DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks
General Note:
Applicant does not appear to have pointed out the support for any of the claim amendments made. Relatedly, at least one rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) regarding new matter is provided in this Office Action.
In the interest of compact prosecution and timely examination, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant point out the support for any claim amendments which are considered to have changed the scope of a claim in accordance with the guidance of MPEP 2163. Lack thereof may be considered as an indication that Applicant does not find the claim scope to have changed or may establish a prima facie case for a rejection under 35 USC § 112(a). MPEP 2163 relates.
Priority
The original issue of priority presented in the Office Action dated 01/02/2026 (hereafter typically referred to as the previous or prior Office Action) appears resolved by Applicant’s amendments filed 03/03/2026 (hereafter typically referred to as Applicant’s amendments). Applicant’s amendments to at least Claims 1 and 12 have however now introduced an issue of priority extending to each and every claim. See the updated section below. The rejection(s) under 35 USC § 112(a) further relate.
Claim Objections
The objection to the claim is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Interpretation
While Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s statement that “Applicant reserves the right to comment on such discussion in detail later in prosecution or in any future proceeding, for example at such time as the noted interpretations become pertinent to certain rejections under discussion”, the claim interpretations as presented in the previous Office Action are clearly pertinent to the rejections presently under discussion, as evidenced in the discussion below. Applicant, however, appears to remain silent with respect to all interpretations taken.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection of the claims is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments correcting the deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments appear to generally rely on narrower interpretations than are supported by the actual language of the claims. The present language of the claims is especially broad and open to interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
More specifically, the plain meaning of the term “velocity magnitude” is “speed”. The nature of the “velocity magnitude” (speed) or how it is determined/derived/calculated is not claimed in any particular manner. Thus, anything which may be interpreted as representative of a speed reads on this limitation. Furthermore, the nature of “determining whether the direction of movement points towards a virtual control object with at least a threshold velocity magnitude” or “a determination that the direction of movement points towards the virtual control object with at least the threshold velocity magnitude” are similarly not claimed with any specificity. Furthermore, the “threshold” itself is not claimed with any particularity. Thus, the limitation of “determining whether the direction of movement points towards a virtual control object with at least a threshold velocity magnitude” may amount to no more than determining whether the direction of movement points towards a virtual control object, as the threshold may simply be zero. In other words, the determination may be two parts: (1) is it moving, and (2) is it in the direction of a virtual control object.
Examiner notes that an unspecified “threshold” being open to interpretation as “any amount” was already provided in the previous Office Action with respect to at least Claim 8 which does not appear addressed in any form in Applicant’s remarks.
Alternatively, and furthermore, Applicant does not appear to have addressed paragraph 20. of the previous Office Action indicating the interpretation of “in response to” as being a contingent clause rendering the amended limitation of “with at least a threshold velocity” as having little merit.
Alternatively, and furthermore, Applicant does not appear to have support for the amended limitation of “with at least a threshold velocity” relied upon in the arguments. The claims are consequently rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) and not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments in more particular detail:
On page 7 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues that the orientation check discussed in [0079] of Iorgulescu does not consider a particular rate of change. While this is true, this is not relevant to the present claim language which is constructed at a particularly broad and high level. The angle check still inherently checks for some kind of motion to occur in a direction, or in other words a non-zero speed. The “magnitude” is not claimed with particularity, the nature of “points towards”, etc. An orientation change check first is checking for some speed of motion (as no change occurs without), and whether the direction of that motion appears to have been towards the axis of interest. While Iorgulescu does not teach the determination of a speed as a particular unit over time (or rate), the claim does not presently require any such determination or feature.
The remaining arguments appear to be with respect to potential 103 rejections.
On page 7 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant states “No reason would be apparent to one of skill in the art to consider a velocity in that operation”. First, the claim recites “a threshold velocity magnitude”, not a “velocity”. Second, this statement appears wholly conclusory. Applicant provides no logical reasoning, evidence, or similar support for this statement. It is the Examiner’s understanding that speed, velocity, acceleration, and other basic operational characteristics of robots are commonly considered in robotic operation. Consequently, there is rather no reason it would not be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art to consider a velocity in any robotic operation.
On page 7 and 8 Applicant provides the argument that “the Office Action does not cite any disclosure of considering a threshold velocity magnitude as in the context of "determining whether the direction of movement points towards a virtual control object with at least a threshold velocity magnitude”. Per MPEP 2141.02(VI), “A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)”. Applicant must consider the reference as a whole, not only those portions cited in the previous Office Action.
On Page 8 Applicant appears to argue that “the cited operation checks … agnostic of the distance travelled”. This is incorrect as the check involves “detecting an intersection between the polygonal surface objects that comprise the virtual object and a line segment L extending between the locations HIP(t) and HIP(t-1)” ([0163] of Quaid). If there was no line (the length between points) and if it were not oriented in the correct direction for intersection (towards the virtual control object), the check would fail. It therefore clearly checks for a speed in the form of distance and direction. Furthermore, this is also traditionally how a magnitude of a vector is defined/illustrated in a coordinate space. See again the Claim Interpretation section wherein the term “vector” is discussed, in particular wherein a dictionary definition further relates that a vector “is commonly represented by a directed line segment whose length represents the magnitude and whose orientation in space represents the direction” (emphasis added).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments appear to generally rely on narrower interpretations than are supported by the actual language of the claims. The present language of the claims is especially broad and open to interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
More specifically:
On page 8 and 9 Applicant appears to argue with respect to teleoperation. The merit of this argument is unclear. Claim 1 recites “caused by a user manipulating the tool”. The nature of said manipulation is not claimed with any particularity. A user teleoperating a robotic device with tools is manipulating said robotic device and tools through the teleoperation system regardless of where or how any forces are directed by an operator during operation.
On Page 9 Applicant provides the argument that:
“the disclosure cited from Quaid '657 relates looking back, i.e., between the latest tracked position of the tool and a previously location (HIP(t - 1)), which could be thought of as looking in the opposite of the direction of movement from the latest tracked position of the tool. The cited art therefore does not teach, suggest, or disclose "checking whether a line extending in the direction of the tracked movement from a latest tracked position of the tool intersects the virtual control object" as recited in Claim 16”.
Applicant appears to be interpreting the claim language much narrower than actually constructed. The claim recites “a line extending in the direction of the tracked movement”. The nature of “extending in the direction of the tracked movement” is not established. Furthermore, a line segment extends in two directions. Applicant appears to be applying an arbitrary subjective perspective not inherent or explicit to the claims. Furthermore, Applicant determines a velocity vector and related data just as in Quaid; by “looking back”. Applicant’s specification discloses velocity vector determination in [0086] which reads:
“Given two positions (e.g., for subsequent time steps), a vector can be defined which characterizes the direction of movement of the surgical tool 234 (e.g., a velocity vector). In some cases, the speed of movement (e.g., a magnitude of the velocity vector) is determined based on the distance between the positions used and the elapsed time between collection of those data points”.
It is not until later that Applicant recites in [0087] the particular nature of the line in question:
“At step 808, a determination is made (e.g., by the processing circuit 260) regarding whether the direction of movement points towards the virtual control object. For example, a velocity vector determined at step 806 may be extended (e.g., infinitely) from the latest tracked position of the surgical tool in the direction of movement”
However, the claim does not require almost any of these features, and especially not those relevant to Applicant’s arguments.
Furthermore, and alternatively, the claim recites “a latest tracked position”, wherein the “the” of “the latest tracked position” appears explicitly and intentionally amended to “a” in Applicant’s amendments of the claims. Thus, this need not even be with respect to the latest tracked position, but something which may be considered a latest tracked position, wherein at minimum the second to last tracked position would be considered in that group/category.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 17/257,192, Application No. PCT/US202/052466, and Application No. 62/908,890, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Specifically, Claims 1 and 12 recites the limitation “determining whether the direction of movement points towards a virtual control object with at least a threshold velocity magnitude”.
The closest support for these limitations is found in Provisional Application No. 62/908,890 in [0072] (Equivalent if not identical paragraphs appear to be found in [0086] of Application No. 17/257,192 and Application No. PCT/US202/052466) which recites:
“In some cases, the speed of movement (e.g., a magnitude of the velocity vector) is determined based on the distance between the positions used and the elapsed time between collection of those data points. In some cases, the process 800 does not proceed to step 808 unless the magnitude of the velocity vector exceeds a threshold value” (emphasis added).
Per Figure 8, Step 808 is “Does the direction of movement point towards the virtual control object?”
Per [0073], during Step 808, “a determination is made (e.g., by the processing circuit 260) regarding whether the direction of movement points towards the virtual control object”
As shown above, there is no disclosure in the current or prior applications for the limitation. The underlined portion is the only portion of Applicant’s disclosure that appears to mention a threshold for velocity magnitude, and does independent of a check for a direction of movement. There is no indication of it being a combined or “with” check. Furthermore, and additionally, it is explicitly recited with respect to the step of “determining a direction of movement” and explicitly recited only in the context of the process not proceeding to the determination of the direction of movement pointing towards the virtual object if passed. In contrast, the present claims have it occurring with disclosed step 808 and regardless of the condition passing or not. The present claim limitations do not recite that the process ends/does nothing when the condition is not passed and thus additionally encompass subject matter not disclosed.
Accordingly, Claims 1 – 20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has made a best effort to apply prior art with respect to the earliest claimed priority date for all claims. For example, Applicant may provide persuasive arguments and/or evidence to alter the above decision. However, at least one published priority document may be used as prior art in future Office Actions if the above issue is not resolved (e.g. US 20220305653 A1).
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “wherein the circuitry is programmed to …”. To be consistent with all other dependent claims using similar language (Claims 17 – 20), it should instead read “wherein the circuitry is further programmed to” or similar.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the circuitry if further programmed to” (“if” instead of “is”). It should read “wherein the circuitry is further programmed to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
General Notes:
These claim interpretations are presented in the interest of compact prosecution. It should not be assumed that the broadest reasonable interpretations presented below are necessarily required for the prior art relied on in the rejections below.
Presently, the claims are not limited to the field of surgery though the disclosure appears directed thereto. Furthermore, the general concepts appear to be potentially encapsulated by general collision avoidance and prediction techniques commonplace in the general robotics art, particularly inasmuch as the claims are not limited to the field of surgery.
The phrase “in response to” has been interpreted as meaning “when” or “if” and indicates a contingent clause. See MPEP 2111.04(II).
Furthermore, these clauses are typically not particularly limiting without using explicit exclusive language (only, exclusively, etc.) or additional clauses describing different limitations provided for the other potential triggering conditions. For example, Claims 1 and 12 recite “in response to a determination that the direction of movement points towards the virtual object …”, but these claims do not provide any limitations directed to a condition of ‘a determination that the direction of movement does not point towards the virtual object’. Disclosure which teaches the subsequent “controlling …” step regardless of the condition may therefore be considered as reading on the claim.
The limitation/phrase of “wherein the force is sufficient to independently cause the tool to move in the direction of movement” has been interpreted as meaning, based on [0089] of Applicant’s originally filed specification that the force, which guides the tool to the virtual object, is purely provided by the robotic device. See “without user manipulation” of [0089].
Some of the claims recite the term “vector” or “velocity vector” or similar. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “vector” is “a quantity that has magnitude and direction” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary access 12/17/2025). While the definition further states “that is commonly represented by a directed line segment whose length represents the magnitude and whose orientation in space represents the direction”, this is (1) not a requirement (see commonly) and furthermore, still does not describe the line as having a particular origin. Additionally, in the case of the phrase “velocity vector”, the term “vector” is redundant. The definition of velocity is already that of a vector.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitation “determining whether the direction of movement points towards a virtual control object with at least a threshold velocity magnitude”.
Applicant did not point out any support for these amendments in the corresponding filed remarks. The closest support for these limitations as found by the Examiner was found in [0086] of the originally filed specification which recites:
“In some cases, the speed of movement (e.g., a magnitude of the velocity vector) is determined based on the distance between the positions used and the elapsed time between collection of those data points. In some cases, the process 800 does not proceed to step 808 unless the magnitude of the velocity vector exceeds a threshold value” (emphasis added).
Per Figure 8, Step 808 is “Does the direction of movement point towards the virtual control object?”
Per [0087], during Step 808, “a determination is made (e.g., by the processing circuit 260) regarding whether the direction of movement points towards the virtual control object”
As shown above, there is no disclosure in the current or prior applications for the limitation. The underlined portion is the only portion of Applicant’s disclosure that appears to mention a threshold for velocity magnitude, and does independent of a check for a direction of movement. There is no indication of it being a combined or “with” check. Furthermore, and additionally, it is explicitly recited with respect to the step of “determining a direction of movement” and explicitly recited only in the context of the process not proceeding to the determination of the direction of movement pointing towards the virtual object if passed. In contrast, the present claims have it occurring with disclosed step 808 and regardless of the condition passing or not. The present claim limitations do not recite that the process ends/does nothing when the condition is not passed and thus additionally encompass subject matter not disclosed.
Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 2 – 11 and 13 – 20, the claims depend from claim(s) rejected above and inherit the deficiencies of said claim(s) as described above. Therefore, Claims 2 – 11 and 13 – 20 are rejected under the same logic presented above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 7, 9 – 14, 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iorgulescu et al. (US 20130172905 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Iorgulescu teaches:
A method of operating a robotic device, comprising:
tracking movement of a tool coupled to the robotic device (See at least [0030] “Tracking system 201 may include any suitable device or system configured to track the relative locations, positions, orientations, and/or poses of the surgical tool 210 (coupled to robotic arm 204) and/or positions of registered portions of a patient's anatomy, such as bones”);
determining a direction of movement of the tool (See at least [0079] “CAS system 200 may then be configured to compare the current orientation angle … associated with cutting tool 103 with a previous tool orientation angle”) caused by a user manipulating the tool (See at least [0028] “The surgeon can manipulate the surgical tool 210 by grasping and manually moving the articulated arm 206 and/or the surgical tool 210”);
determining whether the direction of movement points towards a virtual control object (See at least [0080] “If the current tool orientation angle, .theta..sub.T, is not less than the previous tool orientation (Step 730: No), CAS system 200 may apply haptic forces to robotic arm 204 to prevent or constrain the movement of cutting tool 103 from being positioned in an orientation that is further away from the target axis. If, on the other hand, the tool orientation angle, .theta..sub.T, is less than a previous orientation angle (Step 730: Yes), CAS system 200 may modify the haptic geometry to reduce the haptic boundary angle to match the current tool orientation angle, .theta..sub.T (Step 740)”) with at least a threshold velocity magnitude (Examiner notes that no particular threshold is claimed, and therefore could be any velocity magnitude. The tool orientation angle only changes if at least some movement has occurred from the last time step, or in other words if the speed of a portion of the tool is at least greater than zero); and
in response to a determination that the direction of movement points towards the virtual control object, controlling the robotic device to guide the tool to the virtual control object (See at least above).
Regarding Claim 2, Iorgulescu teaches:
The method of Claim 1, wherein controlling the robotic device to guide the tool to the virtual control object comprises causing the robotic device to exert a force (“A force” does not mean “all of the force”. Furthermore, there are many conditions under which the device is operated. In particular, it may be just after complete alignment between two axes has happened. In summary, the timing and other items of the limitation are not claimed with any particularity. See at least [0068] “As such, when the tool orientation angle, .theta..sub.T, is 0 (tool axis 403 parallel (or co-linear) to target axis 401, virtual haptic geometry 400 completely surrounds surgical instrument 403, thereby locking surgical instrument 403 into place”) to guide the tool toward the virtual control object (An indication of intent and not a positively recited limitation. May be recited positively by rephrasing to a particular clause beginning with “guiding” or similar.
In the interest of compact prosecution, see again [0068]).
Regarding Claim 3, Iorgulescu teaches:
The method of Claim 2, wherein the force is insufficient to independently cause movement of the tool in the direction of movement (See at least [0029] “The force system is configured to provide at least some force to the surgical tool via the articulated arm 206”).
Regarding Claim 6, Iorgulescu teaches:
The method of Claim 1, wherein:
tracking movement of the tool coupled to the robotic device comprises tracking positions of a first point and a second point relative to the virtual control object, the first point and the second point associated with the tool (See at least cutting tool 103, reference point 103a, and [0053] “CAS system 200 may be registered as part of the registration process during the surgical procedure by using a pre-calibrated registration probe to capture and record the locations of a plurality of points along tool axis 403”); and
the method further comprises:
controlling the robotic device to constrain the first point to the virtual control object (See at least [0048] “For example, virtual haptic geometry 400 may define a haptic "wall" that constrains, inhibits, or prevents cutting tool 103 and/or reference point 103a from moving beyond the boundary surface 404 of virtual haptic surface 400”);
determining that the first point is at a threshold position along the virtual control object (See at least above “wall”); and
controlling the robotic device to guide the second point to the virtual control object (See again above. The preceding disclosure is applicable to “cutting tool 103” which may be defined by the “plurality of points along tool axis 403”).
Regarding Claim 7, Iorgulescu teaches:
The method of Claim 1, comprising:
determining that the tool is at the virtual control object; and
controlling the robotic device to constrain the tool to the virtual control object (See at least [0048] “For example, virtual haptic geometry 400 may define a haptic "wall" that constrains, inhibits, or prevents cutting tool 103 and/or reference point 103a from moving beyond the boundary surface 404 of virtual haptic surface 400”).
Regarding Claim 9, Iorgulescu teaches:
The method of Claim 7, comprising:
defining a damping zone in the virtual control object (See at least haptic boundary surface 404 and intermediate tool stop haptic plane 420);
determining that the tool is in the damping zone;
controlling the robotic device to resist movement of the tool through the damping zone (See at least [0075] “Regardless of its specific shape, virtual haptic geometry 400 comprises a haptic boundary surface 404 that defines a boundary at which a virtual haptic force is applied” and [0051] “Specifically, the virtual haptic boundary 400 may include an intermediate tool stop haptic plane 420 that provides haptic feedback if reference point 103a attempts to advance without being in the proper orientation”).
Regarding Claim 10, Iorgulescu teaches:
The method of Claim 9, comprising:
determining that the tool has passed through the damping zone; and
in response to a determination that the first point has passed through the damping zone, removing the damping zone from the virtual control object (See at least [0089] “It is also contemplated that virtual haptic geometry 400 may be configured to constrain movement of the position and orientation of cutting tool 103 while reference point 103a is located within the volume defined by virtual haptic geometry 400. It is contemplated, however, that the virtual haptic geometry 400 (and/or haptic forces associated therewith) may be deactivated, for example, by removing cutting tool 103 from the haptic volume associated with virtual haptic geometry 400 in a predetermined manner, such as by extracting the tip of cutting tool 103 from the top of virtual haptic geometry 400” (Emphasis added). Examiner notes that intermediate tool stop haptic plane 420 is one or more haptic force associated with virtual haptic geometry 400).
Regarding Claim 11, Iorgulescu teaches:
The method of Claim 7, comprising:
receiving a signal; and
adjusting a haptic control interaction between the tool and the virtual control object in response to the signal (Examiner notes that these limitations are especially broad and are disclosed by the prior art in various different ways. See at least [0026] “The CAS software also allows users to plan certain aspects of the surgical procedure, and register these aspects for display with the graphical representation of the surgical site. For example … virtual boundaries that may be associated with a corresponding reference for the application of haptic force, and other aspects of the surgery”).
Regarding Claim 12, Iorgulescu teaches:
A system, comprising:
a robotic device (See at least computer-assisted surgery (CAS) system 200);
a tool coupled to the robotic device (See at least surgical tool 210);
circuitry programmed to control the robotic device (See at least [0032] “CAS system 200 may include one or more hardware components such as, for example, a central processing unit (CPU) (processor 231); computer-readable media, such as a random access memory (RAM) module 232, a read-only memory (ROM) module 233, and a storage device 234; a database 235; one or more input/output (I/O) devices 236; and a network interface 237”) to:
determine whether a direction of tracked movement of the robotic device points towards a virtual control object (See at least [0080] “If the current tool orientation angle, .theta..sub.T, is not less than the previous tool orientation (Step 730: No), CAS system 200 may apply haptic forces to robotic arm 204 to prevent or constrain the movement of cutting tool 103 from being positioned in an orientation that is further away from the target axis. If, on the other hand, the tool orientation angle, .theta..sub.T, is less than a previous orientation angle (Step 730: Yes), CAS system 200 may modify the haptic geometry to reduce the haptic boundary angle to match the current tool orientation angle, .theta..sub.T (Step 740)”) with at least a threshold velocity magnitude (Examiner notes that no particular threshold is claimed, and therefore could be any velocity magnitude. The tool orientation angle only changes if at least some movement has occurred from the last time step, or in other words if the speed of a portion of the tool is at least greater than zero); and
in response to a determination that the direction of movement points towards the virtual control object with at least the threshold velocity magnitude, control the robotic device to assist the surgical tool toward the virtual control object (See at least [0029] “The force system is configured to provide at least some force to the surgical tool via the articulated arm 206 … the force system includes actuators and a backdriveable transmission that provide haptic (or force) feedback”).
Regarding Claim 13, Iorgulescu teaches:
The system of Claim 12, wherein the circuitry is programmed to control the robotic device to assist the surgical tool toward the virtual control object by providing an assistive force which assists in moving the tool toward the virtual control object (“assistive force” does not mean “all of the force”. Furthermore, there are many conditions under which the device is operated. In particular, it may be just after complete alignment between two axes has happened. In summary, the timing and other items of the limitation are not claimed with any particularity. See at least [0068] “As such, when the tool orientation angle, .theta..sub.T, is 0 (tool axis 403 parallel (or co-linear) to target axis 401, virtual haptic geometry 400 completely surrounds surgical instrument 403, thereby locking surgical instrument 403 into place”).
Regarding Claim 14, Iorgulescu teaches:
The system of Claim 13, wherein the force is insufficient to independently cause movement of the tool toward the virtual control object (See at least [0029] “The force system is configured to provide at least some force to the surgical tool via the articulated arm 206”).
Regarding Claim 17, Iorgulescu teaches:
The system of Claim 12, wherein the circuitry is further programmed to, responsive to the tool reaching the virtual control object, control the robotic device to constrain the tool to the virtual control object (See at least [0048] “For example, virtual haptic geometry 400 may define a haptic "wall" that constrains, inhibits, or prevents cutting tool 103 and/or reference point 103a from moving beyond the boundary surface 404 of virtual haptic surface 400”).
Regarding Claim 18, Iorgulescu teaches:
The system of Claim 17, wherein the circuitry is further programmed to:
define a damping zone in the virtual control object (See at least haptic boundary surface 404 and intermediate tool stop haptic plane 420);
determine that the tool is in the damping zone;
control the robotic device to resist movement of the tool through the damping zone (See at least [0075] “Regardless of its specific shape, virtual haptic geometry 400 comprises a haptic boundary surface 404 that defines a boundary at which a virtual haptic force is applied” and [0051] “Specifically, the virtual haptic boundary 400 may include an intermediate tool stop haptic plane 420 that provides haptic feedback if reference point 103a attempts to advance without being in the proper orientation”).
Regarding Claim 19, Iorgulescu teaches:
The system of Claim 18, wherein the circuitry is further programmed to:
determine that the tool has passed through the damping zone; and
in response to a determination that the first point has passed through the damping zone, remove the damping zone from the virtual control object (See at least [0089] “It is also contemplated that virtual haptic geometry 400 may be configured to constrain movement of the position and orientation of cutting tool 103 while reference point 103a is located within the volume defined by virtual haptic geometry 400. It is contemplated, however, that the virtual haptic geometry 400 (and/or haptic forces associated therewith) may be deactivated, for example, by removing cutting tool 103 from the haptic volume associated with virtual haptic geometry 400 in a predetermined manner, such as by extracting the tip of cutting tool 103 from the top of virtual haptic geometry 400” (Emphasis added). Examiner notes that intermediate tool stop haptic plane 420 is one or more haptic force associated with virtual haptic geometry 400).
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.
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.
Claims 4 – 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iorgulescu et al. in view of Quaid (US 20170151021 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Iorgulescu teaches:
The method of Claim 2,
Iorgulescu does not explicitly teach, but Quaid teaches:
wherein the force is sufficient to independently cause the tool to move in the direction of movement (See at least [0028] “In a teleoperation system, the master haptic device may be physically separated from the surgical site”. If the surgeon is physically separate, all forces must be sufficient to independently move all portions of the robot) such that the robotic device automatically moves the tool to the virtual control object without requiring an external force supplied by the user manipulating the tool (This appears to be beyond the scope of “such that” in a method claim and indicates an intended purpose. If automatically moving the tool in the manner stated is a particular step of the claim, it should be explicitly recited. In either case, this is still disclosed under the teleoperation system as a teleoperation system receives no motive force from the one controlling it).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the robotic system of Iorgulescu for teleoperation/remote operation as disclosed in Quaid with a reasonable expectation of success. Teleoperation/remote operation serves to “provide a more ergonomic or immersive working position for the surgeon and/or allow the surgeon to perform the surgery remotely” ([0028]).
Regarding Claim 5, Iorgulescu teaches:
The method of Claim 1,
Iorgulescu does not explicitly teach, but Quaid teaches:
wherein determining the direction of movement of the tool comprises identifying a velocity vector that characterizes the movement of the tool (See at least [0028] “In an impedance mode, a haptic device measures or senses the pose (position, orientation, velocity, and/or acceleration) of the surgical instrument and applies forces and/or torques (“wrench”) to the instrument”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the tracking system of the robotic system of Iorgulescu to directly track/measure velocity as disclosed in Quaid with a reasonable expectation of success. As disclosed by Quaid, knowing the velocity allows for particular control schemes ([0028]) as well as particular generation of force feedback ([0050]) or determination of if the tool is in the desired posed ([0083]).
Regarding Claim 15, Iorgulescu teaches:
The system of Claim 13,
Iorgulescu does not explicitly teach, but Quaid teaches:
wherein the force is sufficient to independently cause the tool to move toward the virtual control object (See at least [0028] “In a teleoperation system, the master haptic device may be physically separated from the surgical site”. If the surgeon is physically separate, all forces must be sufficient to independently move all portions of the robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the robotic system of Iorgulescu for teleoperation/remote operation as disclosed in Quaid with a reasonable expectation of success. Teleoperation/remote operation serves to “provide a more ergonomic or immersive working position for the surgeon and/or allow the surgeon to perform the surgery remotely” ([0028]).
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iorgulescu et al. in view of Jaramaz et al. (US 20220160440 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Iorgulescu teaches:
The method of Claim 7,
Iorgulescu does not teach, but in combination with Jaramaz teaches:
detecting a force exerted on the tool in a pre-determined direction;
determining whether the force in the pre-determined direction exceeds a threshold force (Examiner notes that no particular threshold is claimed, and therefore could be any amount of force); and
in response to a determination that the force in the pre-determined direction exceeds the threshold force, controlling the robotic device to allow the tool to move away from the virtual control object (See at least [0089] “It is contemplated, however, that the virtual haptic geometry 400 (and/or haptic forces associated therewith) may be deactivated, for example, by removing cutting tool 103 from the haptic volume associated with virtual haptic geometry 400 in a predetermined manner, such as by extracting the tip of cutting tool 103 from the top of virtual haptic geometry 400” and [0075] “Cutting tool 103 may be able to exit the haptic volume at a predetermined exit point that, according to one embodiment, is typically the base of the inverted cone shape, directly opposite the direction of convergence of virtual haptic geometry 400” of Iorgulescu and
[0167] “Force feedback can be implemented in robotic arm 520 by allowing sensors or servo load to monitor when a human operator pushes or pulls on the arm. For example, a surgeon may grasp the tool 534 and attempt to position that tool where he would like it. Upon sensing the additional load to the arm, the controller for robotic arm 520 can temporarily release control of the position of the arm, allowing the surgeon to move the arm” of Jaramaz.
Examiner notes that [0077] of Applicant’s specification provides that a direction for exit might be chosen based on safety or convenience, which is clearly what has been done in Iorgulescu. Examiner further notes that per [0076] of Applicant’s specification a force exerted on a tool” includes forces detected on the joints of the robotic arm and not necessarily at or around a tool center point or other location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the control scheme of Jaramaz in combination with Iorgulescu with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the safety and control a surgeon is able to exert on the robotic assisted surgery process. Jaramaz teaches force monitoring in particular directions in at least [0167].
Regarding Claim 20, Iorgulescu teaches:
The system of Claim 12,
Iorgulescu does not teach, but in combination with Jaramaz teaches:
wherein the circuitry if further programmed to:
determine whether a force on the robotic device in a pre-determined direction exceeds a threshold force (Examiner notes that no particular threshold is claimed, and therefore could be any amount of force); and
in response to a determination that the force in the pre-determined direction exceeds the threshold force, control the robotic device to allow the tool to move away from the virtual control object (See at least [0089] “It is contemplated, however, that the virtual haptic geometry 400 (and/or haptic forces associated therewith) may be deactivated, for example, by removing cutting tool 103 from the haptic volume associated with virtual haptic geometry 400 in a predetermined manner, such as by extracting the tip of cutting tool 103 from the top of virtual haptic geometry 400” and [0075] “Cutting tool 103 may be able to exit the haptic volume at a predetermined exit point that, according to one embodiment, is typically the base of the inverted cone shape, directly opposite the direction of convergence of virtual haptic geometry 400” of Iorgulescu and
[0167] “Force feedback can be implemented in robotic arm 520 by allowing sensors or servo load to monitor when a human operator pushes or pulls on the arm. For example, a surgeon may grasp the tool 534 and attempt to position that tool where he would like it. Upon sensing the additional load to the arm, the controller for robotic arm 520 can temporarily release control of the position of the arm, allowing the surgeon to move the arm” of Jaramaz.
Examiner notes that [0077] of Applicant’s specification provides that a direction for exit might be chosen based on safety or convenience, which is clearly what has been done in Iorgulescu. Examiner further notes that per [0076] of Applicant’s specification a force exerted on a tool” includes forces detected on the joints of the robotic arm and not necessarily at or around a tool center point or other location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the control scheme of Jaramaz in combination with Iorgulescu with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the safety and control a surgeon is able to exert on the robotic assisted surgery process. Jaramaz teaches force monitoring in particular directions in at least [0167].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iorgulescu et al. in view of Quaid et al. (US 20060142657 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Iorgulescu teaches:
The system of Claim 12,
Iorgulescu does not teach, but in combination with Quaid teaches:
wherein the circuitry is programmed to determine whether the direction of the tracked movement of the robotic device points towards the virtual control object by checking whether a line extending in the direction of the tracked movement from a latest tracked position of the tool intersects the virtual control object (See at least [0163] “As shown in FIGS. 49A and 49B, a location of an initial virtual proxy point may be determined based on a location HIP(t) of the HIP at a current time t and a location HIP(t-1) of the HIP at a previous time t-1”, Figures 49A and 49B which illustrate a line having direction (see arrowhead) and magnitude (see size), and which intersects with a geometry, and [0165] “In step S108, each neighboring polygon is tested to determine whether it is intersected by the line segment from HIP(t-1) to HIP(t)”. See also [0086] of Applicant’s specification which makes clear that velocity is determined from observing “time series of position data”, or in other words, the same manner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the tracking system of the robotic system of Iorgulescu to directly track/measure velocity as disclosed in Quaid with a reasonable expectation of success. As disclosed by Quaid, knowing the velocity can be used to determine position information, especially between measurement times.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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 on (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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights