DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
The claims of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of US Patent 12171510.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims in the instant application are encompassed by the claims of US Patent 12171510 as mapped below:
Instant Application 18925316
US Patent 12171510
1,16
1, 10
2,17
9, 18
8
2
9
1
11
5
12
6
13
7
14
11
15
13
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(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 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bowling et al (US Pat Pub No. 2014/0039681).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Bowling et al shows a method for operating a surgical system (See at least figure 1 for surgical system with surgical robot) comprising:
a robotic system comprising a base (See at least figure 2 and 3 surgical robot mounted upon shoulder 69/67 as base on Para 0065) and being configured to support a tracker (See at least Para 0107 for tracker 214),
a localizer configured to monitor the tracker supported by the robotic system (See at least Para 0108 for localizer 216 receive signals from tracker 212/214);
controllers coupled to the robotic system and the localizer (See at least Para 0108 for navigation processor 218 receiving tracker signal and provides, coupled to, position/orientation of the tracker to localizer ; also manipulator controller 124 coupled to robot system) configured to:
determine a relationship between the base and the localizer (See at least Para 0111 for MNPL as world coordinate system as original point through shoulder 69 as base in relation to, LCLZ, localizer coordinator utilized by localizer on Para 0113 also shown on figure 12; also Para 0181 for CMVB as the virtual rigid body coordinate system in between base and localizer as a relationship between;
also on Para 0271 for the commanded pose and commanded velocity of coordinate system CMVB relative to coordinate system MNPL are the final output of the behavior control processes);
monitor the relationship to detect an error related to robotic system or the localizer (See at Para 0338 for inherent signal error caused tracker sensor to localizer changing the coordinate relationship especially in CMVB; also on Para 0192 for tendency to drift occurred as error);
modify operation of the robotic system in response to detection of the error (See at least Para 0192 for correction force added to correct the drift; also on Para 0338 for compensator 689 compensate inherent errors by sensor).
Regarding claim 2, Bowling et al shows the robotic system comprises a robotic arm coupled to the base and a surgical tool supported by the robotic arm (See at least figure 4 and 5 for robotic arm 68/70 along with surgical tool 160, Para 0060, connect to base 67/69 on Para 0065);
the tracker is coupled the surgical tool (See at least Para 0107 for tracker attached to end effector);
modify operation of one or both of the robotic arm and the surgical tool in response to detection of the error (See at least Para 0192 for correction force added to correct the drift; also on Para 0338 for compensator 689 compensate inherent errors by sensor).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Bowling et al shows modify operation of the robotic system by being configured to command the robotic arm to move to a hold position (See at least Para 0271 for the commanded pose as output of the behavior control processes; also on Para 0280 for instrument in static pose as hold position).
Regarding claim 4, Bowling et al shows modify operation of the robotic system by being configured to lock a current state of the robotic arm (See at least Para 0280 for instrument in static pose as hold position while providing constant torque upon joint for locking the joint position in static).
Regarding claim 5, Bowling et al shows operation of the robotic system by being configured to command the robotic system to power off (See at least Para 0359 for deactivate the power generating unit as power off as power output excess limit value of Para 0417).
Regarding claim 6, Bowling et al shows operation of the robotic system by being configured to command the surgical tool to stop (See at least Para 0387 for manipulator controller stops due to over limit if manipulator damaged).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Bowling et al shows the error detected by the controller comprises improper operation of the robotic arm (See at least Para 0387 for manipulator controller stops due to over limit if manipulator damaged or robot joint exceed robot arm joint limit);
Regarding claim 8, Bowling et al shows the error detected by the one or more controllers comprises improper localizer calibration data (See at least Para 0338 for inherent error for offset due to temperature drift for compensator calibration).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Bowling et al shows one or more sensors coupled to one or both of the robotic system and the localizer (See at least Para 0336 for sensor 108), and controller configured to utilize the sensors to determine a cause of the error (See at least Para 0338 for inherent error for offset due to temperature drift for compensator calibration originated from sensor).
Regarding claim 10, Bowling et al shows the controller configured o:
utilize the one or more sensors to determine a first cause and a second cause of the error (See at least Para 0078 for encoder sensors 112, 114 for output signal draft on Para 0338 determined error on which joint caused, Para 0492);
apply weighting factors to measurements from the sensor to determine an
extent to which causes contributed to the error (See at least Para 0488 for input to the system sum is weighted; also on Para 0492 for encoder data for joint angle variable on weighted average data, Para 0522).
Regarding claim 11,Bowlign et al shows sensor is coupled to the robotic system include a joint encoder ( See at least Para 0492 for joint encoder and encoder data for joint angle variable).
Regarding claim 12, Bowling et al shows sensor is coupled to the localizer and include a position sensor (See at least Para 0108 for tracker as the position sensor for position and orientation signal coupled to localizer).
Regarding claim 13, Bowling et al shows controller configured to generate an alert or notification relating to the error (See at least Para 0368 for error message displayed on the user interface 130).
Regarding claim 14, Bowling et al shows determine a first relationship between the localizer and the tracker using tracking data from the localizer (See at least Para 0108 for localizer 216 receiving signal from tracker 212/214 and outputs positional/orientation signal of tracker with respect to localizer);
determine a second relationship between the tracker and the base using kinematic data from the robotic system (See at least Para 0181 and 0272 for kinematic data of the robot system) and known relationship data between the tracker and the robotic system (See at least Para 0108 for localizer 216 receiving signal from tracker 212/214 and outputs positional/orientation signal of tracker with respect to localizer); combine the first relationship and the second relationship (See at least Para 0380 for tracker using LCLZ coordinate system in relation to MNLP along with/based on the forward kinematics module for the implementation consolidated into localization engine 270).
Regarding claim 15, Bowling et al shows controller configured to: filter the relationship according to a first filter length to produce a first filtered relationship between the base and the localizer to control the robotic system (See at least Para 0171 for finite impulse response filter as the first filter for averaging purpose incorporating the MNPL coordinate for the base and BONE coordinate system for tracker/localizer with coordinate transformer 354);
filter the relationship according to a second filter length being shorter than the first filter length to produce a second filtered relationship between the base and the localizer (See deadband filter for drift and noise elimination upon force using deadband filter 695 on Para 0374 and 0430 with respect to energy applicator on Para 0192 filtering under threshold);
monitor the second filtered relationship to detect the error (See deadband filter for drift and noise elimination upon force using deadband filter 695 on Para 0374 and 0430 with respect to energy applicator on Para 0192 filtering under threshold).
Regarding claim 17, Bowling et al shows the robotic system includes a robotic arm coupled to the base and a surgical tool supported by the robotic arm (See at least figure 12 for robot arm having a base implementing surgical tool ), and the tracker is coupled to the surgical tool (See at least figure 12 for tracker upon the surgical tool), the method comprising
controller modifying operation of the robotic system in response to detecting the error by modifying operation of the surgical tool (See at least Para 0192 for compensate the drift error for surgical tool by energy applicator).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu, US Pat No. 9008757, surgical system, tracker, localizer, relationship with localizer, error, surgical tool also on figure 3.
Azizian et al, US Pat No. 9259282, surgical tool, reference coordinate frame.
DiMaio et al, US Pat No. 8398541.
Kang et al, US Pat No. 9060794.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian JEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3274. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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.
/Ian Jen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657