DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/07/2024 has been entered.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2008/0004633 A1 to Arata et al. (hereinafter “Arata”) in view of US 2011/0015483 A1 to Barbagli et al. (hereinafter “Barbagli”), WO 2010/068005 A2, inventors Choi et al. (hereinafter “Choi”) and US 2002/0007188 A1 to Arambula et al. (hereinafter “Arambula”) (Arata, Choi, and Arambula are previously of record).
Regarding claims 1/8/13, Arata discloses (see abstract; Figs. 2A-B; and [0052]-[0063]) a robotic surgery apparatus (30) for performing a surgical procedure (see [0052] & [0059]-[0060]), the apparatus comprising: a base unit (39) comprising a plurality of wheels (38) configured to facilitate movement of the robotic surgery apparatus along a horizontal surface (see Figs. 2A-B and [0060], the horizontal surface is the floor of the room the device is in), one or more of the plurality of wheels being selectively lockable to lock a position of the base unit (see [0060]); a member assembly (arm 33) comprising a first portion (33a) at a proximal end directly coupled to the base unit and a second portion (33B-33c) pivotally connected to the first portion (at 33d), the second portion extending to a distal end (near #36, Fig. 2A); the member assembly comprising five degrees of freedom (DOF1-5, see Fig. 2B and [0061]-[0062]); a support arm (36) extending between from a first end to a second end and coupled to the distal end of the member assembly (see Fig. 2B and [0062]); and a robotic arm (35) operatively connected to the support arm via a robotic arm mount (see Fig. 2B and [0061]/[0063]); (cl. 1/13) the robotic arm configured to removably couple to a robotic instrument (see Fig. 2B and [0061]/[0063]) configured to move relative to its associated robotic arm responsive to electrical signals received from an external input device (see [0059] of Arata which discusses that the haptic device 30 may be robotic and as set forth in US Pat. No. 7,206,626 to Quaid (which is incorporated by reference); Quaid sets forth (see C5L44-C6L24) that the surgical tool end effector is haptically controlled by a surgeon remotely or a surgeon present in proximity to surgical tool, thus inferring that electrical signals control the surgical tool 112 from an external input device; therefore, Arata’s robotic instrument would also be controlled responsive to electrical signals received from an external input device); (cl. 8/13) the second portion only pivoting in pitch relative to the first portion (see Fig. 2B, DOF4 is the only pivot axis connecting first portion 33b to second portion 33c wherein said pivoting of the second portion of the member assembly relative to the first portion of the member assembly raises or lowers the robotic arm relative to the horizontal surface (see Fig. 2B, if first portion 33b is rotated about DOF3, then DOF4 connecting first portion 33b to second portion 33c. would be arranged such that the motion about DOF4 would raise or lower the robotic arm relative to the horizontal surface/plane of the floor); the five degrees of freedom including three pivotal degrees of freedom and two rotational degrees of freedom (DOF1-5, see Fig. 2B and [0061]-[0062]; showing two pivotal and two rotational degrees of freedom, further, as per [0062], an additional pivotal degree of freedom could be added to augment the degrees of freedom to enhance dexterity of the arm). Note that Arata discloses that multiple tools needed for a particular procedure are attachable to the robot, and thus teaches a plurality of robotic instruments (see [0063]).
Arata fails to specifically disclose wherein the member assembly proximal end is directly coupled to and extending at a non-vertical angle from the base unit; wherein the support arm is a non-linear support arm, wherein four robotic arms are operatively coupled to the non-linear support arm between the first end and the second end via four robotic arm mounts; wherein one or more of the four robotic arms is laterally moveable along a path between the first end and the second end of the non-linear support arm while coupled to the non-linear support arm; and in a first operable position when the non-linear support arm is oriented so that a center of the non-linear support arm is disposed over a patient and the first end and the second end of the non-linear support arm are at a same vertical position above the horizontal surface in a direction perpendicular to the horizontal surface, two of the robotic arm mounts positioned proximate the first end and the second end of the non-linear support arm are vertically lower than two of the robotic arm mounts closer to a center of the non-linear support arm, each of the four robotic arms configured to removably couple to a robotic instrument configured to move relative to its associated robotic arm, the associated robotic arm being configured to support and position the robotic instrument according to multiple surgical degrees of freedom.
Barbagli discloses (see abstract; Fig. 3A; and [0022]-[0027]) a robotic surgery apparatus (46) for performing a surgical procedure (see [0002] & [0023]-[0025]), the apparatus comprising: a base unit (48) comprising a plurality of wheels (50) configured to facilitate movement of the robotic surgery apparatus along a horizontal surface (see Figs. 3A and [0025], the horizontal surface is the floor of the room the device is in), one or more of the plurality of wheels being selectively lockable to lock a position of the base unit (see [0025]); a member assembly (54) comprising a first portion (64) at a proximal end directly coupled to and extending at a non-vertical angle from the base unit (see Fig. 3A and [0025], “(t)he proximal member (64) may be configured to lockably rotate or roll relative to the mobile base (48)”) and a second portion (60) pivotally connected to the first portion (at 62), the second portion extending to a distal end (see Fig. 3A) in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of providing a rotate/roll degree of freedom(s) at the connection point of the member assembly to the wheeled base to allow the system or the user to position the device by adjusting the rotate/roll at said connection point (see [0025]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Arata’s device with the rotate/roll connection point between the member assembly and the wheeled base to provide a rotate/roll degree of freedom(s) at the connection point of the member assembly to the wheeled base to allow the system or the user to position the device by adjusting the rotate/roll at said connection point.
Choi discloses (see abstract; Figs. 6-11; and [86]-[100]) a robotic surgery apparatus for performing a surgical procedure (see abstract), the apparatus comprising: a base unit (10, Figs. 1/5, also seen to comprise the horizontal support connected to the base of the operating bed as shown in Fig. 7, see [67]) comprising a plurality of wheels (30) to facilitate movement of the robotic surgery apparatus (see Figs. 1/5; [77]; [82]), one or more of the plurality of wheels being selectively lockable to lock a position of the base unit (via stoppers 32, see Fig. 5 and [82]); a member assembly (vertical support portion and first support arm 62, Fig. 7) having a proximal end (as shown Fig. 7, where vertical support meets horizontal support which is attached to base of bed) coupled to the base unit and extending to a distal end (distal end of 62), the member assembly comprising a first portion (vertical support portion) and a second portion (first support arm 62), the first portion pivotally connected to the second portion (pivotal connection shown in Fig. 7 via double-headed arrow); a non-linear support arm (64, Fig. 7, but using the embodiment shown in Figs. 10-11) extending between from a first end to a second end, the non-linear support arm coupled to the distal end of the member assembly (see Figs. 10-11 and [94]-[100]); four robotic arms (70) operatively coupled to the non-linear support arm between the first end and the second end via four robotic arm mounts (see Figs. 10-11 and [94]-[100]); each of the four robotic arms configured to removably couple to a robotic instrument (51) of a plurality of robotic instruments (see Figs. 6-8 and [86]/[94], multiple robotic instruments 51 are shown/disclosed) configured to move relative to its associated robotic arm (see Figs. 6-11, the associated degrees of freedom within each robot arm module 70 would allow the associated robotic instrument 51 to move relative to the associated robotic arm (e.g., the proximal link of the robot arm module could stay stationary while a more distal link rotates to move the associated robotic instrument), the associated robotic arm being configured to support and position the robotic instrument according to multiple surgical degrees of freedom (see Figs. 10-11, at least two pivot points are shown about which rotation can occur between robot arm 70 and tool 51) in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of providing multiple robot arms on a support arm assembly by fabricating them as detachable modules so that multiple tools required from a particular surgery can be used at the same time while ensuring that the robot arm modules are not positioned far away from the patient by ensuring that the center of motion of each robot arm faces the patient (see [54], [95], [99], [100]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Arata's support arm (as modified by Barbagli above) with the curved, non-linear support arm capable of supporting four simultaneous instruments, as taught by Choi, in order to provide providing multiple robot arms on a support arm assembly by fabricating them as detachable modules so that multiple tools required from a particular surgery can be used at the same time while ensuring that the robot arm modules are not positioned far away from the patient by ensuring that the center of motion of each robot arm faces the patient.
In making the proposed combination, it is noted that wrist 36 of Arata is disclosed as having up to three degrees of freedom on its own (see [0062]). Therefore, providing the curved support arm 64 of Choi on the wrist 36 of Arata would result in the curved support arm 64 being oriented so that a center of the non-linear support arm is disposed over the patient and the first end and the second end of the non-linear support are at a same vertical position above the horizontal plane in a direction perpendicular to the horizontal plane, two of the robotic arm mounts proximate the first end and the second end of the non-linear support arm are vertically lower than two of the robotic arm mounts closer to a center of the non-linear support arm (due to the curved structure of Choi's support arm, which can be maneuvered according to three degrees of freedom and thus could be pivoted to place the support arm in the orientation claimed and the resulting structure would have , two of the robotic arm mounts proximate the first end and the second end of the non-linear support arm are vertically lower than two of the robotic arm mounts closer to a center of the non-linear support arm). Additionally, the associated robotic arm would be configured to support and position the respective robotic instrument according to multiple surgical degrees of freedom based on electrical signals received from an external input device; and the pivoting of the second portion of the member assembly relative to first portion of the member assembly would raise or lower the non-linear support arm (of Choi incorporated into Arata) relative to the horizontal surface/plane.
The combination of Arata, Barbagli, and Choi still fails to specifically disclose wherein one or more of the four robotic arms is laterally moveable along a path between the first end and the second end of the non-linear support arm while coupled to the non-linear support arm.
Arambula discloses (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; and [0070]-[0079]), in the same field of endeavor, a robotic surgery apparatus (10, Fig. 1) for performing a surgical procedure (see at least [0070]), comprising a non-linear support arm (12, see Figs. 1/3 and [0072]) extending from a first end to a second end, one or more (see [0079]) robotic arms (40, see [0073]/[0077]/[0079] and Figs. 1/3) operatively coupled to the non-linear support arm between the first end and the second end via four robotic arm mounts; wherein one or more of the robotic arms are laterally moveable (“R1” – Figs. 1/3) along a path between the first end and the second end of the non-linear support arm while coupled to the non-linear support arm (see [0073]/[0079] and Figs. 1/3) for the purpose of allowing the distal end of a surgical instrument to remain positioned at or near a desired target point by allowing multiple surgical instruments to simultaneously target the same tissue from different angles towards the same operative site in the patient by allowing them to move along the curved support (see [0079]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Arata's support arm (as modified by Barbagli and Choi above), with the slideable arms along the curved guide, as taught by Arambula, in order to allow the distal end of a surgical instrument to remain positioned at or near a desired target point by allowing multiple surgical instruments to simultaneously target the same tissue from different angles towards the same operative site in the patient by allowing them to move along the curved support.
The combination of Arata, Barbagli, Choi, and Arambula for the reasons set forth above, would further disclose (claim 2) wherein each of the plurality of wheels is selectively lockable to lock the position of the base unit (see Figs. 2A-B and [0060] of Arata); (claims 3/4/9/14) wherein the member assembly is rotatably/pivotably connected to the base (at DOF1, see Fig. 2B and [0061] of Arata); (claims 5/10/16) wherein the non-linear support arm is coupled to the distal end of the member assembly at the first end of the non-linear support arm (see Figs. 10-11 of Choi, would be coupled to wrist 36 of Arata); (claims 6/11/17) wherein the member assembly is configured to support the robotic arm at different heights relative to the base unit (see Fig. 2B of Arata, the various DOF1-5 can change the height of the end effector)); (claims 7/12/18) wherein the member assembly is configured to support the robotic arm at different angles relative to the base unit (see Fig. 2B of Arata, the various DOF1-5 can change the angle of the end effector); (claim 15) wherein the member assembly comprising a first portion (33b) and a second portion (33c), the first portion pivotally connected to the second portion (via DOF4, see Fig. 2B of Arata); and (claims 19-20) further comprising a locking mechanism configured to lock a degree of freedom of the member assembly relative to the base unit; wherein the degree of freedom corresponds to the movement of the four robotic arms along the path between the first end and the second end of the non-linear support arm (see [0073]-[0079] of Arambula, it is inherent that there is some locking mechanism to stop surgical instrument holder 40 along the path between the ends of the curved cross member 12, otherwise, the holders 40 would slide towards the ends via gravity and the risk of the holder 40 moving during a procedure would be dangerous to the patient).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the combination of references fails to teach the limitation involving the robotic instrument is configured to move relative to its associated robotic arm. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Choi, there are multiple degrees of freedom within each robot arm module 70 which would allow the associated robotic instrument 51 to move relative to the associated robotic arm (e.g., the proximal link of the robot arm module could stay stationary while a more distal link rotates to move the associated robotic instrument see Figs. 10-11, at least two pivot points are shown about which rotation can occur between robot arm 70 and tool 51. This is sufficient to mee the limitation that there is motion of the robotic instrument relative to at least a portion of its associated robotic arm (in other words, movement of the robotic instrument does not require movement of the entirety of the robotic arm such that the robotic instrument can move relative to its robotic arm).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the robotic arm/instrument comprising a second, independent "layer" of manipulation, providing a nested, or stacked, configuration in moving the surgical instrument. This architecture allows for gross movement and positioning of an end effector on the robotic instrument via the overall movement of the robotic arm, while simultaneously providing for fine movement and positioning of that end effector through the nested relative movement of the robotic instrument itself about its associated robotic arm. This independent movement of the robotic instrument can provide for enhanced control during surgical procedures; or that the instrument has its own internal actuators or motors or joints that allow it to move independently from the robotic arm; to summarize, a two-stage nested movement) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHAUN L DAVID whose telephone number is (571)270-5263. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-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, Darwin Erezo can be reached on 571-272-4695. 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.
/SHAUN L DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771