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 September 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
In regard to Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1, 10-11, and 18-20, Applicant first states that Shioda teaches wherein the two operational switches are mounted on one end of the holder, where one end of the holder (opposite of the ball joint 14) is used to hold the endoscope. Moreover, Applicant states that because the switches are positioned at the distal most segment of the medical device (where one end of the segment is connected to a joint and the other end connected to the medical device), the range of motion enabled by the two operational switches (3a and 3b), and further states amended claim 1 requires that the first contacting device/switch is arranged on the first arm segment that is connected to a first joint and a second joint, therefore, the contacting device is positioned along the arm segment that is proximal of the distal end of the holding arm that receives the surgical instrument, and therefore Salisbury does not cure the deficiency of Shioda as previously stated in Office Action. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As shown below in fig. 3C (concerning the first joint and second joint connected to the first arm segment), and as previously stated in the Final Office Action dated March 2, 2026, because Sailsbury’s first arm segment is connected to the first joint and second joint (as shown below in the last version of fig. 3C in claims 1 and 18), and because Shioda’s switches are located on the third arm segment and are configured to control both the endoscope and the locking/unlocking of each joint (therefore going from an “unclutched” state to a “clutched” state – See para [0065]: “When an operator such as surgeon holds grips the holder 13 to press the two operation switches 3a and 3b by the thumb and first finger at the same time (simultaneously or almost simultaneously), the fluid clutches operates to release the fixed state of each joint (i.e., unclutched). Thus as long as the two operation switches 3a and 3b are not pressed at the same time or within a predetermined period of time, each joint will not be from its clutched state.”), modifying the first arm segment to contain the contacting device and contact elements would amount to a simple rearrangement of parts that would not alter the functionality of the device for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144(VI)(C). Therefore, these rejections have been maintained.
In regard to Applicant’s arguments for claims 12, 14, and 16-17, these arguments have been found to be persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of these claims have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection have been made in view of Applicant’s arguments 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 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,632, 064 B2 to Salisbury, Jr. et al. (hereinafter “Salisbury”) in view of US 2005/0165271 A1 to Shioda et al. (hereinafter “Shioda”).
Regarding claim 1, Salisbury teaches a holding arm for holding a surgical mechatronic assistance system or a surgical instrument (see fig. 3B-3C below, 318 and 322 and col. 7, lines 8-14), the holding arm comprising:
a proximal end for attaching the holding arm to a base (see annotated fig. 3C below and col. 7, lines 29-39), and a distal end for receiving the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument (see annotated fig. 3B-3C below, 318 and 322);
a first arm segment and a second arm segment (see annotated fig. 3C and col. 7, lines 29-39), wherein the first arm segment is connected to a first joint and a second joint (see annotated fig. 3C below), and the second arm segment is connected to the second joint (see second version of annotated fig. 3C below and col. 7, lines 29-39),
wherein each of the first joint and the second joint is releasable/movable and lockable (col. 7, lines 40-43) via supply lines (see fig. 3C, 336 and 340 and col. 7, lines 40-44), and
a switch adapted to release both the first joint and the second joint (col. 7, lines 40-62 (emphasis on lines 57-62)), but does not disclose a first contacting device arranged on the first arm segment, wherein the first contacting device has two contact elements arranged substantially opposite one another relative to a central longitudinal axis on the first arm segment, and wherein the first contacting device is adapted to release the first joint only when both of the two contact elements of the first contacting device are contacted, wherein the first joint is released for only as long as contact of both of the two contact elements of the first contacting device is detected, and wherein the first joint is locked when contact of either or both of the two contact elements of the first contacting device stops.
PNG
media_image1.png
748
1282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
518
1568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Shioda teaches a method and apparatus for holding a medical device (title and abstract, line 1). The device (figs. 1 and 6) contain a contacting device/holder (fig. 1, 13) containing two contacts elements/switches (fig. 6, 3a-3b and para 0065) arranged substantially opposite one another relative to a central longitudinal axis on the third arm segment (see annotated fig. 1, 12C and 13 below, fig. 6 - 3a, 3b, and 13) and wherein the first contacting device/holder is adapted to release the first joint/joints only when both of the two contact elements/switches of the first contacting device are contacted (para 0065), and wherein the first joint/joints are released for only as long as contact of both of the two contact elements (see fig. 8 - 18 and 19) of the first contacting device is detected (see para 0081), and
wherein the first joint/joints are locked when contact of either or both of the two contact elements of the first contacting device stops (see para 0081—when the two contacting devices are not contacted (when contact with them stops), the joints on the robotic holding arm remain locked).
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 Salisbury with the contacting device and contacting elements/switches of Shioda to arrive at the claimed invention. Since Shioda teaches the contacting device with the two contacting elements located on the third joint (as opposed to the first joint), modifying the first arm segment to contain the contacting device and contact elements would amount to a simple rearrangement of parts that would not alter the functionality of the device for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 10, Sailsbury as modified teaches the holding arm of claim 1, wherein the switch is at the distal end of the holding arm or is a footswitch/foot pedal disposed at a distance from the holding arm (col. 7, lines 40-62).
Regarding claim 11, Sailsbury as modified teaches the holding arm of claim 1, wherein the switch is adapted to release both the first joint and the second joint (releasing the first, second, third, and fourth joint) simultaneously (col. 7, lines 40-62). The supply lines (which are used to control the locking and unlocking of the joints) can be connected to a control valve(s). The control valve(s) (which is not shown, but discussed in the description), can be controlled via switches in order allow the control valve to lock or unlock the robotic joints.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salisbury in view Shioda, and further in view of US 2012/0223199 A1 to Abri et al. (hereinafter “Abri”).
Regarding claim 2, Sailsbury as modified teaches the holding arm according to claim 1, wherein the holding arm can comprise manually actuated control valve(s) used to control one or more articulation joints (such as a second joint) independently (col. 7, lines 53-62), but does not disclose wherein the holding arm further comprises a second contacting device arranged on the second arm segment, wherein the second contacting device is adapted to release the second joint when the second contacting device is contacted.
However, Abri teaches an adjustable holding apparatus (see abstract, line 1 and fig. 1). The apparatus (fig. 1) is a holding arm comprising second contacting device/button (64) arranged on the second arm segment (see annotated fig. 1below), wherein the second contacting device is adapted to release the second joint (fig. 1, 64) when the second contacting device is contacted (see para 0022, para 0052 and para 0082).
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 Salisbury with the teachings of Arie to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by ensuring that the arm joint(s) are not unlocked prematurely or unintentionally, ultimately improving the overall safety of the surgical system when performing surgical procedures.
Regarding claim 3, Sailsbury as modified teaches the holding arm according to claim 2, wherein the holding arm can comprise manually actuated control valves used to control one or more articulation joints (such as a second joint) independently (col. 7, lines 53-62), but does not disclose wherein the second contacting device has two contact elements arranged substantially opposite one another on the second arm segment, and wherein the second contacting device is adapted to release the second joint only when both of the two contact elements of the second contacting device are contacted.
However, Abri teaches an adjustable holding apparatus (see abstract, line 1 and fig. 1). The apparatus (fig. 1) is a holding arm comprising second contacting device/button (64) arranged on the second arm segment (see annotated fig. 1below), wherein the second contacting device is adapted to release the second joint (fig. 1, 64) when the second contacting device is contacted (see para 0022, para 0052 and para 0082), but does not disclose wherein the second contacting device has two contact elements arranged substantially opposite one another on the second arm segment, and wherein the second contacting device is adapted to release the second joint only when both of the two contact elements of the second contacting device are contacted.
However, Shioda teaches a method and apparatus for holding a medical device (title and abstract, line 1). The device (figs. 1 and 6) contain a contacting device/holder (fig. 1, 13) containing two contacts elements/switches (fig. 6, 3a-3b and para 0065) arranged substantially opposite one another on an arm segment (see fig. 1, 12C and 13 and fig. 6, 13 ) and wherein the contacting device/holder is adapted to release the second joint/joints only when both of the two contact elements/switches of the contacting device are contacted (para 0065).
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 Salisbury with the second contacting device of Abri and the contacting elements/switches of Shioda to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by ensuring that the arm joint(s) are not unlocked prematurely or unintentionally, ultimately improving the overall safety of the surgical system when performing surgical procedures.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salisbury in view of Shioda, and further in view of US 8, 160, 743 B2 to Birkenbach et al. (hereinafter “Birkenbach”).
Regarding claim 4, Sailsbury as modified teaches the holding arm according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the two contact elements of the first contacting device are pushbuttons or touch-sensitive sensors.
However, Shioda teaches wherein the robot (figs. 1 and 6) contains a contacting device/holder (fig. 1, 13) containing two contacts elements/switches (fig. 6, 3a-3b and para 0065) arranged substantially opposite one another on an arm segment (see fig. 1, 12C and 13 and fig. 6, 13), but does not explicitly disclose wherein contact elements are pushbuttons or touch-sensitive sensors.
However, Birkenbach teaches an anthropomorphic medical robot (abstract, line 1). The robot (fig. 1), contains a switching-off button (see fig. 2, 19) used to control/release the movement of the arm (see fig. 2, 19 and co. 14, lines 20-27: “In this case, it is possible for the user to operate the switching-off button 19 which is shown beneath the hand in FIG. 2 (dotted line). The user thus performs an override by deliberately releasing the movement of the arm 10 by activating (e.g., pressing) the button 19. When the button 19 is deactivated (e.g., released), the arm 10 again will only be able to move like a human arm. The button 19 can act on one or more joints or one or more joint connections”).
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 Salisbury with the teachings of Shioda and Birkenbach to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by ensuring that the arm joint(s) are momentarily locked/unlocked in order to allow the surgeon to easily control the holding arm joint(s) during the surgical procedure, ultimately improving the overall safety of the surgical system when performing surgical procedures.
Regarding claim 5, Sailsbury as modified teaches the holding arm according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the first joint comprises a first brake adapted to release and lock the first joint, and the second joint comprises a second brake adapted to release and lock the second joint.
However, Birkenbach teaches wherein the first joint/more than one joint comprises a first break/brakes adapted to release and lock the first joint (col. 3, lines 13-24, col. 4, lines 50-60, and claim 1), and the second joint/more than one joint comprises a second brake/brakes adapted to release and lock the second joint (col. 3, lines 13-24, col. 4, lines 50-60, and claim 1).
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 Salisbury with the teachings of Birkenbach to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification have would lead to a reasonable expectation for success, since implementing a braking system in the joint(s) will allow for proper control of the surgical holding arm, ultimately improving the overall safety and accuracy of each movement of the holding arm when performing surgical procedures.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salisbury in view of Shioda, and further in view of Birkenbach and US 2013/0012821 A1 to Lin et al. (hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 6, Sailsbury as modified teaches the holding arm according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the holding arm comprises seven arm segments including the first arm segment and the second arm segment, and seven joints including the first joint and the second joint.
However, Birkenbach teaches wherein the robotic arm contains seven joints/seven joint connections including the first and second joint (see col. 4, lines 36-41), but does not disclose wherein the robotic arm contains seven segments/links.
Yet, Lin teaches a miniature in-vivo robot used for conduction manipulations of organs or target tissue during a transluminal endoscopic surgery (abstract, lines 1-4). The robot (fig. 1) contains seven cylindrical links/segments containing the first arm segment/link and second arm segment/link (para 0086).
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 Salisbury with the teachings of Birkenbach and Lin to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by ensuring that the arm joint(s) and segments can execute multiple degrees of freedom when controlling the robotic device, ultimately improving the overall functionality, efficiency, and safety of the surgical system when performing surgical procedures.
Regarding claim 7, Sailsbury as modified teaches the holding arm according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the holding arm further comprises at least one cable duct/ cable lumen provided inside the first and second arm segments/links to guide cables from the proximal end to the distal end of the holding arm.
However, Lin teaches wherein the holding arm/robotic module comprises a lumen within the center of the robotic arm/robotic device inside the first, second, third, and fourth segments/links to guide the cables from the proximal end to the distal end of the device (see annotated figs. 1, 16, 19 below, figs. 31-32, para 0103-0105, and para 0078).
PNG
media_image3.png
630
1337
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
631
1430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
534
1062
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Sailsbury with the teachings of Birkenbach and Lin to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would have led to a reasonable expectation for success, since the prior art of Lin shows the use of cables running through the first and second segments/links in order to transmit control signals to the robotic arm/robotic device, ultimately allowing the surgical device to be properly controlled during the surgical procedure.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salisbury in view of Shioda, and further in view of US 6,246,200 B1 to Blumenkranz et al. (hereinafter “Blumenkranz”).
Regarding claim 8, Sailsbury as modified teaches the holding arm according to claim 1, wherein the proximal end is connected to an operating table/stationary reference surface (see annotated fig. 1A and col. 3, lines 52-65), but does not disclose wherein the proximal end comprises a first mechanical coupling for releasably coupling the holding arm to a second corresponding coupling of an operating table.
However, Blumenkranz teaches various techniques and structures for aligning robotic components with an internal surgical site (abstract, lines 1-2). The system (figs. 1-2) contain a proximal end that is connected to a base (fig. 4B, 52), and wherein the proximal end comprises a first mechanical coupling (vertical track in fig. 4B, 96) for releasably coupling the holding arm/link (fig. 5, 120 and col. 9, lines 38-50) to a second corresponding coupling (the slider shown in fig. 4B, 98) of the base (fig. 4B, 52 and col. 7, lines 49-61).
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 Sailsbury with the teachings of Blumenkranz to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would have led to a reasonable expectation for success, since the prior art shows the use to two releasable mechanical couplings in order to allow for the surgical robotic holding arm to be adjusted, ultimately improving the overall safety and accuracy of each movement of the holding arm when performing surgical procedures.
Regarding claim 9, Sailsbury as modified teaches the holding arm according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the distal end comprises a mechatronic interface for coupling to the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument.
However, Blumenkranz teaches wherein the distal end comprises a mechatronic interface/manipulator interface (fig. 5, 132) for coupling to the surgical instrument (figs. 1-2, 54-58, fig. 5-6, 132, col. 10, lines 31-44 and 59-67, and col. 11, lines 1-7). The manipulator interface controls the manipulator, which is also connected to the surgical instrument.
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 Sailsbury with the teachings of Blumenkranz to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would have led to a reasonable expectation for success, since the prior art shows the use a mechatronic interface in order to control the surgical instrument, ultimately improving the overall safety and accuracy of each movement of the surgical instrument when performing surgical procedures.
Claims 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salisbury in view Shioda, US 2007/0147250 A1 to Druke et al. (hereinafter “Druke”), and US 2012/0316573 A1 to Durant et al. (hereinafter “Durant”).
Regarding claim 12, Sailsbury teaches a holding arm for holding a surgical mechatronic assistance system or a surgical instrument (see fig. 3B-3C below, 318 and 322 and col. 7, lines 8-14), the holding arm comprising:
a proximal end for attaching the holding arm to a base (see annotated fig. 3C below and col. 7, lines 29-39), and a distal end for receiving the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument (see annotated fig. 3B-3C below, 318 and 322);
a first arm segment and a second arm segment (see annotated fig. 3C and col. 7, lines 29-39), wherein the first arm segment is connected to a first joint and the second arm segment is connected to a second joint (see second version of annotated fig. 3C below and col. 7, lines 29-39), wherein each of the first joint and the second joint is releasable/movable and lockable (col. 7, lines 40-43) via supply lines (see fig. 3C, 336 and 340 and col. 7, lines 40-44), and
a switch adapted to release both the first joint and the second joint (col. 7, lines 40-62 (emphasis on lines 57-62)), but does not disclose a first contacting device arranged on the first arm segment, wherein the first contacting device is adapted to release the first joint when the first contacting device is contacted;
a first interface at the proximal end for connecting the holding arm to an external control unit that transmits signals to and receives signals from the holding arm, and a second interface at the distal end for connecting the holding arm to the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument, the second interface transmitting signals to and receiving signals from the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument, and a transmission unit connecting the first interface to the second interface to transmit signals between the first and second interfaces.
PNG
media_image1.png
748
1282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
585
934
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, Shioda teaches a method and apparatus for holding a medical device (title and abstract, line 1). The device (figs. 1 and 6) contain a contacting device/holder (fig. 1, 13) containing two contacts elements/switches (fig. 6, 3a-3b and para 0065) arranged substantially opposite one another on an arm segment (see fig. 1, 12C and 13 and fig. 6, 13 ) and wherein the first contacting device/holder is adapted to release the first joint/joints only when both of the two contact elements/switches of the first contacting device are contacted (para 0065), and a first interface (see fig. 1 and 8, 34) at the proximal end for connecting the holding arm to an external control unit that transmits signals to and receives signals from the holding arm (see fig. 8, 34-35 and para 0043-0044 and para 0047-0048), and a second interface/ball joint (see fig. 1, 14) at the distal end for connecting the holding arm to the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument (see fig. 1-12C, 13, 14, para 0030 and para 0033), the second interface/ball joint (containing a fluid clutch, 28d) transmitting signals to and receiving signals from the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument (contained in the holder, 13 see para 0030-0031 and para 0033), and a transmission unit/ medium connecting the first interface (fig. 8, 34) to the second interface/ball joint (fig. 8, 14) to transmit signals between the first and second interfaces (see fig. 8-14, 34 and para 0030, para 0043-0044, and para 0047-0048).
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 Salisbury with the contacting device and contacting elements/switches of Shioda to arrive at the claimed invention. Since Shioda teaches the contacting device with the two contacting elements located on the third joint (as opposed to the first joint), modifying the first arm segment to contain the contacting device and contact elements would amount to a simple rearrangement of parts that would not alter the functionality of the device for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144(VI)(C).
However, Shioda does not disclose a safety element at the second interface, wherein the safety element is configured to identify a faulty connection between the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument and the second interface, and to lock all joints of the holding arm in response to identifying the faulty connection between the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument and the second interface.
However, Druke teaches methods and systems for a computer program communicating data packets a plurality of nodes (see abstract). The system (fig. 1) teaches fault reaction logic signals that identifies a fault in the system, and if a fault occurs in the system (such as in a robotic surgery system), the robotic arms can be locked to prevent patient injury or unwanted movement of the robotic actuators (see para [0031]-[0032]). Although Druke teaches locking the robotic arms if a fault is detected in the surgical robotic system, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the safety element is configured to identify a faulty connection between the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument and the second interface, and to lock all joints of the holding arm in response to identifying the faulty connection between the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument and the second interface.
However, Durant teaches a method for controlling an operation of a robotically-controlled surgical instrument based on first and second input signals (see abstract). The method and system (see figs. 1 and 3) teach wherein one or more termination conditions are identified for a robotically-controlled surgical instrument by detecting an internal fault. If an internal fault is detected (such as the surgical instrument not being electrically connected to the control module/interface), the system is configured to change from an “armed state” to a “disarmed state” (see abstract, para [0063]-[0064], para [0078], para [0080]-[0081], and claim 13).
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 Salisbury with the teachings of Shioda, with the data transmission and locking system of Druke and the instrument system and method of Durant to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by ensuring the holding arm does not move in a manner that would injure the patient or the surgeon (when the instrument is not connected properly), ultimately preserving patient safety during the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 16, Sailsbury as modified teaches the holding arm according to claim 12, but does not disclose wherein the holding arm further comprises a display configured to display a representation of data transferred to the first or second interface.
However, Shioda teaches wherein the holding arm further comprises a display/monitor (see fig. 8, M) configured to display a representation of data transferred to the second interface (para 0083). The control arm of Shioda teaches wherein a joystick switch located on a footswitch box is able to operate the second interface (see fig. 8, view change driver, 204a). When the switches (fig. 8, 209 and 210) are switched to an “on” position, a switch detection circuit and motor control circuit operate the driver in the X, Y, and Z direction in order to control the endoscope direction (para 0074 and para 0083).
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 Sailsbury with the teachings of Shioda to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would improve the system by allowing the surgeon to properly navigate the field of view needed to perform the surgical procedure, ultimately preserving the health safety of the patient during the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 17, Sailsbury as a modified teaches the holding arm according to claim 12, but does not disclose wherein the first interface connects the holding arm to an energy source for powering the holding arm and the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument.
However, Shioda teaches wherein the first interface (see figs. 1 and 8, 34) connects the holding arm to an energy source/control box (see fig. 8, 205) for powering the holding arm and the surgical instrument (para 0012, para 0074, and para 0076).
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 teachings of Sailsbury with the teachings of Shioda to arrive at the claimed invention. Such combination would yield expected results, since an energy source is needed in order to properly actuate the holding arm and surgical instrument during the surgical procedure.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salisbury in view Shioda, and further in view of Lin.
Regarding claim 13, Sailsbury as modified teaches the holding arm according to claim 12, but does not disclose wherein the first interface comprises a connector for an external accumulator (battery/rechargeable battery).
However, Shioda teaches wherein the robotic arm comprises a first interface (fig. 8, 34 and para 0043-0044), but does not disclose wherein the first interface comprises a connector for an external accumulator (battery/rechargeable battery).
However, Lin teaches wherein the robotic arm/device contains a connector for an external accumulator (battery/rechargeable battery – see fig. 2-10, para 0078, para 0088).
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 Sailsbury with the teachings of Shioda and Lin to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by ensuring the robotic device is able to function independently from a fixed/stationary power source (allowing the device to be controlled even if it were cut off from an stationary power source) while also preventing the use of multiple cables as well, ultimately enhancing the safety of the surgical device when performing the surgical procedure.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salisbury in view Shioda, and further in view of US 6, 331,181 B1 to Tierney et al. (hereinafter “Tierney”).
Regarding claim 15, Sailsbury as modified teaches the holding arm according to claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the holding arm further comprises a recognition unit configured to recognize the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument coupled to the second interface,
wherein control of releasing or locking of the first and second joints is based on a type of the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument coupled to the second interface.
However, Tierney teaches wherein a holding arm comprises a recognition unit/ memory unit (abstract) to recognize the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument coupled to the second interface/linkage (col. 8, lines 1-13 and col. 14, lines 1-52), and wherein control of releasing or locking of the arm/system is based on a type of the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument coupled to the second interface (col. 8, lines 1-13 and col. 14, lines 1-52).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified teachings Sailsbury with the teachings of Tierney to arrive at the claimed invention. Such combination would improve the system by ensuring the correct medical instrument is used during each step of the surgical procedure, ultimately preventing life-threatening injuries from occurring to each patient during the surgical procedure.
Claims 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salisbury in view of Shioda, and further in view of US 2017/0007336 A1 to Tsuboi.
Regarding claim 14, Sailsbury as modified teaches the holding arm according to claim 12, but does not disclose wherein the transmission unit comprises a bus.
However, Tsuboi teaches wherein a transmission unit comprises a bus (para 0434-para 0435 and fig. 21, 907 and 911).
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 Sailsbury with the teachings of Tsuboi to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would yield expected results, since the prior art shows the use of a bus system for control of a robotic arm apparatus, ultimately allowing for efficient control of the surgical device during surgical procedures.
Regarding claim 18, Sailsbury teaches a holding arm for holding a surgical mechatronic assistance system or a surgical instrument (see fig. 3B-3C below, 318 and 322 and col. 7, lines 8-14), the holding arm comprising:
a proximal end for attaching the holding arm to a base (see annotated fig. 3C below and col. 7, lines 29-39), and a distal end for receiving the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument (see annotated fig. 3B-3C below, 318 and 322),
a first arm segment and a second arm segment (see annotated fig. 3C and col. 7, lines 29-39), wherein the first arm segment is connected to a first joint and a second joint (see annotated fig. 3C below), and the second arm segment is connected to a second joint (see second version of annotated fig. 3C below and col. 7, lines 29-39), and
a switch adapted to release both the first joint and the second joint (col. 7, lines 40-62 (emphasis on lines 57-62)),
PNG
media_image1.png
748
1282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
518
1568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
but does not disclose a first interface at the proximal end for connecting the holding arm to an energy source and to an external control unit that transmits signals to and receives signals from the holding arm,
and a second interface at the distal end for connecting the holding arm to the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument, the second interface transmitting signals to and receiving signals from the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument.
Furthermore, Sailsbury does not disclose wherein the first joint comprises a first brake adapted to release and lock the first joint and the second joint comprises a second brake adapted to release and lock the second joint; and
wherein the first contacting device is adapted to release the first joint when the first contacting device is contacted, and wherein
a control unit is coupled to the first contacting device, the first brake, and the second brake.
However, Shioda teaches a robotic holding arm comprising a first interface (see fig. 1 and 8, 34) at the proximal end for connecting the holding arm to an external control unit that transmits signals to and receives signals from the holding arm (see fig. 8, 34-35 and para 0043-0044 and para 0047-0048), and a second interface/ball joint (see fig. 1, 14) at the distal end for connecting the holding arm to the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument (see fig. 1-12C, 13, 14, para 0030 and para 0033), the second interface/ball joint (containing a fluid clutch, 28d) transmitting signals to and receiving signals from the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument (contained in the holder, 13 – see para 0030-0031 and para 0033), and a transmission unit/ medium connecting the first interface (fig. 8, 34) to the second interface/ball joint (fig. 8, 14) to transmit signals between the first and second interfaces (see fig. 8-14, 34 and para 0030, para 0043-0044, and para 0047-0048). Furthermore, Shioda teaches a contacting device/holder (fig. 1, 13) containing two contacts elements/switches (fig. 6, 3a-3b and para 0065) arranged substantially opposite one another on/connected to the third arm segment (see fig. 1- 12C and 13 and fig. 6, 13 ) and wherein the first contacting device/holder is adapted to release the first joint/joints only when both of the two contact elements/switches of the first contacting device are contacted (para 0065). Lastly, Shioda teaches wherein the first joint comprises a first brake adapted to release and lock the first joint and the second joint comprises a second brake adapted to release and lock the second joint (para 0005 and claim 2-the joints comprise brakes that are used to selectively lock and unlock the joints in the arm), and a control unit/control box (fig. 1, 16 and fig. 8, 205) is coupled/connected to the first contacting device/switches (see fig. 6, 3a-3b and fig. 8, 18-19), the first brake and the second brake/a plurality of brakes (see fig. 8, para 0007, 0005, and claim 2), but does not disclose a bus connecting the first interface to the second interface to transmit energy and signals between the first and second interfaces.
However, Tsuboi teaches a bus connected to an interface (see fig. 21-913) used to transmit energy and signals to control the robotic arm apparatus (para 0114, para 0434-0437, para 0442, and para 0444).
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 Salisbury with the teachings of Shioda and Tsuboi to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would yield expected results since the prior art shows the use of two interfaces and a bus system for proper energy and signal transmission when controlling the surgical robotic holding arm, ultimately allowing for more efficient and accurate control of the surgical robotic device that enhances the safety and efficiency of the surgical procedure for each patient. Furthermore, modifying the first arm segment to contain a contacting device for releasing the first joint when the first contacting device is contacted to release the first joint would amount to a simple rearrangement of parts that would not alter the functionality of the device for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 19, Sailsbury as modified teaches the holding arm of claim 18, but does not disclose wherein the holding arm further comprises an interface at the proximal end, the interface comprising a connector for the bus.
However, Shioda teaches a first interface (see fig. 1 and 8, 34) at the proximal end for connecting the holding arm to an external control unit that transmits signals to and receives signals from the holding arm (see fig. 8, 34-35 and para 0043-0044 and para 0047-0048). Shioda does not teach wherein the interface comprises a connector for the bus.
However, Tsuboi teaches wherein the interface of the robotic arm apparatus (fig. 21, 10) comprises a connector (direct connection) between the interface and the external bus, and a connector for the bus (see annotated fig. 21 below). Since the external bus and interface are directly connected, a connector must be present even if not explicitly stated.
PNG
media_image7.png
609
1397
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 teachings of Salisbury with the teachings of Shioda and Tsuboi to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would yield expected results since the prior art shows the use of an interface located at the proximal end and a bus for proper energy and signal transmission when controlling the surgical robotic holding arm, ultimately allowing for more efficient and accurate control of the surgical robotic device that enhances the safety and efficiency of the surgical procedure for each patient.
Regarding claim 20, Sailsbury as modified teaches the holding arm of claim 18, but does not disclose wherein the holding arm further comprises an interface at the distal end, the interface comprising a connector for the bus.
However, Shioda teaches and a second interface/ball joint (see fig. 1, 14) at the distal end for connecting the holding arm to the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument (see fig. 1-12C, 13, 14, para 0030 and para 0033), the second interface/ball joint (containing a fluid clutch, 28d) transmitting signals to and receiving signals from the surgical mechatronic assistance system or the surgical instrument (contained in the holder, 13)(para 0030-0031 and para 0033), but does not disclose wherein the interface comprises a connector for the bus.
However, Tsuboi teaches wherein the interface of the robotic arm apparatus (fig. 21, 10) comprises a connector (direct connection) between the interface and the external bus, and a connector for the bus (see annotated fig. 21 below). Since the external bus and interface are directly connected, a connector must be present even if not explicitly stated.
PNG
media_image7.png
609
1397
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 teachings of Salisbury with the teachings of Shioda and Tsuboi to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would yield expected results since the prior art shows the use of an interface located at the distal end and a bus for proper energy and signal transmission when controlling the surgical robotic holding arm, ultimately allowing for more efficient and accurate control of the surgical robotic device that enhances the safety and efficiency of the surgical procedure for each patient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ueda et al. (US 2004/0138524 A1) teaches a medical instrument holding apparatus containing a support mechanism for a medical instrument.
Julian et al. (US 2006/0052664 A1) teaches a connector assembly for controllable articles.
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
