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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Griffiths U.S. Patent No. 20250359954 in view of claims 1-21 of Griffiths (US 12409002) and further in view of claims 1-20 of Griffiths (US 20230301735). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose a computer-assisted device comprising:
a plurality of manipulators, each manipulator of the plurality of manipulators comprising a plurality of joints, a plurality of links coupled by the plurality of joints, and a plurality of actuators coupled to drive motion of a corresponding manipulator, each manipulator of the plurality of manipulators being associated with at least one control point of a plurality of control points (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined);
a control unit comprising one or more hardware processors, the control unit operatively coupled to each manipulator of the plurality of manipulators (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined);
wherein the control unit is configured to:
determine a first spatial configuration of the plurality of control points, the first spatial configuration being prior to a movement of a table being operated concurrently with the computer-assisted device (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined);
determine the movement of the table, the movement of the table causing movement of at least a first control point of the plurality of control points (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined);
determine, based on the movement of the table and the first spatial configuration, an expected spatial configuration of the plurality of control points (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined);
compare the expected spatial configuration with an actual spatial configuration of the plurality of control points, to determine whether to perform a remedial action (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined); and
perform the remedial action in response to a determination to perform the remedial action (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 2, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the table is separate from the computer-assisted device (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined);
Regarding claim 3, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein at least two manipulators of the plurality of manipulators are mechanically grounded to a common support structure (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 4 each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 3, wherein the common support structure comprises a cart physically separate from the table (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 5, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein at least one manipulator of the plurality of manipulators is configured to be mounted to the table (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 6, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein:a first manipulator of the plurality of manipulators is mechanically grounded to a first support structure; and a second manipulator of the plurality of manipulators is mechanically grounded to a second support structure different from the first support structure (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 7, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 6, wherein the first support structure is moveable relative to the second support structure and the table (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 8, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 1, further comprising: a support assembly; and a system manipulator supported by the support assembly, the system manipulator configured to support the plurality of manipulators and move the plurality of manipulators together (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 9, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein: a first manipulator of the plurality of manipulators is configured to support an instrument (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined);
the instrument is configured to be inserted into a patient, the patient being located on the table (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined);
the first manipulator is configured to move in response to the movement of the table due to movement of the patient causing movement of the instrument (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined); and
movement of the first manipulator causes movement of the first control point (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 10, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein to determine the expected spatial configuration, the control unit is configured to predict one or more changes in a position of the first control point based on the first spatial configuration and the movement of the table (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 11, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein to compare the expected spatial configuration with the actual spatial configuration (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined), the control unit is configured to:
determine a geometric attribute of the actual spatial configuration (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined);
determine an expected range for the geometric attribute based on the expected spatial configuration (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined); and
determine whether the geometric attribute is within the expected range (claims 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 12, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 11, wherein the geometric attribute is selected from the group consisting of:
a position of the first control point of the plurality of control points (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined),
a distance between two control points of the plurality of control points (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined),
an interior angle formed by three control points of the plurality of control points (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined),
a relative position of the first control point about a center of a control point constellation formed from the plurality of control points (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined),
a position of the center (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined),
an orientation of the control point constellation (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined), and
a center of curvature of the control point constellation (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 13, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 1, The computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein to compare the expected spatial configuration with the actual spatial configuration, the control unit is configured to:
determine a difference between a first geometric attribute of the actual spatial configuration and a corresponding second geometric attribute of the expected spatial configuration (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 14, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 13, wherein:
the corresponding second geometric attribute is not expected to change from the first spatial configuration to the expected spatial configuration (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined); and
the corresponding second geometric attribute is selected from the group consisting of:
a distance between two control points of the plurality of control points (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined);
an interior angle formed by three control points of the plurality of control points (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined); and
a relative position of one of the plurality of control points about a center (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined), the center being of a control point constellation formed from the plurality of control points (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 15, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 1, The computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein to compare the expected spatial configuration with the actual spatial configuration, the control unit is configured to:
determine a first actual path, the first actual path representative of actual positions of the first control point over time between the first spatial configuration and the actual spatial configuration (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined);
determine an expected path, the expected path representative of expected positions of the first control point over time between the first spatial configuration and the expected spatial configuration due to the movement of the table (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined); and
determine a difference between a first length of the first actual path and a second length of the expected path (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 16, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the first control point corresponds to a remote center of motion of a first manipulator of the plurality of manipulators (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 17, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the first control point corresponds to a location where an instrument supported by a first manipulator of the plurality of manipulators is inserted into a workspace (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 18, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the remedial action comprises at least one action selected from the group consisting of:
disabling movement of the table (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined),
alerting an operator (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined),
applying compensation to at least one of the plurality of manipulators (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined),
reporting an offending manipulator (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined), and
logging an error (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 19, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 1, further comprising:
a user manipulatable input device (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined);
wherein the control unit is further configured to teleoperate a first manipulator of the plurality of manipulators to pivot about a first control point of the first manipulator in response to a user input to input device (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Regarding claim 20, each of Griffiths (U.S.20250359954) or Griffiths (US 12409002), or Griffiths (US 20230301735) singly or combined disclose the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein to determine the movement of the table, the control unit is configured to receive position or motion information from a control unit of the table, the position or motion information being of the table or a top of the table (claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 of each of Griffiths singly or combined).
Conclusion
The prior art US 20200107897 made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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 571 270 5376. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights