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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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 Objections
Claim 1, 7, 10-11, 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Lines 8 and 10: “second robot arm” should be revised to “second robotic arm” to maintain consistency.
Claim 7 Lines 11 and 16: “second robot arm” should be revised to “second robotic arm” to maintain consistency.
Claim 10 Lines 1-2: “first robot arm” should be revised to “first robotic arm” to maintain consistency.
Claim 11 Lines 8 and 10: “second robot arm” should be revised to “second robotic arm” to maintain consistency.
Claim 17 Lines 11 and 16: “second robot arm” should be revised to “second robotic arm” to maintain consistency.
Claim 20 Lines 1-2: “first robot arm” should be revised to “first robotic arm” to maintain consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “effect” in claims 8 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “effect” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1-5, 8, 10-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2023/0200629 A1), herein “Yang”, published June 29th, 2023.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Yang discloses a device and method comprising a processor configured to:
receive an indication of a plurality of steps of a surgical procedure associated with a patient, wherein one or more steps in the plurality of steps of the surgical procedure involve use of a first robotic arm having a first end effector attached and a second robotic arm (See 0003, “[…] medical procedure using a medical robotic system, robotic arms can come into contact with one another (e.g., arm collisions) and with the environment (e.g., patient, bed-side staff, and accessories).” See also 0054, “[…] a robotically-enabled medical system capable of performing a variety of medical procedures, including both minimally invasive, such as laparoscopy, and non-invasive, such as endoscopy, procedures.” See also 0057, “[…] the system 10 may comprise a cart 11 having one or more robotic arms 12 to deliver a medical instrument, such as a steerable endoscope 13, which may be a procedure-specific bronchoscope for bronchoscopy, to a natural orifice access point […]”);
identify a first candidate motion and a second candidate motion of the first robotic arm configured to place the first end effector in a target end effector position internal to the patient (See 0059, “[…] directed down the patient's trachea and lungs after insertion using precise commands from the robotic system until reaching the target destination or operative site.” See also 0072, “Redundant degrees of freedom allow the robotic arms 12 to position their respective end effectors 22 at a specific position, orientation, and trajectory in space using different linkage positions and joint angles. This allows for the system to position and direct a medical instrument from a desired point in space […]”);
determine, for the first candidate motion, a first number of associated interactions in which the first robotic arm and the second robot arm co-occupy space external to the patient during the surgical procedure (See 0006, “[…] medical robotic system includes a first kinematic chain and one or more sensors positioned to detect one or more parameters of contact with the first kinematic chain. The method includes receiving one or more parameters of contact with the first kinematic chain detected by the one or more sensors; determining a constraint associated with the first kinematic chain based on the one or more parameters of contact with the first kinematic chain; and causing adjustment of a configuration […]” See also 0153-0154, “[…] end effectors of one or more robotic arms (and any tools or instruments coupled thereto) and/or a remote center (e.g., along an axis of a tool) associated therewith can advantageously maintain in pose and/or position within a patient […] the system can use one or more DoFs associated with a first set of one or more motorized links (e.g., in the form of one or more robotic arms—e.g., the robotic arms 205 illustrated in FIG. 26) in coordinated and/or synchronized motion with one or more DoFs associated with a second set of one or more motorized links […]” See also 0193, “[…] representation of a human (e.g., a patient) with a map based on information detected by one or more sensors […] human is represented as a point cloud (e.g., a group of points or dots) in a three-dimensional space (e.g., each point is associated with a three-dimensional coordinate). In some embodiments, each point has a probability value indicating the likelihood that the point belongs to a particular object (e.g., the patient).” Examiner notes the association of constraints determined by parameters for multiple kinematic chains are used to adjust positional configurations of the robotic arm(s) to enable collision avoidance when two arms are in close proximity while engaging a surgical site, thus limiting the amount of potential interactions for the robotic arm(s));
determine, for the second candidate motion, a second number of associated interactions in which the first robotic arm and the second robot arm co-occupy space external to the patient during the surgical procedure (See 0006, 0153-0154 and 0193 as referenced above. Examiner notes the first and second number of interactions are determined using the same positional conditions of the two robotic arms, so the distinction between the two merely involves rearranging the associated interactions);
select a candidate motion of the first robotic arm, from the first candidate motion and the second candidate motion, based on the first number of interactions and the second number of interactions (See 0123, “[…] computer vision-based tracking techniques use feature tracking to determine motion of the camera, and thus the endoscope. Some features of the localization module 95 may identify circular geometries in the preoperative model data 91 that correspond to anatomical lumens and track the change of those geometries to determine which anatomical lumen was selected, as well as the relative rotational and/or translational motion […]”); and
generate a control signal based on the selected candidate motion of the first robotic arm (See 0062, “[…] control the entire system or sub-system(s) thereof […] the instructions may cause the components of the robotics system to actuate the relevant carriages and arm mounts, actuate the robotics arms, and control the medical instruments […] in response to receiving the control signal, the motors in the joints of the robotics arms may position the arms into a certain posture.”).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Yang further discloses the device of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine, during a first step in the plurality of surgical procedure steps, a current arm position of the first robotic arm and a current arm position of the second robotic arm that are external to a patient (See 0009, “[…] receive, from the one or more sensors, first sensor information corresponding to one or more positional locations of one or more objects that are within a vicinity of the first robotic arm; generate or update an object map based on the first sensor information, wherein the object map characterizes spatial relationships of objects adjacent to the first robotic arm […]”); and
determine, during a second step in the plurality of surgical procedure steps, the target end effector position of the first end effector, wherein the first candidate motion and a second candidate motion of the first robotic arm are identified based on the current arm positions of the first and second robotic arms and the plurality of steps of the surgical procedure. (See 0059 as referenced above. See also 0060, “[…] the endoscope 13 may also be used to deliver a fiducial to “mark” the location of the target nodule as well. In other instances, diagnostic and therapeutic treatments may be delivered during the same procedure.” Examiner notes the candidate motion(s) are directed towards the target destination or operative site and is a step proceeding the determination of potential robotic arm trajectories avoiding collision with proximal objects or another robot arm, thus being a second step)
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Yang further discloses the device of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the control signal is configured to indicate the selected candidate motion of the first robotic arm (See 0062 as referenced above. See also 0125, “[…] embedded EM tracker in one or more positions of the medical instrument (e.g., the distal tip of an endoscope) may provide real-time indications of the progression of the medical instrument through the patient's anatomy.” See also 0217, “[…] includes (372) generating or updating an object map (e.g., a data structure that indicates positions and/or sizes of objects adjacent to the medical robotic system, in particular the first robotic arm) based on the sensor information […]”).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Yang further discloses the device of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the control signal is configured to indicate one or more of:
the first candidate motion, the first number of interactions, the second candidate motion, the second number of interactions, a recommendation to move the first robotic arm according to the selected candidate motion, an order in which to perform the selected candidate motion and a motion of the second robotic arm, or a time at which to perform the selected candidate motion (See 0006, 0125, 0153-0154, 0193 and 0217 as referenced above. Examiner notes the real-time indication of medical instrument position(s) through the EM tracker combined with a generated and updated object map from vision sensor information are all capable of indicating the multiple candidate motions and interactions).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Yang further discloses the device of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein each step in the plurality of steps of the surgical procedure is associated with a surgical site internal to the patient, a second end effector is attached to a distal end of the second robotic arm, and wherein the processor is further configured to:
identify a set of candidate motions, comprising the first candidate motion and the second candidate motion, based on the plurality of steps of the surgical procedure, wherein each candidate motion in the set of candidate motions allows the first end effector and the second end effector to access the surgical site at a given step in the plurality of steps of the surgical procedure (See 0059 and 0072 as referenced above. See also 0086, “[…] the carriages 43 of the system 36 may be rotated and vertically adjusted to position pairs of the robotic arms 39 on opposite sides of the table 38, such that instrument 59 may be positioned using the arm mounts 45 to be passed through minimal incisions on both sides of the patient […]”).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Yang further discloses the device of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein one or more steps in the plurality of steps of the surgical procedure involve use of a third robotic arm, and the processor is further configured to predict an effect, caused by the selected candidate motion of the first robotic arm, on a future motion of a third robotic arm, wherein the control signal is further configured to indicate the effect (See 0003, “[…] collisions between robotic arms may be predicted and avoided based on known arm configurations […]” See also 0228, “[…] six robotic arms in total, with first through third robotic arms on one base and fourth through sixth robotic arms on another base, a cost function can be written […]”).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Yang further discloses the device of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the first robot arm comprises a plurality of joints configured to move the first robot arm, and the processor is further configured to select, from the plurality of joints, a joint of the first robotic arm to articulate to achieve the selected candidate motion (See 0062, “[…] in response to receiving the control signal, the motors in the joints of the robotics arms may position the arms into a certain posture.” See also 0072, “[…] robotic arms 12 may generally comprise robotic arm bases 21 and end effectors 22, separated by a series of linkages 23 that are connected by a series of joints 24, each joint comprising an independent actuator, each actuator comprising an independently controllable motor.”).
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.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yang et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2023/0200629 A1) in view of Spector (US Patent No. 6,004,016).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Yang discloses the device of claim 1 and method of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor being configured to select the candidate motion, from the first candidate motion and the second candidate motion, based on the first number of interactions and the second number of interactions comprises the processor being configured to:
on a condition that the first number of interactions is less than the second number of interactions, select the first candidate motion; and
on a condition that the first number of interactions is greater than the second number of interactions, select the second candidate motion.
Spector, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the processor being configured to select the candidate motion, from the first candidate motion and the second candidate motion, based on the first number of interactions and the second number of interactions comprises the processor being configured to:
on a condition that the first number of interactions is less than the second number of interactions, select the first candidate motion (See Col. 14 Line 58 to Col. 15 Line 8, “[…] selecting a first trial path and determining whether the path passes through any full or mixed cells […] systematically selecting a second and other trial paths, if the earlier selected trial paths are subject to collision, wherein a collision-free path is ultimately selected […] detecting a midpoint in a portion of the trial path […] selecting a trial waypoint located on a line through the midpoint and orthogonal to the trial path […]” Examiner notes generating paths describes evaluating multiple candidate paths and selecting a collision-free one, and the amount of trial waypoints can be used to determine the safest route, thus including a minimal number of interactions); and
on a condition that the first number of interactions is greater than the second number of interactions, select the second candidate motion (See Col. 14 Line 58 to Col. 15 Line 8 as referenced above).
In view of Spector’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the surgical robotic system and method for identifying candidate motions and a selection of a motion based on desired interactions associated with a surgical procedure as disclosed by Yang, the selection to conditionally depend on a comparison of the amount of interactions projected for two separate motions, with a reasonable expectation of success, since both systems are directed towards motion planning of robotic systems using dynamic trajectory planning, and it is commonly found in these systems to prefer motions involving minimal interactions to increase operational efficiency.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yang et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2023/0200629 A1) in view of Tabandeh et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2019/0069962 A1), herein “Tabandeh”.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Yang discloses the device of claim 1 and method of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive user preference information and a patient position associated with the surgical procedure; and
determine a surgical constraint based on at least one of the user preference information or the patient position, wherein the processor being configured to select the candidate motion of the first robotic arm, from the first candidate motion and the second candidate motion, is further based on the surgical constraint.
Tabandeh, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the processor is further configured to:
receive user preference information and a patient position associated with the surgical procedure (See 0030, “[…] include additional constraints for determining the optimal position. The constraints may include manipulator requirements such as the avoidance of a singularity, a joint limit, or a collision of the manipulator arm while executing the surgical plan. The constraints may include line-of-sight considerations where the location of a fiducial marker array relative to the tracking system may be optimized for a particular base position or manipulator arm configuration. The constraints may further include user's preferences for the position of the base, to provide the user with particular access points or corridors to the operational site, where the robot is still capable of executing the surgical plan.”); and
determine a surgical constraint based on at least one of the user preference information or the patient position, wherein the processor being configured to select the candidate motion of the first robotic arm, from the first candidate motion and the second candidate motion, is further based on the surgical constraint (See 0030 as referenced above. See also 0020, “[…] a system and process for dynamically positioning or repositioning a robot in a surgical context based on workspace and task requirements, manipulator requirements, or user preferences.”).
In view of Tabandeh’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the surgical robotic system and method for identifying candidate motions and a selection of a motion based on desired interactions associated with a surgical procedure as disclosed by Yang, the incorporation of higher-level surgical constraints based on user preference or patient positioning, with a reasonable expectation of success, since this combination merely applies known constraint inputs to an existing motion-selection architecture and predictably improves contextual motion planning through enhanced safety, ergonomic optimization and surgical workflow efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 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:
The available prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest in combination iterative, sequential motion planning where updated arm positions after execution of an initial first-arm motion is used to generate multiple candidate motions for a second robotic arm. This claim is distinctly novel over the prior art because of its specific iterative multi-arm motion planning logic with numeric interaction count-based selection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Bar (WO Patent Pub. No. 2023/237922 A1), filed September 22nd, 2022, which teaches dynamic collision avoidance between multiple robotic arms in a surgical system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryant Tang whose telephone number is (571)270-0145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 CST.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/BRYANT TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658