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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, line 2, “assemblies” should read “assembly.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8, 343,171 B2 to Farritor et al. (hereinafter “Farritor”).
Regarding claim 1, Farritor teaches:
a rotational actuator/piston assembly (fig. 2A, 42C and col. 6, lines 34-46) for a robotic arm of a surgical robotic system (fig. 7A-7B, 202 & 204, col. 6, lines 34-46, and col. 8, lines 4-50), the rotational actuator/piston assembly sized and dimensioned for insertion through a trocar (trocar or trocar-like component) (col 8, lines 38-44 and col. 18, lines 5-32)
and configured to provide rotational movement about a central axis of the rotational actuator/drive component (see annotated fig. 2A-2B below, col. 6, lines 34-46, and lines col. 12, lines 22-31),
the rotational actuator/piston assembly comprising:
a proximal end and a distal end (see the second annotated fig. 7A-7B below);
a rotary female body/drive component (fig. 7A, 204 and col. 8, lines 11-17) defining an inner chamber (due to containing a connecting shaft inside the drive component, the drive component must have an inner chamber extending between the proximal end and the distal end) (see annotated fig. 7B-204 and 217 and col. 8, lines 11-26);
a rotary male body (connecting shaft) rotatable in the inner chamber relative to the rotary female body (col. 8, lines 11-31);
a first rotatable constraint/ coupling component disposed at the proximal end (see annotated fig. 7B, 216 and col. 8, lines 11-25);
and a second rotatable constraint/another rotatable constraint disposed at the distal end (see annotated fig. 7B, 218 and col. 8, lines 11-25), the first and second rotatable constraints supporting axial and rotational loads on the rotational actuator (the couplable gears support axial and rotational loads in order to control the rotational actuators/piston assemblies (col. 6, lines 34-46, col. 8, lines 1-25).
PNG
media_image2.png
737
721
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1114
1549
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
692
1256
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Farritor teaches 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 (see annotated fig. 7B above, 204 and 217) the seating of the rotary male body and the rotary female body enabling rotation of the rotatory male body with respect to the rotary female body about the central axis (see annotated fig. 7B below and col. 8, line 1-31).
PNG
media_image5.png
616
1131
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Farritor teaches the rotational actuator of claim 1, wherein the rotational actuator further comprises a bearing system/bearings (col. 11, lines 41-43).
and wherein rotation of the rotatory male body/inner body with respect to the rotary female body/outer sleeve is constrained by the bearing system (col. 11, lines 26-43). The bearing system/bearings couple to the outer and inner body to constrain and allow the rotation of the inner body/male body to rotate with respect to the outer sleeve/ female body to control the imaging components and lens.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Farritor in view of US 2014/0046340 Al to Wilson et al. (hereinafter “Wilson”).
Regarding claim 2, Farritor teaches the rotational actuator of claim 1 containing a male rotary body/shaft (fig. 7B, 217) but does not explicitly disclose wherein 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_image6.png
780
1329
media_image6.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 system of Farritor 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 under Farritor in view of US 8,333,780 B1 to Pedros et al. (hereinafter “Pedros”).
Regarding claim 4, Farritor teaches the rotational actuator of claim 1 comprising a pulley system configured to allow for the actuators, drums, and arm components to be rotated/ oriented different ways to actuate the arm end effectors (see col. 13, lines 47-56), 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 prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Farritor 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, Farritor as modified teaches the rotary actuator of claim 4, further comprising one or more actuation cables configured to actuate the first pulley and the second pulley/ more than one drum in the pulley system (col. 13, lines 47-56).
Regarding claim 6, Farritor as modified teaches the rotary actuator of claim 4, but does not disclose wherein the one or more actuation cables 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 prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Farritor 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 under Farritor and Pedros, and further in view of US 5,794,487 to Solomon et al. (hereinafter “Solomon”).
Regarding claim 7, Farritor as modified teaches the rotary actuator of claim 6 containing a rotational actuator, 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the 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 under Farritor in view of US 2014/0025088 A1 to Zarrouk et al. (hereinafter “Zarrouk”).
Regarding claim 8, Farritor teaches the rotary actuator of claim 1, but does not 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 and para 0054-0055).
PNG
media_image7.png
506
1011
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 system of Farritor 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 under Farritor and Zarrouk, and further in view of US 20140358162 A1 to Valdastri et al. (hereinafter “Valdastri”).
Regarding claim 9, Farritor as modified teaches the rotational actuator of claim 8, wherein the rotary female body (fig. 7B, 204) has an inner surface defining the inner chamber (fig. 7B, 204). The rotary female body/drive component must have an inner chamber due to the rotary male body/connecting shaft (fig. 7B, 217) being located inside the drive component. Farritor does not disclose 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_image8.png
964
1377
media_image8.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 system of Farritor with the teachings of Zarrouk and 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 under Farritor in view of US 2013/0345717 A1 to Markvicka et al. (hereinafter “Markvicka”).
Regarding claim 11, Farritor teaches the rotational actuator of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the bearing system comprises a first bearing assembly and a second bearing assembly, the first bearing assembly including the first rotatable constraint and the second bearing assembly including the second rotatable constraint.
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”).
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 system of Farritor 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, Farritor 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_image9.png
769
1096
media_image9.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 system of Farritor 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 as modified teaches the rotational actuator of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the first bearing assembly and the second bearing assemblies 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-para 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 system of Farritor 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 under Farritor and Markvicka, and further in view of US 9,033,998 A1 to Schaible et al. (hereinafter “Schaible”).
Regarding claim 14, Farritor as modified teaches the rotational actuator of claim 11 containing a ball and race (col. 11, lines 18-23 and lines 30-58 and fig. 14B), 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, col. 5, lines 1-9, 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. 4-5, lines 65-67 and col. 5, lines 1-30).
PNG
media_image10.png
578
1291
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
566
1218
media_image11.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 system of Farritor with the teachings of Markvicka and 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, Farritor as modified teaches the rotational actuator of claim 11 containing a containing a ball and race (col. 11, lines 18-23 and lines 30-58 and fig. 14B), 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). 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).
PNG
media_image12.png
445
709
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
525
1143
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
541
1165
media_image14.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 system of Farritor with the teachings of Markvicka and 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 under Farritor, Markvicka, and Schaible, and further in view of US 2014/0039515 A1 to Mondry et al. (hereinafter “Mondry”).
Regarding claim 16, Farritor 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_image15.png
643
1587
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
355
726
media_image16.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_image17.png
719
977
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
867
1184
media_image18.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 Farritor 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, Farritor 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) 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_image19.png
504
1014
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
592
1302
media_image20.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 Farritor 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 under Farritor, Markvicka, and Schaible, and Mondry, and further in view of US 8,409, 234 B2 to Stahler et al. (hereinafter “Stahler”).
Regarding claim 18, Farritor 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).
PNG
media_image21.png
708
814
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
742
1000
media_image22.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 Farritor 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 under Farritor, Markvicka, Schaible, Mondry, and Stahler, and further in view of US 5,447,403 to Engler, Jr . (hereinafter “Engler”).
Regarding claim 19, Farritor 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 arm (see annotated fig. 3d below and col. 3, lines 49-68 and col. 4, lines 1-14), 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 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).
PNG
media_image23.png
682
1552
media_image23.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image24.png
447
915
media_image24.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 Farritor 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 under Farritor in view of Engler.
Regarding claim 20, Farritor teaches a rotational actuator/ piston assembly for a robotic arm of a surgical robotic system (fig. 7A-7B, 202 & 204, col. 6, lines 34-46, and col. 8, lines 4-50), the rotational actuator/piston assembly sized and dimensioned for insertion through a trocar (trocar or trocar-like component) (col 8, lines 38-44 and col. 18, lines 5-32)
into an internal body cavity (col. 4 lines 52-67 and col. 8, lines 32-44), the rotational actuator comprises:
a rotary female body/drive component (fig. 7A, 204 and col. 8, lines 11-17) having a first end and including:
an inner chamber (due to containing a connecting shaft inside the drive component, the drive component must have an inner chamber extending between the proximal end and the distal end) (see annotated fig. 7B-204 and 217 and col. 8, lines 11-26), and a rotary male body/ connecting shaft sized and configured for seating within the inner chamber of the rotary female body/drive component (col. 8, lines 11-31);
PNG
media_image25.png
750
987
media_image25.png
Greyscale
but does not disclose 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 arm (see annotated fig. 3d below and col. 3, lines 49-68 and col. 4, lines 1-14), 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 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 rotation axis of the rotational actuator (see annotated figs. 3d-3e and col. 4, lines 3- 31).
PNG
media_image26.png
628
1430
media_image26.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image24.png
447
915
media_image24.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 teachings of Farritor 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 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