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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20 as filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental observation or a mental process without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 15, and 19 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 1, 15, and 19 fall within one of the statutory categories? Claim 1 is directed towards a system, claim 15 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium, and claim 19 is directed towards a method, and as such fall within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, claims 1, 15, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea of mental observation or a mental process.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
NOTE: Claims 1, 15, and 19 recite limitations that are similar in scope, hence examiner will primarily assess system of claim 1 only.
The system of claim 1 contains a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The claims merely seek to determine the actions of a surgical procedure, determine the potential positions of a surgical robot, and generate a score, all of which can be performed by a human mentally, and as such, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Therefore, the limitations of “determine a plurality of actions to be completed…”, “determine a plurality of potential positions…”, and “generate a score associated with a potential position…” in claim 1 is a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. While claim 1 does recite that the system is for generating a score associated with optimizing the placement of surgical robots, there are no limitations in the body of the claim that recite actual robotic control or implementation of steps.
Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case in claim 15, “A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein that are executable by processing circuity”, i.e., a computer. Therefore, it is generally linking to a technological environment, i.e., computer. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. The limitation identified in claim 15 as generally linking to a technology environment in step 2A qualifies as generally linking in step 2B as well.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1, 15, and 19 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1, 15, and 19 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
• With respect to claims 2, 16, and 20, the claims merely recite “wherein the operation to generate the score includes…” this is still a mental process based on estimations and cannot be considered a practical application or significantly more. Additionally, the limitation of “wherein the plurality of actions to be completed by the surgical robot station includes” further defines the actions to be completed, but does not overcome the “determine a plurality of actions” limitation of independent claim 1.
• With respect to claim 3, the claims further limits what each potential position includes. This is merely defining the potential positions, hence is still part of an abstract idea and cannot be considered a practical application or significantly more.
• With respect to claims 4 -7, the limitations “the operation to generate the score comprises to quantify…”, “the operation to generate the score includes to determine…”, “the operations further comprising to: determine”, and “the operation to determine that the potential position is the desired position” is a mental process. Therefore, the claims are still directed towards an abstract idea and cannot be considered a practical application or significantly more.
• With respect to claims 9, 10, and 17, the limitations “determine a current position…”, “output an indication of the current position …”, and “the operation to determine the current position” is a mental process. Therefore, the claims are still directed towards an abstract idea and cannot be considered a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, “output an indication” and “to receive an indication” is mere receiving or transmitting data, hence an insignificant extra solution. And as such has been recognized as well-understood routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
• With respect to claims 12, and 13, the limitations “determine a second score…”, and “determine whether to split the operation …” are a mental process. Therefore, the claims are still directed towards an abstract idea and cannot be considered a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, “output an indication” is mere transmitting data, hence an insignificant extra solution. And as such has been recognized as well-understood routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 15, and 19.
Therefore, claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DiMaio et al (US Patent application publication 20190216555 A1 hereinafter “DiMaio”).
Regarding Claim 1, DiMaio discloses in figures 1 and 3 and 0226
A surgical robot system (100) comprising:
processing circuitry (302); and
memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry to cause the surgical robot system to perform operations to:
DiMaio pertains to a system to position the base of a surgical robot and further discloses
determine a plurality of actions to be completed by a surgical robot station during a surgery
DiMaio refers to a plurality of actions during a surgery as a surgical procedure and details determining the surgical procedures by stating “The procedure data 504 include data indicative of the specific surgical procedure to be performed on the patient 102. The procedure data 504 can refer to specific requirements of a surgical workspace, e.g., an area around the patient 102 that the surgical tool 108 should be able to access during the surgery, due to the specific surgical procedure to be performed on the patient” (0125). DiMaio further discloses
determine a plurality of potential positions in an operating room that the surgical robot station can be positioned during the surgery;
DiMaio refers to a potential position that a robot can be positioned at as a base location and refers to a plurality of positions as a range of positions, specifying “The optimal base location envelope 122, for example, corresponds to a range of three-dimensional positions for the base 110 within the surgical environment 10” (0056). DiMaio further discloses
generate a score associated with a potential position of the plurality of potential positions based on estimated movement of the surgical robot station required to perform the plurality of actions during the surgery from the potential position.
DiMaio refers to generating a score as determining an optimality score, specifying “Based on the inputs and/or the one or more indices, the processor 302 determines (406) an optimum pose and an optimality score for the current pose of the surgical manipulator assembly 104.” (0141). DiMaio refers to the estimated movements required to perform the surgery as the inputs to the processor, specifying “The inputs 500 can include user inputs specified by the operators as well as sensor signals generated by sensors of the sensor system 308. The inputs 500 can include, for example, procedure data 504, equipment data 506, pose data 508, operator data 509, obstacle data 510, patient data 512, and port data 514” (0124).
Regarding Claim 2, DiMaio discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses in figure 2 wherein the surgical robot system comprises:
the surgical robot station (104), which includes:
a base configured to stabilize the surgical robot station at a desired position in the operating room (110, 111); and
a robotic arm configured to hold a surgical tool at a plurality of different poses within a range of the robotic arm, each pose of the plurality of different poses having a different pose (106),
DiMaio further discloses
wherein the plurality of actions to be completed by the surgical robot station includes positioning the surgical tool at a plurality of poses relative to a patient,
DiMaio refers to a plurality of actions during a surgery as a surgical procedure and details the positioning of the tool relative to the patient by stating “The procedure data 504 include data indicative of the specific surgical procedure to be performed on the patient 102. The procedure data 504 can refer to specific requirements of a surgical workspace, e.g., an area around the patient 102 that the surgical tool 108 should be able to access during the surgery, due to the specific surgical procedure to be performed on the patient. A surgical procedure may require a predetermined extent of the workspace.” (0125). DiMaio further discloses
wherein the operation to generate the score includes to determine the score based on at least one of:
an estimated ability of the robotic arm to position the surgical tool at each pose of the plurality of poses relative to the patient;
an estimated amount of movement of the robotic arm to position the surgical tool at each pose of the plurality of poses relative to the patient;
an estimated type of movement of the robotic arm to position the surgical tool at each pose of the plurality of poses relative to the patient;
an estimated stability of the robotic arm while holding the surgical tool at each pose of the plurality of poses relative to the patient; and
an estimated angle of a joint associated with the robotic arm used to position the surgical tool at each pose of the plurality of poses relative to the patient.
DiMaio refers to generating a score as determining an optimality score based on the inputs 504-514. DiMaio refers to an estimated ability to position the tool relative to the patient as an area that the tool should be able to access, specifying “The procedure data 504 can refer to specific requirements of a surgical workspace, e.g., an area around the patient 102 that the surgical tool 108 should be able to access during the surgery, due to the specific surgical procedure to be performed on the patient” (0125). DiMaio discloses an estimate of the stability of a pose by stating “In some cases, the processor is configured to activate an alert in response to detecting that the distal portion or surgical tool is unstable while driving the powered joint” (0019). DiMaio refers to an estimated angle of a robot joint as equipment data, specifying “The equipment data 506 include data indicative of specifications of the equipment to be used during the surgery. The equipment data 506 can include data that specifies a range of motion for each of the joints of the surgical manipulator assembly 104. The range of motion can be a structural or mechanical limitation. The ranges of motion indicated in the equipment data 506 can include ranges of motion for passive joints, active joints, or both” (0128).
Regarding Claim 3, DiMaio discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein each potential position of the plurality of positions includes a potential location and a potential orientation of the surgical robot station in the operating room. DiMaio refers to a potential position as a pose, a potential location as a position, and discloses that a potential position (there pose) includes a location (there position) and an orientation by stating “A pose of the distal portion of a manipulator arm (or of the item held by the manipulator arm) can include a position, an orientation, or any combination of position and orientation parameters, of the distal portion (or of the item)” (0058). DiMaio refers to an operating room as a surgical environment and discloses that the potential position of the surgical robot is in the operating room by detailing “During the repositioning of the base 110, a distal portion of the remotely controllable arm 106 (or an item supported by the remotely controllable arm, such as a cannula or a surgical tool 108 mounted on the remotely controllable arm 106 and extending distally relative to the remotely controllable arm) can be externally maintained in a desired position and/or orientation within the surgical environment 10” (0049).
Regarding Claim 5, DiMaio discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the operation to generate the score includes to determine a plurality of scores that are each associated with one potential position of the plurality of potential positions. DiMaio refers to the score as an optimality score, a plurality of scores as a range of scores, and a plurality of potential positions as the location envelope withing the operating room. DiMaio specifies, “Based on the inputs and/or the one or more indices, the processor 302 determines (406) an optimum pose and an optimality score for the current pose of the surgical manipulator assembly 104. The processor 302 can determine a range of optimum poses or optimum positions for the base 110” (0141) and “In some examples, the optimal base location envelope 122 includes multiple optimal positions having a maximum optimality score” (0141).
