Ex Parte Sandhu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

12970500 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/970,500 12/16/2010 Kulbir S. Sandhu 0G-046500US 6239
(065513-0315)
67337 7590 05/02/2017
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC (STJ)
4000 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
BRUTUS, JOEL F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
MN_IPMail @ dykema. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KULBIR S. SANDHU and CEM SHAQUER
Appeal 2015-000542
Application 12/970,500
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kulbir S. Sandhu and Cem Shaquer (Appellants)1 seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
of claims 1—12 and 17—203 as unpatentable over Brock (US 2002/0120188
Al, pub. Aug. 29, 2002) and Anderson (US 2007/0213616 Al, pub. Sept.
13, 2007); of claim 13 as unpatentable over Brock, Anderson and Muller
(US 6,236,906 Bl, iss. May 22, 2001); of claim 14 as unpatentable over
1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are St. Jude Medical,
Atrial Fibrillation Division, Inc., and Pacesetter, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Appeal is taken from the adverse decision of the Examiner as set forth in
the Final Office Action, dated Jan. 2, 2014 (“Final Act.”).
3 While the heading at page 2 of the Final Action fails to recite claims 10
and 20, Appellants acknowledge that they are included in this rejection. See
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2015-000542
Application 12/970,500
Brock, Anderson and Wallace (US 2006/0293643 Al, pub. Dec. 28, 2006);
and of claims 15 and 16 as unpatentable over Brock, Anderson, and Cohen
(US 2011/0160569 Al, pub. June 30, 2011). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below and
illustrates the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations emphasized.
1. An apparatus for use in a robotic control system for
manipulating a medical device toward a target, comprising:
an electronic control unit (ECU);
a computer-readable memory coupled to said electronic
control unit; and
control logic stored in said computer-readable memory
configured to be executed by said electronic control unit, said
control logic configured to produce an actuation control signal
to control actuation of a manipulator assembly of the robotic
control system to move the medical device in and with respect to
a plurality of pre-defmed proximity zones along a path away
from a current location of the medical device towards a target
location of the medical device that is different from the current
location, said control logic being further configured to generate
said actuation control signal based on a proximity signal
indicative of at least one of a proximity metric and a contact
metric related to a location of the medical device relative to tissue
of a patient and in accordance with said plurality of pre-defmed
proximity zones.
2
Appeal 2015-000542
Application 12/970,500
ANALYSIS
Obviousness of Claims 1—12 and 17—20 over Brock and Anderson
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1—12 and 17—204 as obvious over Brock and
Anderson. See Appeal Br. 4—13; Reply Br. 1—8.
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for use in a robotic control system
where control logic is “configured to produce an actuation control signal to
control actuation of a manipulator assembly” to move a medical device. The
control logic is configured to generate the actuation control signal based on a
proximity signal. Claim 17 is similarly directed to “control logic being
configured to produce said actuation control signals based on at least said
proximity signal, said manipulator assembly being responsive to said
actuation controls signals to move said medical device.”
In rejecting claims 1 and 17, the Examiner finds Brock discloses
several embodiments of a robotic control system for moving a medical
device within a patient, including inter alia, control logic configured to
produce an actuation control signal (feedback signal, such as the signal for
controlling the content of display, vibration, an audible alarm, or
force/haptic feedback that can inhibit or lessen further action) based on a
proximity signal (sensor signal, such as the force signal or the detected
signal indicating field strength/nerve proximity from sensor 5). See Final
Act. 2—3; see also Brock || 20, 26, 46, 47, 89 and 90. The Examiner finds
the surgeon can move the medical device away from the current location to a
4 In the absence of arguments specific to its patentability, dependent claims
2—12 and 18—20 stand or fall with claims 1 and 17 consistent with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2015-000542
Application 12/970,500
different target, in response to the actuation control signal, by entering input
signals into computation system 9 via operating handle 12 at haptic interface
11. See Final Act. 4.; see also Ans. 10; Reply Br. 2 (explaining Brock).
Appellants argue certain limitations of claim 1 and 17 are not taught
or suggested by Brock. Appellants argue Brock’s feedback signals used to
generate imaging, haptic feedback, and/or audible alerts produced in
response to a sensing signal are directed to the surgeon and therefore not
used by a computation system for generating actuation control signals for
moving the instrument. App. Br. 6—7; see also Reply Br. 2—3 and 6.
Appellants argue the surgeon only “takes into account” the feedback to
actuate the manipulator assembly to move the medical device. Reply Br. 6—
7.
We are not persuaded. We determine the scope of the claims in a
patent application upon giving claims “their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification” and “in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”
In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Claim 1 does not require a computation system to directly and
automatically control actuating the manipulator assembly to move the
instrument in response to the actuation signal. Claim 1 requires control logic
“configured to produce an actuation control signal to control actuation of a
manipulator assembly of the robotic control system.” (Emphasis added.)
The Examiner finds Brock’s actuation control signal effectively controls the
actions initiated by the surgeon to move a medical device via a manipulator
assembly of the robotic control system. See Ans. 10—11. In other words, the
Examiner’s positon is that Brock’s feedback signal controls, i.e., influences
4
Appeal 2015-000542
Application 12/970,500
or directs, how a surgeon actuates the manipulator assembly to move a
medical device.
As pointed out by the Examiner, Brock states “the controlleds) also
controls action initiated by the operator at the haptic interface to the
instrument.” Id. at 10; see also Brock |101. For example, Brock states the
haptic feedback signal can actually inhibit further action by the surgeon. See
id. at 3 citing Brock || 89, 90. Because Brock discloses the feedback signal
from the controller affects the surgeon’s actions, we agree the feedback
signal is controlling the actuation of a manipulator assembly of the robotic
control system through the surgeon, who acts as an intermediary between
the actuation control signal and the moving of the medical device. Further,
Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner’s broader interpretation
of the claim is not consistent with Appellants’ Specification. For these
reasons, we conclude that the Examiner properly accorded the claims the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
Similarly, claim 17 does not require a computation system to directly
control moving the instrument. Claim 17 recites a manipulator assembly
“configured to actuate a plurality of control members. . .in response to a
plurality of actuation control signals” and “being responsive to said
actuation controls signals to move said medical device.” (Emphasis added.)
The Examiner finds that (based on a generated sensor signal) Brock’s
actuation control signals or feedback signals cause the manipulator assembly
to sound an alarm or provide haptic feedback, i.e., the actuation control
signal causes the manipulator assembly to respond. See Ans. 11; see also
Brock || 20, 21, 26, 46, 47, 89, and 90. Based on this response, the surgeon
can then actuate the manipulator assembly to move the instrument in
5
Appeal 2015-000542
Application 12/970,500
multiple directions. Id. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the
movement of the medical device is effectively controlled, albeit indirectly,
by the response in the manipulator assembly generated from the actuation
control signal. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, we discern no error in the Examiner’s
findings and sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claims 1—12
and 17—20 over Brock and Andersen.
Obviousness of Claim 13 over Brock, Anderson and Muller; of claim
14 over Brock, Anderson and Wallace; and of claims 15 and 16 over Brock,
Anderson, and Cohen
We understand Appellants’ appeal of the rejections of claims 13—16 to
rest on the arguments presented against the rejection of claim 1, which we
found not demonstrative of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—12
and 17—20 over Brock and Anderson, as set forth supra. See Appeal Br. 13—
14. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claim
13 over Brock, Anderson and Muller; of claim 14 over Brock, Anderson and
Wallace; and of claims 15 and 16 over Brock, Anderson, and Cohen.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6