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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/20/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Limitation “receiving a second input from the user to lock the one or more rotational joints to fix the plurality of articulating arms in place” is not in the specification. Paragraph [0030] discloses “when the handle 208 is disengaged (at rest) the links of the articulating arm can be locked in place so as to fix the position of the articulating arm”. When the handle is disengaged that is not an input. The handle is not receiving an input. There no input receives to lock the arm. The specification does not disclose input receives to lock the arm.
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 8-25 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. Limitation “receiving a second input from the user to lock the one or more rotational joints to fix the plurality of articulating arms in place” is unclear. Input definition is: what is put in, taken in, or operated on by any process or system. There nothing in paragraph [0030] discloses receiving an input to lock the arm. It is unclear how the handle is disengaged is receiving an input. Paragraph [0030] discloses “engaging (squeezing) the handle 208 can unlock the rotational joints and enable the surgeon or user to position the therapy transducer and imaging system”. When a person engaging/squeezing the handle that is an input. It appears disengaging is not squeeze or doing nothing to the handle or hand off the handle. It is unclear what input is received to lock the arm. Examiner interpreted the claim as the arm is in lock state and to unlock it a person would squeeze the handle to unlock.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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. Claims 15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US 2011/0054315 (provided in the IDS)), in view of Valle et al. (US 2006/0184166) and further in view of Copeland et al. (US 5,683,064).
3. Addressing claim 15, Robert discloses method of manipulating a therapeutic treatment head mounted on a micromanipulator system having a plurality of articulating arms, comprising (see abstract and Figs. 1-2):
controlling movement of the plurality of articulating arms in up to 6 degrees of freedom to adjust a position and/or orientation of the therapeutic treatment head (see [0016]);
Roberts does not explicitly disclose reducing a load on one or more of the plurality of articulating arms with one or more weight compensators attached to the micromanipulator system. Robert discloses hold the weight of both the imaging system and the ultrasound therapy system steady during positioning and treatment. The role of the spring weight compensators is to reduce load on the arm and aid it in balance and maintain the position of the system during treatment. It is unclear if Robert has a spring weight compensator to help the arm hold the weight of both the imaging system and the ultrasound therapy system steady during positioning and treatment. In the same field of endeavor, Valle discloses reducing a load on one or more of the plurality of articulating arms with one or more weight compensators attached to the micromanipulator system (see [0027] and Fig. 1; the counterweight/spring help balance and maintain the position of the system by reduce the load on the arm that can move in multiple freedom). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roberts to have weight compensator as taught by Valle because this compensates for the weight to reduce the amount of weight on the arm needed to hold the medical equipment in design position to minimize patient discomfort and improve treatment accuracy (see [0027]). Robert combines with Valle improve the system. KSR motivation reason to combine: (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Robert does not disclose reducing a load on one or more of the plurality of articulating arms with one or more weight compensators attached to the micromanipulator system; receiving a first input from a user to unlock one or more rotational joints of the plurality of articulating arms and receiving a second input from the user to lock the one or more rotational joints to fix the plurality of articulating arms in place. Copeland explicitly discloses receiving a first input from a user to unlock one or more rotational joints of the plurality of articulating arms and receiving a second input from the user to lock the one or more rotational joints to fix the plurality of articulating arms in place (see col. 3, lines 46-61, col. 4, lines 15-19, col. 5, lines 7-15 and col. 11, lines 25-34; switching the joints of the articulate arm between locked and unlocked state is receiving input from user to lock and unlock the joints of the articulate arm; user either manually lock or unlock the joints which is manual input by the user); reducing a load on one or more of the plurality of articulating arms with one or more weight compensators attached to the micromanipulator system (see abstract; using spring counterbalance to offsetting/reduce part of the weight of the support arm that can move in multiple freedom; the arm with spring to hold up monitor; the monitor is a heavy equipment that could be more than 15 lbs; Copeland discloses a spring to offset the weight of the heavy load/equipment on the arm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roberts to receive a first input from a user to unlock one or more rotational joints of the plurality of articulating arms and receiving a second input from the user to lock the one or more rotational joints to fix the plurality of articulating arms in place and reducing a load on one or more of the plurality of articulating arms with one or more weight compensators attached to the micromanipulator system as taught by Copeland because this allows the device set in the position and the spring help offsetting part of the weight of the support (see col. 3, lines 46-61, col. 4, lines 15-19, col. 5, lines 7-15 and col. 11, lines 25-34 and abstract). Robert combines with Copeland improve the system by set the device in position and reduce the load on the arm to improve the system durability. KSR motivation reason to combine: (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
4. Addressing claims 17 and 20, Valle discloses:
addressing claim 17, wherein the one or more weight compensators are spring- loaded (see [0027]; also see Copeland’s Fig. 26; spring 220).
addressing claim 20, wherein the one or more weight compensators reduce the load on the one or more of the plurality of articulating arms in the vertical direction (see [0027]; the arm could move up and down, multiple degree of freedom, the counterbalance is reduce the load in the up, down direction/vertical direction).
Addressing claims 18-19 and 21, Copeland discloses:
addressing claim 18, adjusting a tension of the one or more weight compensators (see col. 18, lines 1-5).
addressing claim 19, wherein adjust the tension comprises rotating an adjustment ring (see col. 18, lines 1-5; rotate ring 240 to apply more or less tension on the counterbalance spring 220).
addressing claim 21, comprising unlocking the micromanipulator, wherein the one or more weight compensators ease a weight burden of the micromanipulator and therapeutic treatment head when the micromanipulator is unlocked (see [0027];Valle’s arm device is unlock and the counterbalance is compensating the weight when the device is unlock; Copeland also discloses counterbalance spring is compensating the weight when the device is unlock (see col. 10, lines 22-27); Roberts discloses arm is not locked and a therapeutic treatment head).
5. Claims 8-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US 2011/0054315 (provided in the IDS)), in view of Valle et al. (US 2006/0184166), further in view of Copeland et al. (US 5,683,064), Assaf et al. (US 2014/0324034) and Rogers et al. (US 2004/0249509).
6. Addressing claim 8, Roberts discloses a method of manipulating a therapeutic treatment head mounted on a micromanipulator system having a plurality of articulating arms, comprising (see abstract and Figs. 1-2):
controlling movement of the plurality of articulating arms in up to 6 degrees of freedom to adjust a position and/or orientation of the therapeutic treatment head (see Fig. 1 and [0031]).
Roberts does not explicitly disclose reducing a load on one or more of the plurality of articulating arms with one or more weight compensators attached to the micromanipulator system. Robert discloses hold the weight of both the imaging system and the ultrasound therapy system steady during positioning and treatment. The role of the spring weight compensators is to reduce load on the arm and aid it in balance and maintain the position of the system during treatment. It is unclear if Robert has a spring weight compensator to help the arm hold the weight of both the imaging system and the ultrasound therapy system steady during positioning and treatment. In the same field of endeavor, Valle discloses reducing a load on one or more of the plurality of articulating arms with one or more weight compensators attached to the micromanipulator system (see [0027] and Fig. 1; the counterweight/spring help balance and maintain the position of the system by reduce the load on the arm that can move in multiple freedom). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roberts to have weight compensator as taught by Valle because this compensates for the weight to reduce the amount of weight on the arm needed to hold the medical equipment in design position to minimize patient discomfort and improve treatment accuracy (see [0027]). Robert combines with Valle improve the system. KSR motivation reason to combine: (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, Roberts does not disclose receiving a first input from a user to unlock one or more rotational joints of the plurality of articulating arms and receiving a second input from the user to lock the one or more rotational joints to fix the plurality of articulating arms in place. Copeland explicitly discloses receiving a first input from a user to unlock one or more rotational joints of the plurality of articulating arms and receiving a second input from the user to lock the one or more rotational joints to fix the plurality of articulating arms in place (see col. 3, lines 46-61, col. 4, lines 15-19, col. 5, lines 7-15 and col. 11, lines 25-34; switching the joints of the articulate arm between locked and unlocked state is receiving input from user to lock and unlock the joints of the articulate arm; user either manually lock or unlock the joints which is manual input by the user). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roberts to receive a first input from a user to unlock one or more rotational joints of the plurality of articulating arms and receiving a second input from the user to lock the one or more rotational joints to fix the plurality of articulating arms in place as taught by Copeland because this allows the device set in the position (see col. 3, lines 46-61, col. 4, lines 15-19, col. 5, lines 7-15 and col. 11, lines 25-34 and abstract). Robert combines with Copeland improve the system by set the device in position and reduce the load on the arm to improve the system durability. KSR motivation reason to combine: (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Roberts also does not disclose preventing undesirable recoiling of the one or more weight compensators and jerk motion of the micromanipulator system with an arm limiter that restricts rotation between two of the plurality of articulating arms to a specific range of motion. Assaf discloses an arm limiter that restricts rotation between two of the plurality of articulating arms to a specific range of motion (see [0030] and Fig. 1B; limiters 152 and 154 limit arm/wrist to a specific range of motion). Rogers explicitly disclose limit the recoil and jerk motion of the micromanipulator system (robotic arm) (see claim 2; limit the recoil and jerk motion of the micromanipulator system implicitly mean the system has an arm limiter). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roberts to prevent undesirable recoiling and jerk motion of the micromanipulator system with an arm limiter that restricts rotation between two of the plurality of articulating arms to a specific range of motion as taught by Assaf and Rogers because this prevent excessive bending and twisting that might damage device component, excessive twisting and bending might worn out device components/arm and jerk motion cause damaging effect (see Assaf’s paragraph [0030] and Rogers’s paragraph [0025]). Valle discloses the counterbalance/weight compensators on the arm. Roberts in view of Valle and Assaf and Rogers discloses preventing undesirable recoiling of the one or more weight compensators and jerk motion of the micromanipulator system with an arm limiter.
7. Addressing claims 9, 12 and 14, Valle discloses:
addressing claim 9, wherein the one or more weight compensators are spring- loaded (see [0027]).
addressing claim 12, wherein the one or more weight compensators reduce the load on the one or more of the plurality of articulating arms in the vertical direction (see [0027]; the arm could move up and down, multiple degree of freedom, the counterbalance is reduce the load in the up, down direction/vertical direction).
addressing claim 14, unlocking the micromanipulator, wherein the one or more weight compensators ease a weight burden of the micromanipulator and therapeutic treatment head when the micromanipulator is unlocked (see [0027]; Valle’s arm device is unlock and the counterbalance is compensating the weight when the device is unlock; Copeland also discloses counterbalance spring is compensating the weight when the device is unlock (see col. 10, lines 22-27); Roberts discloses arm is not locked and a therapeutic treatment head).
Addressing claims 10-11 and 13, Copeland discloses:
addressing claims 10-11, adjust a tension of the one or more weight compensators and wherein adjust the tension comprises rotating an adjustment ring (see col. 18, lines 1-5; rotate ring 240 to apply more or less tension on the counterbalance spring 220).
addressing claim 13, locking the micromanipulator in place (see col. 3, lines 46-61, col. 4, lines 15-19, col. 5, lines 7-15 and col. 11, lines 25-34).
Addressing claim 16, Assaf and Rogers disclose:
preventing undesirable recoiling and jerk motion of the micromanipulator system with an arm limiter (see Assaf’s paragraph [0030] and Fig. 1B and Rogers’s claim 2); Valle discloses the counterbalance/weight compensators on the arm. Copeland discloses counterbalance/weight compensators on the arm. Roberts in view of Valle, Copeland, Assaf and Rogers discloses preventing undesirable recoiling of the one or more weight compensators and jerk motion of the micromanipulator system with an arm limiter.
8. Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US 2011/0054315 (provided in the IDS)), in view of Valle et al. (US 2006/0184166), further in view of Copeland et al. (US 5,683,064) and Rastegar et al. (US 2008/0033410).
9. Addressing claims 24-25, Roberts does not disclose wherein receiving the first input comprises engaging a button on a handle of the plurality of articulating arms and wherein receiving the second input comprises disengaging the button. Examiner interpreted the claim as the arm is in lock state and to unlock it a person would squeeze the handle to unlock (see applicant’s specification [0030]). Any method to lock and unlock is designer choice that only require routine skill in the art. Copeland already disclose lock and unlock arm, examiner only relies on Rastegar to explicitly discloses a lock articulating arms and squeeze/depress button to unlock (see [0108]). Examiner only relies on Rasteger to explicitly disclose an obvious method to lock and unlock an articulate arm.
10. Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US 2011/0054315 (provided in the IDS)), in view of Valle et al. (US 2006/0184166), further in view of Copeland et al. (US 5,683,064), Assaf et al. (US 2014/0324034), Rogers et al. (US 2004/0249509) and Rastegar et al. (US 2008/0033410).
11. Addressing claims 22-23, Roberts does not disclose wherein receiving the first input comprises engaging a button on a handle of the plurality of articulating arms and wherein receiving the second input comprises disengaging the button. Examiner interpreted the claim as the arm is in lock state and to unlock it a person would squeeze the handle to unlock (see applicant’s specification [0030]). Any method to lock and unlock is designer choice that only require routine skill in the art. Copeland already disclose lock and unlock arm, examiner only relies on Rastegar to explicitly discloses a lock articulating arms and squeeze/depress button to unlock (see [0108]). Examiner only relies on Rasteger to explicitly disclose an obvious method to lock and unlock an articulate arm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues new limitations “receiving a first input from a user to unlock one or more rotational joints of the plurality of articulating arms and receiving a second input from the user to lock the one or more rotational joints to fix the plurality of articulating arms in place”. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because new limitations is addressed by Copeland (see col. 3, lines 46-61, col. 4, lines 15-19, col. 5, lines 7-15 and col. 11, lines 25-34; switching the joints of the articulate arm between locked and unlocked state is receiving input from user to lock and unlock the joints of the articulate arm; user manually lock or unlock the joints which is manual input by the user).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN NGOC NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/HIEN N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights