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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation “light source” with the structure in specifications in paragraph [0012] “LED light”. It is being interpreted as means plus function.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “image capturing component with structure in the specification in [0042] “charge-coupled device”. It is being interpreted as means plus function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Brummund (US20190290370) in view of You (US20220134569) and Dimaio (US20190231460) and Kim (US20160188985).
Regarding claim 1, Dimaio teaches a surgical robot for computer-assisted surgery, comprising:
a floor-mounted base (Fig. 1 and [0010]-[0026] disclosing a floor mounted base, the floor mounted base is interpreted as a wheeled cart on the floor when stopped in line with figure 1 of the specification of the current application);
a robotic arm supported by the floor-mounted base (Fig. 1 and [0010]-[0026] disclosing the robotic arm mounted to the base); and
a calibration device on the floor-mounted base or robotic arm, the calibration
device including (fig. 1 and [0010]-[0026] disclosing the calibration device including the marker 112 that is detected by the camera for calibration).
a calibration module having a processing unit and a non-transitory computer-readable memory communicatively coupled to the processing unit and comprising computer-readable program instructions executable by the processing unit (at least [0110] disclosing the non transitory computer medium and processors for the calibration).
Brummund does not teach a light source configured for projecting light on a floor, an image capture component configured for capturing light reflected and/or backscattered from the floor. for quantifying a movement of the floor-mounted base relative to the floor using data from the image capture component associated with the light reflected and/or backscattered from the floor.
You teaches quantifying movement of the base ([0013]-[0015] disclosing the quantifying of a movement of the base for calibration);
The combination/substitution of the calibration technique of You by moving the base is obvious yielding predictable results to allow the base or trackers to be visible by the camera at a recommended position and or pose as taught by You.
Dimaio teaches a light source configured for projecting light on a floor (at least [0106] disclosing the optical sensor similar to what is used in an optical mouse, i.e., emit light),
an image capture component configured for capturing light reflected and/or
backscattered from the floor (at least [0106] disclosing the optical sensor similar to what is used in an optical mouse, i.e., to emit and capture the light ), and
for quantifying a movement of the floor-mounted base relative to the floor using data from the image capture component associated with the light reflected and/or backscattered from the floor ([0106] disclosing determining the movement position relative to a floor surface based on the optical sensor).
Brummund as modified by You already teaches imaging markers for determining position of the mobile base with respect to a camera/tracker and movement of the base, at least [0025] disclosing the maximum distance between camera and tracker, i.e., base, thus the combination/substitution of the light source and image capturing component of Dimaio is obvious for repositioning the camera when the maximum distance for accuracy of the camera is changed based on base movement, thus improving the accuracy of the tracking and for redundancy and verification.
While Dimaio does not explicitly disclose the projection of light on the floor and capturing reflected light from the floor.
Kim teaches the projection of light on the floor and capturing reflected light from the floor ([0099]-[0110] disclosing the projection of light and capturing of light).
Kim and Brummund as modified by You and Dimaio are directed towards solving the same problem of positioning of robots, thus the substitution of the projected light and reflected light as taught by Kim is obvious yielding predictable results, for verification, redundancy, and making the calibration more accurate.
Regarding claim 2, Brummund as modified by You and Dimaio and Kim teaches the surgical robot according to claim 1, wherein the calibration module is for quantifying a movement of the floor-mounted base in translation relative to a plane of the floor, and in rotation relative to a yaw axis of the base.
Dimaio further teaches the surgical robot according to claim 1, wherein the calibration module is for quantifying a movement of the floor-mounted base in translation relative to a plane of the floor, and in rotation relative to a yaw axis of the base ([0106] disclosing determining the position and orientation of the base relative to the floor).
Brummund as modified by You and Dimaio and Kim already teaches imaging markers for determining position of the mobile base, thus the combination/substitution of the light source and image capturing component of Dimaio is obvious for redundancy or verification purposes in determining the position of the cart thus improving results and reducing errors. In addition the incorporation of the orientation increases the D.O.F. of the determination thus improving the calibration of the robot/tracker.
Regarding claim 4, Brummund as modified by You and Dimaio and Kim teaches the surgical robot according to claim 1, further including at least one (Dimaio [0106] disclosing the light source directing the light to the floor).
Kim teaches and for directing light reflected and/or backscattered from the floor onto the image capture component ([0100]-[0106] disclosing the lenses to direct the emitted light to the floor and to collect the reflected light).
The combination of the teaching of Kim incorporating a lens to emit the light and receive it is obvious yielding predictable results in order to enable collecting the reflected light and determine location of the robot, it is also an obvious design choice of the functionality of an infrared optical sensor.
Regarding claim 5, Brummund as modified by You and Dimaio and Kim teaches the surgical robot according to claim 4, wherein one of the at least one lens is configured to be at most 6 inches from the floor (Dimaio [0106] disclosing the sensor near the floor).
Dimaio shows all elements per claimed invention as explained in the paragraph above. However it is silent as to the specifics of the range.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provide to Dimaio with such range close to the ground to improve the emission and collection of reflected light, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Brummund as modified by You and Dimaio and kim teaches the surgical robot according to claim 1, wherein the calibration device is mounted to the floor-mounted base (Brummund fig. 1 and [0010]-[0026] disclosing the calibration device including the marker 112 that is detected by the camera for calibration).
Regarding claim 7, Brummund as modified by You and Dimaio and Kim teaches the surgical robot according to claim 6, wherein the light source and/or the image capture component is at most 6 inches from the floor (Dimaio [0106] disclosing the sensor near the floor).
Dimaio shows all elements per claimed invention as explained in the paragraph above. However it is silent as to the specifics of the range.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provide to Dimaio with such range close to the ground to improve the emission and collection of reflected light, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Brummund as modified by You and Dimaio and Kim teaches the surgical robot according to claim 1, wherein the light source is a LED light source (Dimaio [0106] disclosing the optical sensor such as used in optical mouse, i.e., led light).
The incorporation of the LED light source is an obvious design choice of mouse tracker optical sensor, the combination of the teaching of Daimio is obvious yielding predictable results verifying/redundant location of the robotic base used in calibration of Brummund thus improving the accuracy.
Alternatively, Kim teaches the LED light ([0101]);
thus the substitution of the projected light and reflected light being LED as taught by Kim is obvious yielding predictable results, for verification, redundancy, and making the calibration more accurate.
Regarding claim 20, Brummund as modified by You and Dimaio teaches system according to claim 19, wherein the at least one calibration device includes:
a calibration module having a processing unit and a non-transitory computer-readable memory communicatively coupled to the processing unit and comprising computer-readable program instructions executable by the processing unit (Brummund at least [0110] disclosing the non transitory computer medium and processors for the calibration).
Brummund does not teach a light source configured for projecting light on a floor, an image capture component configured for capturing light reflected and/or backscattered from the floor. for quantifying a movement of the floor-mounted base relative to the floor using data from the image capture component associated with the light reflected and/or backscattered from the floor.
You teaches quantifying movement of the base ([0013]-[0015] disclosing the quantifying of a movement of the base for calibration);
The combination/substitution of the calibration technique of You by moving the base is obvious yielding predictable results to allow the base or trackers to be visible by the camera at a recommended position and or pose as taught by You.
Dimaio teaches a light source configured for projecting light on a floor (at least [0106] disclosing the optical sensor similar to what is used in an optical mouse, i.e., emit light),
an image capture component configured for capturing light reflected and/or
backscattered from the floor (at least [0106] disclosing the optical sensor similar to what is used in an optical mouse, i.e., to emit and capture the light ), and
for quantifying a movement of the floor-mounted base relative to the floor using data from the image capture component associated with the light reflected and/or backscattered from the floor ([0106] disclosing determining the movement position relative to a floor surface based on the optical sensor).
Brummund already teaches imaging markers for determining position of the mobile base with respect to a camera, at least [0025] disclosing the maximum distance between camera and tracker, i.e., base, thus the combination/substitution of the light source and image capturing component of Dimaio is obvious for repositioning the camera when the maximum distance for accuracy of the camera is changed based on base movement, thus improving the accuracy of the tracking.
While Dimaio does not explicitly disclose the projection of light on the floor and capturing reflected light from the floor.
Kim teaches the projection of light on the floor and capturing reflected light from the floor ([0099]-[0110] disclosing the projection of light and capturing of light).
Kim and Brummund as modified by You and Dimaio are directed towards solving the same problem of positioning of robots, thus the substitution of the projected light and reflected light as taught by Kim is obvious yielding predictable results, for verification, redundancy, and making the calibration more accurate.
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Brummund (US20190290370) in view of You (US20220134569) and Dimaio (US20190231460) and Kim (US20160188985) and Sato (US20260016582).
Regarding claim 3, Brummund as modified by You and Dimaio and Kim does not teach the surgical robot according to claim 1, wherein the calibration device further includes an inertial sensor, the calibration module coupled to inertial sensor for quantifying a variation of orientation of the floor-mounted base relative to the floor using data from the inertial sensor, the variation of orientation being relative to a roll axis and/or to a pitch axis of the base.
Sato teaches the surgical robot according to claim 1, wherein the calibration device further includes an inertial sensor, the calibration module coupled to inertial sensor for quantifying a variation of orientation of the floor-mounted base relative to the floor using data from the inertial sensor, the variation of orientation being relative to a roll axis and/or to a pitch axis of the base ([0115], [0226], [0278] disclosing the calibration process of a robot base using inertial sensor values including angular velocity, i.e., quantifying a variation of an orientation of the floor mounted robot relative to a floor).
The combination of the inertial sensor detecting variations in orientation of the robot to the floor-mounted base of Brummund as modified by Dimaio is obvious yielding predictable results in order to further increase the number of detected degrees of freedom which further improve the calibration when determining the calibration based on position and orientation of a robotic base.
Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Brummund (US20190290370) in view of You (US20220134569) and Dimaio (US20190231460) and Kim (US20160188985) and Rosenstein (US20140124004).
Regarding claim 9, Brummund as modified by You and Dimaio and Kim does not the surgical robot according to claim 1, wherein the image capture component is an image pixel array.
Rosenstein teaches wherein the image capture component is an image pixel array ([0007] disclosing the sequence of images of the floor each image has an array of pixels).
The combination of the teaching of Rosenstein incorporating the pixel array is obvious in order to determine special distribution of each color thus tracking the location of each color blob with respect to the image sensor across a sequence of images.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Brummund (US20190290370) in view of Dimaio (US20190231460) and You (US20220134569).
Regarding claim 10, Brummund teaches a system for tracking relative movement between a tracking, Brummund teaches a system and a surgical robot, comprising:
a processing unit ([0014] disclosing a processor); and
a non-transitory computer-readable memory communicatively coupled to the
processing unit and comprising computer-readable program instructions executable by
the processing unit for ([0110] disclosing non-transitory storage readable medium):
tracking part of a robot arm of the surgical robot with the tracking system during a
surgical procedure ([0019]-[0028] disclosing tracking a robotic arm),
detecting a relative movement between the tracking system and the surgical robot ([0019]-[0028] disclosing detecting relative movement between the tracking system and the surgical robot);
quantifying the relative movement using data from the at least one calibration
device ([0019]-[0027] disclosing determining the amount of calibration needed, i.e., the relative movement quantified to calibrate the camera), and
correcting and outputting the tracking of the part of the robot arm of the surgical
robot with the tracking system as a function of the quantifying of the relative movement ([0019]-[0029] disclosing correcting and outputting the tracking for the part of the robot arm based on the quantified movement, and outputting the instruction to reposition the camera).
Brummund does not teach from at least one calibration device scanning the floor, the at least one calibration device mounted to a base of the surgical robot and/or to a support of the tracking system,
Dimaio teaches from at least one calibration device scanning the floor, the at least one calibration device mounted to a base of the surgical robot and/or to a support of the tracking system ([0106] disclosing determining the movement position relative to a floor surface based on the optical sensor that is connected to a base).
Brummund already teaches imaging markers for determining position of the mobile base with respect to a camera, at least [0025] disclosing the maximum distance between camera and tracker, i.e., base, thus the combination/substitution of the light source and image capturing component of Dimaio is obvious for repositioning the camera when the maximum distance for accuracy of the camera is changed based on base movement, thus improving the accuracy of the tracking.
You is cited to indicate that the calibration with a movement of a base is obvious You teaches quantifying movement of the base ([0013]-[0015] disclosing the quantifying of a movement of the base for calibration);
The combination/substitution of the calibration technique of You by moving the base is obvious yielding predictable results to allow the base or trackers to be visible by the camera at a recommended position and or pose as taught by You.
Regarding claim 11, Brummund as modified by Dimaio and You teaches the system according to claim 10, wherein detecting and quantifying the relative movement includes detecting and quantifying movement of the base of the surgical robot and/or of the support of the tracking system in translation relative to a plane of the floor.
Specifically, Dimaio teaches wherein detecting and quantifying the relative movement includes detecting and quantifying movement of the base of the surgical robot and/or of the support of the tracking system in translation relative to a plane of the floor ([0106] disclosing determining the position and orientation of the base relative to the floor).
Brummund as modified by Dimaio and You already teaches imaging markers for determining position of the mobile base and quantifying movement of a base for calibration, thus the combination/substitution of the light source and image capturing component of Dimaio is obvious for redundancy or verification purposes in determining the position of the cart thus improving results and reducing errors. In addition the incorporation of the orientation increases the D.O.F. of the determination thus improving the calibration of the robot/tracker. An orientation is obvious to include all the directions.
Regarding claim 12, Brummund as modified by Dimaio and You teaches the system according to claim 11, wherein detecting and quantifying the relative movement includes detecting and quantifying movement of the base of the surgical robot.
Specifically, Dimaio teaches the system according to claim 11, wherein detecting and quantifying the relative movement includes detecting and quantifying movement of the base of the surgical robot and/or of the support of the tracking system in rotation relative to a yaw axis of the base and/or of the support ([0106] disclosing determining the position and orientation of the base relative to the floor).
Brummund as modified by Dimaio and You already teaches imaging markers for determining position of the mobile base and movement of base for calibration, thus the combination/substitution of the light source and image capturing component of Dimaio is obvious for redundancy or verification purposes in determining the position of the cart thus improving results and reducing errors. In addition the incorporation of the orientation increases the D.O.F. of the determination thus improving the calibration of the robot/tracker. An orientation is obvious to include all the directions.
Regarding claim 13, Brummund as modified by Dimaio and You teaches the system according to claim 10, wherein detecting and quantifying the relative movement includes detecting and quantifying movement of the base of the surgical robot and/or of the support of the tracking systemin rotation relative to a roll axis and/or to a pitch axis of the base and/or of the support (Dimaio [0106] disclosing determining the position and orientation of the base relative to the floor).
Brummund as modified by Dimaio and You already teaches imaging markers for determining position of the mobile base with respect to a camera and movement of base for calibration, at least [0025] disclosing the maximum distance between camera and tracker, i.e., base, thus the combination/substitution of the light source and image capturing component of Dimaio is obvious for repositioning the camera when the maximum distance for accuracy of the camera is changed based on base movement, thus improving the accuracy of the tracking.. In addition the incorporation of the orientation increases the D.O.F. of the determination thus improving the calibration of the robot/tracker. An orientation is obvious to include all the directions.
Regarding claim 14, Brummund as modified by Dimaio and You teaches the system according to claim 10, including alerting a user of the detecting of the
relative movement (Brummund at least abstract, [0029] disclosing generating an instruction to reposition the camera on a user interface).
Regarding claim 15, Brummund as modified by Dimaio and You teaches the system according to claim 14, including requiring the user to validate the quantifying (Brummund [0029]-[0041] disclosing the user validating the quantifying by moving the camera corresponding to the amount quantified).
Regarding claim 16, Brummund as modified by Dimaio and You teaches the system of claim 10, including pausing the tracking between detecting and the quantifying, and resuming the tracking after the quantifying (Brummund [0029]-[0041] disclosing the quantifying based on tracking, thus it is interpreted that even for a brief milisecond the tracking is paused to get the previous number, then resumed, [0029]-[0041] disclosing the continuation of the tracking, see also [0092] disclosing pausing the registration).
Regarding claim 17, Brummund as modified by Dimaio and you teaches the system according to claim 10, wherein detecting the relative movement includes continuously monitoring the position and orientation of the base of the surgical robot and/or of the support of the tracking system (Brummund [0029]-[0041] disclosing the continuous monitoring of the position and angle of the camera “tracking system”).
Regarding claim 18, Brummund as modified by Dimaio and you teaches the system according to claim 10, wherein outputting the tracking includes outputting the tracking graphically on a graphic-user interface (Brummund [0029]-[0041] disclosing the outputting the tracking graphically on a GUI).
Regarding claim 19, Brummund as modified by Dimaio and You teaches the system according to claim 10, including the surgical robot, the tracking system
and the at least one calibration device (Brummund [0016]-[0041] disclosing a surgical robot, tracking system and calibration device).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20230355314 disclosing relative position of a base based on reflected laser light.
US20210236207 disclosing tracking a cart and alerting user.
US20230277256 disclosing photosensor on base.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
Prosecution Insights