Regarding Claim 6, DiMaio discloses all the limitations of claim 5, and further discloses
determine that the potential position of the plurality of potential positions is a desired position of the surgical robot system based on the score; and
output an indication of the desired position.
DiMaio refers to desired positions as those positions that have an above threshold score. DiMaio refers to outputs both in terms of control signals to robotic components as well as indicators to human operators. DiMaio specifies the score as an optimality score, a plurality of scores as a range of scores, and a plurality of potential positions as the location envelope withing the operating room. DiMaio specifies, “If the optimality score is greater than a threshold optimality score (operation 408), the processor 302 optionally outputs (operation 410) a signal that activates an indication signifying that the positioning of the base 110 is complete” (0159).
Regarding Claim 7, DiMaio discloses all the limitations of claim 6, and further discloses
wherein the operation to determine that the potential position is the desired position of the surgical robot station includes determining that the potential position is a center of gravity of a surface defined by the plurality of scores.
DiMaio refers to a surface defined by the plurality of scores as the optimal base location envelope, specifying “In some implementations, the optimal base location envelope 122 corresponds to a range of optimal two-dimensional positions along a plane parallel to the floor surface 20. In some examples, the optimal base location envelope 122 includes multiple optimal positions having a maximum optimality score. The processor 302 can compute the optimal pose, the optimum poses, and/or the optimal base location envelope 122 based on the inputs 500” (0141). Given the optimal location envelope surface, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control before the applicant’s filing date to compute a center of gravity to determine a desired position within the optimal base location envelope.
Regarding Claim 9, DiMaio discloses all the limitations of claim 6, and further discloses
wherein the operation to output the indication of the desired position includes to:
determine a current position of the surgical robot station; and
output an indication of the current position of the surgical tool relative to the desired position of the surgical tool.
DiMaio refers to the surgical robot station as a base and discloses determining the current location of the base by stating “the processor 302 determines, based on the obstacle data 510, that there does not exist a path of movement for the base 110 into the optimal base location envelope 122 due to obstacles between the current location of the base 110 and the optimal base location envelope 122” (0168). DiMaio refers to the surgical tool position as pose data, specifying “The pose data 508 include data indicative of poses of the joints, links, the surgical tool, and other components of the surgical manipulator assembly 104” (0132). DiMaio refers to outputting an indication in terms of sensor data, and discloses outputting an indication of the current position of the tool relative to the desired position by stating “When the processor 302 executes the process 400 to position the base 110, as the base 110 is moved, the pose sensors 309 can generate signals responsive to motion of the base 110” (0132).
Regarding Claim 10, DiMaio discloses all the limitations of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the operation to determine the current position of the surgical robot station includes to receive an indication of the current position from a camera tracking system. The system of DiMaio employs a sensor system (308 Figure 3) to determine the current relative positions of the robotic arm, patient, surgical tool, and other obstacles in the operating room. DiMaio refers to a camera tracking system as an optical time-of-flight sensor, and discloses receiving an indication of the position of the surgical robot relative to the patient by detailing “In some implementations, the sensor system 308 includes a patient motion sensor 310 to measure motion of the patient 102 relative to the distal portion of the arm 106 (or of a cannula or surgical tool 108 or other item mounted to the arm 106). The patient motion sensor 310 can include a sensor proximate to the distal portion of the arm 106 (or of a cannula or surgical tool 108 or other item mounted to the arm 106) that detects when a body of the patient 102 moves relative to the sensor. The sensor is, for example, an emitter-receiver sensor that detects a distance of nearby objects. The sensor can be an optical time-of-flight sensor that emits infrared light and receives the reflected infrared light to determine the distance of the patient 102” (0119).
Regarding Claim 11, DiMaio discloses all the limitations of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the operation to output the indication of the current position of the surgical robot station includes at least one of:
display a virtual map including a virtual element representing the current position of the surgical tool and a virtual element representing the desired position of the surgical tool;
output an indication that the surgical tool is positioned at the desired position;
output an indication of a direction from the current position to the desired position;
output an indication of a distance between the current position and the desired position; and
transmit instructions to cause the surgical tool to move to the desired position.
DiMaio refers to transmitting instructions as outputting signals to control, detailing “The outputs 502 can include output signals to control the surgical manipulator assembly 104” (0124). DiMaio further specifies that this control signal is to move the base that is supporting the surgical tool to a desired position by stating “the processor controls the base positioning system to move the base 110 toward the optimal base location envelope 122” (0178).
Regarding Claim 12, DiMaio discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the score is a first score,
wherein the potential position is a first potential position,
the operations further comprising to:
determine a second score associated with an ability of the surgical tool to perform a first portion of the plurality of actions at a second potential position of the plurality of potential positions and an ability of the surgical tool to perform a second portion of the plurality of actions at a third potential position of the plurality of potential positions; and
DiMaio refers to a second and third possible positions as a range of possible positions, specifying “Based on the inputs and/or the one or more indices, the processor 302 determines (406) an optimum pose and an optimality score for the current pose of the surgical manipulator assembly 104. The processor 302 can determine a range of optimum poses or optimum positions for the base 110” (0141). DiMaio refers to the plurality of actions as surgical procedure data, and refers to dividing the actions into portions in terms of a second repositioning, detailing “During the surgery, in some implementations, a second repositioning of the base 110 may be beneficial to reposition the base 110 in a more optimal position due to changes in the inputs received by the processor” (0183). DiMaio further discloses
determine whether to split the operation into a plurality of segments based on the first score and/or the second score, each segment of the plurality of segments being associated with a different portion of the plurality of actions to be completed by the surgical tool.
DiMaio refers to determining in terms of the processor detecting, and discloses determining to split the action by stating “In some examples, the processor detects that a second repositioning and then requests that the operator 604 provide confirmation that the processor should perform a second positioning of the base 110 using the base positioning system” (0183).
Regarding Claim 13, DiMaio discloses all the limitations of claim 12, and further discloses, wherein the operation to determine whether to split the operation into the plurality of segments includes to determine to split the operation into the plurality of segments,
the operations further comprising to:
prior to the first segment, determine a first current position of the surgical tool;
prior to the first segment, output an indication of the first current position of the surgical tool relative to the second potential position of the surgical tool;
subsequent to the first segment and prior to the second segment, determine a second current position of the surgical tool; and
subsequent to the first segment and prior to the second segment, output an indication of the second current position of the surgical tool relative to the third potential position of the surgical tool.
DiMaio refers to prior/subsequent to the first segment and prior/subsequent to the second segment as the iterative process depicted in figure 4, which includes the determining to split the operation into a plurality of segments as detailed in the rejection of claim 12 above. DiMaio further discloses determining the current position of the surgical tool by detailing “The pose data 508 includes the initial pose of each of the joints and/or links of the remotely controllable arm 106, the initial pose of each of the joints and/or links of the setup assembly 109, the initial pose of distal portion of the arm 106 (and/or of a cannula or surgical tool 108 or other item mounted to the arm 106), and the initial pose of the base 110” (0132). DiMaio further discloses the position of the surgical tool relative to a potential position by detailing “the optimality score represents a proximity of the current pose of the surgical manipulator assembly 104 to the optimal base pose or the optimal base location envelope 122” (0141). DiMaio refers to determining the current position of the surgical tool as the pose data 508 and it is understood to those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control that this applies equally to the first current position, the second current position, and the nth current position. DiMaio discloses outputting the current position relative to a potential position by stating “the optimality score represents a proximity of the current pose of the surgical manipulator assembly 104 to the optimal base pose or the optimal base location envelope 122” (0141). It is understood to those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control that this applies equally to the first current position relative to the second potential position, the second current position relative to the third potential position, and the nth current position relative to the (n+1)th potential position.
Regarding Claim 14, DiMaio discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses, wherein the surgical robot system is configured to provide guidance to a surgeon performing a total knee arthroplasty ("TKA"). DiMaio refers to the surgery to be performed as procedure data, stating “The procedure data 504 include data indicative of the specific surgical procedure to be performed on the patient 102. The procedure data 504 can refer to specific requirements of a surgical workspace, e.g., an area around the patient 102 that the surgical tool 108 should be able to access during the surgery, due to the specific surgical procedure to be performed on the patient. A surgical procedure may require a predetermined extent of the workspace” (0125). DiMaio refers to the tools needed for the surgery as equipment data, stating “The equipment data 506 can also include information pertaining to the type of the surgical tool 108 mounted to the remotely controllable arm 106. The type of the surgical tool 108 may affect, for example, an extent of the workspace and an amount of torque necessary to perform an operation” (0131). DiMaio refers to the information about the patient receiving the surgery as patient data, stating “The patient data 512 include data indicative of patient-specific characteristics” (0135) and “In some cases, the patient data 512 includes intraoperative images or surface scans” (0135). Therefore, it would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic surgery before the applicant’s filing date to use the procedure data, equipment data, and patient data of the system of DiMaio to perform a total knee arthroplasty.
Regarding Claim 15, DiMaio discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein that are executable by processing circuity of a surgical robot system to cause the surgical robot system to perform operations to: by stating “The surgical systems (e.g., the surgical system 100) and robotic components of the surgical systems (e.g., the remotely controllable arm 106, the surgical manipulator assembly 104) described herein can be controlled, at least in part, using one or more computer program products, e.g., one or more computer programs tangibly embodied in one or more information carriers, such as one or more non-transitory machine-readable media, for execution by, or to control the operation of, one or more data processing apparatus, e.g., a programmable processor, a computer, multiple computers, and/or programmable logic components” (0223)
The remainder of claim 15 is disclosed in a similar manner as the rejections of claims 1 and 6 above.
Regarding Claim 16, DiMaio discloses all the limitations of claim 15, and further discloses the remaining limitations in a similar manner as the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 17, DiMaio discloses all the limitations of claim 15, and further discloses the remaining limitations in a similar manner as the rejection of claim 9 above.
Regarding Claim 18, DiMaio discloses all the limitations of claim 15, and further discloses the remaining limitations in a similar manner as the rejection of claim 14 above.
Regarding Claim 19, DiMaio discloses in figure 4 A method (400) of operating a surgical robot system, the method comprising: with the remainder of claim 19 being disclosed in a similar manner as the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 20, DiMaio discloses all the limitations of claim 19, and further discloses the remaining limitations in a similar manner as the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiMaio in view of Zucker (U.S. Patent Application publication 20230096023 A1 hereinafter “Zucker”).
Regarding Claim 8, DiMaio discloses all the limitations of claim 7, and further discloses
wherein the operation to output the indication of the desired position includes to:
generate a from the surface defined by the plurality of scores; and
display the with a graphical element indicating the desired position.
DiMaio refers to a desired position as a position within the optimal location envelope with an optimality score greater than threshold, and details indicating this position to a user by stating “The indication is, for example, a visual, tactile, or audible indication. In some examples, the indication is presented on a graphic display that the operator views during the positioning of the base 110” (0159). DiMaio further details mapping of the obstacle data, which is a component of the optimality score, by stating “In some examples, the obstacle data 510 can include a map of the surgical environment 10 inputted by the operator. The map can include locations of potential obstacles within the surgical environment 10, such as other pieces of equipment of the surgical system 100” (0134). DiMaio fails to explicitly teach displaying a heat map of scores to the user. However, Zucker teaches displaying a heat map of scores to the user. Zucker pertains to a system to map the workspace of a surgical robot and refers to desirable potential positions in terms of probability zones. Zucker discloses displaying to a user a heat map of scores indicating a desired position by stating “the 3D map 312 may be or comprise a heat map. The heat map may provide visual indicia of the low probability zones 316, the high probability zones 320, the no fly zone 324, and/or the working volume 308. In some embodiments, the heat map may be rendered to a user interface (e.g., a user interface 110) to permit users (e.g., surgeons, surgical staff, etc.) to view the heat map. In some embodiments, one or more of the low probability zones 316, the high probability zones 320, the no fly zone 324, and/or the working volume 308 may provide different visual indicia, such that they can be distinguished from one another by the users in the surgical environment. For instance, the low probability zones 316 may be rendered as blue or green areas, the high probability zones 320 may be rendered as yellow or orange areas, and the no fly zone 324 may be rendered as red areas” (0093). Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control before the applicant’s filing date to substitute the known position indicator display of DiMaio with the known score heat map display of Zucker to obtain the predictable result of displaying to a user a heat map of the optimality scores indicating the desired position calculated by the system of DiMaio (see MPEP 2143 I.B for rationale).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
• Huang et al (US Patent application publication 20210298851). This application also pertains to optimizing the location of robotic arms for surgery but is less explicit on the use of a score during the optimization process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan Daniel Neckel whose telephone number is (571)272-9537. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. 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.
/NATHAN DANIEL NECKEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights