DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remark entered on May 4th, 2026.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending in current application.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a method of operation a surgical system…determining a relationship…monitoring the relationship…modifying operation…” as described in the specification. The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.”
If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: localizer and controller recited in claim 1.
In this instant case, applicant recited localizer and controller are deemed to be apparatus means that is utilizing generic placeholder as localizer and controller functional performing utilizing the term “configured to” without precedent structure modifier and thus are treated as means plus function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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
Claim Limitation :
determine a relationship between the base and the localizer [Please see figure 3, 4 and below for a relationship between the base and the localizer definition].
Note:
Applicant’s written description figure 4 below exhibited the relationship as the data/signal detected as raw relationship, first filtered relationship, second filtered relationship or third filtered relationship.
Applicant’s written description figure 3 below exhibited the relationship between the base 16 and localizer 44.
Base 16 coordinate: MNPL (Please see MNPL of Bowling reference below).
Localizer 44 coordinate : LCLZ ((Please see LCLZ of Bowling below).
Further, Para 0086 of applicant’s publication states the relationship are shown as one of component of the spatial error(x, y, z, r, p, y), or positional magnitude or angle magnitude over time.
PNG
media_image1.png
434
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
597
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reference: Bowling et al (US Pat Pub No. 2014/0039681) shows determine a relationship between the base and the localizer
PNG
media_image3.png
263
591
media_image3.png
Greyscale
-- See at least Para 0111 of Bowling 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 above.
Please also see applicant’s figure 3 for MNLP and LCLZ for similar to applicant’s MNPL as a base relation to localizer, LCLZ exhibited on applicant’s figure 3 above.
-- also on at least Para 0181 of Bowling for CMVB discussed as the virtual rigid body coordinate system in between base and localizer as a relationship similar to applicant’s figure 3 above.
-- also on at least Para 0271 of Bowling 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).
Claim Limitation:
monitor the relationship to detect an error [Please see following figure 4 ,5 and below for relationship and error definition].
PNG
media_image4.png
538
1132
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Note:
See applicant’s dependent claim 20 further defined error as improper operation.
See applicant’s written description figure 5 below for how the relationship signal/data being monitor for error.
See applicant’s written description Para 0014 states detection of error or loss of accuracy and Para 0062 states error in the sensor (encoder, localization feedback data, etc.) as basis for error.
See applicant’s Para 0062 states noise may be introduced into the system 10 through measurement error in the sensors (e.g., encoders, localization feedback data, etc.)
Para 0076 of applicant’s written description states examples of the error as in the positioning of the manipulator 14, e.g., based on encoder data or calibration errors, are corrected by the system 10 by making fine adjustments to the raw relationship over time.
Para 0078 of applicant’s written description states any abrupt or significant magnitude changes in the raw relationship indicate a notable issue in the system 10. One example of such abrupt change in the raw relationship is shown in its signal in FIG. 5 wherein the magnitude of the signal exhibits a spike, which can be seen instantaneously in the raw relationship and delayed in the first filtered relationship. To detect a loss in accuracy of the system 10, the error detection technique is provided to compare the values of the raw relationship (or a lightly filtered version of the raw relationship).
Para 0091 of applicant’s written description states examples of the error as it relates to the localizer 44 include, but are not limited to, the following:
undesired movement of the localizer 44 (such as during machining);
improper operation of the localizer 44;
failure of any one or more components of the localizer 44;
improper calibration of the localizer 44;
and any other electrical or mechanical degradation of the same.
Additionally, the error may indicate improper calibration of the tool 20.
The error may relate to any one or more of the aforementioned problems.
The error may relate to other problems associated with any other component or subcomponent not specifically recited herein and being in the path of transforms (T1), (T2), and (T3′).
Reference: Bowling et al (US Pat Pub No. 2014/0039681) shows monitor the relationship to detect an error:
See at least Para 0338 for error detected where states “compensator 689 compensates for these errors by adding or subtracting offset values that are specific for the sensor” .
See at least Para 0339 for the relationship being monitored as “the gravity compensated signals from sensor 108 are applied to a CMVB force converter 696. Converter 696 converts these forces and torques from a coordinate system specific to sensor 108 into the equivalent forces and torques applied to coordinate system CMVB. The Jacobian employed by CMVB force converter 696 is a Jacobian with constant coefficients that is defined at the start of the procedure in which the manipulator is employed. This Jacobian is based on the relative pose between the coordinate system of sensor 108 and coordinate system CMVB. Converter 696 thus outputs representations of the forces and torques measured by sensor 108 that are expressed in coordinate system CMVB.
See at least Para 0111 where states, “To perform this process, controller 124 and processor 218 collectively keep track of the poses of a number of different system components and the patient 600. Each component pose can be considered tracked relative to a world coordinate system. The world coordinate system has an origin and an orientation (i.e., a set of X- Y- and Z-axes) that, for the procedure being performed, are both static. The coordinate system of the manipulator 50 is the world coordinate system, MNPL, as seen in FIG. 12. In one version, the origin of manipulator coordinate system MNPL is a point along the axis through the shoulder 69 associated with upper arm 70. This point is the intersection of the axis around which the shoulder 69 rotates and the axes around which the arm links 74 and 76 rotate. In FIG. 12, to distinguish between the structure of the manipulator upper arm 70 and the manipulator coordinate system MNPL, the coordinate system is shown in dashed lines.”
Claim Limitation:
error related to robotic system or the localizer [Please also see applicant’s dependent claim 20 defined error as improper operation along with “an error” definition set forth above].
Reference: Bowling et al (US Pat Pub No. 2014/0039681) shows error related to robotic system or the localizer.
See at least Para 0196 for “orientation regulator 368 determines the restoring forces and torques that need to be applied to the virtual rigid body to prevent this drift”.
See at least Para 0198 for “the application of either one of these sets of forces and torques to the virtual rigid body can result in the manipulator 50 positioning the instrument so that the instrument appreciably drifts from an acceptable range of orientations.
See at least Para 0338 for error detected where states “compensator 689 compensates for these errors by adding or subtracting offset values that are specific for the sensor”.
See at least Para 0336 for “the data for compensation value tables maintained by compensator 689 can be defined each time the manipulator 50 is initially activated. To obtain these data, the arms 68 and 70, position the instrument 160 and attached energy applicator 184 in a number of predefined orientations. Compensator 689, based on the output from sensor 108 when the instrument is in each of these orientations, generates the data for the look up tables.
Claim Limitation:
modify operation of the robotic system [Please see applicant’s written description, Para 0093 where states the controller 30 is configured to modify operation of the system 10 and/or manipulator 14 in response to determining that the error has occurred.]
Note: applicant recited controller is to be interpreted under means plus function. Please see Page 4 above.
Reference: Bowling et al (US Pat Pub No. 2014/0039681) shows modify operation of the robotic system
See at least Para 0087 for “ joint motor controller 126 regulates the application of energization signals to a single one of the joint motors 101. The primary function of the joint motor controller 126 is to apply energization signals to the associated motor 101 so that the motor drives the associated joint to an angle that approaches the below discussed commanded joint angle. The signal from the rotary encoder 114 is employed as a feedback signal representative of the actual joint angle to perform this type of motor regulation. Some controllers 126 calculate the energization signals using cascaded position, speed, and current control loops. Each control loop is often implemented using proportional-integral-derivative control. A signal representative of the feed forward torque is often added to the input of the current control loop to improve the responsiveness of the controller 126.”
See at least Para 0111 for “Manipulator controller 124 and navigation processor 218 cooperate to position the end effector 110 so that the energy applicator 184 is appropriately positioned at the site at which the procedure is to be performed on the patient 600. As part of this positioning, manipulator controller 124 does not position the energy applicator 184 outside of defined boundaries. To perform this process, controller 124 and processor 218 collectively keep track of the poses of a number of different system components and the patient 600. Each component pose can be considered tracked relative to a world coordinate system. The world coordinate system has an origin and an orientation (i.e., a set of X- Y- and Z-axes) that, for the procedure being performed, are both static. The coordinate system of the manipulator 50 is the world coordinate system, MNPL, as seen in FIG. 12. In one version, the origin of manipulator coordinate system MNPL is a point along the axis through the shoulder 69 associated with upper arm 70.”
Claim Limitation:
modify in response to detection of the error [See applicant’s dependent claim 20 defined error as improper operation; also see above for applicant’s definition of error].
Reference: Bowling et al (US Pat Pub No. 2014/0039681) shows modify in response to detection of the error
See at least Para 0192 states, “ This drift occurs due to such factors as rounding errors, machine precision and the inherent limits associated with discrete time modeling. Drift can also occur as a consequence of the micro-environmental disturbances in the vicinity of the instrument. To compensate for this drift, a correction force is added to the calculation of the force applied to the virtual rigid body… In one implementation, distance Δd is computed by determining the negative of the magnitude of the distance between the actual position and the target position. In one implementation, the commanded position is employed as the representation of the actual position of the energy applicator 184.”
See at least Para 0338 and 0339 for gravity error compensation as one of the error modification exhibited along with compensator compensation with coordinate adjustment discussed below in the response section.
See at least Para 0177 - 0179 states “ minimize the difference between the filtered and unfiltered target positions... Another procedure is the precise shaping of bone to facilitate precise seating of an implant. For these procedures, the manipulator is set to reduce the defined rate that is applied to the feed calculator…in the generation of filtered target positions that define path segments that are essentially identical to the path segments defined by the unfiltered set of target positions…The filtered target positions are applied to the curvature calculator… based on data defining multiple spaced apart filtered target positions, determines the curvature of the current filtered path…
The filtered target positions are also forwarded to a target location coordinate transformer 354, also a sub-module component of the tool path force calculator 278. Coordinate transformer 354 maps each filtered target position, which is in coordinate system BONE into coordinate system MNPL. This filtered target position of the origin of coordinate system EAPP is applied to an energy applicator force calculator 358, also part of tool path force calculator 278” as position precising using filter along with further modified filtered target position.
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).
Response to Argument
In response to applicant’s remark that Bowling does not shows applicant recited claim limitation for
monitoring the base localizer relationship to detect an error relation to one or both of the robotic system and location;
modify operation of the robot system in response to detection of the error.
however, it is noted that applicant’s does not particularly comprehensive and accurate.
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation regarding “an error” and “a relationship” must be defined and confined primary in order to set forth the metes and bounds.
Applicant’s attention is directed to applicant’s written description. In this instance, Para 0014 states detection of error or loss of accuracy and Para 0062 states error in the sensor (encoder, localization feedback data, etc.) as basis for error.
Further, Para 0086 of applicant’s publication states the relationship as one of component of the spatial error(x, y, z, r, p, y), or positional magnitude or angle magnitude over time.
Please also see applicant’s figures 3 and 4 below a relationship is a signal passing through multiplexer and filter and signal content as the electromagnetic/rf signal on applicant’s written description, Para 0028 and 0029
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
538
1132
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (These relationships are signals passing through Multiplier, Filter)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
582
945
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (This is Localizer with coordinate LCLZ)][AltContent: textbox (This is Base with coordinate MNPL)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (The relationship between LCLZ and MNPL)]
In addition, applicant’s written description along with figure 5 set forth the metes and bounds regard the claim term “error”; however, applicant’s attention is directed to applicant’s written description below to set forth the metes and bounds regards applicant’s claim limitation.
See applicant’s dependent claim 20 defined error as improper operation.
See applicant’s written description figure 5 below for how the relationship signal/data being monitor for error.
PNG
media_image6.png
401
989
media_image6.png
Greyscale
See applicant’s written description Para 0014 states detection of error or loss of accuracy and Para 0062 states error in the sensor (encoder, localization feedback data, etc.) as basis for error.
See applicant’s Para 0062 states noise may be introduced into the system 10 through measurement error in the sensors (e.g., encoders, localization feedback data, etc.)
Para 0076 of applicant’s written description states examples of the error as in the positioning of the manipulator 14, e.g., based on encoder data or calibration errors, are corrected by the system 10 by making fine adjustments to the raw relationship over time.
Para 0078 of applicant’s written description states any abrupt or significant magnitude changes in the raw relationship indicate a notable issue in the system 10. One example of such abrupt change in the raw relationship is shown in its signal in FIG. 5 wherein the magnitude of the signal exhibits a spike, which can be seen instantaneously in the raw relationship and delayed in the first filtered relationship. To detect a loss in accuracy of the system 10, the error detection technique is provided to compare the values of the raw relationship (or a lightly filtered version of the raw relationship).
Para 0091 of applicant’s written description states examples of the error as it relates to the localizer 44 include, but are not limited to, the following:
undesired movement of the localizer 44 (such as during machining);
improper operation of the localizer 44;
failure of any one or more components of the localizer 44;
improper calibration of the localizer 44;
and any other electrical or mechanical degradation of the same.
Additionally, the error may indicate improper calibration of the tool 20.
The error may relate to any one or more of the aforementioned problems.
The error may relate to other problems associated with any other component or subcomponent not specifically recited herein and being in the path of transforms (T1), (T2), and (T3′).
I.
Furthermore, applicant’s remark states the coordinate relationship of Bowling is used operationally not diagnostically; however, applicant’s remark does not particularly accurate.
In this instant case, Para 0287 - 0289 of Bowling discussed inverse jacobian matrix that is used for inverse kinematics with measured angle joint component on Para 0289 as exhibited on figure 13c for jacobian calculator 564 and forward kinematics module 562 for joint angle limit diagnostic applied upon joint limit comparator 582 for joint angle limit purpose.
Applicant’s Para 0086 states above also states angle magnitude over time and Para 0095 for the only applicant’s written description states “diagnostics capabilities” as error.
Thus, Bowling indeed shows surgical robot apparatus diagnostic function.
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., relationship evaluated diagnostically) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
In addition, applicant’s recited apparatus system claim does not require the surgical robotic of Bowling to be presented as diagnostic purpose since applicant recited robot apparatus directs to a surgical robotic system with localizer and controller.
It is also noted apparatus claim claims what apparatus is but not what apparatus does. Please see MPEP 2114.II. Apparatus Claim. MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART.
[A] pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
In this instant case, Bowling shows the apparatus regarding a surgical system…comprising a robotic system…a localizer…controller coupled to robotic system and localizer without reciting specific diagnostic.
Indeed, Bowling exhibited “coordinate relationship are used operationally” as applicant stated in applicant’s remark; nevertheless, Bowling also exhibited the relationship is used for diagnostically discussed above.
It is also noted that robot operation and diagnostic goes hand to hand where both applicant’s robot apparatus and Bowling’s robot apparatus require signal diagnostic prior operation in order to ascertain proper surgical operation as fundamental in surgical robotic device.
Furthermore, applicant’s remark states Bowling’s signal error are not made by monitoring a relationship since Para 0338 of Bowling mainly shows force/torque sensor signal level conditioning and the phrase especially in CMVB as not supported by specification; however, applicant’s remark does not particularly accurate.
In this instant case, applicant’s attention is directed to applicant’s figure 3 and 5 that set forth for what exactly is a relationship being monitored along with applicant’s written description.
Referring to applicant’s figures 4 and 5, the relationship as a signal with magnitude being monitored and being processed between multiplexer and filter commensurate with respect to Bowling for Bowling’s signal is also being monitored for error discussed above.
In addition, Applicant’s invention also uses filter for signal processing, as also directs signal level conditioning states in applicant’s remark similar to Bowling.
In further, applicant’s attention is not only directed to at least one Para 0338 of Bowling recited but also Para 0339 of Bowling specifically, especially, discussed the relationship converting the detected force/torque signal into CMVB coordinate in subsequent same vein with adding gravity compensation signal from sensor toward CMVB converter 696.
In this instance, applicant is advised to considered reference as a whole rather than one signal paragraph where applicant’s invention is recited with respect to Bowling et al but not one single individual paragraph.
Please see 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).
It is also noted that applicant’s remark directs to mere general allegation since applicant's remark fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In this instant case, applicant’s remark merely states one single cited paragraph of Bowling and states the recited paragraph does not shows applicant’s invention without providing parallel and comparable discussion between applicant’s invention and Bowing in substantial content and thus are directed to merely general allegation.
Applicant is advised to provide detailed and comprehensive analyzed discussion with applicant’s invention along with recited reference without only reciting one individual single paragraph since it is Bowling reference as a whole recited rather than one individual paragraph of Bowling.
Furthermore, applicant’s remark states Bowling does not show “monitoring the relationship between the base and the localizer” since the compensator does not monitor the relationship to detect an error with sensor characteristic in the robot system and independent from the spatial relationship on Para 0338 of Bowling. However, applicant’s remark does not particularly accurate and comprehensive.
In this instant case, applicant’s attention is directed to further Para 0339 of Bowling states the “jacobian matrix is based upon the relative pose between the coordinate system of sensor and coordinate system of CMVB… outputs representations of the forces and torques measured by sensor 108 that are expressed in coordinate system CMVB.”
Thus, Bowling indeed shows the relationship being monitored as relative pose as in relationship, where CMVB coordinate is one of claim limitation “the relationship between the base and the localizer”,
as the relationship between MNLP and LCLZ expressed on applicant’s Figure 3 and Figure 12 of Bowling.
PNG
media_image5.png
582
945
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
764
999
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, applicant’s states the correction applied for sensor signal does not change CMVB coordinate; however, applicant’s remark does particularly accurate. Applicant’s attention is directed to Para 0339 of Bowling above where discussed force and torque sensor measurement converted into CMVB coordinate.
It is also noted applicant is advised to consider reference as a whole rather than one individual single paragraph as Para 0338.
In addition, skilled in the art could not located the basis and origin regards applicant’s remark regarding, “corrections applied to local force/torque sensor signals do not change the definition, position or orientation of CMVB”. Applicant is advised to provide original of applicant’s remark rather than mere general allegation.
It is also noted that applicant’s remark directs to mere general allegation since applicant's remark fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In this instant case, applicant’s remark merely states one single cited paragraph of Bowling and states the recited paragraph does not shows applicant’s invention without providing parallel and comparable discussion between applicant’s invention and Bowing in substantial content and thus are directed to merely general allegation.
In addition, applicant’s remark states the positional/trajectory deviation during motion as drift arise for sensor characteristics on Para 0192 of Bowling is not error detected in robotic system;
However, applicant’s attention is directed to applicant’s dependent claims 20 further defined error as improper operation.
Thus, in this instant case, the positional/trajectory deviation during motion recited on Para 0192 is improper operation of the robotic/error detected and further corrected by the compensator of Bowling.
Further, applicant’s written description Para 0014 states detection of error or loss of accuracy and Para 0062 states error in the sensor (encoder, localization feedback data, etc.) as basis for error.
Paragraph 0091 of applicant’s written description also set forth unlimited example for error definition discussed above as “undesired movement of the localizer 44 (such as during machining); improper operation of the localizer 44;
failure of any one or more components of the localizer 44; improper calibration of the localizer 44; and any other electrical or mechanical degradation of the same. Additionally, the error may indicate improper calibration of the tool 20. The error may relate to any one or more of the aforementioned problems. The error may relate to other problems associated with any other component or subcomponent not specifically recited herein and being in the path of transforms (T1), (T2), and (T3′)” defined as error.
It is also noted that applicant’s remark directs to mere general allegation since applicant's remark fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In this instant case, applicant’s remark merely states one single cited paragraph of Bowling and states the recited paragraph does not shows applicant’s invention without providing parallel and comparable discussion between applicant’s invention and Bowing in substantial content and thus are directed to merely general allegation.
II.
Further, applicant’s remark states Para 0192, 0338 does not shows monitoring the relationship and thus does not shows the modifying the robot operation in response;
however, applicant’s attention is directed to above discussion for Bowling indeed shows the monitoring the relationship commensurate with applicant’s written description in parallel comparison exhibiting the relationship being monitored.
Furthermore, applicant’s remark states Para 0192 does not show the error related to robot system yet merely shows “correction addressed trajectory or positional error of applicator”;
Thus, applicant’s remark indeed states the error is shown by Bowling.
however, applicant’s remark does not particularly comprehensive.
In this instant case, trajectory/position error of the applicator is also part of the robotic system
Therefore, Bowling indeed shows the robotic system correction with detected error.
In further, applicant’s attention is directed to applicant’s dependent claims 20 further defined error as improper operation.
Thus, in this instant case, the positional/trajectory deviation during motion recited on Para 0192 is improper operation of the robotic/error detected and further corrected by the compensator of Bowling.
Further, applicant’s written description Para 0014 states detection of error or loss of accuracy and Para 0062 states error in the sensor (encoder, localization feedback data, etc.) as basis for error.
Paragraph 0091 of applicant’s written description also set forth unlimited example for error definition discussed above as “undesired movement of the localizer 44 (such as during machining); improper operation of the localizer 44;
failure of any one or more components of the localizer 44; improper calibration of the localizer 44; and any other electrical or mechanical degradation of the same. Additionally, the error may indicate improper calibration of the tool 20. The error may relate to any one or more of the aforementioned problems. The error may relate to other problems associated with any other component or subcomponent not specifically recited herein and being in the path of transforms (T1), (T2), and (T3′)” defined as error.
Further, applicant’s remark stated Para 0338 of Bowling only shows errors in sensor output signal yet does not relate to detect an error related to robotic system; however, applicant’s remark does not particularly comprehensive.
In this instant case, applicant’s attention is further directed to Para 0339 of Bowling, where Bowling discussed the relationship conversion in relative pose between the coordinate system of sensor and coordinate system of CMVB… outputs representations of the forces and torques measured by sensor 108 that are expressed in coordinate system CMVB.” along with utilization of the Jacobian matrix where this jacobian matrix is tool used for error correction in the robotic system based upon the received sensor signal, at least Para 0083 of Bowling unified in matrix form on Para 0113, along with adding gravity error compensation signal from sensor into CMVB coordinate, along with compensator compensation 689 in system level on Para 0338.
Furthermore, applicant’s remark states Bowling does not show “modifying robot operation” since Bowling does not show relationship being monitored and detected the error;
however, applicant’s remark is directed to Page 28 – 36 above where the claim limitation regarding “relationship being monitored and detected the error” has been discussed above shown by Bowling.
PNG
media_image4.png
538
1132
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
401
989
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It is also applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Weinstein et al, US Pat Pub No. 2018/0185100. Localizer, surgical robot, coordinate. See figure 3 for relationship between MNPL and LCLZ.
Zhang et al, US Pat Pub No. 2019/0254756. Localizer, surgical robot, coordinate. . See figure 3 for relationship between MNPL and LCLZ.
Ebbitt et al, US Pat Pub No. 2019/0231447. See figure 3 for relationship between MNPL and LCLZ.
Morgan, US Pat Pub No. 2021/0007809. . See figure 1 for relationship between MNPL and LCLZ.
Daley et al, US Pat Pub No. 2023/0389992, Localizer, surgical robot, coordinate. See figure 1 for LCLZ.
Cameron et al, US Pat Pub No. 2020/0297431, 2020/0297357, Localizer, surgical robot, coordinate.
Roessler, US Pat Pub No. 2017/0333137. Localizer, surgical robot, coordinate.
Bowling et al, US Pat Pub No. 2019/0231446. Same inventor with reference Bowling. See figure 1B for LCLZ and MNPL.
Schipper et al, US Pat Pub No. 2021/0183075.
Snyder et al, US Pat Pub No. 2020/0222122.
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.
Hafez, US Pat Pub No. 2024/0041540.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights