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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on July 15, 2026. Claims 1-2, 4-9 are pending.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
In respond to applicant's arguments based on the filed amendment with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of said previous office action have been fully considered; however, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
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(s) 1-2 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meglan US2022/0395334 (“Meglan”) and in view of Okuyama US2021/0268660 (“Okuyama”).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 9. Meglan discloses a control device (FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating a method for checking whether a tool should be moved or changed during a surgery in accordance with the disclosure.) comprising:
a memory configured to store a program and tool information of a plurality of tools: and a processor configured to execute the program so as to:
acquire first information related to a first tool of the plurality of tools mounted on a tip end section of a robot arm ([0040] Each of the input handles 152 is moveable through a predefined workspace to move the ends 122 of the robotic linkages 120, e.g., tools 126, within the surgical site “S”. As the input handles 152 are moved, the tools 126 are moved within the surgical site “S” as detailed below. Movement of the tools 126 may also include movement of the ends 122 of the robotic linkages 120 which support the tools 126.);
an acceptance judgment on whether the first information matches the second information associated with the point data;
causing the robot arm to start an operation when the first information and the second information match each other ( [0044-0045] The identification of the tool may be performed by a machine learning system based on one or more images. The identified tool can be compared with information relating to the surgical procedure to determine whether or not the tool is appropriate for the surgery. The machine learning system may be trained based on training data derived from previously performed surgeries. The previously performed surgeries may be related to the current surgery being performed. For example, the training data can include frame images and tagged information, which are used to train the machine learning system to identify a tool, determine whether an orientation of a tool is appropriate, and/or whether a positioning of a tool is appropriate. In an aspect, the tagging of the training may be manually entered by doctors, experts, or medical professionals of the previous surgeries.); and
issue an error notification when the judgment section judges that the first information and the second information do not match ([0036] When it is determined that the tool is inappropriate, the processor 140 may display a popup window on a display device 156 of the user console 150 to provide an indication that the tool may be inappropriate. The indication is presented in a manner that does not interfere with the surgery.).
Meglan does not explicitly disclose:
obtain second information related to the first tool, the second information being set in advance, the second information being associated with point data created by teaching, the point data being position information of the robot arm; perform, before the processor causes the robot arm to move a position corresponding to the point data. Instead, Meglan teaches generate a depth map or point cloud of the objects within the surgical environment based on the real-time image data received from the image devices of the surgical system 100. The depth map or point cloud may be stored in the memory 220 across multiple iterations for a later cumulative analysis of the depth maps or point clouds.
Okuyama teaches another robotic manipulator controls system and method that obtain second information related to the first tool, the second information being set in advance, the second information being associated with point data created by teaching, the point data being position information of the robot arm; perform, before the processor causes the robot arm to move a position corresponding to the point data (0105, 0119, 0129-0130] the robot system 100 includes the robot arm 10 that performs predetermined work on the workpiece W1, which is the work target object, the force detecting section 19 that detects force applied to the robot arm 10, the target-position setting section 3A that sets, on the simple shape data DD predicted from a plurality of projection shapes obtained by projecting the workpiece W1 from the different positions, a plurality of target positions S.sub.t to which the control point CP of the robot arm 10 in performing the predetermined work is moved, and the driving control section 3B that drives the robot arm 10 with the force control based on the plurality of target positions S.sub.t set by the target-position setting section 3A and the force applied to the robot arm 10 and performs the predetermined work. Consequently, the target-position setting section 3A can quickly and easily set the target positions S.sub.t. The driving control section 3B drives the robot arm 10 with the force control.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Meglan by incorporating the applied teaching of Okuyama to improve robotic controls and the safety of operation and one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim(s) 2. Meglan discloses wherein each of the first information and the second information includes position information of an origin of a coordinate system set for each tool ([0043-0044] Such captured images of the tools 170 or 126 may be transmitted to and processed by the processor 140, which serves as or coordinates with a machine learning system to identify the tool 170 or 126. In accordance with aspects of the present disclosure, such information may be used to determine whether or not the surgery is appropriately performed.)
Regarding claim(s) 4. Meglan discloses wherein the judgment section performs the acceptance judgment for each unit operation program included in the operation program executed by the robot arm ([0074] Based on the identified progression stage, the machine learning system 260 may identify whether or not the tool 340 is appropriate in type, shape, and size according to the identified progression stage. In case the tool 340 does not have a proper type, shape, or size, the machine learning system 260 may provide an indication that the tool 340 is not appropriate in type, shape, or size based on the identified progression stage. In various embodiments, a tool identified by the machine learning system 260 may be compared to a database of tools used in other similar surgeries. If the tool identified by the machine learning system 260 is not among the tools used in other similar surgeries, a notification can be provided to indicate that the tool should be changed.)
Regarding claim(s) 5. Meglan discloses wherein the origin of the coordinate system set for each tool is a position eccentric from the tip end section of the robot arm ([0075] In an aspect, the notification may indicate that the type of the tool is appropriate for the surgery but the size thereof is too large or too small for proper operations in the identified progression stage, or that the tool is inappropriate for the identified progression stage.)
Regarding claim(s) 6. Meglan discloses wherein the first information and the second information include information related to a type of the tool ([0071] In an aspect, the machine learning system 260 may process the images and may identify a type, shape, and size of the tool 340 in consideration of the pose of the camera.)
Regarding claim(s) 7. Meglan discloses a selection section for selecting whether to perform the acceptance judgment by the judgment section ([0073-0075] , the notification may indicate that the type of the tool is appropriate for the surgery but the size thereof is too large or too small for proper operations in the identified progression stage, or that the tool is inappropriate for the identified progression stage. The notification may be generally made in a manner that does not interfere with the surgery. If the level of potential harm from using the tool 340 appears imminent or severe, the notification may be presented with heightened alerts, such as red flashes on the screen, haptic vibrations on the input handle 152 of FIG. 1, or audible alert sounds.)
Regarding claim(s) 8. Meglan discloses wherein whether to perform the acceptance judgment collectively for a plurality of unit operation programs or for each of the unit operation programs is settable, and when a setting performed collectively for the plurality of unit operation programs and a setting performed for each of the unit operation programs overlap, the setting performed for each of the unit operation programs is prioritized ([0073-0075] , the notification may indicate that the type of the tool is appropriate for the surgery but the size thereof is too large or too small for proper operations in the identified progression stage, or that the tool is inappropriate for the identified progression stage. The notification may be generally made in a manner that does not interfere with the surgery. If the level of potential harm from using the tool 340 appears imminent or severe, the notification may be presented with heightened alerts, such as red flashes on the screen, haptic vibrations on the input handle 152 of FIG. 1, or audible alert sounds.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUC M DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5962. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramón Mercado, Ph.D. can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRUC M DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights