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, see “Applicant Arguments/Remarks”, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejections in view of Cooper and the Objection to Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection/Objections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gomez. As the change in art was not due to Applicant’s error, this action is Non-Final.
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, 3, 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 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”).
Regarding Claim 3, Gomez teaches the mounting system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of kinematic couplers is further defined as a ball (Para. 0118, “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. The distal end of dogbone lines 712 are coupled to output gimbals 742c/d, which each rotate about two orthogonal axes perpendicular to the longitudinal axis through gimbal pin 710. In one aspect, the gimbals of the drive modules have two degrees of freedom but do not have orthogonal axes”).
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
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