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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 19/140,489 filled on 06/18/2025.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 12-16, 18-20, 27, 33 and 35-37 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The foreign documents and NPL documents provided with the IDS dated 06/20/2025 have been considered in as much as the drawings and/or English abstract and/or equivalent US publication of the foreign document and/or English translation of the foreign documents and NPL documents, as provided by Applicant. Note that NPL, citation No. 2 is split into 4 NPL documents and should apparently be combined to a single document. Appropriate correction or further clarification is required why the NPL, citation no. 2 is split into 4 NPL documents.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” in Claims 1, 10, 13-16 and 18; has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Based on a review of the specification, filed 06/18/2025, para. [0026]-[0028], and/or drawing, Fig. 1, control unit is a hardware that may include processor, memory, motion control application may be implemented using hardware, software, and/or a
combination of hardware and software.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 12-16, 18-20, 33 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swarup et al. (US 2021/0387338 A1) (hereinafter Swarup) in view of Itkowitz et al. (US 2017/0000574 A1) (hereinafter Itkowitz).
Claim 1. Swarup et al. (US 2021/0387338 A1) (hereinafter Swarup) teaches a computer-assisted system (See Para. [0023], Fig. 1, discloses “a computer-assisted system 100”) comprising:
a repositionable structure that includes one or more joints coupled to an end effector (See Para. [0023], “computer-assisted system 100 includes a device 110 with one or more movable or articulated arms 120, and each of the one or more articulated arms 120 supports one or more end effectors”, and see Para. [0034], Fig. 2, “The computer-assisted device 210 includes various links and joints”); and
a control unit (see Fig. 1, “Control Unit 130”),
wherein the control unit is configured to:
determine that a control point is not within a field of view of an imaging device capturing images of a worksite (See Abstract, and Para. [0010], “The control unit is configured to detect a first disturbance to the first articulated arm moving the imaging device away from the first position [i.e., control point]”);
while the control point is not within the field of view of the imaging device, receive an actuation command for causing the control point to translate (See Abstract, and/or Para. [0010], “receive a command to move the end effector, and transform the command to move the end effector from a command in the first reference frame to a command in a reference frame for the end effector”. Furthermore, see Para. [0074], “commands of up and down, left and right, and in and out using the controllers may translate to movements of the instrument up and down, left and right, and in and out in relation to camera coordinate frame 363. Up and down, left and right, in and out, may be resented by the x, y, and z translational axis of coordinate frame 363. Similarly, roll, pitch, and yaw commands may cause the instrument to roll, pitch, and yaw in relation to the camera coordinate frame. In some embodiments, one or more processors, such as processor 140 of FIG. 1, may translate user commands from the camera coordinate frame 363 to respective commands and motion in the instrument coordinate frames 343 and 353”);
based on the actuation command, generate a modified command that does not translate the control point (See Para. [0074], “commands of up and down, left and right, and in and out using the controllers may translate to movements of the instrument up and down, left and right, and in and out in relation to camera coordinate frame 363. Up and down, left and right, in and out, may be resented by the x, y, and z translational axis of coordinate frame 363. Similarly, roll, pitch, and yaw commands may cause the instrument to roll, pitch, and yaw in relation to the camera coordinate frame. In some embodiments, one or more processors, such as processor 140 of FIG. 1, may translate user commands from the camera coordinate frame 363 to respective commands and motion in the instrument coordinate frames 343 and 353”); and
actuate one or more joints of the repositionable structure or the end effector based on the modified command (See Para. [0019], “moving an articulated arm based on user commands while compensating for disturbances to one or more joints in the articulated arm.”).
The examiner notes that the cited prior art above, Swarup teaches that the control point associated with the articulated arm. It doesn’t explicitly spell out a control point associated with the end effector.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Itkowitz et al. (US 2017/0000574 A1) teaches, determine a control point associated with the end effector is not within a field of view of an imaging device (See Para. [0035], “one or more end effectors being outside the field of view of the imaging device”, and/or see Para. [0037], [0039], “it is determined whether the view recentering move , and a desired pose for the imaging system is determined which places the end effectors within the view space of the imaging device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Swarup with a control point associated with the end effector, and determine that the end effector is being outside the field of view of the imaging device as taught by Itkowitz in order to recenter the image device and align with the end effector for teleoperating the end effectors.
Claim 2. The teaching of Swarup as modified by the teaching of Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1, wherein the modified command rotates the control point (See Itkowitz, Abstract, Para. [0004], [0006], “provide positional and orientational harmony between each of the input controls and a corresponding one of the end effectors”. Additionally, see Itkowitz, Para. [0062], “the motion plan may include a multi-step move including retracting the imaging device away from the view center point, performing pitch and/or yaw orientations to align with the viewing direction so that the imaging device is orientated toward the view center point, and then inserting the imaging device to the working distance from the view center point.”).
Claim 3. The teaching of Swarup as modified by the teaching of Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1, wherein the control point is included in the end effector (See Itkowitz, Para. [0044], “A third articulated arm includes a single-finger end effector 330 including an end point 332 and a reference point 334”).
Claim 4. The teaching of Swarup as modified by the teaching of Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1, wherein the control point corresponds to a joint of the end effector (See Itkowitz, Para. [0044], “deference point 334 may correspond to a rotational joint”).
Claim 5. The teaching of Swarup as modified by the teaching of Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1, wherein the control point corresponds to a distal portion of the end effector (See Swarup, Para. [0004], “a distal end of the links and articulated joints of a corresponding articulated arm and/or end effector”. Additionally, see Itkowitz, Para. [0053], “the reference point relative to the cannula 460. In some examples, the reference point may be associated with tip 470”).
Claim 7. The teaching of Swarup as modified by the teaching of Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1, wherein the actuation command causes one or more of a stapling operation, a grasping operation, a cutting operation, an energy delivery operation, a translation of at least a portion of the end effector, or a rotation of at least a portion of the end effector (See Swarup, Para. [0040], “the manipulator 260 may be consistent with a manipulator for use with the da Vinci® Surgical System commercialized by Intuitive Surgical, Inc. of Sunnyvale, Calif. In some examples, the instrument 270 may be an imaging device such as an endoscope, a gripper, a surgical instrument such as a cautery or a scalpel, and/or the like”, and/or see Abstract, Para. [0010], “a command to move the end effector, and transform the command to move the end effector from a command in the first reference frame to a command in a reference frame for the end effector”, and see Para. [0004], [0040], “the articulated joints are manipulated to obtain a desired position and/or orientation (collectively, a desired pose) of a corresponding instrument located at a distal end of the links and articulated joints of a corresponding articulated arm and/or end effector”, and see Para. [0074], “yaw commands may cause the instrument to roll, pitch, and yaw in relation to the camera coordinate frame”. Additionally, see Itkowitz, Para. [0006], [0012], “the imaging device is moved and/or the input controls are switched to the additional articulated arms and/or end effectors, the spatial orientations between the imaging device and the end effectors may be changed. This may result in disharmony between the positions and/or orientations of the end effectors as displayed by the display system and the corresponding positions and/or orientations of the input controls for those end effectors. In some cases, this may be corrected by the operator by activating a clutch for the input controls and then repositioning and/or reorienting the input controls to match the end effector positions and/or orientations as shown on the display system.” Additionally, see Itkowitz, Para. [0044], “the single-finger end effector 330 may be representative of a cautery tool, a suction tool, and/or the like. In some examples, the articulated arms may be representative examples of the articulated arms 120 and the gripper-type may be representative examples of the end effectors 125”).
Claim 12. The teaching of Swarup as modified by the teaching of Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1, wherein the end effector includes one of a surgical stapler, a suction irrigator, an electrocautery device, a gripper, or a cutting mechanism (See Swarup, Para. [0040], “the manipulator 260 may be consistent with a manipulator for use with the da Vinci® Surgical System commercialized by Intuitive Surgical, Inc. of Sunnyvale, Calif. In some examples, the instrument 270 may be an imaging device such as an endoscope, a gripper, a surgical instrument such as a cautery or a scalpel, and/or the like.” Additionally, see Itkowitz, Para. [0044], “the single-finger end effector 330 may be representative of a cautery tool, a suction tool, and/or the like. In some examples, the articulated arms may be representative examples of the articulated arms 120 and the gripper-type may be representative examples of the end effectors 125”).
Claim 13. The teaching of Swarup as modified by the teaching of Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1, wherein to determine that the control point is not within the field of view of the imaging device, the control unit is configured to determine a current location of the control point based on forward kinematics of the repositionable structure (See Itkowitz, Para. [0035], “one or more end effectors being outside the field of view of the imaging device”, and/or see Para. [0037], [0039], “it is determined whether the view recentering move , and a desired pose for the imaging system is determined which places the end effectors within the view space of the imaging device”. Determine a location of other articulated arms, other end effectors, and/or devices in the workspace of the electronic device).
Claim 14. The teaching of Swarup as modified by the teaching of Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1, wherein to determine that the control point is not within the field of view of the imaging device, the control unit is configured to receive a user input indicating the control point (See Swarup, Abstract, and/or Para. [0010], “The control unit is configured to detect a first disturbance to the first articulated arm moving the imaging device away from the first position [i.e., control point]”, Further see Para. [0010], Abstract, discloses “receive a command to move the end effector, and transform the command to move the end effector from a command in the first reference frame to a command in a reference frame for the end effector”. Furthermore, see Para. [0074], “commands of up and down, left and right, and in and out using the controllers may translate to movements of the instrument up and down, left and right, and in and out in relation to camera coordinate frame 363. Up and down, left and right, in and out, may be resented by the x, y, and z translational axis of coordinate frame 363. Similarly, roll, pitch, and yaw commands may cause the instrument to roll, pitch, and yaw in relation to the camera coordinate frame. In some embodiments, one or more processors, such as processor 140 of FIG. 1, may translate user commands from the camera coordinate frame 363 to respective commands and motion in the instrument coordinate frames 343 and 353”. Additionally, see Itkowitz, Para. [0035], “one or more end effectors being outside the field of view of the imaging device”, and/or see Para. [0037], [0039], “it is determined whether the view recentering move , and a desired pose for the imaging system is determined which places the end effectors within the view space of the imaging device”, and see Para. [0004], “As the operator controls the articulated arms and/or the end effectors, the operator generally tries to keep the end effectors in sight of the imaging device so that the operation of the end effectors may be observed on the display system.”).
Claim 15. The teaching of Swarup as modified by the teaching of Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1, wherein to determine that the control point is not within the field of view of the imaging device, the control unit is configured to perform computer-vision analysis of the field of view based on information generated by the imaging device (See Swarup, Para. [0007], “the control unit is configured to determine a disturbance to the first joint set caused by a release of one or more brakes and compensate for the disturbance using the second joint set to reduce motion to a position of a point of interest”, and/or Abstract, Para. [0010], “The control unit is configured to detect a first disturbance to the first articulated arm moving the imaging device away from the first position [i.e., control point]”, Further see Para. [0010], Abstract, discloses “receive a command to move the end effector, and transform the command to move the end effector from a command in the first reference frame to a command in a reference frame for the end effector”. Additionally, see Itkowitz, “Para. [0035], “detect that one or more end effectors being outside the field of view of the imaging device”).
Claim 16. The teaching of Swarup as modified by the teaching of Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1, wherein to determine that the control point is not within the field of view of the imaging device, the control unit is configured to utilize two or more of determining a current location of the control point based on forward kinematics of the repositionable structure, receiving a user input indicating the control point, or performing computer-vision analysis of the field of view based on information generated by the imaging device (See Swarup, Para. [0007], “the control unit is configured to determine a disturbance to the first joint set caused by a release of one or more brakes and compensate for the disturbance using the second joint set to reduce motion to a position of a point of interest”, and/or Abstract, Para. [0010], “The control unit is configured to detect a first disturbance to the first articulated arm moving the imaging device away from the first position [i.e., control point]”, Further see Para. [0010], Abstract, discloses “receive a command to move the end effector, and transform the command to move the end effector from a command in the first reference frame to a command in a reference frame for the end effector”. Additionally, see Itkowitz, “See Itkowitz, Para. [0035], “one or more end effectors being outside the field of view of the imaging device”, and/or see Para. [0037], [0039], “it is determined whether the view recentering move , and a desired pose for the imaging system is determined which places the end effectors within the view space of the imaging device”. Determine a location of other articulated arms, other end effectors, and/or devices in the workspace of the electronic device”).
Claims 18-20, 33 are method claims corresponding to the system claims 1-5, 13-14, and having substantially the same technical features as claims 1-5, 13-14, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claims 18-20 and 33 are rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claims 1-5, 13-14.
Claims 35-37 are a non-transitory machine-readable medium claims corresponding to the system claims 1-5, and having substantially the same technical features as claims 1-5, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claims 35-37 are rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claims 1-5.
Claims 10 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swarup et al. (US 2021/0387338 A1) (hereinafter Swarup) in view of Itkowitz et al. (US 2017/0000574 A1) (hereinafter Itkowitz) and further in view of Suresh et al. (WO2020185789A, English equivalent USP publication, US20220250242A1 is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Suresh).
Claim 10. The teaching of Swarup as modified by the teaching of Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the control unit further applies haptic feedback on an input control of the computer-assisted system.
However, Suresh et al. (WO2020185789A, English equivalent USP publication, US20220250242A1 is used for claim mapping) teaches wherein the control unit further applies haptic feedback on an input control of the computer-assisted system (See Para. [0046], “force, and/or tactile feedback sensors (not shown) may be employed to transmit position, force, and/or tactile sensations [i.e., haptic feedback as claimed] from the tools (160) back to the operator's hands through the input control devices (210)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Swarup with a tactile sensor as taught by Suresh in order to provide tactile sensation/haptic feedback to ensure that replacement tool as the end effector remains on insertion trajectory or is being inserted.
Claim 27 is method claim corresponding to the system claim 10 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 10, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 27 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claims 1-5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights