DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to the set of claims received on May 5, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The system of claim 1 further” should read --The system of claim 1, further--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The system of claim 1 further” should read --The system of claim 1, further--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein robot arm” is now --wherein the robot arm--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The system of claim 1 further” should read --The system of claim 1, further--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The system of claim 11 further” should read --The system of claim 11, further--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The system of claim 11 further” should read --The system of claim 11, further--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The system of claim 11 further” should read --The system of claim 11, further--. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8,10-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,813,704 in view of Quaid et al. (US Publication 2006/0142657).
Instant Application No.19/198,292
U.S. Patent No. 10,813,704
Claim 1: A surgical system for performing a robotically assisted medical procedure on a patient, said system comprising: a robot arm; an end-effector attached to the robot arm, wherein the end-effector is configured to releasably hold a surgical instrument; a computing system; a control interface configured to receive commands and to control operation of the robot arm, wherein the control interface is in electronic communication with the computing system, wherein the computing system is configured to compute a desired trajectory for the surgical instrument from a medical image and from a detected real-time position of at least one of the surgical instrument and the end effector.
Claim 1:A surgical system for performing a robotically assisted medical procedure on a patient, said system comprising: a computing system; a robot arm; an end-effector attached to the robot arm, wherein the end-effector is configured to releasably hold a plurality of surgical instruments; a control interface configured to receive commands and to control operation of the robot arm, wherein the control interface is in electronic communication with the computing system; an actuator, in electronic communication with the control interface, configured to move the robot arm; a patient marker adapted to be coupled to a bone of the patient; and a tracking detector configured to capture a position of the surgical instrument held by the end-effector in relation to the patient based on the patient marker, wherein the computing system is configured to perform a registration to spatially align the end-effector, the patient and a desired trajectory of the end-effector based on the patient marker, and to maintain the spatial alignment without performing re-registration of the end-effector position when the surgical instrument held by the end-effector is removed and replaced with a different one of the surgical instruments
Claim 11. A surgical system for performing a robotically assisted medical procedure on a patient, said system comprising: a robot arm; an end-effector removably attached to the robot arm, wherein the end-effector is configured to releasably hold a surgical instrument; a computing system; an actuator configured to move the robot arm; and a tracking detector configured to capture a position of the surgical instrument in relation to the patient, wherein the computing system is configured to compute a desired trajectory for the surgical instrument from a medical image and from the position of at least one of the surgical instrument and the end effector.
Claim 1. A surgical system for performing a robotically assisted medical procedure on a patient, said system comprising: a computing system; a robot arm; an end-effector attached to the robot arm, wherein the end-effector is configured to releasably hold a plurality of surgical instruments; a control interface configured to receive commands and to control operation of the robot arm, wherein the control interface is in electronic communication with the computing system; an actuator, in electronic communication with the control interface, configured to move the robot arm; a patient marker adapted to be coupled to a bone of the patient; and a tracking detector configured to capture a position of the surgical instrument held by the end-effector in relation to the patient based on the patient marker, wherein the computing system is configured to perform a registration to spatially align the end-effector, the patient and a desired trajectory of the end-effector based on the patient marker, and to maintain the spatial alignment without performing re-registration of the end-effector position when the surgical instrument held by the end-effector is removed and replaced with a different one of the surgical instruments
Claim 1 of the reference patent recites all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 of the instant application except for “wherein the computing system is configured to compute a desired trajectory for the surgical instrument from a medical image and from a detected real-time position of at least one of the surgical instrument and the end effector”.
However, Quaid et al. teaches a computing system is capable of tracking object and registration data, the surgical system 10 may determine, for example, (a) a spatial relationship between the image of the anatomy and the relevant anatomy and (b) a spatial relationship between the relevant anatomy and the tool 50 so that the computing system 20 can superimpose (and continually update) a virtual representation of the tool 50 on the image, where the relationship between the virtual representation and the image is substantially identical to the relationship between the tool 50 and the actual anatomy. Additionally, by tracking not only the tool 50 but also the relevant anatomy, the surgical system 10 can compensate for movement of the relevant anatomy during the surgical procedure (e.g., by adjusting a virtual object in response to the detected movement) [0109, 0115, 0128].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to compute a desired trajectory for the surgical instrument from a medical image and from a detected real-time position of at least one of the surgical instrument and the end effector, as disclosed by Quaid within the system of claim of the reference patent, in order to enhance the surgeon’s natural tactile sense and physical dexterity, and facilitate the targeting, repairing, and replacing of various structures in the body.
Claim 2 of the reference patent recites the same limitations as claims 2 and 12 of the instant application.
Claim 3 of the reference patent recites the same limitations as claims 3 and 13 of the instant application.
Claim 4 of the reference patent recites the same limitations as claims 5 and 15 of the instant application.
Claim 5 of the reference patent recites the same limitations as claims 4 and 14 of the instant application.
Claim 6 of the reference patent recites the same limitations as claims 6 and 16 of the instant application.
Claim 7 of the reference patent recites the same limitations as claims 7 and 17 of the instant application.
Claim 8 of the reference patent recites the same limitations as claims 8 and 18 of the instant application.
Claim 9 of the reference patent recites the same limitations as claims 10 and 20 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Quaid et al. (US Publication 2006/0142657), hereinafter “Quaid”.
Regarding claim 1, Quaid discloses a surgical system (10, Figure 1) for performing a robotically assisted medical procedure on a patient, said system comprising: a robot arm (33, Figure 2a); an end-effector (35, Figure 2a) attached to the robot arm, wherein the end-effector is configured to releasably hold a surgical instrument (i.e., capable of holding a surgical instrument 50, Figure 2a); a computing system (20, Figure 1); a control interface (31 and 21) configured to receive commands and to control operation of the robot arm (i.e., 21 and 31 are capable of receiving specific operational requirements of the haptic device 30 [0103]), wherein the control interface is in electronic communication with the computing system, wherein the computing system is configured to compute a desired trajectory for the surgical instrument from a medical image and from a detected real-time position of at least one of the surgical instrument and the end effector (i.e., the computing system is capable of tracking object and registration data, the surgical system 10 may determine, for example, (a) a spatial relationship between the image of the anatomy and the relevant anatomy and (b) a spatial relationship between the relevant anatomy and the tool 50 so that the computing system 20 can superimpose (and continually update) a virtual representation of the tool 50 on the image, where the relationship between the virtual representation and the image is substantially identical to the relationship between the tool 50 and the actual anatomy. Additionally, by tracking not only the tool 50 but also the relevant anatomy, the surgical system 10 can compensate for movement of the relevant anatomy during the surgical procedure (e.g., by adjusting a virtual object in response to the detected movement) [0109, 0115, 0128].
Regarding claim 2, Quaid discloses further comprising a display screen (23, Figure 1) configured to display the position of the surgical instrument (i.e., the surgical system 10 is able to associate the physical anatomy and the tool 50 (and/or the haptic device 30) with a representation of the anatomy (such as an image displayed on the display device 23)[0128].
Regarding claim 3, Quaid discloses wherein the display screen (23, Figure 1)displays a projected trajectory of the robot arm based on a position of the robot arm in relation to the patient (i.e., a capable of a haptic object may have an associated spatial or geometric representation that can be graphically represented on the display device 23)[0157].
Regarding claim 4, Quaid discloses further comprising a camera to track the detected real-time position (i.e., detection device 41 may include, a stereo camera sensitive to infrared radiation) [0095,0118,0131].
Regarding claim 5, Quaid discloses further comprising an infrared camera to track the detected real-time position [0130-0131].
Regarding claim 6, Quaid discloses further comprising at least one force sensor disposed between the end-effector and the robot arm [0009].
Regarding claim 7, Quaid discloses wherein the robot arm is housed on a mobile cart (39, Figure 2A) [0126].
Regarding claim 8, Quaid discloses further comprising a stabilization mechanism capable of increasing stiffness of the mobile cart to ensure accuracy of the medical procedure [0182].
Regarding claim 9, Quaid discloses wherein the robot arm includes a locking mechanism [0136, 0182].
Regarding claim 11, Quaid discloses surgical system (10, Figure 1)for performing a robotically assisted medical procedure on a patient, said system comprising: a robot arm(33, Figure 2a); an end-effector (35, Figure 2a)removably attached to the robot arm, wherein the end-effector is configured to releasably hold a surgical instrument(i.e., capable of holding a surgical instrument 50, Figure 2a); a computing system(20, Figure 1); an actuator configured to move the robot arm [0112-0115]; and a tracking detector (41, Figure 1) configured to capture a position of the surgical instrument in relation to the patient (i.e., capable of being disposed on (or incorporated into) a tracked object and detected by the detection device 41), wherein the computing system is configured to compute a desired trajectory for the surgical instrument from a medical image and from the position of at least one of the surgical instrument and the end effector (i.e., the computing system is capable of tracking object and registration data, the surgical system 10 may determine, for example, (a) a spatial relationship between the image of the anatomy and the relevant anatomy and (b) a spatial relationship between the relevant anatomy and the tool 50 so that the computing system 20 can superimpose (and continually update) a virtual representation of the tool 50 on the image, where the relationship between the virtual representation and the image is substantially identical to the relationship between the tool 50 and the actual anatomy. Additionally, by tracking not only the tool 50 but also the relevant anatomy, the surgical system 10 can compensate for movement of the relevant anatomy during the surgical procedure (e.g., by adjusting a virtual object in response to the detected movement) [0109, 0115, 0128].
Regarding claim 12, Quaid discloses further comprising a display screen (23, Figure 1) configured to display the position of the surgical instrument (i.e., the surgical system 10 is able to associate the physical anatomy and the tool 50 (and/or the haptic device 30) with a representation of the anatomy (such as an image displayed on the display device 23)[0128].
Regarding claim 13, Quaid discloses wherein the display screen (23, Figure 1)displays a projected trajectory of the robot arm based on a position of the robot arm in relation to the patient (i.e., a capable of a haptic object may have an associated spatial or geometric representation that can be graphically represented on the display device 23)[0157].
Regarding claim 14, Quaid discloses wherein the tracking detector is a camera(i.e., detection device 41 may include, a stereo camera sensitive to infrared radiation) [0095,0118,0131].
Regarding claim 15, Quaid discloses wherein tracking detector is an infrared camera [0130-0131].
Regarding claim 16, Quaid discloses further comprising at least one force sensor disposed between the end-effector and the robot arm [0009].
Regarding claim 17, Quaid discloses wherein the robot arm is housed on a mobile cart (39, Figure 2A) [0126].
Regarding claim 18, Quaid discloses further comprising a stabilization mechanism capable of increasing stiffness of the mobile cart to ensure accuracy of the medical procedure [0182].
Regarding claim 19, Quaid discloses wherein the robot arm includes a locking mechanism [0136, 0182].
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.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quaid et al. (US Publication 2006/0142657) in view of Gogarty et al. (US Publication 2018/0125597), hereinafter “Gogarty”.
Regarding claim 10, Quaid fails to disclose a surgical drape positioned between the robot arm and the end-effector.
Gogarty, however, teaches a surgical drape (104, Figure 1a) may be used to provide a barrier between a robotic arm (101, Figure 1a) of a surgical robot and an end effector (106, Figure 1a) attached to the robotic arm [0016].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Quaid with a surgical drape positioned between the robot arm and the end-effector as taught by Gogarty in order to create a barrier between the robotic arm and the end effector to prepare a robot for use within a sterile surgical environment
Regarding claim 20, Quaid fails to disclose a surgical drape positioned between the robot arm and the end-effector.
Gogarty, however, teaches a surgical drape (104, Figure 1a) may be used to provide a barrier between a robotic arm (101, Figure 1a) of a surgical robot and an end effector (106, Figure 1a) attached to the robotic arm [0016].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Quaid with a surgical drape positioned between the robot arm and the end-effector as taught by Gogarty in order to create a barrier between the robotic arm and the end effector to prepare a robot for use within a sterile surgical environment
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA S JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-5963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8am to 4pm EST).
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at 571-272-4705. 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.
/Diana Jones/Examiner, Art Unit 3775
/KEVIN T TRUONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights