DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 07/23/2026, regarding the rejections under 102 in the prior office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument, that the cited art of Gomez does not teach “a plurality of receptacles defined in the cover plate and each receptacle defining a contact surface”, is unpersuasive. Gomez shows in Figs. 5A-2 and 5B-2 that the cited support hooks move internal to a recess in the cover plate 542i when activated (Para. 0113, “In the depicted embodiment, instrument support hooks 542f are rigidly mounted to instrument manipulator outer shell 542h, and when latch mechanism 542g is actuated, the distal face 542a of the inner frame 542i of the instrument manipulator moves distally toward a distal end of support hooks 542f and away from a proximal face 542j of the outer shell of the instrument manipulator. Thus, when an instrument force transmission mechanism is mounted on the support hooks 542f, distal face 542a of the instrument manipulator moves toward the proximal face of the instrument transmission mechanism, which is restrained by support hooks 542f”).
Applicant’s next argument, that the cited actuator outputs do not define kinematic couplers, is likewise unpersuasive. “Kinematic” refers to the motion of bodies, and therefore as the actuators, when coupled, allows the actuation and movement of the instruments makes these outputs kinematic couplers. If a specific definition of kinematic couplers is intended in the claims, Applicant is advised to further limit the claims to better match Applicant’s intended definition.
Applicant’s next argument, that Gomez does not teach the claimed preloading mechanism, is unpersuasive. Applicant’s argument states that one of ordinary skill would understand the differences in Gomez’s system, but this is not the standard for rejection. Gomez’s latch acts as a lever to clamp the cited portions together as previously cited by the Examiner. Any further reading of the differences between Gomez’s system and Applicant’s system must be found in further amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s final argument, regarding the newly amended language and rolled up language defining the couplers as a ball, in unpersuasive. The “plurality of kinematic couplers” only needs to define the two gimbal couplers, defined as each having 2 DOF (Para. 0118), with the device further having 2 degrees of freedom from the instrument insertion and grip (Para. 0125). Paragraph 0118, as cited below, shows how Gomez teaches the newly added limitations regarding the preloading.
For these reasons, the rejections to the claims are maintained, and updated where amended subject matter is present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication 20110282358 awarded to Gomez et al.
Regarding Claims 1 and 20, Gomez teaches a mounting system and method of using the mounting system, comprising (title): a first mounting portion associated with an arm of a surgical robot (drive surface of frame 542i, Para. 0115, “FIGS. 5C-1 through 5C-4 illustrate different views of the instrument manipulator 542 without outer shell 542h in order to reveal independent drive modules for actuating the instrument manipulator outputs. The drive modules are mounted in modular form to inner frame 542i of the instrument manipulator”), the first mounting portion including a body (instrument manipulator 542)) a cover plate fixed to the body (frame 542i, Para. 0115), and a plurality of receptacles defined in the cover plate and each receptacle defining a contact surface (support hooks 542f, Figs 5C-1 to 5C-4, Para. 0115); a second mounting portion associated with an end effector for the surgical robot and configured to be releasably coupled to the first mounting portion (Para. 0112, “Referring now to FIGS. 5A-1 through 5B-2, the operation of support hooks 542f and latch mechanism 542g to mount an instrument (not shown) to the instrument manipulator 542 is illustrated. As shown, a distal face 542a of the instrument manipulator 542 is substantially a single plane, and it is operably coupled to a proximal face of an instrument force transmission mechanism (e.g., proximal face 960′ of instrument 960 in FIGS. 9A-9B)”), the second mounting portion supporting an interface having a plurality of kinematic couplers (outputs 542b-e) configured to engage the contact surfaces of the receptacles of the first mounting portion and to provide a kinematic coupling between the first and second mounting portions to constrain six degrees of freedom (Para. 0118 and 0125 define two each in the gimbals, one in the instrument insertion, and one in the grip) between the arm and the end effector (Para. 0116, “As illustrated in the depicted embodiment, instrument manipulator 542 includes a grip actuator drive module 542b′ for actuating a grip output lever 542b, a joggle actuator drive module 542c′ for actuating a joggle output gimbal 542c, a wrist actuator drive module 542d′ for actuating wrist output gimbal 542d, and a roll actuator drive module 542e′ for actuating a roll output disc 542e. Outputs 542b, 542c, 542d, and 542e distally protrude from the distal face 542a of instrument manipulator 542, as shown for example in FIG. 5C-4, and they are adapted to engage with instrument force transmission mechanism inputs to actuate X-Y translation of the mounted instrument and grip, pitch, yaw, and roll end effector movements”); and a preloading mechanism comprising a tensioner, the tensioner comprising a lever rotatable between a tensioned position and an untensioned position to clamp the first and second mounting portions together (Para. 0115, “FIGS. 5C-1 through 5C-4 illustrate different views of the instrument manipulator 542 without outer shell 542h in order to reveal independent drive modules for actuating the instrument manipulator outputs. The drive modules are mounted in modular form to inner frame 542i of the instrument manipulator, which moves along with the drive modules, relative to outer shell 542h and support hooks 542f of the instrument manipulator. When the latch is closed, the inner frame of the instrument manipulator moves toward the instrument a set distance, and spring-loaded module outputs engage instrument inputs through a sterile drape, as further described below. When the latch is opened, the process is reversed. Spring-loaded actuator drive module outputs provide a robust interface with the instrument force transmission mechanism inputs through the drape, as described in more detail below”) with a preload force such that the plurality of kinematic couplers seat against the contact surfaces of the plurality of receptacles, wherein each of the plurality of kinematic couplers is further defined as a ball (FIG. 7A is a bottom perspective view of a gimbal drive module 742c/d' of the instrument manipulator that can be used to provide either the joggle output gimbal controlling X-Y translation for the joggle mechanism of the instrument or the wrist output gimbal controlling pitch and yaw for the instrument end effector. In this embodiment, gimbal drive module 742c/d' includes a linear slide 702, a drive spring mechanism 704 including a spring 706, and an actuator output gimbal 742c/d on a gimbal pin 710. Drive spring mechanism 704 is coupled to the inner frame 542i of the instrument manipulator. As latch 542f is actuated to engage an instrument, the inner frame moves distally, and actuator drive module 742c/d' moves along linear slide 702 until output gimbal 742c/d contacts its mating input on the instrument. This contact preloads the spring 706, thereby spring-loading the output gimbal 742c/d against an instrument input as the instrument is latched in place. As with the grip actuator drive module, the preloaded spring then ensures that proper actuator drive output/input contact is maintained during operation, so that a clearance does not develop in the output/input contact, which would render precise kinematic control difficult. Gimbal drive module 742c/d' further includes two "dog bone" links 712, two ball screws 714, two motors 716, two Hall effect sensors 718, and two rotary or linear motion encoders 720. Motors 716 drive associated ball screws 714, which actuate dogbone links 712. The proximal end of dogbone links 712 are coupled to linear slides 721, which move along axes parallel to ball screws 714”).
Regarding Claim 7, Gomez teaches the mounting system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of kinematic couplers provide the kinematic coupling between the first and second mounting portions through a protective covering (Para. 0115).
Regarding Claim 8, Gomez teaches the mounting system of claim 1, wherein the tensioner is coupled to a spring that is configured to be compressed when the tensioner is in the tensioned position to apply a preload force (Para. 0115, “The drive modules are mounted in modular form to inner frame 542i of the instrument manipulator, which moves along with the drive modules, relative to outer shell 542h and support hooks 542f of the instrument manipulator. When the latch is closed, the inner frame of the instrument manipulator moves toward the instrument a set distance, and spring-loaded module outputs engage instrument inputs through a sterile drape, as further described below. When the latch is opened, the process is reversed. Spring-loaded actuator drive module outputs provide a robust interface with the instrument force transmission mechanism inputs through the drape, as described in more detail below”).
Regarding Claim 9, Gomez teaches the mounting system of claim 1, wherein the tensioner is coupled to the second mounting portion (Para. 0112).
Regarding Claim 10, Gomez teaches the mounting system of claim 1, wherein the preloading mechanism includes one of a first catch or a first latch associated with the first mounting portion and one of a second catch or a second latch associated with the second mounting portion (Para. 0115).
Regarding Claim 11, Gomez teaches the mounting system of claim 1, wherein the preloading mechanism is configured to clamp the first and second mounting portions together through a protective covering (Para. 0115).
Regarding Claim 12, Gomez teaches the mounting system of claim 1, wherein the first mounting portion is rigidly connected to a linkage of the surgical robot and wherein the second mounting portion is rigidly connected to the end effector (Para. 0110).
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by U.S. Patent Publication 20110282358 awarded to Gomez et al, hereinafter Gomez.
Regarding Claims 2 and 6, Gomez teaches the mounting system of Claim 1. Gomez does not teach wherein the plurality of receptacles is further defined as three receptacles and wherein the plurality of kinematic couplers is further defined as three kinematic couplers, or wherein the contact surfaces of the plurality of receptacles are configured to provide six contact points with the plurality of kinematic couplers. The instant specification does not disclose any criticality associated with claimed number of kinematic couplers/receptacles.
However, Gomez does teach that the number of kinematic couplers/receptacles is an obvious design choice for the need of a particular surgery (Para. 0088).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gomez, i.e. by defining the receptacles and kinematic couplers as taught above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233] (see MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez et al, as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20060095022 awarded to Moll et al.
Regarding Claim 4, Gomez teaches the mounting system of Claim 1. Gomez does not teach wherein at least one receptacle comprises a magnet to magnetically engage one of the kinematic couplers.
However, Moll teaches the usage of magnetic mounting of surgical instruments (Para. 0214, “Referring to FIG. 77, the bottom portion of one embodiment of a sheath instrument base is depicted showing two magnets utilized to facilitate mounting against an instrument driver. Mounting pin interface holes (168) also assist in accurate interfacing with an instrument driver”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cooper by Moll, i.e. by using magnetic coupling as in Moll in the receptacles of Cooper, for the predictable purpose of improving coupling in Cooper as in Moll.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez et al, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20090248039 awarded to Cooper et al.
Regarding Claim 5, Gomez teaches the mounting system of Claim 1. Gomez does not teach wherein the contact surface of at least one receptacle has a conical configuration.
However, in the art of mounting systems (abstract), Cooper teaches the usage of conical receptacles in a mounting system (coupling portion 520).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gomez by Cooper, i.e. by using a conical coupling receptacle, for the predictable purpose of simply substituting one shape of coupling receptacle for another.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jess Mullins whose telephone number is (571)-272-8977. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST M-F.
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)-786-9199 (In USA or Canada) or (571)-272-1000.
/JLM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights