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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12469596. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims are directed to determining supports person for a robotic manipulation system coordination system including a system awareness engine. While the independent claims of the instant application focus on support requests based on system-external context, the substance of those features was recited in dependent claims of the parent application. U.S. Patent No. 12469596. In particular, claims 1, 12 and 20 are not patentably distinct in view of at least Claims 1, 6, 7 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12469596; Claim 2 is not patentably distinct in view of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12469596; Claim 3 is not patentably distinct in in view of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12469596; Claim 4 is not patentably distinct in view of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12469596; Claim 5 is not patentably distinct in in view of Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12469596; Claims 6 and 18 are not patentably distinct in view of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12469596; Claim 7 is not patentably distinct in view of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12469596; Claim 8 is not patentably distinct in view of Claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12469596; Claim 9-11 are not patentably distinct in view of Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12469596; Claim 12 is not patentably distinct in view of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12469596; Claim 13 is not patentably distinct in view of Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12469596; Claim 14 is not patentably distinct in view of Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12469596; Claims 15 and 19 are not patentably distinct in view of Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12469596; and Claim 16 is not patentably distinct in view of Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12469596.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1 recites “… obtain image data of the robotic manipulation system in an operating environment of the robotic manipulation system; process the image data to determine a system-external context of the medical system, the processing comprising: performing, using the image data, … detection of at least one procedure-progression indicator; determining an estimate of an actual operational state from the plurality of operational states based on the … detection of the at least one procedure-progression indicator; and a support agent … configured to: receive a first support request from the medical system; receive the system-external context from the environment awareness engine; evaluate the system-external context to identify a support person to respond to the first support request from a plurality of support persons, the evaluation comprising: identifying, …., the support person to respond to the first support request according to the estimate of the actual operational state; and automatically contact the support person to respond to the first support request”. Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “Product Support Notifications”, which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and mental process including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). “Product Support Notifications” is considered to be is a method of organizing human activity and mental process because the method of claim 1 can be performed entirely in the human mind and is directed to processes performed in the ordinary course of sales and service business operations. That is, the visual inspection of a process in progress and determination of need for a particular kind of support person (e.g. cleaner, mechanic, or electrician) is a human mental process. As such, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites a coordination system for coordinating remote assistance for a robotic manipulation system while the robotic manipulation system is in one of a plurality of operational states, the coordination system comprising: an environment awareness engine executed by a processing system of the medical system, performing, using the image data, a digital image processing-based detection, a support agent executed by the processing system, and a support person identification logic and claim 20 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising a plurality of machine-readable instructions executed by one or more processors associated with a medical system comprising a robotic manipulation system configured to perform a medical procedure on a patient. These additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. That is, the recitations of additional elements amount merely reciting the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). That is, the claims recite no technological details, but rather recite human mental tasks (e.g. visual recognition) or business operations (e.g. service provider identification) and assert that those tasks are performed by software. Such additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. Under the “significantly more” analysis the additional elements have also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. That is, the additional elements provide a technological environment, but do not address any technological problem or provide a technological solution. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claims 17 and 20 recited substantially similar features to those recited in representative claim 23 and are rejected based on substantially the same reasons.
Dependent claims 2-16, 18 and 19 merely further limit the abstract idea and are thereby considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 2 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Support Notifications” by introducing the element of the plurality of operational states comprises: a use state, a setup state before the use state, and a setup state after the use state, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 2 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 3 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Support Notifications” by introducing the element of the at least one procedure-progression indicator comprises at least one of: a patient-location state, a patient-preparation state, an incision-made state, a medical system-in-sterile-field state, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 3 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 4 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Support Notifications” by introducing the element of to assign each support person of the plurality of support persons to at least one of the plurality of operational states, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 4 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 5 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Support Notifications” by introducing the element of prior to automatically contacting the support person, identify a subset of the system-external context to be provided to the support person; and after automatically contacting the support person, facilitate provision of the subset of the system-external context to the support person, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 5 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 6 and 18 further limit the abstract idea of “Product Support Notifications” by introducing the element of the support agent is further configured to identify the support person by applying the support person identification logic further to a system-internal context, and wherein the system-internal context is obtained from a system awareness engine configured to detect information about the robotic manipulation system, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Rather, the breadth of the claims may include viewing an error light on a device. Therefore, dependent claims 6 and 18 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 7 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Support Notifications” by introducing the element of the support agent is further configured to: prior to automatically contacting the support person, identify a subset of the system-internal context to be provided to the support person; and after automatically contacting the support person, facilitate provision of the subset of the system-internal context to the support person, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 7 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 8 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Support Notifications” by introducing the element of a manipulator arm configured to support an instrument on the manipulator arm, and wherein the system-internal context comprises a kinematic configuration of at least one of: the manipulator arm and the instrument, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 8 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 9 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Support Notifications” by introducing the element of a robotic manipulation system, the robotic manipulation system comprising a manipulator arm configured to support an instrument, and wherein the system-internal context comprises a mounting state of the instrument, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 9 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 10 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Support Notifications” by introducing the element of a robotic manipulation system, the robotic manipulation system comprising a manipulator arm configured to support an instrument, and wherein the system-internal context comprises a type of the instrument being used, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 10 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 11 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Support Notifications” by introducing the element of a robotic manipulation system, the robotic manipulation system comprising a manipulator arm configured to dock to a cannula, the cannula insertable into a body wall or an orifice of a patient, the cannula containing a lumen configured for receiving an instrument, and wherein the system-internal context comprises a docking state of the cannula, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 11 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 12 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Support Notifications” by introducing the element of the medical system comprises a robotic manipulation system, the robotic manipulation system comprising a manipulator arm, and wherein the system-internal context comprises an error state of the robotic manipulation system, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 12 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 13 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Support Notifications” by introducing the element of a plurality of rules arranged to qualify support persons based on at least one factor selected from the group consisting of: a stage of a procedure being performed with the medical system, a familiarity level with the medical system, a familiarity level with a procedure being performed with the medical system, and specialized knowledge of an aspect of the medical system, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 13 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 14 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Support Notifications” by introducing the element of the plurality of rules is further arranged to deduce convergent information from a combination of the system-external context and a system-internal context, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 14 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 15 and 19 further limit the abstract idea of “Product Support Notifications” by introducing the element of the support agent is further configured to: receive a second support request; determine that a conflict exists between the second support request and the first support request in simultaneously requiring the support person; resolve, …, the conflict by: identifying a relative priority between the first and second support requests; and based on the relative priority, delaying, or reassigning at least one request of the first and second support requests, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 15 and 19 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 16 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Support Notifications” by introducing the element of the conflict resolution logic identifies the relative priority based on at least one factor selected from the group consisting of: a type of an operation being performed by the medical system, a state of an operation being performed by the medical system, and a stage of an operation being performed by the medical system, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 16 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-16, 18 and 19 also do not integrated into a practical application. Dependent claim 8 recites a manipulator arm configured to support an instrument on the manipulator arm, claim 9-12 recites a robotic manipulation system, the robotic manipulation system comprising a manipulator arm configured to support an instrument, and claims 15, 16 and 19 recite using conflict resolution logic. Such recitations of additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application, but rather, the recitation of any recitations of additional elements amounts to merely reciting the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). That is, while information is obtained from a machine and viewing the environment in which a machine exists, the methods of the dependent claim are directed to mental processes to be performed by medical or maintenance personnel in the ordinary course of a surgery business. The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computing system is merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. That is, the claims provide no practical limits or improvements to any technology. Accordingly, dependent claims 2-16, 18 and 19 are also ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-7, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190374292 to Barral et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180189748 to Anderson et al.
With regards to claims 1, 17, and 20, Barral et al. teaches:
a coordination system for coordinating remote assistance for a robotic manipulation system while the robotic manipulation system is in one of a plurality of operational states (paragraph [0036], “In addition to providing the web portal functionality, the management server(s) 160 provides remote management of one or more robotic surgical systems, sometimes referred to as a “fleet” of robotic surgical systems. In this example, the management server(s)160 provide remote provisioning and activation of new robotic surgical systems, deprovisioning or removal of robotic surgical systems, software updates to any robotic surgical systems under the control of the management server(s) 160 (referred to as “managed robotic surgical system(s)”), remote usage monitoring, remote health monitoring and error detection in managed robotic surgical systems, emergency remote warnings or shutdown of managed robotic surgical systems, disconnection of managed robotic surgical systems from a communications network, notification of service needs to on-site personnel, user management, mapping of robotic surgical systems to communication hubs, remote teleoperation using managed robotic surgical systems, managing data protections (e.g., based on differing privacy regulations), etc.”), the coordination system comprising:
an environment awareness engine executed by a processing system of the medical system and configured to: obtain image data of the robotic manipulation system in an operating environment of the robotic manipulation system (paragraph [0030], “In some examples, surgical robots (or a respective controller, e.g., controller 130) may be configured to record data during a surgical procedure. For example, the surgical robot 134 may record inputs made by the user, actions taken by the surgical robot 134, times (e.g., timestamps) associated with each input or action, video from one or more cameras of the surgical robot, etc. In some examples, surgical robot may include one or more sensors that can provide sensor signals, such as thermocouples, pulse sensors, SvO2 or SpO2 sensors, one or more cameras, etc., or other information to be recorded, such as temperatures, pulse information, images, video, etc. The surgical robot may include its own sensors, which may include accelerometers, position sensors, rotation or translation sensors, force sensors, temperature sensors, electromagnetic sensors, proximity sensors, etc. Such information may be obtained by the sensor and transmitted to a computing device within the surgical robot 134 itself or to the controller 130 for storage.”; paragraph [0043], “Further, some such information may be manually entered. In some examples, the communication hub 212 a,c may also maintain or cache performance, monitoring, or tracking information provided by one or more robotic surgical systems. Such information may include information recorded during a surgery, such as video, sensor information, notes, comments, or other information obtained during the course of a surgery. It may include information from monitoring systems within the robotic surgical system, such as information about actuators, surgical tools, sensors, or other electronic or mechanical components of the robotic surgical system. The robotic surgical system may obtain and store such information during a surgery and, following the surgery, upload the information to the communication hub, or it may stream some or all of such information during the surgery, such as in real-time, with a delay, in segments, etc., to the communication hub, where it is stored for immediate or later upload to the management server or to another remote computing device or storage location.”);
process the image data to determine a system-external context of the medical system (paragraph [0052], “In one example, the watcher service 330 may receive periodic status messages, such as “heartbeat” messages, from the managed device 360, 370-374, and communicate changes in operational status to the management service 320, which can update one or more records stored in the data store 322. In addition, the watcher service 330 may obtain other information from the managed device 360, 370-374, such as software version information, changes in surgical tools connected to a robotic surgical system, surgeries in-progress, scheduled service or maintenance, error, failure, or fault conditions, etc. The watcher service 330 may then provide such information to the management service 320 or may disregard such messages, if no change in state has occurred.”), the processing comprising:
performing, using the image data, a digital image processing-based detection of at least one procedure-progression indicator (paragraph [0053], “The log parser 340 may receive information from one or more robotic surgical systems 370-374 and either provide it to the management service 320 or store it in the BLOB store 342. For example, the log parser 340 may receive video, audio, or other data captured during a surgical procedure and store it in the BLOB store associated with a record for the surgery, such as by associating it with a surgical case code, a patient identifier, a surgeon, etc. The log parser 340 may also receive information from one or more of the managed device 360, 370-374 indicating faults, failures, errors, or other operational information, such as use of particular tools, or other diagnostic information logged by the respective managed device 360, 370-374”);
determining an estimate of an actual operational state from the plurality of operational states based on the digital image processing-based detection of the at least one procedure-progression indicator (paragraph [0053], “The log parser 340 may receive information from one or more robotic surgical systems 370-374 and either provide it to the management service 320 or store it in the BLOB store 342. For example, the log parser 340 may receive video, audio, or other data captured during a surgical procedure and store it in the BLOB store associated with a record for the surgery, such as by associating it with a surgical case code, a patient identifier, a surgeon, etc. The log parser 340 may also receive information from one or more of the managed device 360, 370-374 indicating faults, failures, errors, or other operational information, such as use of particular tools, or other diagnostic information logged by the respective managed device 360, 370-374”); and
a support agent executed by the processing system and configured to: receive a first support request from the medical system (paragraph [0006], “A further example method includes receiving tracking or diagnostic information from a robotic surgical system; determining a service requirement based on the received tracking or diagnostic information; generating a service request based on the service requirement; and transmitting a message to the robotic surgical system.”; paragraph [0018], “The fleet management system manages each of the robotic surgical systems (or robotic surgical platforms), including monitoring or tracking their usage, monitoring their status or health, detecting faults and failures, installing software updates, scheduling service and maintenance, provisioning new robotic surgical systems, deprovisioning existing robotic surgical systems, etc. Thus, rather than individually managing each robotic surgical system on-site and in-person as discrete systems, this illustrative system enables the centralized provisioning, management, and deprovisioning of robotic surgical systems, which in many cases can reduce or eliminate requirements for on-site personnel and/or make such personnel significantly more productive.”; paragraph [0036], “In this example, the management server(s)160 provide remote provisioning and activation of new robotic surgical systems, deprovisioning or removal of robotic surgical systems, software updates to any robotic surgical systems under the control of the management server(s) 160 (referred to as “managed robotic surgical system(s)”), remote usage monitoring, remote health monitoring and error detection in managed robotic surgical systems, emergency remote warnings or shutdown of managed robotic surgical systems, disconnection of managed robotic surgical systems from a communications network, notification of service needs to on-site personnel, user management, mapping of robotic surgical systems to communication hubs, remote teleoperation using managed robotic surgical systems, managing data protections (e.g., based on differing privacy regulations), etc.”);
receive the system-external context from the environment awareness engine (paragraph [0030], paragraph [0043], “In some examples, the communication hub 212 a,c may also maintain or cache performance, monitoring, or tracking information provided by one or more robotic surgical systems. Such information may include information recorded during a surgery, such as video, sensor information, notes, comments, or other information obtained during the course of a surgery. It may include information from monitoring systems within the robotic surgical system, such as information about actuators, surgical tools, sensors, or other electronic or mechanical components of the robotic surgical system. The robotic surgical system may obtain and store such information during a surgery and, following the surgery, upload the information to the communication hub, or it may stream some or all of such information during the surgery, such as in real-time, with a delay, in segments, etc., to the communication hub, where it is stored for immediate or later upload to the management server or to another remote computing device or storage location.”; paragraph [0089], “The message may include usage information, e.g., a number of surgical procedures performed, a number of hours of usage, a number of uses of a particular surgical tool, etc. In some examples the tracking or diagnostic information may be sent in response to detecting an error, a failure, or a fault. For example, an error may occur if a software process halts. A fault or failure may occur if a hardware component fails or has reached an end of life condition, e.g., a maximum number of uses. Still other types of tracking or diagnostic information may be transmitted according to different examples.”);
…. and
automatically contact the support person to respond to the first support request (paragraph [0036], “In this example, the management server(s)160 provide remote provisioning and activation of new robotic surgical systems, deprovisioning or removal of robotic surgical systems, software updates to any robotic surgical systems under the control of the management server(s) 160 (referred to as “managed robotic surgical system(s)”), remote usage monitoring, remote health monitoring and error detection in managed robotic surgical systems, emergency remote warnings or shutdown of managed robotic surgical systems, disconnection of managed robotic surgical systems from a communications network, notification of service needs to on-site personnel, user management, mapping of robotic surgical systems to communication hubs, remote teleoperation using managed robotic surgical systems, managing data protections (e.g., based on differing privacy regulations), etc.”), but fails to explicitly teach evaluate the system-external context to identify a support person to respond to a support request. However, Anderson et al. teaches:
evaluate the system-external context to identify a support person to respond to the first support request from a plurality of support persons (paragraph [0064], “Portering robots provide porter services, such as moving an item from one location to another location. For example, a portering robot in a hospital may move surgical supplies to a surgery room.”; paragraph [0065], “The processor 140 may execute a triggering application for identifying triggering data corresponding to a triggering item within sensor data from a robot. A database stored on the computer readable memory 130 may comprise lists of worker criteria items for the workers 115, 116 (e.g. one worker criteria list for each worker) and a list of assistance criteria items for the robot 110. The assistance criteria items may be based on sensor data from the robot. In response to an identification of triggering data corresponding to the triggering item by the triggering application, the processor 140 may execute a ranking application for cross-referencing, for each of the plurality of workers 115, 116, the worker's corresponding list of worker criteria items with the list of assistance criteria items and ranking the plurality of workers 115, 116 based on the cross-referencing.”), the evaluation comprising:
identifying, by a support person identification logic, the support person to respond to the first support request according to the estimate of the actual operational state (paragraph [0065], “The processor 140 may also execute an application for selecting one of the workers 115, 116 based on the ranking. A notification application may be executed for notifying the selected worker of an assistance call using a communications interface 150.”; paragraph [0078], “When the dispatch system 200 is triggered by the addition of a triggering item to a list of assistance criteria for the robot 210, the ranking application wirelessly communicates with each worker 215, 216 using a communications interface 250 coupled to the robot 210 and receives a list of worker criteria items from each worker 215,216. The ranking application may cross-reference each list of worker criteria with the list of assistance criteria, matching corresponding items, and rank one of the worker 215, 216 as the top ranked worker.”); and
automatically contact the support person to respond to the first support request (paragraph [0065], “The processor 140 may also execute an application for selecting one of the workers 115, 116 based on the ranking. A notification application may be executed for notifying the selected worker of an assistance call using a communications interface 150.”).
This part of Anderson et al. is applicable to the system of Barral et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to monitoring equipment for issues and communication for service tasks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Barral et al. to include the worker selection as taught by Anderson et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Barral et al. in order to select workers for assistance requests based on their skill set or criterion such as location, provides for an efficient dispatch system and workers are utilized in situations that they are best suited for (see paragraph [0058] of Anderson et al.).
With regards to claim 2, Barral et al. teaches the plurality of operational states comprises: a use state, a setup state before the use state, and a setup state after the use state (paragraph [0053], “For example, the log parser 340 may receive video, audio, or other data captured during a surgical procedure and store it in the BLOB store associated with a record for the surgery, such as by associating it with a surgical case code, a patient identifier, a surgeon, etc. The log parser 340 may also receive information from one or more of the managed device 360, 370-374 indicating faults, failures, errors, or other operational information, such as use of particular tools, or other diagnostic information logged by the respective managed device 360, 370-374. Such information may be parsed by the log parser 340 to extract the different types of information, which may then be forwarded to the management service 320, which may use the information to detect anomalies, trends, expiration or end-of-life for a surgical tool or component, etc.”).
With regards to claim 3, Barral et al. teaches the at least one procedure-progression indicator comprises at least one of: a patient-location state, a patient-preparation state, an incision-made state, a medical system-in-sterile-field state (paragraph [0052], “In addition, the watcher service 330 may obtain other information from the managed device 360, 370-374, such as software version information, changes in surgical tools connected to a robotic surgical system, surgeries in-progress, scheduled service or maintenance, error, failure, or fault conditions, etc.”; paragraph [0053], “For example, the log parser 340 may receive video, audio, or other data captured during a surgical procedure and store it in the BLOB store associated with a record for the surgery, such as by associating it with a surgical case code, a patient identifier, a surgeon, etc. The log parser 340 may also receive information from one or more of the managed device 360, 370-374 indicating faults, failures, errors, or other operational information, such as use of particular tools, or other diagnostic information logged by the respective managed device 360, 370-374. Such information may be parsed by the log parser 340 to extract the different types of information, which may then be forwarded to the management service 320, which may use the information to detect anomalies, trends, expiration or end-of-life for a surgical tool or component, etc.”).
With regards to claim 4, Barral et al. fails to explicitly teach evaluate the system-external context to identify a support person to respond to a support request. However, Anderson et al. teaches: the support person identification logic is configured to assign each support person of the plurality of support persons to at least one of the plurality of operational states (paragraph [0096], “In some embodiments, the skills, tools, supplies, and other items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items may correspond to systems of a robot that may request assistance from the workers and/or consumable supplies carried by the robot. For example, the robot may be a janitorial service robot with a water spraying system and carrying a cleaning solution. The items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items may include, without limitation, skills and tools corresponding to possible malfunctions with the water spraying system. The list of worker criteria items may also include, without limitation, supplies such as water and cleaning solution. Having items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items correspond to systems and consumables of the robot may allow a comparison of the list of worker criteria items and the list of assistance criteria items of the robot where corresponding items may be matched together.”).
This part of Anderson et al. is applicable to the system of Barral et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to monitoring equipment for issues and communication for service tasks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Barral et al. to include the worker selection as taught by Anderson et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Barral et al. in order to select workers for assistance requests based on their skill set or criterion such as location, provides for an efficient dispatch system and workers are utilized in situations that they are best suited for (see paragraph [0058] of Anderson et al.).
With regards to claim 5, Barral et al. fails to explicitly teach evaluate the system-external context to identify a support person to respond to a support request. However, Anderson et al. teaches: the support agent is further configured to: prior to automatically contacting the support person, identify a subset of the system-external context to be provided to the support person (paragraph [0096], “In some embodiments, the skills, tools, supplies, and other items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items may correspond to systems of a robot that may request assistance from the workers and/or consumable supplies carried by the robot. For example, the robot may be a janitorial service robot with a water spraying system and carrying a cleaning solution. The items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items may include, without limitation, skills and tools corresponding to possible malfunctions with the water spraying system. The list of worker criteria items may also include, without limitation, supplies such as water and cleaning solution. Having items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items correspond to systems and consumables of the robot may allow a comparison of the list of worker criteria items and the list of assistance criteria items of the robot where corresponding items may be matched together.”); and after automatically contacting the support person, facilitate provision of the subset of the system-external context to the support person (paragraph [0096], “In some embodiments, the skills, tools, supplies, and other items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items may correspond to systems of a robot that may request assistance from the workers and/or consumable supplies carried by the robot. For example, the robot may be a janitorial service robot with a water spraying system and carrying a cleaning solution. The items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items may include, without limitation, skills and tools corresponding to possible malfunctions with the water spraying system. The list of worker criteria items may also include, without limitation, supplies such as water and cleaning solution. Having items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items correspond to systems and consumables of the robot may allow a comparison of the list of worker criteria items and the list of assistance criteria items of the robot where corresponding items may be matched together.”; paragraph [0107], “A list of assistance criteria items may comprise a list or lists of any suitable items that will provide information to a worker for assisting the robot. For example, an item in the list of assistance criteria items may be a location of the robot. The assistance criteria items may also include, without limitation, consumables that need to be replenished. The consumables may be supplies used by the robot in its work. Any suitable application may be used to add items to the list of assistance criteria items.”).
This part of Anderson et al. is applicable to the system of Barral et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to monitoring equipment for issues and communication for service tasks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Barral et al. to include the worker selection as taught by Anderson et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Barral et al. in order to select workers for assistance requests based on their skill set or criterion such as location, provides for an efficient dispatch system and workers are utilized in situations that they are best suited for (see paragraph [0058] of Anderson et al.).
With regards to claims 6 and 18, Barral et al. fails to explicitly teach evaluate the system-external context to identify a support person to respond to a support request. However, Anderson et al. teaches: the support agent is further configured to identify the support person by applying the support person identification logic further to a system-internal context (paragraph [0084], “In some embodiments, assistance criteria items may be based on sensor data from the robot. Sensor data that corresponds to an issue that a human worker needs to address may be represented as an assistance criteria item. For example, a flowmeter may be coupled to a cleaning robot for detecting the rate of flow of water through a nozzle. There may be a range of flowrate values that may be considered as a normal operating range for the nozzle. Flowrates outside of this range may be associated with a malfunctioning water spraying system.”), and wherein the system-internal context is obtained from a system awareness engine configured to detect information about the robotic manipulation system
wherein the system-external context is obtained from an environment awareness engine configured to detect information about an operating environment external to the medical system (paragraph [0096], “In some embodiments, the skills, tools, supplies, and other items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items may correspond to systems of a robot that may request assistance from the workers and/or consumable supplies carried by the robot. For example, the robot may be a janitorial service robot with a water spraying system and carrying a cleaning solution. The items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items may include, without limitation, skills and tools corresponding to possible malfunctions with the water spraying system. The list of worker criteria items may also include, without limitation, supplies such as water and cleaning solution. Having items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items correspond to systems and consumables of the robot may allow a comparison of the list of worker criteria items and the list of assistance criteria items of the robot where corresponding items may be matched together.”; paragraph [0117], “Any suitable type of diagnostic software may be used. Additionally, any suitable sensor may be used with the diagnostic software. The results produced by the diagnostic software may be included in the list of assistance criteria items. In certain embodiments, the results of the diagnostic software may be wirelessly communicated to the worker selected to assist the robot.”).
This part of Anderson et al. is applicable to the system of Barral et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to monitoring equipment for issues and communication for service tasks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Barral et al. to include the worker selection as taught by Anderson et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Barral et al. in order to select workers for assistance requests based on their skill set or criterion such as location, provides for an efficient dispatch system and workers are utilized in situations that they are best suited for (see paragraph [0058] of Anderson et al.).
With regards to claim 7, Barral et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Anderson et al. teaches the support agent is further configured to: prior to automatically contacting the support person, identify a subset of the system-internal context to be provided to the support person (paragraph [0096], “In some embodiments, the skills, tools, supplies, and other items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items may correspond to systems of a robot that may request assistance from the workers and/or consumable supplies carried by the robot. For example, the robot may be a janitorial service robot with a water spraying system and carrying a cleaning solution. The items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items may include, without limitation, skills and tools corresponding to possible malfunctions with the water spraying system. The list of worker criteria items may also include, without limitation, supplies such as water and cleaning solution. Having items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items correspond to systems and consumables of the robot may allow a comparison of the list of worker criteria items and the list of assistance criteria items of the robot where corresponding items may be matched together.”); and
after automatically contacting the support person, facilitate provision of the subset of the system-internal context to the support person (paragraph [0096], “In some embodiments, the skills, tools, supplies, and other items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items may correspond to systems of a robot that may request assistance from the workers and/or consumable supplies carried by the robot. For example, the robot may be a janitorial service robot with a water spraying system and carrying a cleaning solution. The items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items may include, without limitation, skills and tools corresponding to possible malfunctions with the water spraying system. The list of worker criteria items may also include, without limitation, supplies such as water and cleaning solution. Having items that may be added to the list of worker criteria items correspond to systems and consumables of the robot may allow a comparison of the list of worker criteria items and the list of assistance criteria items of the robot where corresponding items may be matched together.”; paragraph [0107], “A list of assistance criteria items may comprise a list or lists of any suitable items that will provide information to a worker for assisting the robot. For example, an item in the list of assistance criteria items may be a location of the robot. The assistance criteria items may also include, without limitation, consumables that need to be replenished. The consumables may be supplies used by the robot in its work. Any suitable application may be used to add items to the list of assistance criteria items.”).
This part of Anderson et al. is applicable to the system of Barral et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to monitoring equipment for issues and communication for service tasks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Barral et al. to include the worker selection as taught by Anderson et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Barral et al. in order to select workers for assistance requests based on their skill set or criterion such as location, provides for an efficient dispatch system and workers are utilized in situations that they are best suited for (see paragraph [0058] of Anderson et al.).
With regards to claim 13, Barral et al. fails to explicitly teach, but the support person identification logic comprises a plurality of rules arranged to qualify support persons based on at least one factor selected from the group consisting of: a stage of a procedure being performed with the medical system, a familiarity level with the medical system, a familiarity level with a procedure being performed with the medical system, and specialized knowledge of an aspect of the medical system.
This part of Anderson et al. is applicable to the system of Barral et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to monitoring equipment for issues and communication for service tasks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Barral et al. to include the worker selection as taught by Anderson et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Barral et al. in order to select workers for assistance requests based on their skill set or criterion such as location, provides for an efficient dispatch system and workers are utilized in situations that they are best suited for (see paragraph [0058] of Anderson et al.).
With regards to claim 14, Barral et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Anderson et al. teaches the plurality of rules is further arranged to deduce convergent information from a combination of the system-internal context and a system-external context (paragraph [0087], “In certain embodiments, any item added to the list of assistance criteria items may be considered a triggering item and may trigger the dispatch system by causing the ranking application to execute. Items that may be considered as non-triggering items, such as a location of the robot or a relative distance to the robot, may be added to the list following the launch of the ranking application.”).
This part of Anderson et al. is applicable to the system of Barral et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to monitoring equipment for issues and communication for service tasks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Barral et al. to include the worker selection as taught by Anderson et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Barral et al. in order to select workers for assistance requests based on their skill set or criterion such as location, provides for an efficient dispatch system and workers are utilized in situations that they are best suited for (see paragraph [0058] of Anderson et al.).
Claims 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190374292 to Barral et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180189748 to Anderson et al. as applied to claims 1-7, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 20 above, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170282362 to Erhart et al.
With regards to claim 8, Barral et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Erhart et al. teaches the robotic manipulation system comprises a manipulator arm configured to support an instrument on the manipulator arm (paragraph [0004], “The robot may be programmed and/or instructed to do nearly any function in a house or business on behalf of a contact center agent. For example, repairing a household appliance, pickup and delivery, mending socks, medical functions, etc. A contact center may provide the robot with downloadable or pre-loaded code for fine maneuvering.”; paragraph [0184], “In another example, robot 102 may be performing a medical function and agent 612 may coordinate with user 302 to address any preliminary tasks (e.g., position an arm for a blood pressure cuff, etc.) and signal robot 102 to begin the task (e.g., taking a blood pressure, etc.).”), and wherein
the system-internal context comprises a kinematic configuration of at least one of: the manipulator arm and the instrument (paragraph [0078], “The portion of robot 102 owned by the contact center may be hardware and/or software. For example, a customer may wish to deploy robot 102 to perform a specialized task, such as to repair a washing machine. Robot 102 may require specialized tools to perform such a task. Accordingly, the customer may contact the contact center or other entity and schedule delivery of a component to coordinate with robot 102 and provide the tools necessary to complete the task. In another embodiment, robot 102 may not have instructions to perform a task. The customer may download or otherwise acquire instructions to enable robot 102 to perform the desired task. In yet another embodiment, software instructions may be provided as embedded software with an attachment. To continue the prior example, robot 102 is fitted with a specialized tool required to repair a washing machine. The specialized tool, which may be a “dumb” tool (e.g., wrench, lift, pulley, etc.) and not require any computational ability for itself to operate, but may contain a media comprising instructions that, once in communication with robot 102, enables robot 102 to perform a task. The specialized tool may also be a “smart” tool (e.g., robotic arm, etc.) having a microprocessor and its own instructions and optionally a media having instructions for robot 102 to perform the task or a portion thereof. For example, a specialized tool may perform an operation, such as applying a force to a shaft held by a bearing and robot 102 may be configured by the instructions to examine images of the bearing captured by a camera and, based thereon, determine if the bearing has failed.”).
This part of Erhart et al. is applicable to the system of Barral et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to communication for service tasks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Anderson et al. to include the robotic arm medical robot as taught by Erhart et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Barral et al. in order to improve performance, achieve ease, and reduce cost of robot service implementations (see paragraph [0202] of Erhart et al.).
With regards to claim 9, Barral et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Erhart et al. teaches the medical system comprises a robotic manipulation system, the robotic manipulation system comprising a manipulator arm configured to support an instrument (paragraph [0004], “The robot may be programmed and/or instructed to do nearly any function in a house or business on behalf of a contact center agent. For example, repairing a household appliance, pickup and delivery, mending socks, medical functions, etc. A contact center may provide the robot with downloadable or pre-loaded code for fine maneuvering.”; paragraph [0184], “In another example, robot 102 may be performing a medical function and agent 612 may coordinate with user 302 to address any preliminary tasks (e.g., position an arm for a blood pressure cuff, etc.) and signal robot 102 to begin the task (e.g., taking a blood pressure, etc.).”), and wherein
the system-internal context comprises a mounting state of the instrument the system-internal context comprises a mounting state of the instrument, or a type of instrument being used, or a docking state of a cannula (paragraph [0078], “The portion of robot 102 owned by the contact center may be hardware and/or software. For example, a customer may wish to deploy robot 102 to perform a specialized task, such as to repair a washing machine. Robot 102 may require specialized tools to perform such a task. Accordingly, the customer may contact the contact center or other entity and schedule delivery of a component to coordinate with robot 102 and provide the tools necessary to complete the task. In another embodiment, robot 102 may not have instructions to perform a task. The customer may download or otherwise acquire instructions to enable robot 102 to perform the desired task. In yet another embodiment, software instructions may be provided as embedded software with an attachment. To continue the prior example, robot 102 is fitted with a specialized tool required to repair a washing machine. The specialized tool, which may be a “dumb” tool (e.g., wrench, lift, pulley, etc.) and not require any computational ability for itself to operate, but may contain a media comprising instructions that, once in communication with robot 102, enables robot 102 to perform a task. The specialized tool may also be a “smart” tool (e.g., robotic arm, etc.) having a microprocessor and its own instructions and optionally a media having instructions for robot 102 to perform the task or a portion thereof. For example, a specialized tool may perform an operation, such as applying a force to a shaft held by a bearing and robot 102 may be configured by the instructions to examine images of the bearing captured by a camera and, based thereon, determine if the bearing has failed.”).
This part of Erhart et al. is applicable to the system of Barral et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to communication for service tasks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Anderson et al. to include the robotic arm medical robot as taught by Erhart et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Barral et al. in order to improve performance, achieve ease, and reduce cost of robot service implementations (see paragraph [0202] of Erhart et al.).
With regards to claim 10, Barral et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Erhart et al. teaches the medical system comprises a robotic manipulation system, the robotic manipulation system comprising a manipulator arm configured to support an instrument paragraph [0004], “The robot may be programmed and/or instructed to do nearly any function in a house or business on behalf of a contact center agent. For example, repairing a household appliance, pickup and delivery, mending socks, medical functions, etc. A contact center may provide the robot with downloadable or pre-loaded code for fine maneuvering.”; paragraph [0184], “In another example, robot 102 may be performing a medical function and agent 612 may coordinate with user 302 to address any preliminary tasks (e.g., position an arm for a blood pressure cuff, etc.) and signal robot 102 to begin the task (e.g., taking a blood pressure, etc.).”), and wherein
the system-internal context comprises a type of the instrument being used (paragraph [0078], “The portion of robot 102 owned by the contact center may be hardware and/or software. For example, a customer may wish to deploy robot 102 to perform a specialized task, such as to repair a washing machine. Robot 102 may require specialized tools to perform such a task. Accordingly, the customer may contact the contact center or other entity and schedule delivery of a component to coordinate with robot 102 and provide the tools necessary to complete the task. In another embodiment, robot 102 may not have instructions to perform a task. The customer may download or otherwise acquire instructions to enable robot 102 to perform the desired task. In yet another embodiment, software instructions may be provided as embedded software with an attachment. To continue the prior example, robot 102 is fitted with a specialized tool required to repair a washing machine. The specialized tool, which may be a “dumb” tool (e.g., wrench, lift, pulley, etc.) and not require any computational ability for itself to operate, but may contain a media comprising instructions that, once in communication with robot 102, enables robot 102 to perform a task. The specialized tool may also be a “smart” tool (e.g., robotic arm, etc.) having a microprocessor and its own instructions and optionally a media having instructions for robot 102 to perform the task or a portion thereof. For example, a specialized tool may perform an operation, such as applying a force to a shaft held by a bearing and robot 102 may be configured by the instructions to examine images of the bearing captured by a camera and, based thereon, determine if the bearing has failed.”)..
This part of Erhart et al. is applicable to the system of Barral et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to communication for service tasks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Anderson et al. to include the robotic arm medical robot as taught by Erhart et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Barral et al. in order to improve performance, achieve ease, and reduce cost of robot service implementations (see paragraph [0202] of Erhart et al.).
With regards to claim 12, Barral et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Erhart et al. teaches the medical system comprises a robotic manipulation system, the robotic manipulation system comprising a manipulator arm (paragraph [0004], “The robot may be programmed and/or instructed to do nearly any function in a house or business on behalf of a contact center agent. For example, repairing a household appliance, pickup and delivery, mending socks, medical functions, etc. A contact center may provide the robot with downloadable or pre-loaded code for fine maneuvering.”; paragraph [0184], “In another example, robot 102 may be performing a medical function and agent 612 may coordinate with user 302 to address any preliminary tasks (e.g., position an arm for a blood pressure cuff, etc.) and signal robot 102 to begin the task (e.g., taking a blood pressure, etc.).”), and wherein
the system-internal context comprises an error state of the robotic manipulation system (paragraph [0088], “In one embodiment, robot 102 communicates with physical security agent 108. Physical security agent 108 may ensure robot 102 is within the expected location for robot 102 (e.g., geo-fencing). Additionally, physical security agent 108 may receive security state indicia indicating that robot 102 has encountered a security threat such as by an accelerometer within robot 102 reporting a signal indicating robot 102 has fallen down a stair or been struck. Other security state indicia may indicate an attempt by an authorized party to access an internal component, remove a component, disable or hinder operation, or other hazard which robot 102 may encounter.”).
This part of Erhart et al. is applicable to the system of Barral et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to communication for service tasks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Anderson et al. to include the robotic arm medical robot as taught by Erhart et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Barral et al. in order to improve performance, achieve ease, and reduce cost of robot service implementations (see paragraph [0202] of Erhart et al.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190374292 to Barral et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180189748 to Anderson et al. as applied to claims 1-7, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 20 above, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200405408 to Shelton, IV et al.
With regards to claim 11, Barral et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Shelton, IV et al. teaches the medical system comprises a robotic manipulation system, the robotic manipulation system comprising a manipulator arm configured to dock to a cannula (paragraph [0209], “The position data collected by the instrument module 13450 is used by the core module 13420 to determine when the instrument is within the surgical site, within a cannula, adjacent to an access port, or above an access port in free space. The core module 13420 can determine whether to provide instructions to open or close the jaws of the instrument based on the positioning thereof. For example, when the position of the instrument indicates that the instrument is within a cannula, instructions are provided to maintain a jaw assembly in a closed position. When the position of the instrument indicates that the instrument is outside of an access port, instructions are provided to open the jaw assembly.”), the cannula insertable into a body wall or an orifice of a patient, the cannula containing a lumen configured for receiving an instrument, and wherein the system-internal context comprises a docking state of the cannula (paragraph [0514], “As another example, if there is a failure with one of the motors or the control circuitry of the motor pack 40050, then the malfunctioning modular motor unit 3432 can be removed and repaired, without necessitating that the entire motor pack 40050 be disassembled or serviced. As yet another example, because each of the interchangeable modular motor units 3432 includes its own control circuitry 3436, the control circuitry 3436 could include the necessary logic for controlling the modular motor unit 3432 and thus new versions of modular motor units 3432 could be integrated into prior versions of motor packs 40050 without requiring any further hardware upgrades to the robotic surgical system.”).
This part of Shelton, IV et al. is applicable to the system of Barral et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to communication for service tasks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Anderson et al. to include the cannula context information as taught by Shelton, IV et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Barral et al. in order to provide repairs for systems that need to operate in a highly sterile environment (see paragraph [0437] of Shelton, IV).
Claims 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190374292 to Barral et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180189748 to Anderson et al. as applied to claims 1-7, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 20 above, and further in view of “Decision Support Procedure for Medical Equipment Maintenance Management” by Masmoudi et al.
With regards to claims 15 and 19, Barral et al. teaches receiving medical support tasks, but fails to explicitly teach identifying a relative priority. However, Masmoudi et al. teaches
receive a second support request (pages 22-23, “Based on a descending order of criticality, they have considered the following order of maintenance policies: condition-based preventive maintenance for highly critical equipment, time-based preventive maintenance for medium critical equipment, and corrective maintenance for noncritical equipment.”);
determine that a conflict exists between the second support request and the first support request in simultaneously requiring the support person (page 20, “The possible types of contracts differ from one country to another. In developing countries, medical equipment maintenance is costly and partially mastered most of the time because it is usually managed by external service contracts. According to Letaief et al the possible contracts in the Tunisian context are as follows: Contract type A: All tasks of TBM strategy are performed by the subcontractor with labor and spare parts included in the maintenance package. Contract type B: In this type, the TBM and/or CBM tasks are performed by the subcontractor with only spare parts included in the package. Contract type C: For this contract, there is no package offered. In general, it is used for corrective maintenance when failures are complex.”);
resolve, using conflict resolution logic, the conflict by (page 21, “A multicriteria decision-making model to prioritize medical equipment according to their criticality is presented by Taghipour et al. They used the analytical hierarchy process and proposed a sequence of weighted criteria to define the criticality of the equipment.”):
identifying a relative priority between the first and second support requests (page 21, “A multicriteria decision-making model to prioritize medical equipment according to their criticality is presented by Taghipour et al. They used the analytical hierarchy process and proposed a sequence of weighted criteria to define the criticality of the equipment.”); and
based on the relative priority, delaying, or reassigning at least one request of the first and second support requests (pages 22-23, “A multicriteria decision-making model to prioritize medical equipment according to their criticality is presented by Taghipour et al. They used the analytical hierarchy process and proposed a sequence of weighted criteria to define the criticality of the equipment. Moreover, they described how individual scores obtained for each criterion can be used to establish a guideline for the selection of appropriate maintenance strategies. Jamshidi et al proposed a fuzzy healthcare failure modes and effects analysis method for the prioritization of medical devices. They calculated and prioritized the risk based on the conditional probability of failures and their consequence.”).
This part of Masmoudi et al. is applicable to the system of Barral et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to communication for service tasks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Barral et al. to include the priority determination as taught by Masmoudi et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Barral et al. in order to provide an efficient procedure to take the appropriate decisions for medical equipment maintenance such as the selection of maintenance strategy, the insourcing/outsourcing, and the selection of contracts’ type and content (see abstract of Masmoudi et al.).
With regards to claim 16, Barral et al. teaches receiving medical support tasks, but fails to explicitly teach identifying a relative priority. However, Masmoudi et al. teaches the conflict resolution logic identifies the relative priority based on at least one factor selected from the group consisting of: a type of an operation being performed by the medical system, a state of an operation being performed by the medical system, and a stage of an operation being performed by the medical system (pages 22-23, “Degree of the Mission Importance (D) Wang and Levenson considered the degree of mission importance or the mission criticality as a criterion to calculate the device’s criticality. This criterion describes the extent to which a device is crucial to the care delivery process of a hospital. In our model, the degree of importance of the mission depends on the utilization rate (the utilization rate is considered as the average hours of equipment usage per week divided by the maximum, which is considered 48 hours per week) and the availability of alternative devices. We consider 4 scores for the utilization rate and 2 scores for the availability of alternative devices (Table 3).”).
This part of Masmoudi et al. is applicable to the system of Barral et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to communication for service tasks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Barral et al. to include the priority determination as taught by Masmoudi et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Barral et al. in order to provide an efficient procedure to take the appropriate decisions for medical equipment maintenance such as the selection of maintenance strategy, the insourcing/outsourcing, and the selection of contracts’ type and content (see abstract of Masmoudi et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua D Schneider whose telephone number is (571)270-7120. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on (571)272-6782. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/J.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights