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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tabandeh et al (US 20170245946, hereinafter Tabandeh).
Regarding Claim 1, Tabandeh teaches:
a surgical system (see at least " In a specific inventive embodiment, with reference to FIG. 2, an operating room is illustratively shown with various components of a computer-assisted surgical system. A robotic surgical system 123 " in par. 0048) comprising:
an optical tracking system comprising a detector (see at least "A tracking system 121 with at least one optical receiver 109 may be in communication with tracking hardware 110 also shown in FIG. 2." in par. 0049) ;
a robotic arm comprising an end effector (see at least " A robotic surgical system 123 (referred herein after as ‘robot’) may have a base 105 and various joints and links 102, 103 to provide one or more degrees of freedom to articulate a tool 106 attached to an end effector flange 104." in par. 0048) ; and
a computing system programmed to control, in response to joint angles of the robotic arm satisfying one or more criteria, (see at least "The POSE of each of the joints 102, 103 may be detected and articulated by encoders and motors, respectively. The motors and encoders may be calibrated with robotic hardware and software such that the POSE of the tool 106 may be precisely known in space. The robotic hardware may include one or more robotic computer(s) (not shown), robotic controller(s) (not shown) and/or any additional storage devices such as RAM, ROM or other non-volatile memory. The robotic hardware may be located within the robot base 105 or housed externally. The robotic hardware may store, process, execute and/or be programmed with various software applications, data and utilities that may include robotic control, computer-aided machining (CAM) instructions, kinematic processing, calibration routines, bounded virtual environments, implant data, real-time robot monitoring (e.g., position, velocity, acceleration information), real-time safety monitoring, registration algorithms, medical imaging data, procedural workflow instructions as well as any other software, data or utilities that may be required to operate the robot 123, execute a procedure, or guide a user throughout a procedure." in par. 0048 and “Then, as the tool 106 and various joint/links (102, 103) (Block 403) of the robot 123 articulate, either autonomously and/or moved manually by a user, the POSE of the fiducial marker array 107 may be calculated from the forward kinematics of the robot (Block 405). The forward kinematics may be determined by the encoder values incorporated with each robot joint 102, 103.” In par. 0057)
the robotic arm to move the end effector of the robotic arm from outside a field of view of the detector of the optical tracking system to within the field of view of the detector of the optical tracking system. (see at least “For example, if the hardware/software determines the fiducial marker array 107 is approaching a boundary of the tracking field of view, then a compromised event or error may be triggered.” In par. 0074 and “The hardware/software may then calculate a new solution for the robotic joints 102, 103 that may adjust the fiducial marker array 107 in a POSE that best matches the initially stored POSE. The additional check (Block 913) may then be performed to determine if the fiducial marker array 107 is within the LOS of the optical receivers. Additionally or optionally, the hardware/software may also determine if the LOS is still compromised. If the LOS is not re-established or a compromised error still exists, then the procedure may be interrupted (Block 915). The robot 123 may then run through a series of joint solutions automatically such that the tool 106 may still perform the desired task on the target area.” In par. 0077)
Regarding Claim 2, Tabandeh teaches:
the surgical system of claim 1,
wherein the computing system is programmed to move the end effector of the robotic arm to within the field of view of the detector of the optical tracking system by moving the end effector to an intended pose, wherein the computing system is programmed to determine the intended pose based on the field of view of the detector. (see at least “For example, if the hardware/software determines the fiducial marker array 107 is approaching a boundary of the tracking field of view, then a compromised event or error may be triggered.” In par. 0074 and “The hardware/software may then calculate a new solution for the robotic joints 102, 103 that may adjust the fiducial marker array 107 in a POSE that best matches the initially stored POSE. The additional check (Block 913) may then be performed to determine if the fiducial marker array 107 is within the LOS of the optical receivers. Additionally or optionally, the hardware/software may also determine if the LOS is still compromised. If the LOS is not re-established or a compromised error still exists, then the procedure may be interrupted (Block 915). The robot 123 may then run through a series of joint solutions automatically such that the tool 106 may still perform the desired task on the target area.” In par. 0077)
Regarding Claim 3, Tabandeh teaches:
the surgical system of claim 2,
wherein the intended pose is a starting pose for a registration or calibration routine, wherein the intended pose is determined to ensure or improve a likelihood that the end effector remains within the field of view of the detector throughout the registration or calibration routine. (see at least “The movable joint 119 may then be manually or automatically articulated such that the fiducial marker array 107 is initially oriented in an optimal location within the field of view of the optical receivers 109. The initial optimal location may be determined visually by the user, by the hardware/software, or a combination thereof. For example, the hardware/software may determine that the fiducial marker array 107 is in the optimal pose when the tracking error is minimal.” In par. 0056 and “Subsequently, the coordinate frames/systems of the tool 106, fiducial marker array 107, movable joint 119, robot 123, and optical receiver/tracking system 121 may be calibrated relative to one another at this position and orientation using techniques well known in the art. Therefore, the relative POSE and transformations between the tool 106, the fiducial marker array 107 and the movable joint 119 are all known relative to one another and with respect to the robot coordinates and/or tracking system coordinates. The POSE of the fiducial marker array 107 at the initial optimal location may then be recorded and stored within the hardware/software with respect to the robot base coordinates (Block 401) and used as the future optimal LOS reference orientation.” In par. 0057 and "The surgical workflow may illustratively include creating an initial surgical plan, calibrating the medical equipment routine, performing the actual procedure, and archiving the data post procedure." in par. 0098)
Regarding Claim 5, Tabandeh teaches:
the surgical system of claim 1,
wherein the computing system is further programmed to provide a registration or calibration routine for the robotic arm subsequent to controlling the robotic arm to move the end effector of the robotic arm from outside the field of view of the detector of the optical tracking system to within the field of view of the detector of the optical tracking system. (see at least “The movable joint 119 may then be manually or automatically articulated such that the fiducial marker array 107 is initially oriented in an optimal location within the field of view of the optical receivers 109. The initial optimal location may be determined visually by the user, by the hardware/software, or a combination thereof. For example, the hardware/software may determine that the fiducial marker array 107 is in the optimal pose when the tracking error is minimal.” In par. 0056 and “Subsequently, the coordinate frames/systems of the tool 106, fiducial marker array 107, movable joint 119, robot 123, and optical receiver/tracking system 121 may be calibrated relative to one another at this position and orientation using techniques well known in the art. Therefore, the relative POSE and transformations between the tool 106, the fiducial marker array 107 and the movable joint 119 are all known relative to one another and with respect to the robot coordinates and/or tracking system coordinates. The POSE of the fiducial marker array 107 at the initial optimal location may then be recorded and stored within the hardware/software with respect to the robot base coordinates (Block 401) and used as the future optimal LOS reference orientation.” In par. 0057 and "The surgical workflow may illustratively include creating an initial surgical plan, calibrating the medical equipment routine, performing the actual procedure, and archiving the data post procedure." in par. 0098)
Regarding Claim 6, Tabandeh teaches:
the surgical system of claim 1,
wherein the computing system is programmed to control the robotic arm to move the end effector of the robotic arm from outside the field of view of the detector of the optical tracking system to within the field of view of the detector of the optical tracking system by controlling the robotic arm to move the end effector to a pose parallel to the detector of the optical tracking system. (see at least “As a simple example, if the tool 106 and fiducial marker array 107 are rotated 180 degrees by a robot joint (102, 103), the fiducial marker array 107 may no longer be in the LOS of the tracking system. From the forward kinematics, the hardware/software knows that the fiducial marker array is now oriented 180 degrees away from the tracking system. The hardware/software or the active movable joint controller may send a joint command to the movable joint 119 to rotate the fiducial marker array 107 another 180 degrees, independent of the other joints (102, 103) of the robot 123, such that the fiducial marker array 107 is now in the LOS of the optical receivers 109.” In par. 0060 and " In a particular inventive embodiment, the LOS may be optimal when the fiducial marker array 107 is directly perpendicular in the LOS of the optical receivers 109, wherein a compromised event occurs when the perpendicularity is outside a specified threshold. For example, a vector normal to the fiducial marker array plane may be calculated from the measured POSE of three fiducial markers residing on the fiducial marker array 107. If the normal vector is pointed directly toward the imaging plane of the optical receivers 109, then the fiducial marker array 107 is perpendicular to the optical receivers 109. A LOS compromised event may then occur if the calculated normal vector drifts away, within a specified threshold, from the optical receivers 109. It is also contemplated that an initially stored normal vector may also be stored with the stored initial orientation (e.g. Block 601 of FIG. 6) information and used to reestablish the LOS, or optimize the LOS or field of view subsequently." in par. 0075 and “The hardware/software may then calculate a new solution for the robotic joints 102, 103 that may adjust the fiducial marker array 107 in a POSE that best matches the initially stored POSE. The additional check (Block 913) may then be performed to determine if the fiducial marker array 107 is within the LOS of the optical receivers. Additionally or optionally, the hardware/software may also determine if the LOS is still compromised. If the LOS is not re-established or a compromised error still exists, then the procedure may be interrupted (Block 915). The robot 123 may then run through a series of joint solutions automatically such that the tool 106 may still perform the desired task on the target area. If the hardware/software re-establishes the LOS or the compromised error or event has been alleviated, then the robot joints/links 102, 103 at that joint solution is maintained. The coordinate transformation may then be updated and tracking resumed (Block 917).” In par. 0077 )
Regarding Claim 7, Tabandeh teaches:
the surgical system of claim 1,
wherein the detector comprises cameras. (see at least "Typical configurations and methods for tracking objects are well known in the art. One such method exploits the emission or reflection of signals (light, radiofrequency, infrared) attached to an object, wherein the signals are detected by receivers (photodiodes, CMOS or CCD cameras)." in par. 0004 and “A tracking system 108 with at least two optical receivers 109 may be in communication with tracking hardware 110 also shown in FIG. 1. The tracking hardware 110 may be a tracking computer, tracking controller and/or any additional storage device such as RAM, ROM, and/or other non-volatile memory. The tracking hardware may store, process and/or be programmed with various software applications, data and utilities that may include image processing, filtering, triangulation algorithms, registration algorithms, and coordinate transformation processing.” In par. 0012 )
Regarding Claim 9, Tabandeh teaches:
a surgical system (see at least " In a specific inventive embodiment, with reference to FIG. 2, an operating room is illustratively shown with various components of a computer-assisted surgical system. A robotic surgical system 123 " in par. 0048) comprising:
an optical tracking system (see at least "A tracking system 121 with at least one optical receiver 109 may be in communication with tracking hardware 110 also shown in FIG. 2. " in par. 0049);
a robotic arm comprising an end effector (see at least " A robotic surgical system 123 (referred herein after as ‘robot’) may have a base 105 and various joints and links 102, 103 to provide one or more degrees of freedom to articulate a tool 106 attached to an end effector flange 104." in par. 0048);
a computing system programmed to (see at least “The robotic hardware may include one or more robotic computer(s) (not shown), robotic controller(s) (not shown) and/or any additional storage devices such as RAM, ROM or other non-volatile memory. The robotic hardware may be located within the robot base 105 or housed externally. The robotic hardware may store, process, execute and/or be programmed with various software applications, data and utilities that may include robotic control, computer-aided machining (CAM) instructions, kinematic processing, calibration routines, bounded virtual environments, implant data, real-time robot monitoring (e.g., position, velocity, acceleration information), real-time safety monitoring, registration algorithms, medical imaging data, procedural workflow instructions as well as any other software, data or utilities that may be required to operate the robot 123, execute a procedure, or guide a user throughout a procedure." in par. 0048) :
determining a desired starting pose for the robotic arm based on a line-of-sight of the optical tracking system; and (see at least “The movable joint 119 may then be manually or automatically articulated such that the fiducial marker array 107 is initially oriented in an optimal location within the field of view of the optical receivers 109. The initial optimal location may be determined visually by the user, by the hardware/software, or a combination thereof. For example, the hardware/software may determine that the fiducial marker array 107 is in the optimal pose when the tracking error is minimal.” In par. 0056 and “Subsequently, the coordinate frames/systems of the tool 106, fiducial marker array 107, movable joint 119, robot 123, and optical receiver/tracking system 121 may be calibrated relative to one another at this position and orientation using techniques well known in the art. Therefore, the relative POSE and transformations between the tool 106, the fiducial marker array 107 and the movable joint 119 are all known relative to one another and with respect to the robot coordinates and/or tracking system coordinates. The POSE of the fiducial marker array 107 at the initial optimal location may then be recorded and stored within the hardware/software with respect to the robot base coordinates (Block 401) and used as the future optimal LOS reference orientation.” In par. 0057 and "The surgical workflow may illustratively include creating an initial surgical plan, calibrating the medical equipment routine, performing the actual procedure, and archiving the data post procedure." in par. 0098)
control the robotic arm to automatically move the end effector to the desired starting pose from a position outside the line-of-sight of the optical tracking system. (see at least “For example, if the hardware/software determines the fiducial marker array 107 is approaching a boundary of the tracking field of view, then a compromised event or error may be triggered.” In par. 0074 and “The hardware/software may then calculate a new solution for the robotic joints 102, 103 that may adjust the fiducial marker array 107 in a POSE that best matches the initially stored POSE. The additional check (Block 913) may then be performed to determine if the fiducial marker array 107 is within the LOS of the optical receivers. Additionally or optionally, the hardware/software may also determine if the LOS is still compromised. If the LOS is not re-established or a compromised error still exists, then the procedure may be interrupted (Block 915). The robot 123 may then run through a series of joint solutions automatically such that the tool 106 may still perform the desired task on the target area.” In par. 0077)
Regarding Claim 10, Tabandeh teaches:
the surgical system of claim 9,
wherein determining the desired starting pose for the robotic arm based on the line-of-sight of the optical tracking system comprises ensuring or improving a likelihood that a tracker coupled to the end effector remains within the line-of-sight throughout a calibration or registration routine initiated from the desired starting pose. (see at least “The movable joint 119 may then be manually or automatically articulated such that the fiducial marker array 107 is initially oriented in an optimal location within the field of view of the optical receivers 109. The initial optimal location may be determined visually by the user, by the hardware/software, or a combination thereof. For example, the hardware/software may determine that the fiducial marker array 107 is in the optimal pose when the tracking error is minimal.” In par. 0056 and “Subsequently, the coordinate frames/systems of the tool 106, fiducial marker array 107, movable joint 119, robot 123, and optical receiver/tracking system 121 may be calibrated relative to one another at this position and orientation using techniques well known in the art. Therefore, the relative POSE and transformations between the tool 106, the fiducial marker array 107 and the movable joint 119 are all known relative to one another and with respect to the robot coordinates and/or tracking system coordinates. The POSE of the fiducial marker array 107 at the initial optimal location may then be recorded and stored within the hardware/software with respect to the robot base coordinates (Block 401) and used as the future optimal LOS reference orientation.” In par. 0057 and "The surgical workflow may illustratively include creating an initial surgical plan, calibrating the medical equipment routine, performing the actual procedure, and archiving the data post procedure." in par. 0098)
Regarding Claim 11, Tabandeh teaches:
the surgical system of claim 9,
wherein the computing system is programmed to control the robotic arm to automatically move the end effector to the desired starting pose in response to joint angles of the robotic arm satisfying one or more criteria. (see at least "The POSE of each of the joints 102, 103 may be detected and articulated by encoders and motors, respectively. The motors and encoders may be calibrated with robotic hardware and software such that the POSE of the tool 106 may be precisely known in space." in par. 0048 and “Then, as the tool 106 and various joint/links (102, 103) (Block 403) of the robot 123 articulate, either autonomously and/or moved manually by a user, the POSE of the fiducial marker array 107 may be calculated from the forward kinematics of the robot (Block 405). The forward kinematics may be determined by the encoder values incorporated with each robot joint 102, 103.” In par. 0057 and “For example, if the hardware/software determines the fiducial marker array 107 is approaching a boundary of the tracking field of view, then a compromised event or error may be triggered.” In par. 0074 and “The hardware/software may then calculate a new solution for the robotic joints 102, 103 that may adjust the fiducial marker array 107 in a POSE that best matches the initially stored POSE. The additional check (Block 913) may then be performed to determine if the fiducial marker array 107 is within the LOS of the optical receivers. Additionally or optionally, the hardware/software may also determine if the LOS is still compromised. If the LOS is not re-established or a compromised error still exists, then the procedure may be interrupted (Block 915). The robot 123 may then run through a series of joint solutions automatically such that the tool 106 may still perform the desired task on the target area.” In par. 0077)
Regarding Claim 14, Tabandeh teaches:
the surgical system of claim 9,
wherein determining the desired starting pose for the robotic arm based on the line-of-sight of the optical tracking system comprises ensuring or improving a likelihood that a tracker coupled to the end effector remains within the line-of-sight throughout an expected articulation of the robotic arm initiated from the desired starting pose. (see at least "The POSE of each of the joints 102, 103 may be detected and articulated by encoders and motors, respectively. The motors and encoders may be calibrated with robotic hardware and software such that the POSE of the tool 106 may be precisely known in space." in par. 0048 and “Then, as the tool 106 and various joint/links (102, 103) (Block 403) of the robot 123 articulate, either autonomously and/or moved manually by a user, the POSE of the fiducial marker array 107 may be calculated from the forward kinematics of the robot (Block 405). The forward kinematics may be determined by the encoder values incorporated with each robot joint 102, 103.” In par. 0057 and “For example, if the hardware/software determines the fiducial marker array 107 is approaching a boundary of the tracking field of view, then a compromised event or error may be triggered.” In par. 0074 and “The hardware/software may then calculate a new solution for the robotic joints 102, 103 that may adjust the fiducial marker array 107 in a POSE that best matches the initially stored POSE. The additional check (Block 913) may then be performed to determine if the fiducial marker array 107 is within the LOS of the optical receivers. Additionally or optionally, the hardware/software may also determine if the LOS is still compromised. If the LOS is not re-established or a compromised error still exists, then the procedure may be interrupted (Block 915). The robot 123 may then run through a series of joint solutions automatically such that the tool 106 may still perform the desired task on the target area.” In par. 0077)
Regarding Claim 15, Tabandeh teaches:
the surgical system of claim 9,
wherein the optical tracking system comprises a detector comprising a camera. (see at least "Typical configurations and methods for tracking objects are well known in the art. One such method exploits the emission or reflection of signals (light, radiofrequency, infrared) attached to an object, wherein the signals are detected by receivers (photodiodes, CMOS or CCD cameras)." in par. 0004 and “A tracking system 108 with at least two optical receivers 109 may be in communication with tracking hardware 110 also shown in FIG. 1. The tracking hardware 110 may be a tracking computer, tracking controller and/or any additional storage device such as RAM, ROM, and/or other non-volatile memory. The tracking hardware may store, process and/or be programmed with various software applications, data and utilities that may include image processing, filtering, triangulation algorithms, registration algorithms, and coordinate transformation processing.” In par. 0012 )
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabandeh et al (US 20170245946, hereinafter Tabandeh) in view of Zuhars et al (US 20190069962, hereinafter Zuhars).
Regarding Claim 4, Tabandeh teaches:
the surgical system of claim 1,
Tabandeh does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Zuhars does teach:
wherein the one or more criteria are based on whether a surgery is to be performed on a right or left side of a patient. (see at least "The optimization algorithms may also include additional constraints for determining the optimal position. The constraints may include manipulator requirements such as the avoidance of a singularity, a joint limit, or a collision of the manipulator arm while executing the surgical plan. The constraints may include line-of-sight considerations where the location of a fiducial marker array relative to the tracking system may be optimized for a particular base position or manipulator arm configuration. The constraints may further include user's preferences for the position of the base, to provide the user with particular access points or corridors to the operational site, where the robot is still capable of executing the surgical plan. The preferences may also include how the base should be oriented to easily grasp and wield the manipulator arm or end-effector tool if a passive or haptic surgical robot is used. The algorithm constraints may also include patient factors such as the patient's body mass index (BMI), the operating side (e.g., left or right femur), or amount of exposure of the targeted anatomy. " in par. 0030)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tabandeh to incorporate the teachings of Zuhars wherein an optimization problem is solved to determine an optimal robot arm start position that factors in the side of the patient to be operated on in addition to constraints on line of sight with a tracker. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Zuhars would be to determine a more optimal start position for the robot (see par. 0030)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabandeh et al (US 20170245946, hereinafter Tabandeh) in view of Armand et al (US 20220361972, hereinafter Armand).
Regarding Claim 8, Tabandeh teaches:
the surgical system of claim 1, further comprising
an input device (see at least " A user may also interact with the robotic system 101 and/or tracking system 108 to provide input into the system(s). The monitor 111 may be a touch screen wherein a user can select and/or press different options, prompts and/or perform different actions. A remote control, joystick, mouse, keyboard, pendant and the like may also be wired or wirelessly connected to the systems to provide the interactive mechanism for the user." in par. 0011),
Tabandeh does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Armand does teach:
wherein the computing system is configured to abstain from controlling the robotic arm to move the end effector unless the input device is engaged by a user. (see at least " In this computed trajectory mode, the user only accompanies the robotic arm, said arm moving autonomously according to a trajectory computed previously to the surgical target. The safety is ensured by the obligation of continuous activation of the second switch by the user. As soon as the user stops activating the second switch, the control unit stops the motors so that the robotic arm can no longer move.” In par. 0070)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tabandeh to incorporate the teachings of Armand wherein automated robot movement to a start position stops if a user does not continuously depress a switch. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Armand would be to ensure safety (see par. 0070)
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabandeh et al (US 20170245946, hereinafter Tabandeh) in view of Moctezuma de la Barrera et al (US 20160242858, hereinafter Moctezuma de la Barrera).
Regarding Claim 17, Tabandeh teaches:
a method of operating a surgical system (see at least " Embodiments of the present invention generally describe a system consisting of at least one fiducial marker array, an optical tracking system with optical receivers, and a movable joint in mechanical communication with at least one of the fiducial marker array or optical receivers to adjust the fiducial marker array or optical receivers such that the LOS is maintained or the field of view of the tracking system is optimized. Multiple systems and methods for accomplishing such a task is further detailed in the various embodiments described below." in par. 0047 ) , comprising:
controlling, in response to joint angles of a robotic arm satisfying one or more criteria, a robotic arm to automatically move an end effector of the robotic arm from outside a field of view of a detector of an optical tracking system to within the field of view of the detector of the optical tracking system; and (see at least "The POSE of each of the joints 102, 103 may be detected and articulated by encoders and motors, respectively. The motors and encoders may be calibrated with robotic hardware and software such that the POSE of the tool 106 may be precisely known in space. The robotic hardware may include one or more robotic computer(s) (not shown), robotic controller(s) (not shown) and/or any additional storage devices such as RAM, ROM or other non-volatile memory. The robotic hardware may be located within the robot base 105 or housed externally. The robotic hardware may store, process, execute and/or be programmed with various software applications, data and utilities that may include robotic control, computer-aided machining (CAM) instructions, kinematic processing, calibration routines, bounded virtual environments, implant data, real-time robot monitoring (e.g., position, velocity, acceleration information), real-time safety monitoring, registration algorithms, medical imaging data, procedural workflow instructions as well as any other software, data or utilities that may be required to operate the robot 123, execute a procedure, or guide a user throughout a procedure." in par. 0048 and “Then, as the tool 106 and various joint/links (102, 103) (Block 403) of the robot 123 articulate, either autonomously and/or moved manually by a user, the POSE of the fiducial marker array 107 may be calculated from the forward kinematics of the robot (Block 405). The forward kinematics may be determined by the encoder values incorporated with each robot joint 102, 103.” In par. 0057 and “For example, if the hardware/software determines the fiducial marker array 107 is approaching a boundary of the tracking field of view, then a compromised event or error may be triggered.” In par. 0074 and “The hardware/software may then calculate a new solution for the robotic joints 102, 103 that may adjust the fiducial marker array 107 in a POSE that best matches the initially stored POSE. The additional check (Block 913) may then be performed to determine if the fiducial marker array 107 is within the LOS of the optical receivers. Additionally or optionally, the hardware/software may also determine if the LOS is still compromised. If the LOS is not re-established or a compromised error still exists, then the procedure may be interrupted (Block 915). The robot 123 may then run through a series of joint solutions automatically such that the tool 106 may still perform the desired task on the target area.” In par. 0077)
Tabandeh does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Moctezuma de la Barrera does teach:
controlling the robotic arm to provide force feedback guiding a manual movement of the end effector within the field of view of the detector. (see at least " In another embodiment, the feedback generator 122 determines a feedback force to be applied to the surgical tool 22 (modeled as a virtual rigid body) to stop the unwanted progression of the surgical tool 22 beyond the virtual line-of-sight boundary 106. The feedback generator 122 determines the feedback force as a boundary constraining force applied to the surgical tool 22. More specifically, the feedback generator determines a scalar feedback force FBNDR that, if applied to the surgical tool 22 at time (t), would stop the advancement of the surgical tool 22 in the direction normal to and towards the virtual line-of-sight boundary 106. " in par. 0105)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Tabandeh to incorporate the teachings of Moctezuma de la Barrera wherein haptic force feedback is applied to the operator input mechanism to prevent the surgeon from controlling the surgical tool to leave the line of sight boundary. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Moctezuma de la Barrera would be to avoid downtime during the procedure to fix errors with line of sight of the surgical tool (see par. 0006)
Regarding Claim 18, Tabandeh as modified by Moctezuma de la Barrera teaches (references to Tabandeh):
the method of claim 17, comprising
determining a desired pose within the field of view of the detector that ensures that the end effector remains within the field of view of the detector throughout a portion of a surgical workflow. (see at least " In a specific inventive embodiment, prior to tracking, the robot 123 may instruct the user to position and/or orient the tool 106 in an optimal location for a given procedure or depending on how the anatomy is positioned. The user may then adjust the robot base 105 and/or change the height of the tool 106 relative the robot base 105, such that the tool 106 is positioned and/or oriented as instructed. The instructions may be provided by for example, a monitor 111, a heads up display unit, Google glasses, and the like. Once the user has confirmed the best POSE of the robot by modifying the robot base 105 and robot base height, the POSE of the fiducial marker array 107 may be set that will least likely cause a disruption in the LOS with the optical receivers 109. " in par. 0092 )
Regarding Claim 19, Tabandeh as modified by Moctezuma de la Barrera teaches (references to Tabandeh) teaches:
the method of claim 18,
wherein the portion of the surgical workflow is a registration or calibration routine. (see at least " The initial optimal location may be determined visually by the user, by the hardware/software, or a combination thereof. For example, the hardware/software may determine that the fiducial marker array 107 is in the optimal pose when the tracking error is minimal. Or, if the fiducial marker array 107 is manually moved, the hardware/software may relay a signal or cue to the user via a monitor 111 when the pose of the fiducial marker array 107 is optimal. " in par. 0056 and “Subsequently, the coordinate frames/systems of the tool 106, fiducial marker array 107, movable joint 119, robot 123, and optical receiver/tracking system 121 may be calibrated relative to one another at this position and orientation using techniques well known in the art. Therefore, the relative POSE and transformations between the tool 106, the fiducial marker array 107 and the movable joint 119 are all known relative to one another and with respect to the robot coordinates and/or tracking system coordinates. The POSE of the fiducial marker array 107 at the initial optimal location may then be recorded and stored within the hardware/software with respect to the robot base coordinates (Block 401) and used as the future optimal LOS reference orientation.” In par. 0057 )
Regarding Claim 20, Tabandeh as modified by Moctezuma de la Barrera teaches (references to Tabandeh):
the method of claim 17, further comprising
tracking, by the optical tracking system, a marker coupled to the end effector when the end effector is in the field of view of the detector. (see at least " A zoomed in view of the end effector of the robot 123 is illustratively shown in FIG. 3. A fiducial marker array 107 may be attached to and/or fixed in a position and orientation to a movable joint 119. The movable joint 119 may be in direct communication with the hardware and software of the robot 123. " in par. 0053)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12-13, 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art comes from Tabandeh. Tabandeh teaches a surgical robot system that automatically returns the end effector marker to a position or pose that gives line of sight to a tracking system of the surgical robot system.
For Claims 12-13, the prior art does not appear to teach “automatically move the end effector to the desired starting pose in response to the end effector entering an approach area determined based on the desired starting pose.” in combination with all of the other limitations in the claims.
For Claim 16, the prior art does not appear to teach “automatically move the end effector to the desired starting pose from the position outside the line-of-sight of the optical tracking system in a less than a threshold amount of time at less than a threshold velocity.” in combination with all of the other limitations in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN M KATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs. 8:00-6:00.
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, 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 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.
/DYLAN M KATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights