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
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the content of the abstract appears to cover the subject matter claimed in related application 19/053,691. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the claims recite “objects within a threshold a threshold distance of the robotic arm.” The doubled “a threshold” leaves the metes and bounds of the distance limitation unascertainable. It is unclear whether Applicant intends “a threshold distance,” “a first threshold distance” or two different thresholds. See MPEP 2173.05(a). Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “the operation to update the path for robotic arm includes” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the words “for robotic arm” are intended to refer back to “the robotic arm” or whether the words are intended to introduce a second robot arm. Accordingly the claim is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Regarding claim 11-19, claim 11 recites “processing circuity”. While the examiner understands this to be a typographical error for “processing circuitry,” the claim recites a term that has no ordinary meaning in the art and is not defined in the specification. Accordingly, claims 11-19 are indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear.
Regarding claim 20, the claim “receiving an indication of a current position of a second plurality of objects … from the position tracking system” and “receiving an indication of a current position of the robotic arm from the position tracking system.” There is no antecedent basis in claim 20 for “the position tracking system.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zucker (US 2023/0096023 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10-11 and 20, Zucker discloses a surgical robot system comprising: processing circuitry (Fig. 1, element 102); and memory (Fig. 1, element 106) 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 (paragraphs 0053-0058) comprising to: receive (Fig. 4, step 404 via Figs. 1-3, element 112) an indication of a position of each object of a first plurality of objects (Figs. 2-3, element 202, 302, 352) in a surgical environment from a position tracking system (Figs. 1-3, elements 112, 118, 204, 304; paragraphs 0053, 0073-0075, 0090-0091, 0098-0099, 0106-0107); receive (Fig. 4, step 408) an indication of a starting position of a robotic arm (Figs. 1-3, element 116) of a surgical robot station (Figs. 1-3, element 100) from the position tracking system (paragraphs 0065, 0106-0107); determine a target position (Fig. 2, element 220, end position) of the robotic arm based on a surgery being performed by the surgical robot station (paragraphs 0056, 0077, 0081, 0087); determine (Fig. 4, step 412, 416 and Figs. 2-3) a path for the robotic arm to move from the starting position to the target position based on the starting position, the target position, and the position of each object of the first plurality of objects (paragraphs 0073-0082, 0090-0095, 0108-0110); subsequent to the robotic arm beginning to move along the path and prior to the robotic arm arriving at the target position, receive an indication of a current position of a second plurality of objects in the surgical environment from the position tracking system (paragraphs 0078, 0084, 0096, 0114; it is noted that the updated position data for objects are continuously received while the robotic arm is already moving along a path); subsequent to the robotic arm beginning to move along the path and prior to the robotic arm arriving at the target position, receive an indication of a current position of the robotic arm from the position tracking system (paragraphs 0067, 0074, 0078, 0106, 0114; it is noted that updated pose data for the robotic arm are continuously received while the arm is moving); and update (Fig. 4, step 420) the path for the robotic arm based on the current position of the robotic arm and the current position of the second plurality of objects (paragraphs 0050-0052, 0082-0089, 0095-0097, 0101-0103, 0111, 0114).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Zucker discloses the surgical robot system of claims 1 and 11 above, wherein the operation to receive the indication of the current position of the second plurality of objects includes at least one of: periodically receive the indication of the current position of the second plurality of objects in the surgical environment from the position tracking system (paragraphs 0078, 0084, 0096, 0114); receive the indication of the current position of the second plurality of objects in the surgical environment from the position tracking system in response to detecting a collision (paragraph 0049, 0083, 0088); and receive the indication of the current position of the second plurality of objects in the surgical environment from the position tracking system in response to the robotic arm stopping its movement along the path (paragraph 0083, 0088, 0111, 0114).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Zucker discloses the surgical robot system of claims 1 and 11 above, wherein the operation to receive the indication of the current position of the robotic arm from the position tracking system includes at least one of: periodically receive the indication of the current position of the robotic arm from the position tracking system (paragraph 0067, 0074, 0078, 0106, 0114); receive the indication of the current position of the robotic arm from the position tracking system in response to detecting a collision (paragraph 0049, 0083, 0088); and receive the indication of the current position of the robotic arm from the position tracking system in response to the robotic arm stopping its movement along the path (paragraph 0083, 0088, 0111, 0114).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Zucker discloses the surgical robot system of claims 1 and 11 above, wherein the first plurality of objects includes objects within a threshold a threshold distance of the robotic arm at a first time, and wherein the second plurality of objects includes objects within a threshold distance of the robotic arm at a second time (paragraphs 0076-0081, 0083-0084, 0088, 0092, 0096, 0111, 0114).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Zucker discloses the surgical robot system of claims 1 and 11, wherein the operation to determine the path for the robotic arm includes to: determine a proximity threshold associated with each object of the first plurality of objects (paragraphs 0079-0081, 0083, 0088, 0096; Figs. 2A-2B, 3A); and determine the path for the robotic arm so that the path avoids passing within the proximity threshold of each object of the first plurality of objects (paragraphs 0082-0089, 0095-0097, 0101-0103, 0111; Figs. 2B and 3B-3C).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Zucker discloses the surgical robot system of claims 1 and 15 above, wherein the operation to update the path for robotic arm includes to: determine a mobility of an object of the second plurality of objects (paragraphs 0051, 0063, 0081); determine a proximity threshold associated with the object based on the mobility of the object (paragraphs 0051, 0081, 0089); and update the path to avoid the path from being within the proximity threshold of the object (paragraphs 0082-0089, 0095-0097, 0111; Figs. 2B, 3B-3C).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zucker in view of Gao et al. (US 2024/0066712 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Gao”).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Zucker teaches a surgical robot system that, while the robotic arm is already moving along a surgical navigation path and before it reaches the target/end position, continuously receives the current position of the arm and dynamically updates the path based on the current arm pose and object positions (Zucker, paragraphs 082-0089, 00111, 0114; Fig. 4, step 420 and Figs. 2B and 3B-3C).
Zucker is silent regarding determining an expected current position of the robotic arm calculated from the path and the speed of the robotic arm, and then updating the path based on that expected current position.
Gao teaches a surgical robot and method for guiding a surgical arm (operation end effector) in which an original position is acquired, a target position is determined, a guiding path is generated from the original position to the target position and the operating end effector is adjusted to move along the guiding path (paragraphs 0007, 0089-0096; Figs. 5-11, steps S11-S14). Gao further teaches that the position of the operation end effector is monitored in real time relative to the vision field of the image end effector and is displayed within a stereoscopic environmental map while the end effector moves along the guided path (paragraphs 0017, 0118-0112, 0141-0142).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply the well-known technique taught by Gao to the prior art system taught by Zucker. That is, it would have been obvious to modify the mid-motion path update and speed adjustment process of Zucker by determining an expected current position of the robotic arm based on the known path and the current speed of the arm, as suggested by the path-following and continuous position guidance teachings of Gao. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to more accurately anticipate where the robotic arm will be at a future moment on its path, thereby enabling more precise real-time path corrections and improve collision avoidance. The combination of Zucker and Gao yields the claimed invention with predictable results and no change in the principle of operation of either system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sun et al. (US2021/0093327 A1) teaches an orthopedic/TKA robot that uses a navigation tracker and a trackable element on the arm or tool to obtain a current starting pose, determine a desired pose for the surgery and drive the arm along a desired moving path.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE MOYER whose telephone number is (571)270-7821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PT.
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, Khoi H Tran can be reached at 571-272-6919. 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.
/Dale Moyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights