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 . 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 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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2025, was filed before the
mailing of a First Office Action on the Merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37
CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority/Benefit
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The current application is a continuation of application number 17/997,508 (effective filing date of 10/28/2022), and claims foreign priority to EP20172047.1 (effective filing date of 04/29/2020). Examiner has checked and verified that the subject matter of the instant specification is supported by the earlier filed foreign priority, and as such, the earlier filed date of 04/29/2020 is granted.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 02/20/2025. Claims 1-15 are pending and examined below.
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 1-9 and 12 are rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Moll et al., US 6659939 B2, herein referred to as Moll.
Regarding claim 1,
Moll discloses the following:
A surgical robotic system, comprising: a suspension structure (Figs. 4, 9A)
Surgical system includes suspension structures for holding robotic arms
a manipulator arm mounted to the suspension structure, wherein the manipulator arm comprises an end effector, wherein the end effector is configured to receive a surgical instrument (Figs. 1 and 9A)
manipulator arms are present and can each hold surgical devices
one or more actuators configured to adjust a pose of the manipulator arm to reposition the surgical instrument within a surgical workspace (Fig. 4, Col. 37 lines 43-50)
manipulators are mounted on robotic arms which comprise motors
these manipulators may be controlled in a surgical setting for operation on a patient
a control system configured to establish a master-slave coupling between a user input device as a master device and the manipulator arm as a slave device by and on a continuous or periodic basis (Fig. 1, Col. 10 lines 65 - Col. 11 line 10)
user device may be used to control surgical manipulators
the user device may be considered the master device while the surgical manipulators may be considered slave devices
receive positioning data from one or more sensors wherein the positioning data is indicative of the pose of the manipulator arm in the surgical workspace (Col. 12 lines 28-49)
position sensors may be used to determine positioning of the joints in the robotic arm
receive positioning data from one or more sensors, wherein the positioning data is indicative of the pose of the manipulator arm in the surgical workspace (Col. 12 line 45-49)
sensors may output positioning data of the manipulator arms
receive user input data from the user input device, wherein the user input data is indicative of a desired position or change in position of a tip of the surgical instrument in the surgical workspace (Col. 15 line 64 – Col. 16 line 15)
inputs may be provided to master control driver to move a slave end effector to a desired position
based on the positioning data and the user input data, control the one or more actuators to adjust the pose of the manipulator arm to reposition the tip of the surgical instrument (Col. 15 line 64 – Col. 16 line 15)
inputs may be provided to master control driver to move an end effector to a desired position
the surgical instrument tip may be positioned at the desired location for surgery, etc.
wherein: the manipulator arm is manually reconfigurable from a first configuration in which the manipulator arm assumes a first pose to a second configuration in which the manipulator arm assumes a second pose which is mirrored with respect to the first pose about a mirroring plane which runs through the tip of the surgical instrument (Fig. 9A, Col. 17 line 55 – Col. 18 line 9)
arm may be manually positioned in different configurations
arm may be manually positioned to rotate the tooling around a fulcrum (see 349 in Fig. 9A)
rotations about fulcrum result in mirroring along coordinate planes
wherein the control system is configured to: detect an external force being applied to at least one part of the manipulator arm to disengage the master-slave coupling between the user input device and the manipulator arm to enable a manual reconfiguration of the manipulator arm from the first configuration into the second configuration (Col. 17 line 55 – Col. 18 line 9)
a user may disengage a brake to manually reconfigure the manipulator arms
the system detecting that the disengaging of a brake has occurred may be considered as detecting an external force being applied (brake release will cause a change in force acting on the arm to allow for manual configuration)
after the manual reconfiguration, reconstruct a second pose of the manipulator arm from positioning data prior to reengaging the master-slave coupling once the external force is absent; and resume the master-slave coupling between the user input device and the manipulator arm from the second pose (Fig. 9A, Col. 32 lines 10-49, Col. 17 line 55 – Col. 18 line 9, Col. 31 lines 48-63)
after the brake button is released, joint positioning is logged before release
the joints may return to the logged positioning when the manipulators are re-engaged
Regarding claim 2,
Moll discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Moll further discloses the following:
the manipulator arm comprises a series of links connected by respective joints, and wherein the positioning data is indicative of joint angles of the respective joints (Fig. 9A, Col. 12 lines 28-49)
robotic arm includes multiple links connected by joints
position sensors may be used to determine positioning of the joints in the robotic arm
Regarding claim 3,
Moll discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Moll further discloses the following:
the positioning data is received from one or more absolute encoders which measure the respective joint angles (Col. 20 lines 61-67)
encoders determine a joint space position as an angle
Regarding claim 4,
Moll discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Moll further discloses the following:
when the master-slave coupling is enabled the control system is configured to, use a forward kinematics model to determine the pose of the manipulator arm at which the tip of the surgical instrument assumes the desired position or change in position, use an inverse kinematics model to determine the joint angles at which the manipulator arm assumes the pose, and control the one or more actuators to cause the respective joints of the manipulator arm to assume said determined joint angles (Fig. 18, Col. 21 line 66 – Col. 32 line 49)
after manual repositioning, the master orientation is realigned with the slave orientation
forward kinematics are used to convert a slave angular position into a coordinate slave position
positions and orientation of the surgical instrument are tied to orientation and position of the end effector shaft
manual positioning can include repositioning the end effector and effectively the surgical instrument
the master orientation is set to the slave orientation
inverse kinematics are then used to determine the master angular joint position from the master position in coordinate space
the robot arm is then controlled to move to the desired master position
Regarding claim 5,
Moll discloses all the limitations of claim 4. Moll further discloses the following:
after the manual reconfiguration of the manipulator arm and before resuming the master-slave coupling, the control system is configured to adjust the inverse kinematics model to account for the manipulator arm assuming the second pose (Fig. 9A, Col. 32 lines 10-49)
robot arm may be positioned at a desired location before aligning the slave and master
desired location can be a manipulator pose as seen in Fig 9A (also see claim 1 rationale for 1st and 2nd mirrored poses)
inverse kinematics are used re-align the slave and master orientations after manual positioning is finished and the master slave relationship is established again
Regarding claim 6,
Moll discloses all the limitations of claim 5. Moll further discloses the following:
the inverse kinematics model comprises a first transformation matrix for the manipulator arm and a second transformation for the user input device, and wherein after the manual reconfiguration of the manipulator arm and before resuming the master-slave coupling, the control system is configured to adjust the inverse kinematics model by adapting the first transformation matrix to account for the manipulator arm assuming the second pose (Fig. 9A, Col. 20 line 65 – Col. 21 line 6, Col. 32 lines 10-49)
kinematics operations are performed by using transformation matrices
forward kinematics can use a first transformation matrix
inverse kinematics can use a second transformation matrix
master and slave realignment with forward and inverse kinematics can be based on desired poses of a surgical tool as seen in Fig 9A (see claim 1 rationale for mirrored 1st and 2nd poses)
Regarding claim 7,
Moll discloses all the limitations of claim 5. Moll further discloses the following:
the user is enabled to affect the disabling and/or the resuming of the master- slave coupling via the user input device or via a further user input device (Col. 32 lines 10-49)
button used for manual positioning to a desired location can be considered a further user input device
Regarding claim 8,
Moll discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Moll further discloses the following:
the user input device is a joystick, and wherein the further user input device comprises one or more foot-pedals (Col. 38 lines 11-23)
further user device for input can be a foot pedal
Regarding claim 9,
Moll discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Moll further discloses the following:
disable the master-slave coupling upon detecting a press-and-hold of the one or more foot- pedals, and resume the master-slave coupling upon detecting a release of the one or more foot-pedals (Col. 28 line 57 – Col. 29 line 11)
master-slave relationship can be disabled for manual positioning by holding down a foot pedal
master-salve relationship is reestablished once the foot pedal is released
Regarding claim 12,
Moll discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Moll further discloses the following:
the manipulator arm has a pivot axis at or near a mounting point at which the manipulator arm is mounted to the suspension structur
arm may be manually positioned in different configurations
arm has multiple pivot axes
arm may be manually positioned to rotate the tooling around a fulcrum (see 349 in Fig. 9A)
rotations about fulcrum can be in multiple DoF (at least rotation about x, y, and z axis) and result in mirroring along coordinate planes defined by those axes
the coordinate planes can coincide with multiple pivot axis of the robotic arm structure
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.
Claims 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Moll and in view of Shelton, IV et al., US 20190125455 A1, herein referred to as Shelton.
Regarding claim 10, Moll discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Moll further discloses the master-slave coupling is disabled (Col. 17 line 55 – Col. 18 line 9; a button may be depressed to release the robotic joints so that they may move freely for manual positioning, this could be considered a disablement of the master-slave relationship), but fails to disclose wherein if the external force applied to the manipulator arm is above a predefined threshold, control the one or more actuators to move the manipulator arm into a new position and/or orientation in accordance with the external force, and if the external force falls below the predefined threshold, control the one or more actuators to maintain the new position and/or orientation. However, Shelton, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein if the external force applied to the manipulator arm is above a predefined threshold, control the one or more actuators to move the manipulator arm into a new position and/or orientation in accordance with the external force, and if the external force falls below the predefined threshold, control the one or more actuators to maintain the new position and/or orientation (Paragraphs 1984-1985; position and force control can be implemented so that if an external force is greater than a threshold, the actuators of the robotic arm decrease the applied forces of the arm; if the force is within the threshold, the robotic arm maintains its current exerted force). Therefore, from the teaching of Shelton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the surgical system of Moll to include wherein if the external force applied to the manipulator arm is above a predefined threshold, control the one or more actuators to move the manipulator arm into a new position and/or orientation in accordance with the external force, and if the external force falls below the predefined threshold, control the one or more actuators to maintain the new position and/or orientation, as taught/suggested by Shelton. The motivation to do so would be to prevent unwanted changes to the robotic arm positioning. This is useful because it can allow the system to determine if a surgeon accidentally touched or bumped the surgical arm or if the surgeon purposefully pushed against the surgical arm for movement.
Regarding claim 11, Moll in view of Shelton renders obvious all the limitations of claim 10. Moll further discloses maintaining the positioning of surgical instruments under certain circumstances while an input device is allowed to be moved (Col. 5 lines 32-52), but fails to disclose wherein if the external force above the predefined threshold is applied to the manipulator arm, the control system is configured to control the one or more actuators to keep the tip of the surgical instrument at substantially a same position while moving the manipulator arm. However, Shelton teaches wherein if the external force above the predefined threshold is applied to the manipulator arm, the control system is configured to control the one or more actuators to keep the tip of the surgical instrument at substantially a same position while moving the manipulator arm (Paragraph 1984-1985; position control can be implemented to maintain a position of a first robotic arm, if a force is greater than a threshold, another robotic arm may decrease an opposing force from a separate arm; this would allow the first manipulator to maintain a position without experiencing excessive force). Therefore, from the teaching of Shelton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the surgical system of Moll to include wherein if the external force above the predefined threshold is applied to the manipulator arm, the control system is configured to control the one or more actuators to keep the tip of the surgical instrument at substantially a same position while moving the manipulator arm, as taught/suggested by Shelton. The motivation to do so would be to ensure that a surgical tool does not move during surgery in the case that someone accidentally bumps or falls into one of the robotic arms.
Regarding claim 13, Moll discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Moll further discloses the suspension structure to be centered above and around a surgical target, wherein the suspension structure comprises different mounting points for mounting the manipulator arm, and wherein manipulator arm is mounted to the suspension structure at one of the mounting points (Figs. 1, 4, 9B; robotic arm is attached to a suspension structure at a mounting point, manipulator arm can be moved up and down which can be considered as multiple different mounting points, suspension structure can be considered as above and around the surgical site and patient), but fails to disclose the suspension structure is a circular or semi-circular structure to be centered above and around a surgical target, wherein the suspension structure comprises different mounting points for mounting the manipulator arm, and wherein manipulator arm is mounted to the suspension structure at one of the mounting points. However, Shelton teaches the suspension structure is a circular or semi-circular structure to be centered above and around a surgical target, wherein the suspension structure comprises different mounting points for mounting the manipulator arm, and wherein manipulator arm is mounted to the suspension structure at one of the mounting points (Fig. 2; multiple robotic arms may be position above and around a patient and the connected suspension structure is circular in nature). Therefore, from the teaching of Shelton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the surgical system of Moll to include the suspension structure is a circular or semi-circular structure to be centered above and around a surgical target, wherein the suspension structure comprises different mounting points for mounting the manipulator arm, and wherein manipulator arm is mounted to the suspension structure at one of the mounting points, as taught/suggested by Shelton. The motivation to do so would be to use try an obvious shaped variant (circular instead of square-like as seen in Moll) for the mounting solution of the robotic arms.
Regarding claim 14, Moll in view of Shelton renders obvious all the limitations of claim 13. Shelton further discloses the surgical robotic system comprises two manipulator arms which are mounted to the suspension structure at two different mounting points, wherein the two different mounting points are substantially opposite to each other along the circular or semi-circular structure (Fig. 4; suspension structure can include two manipulators that are opposite of each other on the suspension structure manipulators are on different mounting points), but fails to disclose the surgical robotic system comprises two manipulator arms which are mounted to the suspension structure at two different mounting points, wherein the two different mounting points are substantially opposite to each other along the circular or semi-circular structure. However, the obviousness of using a circular or semi-circular structure is seen in the rationale for claim 13 and would be applicable here as well.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 15, the examiner has performed a thorough search and has not found a piece of prior art, either alone or in combination with other prior art, that discloses, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claim limitations. The closest prior art combination, Moll and Shelton, teach wherein the suspension structure is a circular or semi-circular structure to be centered above and around a surgical target, wherein the suspension structure comprises different mounting points for mounting the manipulator arm, and wherein manipulator arm is mounted to the suspension structure at one of the mounting points, and wherein the surgical robotic system comprises two manipulator arms which are mounted to the suspension structure at two different mounting points, wherein the two different mounting points are substantially opposite to each other along the circular or semi-circular structure (see claim 13 and 14 rationale above). However, neither reference discloses or teaches wherein the mirroring plane of each of the two manipulator arms runs through both mounting points. Although Moll discloses a mirroring plane for poses to be reflected across (see claim 1 rationale), there is no disclosure or teaching of the mirroring plane running through mounting points on the suspension structure, let alone two opposite mounting points. These features are novel in that the manipulator arms have a common mirroring plane and can allow for significantly greater flexibility in manipulator arm positioning. Additionally, having the mirroring planes run through common mounting points allows for control of the arms to occur with a common reference. This can lead to increased accuracy as variations with respect to the plane will be known in addition to the sensor readings.owever
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights