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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 6, 12-13, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the "base” should be recited before --the respective bases--, for example, in line 2: “each including a base and at least one of …”.
In claim 1, the “wherein” clause, "the optical trackers” should read -- the optical tracker --.
In claim 1, the “wherein” clause, line 2, and claim 12, line 1, "the relative positions” should read --relative positions--.
In claim 2, line 5, "the manipulators” should read --the robotic manipulators--.
In claim 6, line 5, "the emitters” should read --the plurality of optical emitters--.
In claim 12, line 5, "an operating room” should read --the operating room--.
In claim 12, page 3, lines 1-2, the "second imagers” should read --the second imager--.
In claims 13 and 16, "the emitters” should read --the plurality of first emitters--.
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 7-10, 13, and 16-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the "wherein the emitters comprise first emitters of a first one of the robotic manipulators and second emitters on a second one of the robotic manipulators”. The antecedent basis for this recitation is unclear because the “emitters” have not been recited in claims 1-2 and because claim 2 recites the “wherein at least one of the manipulators includes a plurality of optical emitters”. For examination purposes, Examiner of record takes this to be “wherein a first one of the robotic manipulators comprises first emitters of the plurality of optical emitters and a second one of the robotic manipulators comprises second emitters of the plurality of optical emitters”.
Claims 13 and 16 recite “the emitters” while claim 12 recites the “plurality of first emitters”. It is unclear whether or not the “emitters” refers to the plurality of first emitters. For examination purposes, Examiner of record takes this to be --the plurality of first emitters--.
Claim 17 recites the "wherein the emitters comprise first emitters of a first one of the robotic manipulators and second emitters on a second one of the robotic manipulators”. The antecedent basis for this recitation is unclear because claim 12 recites the “plurality of first emitters”, the first robotic manipulator, and the second robotic manipulator. For examination purposes, Examiner of record takes this to be “wherein the second robotic manipulator has second emitters thereon” and assumes that the “first one of the robotic manipulators” and the “second one of the robotic manipulators” refers to the first robotic manipulator and the second robotic manipulator of claim 12.
Claims dependent upon the rejected claims above, but not directly addressed, are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan et al (US 20210153958), hereinafter Meglan, in view of Chen et al (CN 111273658), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 1, Meglan teaches a robotic surgical system (Figs. 1-2, 4-6, and 8), comprising:
a plurality of robotic manipulators (100a, 100b), each including at least one of:
an optical tracker (132) (134); and
an optical emitter (136);
wherein the system is configured to receive image data (image data of the “camera 132” and the “IR signals” [0051]) obtained using the optical trackers and to determine using the image data relative positions of respective bases (130) of the robotic manipulators (“Continuing with FIG. 2, surgical robotic cart assembly 100 includes a camera 132, one or more sensor(s) 134, a transmitter 136, and a unique marker “M” disposed on base portion 130. In embodiments, sensor(s) 134 may be spaced apart and disposed along the periphery of base portion 130, such that, the relative pose or orientation of base portion 130 may be obtained by determining which of the sensor(s) 134 is first to receive a signal from a source, such as, for example, transmitter 136 of a second surgical robotic cart assembly 100b (FIG. 4)” [0050]; “sensor(s) 134 may be configured to receive, … IR signals, and … transmitter 136 may be configured to emit the same. As will be detailed below with reference to FIGS. 3-6, it is contemplated that … camera 132, sensor(s) 134, and transmitter 136 of surgical robotic cart assembly 100 are configured to cooperate to provide an accurate and robust localization of, for example, first surgical robotic cart assembly 100a relative to second surgical robotic cart assemblies 100b.” [0051]; “camera 132 and sensor(s) 134 of each of first and second surgical robotic cart assemblies 100a, 100b.” [0054], Fig. 4).
Meglan does not explicitly teach the optical tracker on at least one of the plurality of robotic manipulators comprising a pair of first imagers each having first optics configured to cause the first imager to generate only depth data, and a second imager with second optics configured to cause the second imager to generate only elevation data.
However, in the mobile robotic systems field of endeavor, Chen discloses a mobile robot and obstacle detection method, which is analogous art. Chen teaches the optical tracker on robotic manipulators comprising a pair of first imagers (5) each having first optics (“a laser sensor and/or infrared sensor.” Page 5, 4th para.) configured to cause the first imager to generate only depth data (data for the “left and right side” Page 5, first three para.), and a second imager (3) with second optics (“a laser sensor and/or infrared sensor.” Page 5, 4th para.) configured to cause the second imager to generate only elevation data (data for the “the robot body 1 front end” Page 5, first three para.) (“the distance measuring sensor unit comprises four groups 3, 4, 5, 6, wherein the first set of ranging sensor 3 located on the robot body 1 front end; … the third set of ranging sensor 5 located on the left and right side of the robot body 1,” Page 5, first three para.; “the figure only shows the robot body 1 and distance sensor unit 3, 4, 5, 6 of the relationship, the distance measuring sensor comprises … a laser sensor and/or infrared sensor.” Page 5, 4th para. “Referring to FIG. 3, which shows the mobile robot structure schematic diagram … the first set of ranging sensor 3 is installed at the front end of the upper cover, …, the third set of ranging sensor 5 mounted on the left and right sides of the upper mounting cover,” Page 6, first complete para.; Figs. 1 - 3).
Therefore, based on Chen’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Meglan to employ the optical tracker on at least one of the plurality of robotic manipulators comprising the optical tracker on at least one of the plurality of robotic manipulators comprising a pair of first imagers each having first optics configured to cause the first imager to generate only depth data, and a second imager with second optics configured to cause the second imager to generate only elevation data, as taught by Chen, in order to facilitate positioning of the robotic manipulators.
Regarding claim 5, Meglan modified by Chen teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 1.
Meglan does not explicitly teach that the second imager is disposed between the first imagers of the pair of first imagers.
However, in the mobile robotic systems field of endeavor, Chen discloses a mobile robot and obstacle detection method, which is analogous art. Chen teaches that the second imager is disposed between the first imagers of the pair of first imagers (“the distance measuring sensor unit comprises four groups 3, 4, 5, 6, wherein the first set of ranging sensor 3 located on the robot body 1 front end;” Page 5, first three para.; “Referring to FIG. 3, which shows the mobile robot structure schematic diagram … the first set of ranging sensor 3 is installed at the front end of the upper cover, …, the third set of ranging sensor 5 mounted on the left and right sides of the upper mounting cover,” Page 6, first complete para.; Figs. 1 - 3).
Therefore, based on Chen’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Meglan to employ the second imager that is disposed between the first imagers of the pair of first imagers, as taught by Chen, in order to facilitate positioning of the robotic manipulators.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan and Chen as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tanbandeh et al (US 20190069962), hereinafter, Tabandeh.
Regarding claim 2, Meglan modified by Chen teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 1.
While Meglan teaches that at least one of the manipulators includes the optical emitter (136) (“sensor(s) 134 may be configured to receive, for example, … IR signals, and … transmitter 136 may be configured to emit the same.” [0051]), Meglan modified by Chen does not explicitly teach that at least one of the manipulators includes a plurality of optical emitters.
However, in the surgical systems field of endeavor, Tabandeh discloses a method and system for guiding user positioning of a robot, which is analogous art. Tabandeh teaches that at least one of the manipulators (102) includes a plurality of optical emitters (132c) (“The tracking system 106 of the surgical system 100 includes two or more optical receivers 130 to detect the position of fiducial markers (e.g., retroreflective spheres, active light emitting diodes (LEDs)) uniquely arranged on rigid bodies. The fiducial markers arranged on a rigid body are collectively referred to as a fiducial marker array 132, where each fiducial marker array 132 has a unique arrangement of fiducial markers, or a unique transmitting wavelength/frequency if the markers are active LEDs.” [0027]; Fig. 2).
Therefore, based on Tabandeh’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Meglan and Chen to have at least one of the manipulators that includes a plurality of optical emitters, as taught by Tabandeh, in order to facilitate tracking and positioning robotic computer-assisted device in operating room (Tabandeh: [0017]).
Regarding claim 6, Meglan modified by Chen and Tabandeh teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 2, wherein Meglan teaches that the emitter is an infrared emitter (136) (“sensor(s) 134 may be configured to receive, for example, … IR signals, and … transmitter 136 may be configured to emit the same.” [0051]).
Meglan modified by Chen does not explicitly teach the plurality of optical emitters.
However, in the surgical systems field of endeavor, Tabandeh discloses a method and system for guiding user positioning of a robot, which is analogous art. Tabandeh teaches the plurality of optical emitters (132c) (“The tracking system 106 of the surgical system 100 includes two or more optical receivers 130 to detect the position of fiducial markers (e.g., retroreflective spheres, active light emitting diodes (LEDs)) uniquely arranged on rigid bodies. The fiducial markers arranged on a rigid body are collectively referred to as a fiducial marker array 132, where each fiducial marker array 132 has a unique arrangement of fiducial markers, or a unique transmitting wavelength/frequency if the markers are active LEDs.” [0027]; Fig. 2).
Therefore, based on Tabandeh’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Meglan and Chen to have the plurality of optical emitters, as taught by Tabandeh, in order to facilitate tracking and positioning robotic computer-assisted device in operating room (Tabandeh: [0017]). In the combined invention of Meglan, Chen, and Tabandeh, the emitters are infrared emitters.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan, Chen, and Tabandeh as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Junio (US 20230270511), hereinafter, Junio.
Regarding claim 3, Meglan modified by Chen and Tabandeh teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 2.
Meglan modified by Chen and Tabandeh does not explicitly teach that the plurality of optical emitters includes at least one first emitter positioned on a portion of the manipulator that remains fixed during surgery, and at least one second emitter positioned on a portion of the manipulator that is moveable during surgery.
However, in the surgical systems field of endeavor, Junio discloses registration of multiple robotic arms using single reference frame, which is analogous art. Junio teaches that the plurality of optical emitters (152) includes at least one first emitter positioned on a portion of the manipulator that remains fixed during surgery (140), and at least one second emitter positioned on a portion of the manipulator that is moveable during surgery (148) (“One or more tracking markers 152 may be fixedly secured to or positioned on the robot 136, whether on the base 140, the robotic arm 148, and/or elsewhere. As used herein, “fixedly secured” does not mean “permanently secured,” and indeed the tracking markers 152 may be detachable from the robot 136. The tracking markers 152 may be light-emitting diodes (LEDs).” [0062]).
Therefore, based on Junio’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Meglan, Chen, and Tabandeh to have the plurality of optical emitters that includes at least one first emitter positioned on a portion of the manipulator that remains fixed during surgery, and at least one second emitter positioned on a portion of the manipulator that is moveable during surgery, as taught by Junio, in order to facilitate robotic surgery by improving registration of robots or robotic arms (Junio: [0001]).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan, Chen, and Tabandeh as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Brown et al (US 20150138008), hereinafter, Brown.
Regarding claim 7, Meglan modified by Chen and Tabandeh teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 2, wherein Meglan teaches that the emitters comprise first emitter (136) of a first one of the robotic manipulators (100a, 100b) and second emitter (136) on a second one of the robotic manipulators (100a, 100b) (“sensor(s) 134 may be configured to receive, for example, … IR signals, and … transmitter 136 may be configured to emit the same.” [0051]).
Meglan modified by Chen does not explicitly teach the plurality of optical emitters.
However, in the surgical systems field of endeavor, Tabandeh discloses a method and system for guiding user positioning of a robot, which is analogous art. Tabandeh teaches the plurality of optical emitters (132c) (“The tracking system 106 of the surgical system 100 includes two or more optical receivers 130 to detect the position of fiducial markers (e.g., retroreflective spheres, active light emitting diodes (LEDs)) uniquely arranged on rigid bodies. The fiducial markers arranged on a rigid body are collectively referred to as a fiducial marker array 132, where each fiducial marker array 132 has a unique arrangement of fiducial markers, or a unique transmitting wavelength/frequency if the markers are active LEDs.” [0027]; Fig. 2).
Therefore, based on Tabandeh’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Meglan and Chen to have the plurality of optical emitters, as taught by Tabandeh, in order to facilitate tracking and positioning robotic computer-assisted device in operating room (Tabandeh: [0017]). In the combined invention of Meglan, Chen, and Tabandeh, the emitters comprise first emitters of a first one of the robotic manipulators and second emitters on a second one of the robotic manipulators.
Meglan modified by Chen and Tabandeh does not explicitly teach that light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters.
However, in the device identification field of endeavor, Brown discloses target identification for sending content from a mobile device, which is analogous art. Brown teaches that light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters (“The described method and system enable an intended target device for wireless content sharing to be identified by a mobile device by pointing the mobile device at the intended target. The method by which this can be achieved is through using an infrared (IR) light emitter or source such as a light-emitting diode (LED) mounted on a prominent/visible location on a target device, such as a screen, which provides a blink pattern in the form of a sequence of on/off blinks of the light to indicate the target device's identity.” [0028]).
Therefore, based on Brown’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Meglan, Chen, and Tabandeh to have light emitted by the first emitters that is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters, as taught by Brown, in order to facilitate robotic surgery by improving identification and registration of robots or robotic arms.
Regarding claim 9, Meglan modified by Chen, Tabandeh, and Brown teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 7.
Meglan modified by Chen and Tabandeh does not explicitly teach that light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on blink sequence.
However, in the device identification field of endeavor, Brown discloses target identification for sending content from a mobile device, which is analogous art. Brown teaches that light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on blink sequence (“The described method and system enable an intended target device for wireless content sharing to be identified by a mobile device by pointing the mobile device at the intended target. The method by which this can be achieved is through using an infrared (IR) light emitter or source such as a light-emitting diode (LED) mounted on a prominent/visible location on a target device, such as a screen, which provides a blink pattern in the form of a sequence of on/off blinks of the light to indicate the target device's identity.” [0028]).
Therefore, based on Brown’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Meglan, Chen, and Tabandeh to have light emitted by the first emitters that is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on blink sequence, as taught by Brown, in order to facilitate robotic surgery by improving identification and registration of robots or robotic arms.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan, Chen, Tabandeh, and Brown as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Huenink et al (US 20220373152), hereinafter Huenink.
Regarding claim 8, Meglan modified by Chen, Tabandeh, and Brown teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 7.
Meglan modified by Chen, Tabandeh, and Brown does not explicitly teach that light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on blink frequency.
However, in the device identification field of endeavor, Huenink discloses target identification for sending content from a mobile device, which is analogous art. Huenink teaches that light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on blink frequency (“The blink designation can also include a frequency for the blinking of the LED.” [0038] “18. The light fixture of claim 17, wherein the blink/steady designation includes a blink frequency and when the blink/steady designation for a particular group of the plurality of contiguous groups is the blink command then the one or more illuminated LEDs of the plurality of group LEDs of the particular group is configured to blink in the associated illumination color at the blink frequency”).
Therefore, based on Huenink’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Meglan, Chen, Tabandeh, and Brown to have light emitted by the first emitters that is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on blink frequency, as taught by Huenink, in order to facilitate robotic surgery by improving identification and registration of robots or robotic arms.
Regarding claim 10, Meglan modified by Chen, Tabandeh, and Brown teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 7.
Meglan modified by Chen, Tabandeh, and Brown does not explicitly teach that light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on emitter light color.
However, in the device identification field of endeavor, Huenink discloses target identification for sending content from a mobile device, which is analogous art. Huenink teaches that light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on emitter light color (“The blink designation can also include a frequency for the blinking of the LED.” [0038] “18. The light fixture of claim 17, wherein the blink/steady designation includes a blink frequency and when the blink/steady designation for a particular group of the plurality of contiguous groups is the blink command then the one or more illuminated LEDs of the plurality of group LEDs of the particular group is configured to blink in the associated illumination color at the blink frequency”).
Therefore, based on Huenink’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Meglan, Chen, Tabandeh, and Brown to have light emitted by the first emitters that is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on emitter light color, as taught by Huenink, in order to facilitate robotic surgery by improving identification and registration of robots or robotic arms.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan, Chen, Tabandeh, and Brown as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Calloway et al (US 20210378756), hereinafter Calloway.
Regarding claim 11, Meglan modified by Chen, Tabandeh, and Brown teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 7.
Meglan modified by Chen, Tabandeh, and Brown does not explicitly teach that the emitters in the plurality of first emitters are spaced apart by a first distance, the emitters in the plurality of second emitters are spaced apart by a second distance different from the first distance, and wherein the light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on the first distance and the second distance.
However, in the surgical tracking systems field of endeavor, Calloway discloses surgical object tracking in visible light via fiducial seeding and synthetic image registration, which is analogous art. Calloway teaches that the emitters (“the fiducials” Claim 5) in the plurality of first emitters (52) are spaced apart by a first distance (“a pattern of distances between the fiducials” claim 5), the emitters in the plurality of second emitters (another “Dynamic reference array” [0058]) are spaced apart by a second distance different from the first distance (“a pattern of distances between the fiducials” claim 5), and wherein the light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on the first distance and the second distance (“The reference arrays enable tracking by reflecting light in known patterns, which are decoded to determine their respective poses by the tracking subsystem of the surgical robot 4.” [0069]; “select an identifier corresponding to the physical reference array from among a set of registered identifiers corresponding to a set of registered reference arrays defined in a database, based on correlating similarity of a pattern of distances between the fiducials of the physical reference array imaged in the video streams to a pattern of distances between the fiducials in one of the registered reference arrays defined in the database and selecting the identifier corresponding to the one of the registered reference arrays.” Claim 5; Fig. 6).
Therefore, based on Calloway’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Meglan, Chen, Tabandeh, and Brown to have the emitters in the plurality of first emitters that are spaced apart by a first distance, the emitters in the plurality of second emitters are spaced apart by a second distance different from the first distance, wherein the light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on the first distance and the second distance, as taught by Calloway, in order to facilitate robotic surgery by improving identification and registration of robots or robotic arms.
Claims 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan et al (US 20210153958), hereinafter Meglan, in view of Tanbandeh et al (US 20190069962), hereinafter, Tabandeh, Chen et al (CN 111273658), hereinafter Chen, and Issing (US 20140083058), hereinafter, Issing.
Regarding claim 12, Meglan teaches a method of determining the relative positions of robotic manipulators (Abstract, Fig. 3, Claims 1-18), comprising:
positioning a first robotic manipulator (100a) in an operating room (“first and second surgical robotic cart assemblies 100a, 100b) disposed within operating room “OR.”" [0043]; Figs. 1 and 4), the first robotic manipulator having a first emitter thereon (136);
positioning a second robotic manipulator (100b) in the operating room (“first and second surgical robotic cart assemblies 100a, 100b) disposed within operating room “OR.”" [0043]; Fig. 4), the second robotic manipulator having a pair of first imagers (134) (“sensor(s) 134” [0054], Fig. 4) and a second imager (132) (“Provided … is a method of positioning a plurality of surgical robotic cart assemblies within an operating room. The method includes, obtaining a first sensor data from an operating room sensor, determining a first position of a first surgical robotic cart assembly and determining a first position of a second surgical robotic cart assembly, the first surgical robotic cart assembly including a first base portion having a first sensor and a first transmitter, and the second surgical robotic cart assembly including a second base portion having a second sensor and a second transmitter, calculating a first path for the first surgical robotic cart assembly towards a second position of the first surgical robotic cart assembly and calculating a second path for the second surgical robotic cart assembly towards a second position of the second surgical robotic cart assembly, moving the first surgical robotic cart assembly and the second surgical robotic cart assembly autonomously towards the second positions,” [0017]; “camera 132 and sensor(s) 134 of each of first and second surgical robotic cart assemblies 100a, 100b.” [0054], Fig. 4);
capturing images of the first emitter using the first imagers and, based on the images captured by the first imagers, determining depth (“D3”) of the first emitter (“In step S216, with first and second surgical robotic cart assemblies 100a, 100b located in second positions “PA2” and “PB2,” respectively, as shown in FIG. 6, if a potential contact distance “D3” between first and second surgical robotic cart assemblies 100a, 100b is detected by sensor(s) 134 of second surgical robotic cart assembly 100b, in step S218, second surgical robotic cart assembly 100b is configured to determine whether troubleshooting is required.” [0062]);
determining, based on data from the first imagers and second imagers (data for the “accurate and robust localization” [0051]), the relative positions between the first robotic manipulator and the second robotic manipulator (“Continuing with FIG. 2, surgical robotic cart assembly 100 includes a camera 132, one or more sensor(s) 134, a transmitter 136, and a unique marker “M” disposed on base portion 130. In embodiments, sensor(s) 134 may be spaced apart and disposed along the periphery of base portion 130, such that, the relative pose or orientation of base portion 130 may be obtained by determining which of the sensor(s) 134 is first to receive a signal from a source, such as, for example, transmitter 136 of a second surgical robotic cart assembly 100b (FIG. 4)” [0050]; “sensor(s) 134 may be configured to receive, for example, … IR signals, and … transmitter 136 may be configured to emit the same. As will be detailed below with reference to FIGS. 3-6, it is contemplated that … camera 132, sensor(s) 134, and transmitter 136 of surgical robotic cart assembly 100 are configured to cooperate to provide an accurate and robust localization of, for example, first surgical robotic cart assembly 100a relative to second surgical robotic cart assemblies 100b.” [0051]).
While teaching the first emitter (136), Meglan does not explicitly teach the first robotic manipulator having a plurality of first emitters thereon;
each first imager having first optics configured to cause the first imager to generate only depth data, and the second imager having second optics configured to cause the second imager to generate only elevation data;
using triangulation to determine the relative positions.
However, in the surgical systems field of endeavor, Tabandeh discloses a method and system for guiding user positioning of a robot, which is analogous art. Tabandeh teaches a robotic manipulator (102) having a plurality of first emitters (132c) (“The fiducial markers arranged on a rigid body are collectively referred to as a fiducial marker array 132, where each fiducial marker array 132 has a unique arrangement of fiducial markers, or a unique transmitting wavelength/frequency if the markers are active LEDs.” [0027]; Fig. 2).
Therefore, based on Tabandeh’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Meglan to have a robotic manipulator having a plurality of first emitters, as taught by Tabandeh, in order to facilitate tracking and positioning robotic computer-assisted device in operating room (Tabandeh: [0017]).
Meglan modified by Tabandeh does not explicitly teach each first imager having first optics configured to cause the first imager to generate only depth data, and the second imager having second optics configured to cause the second imager to generate only elevation data.
However, in the mobile robotic systems field of endeavor, Chen discloses a mobile robot and obstacle detection method, which is analogous art. Chen teaches each first imager (5) having first optics (“a laser sensor and/or infrared sensor.” Page 5, 4th para.) configured to cause the first imager to generate only depth data (data for the “left and right side” Page 5, first three para.), and the second imager (3) having second optics (“a laser sensor and/or infrared sensor.” Page 5, 4th para.) configured to cause the second imager to generate only elevation data (data for the “the robot body 1 front end” Page 5, first three para.) (“the distance measuring sensor unit comprises four groups 3, 4, 5, 6, wherein the first set of ranging sensor 3 located on the robot body 1 front end; … the third set of ranging sensor 5 located on the left and right side of the robot body 1,” Page 5, first three para.; “the figure only shows the robot body 1 and distance sensor unit 3, 4, 5, 6 of the relationship, the distance measuring sensor comprises … a laser sensor and/or infrared sensor.” Page 5, 4th para. “Referring to FIG. 3, which shows the mobile robot structure schematic diagram … the first set of ranging sensor 3 is installed at the front end of the upper cover, …, the third set of ranging sensor 5 mounted on the left and right sides of the upper mounting cover,” Page 6, first complete para.; Figs. 1 - 3)
Therefore, based on Chen’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Meglan and Tabandeh to employ each first imager having first optics configured to cause the first imager to generate only depth data, and the second imager having second optics configured to cause the second imager to generate only elevation data, as taught by Chen, in order to facilitate positioning of the robotic manipulators.
Meglan modified by Tabandeh and Chen does not explicitly teach using triangulation to determine, based on data from the first imagers and second imagers, the relative positions between the first robotic manipulator and the second robotic manipulator.
However, in the motion sensing field of endeavor, Issing discloses a motion-sensor system ([0111]), which is analogous art. Issing teaches using triangulation to determine, based on data from the imager (62), the relative positions (“The (absolute) position determination presently takes place in the so-called pointer mode. The light sources and the camera are orientated to each other and can “see” each other. The position determination happens in terms of triangulation, wherein the distance of the light sources relative to each other is already known in advance." [0022]. “If the camera 62 is directed towards the light sources 64, the camera 62 can see two "shining" points. Since the relative distance 76 is known, an absolute position determination can be performed by means of triangulation based on the distance of the light sources 64 in the image of the camera 62. Thus, in the present case the absolute position determination is achieved by triangulation.” [0113], Fig. 3A).
Therefore, based on Issing’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Meglan, Tabandeh, and Chen to have the step of capturing an image of the pair of first emitters using the tracker, and using triangulation to determine, based on the known distance between the first emitters in the pair, the relative positions between the first robotic manipulator and the second robotic manipulator, as taught by Issing, in order to facilitate tracking and positioning robotic computer-assisted device in operating room (Issing: [0017]). In the combined invention of Meglan, Tabandeh, Chen, and Issing, relative positions are between the first robotic manipulator and the second robotic manipulator; and the data are from the first imagers and the second imager.
Regarding claim 13, Meglan modified by Tabandeh, Chen, and Issing teaches the method of claim 12.
While Meglan teaches that the robotic manipulators include the optical emitter (136) (“sensor(s) 134 may be configured to receive, for example, … IR signals, and … transmitter 136 may be configured to emit the same.” [0051]), Meglan does not explicitly teach that the emitters comprise optical emitters (plural).
However, in the surgical systems field of endeavor, Tabandeh discloses a method and system for guiding user positioning of a robot, which is analogous art. Tabandeh teaches that the emitters comprise optical emitters (132c) (“The tracking system 106 of the surgical system 100 includes two or more optical receivers 130 to detect the position of fiducial markers (e.g., retroreflective spheres, active light emitting diodes (LEDs)) uniquely arranged on rigid bodies. The fiducial markers arranged on a rigid body are collectively referred to as a fiducial marker array 132, where each fiducial marker array 132 has a unique arrangement of fiducial markers, or a unique transmitting wavelength/frequency if the markers are active LEDs.” [0027]; Fig. 2).
Therefore, based on Tabandeh’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Meglan and Chen to employ the emitters that comprise optical emitters, as taught by Tabandeh, in order to facilitate tracking and positioning robotic computer-assisted device in operating room (Tabandeh: [0017]).
Regarding claim 15, Meglan modified by Tabandeh, Chen, and Issing teaches the method of claim 12.
Meglan modified by Tabandeh does not explicitly teach that the second imager is disposed between the first imagers of the pair of first imagers.
However, in the mobile robotic systems field of endeavor, Chen discloses a mobile robot and obstacle detection method, which is analogous art. Chen teaches that the second imager is disposed between the first imagers of the pair of first imagers (“the distance measuring sensor unit comprises four groups 3, 4, 5, 6, wherein the first set of ranging sensor 3 located on the robot body 1 front end;” Page 5, first three para.; “Referring to FIG. 3, which shows the mobile robot structure schematic diagram … the first set of ranging sensor 3 is installed at the front end of the upper cover, …, the third set of ranging sensor 5 mounted on the left and right sides of the upper mounting cover,” Page 6, first complete para.; Figs. 1 - 3).
Therefore, based on Chen’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Meglan and Tabandeh to employ the second imager that is disposed between the first imagers of the pair of first imagers, as taught by Chen, in order to facilitate positioning of the robotic manipulators.
Regarding claim 16, Meglan modified by Tabandeh, Chen, and Issing teaches the method of claim 13, wherein Meglan teaches that the emitter is an infrared emitter (136) (“sensor(s) 134 may be configured to receive, for example, … IR signals, and … transmitter 136 may be configured to emit the same.” [0051]).
Meglan does not explicitly teach infrared emitters (plural).
However, in the surgical systems field of endeavor, Tabandeh discloses a method and system for guiding user positioning of a robot, which is analogous art. Tabandeh teaches the plurality of optical emitters (132c) (“The tracking system 106 of the surgical system 100 includes two or more optical receivers 130 to detect the position of fiducial markers (e.g., retroreflective spheres, active light emitting diodes (LEDs)) uniquely arranged on rigid bodies. The fiducial markers arranged on a rigid body are collectively referred to as a fiducial marker array 132, where each fiducial marker array 132 has a unique arrangement of fiducial markers, or a unique transmitting wavelength/frequency if the markers are active LEDs.” [0027]; Fig. 2).
Therefore, based on Tabandeh’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Meglan to have the plurality of optical emitters, as taught by Tabandeh, in order to facilitate tracking and positioning robotic computer-assisted device in operating room (Tabandeh: [0017]). In the combined invention of Meglan and Tabandeh, the emitters are infrared emitters.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan, Tabandeh, Chen, and Issing as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Junio (US 20230270511), hereinafter, Junio.
Regarding claim 14, Meglan modified by Tabandeh, Chen, and Issing teaches the method of claim 13.
Meglan modified by Tabandeh, Chen, and Issing does not explicitly teach that the plurality of optical emitters includes at least one first emitter positioned on a portion of the manipulator that remains fixed during surgery, and at least one second emitter positioned on a portion of the manipulator that is moveable during surgery.
However, in the surgical systems field of endeavor, Junio discloses registration of multiple robotic arms using single reference frame, which is analogous art. Junio teaches that the plurality of optical emitters (152) includes at least one first emitter positioned on a portion of the manipulator that remains fixed during surgery (140), and at least one second emitter positioned on a portion of the manipulator that is moveable during surgery (148) (“One or more tracking markers 152 may be fixedly secured to or positioned on the robot 136, whether on the base 140, the robotic arm 148, and/or elsewhere. As used herein, “fixedly secured” does not mean “permanently secured,” and indeed the tracking markers 152 may be detachable from the robot 136. The tracking markers 152 may be light-emitting diodes (LEDs).” [0062]).
Therefore, based on Junio’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Meglan, Tabandeh, Chen, and Issing to have the plurality of optical emitters that includes at least one first emitter positioned on a portion of the manipulator that remains fixed during surgery, and at least one second emitter positioned on a portion of the manipulator that is moveable during surgery, as taught by Junio, in order to facilitate robotic surgery by improving registration of robots or robotic arms (Junio: [0001]).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan, Tabandeh, Chen, and Issing as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Brown et al (US 20150138008), hereinafter, Brown.
Regarding claim 17, Meglan modified by Tabandeh, Chen, and Issing teaches the method of claim 13, wherein Meglan teaches that the emitters comprise first emitter (136) of a first one of the robotic manipulators (100a, 100b) and second emitter (136) on a second one of the robotic manipulators (100a, 100b) (“sensor(s) 134 may be configured to receive, for example, … IR signals, and … transmitter 136 may be configured to emit the same.” [0051]).
Meglan does not explicitly teach the first emitters (plural).
However, in the surgical systems field of endeavor, Tabandeh discloses a method and system for guiding user positioning of a robot, which is analogous art. Tabandeh teaches the first emitters (132c) (“The tracking system 106 of the surgical system 100 includes two or more optical receivers 130 to detect the position of fiducial markers (e.g., retroreflective spheres, active light emitting diodes (LEDs)) uniquely arranged on rigid bodies. The fiducial markers arranged on a rigid body are collectively referred to as a fiducial marker array 132, where each fiducial marker array 132 has a unique arrangement of fiducial markers, or a unique transmitting wavelength/frequency if the markers are active LEDs.” [0027]; Fig. 2).
Therefore, based on Tabandeh’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Meglan to have the first emitters, as taught by Tabandeh, in order to facilitate tracking and positioning robotic computer-assisted device in operating room (Tabandeh: [0017]). In the combined invention of Meglan and Tabandeh, the emitters comprise first emitters of a first one of the robotic manipulators and second emitters on a second one of the robotic manipulators.
Meglan modified by Tabandeh, Chen, and Issing does not explicitly teach that light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters.
However, in the device identification field of endeavor, Brown discloses target identification for sending content from a mobile device, which is analogous art. Brown teaches that light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters (“The described method and system enable an intended target device for wireless content sharing to be identified by a mobile device by pointing the mobile device at the intended target. The method by which this can be achieved is through using an infrared (IR) light emitter or source such as a light-emitting diode (LED) mounted on a prominent/visible location on a target device, such as a screen, which provides a blink pattern in the form of a sequence of on/off blinks of the light to indicate the target device's identity.” [0028]).
Therefore, based on Brown’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Meglan, Tabandeh, Chen, and Issing to have light emitted by the first emitters that is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters, as taught by Brown, in order to facilitate robotic surgery by improving identification and registration of robots or robotic arms.
Regarding claim 19, Meglan modified by Chen, Tabandeh, Chen, Issing, and Brown teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 17.
Meglan modified by Tabandeh, Chen, and Issing does not explicitly teach that light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on blink sequence.
However, in the device identification field of endeavor, Brown discloses target identification for sending content from a mobile device, which is analogous art. Brown teaches that light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on blink sequence (“The described method and system enable an intended target device for wireless content sharing to be identified by a mobile device by pointing the mobile device at the intended target. The method by which this can be achieved is through using an infrared (IR) light emitter or source such as a light-emitting diode (LED) mounted on a prominent/visible location on a target device, such as a screen, which provides a blink pattern in the form of a sequence of on/off blinks of the light to indicate the target device's identity.” [0028]).
Therefore, based on Brown’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Meglan, Tabandeh, Chen, and Issing to have light emitted by the first emitters that is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on blink sequence, as taught by Brown, in order to facilitate robotic surgery by improving identification and registration of robots or robotic arms.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan, Tabandeh, Chen, Issing, and Brown as applied to claim 17, and further in view of Huenink et al (US 20220373152), hereinafter Huenink.
Regarding claim 8, Meglan modified by Tabandeh, Chen, Issing, and Brown teaches the method of claim 17.
Meglan modified by Tabandeh, Chen, Issing, and Brown does not explicitly teach that light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on blink frequency.
However, in the device identification field of endeavor, Huenink discloses target identification for sending content from a mobile device, which is analogous art. Huenink teaches that light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on blink frequency (“The blink designation can also include a frequency for the blinking of the LED.” [0038] “18. The light fixture of claim 17, wherein the blink/steady designation includes a blink frequency and when the blink/steady designation for a particular group of the plurality of contiguous groups is the blink command then the one or more illuminated LEDs of the plurality of group LEDs of the particular group is configured to blink in the associated illumination color at the blink frequency”).
Therefore, based on Huenink’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Meglan, Tabandeh, Chen, Issing, and Brown to have light emitted by the first emitters that is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on blink frequency, as taught by Huenink, in order to facilitate robotic surgery by improving identification and registration of robots or robotic arms.
Regarding claim 20, Meglan modified by Tabandeh, Chen, Issing, and Brown teaches the method of claim 17.
Meglan modified by Tabandeh, Chen, Issing, and Brown does not explicitly teach that light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on emitter light color.
However, in the device identification field of endeavor, Huenink discloses target identification for sending content from a mobile device, which is analogous art. Huenink teaches that light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on emitter light color (“The blink designation can also include a frequency for the blinking of the LED.” [0038] “18. The light fixture of claim 17, wherein the blink/steady designation includes a blink frequency and when the blink/steady designation for a particular group of the plurality of contiguous groups is the blink command then the one or more illuminated LEDs of the plurality of group LEDs of the particular group is configured to blink in the associated illumination color at the blink frequency”).
Therefore, based on Huenink’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Meglan, Tabandeh, Chen, Issing, and Brown to have light emitted by the first emitters that is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on emitter light color, as taught by Huenink, in order to facilitate robotic surgery by improving identification and registration of robots or robotic arms.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan, Tabandeh, Chen, Issing, and Brown as applied to claim 17, and further in view of Calloway et al (US 20210378756), hereinafter Calloway.
Regarding claim 11, Meglan modified by Tabandeh, Chen, Issing, and Brown teaches the method of claim 17.
Meglan modified by Tabandeh, Chen, Issing, and Brown does not explicitly teach that the emitters in the plurality of first emitters are spaced apart by a first distance, the emitters in the plurality of second emitters are spaced apart by a second distance different from the first distance, and wherein the light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on the first distance and the second distance.
However, in the surgical tracking systems field of endeavor, Calloway discloses surgical object tracking in visible light via fiducial seeding and synthetic image registration, which is analogous art. Calloway teaches that the emitters (“the fiducials” Claim 5) in the plurality of first emitters (52) are spaced apart by a first distance (“a pattern of distances between the fiducials” claim 5), the emitters in the plurality of second emitters (another “Dynamic reference array” [0058]) are spaced apart by a second distance different from the first distance (“a pattern of distances between the fiducials” claim 5), and wherein the light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on the first distance and the second distance (“The reference arrays enable tracking by reflecting light in known patterns, which are decoded to determine their respective poses by the tracking subsystem of the surgical robot 4.” [0069]; “select an identifier corresponding to the physical reference array from among a set of registered identifiers corresponding to a set of registered reference arrays defined in a database, based on correlating similarity of a pattern of distances between the fiducials of the physical reference array imaged in the video streams to a pattern of distances between the fiducials in one of the registered reference arrays defined in the database and selecting the identifier corresponding to the one of the registered reference arrays.” Claim 5; Fig. 6).
Therefore, based on Calloway’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Meglan, Tabandeh, Chen, Issing, and Brown to have the emitters in the plurality of first emitters that are spaced apart by a first distance, the emitters in the plurality of second emitters are spaced apart by a second distance different from the first distance, wherein the light emitted by the first emitters is differentiable from light emitted by the second emitters based on the first distance and the second distance, as taught by Calloway, in order to facilitate robotic surgery by improving identification and registration of robots or robotic arms.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1556. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Pascal Bui Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798