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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para. [0048] of the Present Specification reads at its first sentence “…perform some specified function on a targe organ enclosed in SA 630” but should read --…perform some specified function on a target organ enclosed in SA 630--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 12 and 19, and Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20-21 by dependency, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 5:
Claim 5 recites “wherein the predetermined criteria used to evaluate each of the candidate base locations include: … overall success rate with respect to the surgery area determined based on the reachability and continuity associated with each of the sub-areas of the surgery area.” The Present Specification describes determination of “overall success rate” at Paras. [0050] through [0053], Para. [0056], and Fig. 8B. However, the Present Specification does not elaborate on what the “overall success rate” entails in such a manner as would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to understand what is being done. The “overall success rate” is described in most detail as “computed, at 855, based on the statistic related to reachability and the continuity labels.” As what “success rate” entails cannot reasonably be deduced from the Present Specification, Claim 5 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claim 5 recites “continuity of each of the sub-areas in the surgery area grid.” The Present Specification sets forth a special definition of the term “continuity” at Para. [0033], stating “[t]he continuity associated with a sub-area may be defined as whether the robot can manipulate the surgical instrument through the trocar point to reach the sub-area from all of its neighboring sub-areas.” However, Claim 6 further limits the term continuity such that it is narrowed to the special definition of Para. [0033]. It appears the term “continuity” as used in Claim 5 is intended to be broader than its use in Claim 6. The Present Specification does not describe the term “continuity” in such a broader sense. As what “continuity” in the broader sense of Claim 5 entails cannot reasonably be deduced from the Present Specification, Claim 5 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Regarding Claims 12 and 19, Claims 12 and 19 recite verbatim the contents of Claim 5, and are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 5.
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 2, 5, 9, 12, 16 and 19, and Claims 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, 17-18, and 20-21 by dependency, 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 2:
Claim 2 recites “wherein the surgery information includes: a point near the target organ.” It is unclear in what sense “information” can include “a point.” That is, it is unclear how “a point,” without more (e.g., a location of a point), can be included as “information,” and it is thus unclear how the “receiving surgery information” of Claim 1 is further limited by that surgery information including “a point.”
For purposes of this Office Action, the limitation “wherein the surgery information includes: a point near the target organ” is being interpreted to mean that a target point is specified.
Claim 2 recites “dimensional parameters defining a surgery area centered at the point, which represents a three-dimensional (3D) region around the target organ and encloses the target organ.” It is grammatically unclear whether the “dimensional parameters” of the “surgery area” is “centered at the point.”
For purposes of this Office Action, Claim 2 is being interpreted to mean that the “surgery area” is “centered at the point.” This appears to be consistent with Paras. [0044], [0046] and [0050] of the Present Specification.
Claim 2 recites “dimensional parameters defining a surgery area centered at the point, which represents a three-dimensional (3D) region around the target organ and encloses the target organ.” It is grammatically unclear which element (the “dimensional parameters” of the “surgery area”) is intended to be modified by the term “which represents a three-dimensional (3D) region….” It is thus unclear what specifically “represents a three-dimensional (3D) region around the target organ and encloses the target organ.”
For purposes of this Office Action, the limitation “which represents a three-dimensional (3D) region…” is being interpreted to mean the “dimensional parameters” “represent[] a three-dimensional (3D) region….”
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 recites “continuity of each of the sub-areas in the surgery area grid.” The Present Specification sets forth a special definition of the term “continuity” at Para. [0033], stating “[t]he continuity associated with a sub-area may be defined as whether the robot can manipulate the surgical instrument through the trocar point to reach the sub-area from all of its neighboring sub-areas.” However, Claim 6 further limits the term continuity such that it is narrowed to the special definition of Para. [0033]. It appears the term “continuity” as used in Claim 5 is intended to be broader than its use in Claim 6. However, based on the special definition set forth at Para. [0033], it is unclear what precisely the intended broader scope of the term “continuity” as used in Claim 5 is.
For purposes of this Office Action, the term “continuity of each of the sub-areas in the surgery area grid” is being interpreted in accordance with its special definition as set forth at Para. [0033] of the Present Specification.
Regarding Claims 9 and 16, Claims 9 and 16 include similar limitations to those of Claim 2, and are indefinite for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 12 and 19, Claims 12 and 19 recite verbatim the contents of Claim 5, and are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Eligibility Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are directed to “a method” (i.e., a process) and thus fall within one of the four statutory categories. Claims 8-14 are directed to a “machine-readable and non-transitory medium having information recorded thereon” (i.e., a machine) and thus fall within one of the four statutory categories. Claims 15-21 are directed to a “system” (i.e., a machine) and thus fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One: Claims 1-21 recite abstract ideas.
