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 .
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority of KR10-2024-0075182 on 6/10/2024 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant filed an IDS on 5/6/26. It has been annotated and considered.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Griffiths et al. (US 20190054620 hereinafter Griffiths).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 18 and 19), Griffiths teaches a method for detecting a collision of a surgical robot system comprising a first surgical robot and a second surgical robot, the method being performed by a computing device and comprising (See at least: Figs. 1-4):
determining relative position information between the first surgical robot and the second surgical robot (See at least: Fig. 1. Note: Each of the arms 120 can be considered a surgical robot.);
determining position information of at least one first robot arm provided in the first surgical robot and at least one second robot arm provided in the second surgical robot with respect to a reference point based on the relative position information; and
determining whether a collision occurs in at least a portion of the first robot arm and the second robot arm based on the position information of the first robot arm and the second robot arm with respect to the reference point and volume information of the first surgical robot and the second surgical robot (See at least: Figs. 1-4; [0007] via “The virtual models are then expanded by a predetermined distance to create a virtual boundary defining a corresponding virtual buffer zone around each of the joints and links in the repositionable arms. As the repositionable arms are controlled via teleoperation, a collision engine determines when there is an overlap between the virtual boundaries indicating that at least two of the repositionable arms have moved to within a near proximity to each other. A physical model of surface or volume interaction, such as an elastic model based on surface or volume penetration, is then applied by a physics engine to determine a feedback force that is applied to the repositionable arms that pushes the repositionable arms apart so as to reduce or eliminate the overlap in the virtual boundaries. The feedback force is then mapped to changes in the forces or torques applied to those joints of the repositionable arms that allow the repositionable arms are pushed away from a potential collision before an actual collision occurs.”).
Regarding claim 6, Griffiths teaches wherein the determination of the position information with respect to the reference point is configured to determine a position of a straight line corresponding to at least one shaft configuring each of the first robot arm and the second robot arm (See at least: Fig. 3 as virtual boundary is created along the shaft of the arm).
Regarding claim 9, Griffiths teaches wherein the determination of the relative position information between the first surgical robot and the second surgical robot comprises: acquiring first reference information for a reference object based on a first reference information collection apparatus provided in the first surgical robot; acquiring second reference information for the reference object based on a second reference information collection apparatus provided in the second surgical robot; and determining the relative position information between the first surgical robot and the second surgical robot based on the first reference information and the second reference information (Refer at least to claim 1 for reasoning and rationale. Note: Reference objects could include the device 110, the patient or other objects that determine robot placement. See also [0054] via “In some embodiments, one or more registration markers, fiducial markers, and/or the like mounted on the repositionable arms may alternatively be tracked using one or more tracking sensors, such as an imaging device, to supplement and/or replace the sensor data to determine the orientations of the joints in the repositionable arms.”).
Regarding claim 11, Griffiths teaches wherein at least one of the first reference information collection apparatus or the second reference information collection apparatus is disposed in at least one of a body of the first surgical robot or a body of the second surgical robot (Refer at least to claim 9 for reasoning and rationale.).
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.
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths in view of Dany et al. (WO 2024241325 hereinafter Dany).
Regarding claim 2, Griffiths fails to teach the following limitation, but Dany teaches
determining the location of the base on a robotic arm (See at least: [0116] via “Given the determined location of the base 360 of the robotic arm 116 to the patient bed 208 and the immovable relative position of the base 360 of the robotic arm 116 and the patient bed 208,”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Griffiths in view of Dany to teach wherein the relative position information between the first surgical robot and the second surgical robot comprises relative position information between a base point of the first surgical robot and a base point of the second surgical robot to use the base point of a robot which stays constant during a procedure as information to make calculations regarding collision avoidance.
Regarding claim 3, modified Griffiths teaches wherein the reference point is the base point of the first surgical robot (Refer at least to claim 2 for reasoning and rationale.).
Claim 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths in view of Stachulski et al. (US 20240315790 hereinafter Stachulski).
Regarding claim 4, Griffiths fails to teach the following limitation, but Stachulski teaches wherein: the first surgical robot comprises a plurality of first robot arms; the determination of the position information with respect to the reference point comprises determining position information of each of the first robot arms with respect to the reference point based on kinematics information of the first surgical robot; and the defemination of whether the collision occurs comprises determining whether the first robot arms collide (See at least: Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Griffiths in view of Stachulski to teach wherein: the first surgical robot comprises a plurality of first robot arms; the determination of the position information with respect to the reference point comprises determining position information of each of the first robot arms with respect to the reference point based on kinematics information of the first surgical robot; and the defemination of whether the collision occurs comprises determining whether the first robot arms collide so that multiple arms can be utilized to perform multiple or more complex procedures without colliding.
Regarding claim 5, modified Griffiths teaches wherein: the determination of the position information with respect to the reference point further comprises determining position information of the second robot arm with respect to the reference point based on the relative position information between the base point of the first surgical robot and the base point of the second surgical robot and kinematics information of the second surgical robot; and the determination of whether the collision occurs further comprises determining whether the second robot arm collides (Refer at least to claim 1-3 for reasoning and rationale.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths in view of Afrouzi et al. (US 20240310851 hereinafter Afrouzi).
Regarding claim 10, Griffiths fails to teach the following limitation, but Afrouzi teaches wherein the first reference information collection apparatus and the second reference infornation collection apparatus are oriented to face a ceiling of a surgical space in which the first surgical robot and the second surgical robot are disposed (See at least: [0593] via “A camera with a FOV facing the ceiling, the front, the back or both front and back may be used to measure angular displacement of the robot through optical flow.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Griffiths in view of Afrouzi to wherein the first reference information collection apparatus and the second reference infornation collection apparatus are oriented to face a ceiling of a surgical space in which the first surgical robot and the second surgical robot are disposed so that a reference point on the immovable ceiling can be used to determine the location of the surgical robot system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths in view of Fjeldheim (US 20230166913 hereinafter Fjeldheim).
Regarding claim 12, Griffiths fails to teach the following limitation, but Fjeldheim teaches wherein the reference object comprises at least one of: an operating room tile arrangement shape; an operating room light arrangement shape; an astral lamp; or a support for mounting the astral lamp (See at least: [0036] When flying indoors, a GPS signal is often not available. In such situations, the drones often use a downward facing optical sensor to identify patterns on the floor in order to hover in a fixed position.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Griffith in view of Fjeldheim to teach wherein the reference object comprises at least one of: an operating room tile arrangement shape; an operating room light arrangement shape; an astral lamp; or a support for mounting the astral lamp so that a reference point on the immovable floor can be used to determine the location of the surgical robot system.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths in view of Hares (US 20210267700 hereinafter Hares).
Regarding claim 16, Griffiths fails to teach the following limitation, but Hares teaches determining whether a collision occurs in the at least a portion of the first robot arm and the second robot arm based on dynamic information on driving elements of at least a portion of the first robot arm and the second robot arm; and finally determining that a collision has occurred in to at least a portion of the first robot arm and the second robot arm, based on both a determination that a collision has occurred based on the position information and a determination that a collision has occurred based on the dynamic information (See at least: Abstract via “calculate a candidate force for each arm which when applied to that arm would cause the determined residual torques; and determines a collision if a candidate force on the arm of the first robot balances an opposing candidate force on the arm of the second robot.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Griffith in view of Hares to teach determining whether a collision occurs in the at least a portion of the first robot arm and the second robot arm based on dynamic information on driving elements of at least a portion of the first robot arm and the second robot arm; and finally determining that a collision has occurred in to at least a portion of the first robot arm and the second robot arm, based on both a determination that a collision has occurred based on the position information and a determination that a collision has occurred based on the dynamic information so the surgical robot system can be operated as needed when a collision occurs to fix the system and prevent any further damage.
Regarding claim 17, modified Griffith teaches wherein the determination of whether the collision occurs based on the dynamic information is configured to determine that the collision has occurred in the at least a portion of the first robot arm and the second robot arm based on at least one of: a determination that a control torque measurement value of a robot arm motor or a measured value of the amount of change in the control torque, determined based on a sensor measurement value provided in the first robot armor the second robot arm, has exceeded a predetermined first threshold value; or a determination that a torque measurement value due to external force of the robot arm motor determined based on a current angular position, gravity information, Coriolis force information, and inertial information for articulation provided in at least one of the first robot armor the second robot arm has exceeded a predetermined second threshold value (Refer at least to claim 16 for reasoning and rationale.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights