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 . 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it was not submitted on a separate sheet. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Furthermore, the lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 1 (line 1) and 7 (line 3), the reference numerals are still included; In claim 1, line 4, the semicolon should be replaced with a colon; In claim 7, line 1, the spacing is incorrect (“system of claim1” should be replaced with -system of claim 1-). Appropriate correction 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.
Claims 5 and 6 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "an input portion" in line 2. The antecedent basis for this limitation is confusing, since it’s unclear how/whether it’s related to the previously-recited “input connector”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the input control signal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beale, WO 2020/188249 (hereinafter Beale; included in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Beale discloses (note figs. 3-5) a robot-assisted surgical system comprising: an electrosurgical generator unit (9); an electrosurgical instrument (15); and a robotic surgical tool (100) comprising: an articulated arm (proximal ‘106’); an instrument holder comprising a body having: a proximal portion (intermediate and distal 106’s) that is mountable on and manipulable by the articulated arm, the proximal portion necessarily being configured to receive a ‘power input’ that is conveyed through the articulated arm; a distal portion (112) configured to retain the electrosurgical instrument; and an intermediate portion (110) configured to receive the electrosurgical generator unit, wherein the electrosurgical generator unit is detachably mountable (note pg. 12, line 13) on the instrument holder and comprises: a housing (i.e., ‘box’ forming the boundary of ‘9’); an input connector having a ‘power coupling unit’ configured to receive a ‘power feed’ via the instrument holder (note pg. 4, line 15; pg. 8, line 5; pg. 9, line 32); a signal generator necessarily contained within the housing, the signal generator being configured to generate an electrosurgical signal (note pg. 13, line 18); and (necessarily) an energy delivery structure configured to couple the electrosurgical signal into an output port of the intermediate portion, from where it is deliverable to the electrosurgical instrument via a transmission line disposed within the instrument holder.
Regarding claim 2, Beale discloses (see above) a robot-assisted surgical system wherein the intermediate portion comprises a ‘recess’ (note figs. 4-5 – formed by ‘11’ and ‘14’), and wherein the housing is detachably mountable (note pg. 12, line 13) in the recess.
Regarding claim 5, Beale discloses (see above; as best understood by Examiner) a robot-assisted surgical system wherein the electrosurgical generator unit further comprises an input portion that is communicably connectable to a control network of the robot-assisted surgical system, wherein the controller is configured to receive the control signal from the control network of the robot-assisted surgical system (note pg. 4, lines 26-37).
Regarding claim 7, Beale discloses (see above) a robot-assisted surgical system wherein the electrosurgical generator unit further comprises a fluid supply and a fluid conduit configured to couple fluid from the fluid supply into the robot-assisted surgical system (note pg. 14, line 20).
Regarding claim 9, Beale discloses (see above) a robot-assisted surgical system wherein the electrosurgical generator unit further comprises a signal detector contained within the housing and connected to the energy delivery structure, wherein the signal detector is configured to sample a signal characteristic on the energy delivery structure, and to generate a detection signal which is indicative of the signal characteristic (note pg. 8, line 5).
Regarding claim 12, Beale discloses (see above) a robot-assisted surgical system wherein the signal generator comprises a microwave source and an amplification unit coupled to the microwave source, and wherein the electrosurgical signal comprises a microwave signal (note pg. 4, line 12; pg. 15, line 32).
Regarding claim 13, Beale discloses (see above) a robot-assisted surgical system wherein the signal generator comprises a radiofrequency (RF) signal generator, and wherein the electrosurgical signal comprises an RF signal (note pg. 13, line 18).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Beale discloses (see above) a robot-assisted surgical system
wherein the electrosurgical instrument comprises an ‘elongate probe’ necessarily having a proximal energy conveying structure and a distal tip, wherein the instrument holder is configured to couple the electrosurgical signal into the proximal energy conveying structure for delivery to the distal tip (note fig. 3), and further comprising a control console connected to the articulated arm via a control network, wherein the control console is configured to control the electrosurgical generator unit using a control signal transmitted via the control network (note pg. 4, lines 26-37).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale in view of Shelton, U.S. 2020/0405403 (hereinafter Shelton).
Regarding claim 3, Beale discloses (see above) a robot-assisted surgical system wherein the intermediate portion comprises a recess configured to receive the electrosurgical generator unit, and wherein the intermediate portion is configured to couple electrosurgical signals from the electrosurgical generator unit into the electrosurgical instrument. However, Beale fails to explicitly disclose a system comprising a plurality of intermediate portion recesses with corresponding electrosurgical generator units. Shelton teaches (note fig. 3) a similar system comprising multiple power sources therein (note paragraph 414). It is well known in the art that this configuration would result in increased efficiency and versatility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the system of Beale to comprise a plurality of power sources therein in order to increase efficiency and versatility. While this combination of references fails to expressly teach that these power sources are disposed within respective intermediate portion recesses, it is well known in the art that these different generator configurations/locations are widely considered to be interchangeable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have further modified the system of Beale to comprise any of a number of different generator configurations/locations (including the claimed one). This is because this modification would have merely comprised a simple substitution of interchangeable generator configurations in order to produce a similar result (see MPEP 2143). It should also be noted that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale.
Regarding claim 4, Beale discloses (see above) a robot-assisted surgical system further comprising a controller that is operatively connected to the signal generator, wherein the controller is configured to receive a control signal and to control the signal generator based on the received control signal (note pg. 4, line 19). However, Beale fails to explicitly disclose that this controller is contained within the housing of the electrosurgical generator unit. It is well known in the art that these different controller configurations (i.e., operatively connected to the generator unit vs disposed within the generator unit) are widely considered to be interchangeable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the system of Beale to comprise either controller configuration (including the claimed ‘controller contained within the housing of the electrosurgical generator unit’). This is because this modification would have merely comprised a simple substitution of interchangeable controller configurations in order to produce a similar result (see MPEP 2143). It should also be noted that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 11, Beale discloses (see above) a robot-assisted surgical system further comprising a battery, wherein the battery is configured as a power supply for the electrosurgical generator unit (note pg. 4, line 15). However, Beale fails to explicitly disclose that this battery is contained within the housing of the electrosurgical generator unit. It is well known in the art that these different power supply configurations (i.e., internal vs external) are widely considered to be interchangeable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the system of Beale to comprise either power supply configuration (including the claimed ‘battery contained within the housing of the electrosurgical generator unit’). This is because this modification would have merely comprised a simple substitution of interchangeable power supply configurations in order to produce a similar result (see MPEP 2143). It should also be noted that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale in view of Shelton, U.S. 2019/0059985 (hereinafter Shelton-2).
Regarding claim 6, Beale discloses (see above) a robot-assisted surgical system comprising a controller. However, Beale fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller includes a wireless communication module configured to receive the input control signal wirelessly. Shelton-2 teaches that “electronic communication between various components of a robotic surgical system can be wired or wireless” (note paragraph 147). It is well known in the art that these different electronic communication configurations (i.e., wired vs wireless) are widely considered to be interchangeable (as can be seen in Shelton-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the system of Beale to comprise either electronic communication configuration (including the claimed ‘wireless’ configuration). This is because this modification would have merely comprised a simple substitution of interchangeable electronic communication configurations in order to produce a similar result (see MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale in view of Turovskiy, U.S. 9,468,499 (hereinafter Turovskiy).
Regarding claim 8, Beale discloses (see above) a robot-assisted surgical system wherein the energy delivery structure may comprise “any suitable antenna that is configured to radiate RF or microwave energy” (note pg. 12, lines 3-5). While Beale also discloses that this energy delivery structure may be cooled (note pg. 14, line 20), Beale fails to explicitly disclose that the energy delivery structure and the fluid conduit are contained in a common feed structure, wherein the common feed structure comprises a coaxial transmission line having an inner conductor separated from an outer conductor by a dielectric material, wherein the fluid conduit comprises a passageway formed within the inner conductor. Turovskiy teaches (note figs. 12A-B) a similar system comprising an energy delivery structure and a fluid conduit contained in a common feed structure, wherein the common feed structure comprises a coaxial transmission line having the claimed configuration (note col. 12, line 53). It is well known in the art that these different cooled microwave configurations are widely considered to be interchangeable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the system of Beale to comprise the cooled microwave configuration taught by Turovskiy. This is because this modification would have merely comprised a simple substitution of interchangeable cooled microwave configurations in order to produce a predictable result (see MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale in view of Min, U.S. 2014/0324070 (hereinafter Min).
Regarding claim 10, Beale discloses (see above) a robot-assisted surgical system wherein the power feed is from a battery, and wherein the signal generator is configured to generate the electrosurgical signal using the battery. However, Beale fails to explicitly disclose that the power feed is a DC signal, wherein the signal generator is configured to generate the electrosurgical signal using the DC signal. Min teaches a similar system that can utilize either a battery or a DC power supply for this purpose (note paragraph 76). It is well known in the art that these different power source configurations are widely considered to be interchangeable (as can be seen in Min). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the system of Beale so that the power feed is a DC signal, wherein the signal generator is configured to generate the electrosurgical signal using the DC signal (as taught by Min). This is because this modification would have merely comprised a simple substitution of interchangeable power source configurations in order to produce a similar result (see MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANTHONY GIULIANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
/THOMAS A GIULIANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794