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 Amendment
This Action is in response to the Amendment filed June 16, 2025.
In view of the Amendment, the rejection of the claims, set forth in the Office Action dated 03/17/2025, are withdrawn. But, new art rejections are being applied in vie of the amendment to the claims.
Claims 1-2, 11-12, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2025 with respect to independent claims 1 and 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As shown below in annotated Fig. 42 of Sachs, Sachs discloses a rotational (pivoting) axis through the center of the unnumbered housing/roll cage as described in paragraph [0073] of Sachs. Thus, the newly added feature is taught by Sachs.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0290314 to Sachs et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Sachs”) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0346082 to Adams et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Adams”) and US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0163816 to Schena et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Schena”).
PNG
media_image1.png
668
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Sachs discloses a robotic surgical system comprising: a robotic machine having a setup arm assembly (e.g., 500); and a control drive assembly coupled to the robotic machine (e.g., Sachs elements 201-205, 213-215), the control drive assembly including: at least one surgical instrument (e.g., see Sachs, annotated figure 42, 501); and a control drive unit that is pivotally secured to the setup arm assembly for pivoting about two pivot axes extending transversely to one another (e.g., paragraph [0073]: a housing can comprise a roll cage where the housing can provide rotational motion - as shown in annotated Fig. 42, pivot axis of unnumbered roll cage extends crosswise/is transverse with pivot axis of an unnumbered linkage); the control drive unit including: a housing including a front face, a rear face (as shown in annotated Fig. 42, the unnumbered roll cage has a front face, a rear face and a sidewall), and a sidewall extending between the front and rear faces; also ); and a motor block assembly supported within the housing (e.g., Sachs elements 203, 204-1, 204-2), the motor block assembly including at least one motor block module that is selectively attachable to the at least one surgical instrument via front or side loading (e.g., paragraphs [0078] and [0079]: triplet element combinations 203, 211, 212, and 204-1, 206, 208, and 204-2, 207, 209, See Sachs figures 10B-10E), the at least one motor block module being remotely actuatable to control the at least one surgical instrument (e.g., See element 502, Sachs annotated Figure 42), the at least one motor block module axially movable relative to the housing to facilitate movement of the at least one surgical instrument relative to the housing (e.g., paragraph [0075]: individual workings ends are independently axially movable relative to the housing, 205). Sachs differs from the claimed invention in that its robotic system appears to have a non-motorized base/pedestal and that the motor block assembly is not expressly discloses as being supported within the housing.
Referring to claim 11, Sachs discloses a surgical system, comprising: a robotic machine having a setup arm assembly (500); and a control drive unit that is pivotally secured to the setup arm assembly for pivoting about two pivot axes extending transversely to one another (e.g., paragraph [0073]: a housing can comprise a roll cage where the housing can provide rotational motion - as shown in annotated Fig. 42, pivot axis of unnumbered roll cage extends crosswise/is transverse with pivot axis of an unnumbered linkage), the control drive unit including: a housing including a front face, a rear face, and a sidewall extending between the front and rear faces (as shown in annotated Fig. 42, the unnumbered roll cage has a front face, a rear face and a sidewall); a support arm extending distally from the front face of the housing (e.g., paragraph [0078]-[0079]); an insertion tube supported on a distal end portion of the support arm (e.g., Sachs trocar 210); at least one surgical instrument (e.g., Sachs end effector 108); and a motor block assembly supported within the housing, the motor block assembly including at least one motor block module that is selectively attachable to the at least one surgical instrument via front or side loading (e.g., paragraphs [0078] and [0079]: triplet element combinations 203, 211, 212, and 204-1, 206, 208, and 204-2, 207, 209, See Sachs figures 10B-10E), the at least one motor block module being remotely actuatable to control the at least one surgical instrument (e.g., See element 502, Sachs annotated Figure 42), the at least one motor block module axially movable relative to the housing to facilitate movement of the at least one surgical instrument relative to the insertion tube(e.g., paragraph [0075]: individual workings ends are independently axially movable relative to the housing, 205). Sachs differs from the claimed invention in that its robotic system appears to have a non-motorized base/pedestal and that the motor block assembly is not expressly discloses as being supported within the housing.
Schena teaches a patient side cart or mobile base (Fig. 1B, 200) for surgical robots. Adams teaches a housing (20) with a body (22) and proximal face plate (24) that fully define an enclosure for a drive system (100). In view of the partially enclosed housing (205) and robotic machine (500) without wheels disclosed in Sachs, it would have been obvious at the time of filing of this application for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the partially enclosed housing of Sachs to have a fully defined enclosure of the drive system as in Adams and the wheels of the patient side cart in Schena. The housing provides mechanical attachment points for motor units, rails, and bars for axial and rotational movement as seen in Sachs Fig 10B and discussed in Sachs [0073]. The patient side cart with wheels provides mobility throughout the operating room.
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Sachs in view of Schena in view of Adams teaches the robotic surgical system of claims 1 and 15, wherein the at least one motor block module includes a plurality of motor block modules, each motor block module of the plurality of motor block modules is independently axially movable relative to the other motor block modules (e.g., paragraph [0074] of Sachs: one or more MUs can move independently from one another, such as along a rail as shown in Fig. 10B).
As to claim 6, Sachs in view of Schena in view of Adams teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 5, further comprising a support arm extending from the control drive unit, the support arm secured to an insertion tube on a distal end portion of support arm (e.g., paragraph [0079] of Sachs: In some embodiments, a robot assembly comprises a robot engagement element, a support element, a transition element, and a working end; paragraph [0084] of Sachs: The RSS can be coupled to the trocar 210).
With respect to claims 7 and 16, Sachs in view of Schena in view of Adams teaches the robotic surgical system claims 6 and 15, wherein the at least one surgical instrument includes a plurality of surgical instruments (e.g., paragraphs [0056] of Sachs: surgical instrument 108, i.e., an end effector, on each robot arm assembly; and [0079] of Sachs: 208 and 209, along with cameral 212), and wherein the plurality of surgical instruments is secured to the plurality of motor blocks (e.g., paragraphs [0078] and [0079] of Sachs: triplet element combinations 203, 211, 212, and 204-1, 206, 208, and 204-2, 207, 209, See Sachs figures 10B-10E).
As to claims 8 and 17, Sachs in view of Schena in view of Adams teaches the robotic surgical system of claims 7 and 16, wherein the plurality of surgical instruments is selectively movable through the insertion tube (e.g., Sachs Figs. 7-9 and Figs. 10G-10I)).
With respect to claims 9 and 18, Sachs in view of Schena in view of Adams teaches the robotic surgical system of claims 1 and 11, wherein the at least one motor block module supports a sterile interface module that couples the at least one surgical instrument to the at least one motor block module (e.g., paragraph [0084] of Sachs: Each motor unit may be properly draped (covered by a sterile barrier) before, during or after the attachment of each robot assembly).
As to claims 10 and 19, Sachs in view of Schena in view of Adams teaches the robotic surgical system of claims 1 and 19, wherein the at least one motor block module includes at least one motor that imparts rotational force to the at least one surgical instrument (e.g., paragraph [0085] of Sachs: As shown in Fig. 10J and Fig. 10K, one or more working ends can collectively rotate while maintaining position with one another).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0275928 to Shelton IV et al. is directed to surgical instrument system that uses an instrument card having a setup arm assembly (e.g., paragraph [0006]: Fig. 2 is a view of a robotic surgical arm cart).
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 CATHERINE M VOORHEES whose telephone number is (571)270-3846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571 272-8506. 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.
/CATHERINE M VOORHEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights