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 .
Priority
The present application, filed 17 January 2025, claims benefit to U.S. Provisional Patent App. No 63/551,137, filed 08 February 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 17 January 2025 and 26 June 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims: “determining a first force feedback based on a first interaction between the first interaction and a boundary based on a first stiffness….” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “determining a first force feedback based on a first interaction between the first interaction point and a boundary based on a first stiffness….”
Claim 9 contains a similar limitation to the identified limitation of claim 1 above, and should be similarly amended.
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 7-8 and 15-16 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.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant claims: “increasing the first stiffness responsive to occurrence of a threshold amount of over-resection.” The examiner asserts that the claiming of “over-resection” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what “over-resection” relates to. Specifically, the term “over-resection” is a relative term, but the claim does not set forth what the “over-resection” is relative to. For the sake of examination, the examiner is interpreting the “over-resection” to be relative to a “planned resection.”
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant claims: “decreasing the first stiffness responsive to occurrence of a threshold amount of under-resection.” Similar to the rejection of claim 7 above, the claim does not set forth what the “under-resection” is relative to, rendering the claim indefinite. For the sake of examination, the examiner is interpreting the “under-resection” to be relative to a “planned resection.”
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 8, and is similarly rejected. The examiner notes that claim 17, although being dependent on claim 16, is not indefinite, as claim 17 provides a comparative standard for determining the metes and bounds of “under-resection,” specifically wherein “detecting the threshold amount of under-resection [is] based on a duration of execution of a planned resection.” (emphasis added)
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lightcap (US 20120176306 A1), hereafter Lightcap, in view of Dozeman (US 20210298846 A1), hereafter Dozeman.
Regarding claim 1, Lightcap discloses a method of operating a robot of a surgical system, comprising:
Monitoring positions of a first interaction point defined relative to a surgical instrument and a second interaction point defined relative to the surgical instrument (0041, In step 210 of FIG. 5, subsets of HIPs 20 for a virtual tool 10 are identified. FIG. 3 shows a first subset A and a second subset B. The first subset A preferably includes a plurality of HIPs 20. The second subset B preferably includes only one HIP 20, though it may include more. As shown in FIG. 3, the HIP 20 of the second subset B is disposed between HIPs 20 of the first subset A.);
Determining a first force feedback based on a first interaction between the first interaction and a boundary (0042, In step 220, haptic forces are determined based on the interaction of the first subset A of HIPs 20 with a boundary 40 of a haptic object.);
Determining a second force feedback based on a second interaction between the second interaction point and the boundary (0044, In step 230, haptic forces from the second subset B of HIPs 20 are determined in a second subspace different from the first subspace.); and
Controlling the robot to provide a combined force feedback based on the first force feedback and the second force feedback (0046, In step 240, a total haptic interaction force is determined, preferably by summing the haptic forces in the first subspace C and the second subspace D. The total haptic interaction force, f, can be a summation of the individual Haptic forces, f.sub.i, from each HIP 20 in subset A and subset B).
Lightcap fails to disclose, however, wherein the first force feedback is based on a first stiffness; and
Wherein the second force feedback is based on a second stiffness.
Dozeman, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the first force feedback is based on a first stiffness (0191, In one implementation, the SIFs are not infinitely rigid, but instead each of the SIFs may have tuning (stiffness) parameters to adjust the stiffness of SIF relative to virtual constraints, e.g., by incorporating spring and damping parameters into the constraints. Such parameters may include a constraint force mixing parameter (C) and an error reduction parameter (E). The spring and damping parameters may be adjusted before or during operation. The tuning parameters for the SIFs may be different for different objects, conditions, locations, or geometric configurations. The SIFs may comprise a first SIF that has a first value for a tuning parameter and a second SIF that has a second value for the tuning parameter, the first value being greater than the second value so that the resulting virtual forces and/or torques embodied in the constraint force F.sub.e are adapted to effect movement of the tool 20 more strongly as a result of the first SIF as compared to the second SIF. The values of the tuning parameters may be greater (e.g., stiffer) for position constraints than for orientation constraints, or vice versa.); and
Wherein the second force feedback is based on a second stiffness (0191, In one implementation, the SIFs are not infinitely rigid, but instead each of the SIFs may have tuning (stiffness) parameters to adjust the stiffness of SIF relative to virtual constraints, e.g., by incorporating spring and damping parameters into the constraints. Such parameters may include a constraint force mixing parameter (C) and an error reduction parameter (E). The spring and damping parameters may be adjusted before or during operation. The tuning parameters for the SIFs may be different for different objects, conditions, locations, or geometric configurations. The SIFs may comprise a first SIF that has a first value for a tuning parameter and a second SIF that has a second value for the tuning parameter, the first value being greater than the second value so that the resulting virtual forces and/or torques embodied in the constraint force F.sub.e are adapted to effect movement of the tool 20 more strongly as a result of the first SIF as compared to the second SIF. The values of the tuning parameters may be greater (e.g., stiffer) for position constraints than for orientation constraints, or vice versa.).
Lightcap and Dozeman are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the stiffness parameters of Dozeman in order to provide a more fine-tuned means of controlling the robot’s feedback. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the surgery is performed safely and in a controlled manner.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lightcap and Dozeman teaches the method of claim 1, and Lightcap further teaches wherein the boundary comprises a first boundary portion configured to interact with the first intersection point (0042, In step 220, haptic forces are determined based on the interaction of the first subset A of HIPs 20 with a boundary 40 of a haptic object.) and a second boundary portion configured to interact with the second interaction point (0044, In step 230, haptic forces from the second subset B of HIPs 20 are determined in a second subspace different from the first subspace.).
Regarding claim 9, Lightcap discloses a method of operating a robot of a surgical system, comprising:
Monitoring positions of a first interaction point defined relative to a surgical instrument and as second interaction point defined relative to the surgical instrument (0041, In step 210 of FIG. 5, subsets of HIPs 20 for a virtual tool 10 are identified. FIG. 3 shows a first subset A and a second subset B. The first subset A preferably includes a plurality of HIPs 20. The second subset B preferably includes only one HIP 20, though it may include more. As shown in FIG. 3, the HIP 20 of the second subset B is disposed between HIPs 20 of the first subset A.);
Determining a first force feedback based on a first interaction between the first interaction and a first boundary (0042, In step 220, haptic forces are determined based on the interaction of the first subset A of HIPs 20 with a boundary 40 of a haptic object.);
Determining a second force feedback based on a second interaction between the second interaction point and a second boundary (0044, In step 230, haptic forces from the second subset B of HIPs 20 are determined in a second subspace different from the first subspace.); and
Controlling the robot to provide a combined force feedback based on the first force feedback and the second force feedback (0046, In step 240, a total haptic interaction force is determined, preferably by summing the haptic forces in the first subspace C and the second subspace D. The total haptic interaction force, f, can be a summation of the individual Haptic forces, f.sub.i, from each HIP 20 in subset A and subset B).
Lightcap fails to disclose, however, wherein the first force feedback is based on a first stiffness; and
Wherein the second force feedback is based on a second stiffness.
Dozeman, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the first force feedback is based on a first stiffness (0191, In one implementation, the SIFs are not infinitely rigid, but instead each of the SIFs may have tuning (stiffness) parameters to adjust the stiffness of SIF relative to virtual constraints, e.g., by incorporating spring and damping parameters into the constraints. Such parameters may include a constraint force mixing parameter (C) and an error reduction parameter (E). The spring and damping parameters may be adjusted before or during operation. The tuning parameters for the SIFs may be different for different objects, conditions, locations, or geometric configurations. The SIFs may comprise a first SIF that has a first value for a tuning parameter and a second SIF that has a second value for the tuning parameter, the first value being greater than the second value so that the resulting virtual forces and/or torques embodied in the constraint force F.sub.e are adapted to effect movement of the tool 20 more strongly as a result of the first SIF as compared to the second SIF. The values of the tuning parameters may be greater (e.g., stiffer) for position constraints than for orientation constraints, or vice versa.); and
Wherein the second force feedback is based on a second stiffness (0191, In one implementation, the SIFs are not infinitely rigid, but instead each of the SIFs may have tuning (stiffness) parameters to adjust the stiffness of SIF relative to virtual constraints, e.g., by incorporating spring and damping parameters into the constraints. Such parameters may include a constraint force mixing parameter (C) and an error reduction parameter (E). The spring and damping parameters may be adjusted before or during operation. The tuning parameters for the SIFs may be different for different objects, conditions, locations, or geometric configurations. The SIFs may comprise a first SIF that has a first value for a tuning parameter and a second SIF that has a second value for the tuning parameter, the first value being greater than the second value so that the resulting virtual forces and/or torques embodied in the constraint force F.sub.e are adapted to effect movement of the tool 20 more strongly as a result of the first SIF as compared to the second SIF. The values of the tuning parameters may be greater (e.g., stiffer) for position constraints than for orientation constraints, or vice versa.).
Lightcap and Dozeman are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the stiffness parameters of Dozeman in order to provide a more fine-tuned means of controlling the robot’s feedback. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the surgery is performed safely and in a controlled manner.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lightcap in view of Dozeman, and further in view of Nadzadi (US 20220305653 A1), hereafter Nadzadi.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lightcap and Dozeman teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the first interaction point is positioned at a cutting tip of the surgical instrument and the second interaction point is positioned at a shaft of the surgical instrument.
Nadzadi, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the first interaction point is positioned at a cutting tip of the surgical instrument and the second interaction point is positioned at a shaft of the surgical instrument (0060, In other embodiments, (e.g., in the example of FIGS. 4-5) two points on the surgical tool are tracked, for example a tool center point (TCP) at a tip/effective end of the surgical tool and a second interaction point (SIP) positioned along a body or handle portion of the surgical tool).
Lightcap, Dozeman, and Nadzadi are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the interaction point positions of Nadzadi in order to provide a means of better constraining the movement of the surgical tool. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the surgical tool is both constrained and comfortable to control.
Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lightcap in view of Dozeman, and further in view of Elbanna (US 20200289133 A1), hereafter Elbanna.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lightcap and Dozeman teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach it further comprising adjusting, in response to activation of a powered cutting tool of the surgical instrument, the first stiffness.
Elbanna, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach adjusting, in response to activation of a powered cutting tool of the surgical instrument, the first stiffness (0149, The one or more controllers 30, 60, 62 control the tool 20 and/or bur 24 in the cutting mode by activating the first virtual boundary (VB1) to constrain the tool 20 and/or bur 24 according to the first stiffness parameter to penetrate the first cortical region (CR1) for penetrating the same).
Lightcap, Dozeman, and Elbanna are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the tool-activation responsive constraints of Elbanna in order to provide a means of further constraining the surgical tool. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the surgical tool is properly constrained to prevent accidental damage to the patient.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lightcap in view of Dozeman, and further in view of Ikits (US 20130172904 A1), hereafter Ikits.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lightcap and Dozeman teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach it further comprising increasing the first stiffness responsive to occurrence of a threshold amount of over-resection.
Ikits, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach increasing the first stiffness responsive to occurrence of a threshold amount of over-resection (0068, While the CSG technique is very useful for visualization, it may also be used to implement haptic feedback through the surgical robot 30. For example, locations in the bone model that are designated as being red (i.e., as being over-resected) may not be allowed, with the robot providing feedback biasing the tool from entering such regions. Similarly, tool movement within bone regions that are uncolored (no further resection required but margin not yet breached) or green (continue to resect) may be unrestricted. Alternatively, three different degrees of feedback, from no feedback to strong resistance, may be used to distinguish between all three types of regions.).
Lightcap, Dozeman, and Ikits are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., surgical robotic systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the over-resection determination and response of Ikits in order to provide a means of preventing further resection. The motivation to combine is to ensure that portions of the patient that are fully resected are not damaged incidentally by further resection.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 8, 11-13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lightcap in view of Dozeman, and further in view of Lonjaret (US 20230085725 A1), hereafter Lonjaret.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lightcap and Dozeman teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach it further comprising decreasing the first stiffness responsive to occurrence of a threshold amount of under-resection.
Lonjaret, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach decreasing the first stiffness responsive to occurrence of a threshold amount of under-resection (0325, During a first phase of the tibial osteotomy illustrated on FIGS. 24b and 24b′, a first dynamic boundary 202a is set to permit the cutting of a first part 204a of the tibial bone. Once the first part 204a of the bone is removed, as illustrated on FIG. 24b′, the control unit is adapted to modify the first dynamic boundary 202a, to permit the user to keep removing bones.).
Lightcap, Dozeman, and Lonjaret are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the dynamic boundary modification of Lonjaret in order to provide a means of allowing a user to continue to remove tissue when necessary. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the operator is easily and effectively able to remove tissue that is intended to be removed.
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 8, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lightcap and Dozeman teaches the method of claim 9, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the second boundary has a different shape than the first boundary.
Lonjaret, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the second boundary has a different shape than the first boundary (0320, Additionally, the control unit is adapted to define, based at least on the region of interest, at least one static boundary 201 and at least one dynamic boundary 202, the control unit being adapted to compute instruction(s) so as to prevent the surgical tool from crossing said boundaries. Such boundaries 201, 202 can be set by the control unit 300, before the beginning of the treatment and such boundaries are schematically represented on FIGS. 24a to 24e and on FIGS. 25a to 25h. According to the invention, the region of interest is fixed with respect to the anatomical structure for the entire course of the planned treatment. See also Figs. 24b-24e).
Lightcap, Dozeman, and Lonjaret are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the differing boundary shapes of Lonjaret in order to provide a means of more effectively constraining the movement of the surgical tool. The motivation to combine is to ensure that portions of the surgical tool are constrained properly relative to the actions they are required to perform.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lightcap and Dozeman teaches the method of claim 9, but fails to explicitly teach it further comprising changing the second boundary in response to the first interaction point crossing a planned position.
Lonjaret, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach changing the second boundary in response to the first interaction point crossing a planned position (0324, As illustrated on FIGS. 24b to 24e, the dynamic boundary 202a, 202b, 202c, 202d, which is represented with dotted lines, can be modified during the course of the treatment. The burr 131 illustrated has a cutting portion 131a and a non-cutting portion such as shank or shaft 131b. As shown, the burr extremity 131a forms the cutting portion of the surgical tool 130 in the example illustrated on FIGS. 24b to 24e and represents only a small part of the surgical tool 130. The illustrated burr 131 can cut either when displaced in the plunging direction, or when displaced sideways but limited in depth by the length of the cutting portion, such length being defined as the longest distance measured along the main axis of extension E of the surgical tool 130. The dynamic boundary 202a, 202b, 202c, 202d is, at each phase of the tibial osteotomy, computed, by the control unit, to ensure that only this burr extremity 131a, that is to say the cutting portion of the surgical tool 130, enters the region of interest 204 that is not yet milled out, so as to avoid that the non-cutting portion 131b of the burr 131 abuts a remaining portion of the region of interest 204, thus preventing to damage the surrounding of the region of interest 204, or the surgical tool 130.).
Lightcap, Dozeman, and Lonjaret are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the boundary adjustment of Lonjaret in order to provide a means of more effectively constraining the movement of the surgical tool. The motivation to combine is to ensure that portions of the surgical tool are constrained properly relative to the actions they are required to perform.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lightcap, Dozeman, and Lonjaret teaches the method of claim 12, and Lonjaret further teaches wherein changing the second boundary comprises increasing an allowable range of motion for the second interaction point (0324, As illustrated on FIGS. 24b to 24e, the dynamic boundary 202a, 202b, 202c, 202d, which is represented with dotted lines, can be modified during the course of the treatment. The burr 131 illustrated has a cutting portion 131a and a non-cutting portion such as shank or shaft 131b. As shown, the burr extremity 131a forms the cutting portion of the surgical tool 130 in the example illustrated on FIGS. 24b to 24e and represents only a small part of the surgical tool 130. The illustrated burr 131 can cut either when displaced in the plunging direction, or when displaced sideways but limited in depth by the length of the cutting portion, such length being defined as the longest distance measured along the main axis of extension E of the surgical tool 130. The dynamic boundary 202a, 202b, 202c, 202d is, at each phase of the tibial osteotomy, computed, by the control unit, to ensure that only this burr extremity 131a, that is to say the cutting portion of the surgical tool 130, enters the region of interest 204 that is not yet milled out, so as to avoid that the non-cutting portion 131b of the burr 131 abuts a remaining portion of the region of interest 204, thus preventing to damage the surrounding of the region of interest 204, or the surgical tool 130.).
Lightcap, Dozeman, and Lonjaret are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the boundary adjustment of Lonjaret in order to provide a means of more effectively constraining the movement of the surgical tool. The motivation to combine is to ensure that portions of the surgical tool are constrained properly relative to the actions they are required to perform.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lightcap, Dozeman, and Lonjaret teaches the method of claim 16, and Lonjaret further teaches it further comprising detecting the threshold amount of under-resection based on a duration of execution of a planned resection (0325, During a first phase of the tibial osteotomy illustrated on FIGS. 24b and 24b′, a first dynamic boundary 202a is set to permit the cutting of a first part 204a of the tibial bone. Once the first part 204a of the bone is removed, as illustrated on FIG. 24b′, the control unit is adapted to modify the first dynamic boundary 202a, to permit the user to keep removing bones. 0326, FIG. 24c illustrates a second phase of the tibial osteotomy, wherein a second dynamic boundary 202b is set to permit the cutting of a second part 204b of the tibial bone. Once the second part 204b of the tibial bone has been removed, the control unit is adapted to modify the second dynamic boundary 202b into a third dynamic boundary 202c as represented on FIG. 24d which illustrates a third phase of the tibial osteotomy. It is understood from this FIG. 24d, that the size of the removed parts 204a, 204b of the tibial bone here permit the user to apply an angulation in the displacement of the surgical tool 130, as represented by the arrow on FIG. 24d, thus permitting to remove a third part 204c of the tibial bone. Again, once the third part 204c of the tibial bone has been removed, the control unit is adapted to calculate subsequent dynamic boundaries up to last dynamic boundary 202d, for instance shown on FIG. 24e. Especially, FIG. 24e illustrated bone cut at the end of the retraction of the burr which is also a final phase of such tibial osteotomy cut. We note that during this final phase, the dynamic boundary has reached the static boundary 201, that is to say that the last dynamic boundary 202d matches said static boundary 201.).
Lightcap, Dozeman, and Lonjaret are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the boundary adjustment of Lonjaret in order to provide a means of more effectively constraining the movement of the surgical tool. The motivation to combine is to ensure that portions of the surgical tool are constrained properly relative to the actions they are required to perform.
Regarding claim 18, Lightcap discloses a method of operating a robot of a surgical system, comprising:
Monitoring a position of a first interaction point defined relative to a surgical instrument (0041, In step 210 of FIG. 5, subsets of HIPs 20 for a virtual tool 10 are identified. FIG. 3 shows a first subset A and a second subset B. The first subset A preferably includes a plurality of HIPs 20. The second subset B preferably includes only one HIP 20, though it may include more. As shown in FIG. 3, the HIP 20 of the second subset B is disposed between HIPs 20 of the first subset A.); and
Controlling the robot to provide a force feedback on the surgical instrument based on interaction between the first interaction point and a haptic boundary (0042, In step 220, haptic forces are determined based on the interaction of the first subset A of HIPs 20 with a boundary 40 of a haptic object.).
Lightcap fails to disclose, however, wherein the force feedback is based on a stiffness of the haptic boundary; and
Reducing the stiffness of the haptic boundary in response to occurrence of a threshold amount of under-resection relative to a planned resection.
Dozeman, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the force feedback is based on a stiffness of the haptic boundary (0191, In one implementation, the SIFs are not infinitely rigid, but instead each of the SIFs may have tuning (stiffness) parameters to adjust the stiffness of SIF relative to virtual constraints, e.g., by incorporating spring and damping parameters into the constraints. Such parameters may include a constraint force mixing parameter (C) and an error reduction parameter (E). The spring and damping parameters may be adjusted before or during operation. The tuning parameters for the SIFs may be different for different objects, conditions, locations, or geometric configurations. The SIFs may comprise a first SIF that has a first value for a tuning parameter and a second SIF that has a second value for the tuning parameter, the first value being greater than the second value so that the resulting virtual forces and/or torques embodied in the constraint force F.sub.e are adapted to effect movement of the tool 20 more strongly as a result of the first SIF as compared to the second SIF. The values of the tuning parameters may be greater (e.g., stiffer) for position constraints than for orientation constraints, or vice versa.).
Lightcap and Dozeman are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the stiffness parameters of Dozeman in order to provide a more fine-tuned means of controlling the robot’s feedback. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the surgery is performed safely and in a controlled manner.
The combination of Lightcap and Dozeman fails to teach, however, reducing the stiffness of the haptic boundary in response to occurrence of a threshold amount of under-resection relative to a planned resection.
Lonjaret, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach reducing the stiffness of the haptic boundary in response to occurrence of a threshold amount of under-resection relative to a planned resection (0325, During a first phase of the tibial osteotomy illustrated on FIGS. 24b and 24b′, a first dynamic boundary 202a is set to permit the cutting of a first part 204a of the tibial bone. Once the first part 204a of the bone is removed, as illustrated on FIG. 24b′, the control unit is adapted to modify the first dynamic boundary 202a, to permit the user to keep removing bones.).
Lightcap, Dozeman, and Lonjaret are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic surgical systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the dynamic boundary modification of Lonjaret in order to provide a means of allowing a user to continue to remove tissue when necessary. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the operator is easily and effectively able to remove tissue that is intended to be removed.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lightcap, Dozeman, and Lonjaret teaches the method of claim 18, and Lightcap further teaches it further comprising determining an additional force feedback based on an additional interaction between a second interaction point and the haptic boundary (0044, In step 230, haptic forces from the second subset B of HIPs 20 are determined in a second subspace different from the first subspace.) and controlling the robot to provide a combined force feedback based on the additional force feedback and the force feedback (0046, In step 240, a total haptic interaction force is determined, preferably by summing the haptic forces in the first subspace C and the second subspace D. The total haptic interaction force, f, can be a summation of the individual Haptic forces, f.sub.i, from each HIP 20 in subset A and subset B).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lightcap in view of Dozeman and Lonjaret, and further in view of Ikits.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lightcap, Dozeman, and Lonjaret teaches the method of claim 18, but fails to teach it further comprising increasing the stiffness in response to occurrence of a threshold amount of over-resection relative to the planned resection.
Ikits, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach increasing the stiffness in response to occurrence of a threshold amount of over-resection relative to the planned resection (0068, While the CSG technique is very useful for visualization, it may also be used to implement haptic feedback through the surgical robot 30. For example, locations in the bone model that are designated as being red (i.e., as being over-resected) may not be allowed, with the robot providing feedback biasing the tool from entering such regions. Similarly, tool movement within bone regions that are uncolored (no further resection required but margin not yet breached) or green (continue to resect) may be unrestricted. Alternatively, three different degrees of feedback, from no feedback to strong resistance, may be used to distinguish between all three types of regions.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 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:
Regarding claim 4, the closest pieces of prior art are Lightcap, Dozeman, Nadzadi, Elbanna, Ikits, Lonjaret, Zeng (US 20240138941 A1), and Morel (US 20180028269 A1).
Lightcap teaches a robotic surgical system having a plurality of haptic points on a surgical tool, wherein the first haptic points interact with a first subspace, and the second haptic points interact with a second subspace.
Dozeman teaches a robotic surgical system having virtual boundaries, wherein constraints of the tool are used to control operation of the surgical system.
Nadzadi teaches a robotic surgical system, wherein a first point is associated with a first location of a surgical tool, and a second point is associated with a second location of the surgical tool, wherein the position of the surgical tool is constrained based on the first and second points.
Elbanna teaches a robotic surgical system, wherein a robotic manipulator is operable to tightly constrain the position of a surgical tool based on operational conditions.
Ikits teaches a system for surgical visualization during a surgical procedure, wherein shape data of the patient is used to generate a bone model, and wherein a surgical tool is controlled based on the bone model.
Lonjaret teaches a robotic surgical system, wherein motion of a surgical tool is constrained with respect to an anatomical structure of the patient.
Zeng teaches a robotic surgical system, wherein feedback is provided to an operator based on pose information of an end tool of the robotic system.
Morel teaches a robotic surgical system able of calculating data relative to any point on a surgical instrument.
No reference, however, as a whole or in combination, teaches, discloses, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
Determining the second force feedback based on the second interaction between the second interaction point and the boundary based on the second stiffness is performed prior to the first interaction point crossing a planned position; and
The method further comprises changing, in response to the first interaction point crossing the planned position, a determination of the second force feedback from being based on the second interaction point interacting with the boundary to being based on the second interaction point interacting with an additional boundary.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 4, and is similarly objected to.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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.
/BLAKE A WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights