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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 12-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220387117 to Bowling et al. (hereinafter “Bowling”) in view of US 20140039681 to Bowling et al. (hereinafter “Bowling ‘681”).
Regarding claim 1. Bowling discloses a surgical system (para 0008, 0021, etc.) comprising: a tracking system (para 0008, 0021 “navigation system”); a robotic manipulator configured to support and move an end effector to perform a surgical procedure on a patient (para 0021, 0031 “surgical instrument is attached to a surgical manipulator”); a tracker device being attached or attachable to the robotic manipulator (para 0029 “instrument tracker 48 is firmly attached to the surgical instrument 22”), a digital display screen (para 0022, 0040 “displays 28, 29); and a controller in communication with the tracker device, wherein the controller is configured to instruct the digital display screen to present a computer-generated trackable graphic that is detectable by the tracking system to facilitate tracking of a pose of the robotic manipulator during the surgical procedure (para 0022 “First and second input devices 30, 32 such as a keyboard and mouse can be used to input information [].”; para 0039; 0056 “show the locations of the objects and/or information relating to the models can be forwarded to the manipulator controller 54 to guide the manipulator 56 and corresponding movement of the surgical instrument 22 relative to these virtual constraint boundaries to prevent the object from being contacted by the surgical instrument 22”, para 0059 “continuously adjust a path and/or orientation of the surgical instrument 22”; etc.).
Bowling fails to explicitly disclose the tracker device to comprise a digital display screen. However, Bowling ‘681, from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known for the trackers 214, positioned on the manipulator 50 to have a digital display screen (para 0090) that it is attached to the user interface and also attached to the cart (para 0090). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Bowling with the additional teachings of Bowling ‘’681 to provide a display associated with the user interface on the manipulator having the tracker.
Regarding claim 2. Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 renders obvious the surgical system of claim 1, wherein: the robotic manipulator comprises a base, and a robotic arm coupled to the base; and the tracker device is attached or attachable to one of: the base, the robotic arm, or the end effector (fig 3, para 0031, incorporating by reference the application no. 13/958,070).
Regarding claim 3. Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 renders obvious the surgical system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to dynamically change a pose and/or configuration of the computer-generated trackable graphic on the digital display screen based on one or more of: a relative spatial relationship between the tracker device and the tracking system; and/or an absence or presence of line-of-sight between the tracker device and the tracking system (para 0048 “Based on the same signals received for the instrument tracker 48, the localization engine 100 determines the pose of the instrument tracker coordinate system”, 0050, etc.).
Regarding claim 4. Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 renders obvious the surgical system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: receive surgical information, wherein the surgical information comprises one or more of: information about the robotic manipulator, information about the surgical procedure or step of the surgical procedure, patient information, surgical plan information, surgeon preferences, a tracking status of the tracker device, an operation status of the tracking system, and a location or the tracking system; and generate the computer-generated trackable graphic based on the surgical information (para 0022, 0061).
Regarding claim 7. Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 renders obvious the surgical system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to further instruct the digital display screen to present one or more of: a tracking status of the tracker device; an operation status of the tracking system; and/or a status, step, notification or alert related to the surgical procedure (para 0062 “manipulator controller 54 is then programmed to continuously track movement of the boundaries and update guidance of the surgical instrument 22 as the boundaries move relative to the surgical instrument 22.”; para 0083 “an alarm may be generated. The alarm may include visual, tactile, or audible feedback to the user”).
Regarding claim 8. Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 renders obvious the surgical system of claim 1,wherein the controller is configured to instruct the digital display screen to present a graphical user interface enabling a user to provide input to modify settings or operation of the tracker device or the robotic manipulator (para 0059 “The input devices, e.g., mouse, touch screen, etc. could be used to modify the boundary such as by shifting the boundary”).
Regarding claim 9. Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 renders obvious the surgical system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to further instruct the digital display screen to present graphical information, wherein the graphical information comprises one or more of: information of, or related to, the robotic manipulator; video data from a camera; and/or a video stream provided from a software application of a device in an operating room (para 0082, “Video images from the video camera can be streamed to the displays 28, 29”).
Regarding claim 12. Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 renders obvious the surgical system of claim 1, wherein the digital display screen is a first digital display screen, and wherein the tracker device comprises a second digital display screen arranged to face a different direction from the first digital display screen (para 0022, 0040,“ The navigation interface includes a first display 28 adapted to be situated outside of the sterile field and a second display 29 adapted to be situated inside the sterile field”).
Regarding claim 13. Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 renders obvious the surgical system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to instruct the digital display screen to present a video stream obtained by a camera source (para 0082).
Regarding claim 14. Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 renders obvious the surgical system of claim 1, wherein the tracker device further comprises an inertial sensor, and wherein the controller is configured to utilize measurements from the inertial sensor to perform one or more of the following: change an orientation of the computer-generated trackable graphic on the digital display screen; and/or detect an undesired motion of the tracker device (para 0036 “gyroscope, accelerometer sensors”, para 0083 “alarm”).
Regarding claim 15. Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 renders obvious the surgical system of claim1, wherein the tracker device further comprises a camera configured to capture image or video data (para 0082),and wherein the controller is configured to utilize the image or video data to perform one or more of the following: detect an event and modify the computer-generated trackable graphic in response; detect presence or absence of the robotic manipulator or the patient; detect presence or absence of the tracking system; present the image or video data on the digital display screen; and/or detect a face of a user to authenticate use of the tracker device (para 0082).
Regarding claim 18. Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 renders obvious the surgical system of claim 1, wherein a drape is configured to cover the robotic manipulator and the digital display screen, wherein the drape comprises a transparent region to enable visibility of the digital display screen (para 0052; it is known for the drapes to include transparent regions).
Regarding claim 19. Bowling discloses a surgical robotic system (para 0008, 0021, etc.) comprising: a robotic manipulator (para 0021, 0031 “surgical instrument is attached to a surgical manipulator”) comprising a robotic arm (fig. 3) configured to support and move an end effector to perform a surgical procedure on a patient (para 0021, 0031 “surgical instrument is attached to a surgical manipulator”); a tracker device being attached or attachable to the robotic manipulator (para 0029 “instrument tracker 48 is firmly attached to the surgical instrument 22”), a digital display screen (para 0022, 0040 “displays 28, 29); and a controller in communication with the tracker device, wherein the controller is configured to instruct the digital display screen to present a computer-generated trackable graphic that is detectable by a tracking system to facilitate tracking of a pose of the robotic manipulator during the surgical procedure (para 0022 “First and second input devices 30, 32 such as a keyboard and mouse can be used to input information [].”; para 0039; 0056 “show the locations of the objects and/or information relating to the models can be forwarded to the manipulator controller 54 to guide the manipulator 56 and corresponding movement of the surgical instrument 22 relative to these virtual constraint boundaries to prevent the object from being contacted by the surgical instrument 22”, para 0059 “continuously adjust a path and/or orientation of the surgical instrument 22”; etc.).
Bowling fails to explicitly disclose the tracker device to comprise a digital display screen. However, Bowling ‘681, from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known for the trackers 214, positioned on the manipulator 50 to have a digital display screen (para 0090) that it is attached to the user interface and also attached to the cart (para 0090). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Bowling with the additional teachings of Bowling ‘’681 to provide a display associated with the user interface on the manipulator having the tracker.
Regarding claim 20. Bowling discloses a tracker device (para 0008, 0021 “navigation system”) for use with surgical system that includes a tracking system and a robotic manipulator (para 0008, 0021), the tracker device comprising: a body; an attachment interface to facilitate coupling of the body to the robotic manipulator (figs 1-3 para 0031, incorporating by reference the application no. 13/958,070); a digital display screen (para 0022, 0040 “displays 28, 29); and a controller housed within the body and configured to instruct the digital display screen to present a computer-generated trackable graphic that is detectable by the tracking system to facilitate tracking of a pose of the robotic manipulator (para 0022 “First and second input devices 30, 32 such as a keyboard and mouse can be used to input information [].”; para 0039; 0056 “show the locations of the objects and/or information relating to the models can be forwarded to the manipulator controller 54 to guide the manipulator 56 and corresponding movement of the surgical instrument 22 relative to these virtual constraint boundaries to prevent the object from being contacted by the surgical instrument 22”, para 0059 “continuously adjust a path and/or orientation of the surgical instrument 22”; etc.).
Bowling fails to explicitly disclose the tracker device to comprise a digital display screen. However, Bowling ‘681, from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known for the trackers 214, positioned on the manipulator 50 to have a digital display screen (para 0090) that it is attached to the user interface and also attached to the cart (para 0090). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Bowling with the additional teachings of Bowling ‘’681 to provide a display associated with the user interface on the manipulator having the tracker.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20220233119 to Shelton et al. (hereinafter “Shelton”).
Regarding claim 5. Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 renders obvious the surgical system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the controller is configured to encode the computer-generated trackable graphic with time stamps to facilitate synchronization with the tracking system.
Shelton, from a similar field of endeavor teaches the surgical hub to include a synchronized time stamp (para 2381). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 with the teachings of Shelto to provide the predictable result of synchronizing data.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20230277256 A1 to Soto et al. (hereinafter “Soto”).
Regarding claim 6. Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 renders obvious the surgical system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the computer-generated trackable graphic comprises a QR code or dynamic QR code.
Soto, from a similar field of endeavor teaches using QR code, etc., to detect various attachment elements (para 0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 with the teachings of Soto to provide the predictable result of detecting various attachment elements.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20170143442 A1 to Tesar et al. (hereinafter “Tesar”).
Regarding claim 10. Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 renders obvious the surgical system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the digital display screen is curved and the computer-generated trackable graphic is presented in a curved manner on the digital display screen.
Tesar, from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known for the display screen to be curved which provides two advantages: the imaging optics for the display can be less complex than for flat panels, and the cone or numerical aperture of each picture element in the display can be directed towards the viewing optics and in the periphery of the display, thereby providing a brighter image less subject to vignetting (para 1274”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 with the known teachings of Tesar to provide the predictable result of improving displaying the result.
Regarding claim 11. Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 and Tesar renders obvious the surgical system of claim 10, wherein: the robotic manipulator comprises a base, and a robotic arm coupled to the base (fig. 3), wherein the robotic arm is formed of links; and the digital display screen is wrapped partially or fully about one of the links of the robotic arm (Tesar, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16. Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 renders obvious the surgical system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the tracker device further comprises an infrared or radio frequency transceiver, and wherein the controller is configured to utilize the transceiver to communicate to a transceiver of the tracking system.
Tesar, from a similar field of endeavor teaches the imaging system to include infrared ranges (para 0355) such that the camera can image in different wavelengths such as wavelengths (para 1279) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 with the known teachings of Tesar to provide the predictable result of improving imaging.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 6359270 to Bridson
Regarding claim 17. Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 renders obvious the surgical system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the tracker device further comprises a proximity sensor, and wherein the controller is configured to utilize measurements from the proximity sensor to perform one or more of the following: detect absence of environmental activity and in response place the tracker device or the digital display screen in a sleep mode to conserve energy; and/or detect presence of environmental activity to ensure the tracker device or the digital display screen is active.
Bridson, teaches that its display switches from a standby` mode to an `on` mode when the presence of a user is detected by the proximity means. The display means can enter the `standby` mode upon a user entering a standby command via the command entry means. Additionally or alternatively, a timeout means takes activity input from the proximity sensor and the command entry means and puts the display means into the `standby` mode when a predetermined period of inactivity elapses (Col 6, lns 8-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Bowling as modified by Bowling ‘681 with the teachings of Bridson to provide the predictable result of switching the display to standby/sleep mode to conserve energy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 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 S 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights