DETAILED ACTION
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8, 10-16, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung et al. (Pub No.: US 2013/0289768 A1) in view of Gregerson et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0355194 A1) and Oh et al. (US 2019/0261846 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yeung et al. disclose a magnetic robotic system configured to control a micro robotic manipulator, comprising:
a gantry frame (e.g., a gantry 134) including an x-axis guide, a y-axis guide, a first arm, and a second arm (e.g., gantry 134 comprising at least two arms 132 and a horizontal structure and a vertical structure to move the arms simultaneously with the patient changing of position via servo driven mechanism (par. 84 and Figure 5 and below image annotation),
wherein the y-axis guide is coupled to the x-axis guide (e.g., Figure 5 shows the horizontal structure connected to the vertical structure of the gantry, which covers the y-axis guide connected to the x-axis guide to move the arms simultaneously with the patient changing of position via servo driven mechanism (par. 84 and Figure 5 bellow and annotation),
each of the first arm and the second arm are coupled to the y-axis guide (e.g., at least two arms 132 are connected to the horizontal structure of the gantry (limitation: y-axis guide) (par. 84 and Figure 5 with annotation below)),
a magnet device coupled to the first arm (e.g., electromagnetic location fixing device (1) attached / coupled to an arm 132 (par. 84 and Figure 5));
PNG
media_image1.png
610
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Yeung et al. failed to specifically disclose at least one of the first arm and the second arm are movable along a z-axis.
However, Gregerson et al. teach a medical imaging device comprising arms (31/33) configured to translate in a vertical direction (109) (limitation: along a z-axis) and in horizontal and lateral directions (105 and 107) using a linear motion system (103) (par. 29-31 and Figure 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the gantry and arms taught by Yeung et al., such that the arm(s) translates in a vertical direction and in horizontal and lateral directions (105 and 107) using a linear motion system, in view of Gregerson et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of controlling movement of an image device and obtain image data from a patient (par. 29, 26 and 4).
However, Yeung et al., as modified by Gregerson et al., failed to specifically disclose an imaging device coupled to the second arm.
However, Oh et al. teach an ultrasonic probe / scanner (400 / 218) configured to be attached to a robot arm 222 (par. 35 46, 49 and Figure 2 and 4A ) and to obtain image of a surgical instrument (e.g., endoscope 211) and patient’s organ (par. 52-53 and Figures 4A, 4C and 4D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to further modify the gantry and arms as taught by the combination of Yeung et al. in view of Gregerson et al. such that one of the arm comprises an attached ultrasound probe/ scanner to obtain image of a surgical instrument (e.g., endoscope) and patient’s organ, in view of Oh et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of determining a distance between the medical instrument and the inner surface of the patient’s organ wall (par. 52) by controlling the arm so that the ultrasonic scanner is fixed along a selected direction to produce images (par. 53).
Regarding claim 2, Yeung et al. failed to specifically disclose wherein both of the first arm and the second arm are independently movable along the z-axis.
However, Gregerson et al. teach a medical imaging device comprising arms (31/33) configured to translate in a vertical direction (109) (limitation: along a z-axis) (105 and 107) using a linear motion system (103) (par. 29-31 and Figure 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the gantry and arms taught by Yeung et al., such that at least one arm configured to independently translate in a vertical direction using a linear motion system, in view of Gregerson et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of controlling movement of an image device and obtain image data from a patient (par. 29, 26 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, Yeung et al., as modified by Gregerson et al., failed to specifically disclose wherein imaging device is an imaging ultrasound transducer.
However, Oh et al. teach an ultrasonic probe / scanner (400 / 218) configured to be attached to a robot arm 222 (par. 35 46, 49 and Figure 2 and 4A ) and to obtain image of a surgical instrument (e.g., endoscope 211) and patient’s organ (par. 52-53 and Figures 4A, 4C and 4D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to further modify the gantry and arms as taught by the combination of Yeung et al. in view of Gregerson et al. such that one of the arm comprises an attached ultrasound probe/ scanner to obtain image of a surgical instrument (e.g., endoscope) and patient’s organ, in view of Oh et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of determining a distance between the medical instrument and the inner surface of the patient’s organ wall (par. 52) by controlling the arm so that the ultrasonic scanner is fixed along a selected direction to produce images (par. 53).
Regarding claim 4, Yeung et al., as further modified by Oh et al., teach a magnetic robotic system configured to control an arm comprises an attached ultrasound probe/ scanner for obtaining image of a surgical instrument (e.g., endoscope) and patient’s organ (Oh et al.’s par. 52-53 and Figures 4A, 4C and 4D), which cover a linear array ultrasound transducer operating under curtained frequency range.
However, Yeung et al., as further modified by Oh et al., failed to specifically disclose a frequency range of around 22 HHz to around 55 HHz and a central frequency of around 40 MHz. for the operation of the imaging device.
However, since the specification describes at a high level of generality the a frequency range of around 22 HHz to around 55 HHz and a central frequency of around 40 MHz. for the operation of the imaging device and failed to provide their critically and unexpected result in obtaining / producing real time image, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to assign a particular frequency range and central frequency for operating the imaging device, as a matter of design choice, to obtain a specific image type during a surgical procedure and without affecting the control of imaging device by the surgeon.
Regarding claim 5, Yeung et al. disclose a magnetic robotic system configured to control a micro robotic manipulator wherein magnet device includes a rotating permanent magnet to selectively provide a rotating magnetic field (e.g., the arms 132 configured to reposition or adjust an orientation of the electromagnetic location fixing devices 1 via a servo driven (par. 84)).
Regarding claim 6, Yeung et al. disclose a magnetic robotic system configured to supply magnetic field to the robotic manipulator via the electromagnetic location fixing devices 1 at a frequency (par. 59).
However, Yeung et al. failed to specifically disclose the magnet device selectively produces the rotating magnetic field up to around 500 Hz.
However, since the specification describes at a high level of generality the rotating magnetic field of the magnet device up to around 500 Hz. and failed to provide their critically and unexpected result in controlling a microrobot, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to assign a particular frequency range for operating the electromagnetic location fixing devices, as a matter of design choice, to achieve a specific control movement and position the robotic manipulator during a surgical procedure and without affecting the control of the micro robotic manipulator by the surgeon.
Regarding claim 7, Yeung et al. disclose a magnetic robotic system configured to control a micro robotic manipulator wherein the magnet device includes a steering motor to direct an axis of the rotating magnetic field (e.g., the arms 132 configured to reposition or adjust an orientation of the electromagnetic location fixing devices 1 via a servo driven (par. 84), which covers a steering motor to direct an axis of the rotating magnetic field).
Regarding claim 8, Yeung et al. disclose a magnetic robotic system configured to control a micro robotic manipulator wherein the second arm includes a local heating system (e.g., the electromagnetic location fixing device 1 comprising a radiative energy transmitter to generate heat for unfolding the flag 17 of the robotic manipulator 2 (par. 89-90) ).
Regarding claim 10, Yeung et al. disclose a magnetic robotic system further comprising a processor (e.g., central control computer 8 configured to control a micro robotic manipulator – par. 53, 59 and 67).
Regarding claim 11, Yeung et al. disclose a magnetic robotic system wherein processor (e.g., central control computer 8) autonomously adjusts at least one of the
However, Gregerson et al. teach a medical imaging device comprising arms (31/33) configured to translate in a vertical, horizontal and lateral directions (109, 105 and 107) using a linear motion system (103) (par. 29-31 and Figure 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the gantry and arms comprising electromagnetic location fixing device taught by Yeung et al., such that the electromagnetic location fixing device attached to the arm(s) is configured to translate in a vertical, horizontal and lateral directions (109, 105 and 107) using a linear motion system, in view of Gregerson et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of controlling movement of an image device and obtain image data from a patient (par. 29, 26 and 4).
Regarding claim 12, Yeung et al. disclose a magnetic robotic system wherein the processor autonomously plans a path for directing the robot to a predetermined location (e.g., central control computer 8 configured to control a micro robotic manipulator (par. 53, 59 and 67)) by supplying magnetic field to micro robotic manipulator 2 via the electromagnetic location fixing device 1 to move and position the robotic manipulator 2 during a surgical procedure (par. 59), which covers autonomously plan a path for directing the robot to a predetermined location).
Regarding claim 13, Yeung et al. disclose a magnetic robotic system wherein the processor tracks at least one of a position and a location of the robot in real time (e.g., electromagnetic location fixing device(s) 1 configured to detect the current position of the end effector of the corresponding multi-axis micro robotic manipulator 2 inside the human body via central control computer 8 (par. 60 and 67)).
Regarding claim 14, Yeung et al. disclose a magnetic robotic system wherein the processor enables teleoperative control of the robot control system (e.g., central control computer 8 configured to allow a surgeon for remotely controlling a micro robotic manipulator – par. 67).
Regarding claim 15, Yeung et al. disclose a magnetic robotic process for controlling a micro robotic manipulator, the process comprising the steps of:
providing the robot control system (e.g., the magnetic robotic process for controlling a micro robotic manipulator) having a gantry frame (e.g., a gantry 134) including an x-axis guide, a y-axis guide, a first arm, and a second arm (e.g., gantry 134 comprising at least two arms 132 and a horizontal structure and a vertical structure to move the arms simultaneously with the patient changing of position via servo driven mechanism, which covers the y-axis guide and the x-axis guide ( par. 84 and Figure 5 and below image annotation)),
the y-axis guide is coupled to the x-axis guide (e.g., Figure 5 shows the horizontal structure connected to the vertical structure of the gantry, which covers the y-axis guide connected to the x-axis guide to move the arms simultaneously with the patient changing of position via servo driven mechanism (par. 84 and Figure 5 bellow and annotation),
each of the first arm and the second arm are coupled to the y-axis guide (e.g., at least two arms 132 are connected to the horizontal structure (limitation: y-axis guide ) of the gantry (par. 84 and Figure 5 with annotation below)),
a magnet device coupled to the first arm (e.g., electromagnetic location fixing device (1) attached / coupled to an arm 132 (par. 84 and Figure 5)), and
providing the robot (e.g., providing a micro robotic manipulator 2 inside a human body – par. 59 and Figure 1);
applying a magnetic field to the robot via the magnetic device (e.g., supplying magnetic field to micro robotic manipulator 2 via the electromagnetic location fixing device 1 to move and position the robotic manipulator 2 (par. 59) ).
PNG
media_image1.png
610
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Yeung et al. failed to specifically disclose at least one of the first arm and the second arm are movable along a z-axis.
However, Gregerson et al. teach a medical imaging device comprising arms (31/33) configured to translate in a vertical direction (109) (limitation: along a z-axis) and in horizontal and lateral directions (105 and 107) using a linear motion system (103) (par. 29-31 and Figure 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the gantry and arms taught by Yeung et al., such that the arms configured to translate in a vertical direction and in horizontal and lateral directions (105 and 107) using a linear motion system, in view of Gregerson et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of controlling movement of an image device and obtain image data from a patient (par. 29, 26 and 4).
However, Yeung et al., as modified by Gregerson et al., failed to specifically disclose (i) an imaging device coupled to the second arm and (ii) imaging the robot via the imaging device.
However, Oh et al. teach an ultrasonic probe / scanner (400 / 218) configured to be attached to a robot arm 222 (par. 35 46, 49 and Figure 2 and 4A ) and to obtain image of a surgical instrument (e.g., endoscope 211) and patient’s organ (par. 52-53 and Figures 4A, 4C and 4D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to further modify the gantry and arms as taught by the combination of Yeung et al. in view of Gregerson et al. such that one of the arm comprises an attached ultrasound probe/ scanner to obtain image of a surgical instrument (e.g., micro robotic manipulator) and patient’s organ, in view of Oh et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of determining the distance between the medical instrument and the inner surface of the patient’s organ wall (par. 52) by controlling the arm so that the ultrasonic scanner is fixed along a selected direction to produce images (par. 53).
Regarding claim 16, Yeung et al. disclose a magnetic robotic process for controlling a micro robotic manipulator further comprising a step of heating the robot with a local heating system coupled to the second arm (e.g., the electromagnetic location fixing device 1 comprising a radiative energy transmitter to generate heat for unfolding the flag 17 of the robotic manipulator 2 (par. 89-90) ).
Regarding claim 17, Yeung et al., as modified by Gregerson et al., failed to specifically disclose a step of adjusting the imaging device along at least one of an x-axis, a y-axis, and a z-axis via a processor. .
However, Oh et al. teach an ultrasonic probe / scanner (400 / 218) configured to be attached to a robot arm 222 (par. 35 46, 49 and Figure 2 and 4A ) and to move along an axis 404 (e.g., downward and rotational directions) (par. 50 and Figure 4A) for obtaining image of a surgical instrument (e.g., endoscope 211) and patient’s organ (par. 52-53 and Figures 4A, 4C and 4D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to further modify the gantry and arms as taught by the combination of Yeung et al. in view of Gregerson et al. such that an ultrasound probe/ scanner attached to an arm is configured to move along an axis (e.g., downward and rotational directions) for obtaining image of a surgical instrument (e.g., endoscope) and patient’s organ, in view of Oh et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of determining the distance between the medical instrument and the inner surface of the patient’s organ wall (par. 52) by controlling the arm so that the ultrasonic scanner is fixed along a selected direction to produce images (par. 53).
Regarding claim 18, Yeung et al. disclose a magnetic robotic process for controlling a micro robotic manipulator further comprising a step of adjusting the magnetic device along at least one of an x-axis, a y-axis, and a z-axis via a processor.
However, Gregerson et al. teach a medical imaging device comprising arms (31/33) configured to translate in a vertical, horizontal and lateral directions (109, 105 and 107) using a linear motion system (103) (par. 29-31 and Figure 1A) via motion controller (203) and control system 202 (par. 38-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the central control computer and arms comprising electromagnetic location fixing device taught by Yeung et al., such that the electromagnetic location fixing device attached to the arm(s) is configured to translate in a vertical, horizontal and lateral directions using a linear motion system via controller / control computer, in view of Gregerson et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of controlling movement of an image device and obtain image data from a patient (par. 29, 26 and 4).
Regarding claim 19, Yeung et al. disclose a magnetic robotic process for controlling a micro robotic manipulator further comprising a step of tracking at least one of a location and a position of the robot via a processor (e.g., electromagnetic location fixing device(s) 1 configured to detect the current position of the end effector of the corresponding multi-axis micro robotic manipulator 2 inside the human body via central control computer 8 (par. 60 and 67)).
Regarding claim 20, Yeung et al. disclose a magnetic robotic system further comprising a step of determining a path for directing the robot to a predetermined location (e.g., central control computer 8 configured to control a micro robotic manipulator (par. 53, 59 and 67)) by supplying magnetic field to micro robotic manipulator 2 via the electromagnetic location fixing device 1 to move and position the robotic manipulator 2 during a surgical procedure (par. 59), which covers step of determining a path for directing the robot to a predetermined location).
Claim 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung et al. (Pub No.: US 2013/0289768 A1) in view of Gregerson et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0355194 A1), Oh et al. (US 2019/0261846 A1) and Neff (US 20120022552 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Yeung et al., as further modified by Oh et al., failed to disclose wherein the local heating system includes a focused ultrasound probe.
However, Neff teach a sound generating device 3 attached to a robot arm 5 and configured to generate a focus ultrasound / high intensity focused ultrasound to treat a patient organ (par. 54 and 49 and Figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to furthermore modify the gantry and arms taught by the combination of Yeung et al. in view of Gregerson et al. and Oh et al. such that the arm comprising a sound generating device configured to generate a focus ultrasound / high intensity focused ultrasound to treat a patient organ, in view of Neff, with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of moving the robot arm so that the focus of the sound generating device falls on a tissue of the living organism which is to be treated (par. 17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Scherch (US 2005/0020917 A1) directed to a target position verification system comprising an ultrasound probe attached to an articulated arm to obtain image of a portion of a patient body.
Fontanarosa et al. (US 2019/0117999 A1) directed to image guided treatment delivery using ultrasound image and magnetic resonance imaging system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 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, Khoi H. Tran can be reached at 571 272 6919. 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.
/Jorge O Peche/Examiner, Art Unit 3656