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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 29, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to be a typographical error in lines 3-4, which claims “a height adjustment arm that is movable relative to the cart in a vertical direction via at a height adjustment arm actuator”, which should read “a height adjustment arm that is movable relative to the cart in a vertical direction via [[at]] a height adjustment arm actuator”. Appropriate correction by Applicant is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, lines 3-4 claim “an additional transverse arm pivotally coupled to the proximal transverse arm about a second vertical-axis rotation joint and extending”. The phrase “and extending” does not connect to any other feature, and appears to be extraneous.
Appropriate action by Applicant is required.
For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets this phrase as “an additional transverse arm pivotally coupled to the proximal transverse arm about a second vertical-axis rotation joint
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0008599 – “Lynch”) in view of Tang et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0187885 – “Tang”) and Zemlok et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0093556 – “Zemlok”).
Regarding Claim 1, Lynch discloses:
A robotic surgical system (Examiner-annotated Lynch FIG. 2 shown above, system 200), comprising:
a cart (Lynch FIG. 2, mobile cart 215) extending vertically above a base (Lynch FIG. 2, bottom of cart 215 attached to depicted wheels);
a boom arm (Lynch FIG. 2, two-part column made up of column link 221 and column link 222) that is movable relative to the cart in a vertical direction via a boom arm actuator (Lynch paragraph [0051], “Control of the motion of the repositionable arm and a corresponding end effector includes sending one or more signals, such as voltages, currents, pulse-width modulations, and/or the like to the one or more actuators used to control the one or more repositionable elements of the end effector and/or the repositionable arm and other structures used to manipulate the motion and thus the pose of the repositionable arm and/or the end effector”);
an arm assembly (Lynch FIG. 2, arm assembly) movably coupled to the cart via the boom arm such that the arm assembly is selectively movable relative to the cart to vary a height of the arm assembly relative to the base (Lynch paragraph [0033], “the two-part column is used to adjust a height of the arm mounting platform 227 by moving the shoulder joint 223 up and down along an axis 232”), the arm assembly comprising:
a plurality of arm sections (Lynch FIG. 2, boom link 224 and boom link 225) extending perpendicular to the vertical direction, the plurality of arm sections comprising:
a proximal arm section (Lynch FIG. 2, boom link 224) pivotally coupled to the boom arm via a proximal vertical-axis rotation joint (Lynch FIG. 2, shoulder joint 223) having a vertical axis (Lynch FIG. 2, axis 232) associated therewith; and
one or more transverse arm sections (Lynch FIG. 2, boom link 225) serially coupled to the proximal arm section (Lynch FIG. 2, boom link 224), such that each neighbouring pair of arm sections is coupled through a respective intermediate prismatic joint, each prismatic joint permitting linear translation of its associated neighbouring pair of arm sections relative to one another such that the arm assembly is linearly extendable, via control of at least one prismatic actuator between an extended position and a retracted position (Lynch paragraph [0033], “The horizontal position of the arm mounting platform 227 is adjusted along an axis 234 using the two-part boom.”; Examiner interprets this horizontal positioning to be the result of distal boom link 225 sliding/telescoping within proximal boom link 224, as shown in Lynch FIG. 2);
a support arm (Lynch FIG. 2, set-up joints 240 and multi-jointed manipulator 260) pivotally coupled to a last of the transverse arm sections about a distal vertical-axis rotation joint (Lynch FIG. 2, rotation joint 242) having a second vertical axis (Lynch FIG. 2, vertical axis 254) associated therewith, the support arm extending downwardly from the distal vertical-axis rotation joint (Lynch FIG. 2, showing set-up joints 240 and multi-jointed manipulator 260 extending downwardly from rotation joint 242); and
a central drive unit (Lynch FIG. 2, instrument carriage 268) pivotally coupled to the support arm about a pitch rotation joint (Lynch FIG. 2, joint 264), the central drive unit comprising one or more robotic surgical instruments and an endoscope (Lynch FIG. 2, instrument 270; Lynch paragraph [0037], “instrument 270 is a surgical instrument, an imaging device, and/or the like. In some examples, possible surgical instruments consistent with instrument 270 include clamps, grippers, retractors, cautery tools, suction tools, suturing devices, and/or the like. In some examples, possible imaging devices consistent with instrument 270 include stereoscopic and monoscopic imaging devices, imaging devices in the visible and infrared ranges, steerable endoscopic imaging devices, and/or the like.”) removably coupled thereto, the surgical instruments and endoscope configured to extend through a single insertion tube configured to be inserted through an incision location in a patient (Lynch paragraph [0058], “an instrument removal mode where a corresponding end effector is being removed from a patient and/or is being disconnected from a cannula where the corresponding end effector is inserted into the patient”),
wherein the pitch rotation joint and each vertical-axis rotation joint is operably coupled to a respective rotation joint actuator (Lynch paragraph [0051], “Control of the motion of the repositionable arm and a corresponding end effector includes sending one or more signals, such as voltages, currents, pulse-width modulations, and/or the like to the one or more actuators used to control the one or more repositionable elements of the end effector and/or the repositionable arm and other structures used to manipulate the motion and thus the pose of the repositionable arm and/or the end effector”); and
wherein the boom arm actuator, the at least one prismatic actuator, and the rotation joint actuators are robotically controllable, based on operator input, to adjust one or more of a lateral position, a vertical position, a pitch, and a yaw of the central drive unit and thereby adjust a respective pitch and yaw of the surgical instruments and endoscope and to adjust an insertion depth of the insertion tube when inserted in the patient while maintaining a location of a remote center of motion at the incision location on the patient (Lynch paragraph [0051], “At a process 310, control of the motion of a repositionable arm and/or an end effector occurs. In general, each of the repositionable arms and/or end effectors of the computer-assisted medical device are being actively controlled at some level at all times…Control of the motion of the repositionable arm and a corresponding end effector includes sending one or more signals, such as voltages, currents, pulse-width modulations, and/or the like to the one or more actuators used to control the one or more repositionable elements of the end effector and/or the repositionable arm and other structures used to manipulate the motion and thus the pose of the repositionable arm and/or the end effector. The one or more signals are then converted to forces and/or torques that effectuate the desired motion….In some examples, one or more kinematic models for the repositionable arm, the end effector, and/or the computer-assisted medical device may optionally be used to covert desired motions into corresponding control signals for each of the actuators. For repositionable arms and/or end effectors under teleoperated control by medical personnel, the motion is optionally directed by the medical personnel using one or more input controls located at an operator console, on the computer-assisted medical device, and/or other suitable locations. For repositionable arms and/or end effectors under autonomous and/or semi-autonomous control, the motion is optionally directed by a motion plan for the repositionable arm and/or the end effector that optionally varies depending upon the desired autonomous or semi-autonomous motion. For repositionable arms and/or end effectors under teleoperation, the motion is optionally adjusted by the computer-assisted medical device depending upon the desired motion as indicated by a command into an input device used by a human operator.”; Lynch paragraph [0036], “the remote center of motion 274 may correspond to a location of a body opening, such as an incision site or body orifice, in a patient 278 where shaft 272 is inserted into the patient 278”).
Although Examiner interprets Lynch’s boom link 225 as sliding (telescoping, prismatically joined) into boom link 224, Lynch does not explicitly disclose that the coupling of boom link 225 to boom link 224 is via a telescopic/prismatic joint.
Tang teaches the transverse arm sections are telescopically/prismatically coupled (Tang FIG. 1, telescoping supporting arm 114; Tang paragraph [0050], “the supporting arm 114 may be telescopic. For example, the supporting arm 114 may include multiple portions (or be referred to as stages) arranged in a multi-stage telescopic form, in which a first portion adjacent to a second portion may be nested within the second portion and is extended or retracted relative to the second portion”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Tang’s telescoping supporting arm for Lynch’s joint 242 shown in Lynch FIG. 2. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of a traverse arm that has additional controlled horizontal movement with the stability provided by a telescopic coupling.
Although paragraph [0031] of Lynch describes the computer-assisted medical system 200 as having a computer-assisted device 210, Lynch in view of Tang does not explicitly identify the systems taught therein as being a robotic surgical system.
Zemlok teaches a robotic surgical system (Zemlok FIG. 2, showing a perspective view of the robotic surgical system 1 shown in Zemlok FIG. 1.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the system taught by Lynch in view of Tang with Zemlok’s robotic surgical system 1. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a system whose components can be telemanipulated, either locally or remotely, in order to provide improved precision in component movements (see Zemlok paragraph [0054]).
Regarding Claim 2, Lynch in view of Tang and Zemlok teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Lynch further discloses:
wherein the transverse arm sections includes:
a first transverse arm section (Lynch FIG. 2, boom link 225) prismatically coupled to the proximal arm section (Lynch FIG. 2, boom link 225) and configured to move linearly relative to the proximal arm section between a retracted position and an extended position relative to the proximal arm section position (Lynch paragraph [0033], “The horizontal position of the arm mounting platform 227 is adjusted along an axis 234 using the two-part boom.”), and
the support arm (Lynch FIG. 2, set-up joints 240) being pivotally coupled to the second transverse arm section via the distal vertical-axis rotation joint (Lynch FIG. 2, rotation joint 242).
Tang further teaches a second transverse arm section prismatically coupled to the first transverse arm section and configured to move linearly relative to the first transverse arm section (Tang paragraph [0050], “supporting arm 114 may include multiple portions (or be referred to as stages) arranged in a multi-stage telescopic form, in which a first portion adjacent to a second portion may be nested within the second portion and is extended or retracted relative to the second portion”),
Regarding Claim 3, Lynch in view of Tang and Zemlok teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Lynch further discloses wherein each of the rotation joints includes a respective electric motor operable to effect a pivoting motion of the rotation joint about its axis (Lynch paragraph [0051], “Control of the motion of the repositionable arm…includes sending one or more signals, such as voltages, currents, pulse-width modulations, and/or the like to the one or more actuators used to control the…repositionable arm and other structures used to manipulate the motion and thus the pose of the repositionable arm and/or the end effector.”; see also Zemlok FIG. 1, control device 4 and Zemlok paragraph [0056], “Control device 4 may control a plurality of motors, e.g., motors (Motor 1 . . . n), with each motor configured to drive movement of robotic arms 2, 3 in a plurality of directions.”).
With regard to Claim 7, Lynch in view of Tang and Zemlok teach the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Tang further teaches wherein the arm assembly is configured to achieve a compact stowed configuration where the first transverse arm section is retracted relative to the proximal arm section and the second transverse arm section is retracted relative to the first transverse arm section (Tang FIG. 1, supporting arm 114; Tang paragraph [0050], “the supporting arm 114 may be extendable and retractable along a substantially horizontal direction”).
With regard to Claim 8, Lynch in view of Tang and Zemlok teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Lynch further discloses wherein the boom arm (Lynch FIG. 2, set-up structure 220) is a pillar that extends from a top end of the cart and is operable to vary a height of the arm assembly above the base by axially moving the pillar relative to the cart (Lynch FIG. 2, showing column link 221 extending from the top end of the mobile cart 215).
With regard to Claim 9, Lynch in view of Tang and Zemlok teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Tang further teaches wherein the support arm has a shape corresponding to a shape of an inner facing portion of the arm assembly (Tang FIG. 1, showing support arm having a same outer shape as an interior facing portion of the arm assembly).
With regard to Claim 10, Lynch in view of Tang and Zemlok teach the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Tang further teaches wherein the support arm has a support arm portion that extends at an angle corresponding to an angle of the inner facing portion of the arm assembly (Tang FIG. 1, showing support arm extending from arm assembly at an angle of zero degrees).
Regarding Claim 16, Lynch in view of Zemlok teaches the features of Claim 11, as described above.
Lynch in view of Zemlok does not explicitly disclose wherein the arm assembly is configured to achieve a compact stowed configuration where one of the transverse arms overlaps with another of the transverse arms.
Tang teaches wherein the arm assembly (Tang FIG. 2, support arm 114 and component 130) is configured to achieve a compact stowed configuration where one of the transverse arms overlaps with another of the transverse arms (Tang FIG. 2, showing apparatus 100 in a retracted/compact configuration relative to the expanded configuration thereof shown in Tang FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Tang’s telescoping supporting arm for Lynch’s joint 242 shown in Lynch FIG. 2 in the system taught by Lynch in view of Zemlok. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of a traverse arm that has additional controlled horizontal movement with the stability provided by a telescopic system that is compactly stowed.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0008599 – “Lynch”) in view of Tang et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0187885 – “Tang”), and Zemlok et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0093556 – “Zemlok”), and Mantri et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0401522 – “Mantri”).
Regarding Claim 4, Lynch in view of Tang and Zemlok teaches the features of Claim 3, as described above.
Lynch in view of Tang and Zemlok does not explicitly teach a respective brake or clutch operatively coupled to each electric motor and selectively operable to decouple the electric motor from its respective rotation joint to allow for manual operation of the arm assembly and selectively operable to lock a position of the rotation joint during operation of the surgical instruments or endoscope or when the robotic surgical system experiences loss of power.
Mantri teaches a respective brake or clutch operatively coupled to each electric motor and selectively operable to decouple the electric motor from its respective rotation joint to allow for manual operation of the arm assembly and selectively operable to lock a position of the rotation joint during operation of the surgical instruments or endoscope or when the robotic surgical system experiences loss of power (Mantri FIG. 10, clutch 1002 and drive motor 614 in handpiece 600 connected to a robotic arm 602; Mantri paragraph [0120], “A clutch 1002 may be disposed on the transmission shaft that selectively couples and decouples one or more of the R-drive motors 614, 702.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mantri’s robotic motor clutch with the robotic surgical system taught by Lynch in view of Tang and Zemlok. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a robotic surgical system that allows for selective movement of a portion of the robotic surgical system during operations (see paragraph [0128] of Mantri).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0008599 – “Lynch”) in view of Tang et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0187885 – “Tang”), and Zemlok et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0093556 – “Zemlok”), and Rose et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0051764 – “Rose”).
Regarding Claim 5, Lynch in view of Tang and Zemlok teaches the features of Claim 3, as described above.
Lynch in view of Tang and Zemlok does not explicitly teach at least one torque sensor, each torque sensor being operably coupled to a respective electric motor, such that the electric motor is configured to operate in a force-follow mode based on input from the torque sensor that senses an operator force on the rotation joint controlled by the electric motor.
Rose teaches at least one torque sensor, each torque sensor being operably coupled to a respective electric motor, such that the electric motor is configured to operate in a force-follow mode based on input from the torque sensor that senses an operator force on the rotation joint controlled by the electric motor (Rose FIG. 17, circuit diagram of a robotic arm; Rose paragraph [0140], “A force/torque sensor (not shown) can measure the force that a human pushing on a robotic joint exerts. With the use of force/torque sensors (not shown), a robot control program (e.g., implemented on a processor operably coupled to a computer-readable storage medium including computer-readable instructions stored thereon, the computer-readable instructions configured to instruct the processor to perform functions of the robot control program) may perform lift assist in order to make the robotic arm easier to manipulate for the teach mode operation.”; Although Rose uses a hydraulic actuator (e.g., hydraulic actuators 1760 shown in Rose FIG. 17, such actuators are controlled by an electric pump that produces the requisite hydraulic pressure: Rose [0140], “An electro proportional pressure control on a variable displacement pump may be used to set the pressure to compensate and cancel the torque applied to a robotic joint/arm/hand”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rose’s lift assist with the robotic surgical system taught by Lynch in view of Tang and Zemlok. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a robotic surgical system having the ability to take direct movement of a joint, as supplied by the operator, as an input for smooth and power-augmented movement of the joint.
Claims 11-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0008599 – “Lynch”) in view of Zemlok et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0093556 – “Zemlok”).
Regarding Claim 11, Lynch discloses:
A robotic surgical system (Examiner-annotated Lynch FIG. 2 shown above, system 200), comprising:
a cart (Lynch FIG. 2, mobile cart 215) extending vertically above a base (Lynch FIG. 2, bottom of cart 215 attached to depicted wheels);
a height adjustment arm (Lynch FIG. 2, two-part column made up of column link 221 and column link 222) that is movable relative to the cart in a vertical direction via at a height adjustment arm actuator (Lynch paragraph [0051], “Control of the motion of the repositionable arm and a corresponding end effector includes sending one or more signals, such as voltages, currents, pulse-width modulations, and/or the like to the one or more actuators used to control the one or more repositionable elements of the end effector and/or the repositionable arm and other structures used to manipulate the motion and thus the pose of the repositionable arm and/or the end effector”);
an arm assembly (Lynch FIG. 2, arm assembly) movably coupled to the cart via the height adjustment arm such that the arm assembly is selectively movable relative to the cart to vary a height of the arm assembly relative to the base (Lynch paragraph [0033], “the two-part column is used to adjust a height of the arm mounting platform 227 by moving the shoulder joint 223 up and down along an axis 232”), the arm assembly comprising:
a plurality of transverse arms (Lynch FIG. 2, boom link 224 and boom link 225) extending perpendicular to the vertical direction, the plurality of transverse arms comprising:
a proximal transverse arm pivotally (Lynch FIG. 2, boom link 224) coupled to the height adjustment arm via a proximal vertical-axis rotation joint (Lynch FIG. 2, shoulder joint 223) having a first vertical axis (Lynch FIG. 2, axis 232) associated therewith; and
one or more additional transverse arms (Lynch FIG. 2, boom link 225) pivotally coupled to the proximal transverse arm (Lynch FIG. 2, boom link 224) such that each neighbouring pair of transverse arms is pivotally coupled through a respective intermediate vertical-axis rotation joint, each intermediate vertical-axis rotation joint having a respective intermediate vertical axis associated therewith (Lynch paragraph [0033], “The horizontal position of the arm mounting platform 227 is adjusted along an axis 234 using the two-part boom.”; Examiner interprets this horizontal positioning to be the result of distal boom link 225 sliding/telescoping within proximal boom link 224, as shown in Lynch FIG. 2);;
a support arm (Lynch FIG. 2, set-up joints 240 and multi-jointed manipulator 260) pivotally coupled to a last transverse arm of the plurality of transverse arms about a distal vertical-axis rotation joint (Lynch FIG. 2, rotation joint 242) having a distal vertical axis (Lynch FIG. 2, vertical axis 254) associated therewith, the support arm extending downwardly from the distal vertical-axis rotation joint (Lynch FIG. 2, showing set-up joints 240 and multi-jointed manipulator 260 extending downwardly from rotation joint 242); and
a central drive unit (Lynch FIG. 2, instrument carriage 268) pivotally coupled to the support arm about a pitch rotation joint (Lynch FIG. 2, joint 264), the central drive unit comprising one or more robotic surgical instruments and an endoscope (Lynch FIG. 2, instrument 270; Lynch paragraph [0037], “instrument 270 is a surgical instrument, an imaging device, and/or the like. In some examples, possible surgical instruments consistent with instrument 270 include clamps, grippers, retractors, cautery tools, suction tools, suturing devices, and/or the like. In some examples, possible imaging devices consistent with instrument 270 include stereoscopic and monoscopic imaging devices, imaging devices in the visible and infrared ranges, steerable endoscopic imaging devices, and/or the like.”) removably coupled thereto , the surgical instruments and endoscope configured to extend through a single insertion tube configured to be inserted through an incision location on a patient (Lynch paragraph [0058], “an instrument removal mode where a corresponding end effector is being removed from a patient and/or is being disconnected from a cannula where the corresponding end effector is inserted into the patient”),
wherein the pitch rotation joint and each vertical-axis rotation joint is operably coupled to a respective rotation joint actuator (Lynch paragraph [0051], “Control of the motion of the repositionable arm and a corresponding end effector includes sending one or more signals, such as voltages, currents, pulse-width modulations, and/or the like to the one or more actuators used to control the one or more repositionable elements of the end effector and/or the repositionable arm and other structures used to manipulate the motion and thus the pose of the repositionable arm and/or the end effector”); and
wherein the height adjustment arm actuator and of the each rotation joint actuators each are robotically controllable, based on operator input, to adjust one or more of a lateral position, a vertical position, a pitch and a yaw of the central drive unit and thereby adjust a respective pitch and yaw of the surgical instruments and endoscope, and to adjust an insertion depth of the insertion tube when inserted in the patient, while maintaining a location of a remote center of motion at the incision location on the patient (Lynch paragraph [0051], “At a process 310, control of the motion of a repositionable arm and/or an end effector occurs. In general, each of the repositionable arms and/or end effectors of the computer-assisted medical device are being actively controlled at some level at all times…Control of the motion of the repositionable arm and a corresponding end effector includes sending one or more signals, such as voltages, currents, pulse-width modulations, and/or the like to the one or more actuators used to control the one or more repositionable elements of the end effector and/or the repositionable arm and other structures used to manipulate the motion and thus the pose of the repositionable arm and/or the end effector. The one or more signals are then converted to forces and/or torques that effectuate the desired motion….In some examples, one or more kinematic models for the repositionable arm, the end effector, and/or the computer-assisted medical device may optionally be used to covert desired motions into corresponding control signals for each of the actuators. For repositionable arms and/or end effectors under teleoperated control by medical personnel, the motion is optionally directed by the medical personnel using one or more input controls located at an operator console, on the computer-assisted medical device, and/or other suitable locations. For repositionable arms and/or end effectors under autonomous and/or semi-autonomous control, the motion is optionally directed by a motion plan for the repositionable arm and/or the end effector that optionally varies depending upon the desired autonomous or semi-autonomous motion. For repositionable arms and/or end effectors under teleoperation, the motion is optionally adjusted by the computer-assisted medical device depending upon the desired motion as indicated by a command into an input device used by a human operator.”; Lynch paragraph [0036], “the remote center of motion 274 may correspond to a location of a body opening, such as an incision site or body orifice, in a patient 278 where shaft 272 is inserted into the patient 278”).
Although paragraph [0031] of Lynch describes the computer-assisted medical system 200 as having a computer-assisted device 210, Lynch in view of Tang does not explicitly identify the systems taught therein as being a robotic surgical system.
Zemlok teaches a robotic surgical system (Zemlok FIG. 2, showing a perspective view of the robotic surgical system 1 shown in Zemlok FIG. 1.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the system taught by Lynch with Zemlok’s robotic surgical system 1. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a system whose components can be telemanipulated, either locally or remotely, in order to provide improved precision in component movements (see Zemlok paragraph [0054]).
Regarding Claim 12, Lynch in view of Zemlok teaches the features of Claim 11, as described above.
Lynch further discloses wherein the one or more additional transverse arms include an additional transverse arm (Lynch FIG. 2, arm mounting platform 227) pivotally coupled to the proximal transverse arm about a second vertical-axis rotation joint (Lynch FIG. 2, wrist joint 226) and extending, the additional transverse arm configured to pivot about a vertical axis through the second vertical-axis rotation joint, wherein the support arm is pivotally coupled to the additional transverse arm (Lynch FIG. 2, showing set-up joints 240 and multi-jointed manipulator 260 pivotally coupled to arm mounting platform 227).
Regarding Claim 13, Lynch in view of Zemlok teaches the features of Claim 11, as described above.
Lynch further discloses wherein each of the rotation joints includes a respective electric motor operable to effect a pivoting motion of the rotation joint about its axis (Lynch paragraph [0051], “Control of the motion of the repositionable arm…includes sending one or more signals, such as voltages, currents, pulse-width modulations, and/or the like to the one or more actuators used to control the…repositionable arm and other structures used to manipulate the motion and thus the pose of the repositionable arm and/or the end effector.”).
Regarding Claim 17, Lynch in view of Zemlok the features of Claim 11, as described above.
Zemlok further teaches wherein the arm assembly is movably coupled to a side of the cart (Zemlok FIG. 2, robotic arms 2 connected to side of robotic arm cart 10).
Regarding Claim 18, Lynch in view of Zemlok teaches the features of Claim 11, as described above.
Lynch further discloses wherein the arm assembly (Lynch FIG. 2, arm assembly) is movably coupled to a top of the cart (Lynch FIG. 2, mobile cart 215).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0008599 – “Lynch”) in view of Zemlok et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0093556 – “Zemlok”) and Mantri et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0401522 – “Mantri”).
Regarding Claim 14, Lynch in view of Zemlok teaches the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Lynch in view of Zemlok does not explicitly teach a respective brake or clutch operatively coupled to each electric motor and selectively operable to decouple the electric motor from its respective rotation joint to allow for manual operation of the arm assembly and selectively operable to lock a position of the rotation joint during operation of the surgical instruments or endoscope or when the robotic surgical system experiences loss of power.
Mantri teaches a respective brake or clutch operatively coupled to each electric motor and selectively operable to decouple the electric motor from its respective rotation joint to allow for manual operation of the arm assembly and selectively operable to lock a position of the rotation joint during operation of the surgical instruments or endoscope or when the robotic surgical system experiences loss of power (Mantri FIG. 10, clutch 1002 and drive motor 614 in handpiece 600 connected to a robotic arm 602; Mantri paragraph [0120], “A clutch 1002 may be disposed on the transmission shaft that selectively couples and decouples one or more of the R-drive motors 614, 702.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mantri’s robotic motor clutch with the robotic surgical system taught by Lynch in view of Zemlok. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a robotic surgical system that allows for selective movement of a portion of the robotic surgical system during operations (see paragraph [0128] of Mantri).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0008599 – “Lynch”) in view of Zemlok et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0093556 – “Zemlok”) and Rose et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0051764 – “Rose”).
Regarding Claim 15, Lynch in view of Zemlok teaches the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Lynch in view of Zemlok does not explicitly teach at least one torque sensor, each torque sensor being operably coupled to a respective electric motor, such that the electric motor is configured to operate in a force-follow mode based on input from the torque sensor that senses an operator force on the joint controlled by the electric motor.
Rose teaches at least one torque sensor, each torque sensor being operably coupled to a respective electric motor, such that the electric motor is configured to operate in a force-follow mode based on input from the torque sensor that senses an operator force on the joint controlled by the electric motor (Rose FIG. 17, circuit diagram of a robotic arm; Rose paragraph [0140], “A force/torque sensor (not shown) can measure the force that a human pushing on a robotic joint exerts. With the use of force/torque sensors (not shown), a robot control program (e.g., implemented on a processor operably coupled to a computer-readable storage medium including computer-readable instructions stored thereon, the computer-readable instructions configured to instruct the processor to perform functions of the robot control program) may perform lift assist in order to make the robotic arm easier to manipulate for the teach mode operation.”; Although Rose uses a hydraulic actuator (e.g., hydraulic actuators 1760 shown in Rose FIG. 17, such actuators are controlled by an electric pump that produces the requisite hydraulic pressure: Rose paragraph [0140], “An electro proportional pressure control on a variable displacement pump may be used to set the pressure to compensate and cancel the torque applied to a robotic joint/arm/hand”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rose’s lift assist with the robotic surgical system taught by Lynch in view of Zemlok. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a robotic surgical system having the ability to take direct movement of a joint, as supplied by the operator, as an input for smooth and power-augmented movement of the joint.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No combination of the identified prior art teaches or suggests wherein the torque sensor is disposed between the last of the transverse arm sections and the support arm.
The closest identified prior art is Wicks et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0344447 – “Wicks”), which teaches a torque sensor on a robotic tool to determine the weight of an object being picked up by the robotic tool (see paragraph [0091] of Wicks). However, neither Wicks nor any other identified prior art teaches or suggests that the torque sensor is disposed between the last of the transverse arm sections and the support arm. Furthermore, there is no reason or suggestion provided in the prior art to modify the above prior art to teach the limitations as claimed above, and the only reason to modify the references would be based on Applicant's disclosure, which is impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the objection to Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to Claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-16, filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 11-12 and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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. That is, the arguments assert that Holop et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0277775 – “Holop”) does not teach the features claimed in Claims 11-12 and 16-17. However, the present Office Action relies on Lynch et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0008599 – “Lynch”), rather than Holop, in the rejection of Claims 11-12 and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Furthermore, none of the pending claims are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 16-20, filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-3 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 16-17, Applicant recites the clarifying descriptions found in Claim 1 without comment.
On page 18, Applicant asserts that Lynch in view of Tang fails to teach “that the actuators associated with (i) the distal vertical-axis rotation joint and the pitch rotation joint, and also (ii) the boom arm, the proximal vertical-axis rotation joint, and the prismatic joints of the one or more transverse arm sections are controllable for adjustment of the insertion depth of the insertion tube, when inserted in the patient, while maintaining a location of a remote center of motion at the incision location on the patient.” The additional paragraphs on page 18 reiterate this position. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As described above in the rejection of Claim 1, paragraph [0051] of Lynch describes the use of one or more actuators “to control the one or more repositionable elements of the end effector and/or the repositionable arm and other structures used to manipulate the motion and thus the pose of the repositionable arm and/or the end effector”. Thus, paragraph [0051] of Lynch discloses that the actuators control movement of “one or more repositionable elements of the end effector and/or the repositionable arm and other structures used to manipulate the motion and thus the pose of the repositionable arm and/or the end effector” (i.e., all repositionable elements of the system).
On page 19, Applicant asserts that Lynch merely teaches a static initial “set-up” of components of the components of the surgical system, rather than controlling them in a dynamic manner. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Lynch teaches in paragraph [0034] explicitly describes the set-up structure as being dynamic in order to “perform a surgical procedure on the patient”. Second, even if Lynch disclosed only a static pre-op positioning of the components, the present Office Action further cites Zemlok in the rejection of Claim 1, which explicitly teaches control/movement of instruments during a procedure (see Zemlok paragraph [0056]).
On page 20, Applicant asserts that dependent Claims 4-5, 12-15, and 18 should be allowed if their respective base Claims 1 and 11 are allowed.
However, the rejection of Claims 1 and 11, as well as dependent Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include:
Fenech et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0265953 – “Fenech”), which teaches in Fenech FIG. 11 a robotic surgical system having arms, joints, and a surgical instrument that are components of a teleoperational manipulator assembly 550.
Moll et al. (US PGPUB 2002/0082612 – “Moll”), which teaches in Moll FIG. 2 and Moll FIG. 4 a robotic surgical network 10 having master control station 200 that controls slave cart 300.
Itkowitz et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0188047 – “Itkowitz”), which teaches in Itkowitz FIG. 5A a teleoperated surgical system 10 having a surgical instrument manipulator 73 that includes motors to control instrument motion(see Itkowitz paragraph [0057]).
Zhou et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0175286 – “Zhou”), which teaches in Zhou FIG. 2B a processor 220 for controlling (via motor controllers 230) motors 240 the control robotic arms (see Zhou paragraph [0027]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
02/22/26