Regarding Independent Claim 1:
“determining, based on the surgery information, a trocar location on the patient for inserting the surgical instrument to reach the target organ” recites a mental process when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation. Such determining as claimed can practically be performed in the human mind, for example by exercising judgment with regard to a suitable location. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
“generating, according to the trocar location and the target organ, candidate base locations within the surgery space, each of which corresponds to a location to deploy the robot for manipulating the surgical instrument to reach the target organ through the trocar location” recites a mental process when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation. Such generating as claimed can practically be performed in the human mind, for example by observing data reflective of trocar location and the target organ, and exercising judgment with regard to potential base locations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
“evaluating each of the candidate base locations according to predetermined criteria indicative of the robot's manipulability of the surgical instrument from the candidate base location with respect to the target organ” recites a mental process when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation. Such evaluating as claimed can practically be performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) (“…the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.”).
“and selecting, based on the evaluation result on each of the candidate base locations, an optimal base location from the candidate base locations” recites a mental process when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation. Such selecting as claimed can practically be performed in the human mind, for example by exercising judgment regarding optimal base location. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Regarding Claims 2-6, Claims 2-6 depend from and further limit Claim 1, and recite abstract ideas for the same reasons as does Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7:
“determining reachability of the sub-area” recites a mental process when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation. Such determining as claimed can practically be performed in the human mind, for example by observing the sub-area and exercising judgment regarding reachability. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
“and assessing continuity of the sub-area” recites a mental process when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation. Such assessing as claimed can practically be performed in the human mind, for example by observing the sub-area and exercising judgment regarding its continuity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
“assessing success rate associated with the candidate base location based on the reachability and continuity associated with each of the sub-areas in the surgery area grid” recites a mental process when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation. Such assessing as claimed can practically be performed in the human mind, for example by exercising judgment. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Regarding Independent Claim 8:
“determining, based on the surgery information, a trocar location on the patient for inserting the surgical instrument to reach the target organ” recites a mental process for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
“generating, according to the trocar location and the target organ, candidate base locations within the surgery space, each of which corresponds to a location to deploy the robot for manipulating the surgical instrument to reach the target organ through the trocar location” recites a mental process for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
“evaluating each of the candidate base locations according to predetermined criteria indicative of the robot's manipulability of the surgical instrument from the candidate base location with respect to the target organ” recites a mental process for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
“and selecting, based on the evaluation result on each of the candidate base locations, an optimal base location from the candidate base locations” recites a mental process for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 9-13, Claims 9-13 depend from and further limit Claim 8, and recite abstract ideas for the same reasons as does Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 14:
“determining reachability of the sub-area” recites a mental process for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 6.
“assessing continuity of the sub-area” recites a mental process for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 6.
“assessing success rate associated with the candidate base location based on the reachability and continuity associated with each of the sub-areas in the surgery area grid” recites a mental process for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 6.
Regarding Independent Claim 15:
“and determining, based on the surgery information, a trocar location on the patient for inserting the surgical instrument to reach the target organ” recites a mental process for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
“generating, according to the trocar location and the target organ, candidate base locations within the surgery space, each of which corresponds to a location to deploy the robot for manipulating the surgical instrument to reach the target organ through the trocar location” recites a mental process for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
“evaluating each of the candidate base locations according to predetermined criteria indicative of the robot's manipulability of the surgical instrument from the candidate base location with respect to the target organ” recites a mental process for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
“and selecting, based on the evaluation result on each of the candidate base locations, an optimal base location from the candidate base locations” recites a mental process for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 16-20, Claims 16-20 depend from and further limit Claim 15, and recite abstract ideas for the same reasons as does Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 21:
“determining reachability of the sub-area” recites a mental process for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 6.
“assessing continuity of the sub-area” recites a mental process for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 6.
“assessing success rate associated with the candidate base location based on the reachability and continuity associated with each of the sub-areas in the surgery area grid” recites a mental process for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 6.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two: Claims 1-21 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding Independent Claim 1:
“receiving surgery information related to a surgery on a target organ of a patient in a surgery space in which a robot is used to manipulate a surgical instrument to perform an operation directed to the target organ” amounts to necessary data gathering in conjunction with the recited mental process, and is insignificant extra-solution activity insufficient to integrate the claimed mental process into a practical application
Regarding Claims 2-7, Claims 2-7 do not recite any additional elements.
Regarding Independent Claim 8:
“A machine-readable and non-transitory medium having information recorded thereon,” is insufficient to integrate the claimed mental process into a practical application. Such a “machine-readable and non-transitory medium” is a generic computer structure for performing a generic computer function, and thus simply amounts to using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
“receiving surgery information related to a surgery on a target organ of a patient in a surgery space in which a robot is used to manipulate a surgical instrument to perform an operation directed to the target organ” is insufficient to integrate the claimed mental process into a practical application for the same reasons explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 9-14, Claims 9-14 do not recite any additional elements
Regarding Independent Claim 15:
“a trocar insertion location optimizer implemented by a processor” is insignificant extra-solution activity insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The recited “trocar insertion location optimizer implemented by a processor” amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it.” The recited processor is what allows the recited judicial exceptions to be performed by the system. Accordingly, the recited judicial exceptions are applied by the processor. “As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (‘The fact that a computer “necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,” is beside the point’).” MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
“receiving surgery information related to a surgery on a target organ of a patient in a surgery space in which a robot is used to manipulate a surgical instrument to perform an operation directed to the target organ” is insufficient to integrate the claimed mental process into a practical application for the same reasons explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
“and an optimal robot base location determiner implemented by a processor” is insignificant extra-solution activity insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The recited “an optimal robot base location determiner implemented by a processor” amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it.” The recited processor is what allows the recited judicial exceptions to be performed by the system. Accordingly, the recited judicial exceptions are applied by the processor. “As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (‘The fact that a computer “necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,” is beside the point’).” MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
“a base location generator implemented by a processor” is insignificant extra-solution activity insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The recited “base location generator implemented by a processor” amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it.” The recited processor is what allows the recited judicial exceptions to be performed by the system. Accordingly, the recited judicial exceptions are applied by the processor. “As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (‘The fact that a computer “necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,” is beside the point’).” MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Regarding Claims 16-21, Claims 16-21 do not recite any additional elements.
Eligibility Step 2B: Claims 1-21 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas recited therein
Regarding Independent Claim 1:
receiving surgery information related to a surgery on a target organ of a patient in a surgery space in which a robot is used to manipulate a surgical instrument to perform an operation directed to the target organ” does not contribute an inventive concept. Receipt of such information is well-understood, routine and conventional in the art. See, e.g., US 5,682,886 A at Col. 8, Ln. 57-60, (“As already noted, image data collection using other imaging techniques, for the purpose of developing three-dimensional computer models of the imaged body, is well-known in the field.”).
Regarding Claims 2-7, Claims 2-7 do not recite any additional elements.
Regarding Independent Claim 8:
“A machine-readable and non-transitory medium having information recorded thereon” does not contribute an inventive concept. The recited “machine-readable and non-transitory medium” amounts to adding the words “apply it” as explained above, and thus does not contribute an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
receiving surgery information related to a surgery on a target organ of a patient in a surgery space in which a robot is used to manipulate a surgical instrument to perform an operation directed to the target organ” does not contribute an inventive concept for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 9-14, Claims 9-14 do not recite any additional elements.
Regarding Independent Claim 15:
“a trocar insertion location optimizer implemented by a processor” does not contribute an inventive concept. The recited “processor” amounts to adding the words “apply it” as explained above, and thus does not contribute an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
“receiving surgery information related to a surgery on a target organ of a patient in a surgery space in which a robot is used to manipulate a surgical instrument to perform an operation directed to the target organ” does not contribute an inventive concept for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
“and an optimal robot base location determiner implemented by a processor and configured for…” does not contribute an inventive concept. The recited “processor” amounts to adding the words “apply it” as explained above, and thus does not contribute an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
“a base location generator implemented by a processor and configured for…” does not contribute an inventive concept. The recited “processor” amounts to adding the words “apply it” as explained above, and thus does not contribute an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding Claims 16-21, Claims 16-21 do not recite any additional elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2003/0109780 A1 to Coste-Maniere et al. (“Coste-Maniere”) as evidenced by Davis, R., "Principles of Laparoscopy- Trocar Positioning and Placement," OPEN MANUAL OF SURGERY IN RESOURCE-LIMITED SETTINGS, June 2022 (“Davis”)
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Coste-Maniere discloses:
A method, comprising: (Title, “Methods and apparatus for surgical planning”);
receiving surgery information related to a surgery on a target organ of a patient in a surgery space in which a robot is used to manipulate a surgical instrument to perform an operation directed to the target organ; (Fig. 3, “Preliminary Data Processing 110;” Fig. 4, “Acquisition 112” of “Preliminary Data Processing 110;” Para. [0047]; Para. [0048]; Para. [0050]);
With reference to Fig. 3, Para. [0047] sets forth “four general stages used to plan entry port placement” to “include preliminary data processing 110, planning 120, validation 130 and simulation 140.”
Coste-Maniere’s “data processing 110” step is equated herein to “receiving surgery information….”
With reference to Fig. 4, Para. [0050] explains that “Data acquisition 112 generally involves acquiring any data regarding a volume which is to be operated upon…,” and proceeds to elaborate upon what that data may entail.
Coste-Maniere’s “acquiring any data regarding a volume which is to be operated upon” is such “receiving surgery information related to a surgery on a target organ of a patient in a surgery space…” as claimed.
Para. [0048] describes what “Data acquisition 112” entails, and makes clear from its context that the acquired surgery information is for use in such a “surgery space in which a robot is used to manipulate a surgical instrument to perform an operation directed to the target organ” as claimed.
determining, based on the surgery information, a trocar location on the patient for inserting the surgical instrument to reach the target organ; (Para. [0055], “With reference again to FIG. 3, after preliminary data processing 110 planning 120 is performed. Planning 120 generally consists of identifying advantageous locations for two or more entry ports for accessing the defined volume to be operated upon.”);
Coste-Maniere’s “ports” are “trocars.” See Davis at Pg. 1 of 11, Right Column, Second Paragraph (“The cannulas that allow laparoscopic access without letting pneumoperitoneum escape are variably called ports or trocars; these two words are essentially interchangeable.” (emphasis added)).
generating, according to the trocar location and the target organ, candidate base locations within the surgery space, each of which corresponds to a location to deploy the robot for manipulating the surgical instrument to reach the target organ through the trocar location; (Para. [0055], “…planning 120 also includes planning one or more positions of a robot … for performing an operation, with the robot positioning being based on the advantageous locations of the two or more entry points;” Para. [0062], “Robot positioning will typically be based on the entry port placement and the robot configuration, such that the robot is positioned in a way that …. allows the arms to function in performing a given operation….”);
evaluating each of the candidate base locations according to predetermined criteria indicative of the robot's manipulability of the surgical instrument from the candidate base location with respect to the target organ; (Para. [0063], “To determine an advantageous robot position, one method uses a combined probabilistic and gradient descent approach, where configurations of the passive joints (including a translation of the base) are randomly drawn in robot articular space. To each configuration, a cost function is associated that depends on the constraints discussed above. … This process is repeated until a configuration arrives at a cost function that is less than a given threshold;” Para. [0062]);
As explained at Para. [0063], Coste-Maniere “randomly draw[s]” multiple “configurations of the passive joints (including a translation of the base)” and associates a “cost function… that depends on the constraints” discussed at Para. [0062].
Coste-Maniere’s “constraints” are such “predetermined criteria” as claimed.
Coste-Maniere’s assessment of randomly drawn configurations via “a cost function” is such “evaluating” as claimed.
and selecting, based on the evaluation result on each of the candidate base locations, an optimal base location from the candidate base locations. (Para. [0064], “…the robot is placed in the position which has been selected and movement of the robot as will be done during the operation is carried out…;” Para. [0063]).
After a “cost function is low enough” as described at Para. [0063], Coste-Maniere’s “robot is placed in the position which has been selected.” This placement equates to such “selecting” as claimed.
Regarding Independent Claim 81, Coste-Maniere discloses:
A machine-readable and non-transitory medium having information recorded thereon, wherein the information, when read by the machine, causes the machine to perform the following steps: (Para. [0044], “FIG. 2 shows a processor 400 coupled with master control station 200 and cart 300 and a tangible medium 410 embodying machine readable code, or software. The software typically includes instructions which enable various embodiments of the methods of the present invention. The tangible medium 410 may be coupled with the processor 400 for use.”);
receiving surgery information related to a surgery on a target organ of a patient in a surgery space in which a robot is used to manipulate a surgical instrument to perform an operation directed to the target organ; (Fig. 3, “Preliminary Data Processing 110;” Fig. 4, “Acquisition 112” of “Preliminary Data Processing 110;” Para. [0047]; Para. [0048]; Para. [0050]; see Rejection of Claim 1, above, elaborating);
determining, based on the surgery information, a trocar location on the patient for inserting the surgical instrument to reach the target organ; (Para. [0055]; see Rejection of Claim 1, above, elaborating);
generating, according to the trocar location and the target organ, candidate base locations within the surgery space, each of which corresponds to a location to deploy the robot for manipulating the surgical instrument to reach the target organ through the trocar location; (Para. [0055]; Para. [0062]; see Rejection of Claim 1, above, elaborating);
evaluating each of the candidate base locations according to predetermined criteria indicative of the robot's manipulability of the surgical instrument from the candidate base location with respect to the target organ; (Para. [0063]; Para. [0062]; see Rejection of Claim 1, above, elaborating);
and selecting, based on the evaluation result on each of the candidate base locations, an optimal base location from the candidate base locations. (Para. [0064]; Para. [0063]; see Rejection of Claim 1, above, elaborating).
Regarding Independent Claim 152, Coste-Maniere discloses:
A system, comprising: (Title, “Methods and apparatus for surgical planning”);
a trocar insertion location optimizer implemented by a processor and configured for (Para. [0044], “FIG. 2 shows a processor 400 coupled with master control station 200 and cart 300 and a tangible medium 410 embodying machine readable code, or software. The software typically includes instructions which enable various embodiments of the methods of the present invention. The tangible medium 410 may be coupled with the processor 400 for use.”);
Coste-Maniere discloses such processor-based implementation of all functions at Para. [0044]. Similar Claim 15 limitations to that above are being interpreted similarly.
receiving surgery information related to a surgery on a target organ of a patient in a surgery space in which a robot is used to manipulate a surgical instrument to perform an operation directed to the target organ, (Fig. 3, “Preliminary Data Processing 110;” Fig. 4, “Acquisition 112” of “Preliminary Data Processing 110;” Para. [0047]; Para. [0048]; Para. [0050]; see Rejection of Claim 1, above, elaborating);
and determining, based on the surgery information, a trocar location on the patient for inserting the surgical instrument to reach the target organ; (Para. [0055]; see Rejection of Claim 1, above, elaborating);
a base location generator implemented by a processor and configured for (Para. [0044]);
generating, according to the trocar location and the target organ, candidate base locations within the surgery space, each of which corresponds to a location to deploy the robot for manipulating the surgical instrument to reach the target organ through the trocar location; (Para. [0055]; Para. [0062]; see Rejection of Claim 1, above, elaborating);
and an optimal robot base location determiner implemented by a processor and configured for: (Para. [0044]);
evaluating each of the candidate base locations according to predetermined criteria indicative of the robot's manipulability of the surgical instrument from the candidate base location with respect to the target organ, (Para. [0063]; Para. [0062]; see Rejection of Claim 1, above, elaborating);
and selecting, based on the evaluation result on each of the candidate base locations, an optimal base location from the candidate base locations. (Para. [0064]; Para. [0063]; see Rejection of Claim 1, above, elaborating).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0109780 A1 to Coste-Maniere et al. (“Coste-Maniere”) as evidenced by Davis, R., "Principles of Laparoscopy- Trocar Positioning and Placement," OPEN MANUAL OF SURGERY IN RESOURCE-LIMITED SETTINGS, June 2022 (“Davis”) as applied to Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of US 2020/0281449 A1 to Yoshimura (“Yoshimura”) as evidenced by Bernhard. Geiger, “Three Dimentional Modeling of Human Organs and its Application to Diagnosis and Surgical Planning,” Technical Report 2105, INRIA-Sophia, 1993 (“Geiger”).
Regarding Claim 2, Coste-Maniere discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Coste-Maniere additionally discloses:
wherein the surgery information includes: a point near the target organ; (Para. [0056], “…a surgeon may specify target points within the patient or other defined volume on which the surgeon wants to operate, such as points on or in a heart in heart surgery. Target points may then be used to define a target area, within which the surgeon wishes to operate.”);
As explained above, the limitation “wherein the surgery information includes: a point near the target organ” is being interpreted to mean that a target point is specified.
a distance between the point and the trocar location; (Para. [0074], “ Port feasibility may be defined … relative to “reachability” criteria …. Such criteria may include, for example: maximum acceptable port-to-target distance…;” Para. [0063]; Para. [0062]).
Para. [0073] through [0122] detail an example of a specific instance of Coste-Maniere’s method, with the “criteria” of Para. [0074] corresponding to the “constraints” of Paras. [0062] and [0063].
Coste-Maniere uses “maximum acceptable port-to-target distance” as a constraint. As explained at Para. [0063], Coste-Maniere “randomly draw[s]” multiple “configurations of the passive joints (including a translation of the base)” and associates a “cost function… that depends on the constraints” discussed at Para. [0062]. Although it is not expressly states, to use “maximum acceptable port-to-target distance” for determining position, Coste-Maniere must include in the information used for this determination an actual (for a given position) port-to-target distance. This port-to-target distance is such “a distance between the point and the trocar location” as claimed.
dimensional parameters defining a surgery area…, which represents a three-dimensional (3D) region around the target organ and encloses the target organ (Para. [0053], “Another component in preliminary data processing 110 is reconstruction 116. Reconstruction 116 generally refers to formation of acquired, segmented data into a 3-dimensional model of the defined volume which will be operated upon.”).
As explained above, the limitation “which represents a three-dimensional (3D) region…” is being interpreted to mean the “dimensional parameters” “represent[] a three-dimensional (3D) region….”
As this limitation is best understood by the Examiner, Coste-Maniere’s “3-dimensional model of the defined volume which will be operated upon” is such “dimensional parameters” as claimed.
The Examiner notes that this interpretation is subject to change in view of clarification resolving the cited indefiniteness issues.
Coste-Maniere is silent with regard to where Coste-Maniere’s “3-dimensional model of the defined volume which will be operated upon” is centered. This deficiency is addressed below.
Coste-Maniere does not disclose:
centered at the point
That is, Coste-Maniere teaches “dimensional parameters defining a surgery area…, which represents a three-dimensional (3D) region around the target organ and encloses the target organ” but does not disclose “wherein the surgery area is centered at the point.”
Yoshimura describes “ a medical system configured to perform treatment through a hole formed on the abdominal wall and the like and an operation method of the medical system” (Para. [0002]). Yoshimura is analogous art.
Yoshimura teaches:
centered at the point (Para. [0129], “The control portion 33 is configured to make the coordinate of the reference position P and the coordinate of the center of the display image (target position) to coincide with each other….”).
As explained above, the limitation “dimensional parameters defining a surgery area centered at the point” is being interpreted to mean that the “surgery area” is “centered at the point.”
The term “centered” is being interpreted to mean being defined by a position coordinate of (0, 0, 0).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coste-Maniere with the teachings of Yoshimura (i.e., to center Coste-Maniere’s “3-dimensional model of the defined volume which will be operated upon” at Coste-Maniere’s “point” in the manner of Yoshimura) in order to facilitate tracking given relative movement of operating instruments and the patient (Yoshimura at Para. [0130] through [0131]).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coste-Maniere such that Coste-Maniere’s “3-dimensional model of the defined volume which will be operated upon” is centered at Coste-Maniere’s “point” because such a modification entails mere change in proportion (i.e., a change in relative dimensions), which is a common practice which the court has held normally requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedients. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A); see also Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
To elaborate, the term “centered” is being interpreted to mean being defined by a position coordinate of (0, 0, 0). It would have been obvious to define any coordinate (e.g., (1, 5, 7)) as (0, 0, 0). Doing so would not alter the function of the device, and amounts to a mere change in relative dimensions (i.e., proportion).
The Present Specification describes the relevant dimensional parameters and their center at Para. [0046]. The Present Specification does not indicate the center as critical. The function of Coste-Maniere’s method would not be altered by such a change.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Coste-Maniere and Yoshimura renders obvious the entirety of Claim 2 as explained above.
Coste-Maniere additionally teaches:
wherein the dimensional parameters include: a first set of parameters defining the dimension of the surgery area; and a second set of parameters defining the dimension of each of multiple sub-areas obtained by dividing the surgery area into a grid of the multiple sub-areas. (Para. [0053], “Another component in preliminary data processing 110 is reconstruction 116. Reconstruction 116 generally refers to formation of acquired, segmented data into a 3-dimensional model of the defined volume which will be operated upon. …. The underlying algorithm used for reconstruction 116 via nuages software is based on projected Voronoï diagrams, where the input is a set of closed non-intersecting contours, and the output is a mesh of triangles representing the reconstructed surface in 3D.”).
Coste-Maniere’s “3-dimensional model of the defined volume which will be operated upon” includes “a first set of parameters” as claimed. Coste-Maniere references Geiger with respect to the specifics of its “3-dimensional model.” Geiger makes clear that the “3-dimension model” includes such parameters (see, e.g., Gieger at Pg. 74, First Paragraph).
Coste-Maniere’s “mesh of triangles” is such a “grid of the multiple sub-areas” as claimed.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Coste-Maniere and Yoshimuro renders obvious the entirety of Claim 3 as explained above.
Coste-Maniere additionally teaches:
wherein the surgery area grid with multiple sub-areas is obtained to facilitate the evaluation of each of the candidate base locations in terms of whether the robot at the candidate base location is able to reach each of the multiple sub-areas in the surgery area (Para. [0057], “Referring now to FIG. 5, qualitative criteria, for example, may relate to the reachability from an admissible point 210 to a target point 212 , with the admissible point being eliminated from consideration if a tool to be used in the operation is not long enough to reach across distance 214 to reach target point 212;” Para. [0074], “Port feasibility may be defined, for example, relative to “reachability” criteria based on patient and tool models.”).
Coste-Maniere’s “’reachability’ criteria” is “based on patient and tool models,” which models include the Coste-Maniere’s “3-dimensional model of the defined volume which will be operated upon.” Coste-Maniere’s “surgery area grid with multiple sub-areas” is thus “obtained to facilitate the evaluation of each of the candidate base locations in terms of whether the robot at the candidate base location is able to reach each of the multiple sub-areas in the surgery area” (emphasis added) as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Cose-Maniere and Yoshimuro renders obvious the entirety of Claim 4 as explained above.
Coste Maniere additionally teaches:
wherein the predetermined criteria used to evaluate each of the candidate base locations include: reachability of each of the sub-areas in the surgery area grid; (Para. [0057], “Referring now to FIG. 5, qualitative criteria, for example, may relate to the reachability from an admissible point 210 to a target point 212 , with the admissible point being eliminated from consideration if a tool to be used in the operation is not long enough to reach across distance 214 to reach target point 212;” Para. [0074], “Port feasibility may be defined, for example, relative to “reachability” criteria based on patient and tool models.”);
The term “reachability of each of the sub-areas…” is being interpreted to mean whether each pertinent sub-area is reachable. This is distinct from an area-by-area determination of reachability for all sub-areas. Coste-Maniere teaches the former. Were the claim to more narrowly reflect the latter, the foregoing rejection would likely be overcome.
continuity of each of the sub-areas in the surgery area grid; (Para. [0057], “Referring now to FIG. 5, qualitative criteria, for example, may relate to the reachability from an admissible point 210 to a target point 212 , with the admissible point being eliminated from consideration if a tool to be used in the operation is not long enough to reach across distance 214 to reach target point 212;” Para. [0074], “Port feasibility may be defined, for example, relative to “reachability” criteria based on patient and tool models.”);
As explained above, the term “continuity of each of the sub-areas in the surgery area grid” is being interpreted in accordance with its special definition as set forth at Para. [0033] of the Present Specification.
Conte-Maniere’s “‘reachability’ criteria” “eliminate[] [target points] from consideration if a tool to be used in the operation is not long enough to reach across distance 214 to reach target point 212.” This is such “continuity” as claimed, as it depends on whether the surgical instrument manipulated by the robot at a candidate base location is able to reach the sub-area from adjacent sub-areas.
and overall success rate with respect to the surgery area determined based on the reachability and continuity associated with each of the sub-areas of the surgery area. (Para. [0070], “Again referring to FIG. 3, once entry port placement and robot positioning have been validated 130 and simulated 140, they may be registered 150;” Fig. 3, “Validation 130” and “Simulation 140”).
Conte-Maniere’s “Validation 130” and “Simulation 140” represent such an “overall success rate,” and depend on Conte-Maniere’s “reachability criteria” in that such criteria are tested pursuant to “Validation 130” and “Simulation 140.”
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Cose-Maniere and Yoshimuro renders obvious the entirety of Claim 5 as explained above.
Coste Maniere additionally teaches:
wherein the reachability with respect to a sub-area is defined to indicate whether the surgical instrument manipulated by the robot at a candidate base location is able to reach the sub-area; (Para. [0057], “Referring now to FIG. 5, qualitative criteria, for example, may relate to the reachability from an admissible point 210 to a target point 212 , with the admissible point being eliminated from consideration if a tool to be used in the operation is not long enough to reach across distance 214 to reach target point 212;” Para. [0074], “Port feasibility may be defined, for example, relative to “reachability” criteria based on patient and tool models.”);
and the continuity associated with a sub-area is defined to indicate whether the surgical instrument manipulated by the robot at a candidate base location is able to reach the sub-area from adjacent sub-areas (Para. [0057], “Referring now to FIG. 5, qualitative criteria, for example, may relate to the reachability from an admissible point 210 to a target point 212 , with the admissible point being eliminated from consideration if a tool to be used in the operation is not long enough to reach across distance 214 to reach target point 212;” Para. [0074], “Port feasibility may be defined, for example, relative to “reachability” criteria based on patient and tool models.”).
Conte-Maniere’s “‘reachability’ criteria” “eliminate[] [target points] from consideration if a tool to be used in the operation is not long enough to reach across distance 214 to reach target point 212.” This is such “continuity” as claimed, as it depends on whether the surgical instrument manipulated by the robot at a candidate base location is able to reach the sub-area from adjacent sub-areas
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Cose-Maniere and Yoshimuro renders obvious the entirety of Claim 5 as explained above.
Coste Maniere additionally teaches:
wherein the step of evaluating each of the candidate base locations comprises: with respect to each of the sub-areas in the surgery area grid, determining reachability of the sub-area, and assessing continuity of the sub-area; (Para. [0063], “To determine an advantageous robot position, one method uses a combined probabilistic and gradient descent approach, where configurations of the passive joints (including a translation of the base) are randomly drawn in robot articular space. To each configuration, a cost function is associated that depends on the constraints discussed above. … This process is repeated until a configuration arrives at a cost function that is less than a given threshold;” Para. [0062]);
assessing success rate associated with the candidate base location based on the reachability and continuity associated with each of the sub-areas in the surgery area grid (Para. [0070], “Again referring to FIG. 3, once entry port placement and robot positioning have been validated 130 and simulated 140, they may be registered 150;” Fig. 3, “Validation 130” and “Simulation 140”).
Conte-Maniere’s “Validation 130” and “Simulation 140” represent such an “overall success rate,” and depend on Conte-Maniere’s “reachability criteria” in that such criteria are tested pursuant to “Validation 130” and “Simulation 140.”
Regarding Claims 9 and 16, Claims 9 and 16 recite verbatim the contents of Claim 2. Claims 9 and 16 are rejected in the same manner as Claim 2.
Regarding Claims 10 and 17, Claims 10 and 17 recite verbatim the contents of Claim 3. Claims 10 and 17 are rejected in the same manner as Claim 3.
Regarding Claims 11 and 18, Claims 11 and 18 recite verbatim the contents of Claim 4. Claims 11 and 18 are rejected in the same manner as Claim 4.
Regarding Claims 12 and 19, Claims 12 and 19 recite verbatim the contents of Claim 5. Claims 11 and 18 are rejected in the same manner as Claim 5.
Regarding Claims 13 and 20, Claims 13 and 20 recite verbatim the contents of Claim 6. Claims 13 and 20 are rejected in the same manner as Claim 6.
Regarding Claims 14 and 21, Claims 14 and 21 recite verbatim the contents of Claim 7. Claims 14 and 21 are rejected in the same manner as Claim 7.
Art Made of Record Although Not Relied Upon
The Examiner makes note of the following prior art, which is deemed relevant although not relied upon in the foregoing rejection:
US 2021/0338351 A1 describes mapping of a surgical treatment room at Paras. [0046] through [0053].
US 6,390,097 B1 describes a similar grid to that of Claims 3-5, 10-12 and 16-19 at Fig. 2.
Austad, A., et al., Computer aided planning of trocar placement and robot settings in robot assisted surgery CARS 2001--H.U. Lemke at al., Eds., Elsevier Science B.V. (.COPYRGT. 2001) pp. 981-986 describes a similar coordinate based pathing system to that claimed at Figure 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J MUTCHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8012. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/C.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
1 Claim 8 differs substantively from Claim 1 only in its preamble. Claim 8 limitations that are similar to limitations of Claim 1 are being interpreted similarly. Such similar limitations are denoted by reference to the Rejection of Claim 1.
2 Claim 15 differs substantively from Claim 1 in that it specifies a particular processor-based implementation of otherwise similar Claim 1 method steps. Coste-Maniere discloses such processor-based implementation at Para. [0044]. Claim 15 limitations that are similar to limitations of Claim 1 are being interpreted similarly. Such similar limitations are denoted by reference to the Rejection of Claim 1.
Prosecution Insights