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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/11/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 3, 11 and 16-17 are 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.
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 16, the limitations “the second portion of the joint is translatable relative to the first portion of the joint” and “translating the second portion of the joint relative to the first portion of the joint” render the claims indefinite.
Common meaning of “translating” and “translatable” refer to movement of an object where every point on the object moves the same distance in the same direction and maintaining its orientation.
It is unclear how a first portion and a second portion of a joint (the first portion and the second portion are not the tool attaching to the joint: e.g. endoscope) could move away from each other without changing its direction and/or orientation (i.e. not rotating). Appropriate correction is required.
For examination purpose, the limitations regarding “translating” and “translatable” are broadly interpreted as moving and movable, respectively.
Regarding claim 17, the recited limitation appear to be the same as one of the step recited in claim 14, and it is unclear how they are different from each other. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draper et al. (US 2018/0289431 A1) in view of Coulter et al. (US 2018/0056985 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Draper discloses a medical robotic system (e.g. Fig. 1C: 110) comprising: a joint (e.g. Fig. 1C: 165) comprising: a first portion; and a second portion (Fig. 1C & [0029]: arms that attached to the joint) moveable relative to the first portion and configured to be coupled to a tool (e.g. Fig. 1C: 115); and a brake mechanism configured to selectively limit motion of the joint (e.g. [0029]), and a user-commanded release mechanism comprising a release actuator (e.g. Fig. 4B: 410),
the brake mechanism comprising: a braking material (e.g. [0029]: mechanical/electrical component of a fail-safe brake and counter-balances) engageable between an engaged configuration and a disengaged configuration, wherein in the engaged configuration the braking material limits a movement of the second portion of the joint relative to the first portion of the joint, and in the disengaged configuration the braking material permits the movement of the second portion of the joint relative to the first portion of the joint (e.g. [0029]: brake inherently comprises engaging and disengaging configurations),
wherein the release actuator is configured to disengage the braking material from the engaged configuration to the disengaged configuration independent of the first electromagnetic assembly, permitting the movement of the second portion of the joint relative to the first portion of the joint (e.g. [0029, 0038]: brake within arm 175 and button 410 are independent of each other).
Draper fails to disclose, but Coulter teaches
the brake mechanism comprising:
a first electromagnetic assembly comprising a first coil, wherein the first electromagnetic assembly is configured to disengage the braking material from the engaged configuration to the disengaged configuration when the first coil is energized (e.g. [0302]: energize brake coil to disengage the brake).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Draper with the teachings of Coulter to include well-known dual brake coils to engage and disengage a brake of a motor so as to provide redundant safety to a system.
Regarding claim 9, Draper discloses a medical robotic system (e.g. Fig. 1C: 110) comprising: a joint (e.g. Fig. 1C: 165) comprising: a first portion; and a second portion (Fig. 1C & [0029]: arms that attached to the joint) moveable relative to the first portion and configured to be coupled to a tool (e.g. Fig. 1C: 115); and a brake mechanism configured to selectively limit motion of the joint (e.g. [0029]), the brake mechanism comprising: a braking material (e.g. [0029]: mechanical/electrical component of a fail-safe brake and counter-balances) engageable between an engaged configuration and a disengaged configuration, wherein in the engaged configuration the braking material limits a movement of the second portion of the joint relative to the first portion of the joint, and in the disengaged configuration the braking material permits the movement of the second portion of the joint relative to the first portion of the joint (e.g. [0029]: brake inherently comprises engaging and disengaging configurations); and a second electromagnetic assembly comprising a second coil, wherein the second electromagnetic assembly is configured to disengage the braking material from the engaged configuration to the disengaged configuration when the second coil is energized, and the second coil is electrically independent from the first coil.
Draper fails to disclose, but Coulter teaches
the brake mechanism comprising:
a first electromagnetic assembly comprising a first coil, wherein the first electromagnetic assembly is configured to disengage the braking material from the engaged configuration to the disengaged configuration when the first coil is energized (e.g. [0302]: energize brake coil to disengage the brake), and a second electromagnetic assembly comprising a second coil, wherein the second electromagnetic assembly is configured to disengage the braking material from the engaged configuration to the disengaged configuration when the second coil is energized, and the second coil is electrically independent from the first coil (e.g. [0302]: two isolated brake coils).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Draper with the teachings of Coulter to include well-known dual brake coils to engage and disengage a brake of a motor so as to provide redundant safety to a system.
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Draper discloses a method of operating a medical robotic system, the method comprising:
Disengage a brake mechanism coupled to a joint to permit a movement of the second portion of the joint relative to a first portion of the joint (e.g. [0029, 0038]: disengage brake to allow joint movement);
energizing a motorized actuator to move the second portion of the joint relative to the first portion of the joint (e.g. [0033]: motors);
and releasing the brake mechanism to permit the movement of the second portion of the joint relative to the first portion of the joint without energizing the first coil of the brake mechanism (e.g. [0029, 0038]: disengage brake to allow joint movement).
Draper fails to disclose, but Coulter teaches:
energizing a first coil of a brake mechanism coupled to a joint to permit a movement of the second portion of the joint relative to a first portion of the joint (e.g. [0302]: energize brake coil to disengage the brake); and deenergizing the first coil of the brake mechanism to engage the brake mechanism and to limit the movement of the second portion of the joint relative to the first portion of the joint (e.g. [0302]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Draper with the teachings of Coulter to include well-known dual brake coils to engage and disengage a brake of a motor so as to provide redundant safety to a system.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 15, Draper discloses the second portion of the joint is rotatable relative to the first portion of the joint (e.g. [0029]: robotic arm 175 can have seven degrees of freedom).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 16, Draper discloses the second portion of the joint is translatable relative to the first portion of the joint (e.g. [0029, 0048]: robotic arm 175 can have seven degrees of freedom).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Draper discloses the release actuator comprises a release plate (e.g. Fig. 4B: 410), wherein the release plate is movable to disengage the braking material from the engaged configuration to the disengaged configuration, permitting the movement of the second portion of the joint relative to the first portion of the joint (e.g. Fig. 4B & [0038]: actuating button 410 could disengage brake to allow movement of the robotic arms, and button 410 is independent from the disclosed brake mechanism).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Coulter teaches the first coil is selectively energized by a control system (e.g. [0302]: the brake can be controlled by commands from the powerbase processors).
Regarding claim 7, Draper discloses a motorized actuator coupled to the first portion and the second portion, wherein the motorized actuator is configured to move the second portion relative to the first portion when the actuator is energized (e.g. [0033]: motors).
Regarding claim 8, Draper discloses the motorized actuator of the joint is selectively energized by the control system (e.g. [0033]: user may control the robotic arm using control devices).
Regarding claim 13, Coulter teaches a switch, wherein the second coil is energized by actuating the switch (e.g. [0302]: manual release lever).
Regarding claim 19, Draper discloses energizing the motorized actuator of the joint and the first coil of the brake mechanism via a common control system (e.g. [0033]: user may control the robotic arm using control devices).
Regarding claim 20, Coulter teaches energizing a second coil of the brake mechanism to disengage the brake mechanism and permit the movement of the second portion of the joint relative to the first portion of the joint, without energizing the first coil of the brake mechanism (e.g. [0302]: brake can be disengaged when both or its coils are energized and/or one of its coils is energized).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/KAWING CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846