DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/6/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 11, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hulford et al. (US 2020/0253678 A1).
For claims 2, 11 and 20, Hulford discloses a surgical robotic system comprising:
a surgical table; a robotic arm that comprises a docking interface;
at least one processor (Fig. 1, 2A, 2D, 12); and
memory having instructions which when executed by the at least one processor causes the surgical robotic system to:
determine, for a surgical procedure that is to be performed upon a patient disposed on the surgical table, a planned trajectory for the robotic arm, wherein the planned trajectory comprising a plurality of movements for the robotic arm to move the docking interface from a current pose to a predefined pose (Para. 0096, where the manipulating system actively moves the arms into one or more predefined poses);
cause the robotic arm to perform at least a portion of the plurality of movements to move through the planned trajectory (Para. 0005, 0096;
detect, based on sensor data, that an object is either within a path of or is about to hit a portion of the robotic arm (Para. 0174, where the system avoid obstacle during approach to positions); and
adjust at least one of remaining movements in the plurality of movements to avoid the object from coming into contact with the portion of the robotic arm resulting in the docking interface reaching the predefined pose (Para. 0174, 0203, where movement of the robotic arm adjust the movements toward the dock destinations).
For claims 6 and 15, Hulford discloses the surgical robotic system of claims 2 and 11, wherein the robotic arm moves through the planned trajectory while input is received through an input device by a user of the surgical robotic system (Para. 0195, 0245, where the user may provide input through input devices of the surgical robotic system to initiate planned trajectory or movements).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulford et al. (US 2020/0253678 A1), as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Payyavula et al. (US 2022/0096163 A1).
For claims 5 and 14, Hulford discloses the surgical robotic system of claims 2 and 11, but does not specifically disclose further comprising a camera, wherein the memory has further instructions to receive, from the camera, an image of an operating environment that comprises the surgical table and the robotic arm as the sensor data, wherein the detecting is based on an analysis of the image. Payyavula in the same field of the art discloses a camera, wherein the memory has further instructions to receive, from the camera, an image of an operating environment that comprises the surgical table and the robotic arm as the sensor data, wherein the detecting is based on an analysis of the image (Abstract, para. 0004, 0017, 0018, 0040, 0057, 0059, 0080). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Hulford to incorporate a camera, wherein the memory has further instructions to receive, from the camera, an image of an operating environment that comprises the surgical table and the robotic arm as the sensor data, wherein the detecting is based on an analysis of the image, as taught by Payyavula to accurately monitor and track the components of the system.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 12, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulford et al. (US 2020/0253678 A1) as applied to claims 2, 11 and 20 above, and further in view of Harris et al. (US 2018/0049824 A1).
For claims 3, 12 and 21, Hulford discloses the surgical robotic system of claims 2, 11 and 20, but does not specifically disclose the plurality of movements and the predefined pose of the planned trajectory are not defined for the patient. Harris in the same field of the art discloses the plurality of movements and the predefined pose of the planned trajectory are not defined for the patient (Para. 0013, 0042, 0064, where the arms can be operated to approach approximate to the trocar without having to define for patient). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Hulford to control the plurality of movements and the predefined pose of the planned trajectory are not defined for the patient, as taught by Harris to manipulate the robot arms based on destinated positions without specified to particular patient for more adaptive operations.
For claims 10 and 19, Hulford disclose the surgical robotic system of claims 2 and 11, wherein the instructions to determine the planned trajectory comprises instructions to determine the predefined pose such that the docking interface is within a threshold distance from the cannulas (Paral 0349, where the system can control the robot arms to within specified distance from the destination poses), but does not specifically disclose a trocar that is inserted into a location on the patient, the docking interface is within a threshold distance from the trocar without using the location at which the trocar is inserted. Harris in the same field of the art discloses a trocar that is inserted into a location on the patient, the docking interface is within a threshold distance from the trocar without using the location at which the trocar is inserted (Para. 0013, 0042, 0064, where the arms can be operated to approach approximate to the trocar). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Hulford to incorporate a trocar that is inserted into a location on the patient, the docking interface is within a threshold distance from the trocar without using the location at which the trocar is inserted, as taught by Harris to apply the known concept in known surgical environment and procedures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-9, 13 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For claim(s) 4 and 13, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as a whole and specifically and determining at least one movement of the plurality of movements of the first robotic arm such that a position of at least one of a link or joint of the first robotic arm at the first predefined pose is at a maximum distance from the second robotic arm at the second predefined pose based on a given range of motion of the first robotic arm.
For claim(s) 7 and 16, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as a whole and specifically determining, as the robotic arm moves through the planned trajectory, that the docking interface is in an intermediate pose between the current pose and the predefined pose; and in response, pausing movement of the robotic arm, regardless of whether input is still being received through the input device.
Claim(s) 8, 9 and 17, 18 depend(s) on claims 7 and 16 respectively, requiring all the depended limitations/features would also be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(11,801,605) Fredrickson et al. discloses a robotic arm system that controls alignment and docking of the arm to the surgical procedure.
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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 (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights