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 .
This is a final office action on the merits. Claim 1 – 20 are currently pending in the case. Receipt of applicant’s amendment to the claims filed 8/7/2025 is acknowledged and those claims are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “neither Crawford or any combination of the cited references teaches or suggests controlling a robotic arm based on forces applied to a joint by a user as claimed in the currently amended claims” (bottom of page 9 of remarks).
This argument is not persuasive.
First, regarding claim interpretation, Applicant is reminded that claims must be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the disclosure and that limitations from the disclosure may not be read into the claims. In general, the remarks seem to emphasize features not recited by the claims. In particular:
i. The claim does not require the user’s load to be directly applied to a joint.
ii. The claim does not require any particular sensors or sensor locations.
iii. The claims are “comprising” claims which do not preclude the presence of other components.
As for the limitation “determining whether a load is being applied to at least one of the first joint or the second joint by a user”: Crawford explicitly discloses load cells on the end effector in [0138-139]. It is understood that load cells measure applied force. It is also understood that a force applied to the end effector sufficient to move the arm will necessarily propagate through the whole arm, i.e. the second joint, the lower arm, the first joint, and the upper arm. Hence, the output of the load cell responsive to the user’s engagement with the end effector to manually move the robotic arm corresponds to a positive determination that “a load is being applied to at least one of the first joint or the second joint by a user” as claimed.
Finally, while not explicitly argued, Applicant’s remarks suggest that the presence of the bracelet in Crawford differentiates Crawford from the claim. Again, claims 1, 5, and 12 are “comprising” claims which do not preclude the presence of other components. The remarks also seem to erroneously treat the force on the bracelet as the only force disclosed by Crawford. The fact that a bracelet must be squeezed (or a foot pedal pressed) does not diminish the fact that the robotic arm is manually manipulated by the force of the user applied on the arm (at least at the end effector). It is this arm-moving force which reads on the claimed “load”.
For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive, and the 103 rejection has been maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10, 11, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Crawford et al., (US 20190021800) in view of Birkmeyer et al., (US
20070055291).
Regarding claim 1, Crawford teaches a powered robotic surgical arm (see Crawford at least fig. 2 and par. 115; "robotic base station") comprising:
a first arm section (see Crawford at least fig. 2; upper arm [200]);
a second arm section (see Crawford at least fig. 2; lower arm [202 in fig. 2]) movably coupled to the first arm section at a first joint (see Crawford at least fig. 79 and par. 138; "Motor [552] may be configured to laterally move a lower arm around a point of engagement with the upper arm");
a connector assembly disposed on the second arm section at a second joint, the connector assembly configured to interchangeably engage with an end effector for coupling the end effector to the second arm section (see Crawford at least fig. 2, par. 115, figs. 38-40, and par. 201; "a bracelet and end effector [204] connected to the lower arm [202]";"end effector connects to the robotic arm through the interface plate");
an actuator configured to cause the second arm section to move relative to the first arm section (see Crawford at least fig. 79 and par. 138; "Motor [552] may be configured to laterally move a lower arm around a point of engagement with the upper arm"); and
a controller coupled to the actuator (see Crawford at least par. 352 and fig. 79; "computer [522] and/or controller [546], controlling one or more of the motors [550]-[554]"), the controller configured to:
determine whether a load is being applied to at least one of the first joint or the second joint by a user moving the powered robotic surgical arm (see Crawford at least par. 138, par. 139, and fig. 79; "movements may be performed by controller 546 responsive to commands from the computer 522 and which may control these movements through load cells disposed on the end-effector 544 and activated by a user engaging these load cells to move the end-effector 544 in a desired manner"; "robot [500] may augment manual input by a user, e.g., when a user applies force to one or more load cells on the end-effector [544]"),
cause the actuator to [lock a movement] of the second arm section relative to the first arm section when the load is not being applied [such that the second arm section is rigidly held in place thereby relative to the first arm section], and
cause the actuator to [release the movement] of the second arm section relative to the first arm section when the load is being applied (see Crawford at least par. 139 and fig. 79; "robot [500] may augment manual input by a user, e.g., when a user applies force to one or more load cells on the end-effector [544]").
Crawford does not explicitly teach lock a movement or such that the second arm section is rigidly held in place thereby relative to the first arm section or release the movement
However, Birkmeyer, who discloses a system for guiding an implant, discloses
cause the actuator to lock a movement of the second arm section relative to the first arm section when the load is not being applied such that the second arm section is rigidly held in place thereby relative to the first arm section (see Birkmeyer at least par. 19, par. 99, and fig. 11; "moveable support may be configured such that the moveable support maintains a fixed location and orientation in the absence of additional external applied force"; "movable support 112 may be comprised of a plurality of segments. Once the moveable support is positioned manually, the moveable support lock 113 is used to lock all of the segments in position relative to each other"), and
cause the actuator to release the movement of the second arm section relative to the first arm section when the load is being applied (see Birkmeyer at least par. 18; "moveable support is configured such that the position and angular orientation of the trajectory guide may be coarsely adjusted by hand").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Crawford to make the moveable support maintain a fixed location and orientation, lock movable support segments relative to each other, and let the position and orientation be adjusted depending on external forces as is done in Birkmeyer in order to increase "accuracy and precision in tool alignment" (Birkmeyer par. 13).
Regarding claim 3, modified Crawford already teaches the powered robotic surgical arm of claim 1, wherein
Crawford does not explicitly teach the powered robotic surgical arm is rigid when the second arm section is locked.
However, Birkmeyer discloses the powered robotic surgical arm is rigid when the second arm section is locked (see Birkmeyer at least par. 19; "The moveable support may be configured such that the moveable support maintains a fixed location and orientation in the absence of additional external applied force").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Crawford to maintain a fixed location and orientation as is done in Birkmeyer in order to increase "accuracy and precision in tool alignment" (Birkmeyer par. 13).
Regarding claim 4, modified Crawford already teaches the powered robotic surgical arm of claim 1, wherein
Additionally, Crawford teaches the end effector is selected from the group consisting of a cut guide, a drill guide, a burring device, a saw, a clamp, and a gap assessment device (see Crawford at least par. 4 and par. 202; "end-effector may be a surgical tool guide tube, such as a drill guide tube, or may be the surgical tool itself"; "end effector is equipped with a drape-friendly clamp").
Regarding claim 5, Crawford teaches a surgical system (see Crawford at least fig. 79; robot [500]) comprising:
a tracking system comprising a camera (see Crawford at least fig. 79; tracking subsystem [530] connects to marker tracking camera [570]); and
a powered robotic surgical arm (see Crawford at least fig. 2 and par. 115; "robotic base station") comprising:
a first arm section (see Crawford at least fig. 2; upper arm [200]),
a second arm section (see Crawford at least fig. 2; lower arm [202 in fig. 2]) movably coupled to the first arm section at a first joint (see Crawford at least fig. 79 and par. 138; "Motor [552] may be configured to laterally move a lower arm around a point of engagement with the upper arm"),
a fiducial marker disposed on the second arm section, the fiducial marker configured to be visualized by the camera (see Crawford at least par. 291 and fig. 79; "marker tracking camera [570] can observe to track dynamic reference base markers attached to the robot arm and/or an end-effector [544] connected to the robot arm"),
a connector assembly disposed on the second arm section, the connector assembly configured to interchangeably engage with an end effector for coupling the end effector to the second arm section at a second joint (see Crawford at least fig. 2, par. 115, figs. 38-40, and par. 201; "a bracelet and end effector [204 in fig. 2] connected to the lower arm [202 in fig. 2]"; "end effector connects to the robotic arm through the interface plate"),
an actuator configured to cause the second arm section to move relative to the first arm section (see Crawford at least fig. 79 and par. 138; "Motor [552] may be configured to laterally move a lower arm around a point of engagement with the upper arm"), and
a controller coupled to the actuator (see Crawford at least par. 352 and fig. 79; "computer [522] and/or controller [546], controlling one or more of the motors [550]-[554]"), the controller configured to:
determine whether a load is being applied to at least one the first join or the second joint by a user moving the powered robotic surgical arm (see Crawford at least par. 138, par. 139, and fig. 79; "movements may be performed by controller 546 responsive to commands from the computer 522 and which may control these movements through load cells disposed on the end-effector 544 and activated by a user engaging these load cells to move the end-effector 544 in a desired manner"; "robot [500] may augment manual input by a user, e.g., when a user applies force to one or more load cells on the end-effector [544]"),
cause the actuator to [lock a movement] of the second arm section relative to the first arm section when the load is not being applied [such that the second arm section is rigidly held in place thereby relative to the first arm section], and
cause the actuator to [release the movement] of the second arm section relative to the first arm section when the load is being applied (see Crawford at least par. 139 and fig. 79; "robot [500] may augment manual input by a user, e.g., when a user applies force to one or more load cells on the end-effector [544]").
Crawford does not explicitly teach lock a movement or such that the second arm section is rigidly held in place thereby relative to the first arm section or release the movement
However, Birkmeyer, who discloses a system for guiding an implant, discloses
cause the actuator to lock a movement of the second arm section relative to the first arm section when the load is not being applied such that the second arm section is rigidly held in place thereby relative to the first arm section (see Birkmeyer at least par. 19, par. 99, and fig. 11; "moveable support may be configured such that the moveable support maintains a fixed location and orientation in the absence of additional external applied force"; "movable support 112 may be comprised of a plurality of segments. Once the moveable support is positioned manually, the moveable support lock 113 is used to lock all of the segments in position relative to each other"), and
cause the actuator to release the movement of the second arm section relative to the first arm section when the load is being applied (see Birkmeyer at least par. 18; "moveable support is configured such that the position and angular orientation of the trajectory guide may be coarsely adjusted by hand").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Crawford to make the moveable support maintain a fixed location and orientation, lock movable support segments relative to each other, and let the position and orientation be adjusted depending on external forces as is done in Birkmeyer in order to increase "accuracy and precision in tool alignment" (Birkmeyer par. 13).
Regarding claim 6, modified Crawford already teaches the surgical system of claim 5, further comprising:
Additionally, Crawford teaches a computer coupled to the tracking system and the powered robotic surgical arm (see Crawford at least fig. 79; computer system [520] connects to tracking subsystem [530] and the motion control subsystem [540] which controls the robot), the computer configured to:
determine whether the end effector is positioned within a defined volumetric region by identifying the fiducial marker via the camera (see Crawford at least par. 291 and fig. 79; "determining… that the marker tracking camera [570] can observe to track dynamic reference base markers"),
Crawford does not explicitly teach cause the actuator to move the second arm section in a gross movement mode if the end effector is not positioned within the defined volumetric region, and
cause the actuator to move the second arm section in a fine movement mode if the end effector is positioned within the defined volumetric region.
However, Birkmeyer teaches cause the actuator to move the second arm section in a gross movement mode if the end effector is not positioned within the defined volumetric region (see Birkmeyer at least par. 23; "moving a trajectory guide to near the suitable location and orientation using a coarse adjustment system"), and
cause the actuator to move the second arm section in a fine movement mode if the end effector is positioned within the defined volumetric region (see Birkmeyer at least par. 23; "using one or more fine adjustment controls to move the trajectory guide from near the suitable location and orientation to the suitable location and orientation").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Crawford by using coarse and fine adjustment in order to "reduce human error, decreases some risks associated with surgery, and allows accurate and precise alignment" (Birkmeyer par. 13).
Regarding claim 7, modified Crawford already teaches the surgical system of claim 5, wherein
Additionally, Crawford teaches the fiducial marker comprises an optically identifiable marker (see Crawford at least par. 291 and fig. 79; "marker tracking camera [570] can observe to track dynamic reference base markers attached to the robot arm and/or an end-effector [544] connected to the robot arm").
Regarding claim 8, modified Crawford already teaches the surgical system of claim 5, further comprising
Additionally, Crawford teaches a tracking array that comprises the fiducial marker (see Crawford at least fig. 17 and par. 156; "array [1700] with… a marker post [1706]").
Regarding claim 10, modified Crawford already teaches the surgical system of claim 5, wherein
Crawford does not explicitly teach the powered robotic surgical arm is rigid when the second arm section is locked.
However, Birkmeyer discloses the powered robotic surgical arm is rigid when the second arm section is locked (see Birkmeyer at least par. 19; "The moveable support may be configured such that the moveable support maintains a fixed location and orientation in the absence of additional external applied force").
Regarding claim 11, modified Crawford already teaches the surgical system of claim 5, wherein
Additionally, Crawford teaches the end effector is selected from the group consisting of a cut guide, a drill guide, a burring device, a saw, a clamp, and a gap assessment device (see Crawford at least par. 4 and par. 202; "end-effector may be a surgical tool guide tube, such as a drill guide tube, or may be the surgical tool itself"; "end effector is equipped with a drape-friendly clamp").
Regarding claim 19, modified Crawford already teaches the powered robotic surgical arm of claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises….
Crawford does not explicitly teach a servomotor.
However, a servomotor is a simple substitution for an actuator or motor, Birkmeyer teaches a servomotor (see Birkmeyer at least par. 104; "servomotors are configured to precisely translate and/or rotate").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Crawford by substituting the motor (actuator) for a servomotor as is done in Birkmeyer to be able to precisely translate and/or rotate (Birkmeyer par. 104).
Regarding claim 20, modified Crawford already teaches the surgical system of claim 5, wherein the actuator comprises….
Crawford does not explicitly teach a servomotor.
However, a servomotor is a simple substitution for an actuator or motor, Birkmeyer teaches a servomotor (see Birkmeyer at least par. 104; "servomotors are configured to precisely translate and/or rotate").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Crawford by substituting the motor (actuator) for a servomotor as is done in Birkmeyer to be able to precisely translate and/or rotate (Birkmeyer par. 104).
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford in view of Birkmeyer, and further in view of Gracia (US 20190274665).
Regarding claim 2, modified Crawford already teaches the powered robotic surgical arm of claim 1, wherein
Crawford does not explicitly teach the connector assembly comprises a slot and pin assembly.
However, Garcia, who discloses an end effector coupler for a surgical arm, teaches the connector assembly comprises a slot and pin assembly (see Garcia fig. 5A, fig. 5B, and par. 53; end effector coupler [500 in fig. 5A and fig. 5B] includes slot [522 in fig. 5B] and pin [512 in fig. 5A]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Crawford by using a slot and pin as in done in Garcia in order to easily and quickly remove the tool from the end effector coupler (Garcia par. 69).
Regarding claim 9, modified Crawford already teaches the surgical system of claim 5, wherein
Crawford does not explicitly teach the connector assembly comprises a slot and pin assembly.
However, Garcia, who discloses an end effector coupler for a surgical arm, teaches the connector assembly comprises a slot and pin assembly (see Garcia fig. 5A, fig. 5B, and par. 53; end effector coupler [500 in fig. 5A and fig. 5B] includes slot [522 in fig. 5B] and pin [512 in fig. 5A]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Crawford by using a slot and pin as in done in Garcia in order to easily and quickly remove the tool from the end effector coupler (Garcia par. 69).
Claim(s) 12-15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford in view of Birkmeyer, and further in view of Plaskos (US 20170042557).
Regarding claim 12, Crawford teaches a method of performing a surgery on a patient using a powered robotic surgical arm (see Crawford at least fig. 2 and par. 115; "robotic base station") comprising a first arm section (see Crawford at least fig. 2; upper arm [200]), a second arm section (see Crawford at least fig. 2; lower arm [202 in fig. 2]) movably coupled to the first arm section at a first joint (see Crawford at least fig. 79 and par. 138; "Motor [552] may be configured to laterally move a lower arm around a point of engagement with the upper arm"), a connector assembly disposed on the second arm section, the connector assembly configured to interchangeably engage with an end effector for coupling the end effector to the second arm section at a second joint (see Crawford at least fig. 2, par. 115, figs. 38-40, and par. 201; "a bracelet and end effector [204] connected to the lower arm [202]";"end effector connects to the robotic arm through the interface plate"), and an actuator configured to cause the second arm section to move relative to the first arm section (see Crawford at least fig. 79 and par. 138; "Motor [552] may be configured to laterally move a lower arm around a point of engagement with the upper arm"), the method comprising:
connecting a first end effector to the connector assembly (see Crawford at least figs. 38-40 and par. 201; "end effector connects to the robotic arm through the interface plate");
… actuating the powered robotic surgical arm to move the second arm section to a first position (see Crawford at least fig. 81; step [710]: "Control a surgical robot based on the surgical plan data structure") in response to the load being applied to at least one of at least the first joint or the second joint by a user moving the powered robotic surgical arm (see Crawford at least par. 138, par. 139, and fig. 79; "movements may be performed by controller 546 responsive to commands from the computer 522 and which may control these movements through load cells disposed on the end-effector 544 and activated by a user engaging these load cells to move the end-effector 544 in a desired manner"; "robot [500] may augment manual input by a user, e.g., when a user applies force to one or more load cells on the end-effector [544]");
performing a first surgical task using the first end effector with the second arm section in the first position (see Crawford at least par. 291 and fig. 85; "performing [1100] a registration setup mode that includes determining occurrence of a first condition…");
… disconnecting the first end effector from the connector assembly (see Crawford at least par. 202; "end effector is equipped with a drape-friendly clamp that allows it to be removed and reattached up to 3 times during a procedure");
connecting [a second end effector] to the connector assembly (see Crawford at least par. 202; "end effector is equipped with a drape-friendly clamp that allows it to be removed and reattached up to 3 times during a procedure");
actuating the powered robotic surgical arm to move the second arm section to a second position (see Crawford at least par. 300, fig. 79, and fig. 85; "controlling [1114 in fig. 85] one or more of the motors [550-554 in fig. 79] responsive to content of the surgical plan data structure to regulate movement of the robot arm while positioning the end-effector [544 in fig. 79] relative to the patient") in response to the load being applied to at least one of the first joint or the second joint by a user moving the powered robotic surgical arm (see Crawford at least par. 138 and fig. 79; "load cells disposed on the end-effector [544] and activated by a user engaging these load cells to move the end-effector [544] in a desired manner");
and performing a second surgical task [using the second end effector] with the second arm section in the second position (see Crawford at least par. 320 and fig. 86; "performing [1200] operations for a registration setup mode that include determining occurrence of a first condition").
Crawford does not explicitly teach locking the second arm section in place relative to the first arm section in response to a load not being applied to at least one of the first joint or the second joint;
re-locking the second arm section in place relative to the first arm section in response to the load not being applied to at least one of the first join or the second joint;
… a second end effector… using the second end effector
However, Birkmeyer, who discloses a system for guiding an implant, discloses
locking the second arm section in place relative to the first arm section in response to a load not being applied to at least one of the first joint or the second joint (see Birkmeyer at least par. 19, par. 99, and fig. 11; "moveable support may be configured such that the moveable support maintains a fixed location and orientation in the absence of additional external applied force"; "movable support 112 may be comprised of a plurality of segments. Once the moveable support is positioned manually, the moveable support lock 113 is used to lock all of the segments in position relative to each other");
re-locking the second arm section in place relative to the first arm section in response to the load not being applied to at least one of the first joint or the second joint (see Birkmeyer at least par. 19, par. 99, and fig. 11; "moveable support may be configured such that the moveable support maintains a fixed location and orientation in the absence of additional external applied force"; "movable support 112 may be comprised of a plurality of segments. Once the moveable support is positioned manually, the moveable support lock 113 is used to lock all of the segments in position relative to each other");
Additionally, Plaskos, who discloses a robot for surgery that can attached to different tools, discloses a second end effector (see Plaskos at least par. 105 and fig. 16; milling tool [700 in fig. 16]; Examiner note: a planar probe is used as a first end effector and the milling tool is used as a second end effector) and
using the second end effector (see Plaskos at least par. 109, par. 121, and fig. 16; "milling device [700] has a curved side cutter [810] (curved profile) is illustrated and can be used to create a cut surface that matches precisely the shape of the implant").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Crawford by including a distinct second end effector and using it for a second surgical task as is done in Plaskos and to maintain a fixed location and orientation as is done in Birkmeyer in order to perform knee arthroplasty (Plaskos par. 109) and to increase "accuracy and precision in tool alignment" (Birkmeyer par. 13).
Regarding claim 13, modified Crawford already teaches the method of claim 12, wherein:
Crawford does not explicitly teach the first end effector comprises as gap assessment device;
the first surgical task comprises measuring a gap of a joint of the patient;
the second end effector comprises a cutting device; and
the second surgical task comprises cutting a bone of the patient.
However, Plaskos, discloses the first end effector comprises as gap assessment device (see Plaskos at least par. 105 and fig. 2; planar probe [160 in fig. 2] can be attached to milling tool guide [620 in fig. 11] by using a slot);
the first surgical task comprises measuring a gap of a joint of the patient (see Plaskos at least par. 58 and fig. 2; the pointer [160; the pointer is also called the planar probe] collects data about joint motions to obtain three-dimensional geometrical surface models of the bones including the gap space between the tibial cut and femoral cut);
the second end effector comprises a cutting device (see Plaskos at least par. 109 and fig. 16; "milling device [700] has a curved side cutter [810] (curved profile) is illustrated"); and
the second surgical task comprises cutting a bone of the patient (see Plaskos at least par. 109, par. 121, and fig. 16; "milling device [700] has a curved side cutter [810] (curved profile) is illustrated and can be used to create a cut surface that matches precisely the shape of the implant"; cut surface refers to the tibial cut surface which is a cut surface of a bone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Crawford by using a planar probe or pointer to measure a gap at a joint and create a cut surface as is done in Plaskos in order to match the shape of the implant (Plaskos par. 109).
Regarding claim 14, modified Crawford already teaches the method of claim 12, wherein
Additionally, Crawford discloses the actuator [locks a movement] of the second arm section relative to the first arm section when the powered robotic surgical arm is not being actuated by a user (see Crawford at least par. 139 and fig. 79; "robot [500] may augment manual input by a user, e.g., when a user applies force to one or more load cells on the end-effector [544]").
Crawford does not explicitly teach locks a movement
However, Birkmeyer discloses the actuator locks a movement of the second arm section relative to the first arm section when the powered robotic surgical arm is not being actuated by a user (see Birkmeyer at least par. 19; "The moveable support may be configured such that the moveable support maintains a fixed location and orientation in the absence of additional external applied force").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Crawford to maintain a fixed location and orientation and let the position and orientation be adjusted depending on external forces as is done in Birkmeyer in order to increase "accuracy and precision in tool alignment" (Birkmeyer par. 13).
Regarding claim 15, modified Crawford already teaches the method of claim 14, wherein
Crawford does not explicitly teach the powered robotic surgical arm is rigid when the second arm section is locked.
However, Birkmeyer discloses the powered robotic surgical arm is rigid when the second arm section is locked (see Birkmeyer at least par. 19; "The moveable support may be configured such that the moveable support maintains a fixed location and orientation in the absence of additional external applied force").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Crawford to maintain a fixed location and orientation as is done in Birkmeyer in order to increase "accuracy and precision in tool alignment" (Birkmeyer par. 13).
Regarding claim 17, modified Crawford already teaches the method of claim 12, wherein
Additionally, Crawford teaches the powered robotic surgical arm comprises a fiducial marker configured to be identified by a camera of a tracking system (see Crawford at least par. 291 and fig. 79; "marker tracking camera [570] can observe to track dynamic reference base markers attached to the robot arm and/or an end-effector [544] connected to the robot arm").
Regarding claim 18, modified Crawford already teaches the method of claim 17, wherein
Additionally, Crawford teaches… whether the end effector is within a defined volumetric region as determined via the fiducial marker (see Crawford at least par. 291 and fig. 79; "determining… that the marker tracking camera [570] can observe to track dynamic reference base markers").
Crawford does not explicitly teach the actuator is configured to move the powered robotic surgical arm in a gross movement mode or a fine movement mode according to….
However, Birkmeyer teaches the actuator is configured to move the powered robotic surgical arm in a gross movement mode or a fine movement mode according to whether the end effector is within a defined volumetric region as determined via the fiducial marker (see Birkmeyer at least par. 23; "moving a trajectory guide to near the suitable location and orientation using a coarse adjustment system…. using one or more fine adjustment controls to move the trajectory guide from near the suitable location and orientation to the suitable location and orientation").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Crawford by using coarse and fine adjustment in order to "reduce human error, decreases some risks associated with surgery, and allows accurate and precise alignment" (Birkmeyer par. 13).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford, Birkmeyer, Plaskos, and further in view of Garcia.
Regarding claim 16, modified Crawford already teaches the method of any of claim 12, wherein
Crawford does not explicitly teach the connector assembly comprises a slot and pin assembly.
However, Garcia, who discloses an end effector coupler for a surgical arm, teaches the connector assembly comprises a slot and pin assembly (see Garcia fig. 5A, fig. 5B, and par. 53; end effector coupler [500 in fig. 5A and fig. 5B] includes slot [522 in fig. 5B] and pin [512 in fig. 5A]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Crawford by using a slot and pin as in done in Garcia in order to easily and quickly remove the tool from the end effector coupler (Garcia par. 69).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM R MOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Trammell can be reached at (571) 272-6712. 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.
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights