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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/12/2025 and 04/30/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 50. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 150, 19A, 19B, 128A, 128B, 130A, 130B, 45A, 45B, 418, 521, 528, and 732. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 56 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In re claim 56, the limitation “causes in the orientation of the camera assembly” on line 2 should read “causes a change in the orientation of the camera assembly”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-18, and 54 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.
In re claim 10, the limitation "at least three of the plurality of buttons" in line 2, lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
In re claim 12, the limitation “wherein at least one of the one or more hand controllers further comprises a second touch input device” is unclear because “a second touch input device” has previously been recited in claim 6, from which claim 12 depends. It is unclear whether this refers to the first instance of a second touch input device recited in claim 12 or if this is claiming an additional second touch input device. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification to refer to the previous recitation of a second touch input device in claim 6.
In re claim 13, the limitation “wherein at least one of the one or more hand controllers further comprises a second touch input device” is unclear because “a second touch input device” has previously been recited in claims 6 and 12, from which claim 13 depends (see above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejection, in re claim 12).
In re claim 15, the limitation “the outside side surface of the housing is substantially concave” is unclear due to the use of the word “substantially”. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to mean that the outside side surface of the housing has a region in which it curves inward.
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.
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.
Claims 1-18, and 54-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denlinger (US 20200289219) in view of Koenig (US 20180079090).
PNG
media_image1.png
803
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, Denlinger discloses one or more hand controllers (Fig. 6, [0138]) for controlling a surgical robotic system including a robotic assembly ([0138]: “to provide control signals to a surgical robot and/or surgical tool coupled thereto”) configured to be disposed with an internal body cavity of a subject (Fig. 1, [0116, 0261]), each of the one or more hand controllers comprising:
a contoured housing ([0343]: handpiece has contoured edges; Fig. 59A: 5002) having
an upper surface (Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6: Upper Surface),
an inside side surface adjacent the upper surface (Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6: Inside Side Surface; adjacent to the Upper Surface),
an outside side surface facing away from the inside side surface (Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6: Outside Side Surface; opposite of Inside Side Surface), and
a lower surface facing away from the upper surface (Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6: part of handle opposite the Upper Surface, not shown);
a plurality of buttons (1026 and 1028; [0306]) including
a first button (1028) positioned on the upper surface (Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6: 1028 is on Upper Surface) and
a second button (1026) positioned on one of the upper surface, the inside side surface, or the outside side surface (Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6: 1026 is on Upper Surface);
a first touch input device (1012; [0306]) positioned on the upper surface (Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6: 1012 is on Upper Surface); and
a first paddle (1022) disposed at either of the inside side surface or the outside side surface (Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6: one of the two paddles 1022 are on the Inside Side Surface while the other 1022 is on the Outside Side Surface);
wherein
the contoured housing is configured to be grasped with
a user's thumb on the inside side surface (Fig. 10: thumb T grasps 1022 of the contoured housing on the inside side surface, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6) and
at least some of the user's fingers, the user's palm, or both over the upper surface (Fig. 10: index finger I grasps upper surface button 1028 of contoured housing, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6), and
the first button is configured to be manipulated by the user's pointer finger or index finger (index finger I grasps the upper surface button 1028 of contoured housing), and
Denlinger lacks:
wherein for at least one of the hand controllers, at least one of the plurality of buttons maps to a function comprising:
resetting a pose of the surgical robotic assembly with respect to a plurality of robotic arms and a virtual chest of the robotic assembly to a default pose while maintaining a position and an orientation of an instrument tip for each of the plurality of robotic arms.
Koenig discloses a surgical robot system (abstract), that like the one or more hand controllers of Denlinger, discloses wherein a user grasps a handle (i.e. one or more hand controllers) of a surgical robot to manipulate a robotic arm [0118], which is further manipulated by touch points such as a button switch [0096]. In addition, Koenig discloses a repositioning mode (i.e. resetting) of the robot wherein the robotic arm and virtual remote center of motion (i.e. virtual chest) can move into a new pose without changing the end effector instrument (i.e. instrument tip) position orientation [0120, 0121]; wherein the repositioning mode incorporates a trajectory mode [0120] wherein the trajectory receives a target pose command which can be a template pose for a particular type of surgical procedure (i.e. default pose; [0110]) which can be controlled by a button switch [0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Denlinger by providing wherein the robotic arms and virtual chest are repositioned to a template pose for a particular type of surgical procedure (i.e. default pose) without changing the end effector instrument tip position and orientation as taught by Koenig because it would allow for the repositioning of the arms of the robot without moving the instruments to create better physical clearance between the robotic arm and the patient while maintaining the previous effective range of motion of the end effector [0121]. This proposed combination would yield wherein for at least one of the hand controllers, at least one of the plurality of buttons maps to a function comprising: resetting a pose of the surgical robotic assembly with respect to a plurality of robotic arms and a virtual chest of the robotic assembly to a default pose while maintaining a position and an orientation of an instrument tip for each of the plurality of robotic arms.
In re claim 2, Denlinger discloses wherein for each of the one or more hand controllers, a contact surface of the first paddle is disposed at the outside side surface of the housing (Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6: contact surface of paddle B is disposed at the Outside Side Surface).
In re claim 3, Denlinger discloses each of the one or more hand controllers further comprising a second paddle (Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6: one paddle is paddle A and another is paddle B), wherein
a contact surface of the first paddle is disposed at the outside side surface of the housing and a contact surface of the second paddle is disposed at the inside side surface of the housing (Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6: Paddle A is on the Inside Side Surface and Paddle B is on the Outside Side Surface, each having a contact surface disposed on each side), or
the contact surface of the first paddle is disposed at the inside side surface of the housing and the contact surface of the second paddle is disposed at the outside side surface of the housing (Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6: Paddle B is on the Inside Side Surface and Paddle A is on the Outside Side Surface, each having a contact surface disposed on each side).
In re claim 55, Denlinger discloses further comprising a linear sensor configured to determine how open or how closed the first paddle and the second paddle are with respect to each other ([0158]: “displacement sensor and/or a rotary encoder for detecting the input control motions applied to pivot the opposing fingers 1022 relative to the shaft”).
Claims 4-18, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denlinger (US 20200289219) in view of Koenig (US 20180079090) [in further view of Stroop (US 9486925) or Voellmer (US 5184861)].
In re claim 4, Denlinger discloses wherein the first paddle is engaged with the second paddle via one or more gears*, and wherein a movement of the first paddle causes a reciprocal movement of the second paddle, and a movement of the second paddle causes a reciprocal movement of the first paddle [0159]: “the end effector actuator 1020 can be spring-biased outwardly such that loops are not needed to draw the opposing fingers 1022 apart, such as for spread dissection functions”; note: using a spring to engage the two actuators would make it such that the movement of one paddle would cause a reciprocal movement on the other paddle, and cause both opposing jaws to open or close when they engage with a gear* which actuates movement [0140]; Figs. 13A-15B).
*Regarding the limitation “via one or more gears”, in the event that Denlinger does not use a gear to engage the paddles with the jaw, Stroop discloses a mechanical arm (abstract) wherein a rotating gear is connected to a corresponding jaw member of a pair of opposing jaw members to bring the jaw members closer to each other (Col. 3, ln. 17-24) and Voellmer discloses a split rail gripper for a robotic apparatus (abstract) wherein the end-effector comprises a gripper of two mutually opposing jaws that are moveable with respect to one another in opposite directions by a rack and pinion gear mechanism (Col. 1, ln. 34-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the one or more hand controllers of the proposed combination by providing wherein the jaws are controlled by a gear as taught by both Stroop, or alternatively, Voellmer, because it is known to use a gear to control the movement of opposing jaws of an end effector on a robotic arm.
In re claim 5, Denlinger discloses wherein for each of the hand controllers, the first touch input device is a scroll wheel, a rocker button, a joy stick, a pointing stick, a touch pad, or a trackball ([0150-0152, 0306]: “actuation buttons 4026, 4028 can have different geometries and/or structures, and can include a trigger, a button, a switch, a lever, a toggle, and combinations thereof”).
In re claim 6, Denlinger discloses wherein at least one of the one or more hand controllers further comprises a second touch input device ([0171-0173]: user can switch between modes using a space joint and/or a wrist, i.e. touch input device).
In re claim 7, Denlinger discloses wherein for each of the hand controllers, deflection of the first paddle is configured to produce a signal that the surgical robotic system uses as an input to control the robotic subassembly ([0158]: opposing figures, i.e. paddles, serve as input control for a surgical tool).
In re claim 8, Denlinger discloses wherein for at least one of the hand controllers, at least one of the plurality of buttons maps to a function selected from one or more functions of the following functions:
triggering activation of a clutch with respect to a hand controller, the activation of the clutch permitting or enabling movement of the respective hand controller without causing movement of the robotic assembly ([0134]: “the surgeon can be required to actuate a clutch (often in the form of a foot pedal or additional button on the handle of the input control device) to temporarily disengage the input control device from the surgical tool”; note: this would allow the surgeon to reposition the input control device, i.e. hand controller, without moving the robotic assembly); or
activating or exiting an instrument control mode of the surgical robotic system, a movement of one of the hand controllers when in the instrument mode causing a corresponding movement in a corresponding robotic arm of the robotic assembly ([0036]: actuation buttons actuate a surgical function on the end effector, i.e. instrument control; the surgeon then moving the handpiece joystick to move the surgical tool, i.e. robotic arms, in three-dimension space); or
activating or exiting a scan mode of the surgical robotic system, a movement of one of the hand controllers when in the scan mode causing a corresponding change in an orientation of a camera assembly of the robotic assembly while the robotic arm of the robotic assembly remains stationary where the robotic assembly includes one robotic arm, or while all robotic arms of the robotic assembly remain stationary where the robotic assembly includes more than one robotic arm; or
activating or exiting a menu feature of the surgical robotic system, the menu feature causing a menu to be displayed in a graphical user interface of the surgical robotic system and input from a touch input device or a button of the one or more hand controllers being used for selection of an item of the menu; or
navigating between and/or selecting options from the menu displayed in the graphical user interface of the surgical robotic system; or
activating or exiting an elbow bias feature, the elbow bias feature enabling adjustment of a magnitude and a direction of an elevation of an elbow of a robotic arm while maintaining a position of an instrument tip of the robotic arm for each robotic arm of the robotic assembly; or
controlling an adjustment of an elevation of an elbow of a robotic arm of the robotic assembly for one robotic arm of the robotic assembly or for each robotic arm of the robotic assembly; or
changing or selecting a zoom of a view from a camera assembly of the robotic assembly ([0162]: “the actuation buttons 1026, 1028 can provide inputs to an imaging system to adjust a view of the surgical tool”).
In re claim 9, Denlinger discloses wherein for at least one of the hand controllers, at least two of the plurality of buttons map to functions selected from the one or more functions (see 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection, In re claim 8; [0134, 0162]).
In re claim 10, Denlinger discloses wherein for at least one of the hand controllers, at least three of the plurality of buttons maps to functions selected from the one or more functions (see 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection, In re claim 8; [0134, 0162, 0036]).
In re claim 11, Denlinger discloses wherein for at least one of the one or more hand controllers, the first touch input device has one or more functions selected from the one or more functions ([0336]: “the handpiece can also include an additional input control actuator on the handpiece, such as a pivotable arm or lever, to which a surgeon can supply control motions for moving the surgical tool in three-dimensional space”; i.e. activating or exiting an instrument control mode of the surgical robotic system, a movement of one of the hand controllers when in the instrument mode causing a corresponding movement in a corresponding robotic arm of the robotic assembly).
In re claim 12, Denlinger discloses:
wherein at least one of the one or more hand controllers further comprises a second touch input device (see above 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection, In re claim 6); and
wherein for at least one of the one or more hand controllers, the first touch input device or the second touch input device has one or more functions selected from the one or more functions (see above 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection, In re claim 11).
In re claim 13, Denlinger discloses:
wherein at least one of the one or more hand controllers further comprises a second touch input device (see above 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection, In re claim 6); and
wherein for at least one of the one or more hand controllers, the first touch input device and the second touch input device each have one or more functions selected from the one or more functions ([0171-0173]: user can switch between modes using a space joint and/or a wrist, i.e. touch input device; see above 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections, In re claim 11 and 12).
In re claim 14, Denlinger discloses:
wherein for at least one of the one or more hand controllers, an engagement of the first button produces a signal triggering activation of a clutch feature of the surgical robotic system with respect to a hand controller (see above 35 U.S.C. Rejection, In re claim 8; [0162, 0436]), and
wherein activation of the clutch feature permits or enables movement of the respective hand controller without causing movement of the robotic assembly (see above 35 U.S.C. Rejection, In re claim 8).
In re claim 15, Denlinger discloses wherein for each hand controller, the outside side surface of the housing is substantially concave (Examiner’s Annotate Fig. 6: the Outside Side Surface is not smooth and some of the surface curves inward leading to a substantially concave surface).
In re claim 16, Denlinger discloses each of the one or more hand controllers further comprising a thumb pad disposed on either of the inside side surface or the outside side surface (Fig. 7: 1030 disposed on either side of the Inside Side Surface and the Outside Side Surface).
In re claim 17, Delinger discloses at least one of the one or more hand controllers including a sensor ([0130]: “pressure sensor” ) configured
to sense contact of a hand of the operator with the hand controller ([0130]: pressure sensor senses movements in a touch sensitive handle) or
to sense proximity of a hand of the operator to the hand controller.
In re claim 18, Delinger discloses wherein an input from the sensor is used for activating or exiting an instrument control mode of the surgical robotic system, a movement of one of the hand controllers when in the instrument mode causing a corresponding movement in a corresponding robotic arm of the robotic assembly ([0129-0130]: detected movements from the pressure sensor generate control signals to control the robotic surgical manipulator and tools).
In re claim 54, Denlinger discloses wherein:
the robotic assembly further comprises a camera (Fig. 35A: 440) comprising a camera imaging center point (Fig. 35A: dashed line from center of camera 440; [0239-0240]: pivot point of the rotation of the camera);
the plurality of robotic arms comprise a first robotic arm and a second robotic arm (Fig. 1: surgical robot 122 has multiple arms including a first and second arm; [0028-0029]);
the first robotic arm comprises a proximal joint comprising a pivot point ([0125]; Fig. 4: elbow joint 272; Fig. 1: the plurality of robotic arms have pivot points where the arms are bending);
the second robotic arm comprises a proximal joint comprising a pivot point (Fig. 1: the plurality of robotic arms have pivot points where the arms are bending); and
the virtual chest is defined by a chest plane extending between the pivot point of the first robotic arm, the pivot point of the second robotic arm, and the camera imaging center point (inherent, the virtual chest would exist in the same way by the existence of these points mapped to above in this claim).
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denlinger (US 20200289219) in view of Koenig (US 20180079090) in further view of Kralicky (US 20210045839).
In re claim 56, Denlinger lacks wherein at least one of the plurality of buttons maps to a function comprising:
activating or exiting a view mode of the surgical robotic system,
wherein
activating the view mode
causes a change in an orientation of a camera assembly or
causes in the orientation of the camera assembly and a change in an orientation of the virtual chest to center a view of the camera assembly on a position of a midpoint between instrument tips of the plurality of robotic arms, which is an average instrument tip position, and
a movement of one of the hand controllers when the view mode is activated
causes a corresponding movement of an instrument tip of a corresponding one of the plurality of robotic arms relative to a view of the camera assembly and
causes
a change in the orientation of the camera assembly or
the change in the orientation of the camera assembly and the change in the orientation of the virtual chest to maintain a view of the camera assembly centered on the average instrument tip position.
Kralicky discloses an apparatus for positioning a camera of a surgical robot system (abstract) that, like the one or more hand controllers of Denlinger, discloses a system for controlling a surgical robot system that is configured to be disposed within a cavity of a patient [0004, 0011] with a hand controller [0045-0046, 0049]. In addition, Kralicky discloses wherein receiving an align command signal (i.e. a signal from a button, [0088]) causes a controller to produce positioning signals operable to cause a camera to be positioned such that a field of view of the camera is disposed to cause a reference point associated with at least one tool [0004, 0007-0010], where in response to an operator input (i.e. movement of one of the hand controllers), the controller produces movement signals for causing movement (i.e. corresponding movement of an instrument tip of a corresponding one of the plurality of robotic arms) of at least one tool while simultaneously producing camera positioning signals to follow the at least one tool within the body cavity frame of reference (i.e. change in orientation of the camera assembly) [0011-0015].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system by providing wherein an align command signal causes a controller to produce positioning signals that cause a camera to be positioned and wherein in response to an operator input, the controller produces movement signals while simultaneously producing camera positioning signals to follow the at least one tool within the body cavity frame of reference as taught by Kralicky because it would allow the operator/surgeon to update the camera field of vision to better capture the location of the tool (i.e. instrument) of the surgical robot during surgery, in cases when the tool has gone out of the field of vision or is not in an optimal view point, while allowing the operator or surgeon to control the camera position from the hand controller without having to access a different control which could distract them from the surgery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Khalifa (US 20220378528) discloses a system for controlling a surgical robotic assembly in an internal body cavity wherein a computing unit can change a position and/or orientation of a camera assembly of at least a portion of a robotic arm assembly while maintaining a stationary position of instrument tips of end effectors.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALLE M WELCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30 am to 5:00 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, David E Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/HALLE MARGARET WELCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
