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 on March 23, 2026 with respect to the rejections under 112(a) and the 103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejection(s) have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection have been made in view of applicant’s amendments as can be further seen below.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,624,398 to Smith et al. (hereinafter “Smith”) in view of US 2011/0238080 A1 to Ranjit et al. (hereinafter “Ranjit”).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches:
A rotational actuator/rotational joint for a robotic arm of a surgical robotic system, the rotational actuator/rotational joint sized and dimensioned to be completely inserted through a trocar (see abstract, first sentence and the following sentences: “ The robotic instrument preferably comprises two arms mounted at the distal end of a multi-lumen tube. Each arm has rotational and flexional joints corresponding to the shoulder, elbow, and wrist of the practitioner,” and col. 7, lines 3-5 and lines 38-42: “Each robot arm is provided with three rotational joints 160, 164, 168 and three flexional joints 162, 166, 170, and the distal end of each robot arm is provided with a gripper 172….. The outer diameter of the multi-lumen tube 150 is small enough to fit through a trocar tube (not shown) and the grippers 172 on the robot arms 18 are similar in size to the grippers of known endoscopic instruments.”), and configured to provide rotational movement about a central axis of the rotational actuator/rotational joint(s) (see annotated figs. 1B and figs. 25-26 below, col. 5, lines 10-23, col. 7, lines 3-14 and 57-67, col. 8, lines 1-3, and col. 16, lines 7-19, 45-53, and 65-67, and col. 17, lines 1-6). The central axis of rotation is shown by the annotated fig. 25-26 below (second version), which shows the central axis of the elbow and wrist joint perpendicular to the central rotation axis of the pulley, which has also been previously disclosed above in column. 16, lines 7-19 and lines 45-53.
PNG
media_image1.png
459
1432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
811
1869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
921
2252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, the rotational actuator/joints comprising:
a proximal end and a distal end (see annotated fig. 1B below):
PNG
media_image4.png
644
1617
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a rotary female body defining an inner chamber (see fig. 25, 164 and 616) extending between the proximal end and the distal end ;
a rotary male body/stem rotatable in the inner chamber relative to the rotary female body (see fig. 25, 614 and 616), but does not explicitly disclose the following:
a rotary female body defining an inner chamber extending between the proximal end and the distal end;
a first rotatable constraint disposed at the proximal end;
and
a second rotatable constraint disposed at the distal end,
the first and second rotatable constraints supporting configured to handle axial and rotational loads exerted on the rotational actuator to constrain the rotary male body relative to the rotary female body during operation of the rotational actuator.
However, Ranjit teaches a robotic surgical instrument system comprising surgical arms configured to be inserted into an access port of the operative space within a patient (see abstract, fig. 1, and fig. 6). The system (figs. 1 and 6-8) teaches a wrist assembly of the surgical robotic arm containing a rotary male body and a rotary female body defining an inner chamber extending between the proximal end and the distal end (see figs. 17 and annotated fig. 18 below, para [0043]-[0044], and para [0064-0087]),
a first rotatable constraint/bearing disposed at the proximal end;
and
a second rotatable constraint/bearing disposed at the distal end,
the first and second rotatable constraints supporting configured to handle axial and rotational loads exerted on the rotational actuator to constrain the rotary male body relative to the rotary female body during operation of the rotational actuator (see fig. 8-reference numbers 10 and 11, fig. 17, annotated fig. 18 below, para [0047], para [0055], and para [0065]-[0087]). Although not explicitly stated, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the bearings in this system constrain/support movement of the roll shaft relative to the roll pulley for Roll operation of the wrist assembly, therefore supporting axial and rotational loads exerted on the wrist assembly of the robotic arm during operation.
PNG
media_image5.png
645
1493
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Smith with the system of Ranjit to arrive the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by ensuring the robotic device is able to maneuver the surgical cavity while gathering accurate, real-time images of the surgical site while performing the surgical procedure, ultimately increasing the accuracy and safety of the surgical procedure when operating on the patient.
Regarding claim 3, Smith as modified teaches all of the following:
The rotational actuator of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the male rotary body is configured for seating within the inner chamber of the rotary female body/pulley (see Ranjit, annotated fig. 18 above), the seating of the rotary male body and the rotary female body enabling rotation (Roll 1 motion) of the rotatory male body with respect to the rotary female body about the central axis (see Ranjit, annotated fig. 17 below and para [0064]-[0065]). The annotated fig. 17 below shows the central axis of the wrist assembly containing a surgical tool, and the roll 1 motion is accomplished through the use of the Roll 1 shaft (62) and roll 1 pulley (74), as previously stated in the above paragraphs.
PNG
media_image6.png
578
1447
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Smith as modified teaches:
wherein the rotational actuator further comprises a bearing system/two bearings (see Ranjit, annotated fig. 18 below);
and wherein rotation of the rotatory male body/shaft with respect to the rotary female body/pulley is constrained by the bearing system/bearings (see Ranjit, fig. 8-reference numbers 10 and 11, fig. 17, annotated fig. 18 below, para [0047], para [0055], and para [0065]-[0087]). Although not explicitly stated, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the bearings in this system constrain/support movement of the roll shaft relative to the roll pulley for Roll operation of the wrist assembly, therefore supporting axial and rotational loads exerted on the wrist assembly of the robotic arm during operation.
PNG
media_image5.png
645
1493
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Ranjit, and further in view of US 2014/0046340 Al to Wilson et al. (hereinafter “Wilson”).
Regarding claim 2, Smith as modified teaches all of the claimed invention except for: An inner surface of the male rotary body defines a channel extending along the central axis of the rotational actuator from the proximal end to the distal end enabling one or more cables to pass along the central axis through an entire length of the rotational actuator in use.
However, Wilson teaches an in vivo medical robotic device (abstract). The device (fig. 1) contains a male rotary body (a right body configured to be mated with the left body/female body - fig. 3A-12A and para [0053]), where an inner surface of the right body defines a channel (para [0060]) extending along/adjacent to the central axis of the rotational of the rotational actuator from the proximal end to the distal end enabling one or more cables to pass along the central axis through an entire length of the rotational actuator in use (see annotated fig. 2B below and para [0056]).
PNG
media_image7.png
590
1428
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Smith with the teachings of Wilson to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would lead to a reasonable expectation for success, since the prior art shows that the use of cables extending between the male rotary body and the rotational actuator would by provide a more seamless and secure connection, ultimately enhancing the safety of the device while allowing for more precise control and precise movements when performing surgical procedures.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Ranjit, and further in view of US 8,333,780 B1 to Pedros et al. (hereinafter “Pedros”).
Regarding claim 4, Smith as modified teaches a series of pulleys connected to tendons and the shafts of servo motors for the control the joints of the two arms (see Smith, col. 4, lines 8-40),
but does not explicitly disclose wherein a shape of the female rotary body and a shape of the male rotary body form a first pulley for actuation of the rotary male body relative to the rotary female body in a first direction of rotation, and forming a second pulley for actuation of the rotary male body relative to the rotary female body in a second direction of rotation opposite the first direction of rotation.
However, Pedros teaches a surgical tool and method of operation (abstract, line 1). The system (figs. 8-10) discloses wherein a shape of the female rotary body (the pulley in fig. 8, 94) and the shape of the male rotary body (figs. 8-10, 88) for a first pulley for actuation of the rotary male body relative to the rotary female body in a first direction of rotation in order to open the arms of the end effector/control the end effector in one direction, and forming a second pulley for actuation of the rotary male body relative to the rotary female body in a second direction of rotation opposite the first direction of rotation in order to close the end effector arms/control the robotic device’s end effector via cables 112 and 114 (abstract, see figs. 8-10, 88, 94, 120, and 126, col. 5: “The grooves 92, 93 extend the length of the body portion and are aligned with a pulley 94 coupled to pin 88.”, and col. 6, lines 12-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Smith with the teachings of Pedros to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by providing an easy and compact way to alternate the direction of force required to control the rotation of the robotic arm in more than one direction, ultimately allowing for efficient and precise rotation when performing surgical procedures.
Regarding claim 5, Smith as modified teaches:
the rotary actuator of claim 4, further comprising one or more actuation cables/tendons configured to actuate the first pulley and the second pulley (see Smith, Abstract, last sentence: “Tendons are coupled to the pulleys of the servo motors and are fed through the multi-lumen tube to the joints of the two arms” and col. 4, lines 23-30).
Regarding claim 6, Smith as modified teaches all of the following, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more actuation cables/tendons include:
a first actuation cable coupled to the rotary male body to rotate the rotary male body in the first direction of rotation;
and a second actuation cable coupled to the rotary male body to rotate the rotary male body in the second direction of rotation.
However, Pedros discloses a wherein a first actuation cable is coupled (indirectly coupled) to the rotary male body/pin (fig. 8, 88) to rotate the rotary male body in the first direction of rotation (figs. 8-9, 88, 112, and 120);
and a second actuation cable coupled (indirectly coupled) to the rotary male body to rotate the rotary male body in the second direction of rotation (abstract, figs. 10-114 and 126, col. 5: “The grooves 92, 93 extend the length of the body portion and are aligned with a pulley 94 coupled to pin 88.”, and col. 6, lines 12-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Smith with the teachings of Pedros to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by providing an easy and compact way to alternate the direction of force required to control the rotation of the robotic arm in more than one direction, ultimately allowing for efficient and precise rotation when performing surgical procedures.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Ranjit, and Pedros, and further in view of US 5,794,487 to Solomon et al. (hereinafter “Solomon”).
Regarding claim 7, Smith as modified teaches the rotary actuator of claim 6 containing a rotational actuator/drive component,
but does not disclose wherein the rotational actuator is configured such that a change in a length of each of the one or more actuation cables within the rotary actuator is less than about 20% when the actuator moves through 360 degree of rotation.
However, Solomon teaches a drive system for a robotic arm (col. 1, lines 18-20). The system (fig. 3) contains a rotational actuator system/slip-ring assembly that contains a static member/cylinder (fig. 10, 300), an inner rotatable cylinder member (figs. 9-10, 310), and a shaft (fig. 10, 330) that is designed to fit inside/through the inner rotating cylinder (col. 7, lines 15-45) that is used to transmit electrical signals in order to control the rotation of a shaft (fig. 9, 320) within the joint system. In the system, the cable (fig. 9, 320) is made sufficiently long to permit the shaft 330 to rotate many times while ensuring the cable only flexes slightly while the shaft and inner cylinder to rotate through an arc of 360 degrees or more for controlling parts of the robot (col. 2, lines 30-39 and col. 7, lines 15-47 give the details summarized above for this system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant' s invention to engage in routine experimentation to discover the optimal percentage range of 20% or less of a change in the cable length following the rotation of the actuator by 360 degrees. Doing so would improve the system by preventing the cable/tendon from shortening when rotating the rotational actuator, ultimately allowing for more precise and smooth control of the robot during the surgical procedure, while also preserving safety of the patient safety. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”) (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Ranjit, and further in view of US 2014/0025088 A1 to Zarrouk et al. (hereinafter “Zarrouk”).
Regarding claim 8, Farritor’171 as modified teaches the rotary actuator of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the rotary female body has an outer surface defining a first contoured pathway for seating a first actuation cable and defining a second contoured pathway for seating a second actuation cable.
However, Zarrouk teaches a robot device for performing intercranial procedures (abstract, line 1). The system (fig. 2), contains a rotary female body (pulley) having an outer surface defining a first contoured/curved pathway for seating a first actuation cable/drive wire and defining a second contoured/curved pathway for seating a second actuation cable/wire that is used to control/direct the needle/surgical instrument (see annotated fig. 7 below and para [0054]-[0055]).
PNG
media_image8.png
492
1366
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Smith with the teachings of Zarrouk to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would yield expected results, since the prior art shows a curved pathway of the female rotary body ensures the cables or wires are securely positioned to control surgical instruments in the robotic system, ultimately allowing for efficient and precise rotation and control of the robot when performing surgical procedures.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Ranjit, and Zarrouk, and further in view of US 20140358162 A1 to Valdastri et al. (hereinafter “Valdastri”).
Regarding claim 9, Smith as modified teaches all of the following except wherein the inner surface defines a plurality of axially separated pockets for seating the first actuation cable and the second actuation cable about the rotary male body.
However, Valdastri teaches a robotic platform for a mini-invasive surgery containing robotic arms (abstract, lines 1-2). The system (fig. 1) contains an inner/male and outer/female magnetic interface unit/body (fig. 8-6a and 6b and para [0062]) wherein the inner surface defines a plurality of axially separated pockets/guides (fig. 8, 45) for seating the first actuation cable and the second actuation cable about the rotary male body (fig. 8, 6B, 35, and 45 - since the magnetic interface unit (6B) causes winding of the cables to control the robotic arm, the system of 6B is being referred to as the male rotary body).
PNG
media_image9.png
700
1386
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Smith with the teachings of Valdastri to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would yield expected results, since the prior art shows a plurality of axially separated pockets/pathways for seating the wires about the rotary male body in order to properly store the cables while controlling the robotic arms in the robotic surgical system, ultimately allowing for efficient and precise control of the robot when performing the surgical procedure.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Ranjit, and further in view of US 2013/0345717 A1 to Markvicka et al. (hereinafter “Markvicka”).
Regarding claim 11, Smith as modified teaches the rotational actuator of claim 10, wherein the bearing system comprises a first bearing assembly and a second bearing assembly (See Ranjit, annotated fig. 18 below and para [0064]-[0087]),
PNG
media_image5.png
645
1493
media_image5.png
Greyscale
And wherein the first and second bearing includes a first and second rotatable constraint as previously stated in claim 1 above, however, due to not being explicitly stated in the previous reference Ranjit, Markvicka is being referenced to explicitly teach the following constraints:
A robotic medical device comprising robotic arms that are configured to operate within a body cavity (abstract). The device (figs. 1a-1c and fig. 36) comprises a bearing system comprising of a first bearing assembly/one bearing (fig. 36, 666) and a second bearing assembly/a second bearing (fig. 36, 668) and wherein the first bearing assembly includes a first rotatable constraint and a second bearing contains a second rotatable constraint (para [0189]: “As shown in FIG. 36, the driven spur gear 662 and two bearings 666, 668 are positioned on the output link 664 such that the bearings 666, 668 are supported within the proximal gear housing 660 and provide some support and constraint to the output link 664”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified system of Smith with the teachings of Markvicka to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would yield expected results, since the prior art shows the use of a first and second bearing assembly containing first and second constraints, ultimately allowing for efficient and precise control of the robot when performing the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 12, Smith as modified teaches the rotational actuator of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein a diameter of the first bearing assembly is greater than a diameter of the second bearing assembly.
However, Markvicka teaches wherein a diameter of the first bearing assembly is greater than a diameter of the second bearing assembly (see annotated fig. 36 below). The first bearing (fig. 36, 666) is larger and greater in diameter than the second bearing (fig. 36, 668).
PNG
media_image10.png
678
1131
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Smith with the teachings of Markvicka to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would yield expected results, since the prior art shows the use of the second ball bearing being smaller in diameter than the first ball bearing in order to allow the second bearing to properly constrain the male body within the female body, ultimately allowing for efficient and precise control of the robot surgical arms/device.
Regarding claim 13, Farritor’171 as modified teaches the rotational actuator of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first bearing assembly and the second bearing assembly are each and configured for seating about an outer surface of the rotary male body.
However, Markvicka teaches wherein the first bearing assembly and second bearing assemblies are each configured for seating about an outer surface of the rotary male body/output link (para [0189] - [0190]). The first and second bearings (fig. 36, 666 and 668) are each configured to sit on the output link, which are all located within the housing (fig. 36, 660).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Smith with the teachings of Markvicka to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would yield expected results, since the prior art shows the use of first and second bearings seated on the outer surface/on a male rotary body in order to properly constrain the male body/output link, ultimately allowing for efficient and precise control of the robot surgical arms/device.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Ranjit, and Markvicka, and further in view of US 9,033,998 A1 to Schaible et al. (hereinafter “Schaible”).
Regarding claim 14, Smith as modified teaches the rotational actuator of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a distal portion of the rotary female body and a portion of the rotary male body each have formed therein a first bearing race for seating a portion of the first bearing assembly.
However, Schaible discloses a surgical robotic system for minimal invasive surgery (abstract, line 1). The system (fig. 10) contains a plurality of disks containing a core located at the distal region of the robotic arm (see col. 7, 13-24, col. 4, lines 65-67: “ FIG. 3 illustrates a sectional view of the disk 114. As described above, the disk 114 comprises a core 142. In an embodiment, the core 142 can rotate freely inside the disk 114.”, col. 5, lines 1-9: “In this embodiment, the core 142 is secured inside the disk 114 by a bearing system. The bearing system is shown to comprise ball bearings 144 and a bearing race 146. The bearing race 146 is machined along the circumference of the core 142 and the ball bearings 144 travel on the bearing race 146. In this embodiment, the slot 140 provides a passage for the roll cables, whereas slots represented by 138 serve as passage for end-cables. These slots are as described above with reference to FIG. 2.”, fig. 4 -114 and 142, and annotated fig. 10 below) and proximal disks (see annotated fig. 10 below and fig. 4, 112 and 142 and col. 4-5, lines 65-67 and lines 1-9). Furthermore, the distal portion containing rotary female bodies/disks located at the distal portion of the robotic device (see fig. 10 below, 232a) and at least a portion of the rotary male body/core (see annotated fig. 3 below) each have formed therein a first bearing race (fig. 3, 146) for seating a portion of the first bearing assembly/a bearing (fig. 3, 144 - also see annotated fig. 3 below and col. 4, lines 65-67, and col. 5, lines 1-9).
PNG
media_image11.png
584
1429
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
530
1455
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Smith with the teachings of Schaible to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by allowing the male rotary body to be constrained within the rotary female body for proper rotation and movement of the robotic arm, ultimately allowing for efficient and precise control of the robot surgical device.
Regarding claim 15, Smith as modified teaches the rotational actuator of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the rotary actuator further comprises:
a first bearing race ring mounted about the outer surface of the rotary male body and disposed adjacent to the first bearing assembly;
and wherein a distal portion of the rotary female body and the first bearing race ring each include a first bearing race for seating a portion of the first bearing assembly.
However, Schaible teaches a robotic arm containing a distal end and a proximal end (see annotated fig. 10 below), wherein the distal end contains female bodies/disk(s) (fig. 4 - 114), and male body/core (fig. 4, 142), and bearings (see annotated fig. 4 below and col. 5, lines 11-30 (emphasis on lines 11-17: “In this embodiment, the roll motion of the end effector 106 is achieved by using a flexible shaft, hereafter referred to as the roll spine 148, instead of roll cables. Further, in this embodiment, the end effector assembly 106 is secured to the articulation joint assembly 102 through a thrust bearing 150. ”)).
Furthermore, the rotary actuator/articulating joint assembly (fig. 4, 102) comprises a first bearing race ring (see annotated fig. 3, 146) mounted about the outer surface of the rotary male body/core (see annotated fig. 3 below), and disposed adjacent to the first bearing assembly/ bearing (see annotated fig. 3 below). Furthermore, the articulating joint assembly further comprises wherein the distal portion of the rotary female body and the first bearing race ring each include a first bearing race for seating a portion of the first bearing assembly/first bearing (see annotated figs. 3 and 4 below, col. 4, lines 65-67, and col. 5, lines 1-35 – emphasis on col. 4, lines 65-67 and col. 5, lines 1-10 shown here: “FIG. 3 illustrates a sectional view of the disk 114. As described above, the disk 114 comprises a core 142. In an embodiment, the core 142 can rotate freely inside the disk 114. In this embodiment, the core 142 is secured inside the disk 114 by a bearing system. The bearing system is shown to comprise ball bearings 144 and a bearing race 146. The bearing race 146 is machined along the circumference of the core 142 and the ball bearings 144 travel on the bearing race 146. In this embodiment, the slot 140 provides a passage for the roll cables, whereas slots represented by 138 serve as passage for end-cables. These slots are as described above with reference to FIG. 2.”).
PNG
media_image13.png
532
1080
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
642
1458
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
521
1429
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Smith with the teachings of Schaible to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by allowing the male rotary body to be constrained within the rotary female body and allow proper rotation/movement of the robotic arm, ultimately allowing for efficient and precise control of the robot surgical device.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Ranjit, Markvicka, and Schaible, and further in view of US 2014/0039515 A1 to Mondry et al. (hereinafter “Mondry”).
Regarding claim 16, Smith as modified teaches the rotational actuator of claim 15, but does not disclose wherein the actuator further comprising:
a second bearing race ring sized and configured for seating over the outer surface of the rotary male body and axially separated from the first bearing race ring;
a third bearing race ring sized and configured for seating over the outer surface of the rotary male body and axially separated from the second bearing race ring ;
wherein the second ball bearing assembly is disposed between the second bearing race ring and the third bearing race ring;
and wherein each of the second bearing race ring and the third bearing race ring have a second bearing race formed therein for seating a portion of the second bearing assembly (the third bearing race ring and third bearing race ring have two bearing race channels for seating the second bearing assembly).
However, Mondry teaches a robotic medical device used for in vivo medical procedures (abstract and fig. 1). The device (fig. 1) contains a first, second, and third bearings (see annotated fig. 9A below) and contains a second bearing race ring sized and configured for seating over the outer surface of the rotary male body/spur shaft (this shaft fits into the female body/bevel gear body 112A) and axially separated from the first bearing race ring (see annotated fig. 9A-9B below and para [0106]-[0107]),
a third bearing race ring sized and configured for seating over the outer surface of the rotary male body and axially separated from the second bearing race ring (see annotated fig. 9A-9B below);
wherein the second ball bearing assembly (the second ball bearing assembly is inside the race of the second ball bearing although not explicitly shown) is disposed between the second bearing race ring and the third bearing race ring (see second annotated fig. 9A below and para 0106 first sentence),
PNG
media_image16.png
598
1475
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
355
726
media_image17.png
Greyscale
But does not disclose wherein each of the second bearing race ring and the third bearing race ring have a second bearing race formed therein for seating a portion of the second bearing.
However, Markvicka teaches wherein a second bearing race ring and third bearing race ring have a second bearing race formed therein for seating a portion of a second bearing assembly (see annotated figs. 3 and 4 below).
PNG
media_image18.png
538
1056
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
546
1282
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teachings of Smith with the teachings of Mondry and Markvicka to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by providing proper axial support during the rotation/movement of the robotic arm, ultimately providing efficient and effective movements to control the end effector of the robotic surgical device.
Regarding claim 17, Smith as modified teaches the rotational actuator of claim 16, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the rotational actuator further comprises a nut element disposed adjacent to the third bearing race ring for axially compressing together the first bearing assembly, the second bearing assembly, the first bearing race ring, the second bearing race ring, and the third bearing race ring.
However, Mondry teaches wherein the medical device contains a forearm component that transmits rotational motion to the end effector (figs. 21A-21G and para [0127], first sentence). The system (figs. 21A-21G) contains a nut element (fig. 21G, 424 and para [0129]: “In the depicted embodiment, the attachment component 424 is an attachment nut 424. However, it is understood that the specific geometry or configuration of the attachment component 424 can vary depending on the specific robotic device and the specific elbow joint configuration”) that is adjacent to a third bearing race ring (see annotated fig. 21G and fig. 23B below and para [0113] - last two sentences) for axially compressing together the first bearing assembly (within the first bearing), the second bearing assembly (within the second bearing), the first bearing race ring, the second bearing race ring, and the third bearing race ring (see annotated fig. 21E-21G below).
PNG
media_image20.png
504
1014
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
594
1302
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teachings of Smith with the teachings of Mondry to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would yield expected results, since the use of a nut to secure multiple elements in a mechanical system is a known technique that allows for proper functionality and movements of a robotic device.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Ranjit, Markvicka, Schaible, and Mondry, and further in view of US 8,409, 234 B2 to Stahler et al. (hereinafter “Stahler”).
Regarding claim 18, Smith as modified teaches the rotational actuator of claim 16, but does not disclose wherein the third bearing race ring is a splined bearing race ring for mating with a spline formed on the outer surface of the rotary male body for preventing the splined bearing race ring from rotating relative to the rotary male body.
However, Stahler teaches a rotational robotic medical instrument for rotating and controlling a medical tool (abstract, first sentence). The instrument/system (fig. 1) contains a rotational apparatus and a harmonic drive element used to control the distal portion of the robotic device (col. 38, lines 25-29 and fig. 27A, 250 and 341). Furthermore, the device (fig. 1) contains a circular spline (see annotated fig. 27A- 27C below) designed to fit onto the teeth (see fig. 27A, 351) of the rotational apparatus (fig. 27A, 250), and contains a wave generator/male body that couples to a servomotor or power source to control the robotic device and
that fits inside both the circular spline/spline bearing and the bore, such that circular spline/spline bearing mates with the spline/external teeth and the flexspline (fig. 27A, 345) of the outer surface of the rotary male body (indirectly since the spline is on the first/female outer surface and then the male body/wave generator) for preventing the splined bearing race ring from rotating relative to the rotary male body (col. 38, lines 20-36 and 51-67, col. 39, lines 1-3 and lines 16-20 and lines 62-67, and col. 40, lines 1-8: “ When the wave generator 343 has rotated 180.degree. clockwise, the flexspline 347 has regressed by one tooth relative to the circular spline 347. In this embodiment, each complete revolution of the wave generator 343 displaces the flexspline 345 two teeth counter-clockwise relative to the circular spline 347. FIG. 27C illustrates the displacement of the marked position 355 on the flexspline 345 relative to FIG. 27B in a counter-clockwise direction in response to clockwise revolutions of the wave generator 343. This displacement is in the opposite direction of the rotation of the wave generator 343 such that if the wave generator 343 of this example rotates in a counter-clockwise direction, then the two tooth per revolution displacement of the flexspline 345 will be in a clockwise direction.”). The mating between the circular spline teeth (after the wave generator is entered inside the bore) and the external teeth 351 of the flexspline 345 ultimately prevents the splined bearing race ring from rotating relative to the rotary male body/wave generator.
PNG
media_image22.png
708
814
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image23.png
742
1000
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teachings of Smith with the teachings of Stahler to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by preventing torque on the nut that could potentially loosen the nut as time progresses, ultimately preserving the functionality of the surgical robotic device.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Ranjit, and further in view of US 5,447,403 to Engler, Jr . (hereinafter “Engler”).
Regarding claim 19, Smith as modified teaches the rotational actuator of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the rotary female connector further comprises first and second outwardly extending and spaced apart first boss elements forming a proximal connection component at a proximal end of the rotary female body for connection to an adjacent first actuator or a first component of the robotic arm;
wherein the rotary male connector further comprises first and second outwardly extending and spaced apart second boss elements forming a distal connection component for connection to an adjacent second actuator or a second component of the robotic arm;
and wherein the rotary male body is hollow forming a pass-through hole extending along the central axis.
However, Engler teaches a human-like mechanical arm and hand controlled by a human operator (abstract and fig. 1a-1b). The robot (fig. 1a) contains a plurality of links (fig. 2 and fig. 3d-32, 34, 36, and 38) in which a first link/rotary female connector (fig. 3d, 38) contains first and second outwardly extending and spaced apart first boss elements forming a proximal connection component at a proximal end of the rotary female body for connection to an adjacent first actuator or a first component of the robotic finger (see annotated fig. 3d below and col. 3, lines 49-68 and col. 4, lines 1-14 - overall details of the connection of all components including the first and second outwardly extending and spaced apart boss elements), and wherein the rotary male connector/rotary male link further comprises first and second outwardly extending and spaced apart second boss elements forming a distal connection component for connection to an adjacent second actuator or a second component of the robotic finger portion attached to the robotic arm (see annotated fig. 3d below and col. 3, lines 49-68 and col. 4, lines 1-14);
and wherein the rotary male body (see fig. 3d, 34) is hollow forming a pass-through hole extending along the central axis (see annotated figs. 3d-3e and col. 4, lines 3- 31—emphasis on the cables passing through the links 34 and 36, therefore showing the rotatable male body is a hollow with a pass-through hole extending along the central axis).
PNG
media_image24.png
628
1430
media_image24.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image25.png
447
915
media_image25.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teachings of Smith with the teachings of Engler to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modifications would improve the system by allowing for a more secure connection of the actuation components that form the surgical mechanical arms/device, ultimately allowing more for efficient and precise control of the robot surgical device.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Markvicka and Engler.
Regarding claim 20, Smith teaches:
A rotational actuator/rotational joint for a robotic arm of a surgical robotic system, the rotational actuator/rotational joint sized and dimensioned to be completely inserted through a trocar (see abstract, first sentence and the following sentences: “ The robotic instrument preferably comprises two arms mounted at the distal end of a multi-lumen tube. Each arm has rotational and flexional joints corresponding to the shoulder, elbow, and wrist of the practitioner,” and col. 7, lines 3-5 and lines 38-42: “Each robot arm is provided with three rotational joints 160, 164, 168 and three flexional joints 162, 166, 170, and the distal end of each robot arm is provided with a gripper 172….. The outer diameter of the multi-lumen tube 150 is small enough to fit through a trocar tube (not shown) and the grippers 172 on the robot arms 18 are similar in size to the grippers of known endoscopic instruments.”), and configured to provide rotational movement about a central axis of the rotational actuator/rotational joint(s) (see annotated figs. 1B and figs. 25-26 below, col. 5, lines 10-23, col. 7, lines 3-14 and 57-67, col. 8, lines 1-3, and col. 16, lines 7-19, 45-53, and 65-67, and col. 17, lines 1-6). The central axis of rotation is shown by the annotated fig. 25-26 below (second version), which shows the central axis of the elbow and wrist joint perpendicular to the central rotation axis of the pulley, which has also been previously disclosed above in column. 16, lines 7-19 and lines 45-53.
PNG
media_image1.png
459
1432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
811
1869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
921
2252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
And wherein the rotational actuator comprises:
a rotary female body defining an inner chamber (see fig. 25, 164 and 616) having a first end,
PNG
media_image26.png
299
1237
media_image26.png
Greyscale
but does not explicitly teach wherein at least one rotatable constraint is disposed between the rotary male body and female body, wherein the at least one rotatable constraint is configured to handle axial and rotational loads exerted on the rotational actuator to constrain the rotary male body relative to the rotary female body.
However, Markvicka teaches:
A robotic medical device comprising robotic arms that are configured to operate within a body cavity (abstract). The device (figs. 1a-1c and fig. 36) comprises a bearing system comprising of a first bearing assembly/one bearing (fig. 36, 666) and a second bearing assembly/a second bearing (fig. 36, 668) and wherein the first bearing assembly includes a first rotatable constraint and a second bearing contains a second rotatable constraint (para [0189]: “As shown in FIG. 36, the driven spur gear 662 and two bearings 666, 668 are positioned on the output link 664 such that the bearings 666, 668 are supported within the proximal gear housing 660 and provide some support and constraint to the output link 664”), and wherein the bearing (see fig. 36, 668) is positioned between the screw/rotary male body (see fig. 36, 670 and para [0189]) and the rotary female body/spur gear (see fig. 36, 662).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified system of Smith with the teachings of Markvicka to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would yield expected results, since the prior art shows the use of a first and second bearing assembly containing first and second constraints, ultimately allowing for efficient and precise control of the robot when performing the surgical procedure.
Although Smith and Markvicka teach the rotary male body and female body and bearing assembly, they do not explicitly teach wherein the rotary female body contains first and second outwardly extending and spaced apart first boss elements forming a first connection component at the first end of the rotary female body for connection to an adjacent first actuator or a first component of the robotic arm, and wherein the rotary male body defining a hollow pass-through channel extending along a central rotation axis of the rotational actuator,
and the rotary male body including first and second outwardly extending and spaced apart second boss elements forming a second connection component for connection to an adjacent second actuator or a second component of the robotic arm.
However, Engler teaches a human-like mechanical arm and hand controlled by a human operator (abstract and fig. 1a-1b). The robot (fig. 1a) contains a plurality of links (fig. 2 and fig. 3d-32, 34, 36, and 38) in which a first link/rotary female connector (fig. 3d, 38) contains first and second outwardly extending and spaced apart first boss elements forming a proximal connection component at a proximal end of the rotary female body for connection to an adjacent first actuator or a first component of the robotic finger (see annotated fig. 3d below and col. 3, lines 49-68 and col. 4, lines 1-14 - overall details of the connection of all components including the first and second outwardly extending and spaced apart boss elements), and wherein the rotary male connector/rotary male link further comprises first and second outwardly extending and spaced apart second boss elements forming a distal connection component for connection to an adjacent second actuator or a second component of the robotic finger portion attached to the robotic arm (see annotated fig. 3d below and col. 3, lines 49-68 and col. 4, lines 1-14);
and wherein the rotary male body (see fig. 3d, 34) is hollow forming a pass-through hole extending along the central axis (see annotated figs. 3d-3e and col. 4, lines 3- 31— emphasis of the cables passing through the links 34 and 36, therefore showing the rotatable male body is a hollow with a pass-through hole extending along the central axis).
PNG
media_image24.png
628
1430
media_image24.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image25.png
447
915
media_image25.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teachings of Smith with the connection system of Engler to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modifications would improve the system by allowing for a more secure connection of the actuation components that form the surgical mechanical arms/device, ultimately allowing for efficient and precise control of the robot surgical device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Biera et al. (US 2013/0304084 A1) teaches a mechanical manipulator system that uses a cable-driven mechanical transmission.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARMEL J WEBSTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5960. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights