DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's amendments filed 09/15/2025, with respect to the U.S.C. 112f interpretation and the U.S.C. 112a and b rejections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the U.S.C. 103 claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new rejection is made in view of Kurnianto (US 20160332296 A1)
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Un Je (KR20180001153A A) in view of Kurnianto (US 20160332296 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Un Je teaches a slave device comprising: a lower shaft and an upper shaft connected to the lower shaft in one degree of freedom (character 130);
a lower delta robot rotatably coupled to the lower shaft and configured to movably support the lower gripper and an upper delta robot configured to movably support the upper shaft and an upper delta robot rotatably coupled to the upper shaft and configured to movably support the upper shaft (reference characters 110 and 120 show the upper and lower delta robots; see also Par. 0069);
Un Je does not teach wherein the wherein the upper and lower delta robots are independently controllable relative to one another so as to cause the lower shaft and the upper shaft to slidably move relative to one another along the one degree of freedom.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kurnianto teaches a delta robot assembly for controlling an end effector (Abstract and Par. 0002) wherein the moving members, i.e. shafts are slidably connected to one another (Par. 0050) in order to allow maneuvering of the end effector to a desired placement in space (Par. 0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Un Je and modified them by having the shafts be slidably connected to one another, as taught and suggested by Kurnianto, in order to allow maneuvering of the end effector to a desired placement in space (Par. 0050 of Kurnianto).
In regards to claim 2, the combined teachings of Un Je and Kurnianto as applied to claim 1 teach the slave device of claim 1, wherein the lower shaft is configured to maintain a position relative to the lower shafe irrespective of a change in a distance between the lower shaft and the upper shaft in an axial direction of the lower shaft (Par. 0039 of Un Je teaches fixing the positions).
In regards to claim 3, the combined teachings of Un Je and Kurnianto as applied to claim 1 teach the slave device of claim 1, wherein each of the lower delta robot and the upper delta robot comprises: three support rods, three movement parts, each of the three movement parts configured to move in a longitudinal direction of each of the three support rods and three guide rods arranged in parallel with the three support rods and configured to guide movements of the three movement parts (Par. 0071 and Fig 5 of Un Je teaches and shows using multiple rods);
three arms configured to connect the three movement parts and a corresponding one of the lower and upper shafts (Par. 0067of Un Je teaches three arms).
In regards to claim 4, the combined teachings of Un Je and Kurnianto as applied to claim 1 teach the slave device of claim 3, wherein the three support rods of the lower delta robot are provided laterally side by side with and separated from the three support rods of the upper delta robot (Fig 5 of Un Je shows the support rids 111 and 121 being side by side)
In regards to claim 5, the combined teachings of Un Je and Kurnianto as applied to claim 1 teach the slave device of claim 1, further comprising: a surgical instrument comprising a surgical tip having a smaller thickness than the lower shaft and a rotation module which is placed at a lower end of the lower shaft and configured to rotate the surgical tip (Par. 0066 of Un Je teaches the surgical robot having a surgical instrument [140]. Fig5 of Un Je shows the instrument having a tip with a smaller thickness than the shaft).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SKYLAR LINDSEY CHRISTIANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30-5:30 EST.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached on (571) 272-4156. 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.
/S.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/MICHAEL W KAHELIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792