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 statement (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (US 20210290320, disclosed in IDA submitted on 06/05/2025) in view of Katsuhisa (US 20250042025, hereinafter referred to as Kat).
For claim 1, Mao teaches: A surgical robot ([0106], disclosing a surgical robot), comprising:
a surgical instrument configured to mount on a robotic arm ([0102], disclosing surgical instrument on robot arm); and
a processor (abstract, disclosing a processor performing determination and control of robot) configured to:
estimate an external force applied to the surgical instrument during teleoperation while the surgical instrument or the robotic arm is in motion (abstract, disclosing determining external load on robot);
in response to detecting the external force exceeding a first threshold, pause the motion of the surgical instrument or the robotic arm ([0151], disclosing stopping movement of robot when detected force exceeds a threshold value); and
Mao does not teach reducing velocity of robot in response to detected external force in the same embodiment. However, in another embodiment teaches:
in response to detecting the external force exceeding a second threshold, which is lower than the first threshold, reduce a velocity of the surgical instrument or the robotic arm ([0151], disclosing applying brakes in gradual manner as external force exceeds. Breaks are necessarily applied when external force is detected and not applied in absence of external force. Therefore, 0 is deemed a second threshold).
As Mau teaches of slowing down the velocity of robot when non-zero external force is detected and stopping when the external force exceeds a threshold, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Mao to combine both embodiments to improve operational safety of the robot.
Although Mau teaches of detecting the external force exceeding a second threshold, which is lower than the first threshold, reduce a velocity of the surgical instrument or the robotic arm. If applicant deems braking is not equivalent to reducing velocity, Kat teaches of in response to detecting the external force exceeding a second threshold, which is lower than the first threshold, reduce a velocity of the surgical instrument or the robotic arm ([0044], disclosing reducing speed of robot when an external force is detected to be lower than a threshold value. See also figure 6. A non-zero external force i.e., greater that threshold of 0 leads to speed reduction).
Mau and Kat are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor, i.e., observing external force and taking remedial action. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Mau to in response to detecting the external force exceeding a second threshold, which is lower than the first threshold, reduce a velocity of the surgical instrument or the robotic arm as taught by Kat to enhance operational safety of robot.
Examiner’s Note: Fishman (US-20190060674) and Graichen (US-20200198133) are relied upon as evidentiary art to support policy of robot speed reduction with non-zero external force detection.
For claim 2, modified Mau teaches: The surgical robot of claim 1, wherein the external force is applied through contact with at least one of another surgical instrument, another robotic arm, a surgical table, a medical device, a patient, or a medical personnel ([0150], disclosing patient body exerts external force).
For claim 3, Modified Mau teaches: The surgical robot of claim 1, wherein the motion of the surgical instrument or the robotic arm is driven by at least one of a plurality of actuators ([0088], disclosing robotic arms 12 may generally comprise robotic arm bases 21 and end effectors 22, separated by a series of linkages 23 that are connected by a series of joints 24, each joint comprising an independent actuator, each actuator comprising an independently controllable motor), and
wherein estimating the external force comprises calculating a motor torque at each of the plurality of actuators based on a motor current and a gear ratio ([0144], disclosing generating desired torque. [0150], disclosing detect when an amount of a load (e.g., resulting from a force or a torque) between the cannula 204 and the body wall 208 exceeds an external load threshold value. [0169], disclosing torque sensors).
For claim 4, modified Mau teaches: The surgical robot of claim 3, wherein the motor torque includes a regular torque for teleoperation and an external torque to balance the external force ([0150], disclosing detect when an amount of a load (e.g., resulting from a force or a torque) between the cannula 204 and the body wall 208 exceeds an external load threshold value. In some embodiments, the external load threshold can be based on load threshold(s) of a full robotic arm, individual joints of the robotic arm, or any combination thereof, which can advantageously vary during a procedure).
For claim 5, modified Mau teaches: The surgical robot of claim 4, wherein the regular torque for teleoperation comprises one or more of:
a gravity compensation torque,
a dynamic torque to balance inertia and Coriolis effect,
a friction torque (0150], disclosing detect when an amount of a load (e.g., resulting from a force or a torque) between the cannula 204 and the body wall 208 exceeds an external load threshold value. In some embodiments, the external load threshold can be based on load threshold(s) of a full robotic arm, individual joints of the robotic arm, or any combination thereof, which can advantageously vary during a procedure),
a remote center of motion (RCM) torque, and
a tissue load torque.
For claim 6, modified Mau teaches: The surgical robot of claim 5, wherein the external torque to balance the external force is estimated based on one or more of:
the calculated motor torque,
a pose, a velocity and an acceleration of the robotic arm and surgical instrument ([0173], disclosing adjustable external load threshold 606 may change over time, for example, in response to changes in pose of the robotic arm),
a maximum expected RCM torque, and a maximum expected tissue load torque.
For claim 7, Modified Mau teaches: The surgical robot of claim 1, wherein the external force is estimated at a tooltip of the surgical instrument ([0149] and figure 21, disclosing robot tooltip exerts forces on body).
For claim 8, modified Mau teaches: The surgical robot of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to gradually reduce the motion of the surgical instrument or the robotic arm following a smooth curve (figure 25, disclosing force of robot having a slope i.e., gradually reduced).
For claim 9, modified Mau teaches: The surgical robot of claim 1, wherein the first threshold and the second threshold are predetermined (first threshold is the threshold that necessitates stopping robot and second threshold is a 0. Hence both are predetermined).
For claim 10, modified Mau teaches: The surgical robot of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first threshold and the second threshold is determined in real time based on one or more of a pose, a velocity and an acceleration of the surgical instrument or the robotic arm ([0173], disclosing adjustable external load threshold 606 may change over time, for example, in response to changes in pose of the robotic arm).
Claims 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (US 20210290320, disclosed in IDA submitted on 06/05/2025) in view of Katsuhisa (US 20250042025, hereinafter referred to as Kat) and Inoue (US 9200972).
For claim 11, modified Mao teaches: The surgical robot of claim 1,
Mau does not teach: wherein the processor is further configured to output a notification on detecting the external force exceeding the first threshold or the second threshold, wherein the notification includes haptic feedback and/or audio-visual warnings
Inoue teaches wherein the processor is further configured to output a notification on detecting the external force exceeding the first threshold or the second threshold, wherein the notification includes haptic feedback and/or audio-visual warnings (abstract, disclosing determining external force. Column 6, disclosing reducing motor torque or stopping the motor in response to detecting an external force and generating an alarm)
Inoue and Mau are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., detecting external force and taking remedial action. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify art of Mau to wherein the processor is further configured to output a notification on detecting the external force exceeding the first threshold or the second threshold, wherein the notification includes haptic feedback and/or audio-visual warnings as taught by Inoue to increase robot operation and state awareness of an operator.
Claims 12 and 20 recite limitations similar in scope to claim 11, hence are similarly rejected.
For claim 13, modified Mau teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the external force is caused by a contact with other objects around the surgical manipulator ([0150], disclosing patient body exerts external force).
For claim 15, modified Mau teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the position on the surgical manipulator for estimating the external force includes any positions at a tooltip, a tool shaft, a tool stage, a tool driver, and a robotic arm (abstract, disclosing determine a first external load threshold for the at least one joint based on a maximum safe load capability).
For claim 16, modified Mau teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the slowdown threshold is predetermined (as slowdown threshold is interpreted as non-zero value, it is necessarily predetermined. Furthermore, [0151], disclosing the brakes may be applied in a gradual manner such that the amount of braking increases as the force applied by the robotic arm to the body wall (or vice versa) approaches the force threshold value. As braking increases with increase in external force, threshold for applying a certain level of brake is necessarily predetermined) or determined in real time based on a pose and/or motion status of the surgical manipulator.
For claim 17, modified Mau teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 12, further comprising:
determining whether the external force is excessive over a stop force threshold, which is higher than slowdown force threshold; and
in response to determining the external force is excessive over the stop threshold,
stopping the motion of the surgical manipulator ([0151], disclosing when detected force exceeds a force threshold value); and
generating a notification about the excessive external force (modification through Inoue teaches of generating a notification about excessive external force).
For claim 18, modified Mau teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 12, further comprising:
repeating the steps of (i) estimating the external force at the position on the surgical manipulator, and (ii) slowing down the motion of the surgical manipulator, until the external force at the position falls below the slowdown threshold (figure 25, disclosing force of robot having a slope i.e., gradually reduced)
For claim 19, modified Mau teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the notification about the excessive external force includes haptic feedback and/or audio-visual warnings (modification through Inoue teaches of generating an alarm. Alarm is interpreted as an audio warning).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (US 20210290320, disclosed in IDA submitted on 06/05/2025) in view of Katsuhisa (US 20250042025, hereinafter referred to as Kat), Inoue (US 9200972) and Onodera (US 20240025061).
For claim 14, modified Mau teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 12,
Mau teaches of external load threshold from maximum safe load capability of robot and sensors to measure external load (see [0006] and [0016]), but does not explicitly teach: wherein the external force is estimated based on a difference between an actual force and a maximum expected force for teleoperated robotic surgery at the position on the surgical manipulator
Onodera teaches: wherein the external force is estimated based on a difference between an actual force and a maximum expected force for teleoperated robotic surgery at the position on the surgical manipulator ([0040], disclosing the external force acting on the robot 10 is a difference between a calculated torque value necessary for executing each type of movement of the robot 10 and an actual torque measurement value necessary when the robot 10 actually moves).
Mau and Onodera are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., determining external load acting on robot. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify art of Mau to wherein the external force is estimated based on a difference between an actual force and a maximum expected force for teleoperated robotic surgery at the position on the surgical manipulator as taught by Onodera as a means to determine external load.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fishman (US-20190060674) teaches of reducing speed of robot when external force is detected. See [0043]
Naitou (US-20240408764) teaches of reducing operation speed of robot to avoid increase of external force. See [0074].
Graichen (US-20200198133) teaches of reducing speed of robot and its kinetic energy when external force is detected. See [0005].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARSLAN AZHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/ARSLAN AZHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights