et al (US Pub No. 20060098851) in view of Plaskos et al.
Shoham discloses a surgical robotic system, comprising:
a handheld robotic operating head shown in Figure 2 that is capable of being handheld comprising:
a platform 34 (0052) configured to engage a surgical tool 35 (mounting pins 35 are considered a surgical tool as they are mounted on the femur), best seen in Figure 2 – “the robot 30 mounted on the femur by means of its mounting screws 35” (0088) as well as the attached drill device – “at least one hole for guiding a drill into said bone” (see claim 1);
a robotic mechanism 30 configured to selectively move the platform, best seen in Figure 2 – “robot 30 is preferably a miniature parallel robot having a base plate 34 for mounting purposes” (0052); and
a handle 33, 38 that is capable of and thus enables an operator's hand to grip and maneuver the robotic operating head, best seen in Figure 2 (0053); and
a base 32 positioned between the robotic mechanism and the handle, best seen in Figure 2, wherein the platform is moveable relative to the base – “The position and orientation of its top plate 32 can be adjusted and locked by the robot controller to the desired configuration with high accuracy and rigidity” (0052), and once base 32 is fixed, the platform 34 with robot 30 is therefore movable relative to the base.
However, Shoham et al do not expressly disclose a tracking system comprising:
a tracking target configured to be mounted on an external object and to indicate a pose of the external object when mounted thereon; and
a tracker head mounted on the robotic operating head, the tracker head configured to detect the tracking target and enable the tracking system to provide information regarding a pose of the surgical tool relative to the external object.
Plaskos et al teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous surgical robotic system (0002, 0107), comprising:
a tracking system (0040-0043) comprising:
a tracking target 140, 142, 150, 152 configured to be mounted on an external object, i.e. femur and tibia of a patient, best seen in Figure 2, and
to indicate a pose of the external object when mounted thereon – “The position of the patient's bones, such as the patient's femur 2 and the patient's tibia 4, can be determined and tracked by attaching reference bodies 140, 150, which include respective markers 142,152” (0044); and
a tracker head 202 mounted on a robotic operating head 120 (device) configured to engage a surgical tool 212, best seen in Figure 2,
the tracker head configured to detect the tracking target and enable the tracking system to provide information regarding a pose of the surgical tool relative to the external object – “a milling or drilling device or any other type of cutting device 210 also has a tip 212 having a known spatial relationship relative to markers 202. Position measuring device 110 determines the position and orientation of markers 202 in the three dimensional coordinate system 170. Based upon the known spatial relationship between the tip 212 and markers 202, the position of the tip 212 is determined” (0047); “the position of the cutting tool with respect to the bone surface can be displayed in real time… the milling tool can be displayed with respect the boundary of the cut, so that the surgeon known where they are cutting with respect to the edge of the bone, and can pay particular attention so as not to exit outside this boundary in certain zones and injure soft tissues” (0113); and
a controller 120 (computer) that controls the robotic operating head according to one or more signals received from the tracking system – “the device 210 is guided to allow the computer 120 to control the milling or drilling path” (0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Shoham such that it includes the tracking system as taught by Plaskos et al to effectively provide information regarding a pose of the surgical tool relative to the external object as would be relevant during the surgical procedure to track the surgical tool within the patient body.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 13-15, 17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12103166. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both recite the limitations described below.
In regard to Claims 1 and 13-15, claim 21 of the Patent recites a surgical robotic system, comprising: a robotic operating head having a robotic mechanism configured to engage a surgical tool; and a controller that controls the robotic mechanism according to one or more signals received from a tracking system, the tracking system comprising: a tracking target configured to be mounted on an external object and to indicate a pose of the external object when mounted thereon; and a tracker head mounted on the robotic operating head, the tracker head configured to detect the tracking target and enable the tracking system to provide information regarding a pose of the surgical tool relative to the external object (Claim 1 of instant invention),
wherein the robotic operating head includes a platform attached to the robotic mechanism and configured to engage the surgical tool (claim 13 of instant invention),
wherein the controller is configured to control the robotic mechanism to selectively move the platform (claim 14 of instant invention),
wherein the one or more signals correspond to a position of the surgical tool relative to an allowed region, wherein: (i) when the one or more signals indicate that the surgical tool is within the allowed region, the robotic mechanism remains in an inactive rigid mode in which the robotic mechanism does not move the platform relative to a handle of the robotic operating head; and (ii) when the one or more signals indicate that the surgical tool has reached a forbidden region, the controller automatically causes the robotic mechanism to move the platform relative to the handle such that the surgical tool remains in the allowed region (claim 15 of instant invention).
In regard to Claim 17, claim 21 of the Patent recites a surgical robotic system, comprising: a tracking system comprising: a tracking target configured to be mounted on an external object and to indicate a pose of the external object when mounted thereon; and a tracker head mounted on a robotic operating head configured to engage a surgical tool, the tracker head configured to detect the tracking target and enable the tracking system to provide information regarding a pose of the surgical tool relative to the external object; and a controller that controls the robotic operating head according to one or more signals received from the tracking system.
In regard to Claim 20, claim 21 of the Patent recites a surgical robotic system, comprising: a handheld robotic operating head comprising: a platform configured to engage a surgical tool; a robotic mechanism configured to selectively move the platform; and a handle that enables an operator's hand to grip and maneuver the robotic operating head; and a base positioned between the robotic mechanism and the handle, wherein the platform is moveable relative to the base; and a tracking system comprising: a tracking target configured to be mounted on an external object and to indicate a pose of the external object when mounted thereon; and a tracker head mounted on the robotic operating head, the tracker head configured to detect the tracking target and enable the tracking system to provide information regarding a pose of the surgical tool relative to the external object.
wherein the one or more signals correspond to a position of the surgical tool relative to an allowed region, wherein: (i) when the one or more signals indicate that the surgical tool is within the allowed region, the robotic mechanism remains in an inactive rigid mode in which the robotic mechanism does not move the platform relative to a handle of the robotic operating head; and (ii) when the one or more signals indicate that the surgical tool has reached a forbidden region, the controller automatically causes the robotic mechanism to move the platform relative to the handle such that the surgical tool remains in the allowed region.
Claims 1 and 13-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12103166 in view of Plaskos et al (US Pub No. 20110130761).
In regard to Claims 1 and 13-16, claim 1 of the Patent recites a surgical robotic system, comprising: a robotic operating head having a robotic mechanism configured to engage a surgical tool; and a controller that controls the robotic mechanism according to one or more signals received from a tracking system, (Claim 1 of instant invention),
wherein the robotic operating head includes a platform attached to the robotic mechanism and configured to engage the surgical tool (claim 13 of instant invention),
wherein the controller is configured to control the robotic mechanism to selectively move the platform (claim 14 of instant invention),
wherein the one or more signals correspond to a position of the surgical tool relative to an allowed region, wherein: (i) when the one or more signals indicate that the surgical tool is within the allowed region, the robotic mechanism remains in an inactive rigid mode in which the robotic mechanism does not move the platform relative to a handle of the robotic operating head; and (ii) when the one or more signals indicate that the surgical tool has reached a forbidden region, the controller automatically causes the robotic mechanism to move the platform relative to the handle such that the surgical tool remains in the allowed region (claim 15 of instant invention).
wherein, in (ii), the controller causes the robotic mechanism to move the platform relative to the handle to maintain an axis of the surgical tool while an axis of the handle varies, to keep the surgical tool in the allowed region (claim 16 of instant invention).
However claim 1 of the Patent does not recites the tracking system comprising: a tracking target configured to be mounted on an external object and to indicate a pose of the external object when mounted thereon; and a tracker head mounted on the robotic operating head, the tracker head configured to detect the tracking target and enable the tracking system to provide information regarding a pose of the surgical tool relative to the external object.
Plaskos et al teach that it is well-known in the art to provide an analogous surgical robotic system (0002, 0107), comprising:
a tracking system (0040-0043) comprising:
a tracking target 140, 142, 150, 152 configured to be mounted on an external object, i.e. femur and tibia of a patient, best seen in Figure 2, and
to indicate a pose of the external object when mounted thereon – “The position of the patient's bones, such as the patient's femur 2 and the patient's tibia 4, can be determined and tracked by attaching reference bodies 140, 150, which include respective markers 142,152” (0044); and
a tracker head 202 mounted on a robotic operating head 120 (device) configured to engage a surgical tool 212, best seen in Figure 2,
the tracker head configured to detect the tracking target and enable the tracking system to provide information regarding a pose of the surgical tool relative to the external object – “a milling or drilling device or any other type of cutting device 210 also has a tip 212 having a known spatial relationship relative to markers 202. Position measuring device 110 determines the position and orientation of markers 202 in the three dimensional coordinate system 170. Based upon the known spatial relationship between the tip 212 and markers 202, the position of the tip 212 is determined” (0047); “the position of the cutting tool with respect to the bone surface can be displayed in real time… the milling tool can be displayed with respect the boundary of the cut, so that the surgeon known where they are cutting with respect to the edge of the bone, and can pay particular attention so as not to exit outside this boundary in certain zones and injure soft tissues” (0113); and
a controller 120 (computer) that controls the robotic operating head according to one or more signals received from the tracking system – “the device 210 is guided to allow the computer 120 to control the milling or drilling path” (0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Patent such that it includes the tracking system as taught by Plaskos et al to effectively provide information regarding a pose of the surgical tool relative to the external object as would be relevant during the surgical procedure to track the surgical tool within the patient body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Huong Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8340. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6 pm.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571)272-5001. 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.
/H.Q.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights