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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (Shown in Figs. 5-12) in the reply filed on 10/28/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsumoto (US2022/0410407).
Matsumoto discloses:
Re claim 1. A coupling system for removably attaching an end effector (16; See abstract - “tool”; para. [0030]) to a distal end of a surgical robotic arm, the coupling system comprising:
a first coupler portion (including 14A) including:
a boss (including 20) coupled to the robotic arm (12; para. [0030]);
a first alignment pin (28; Fig. 9) extending from the boss and having a first configuration; and
a second alignment pin (32D; Fig. 9; (see also Fig. 7 & 32B as an alternative)) extending from the boss in spaced relation from the first alignment pin and having a second configuration different from the first configuration;
a second coupler portion (including 18B) engageable with the first coupler portion and including:
a socket body (18B) defining a receiver with a floor surface (24);
a first alignment socket (34; para. [0038]) defined in the floor surface;
a second alignment socket (38A; para. [0067]) defined in the floor surface in spaced relation from the first alignment socket; and
a clamp mechanism (at 22; see para. [0032] - “engaging mechanism including a cam”) operatively engageable between the first coupler portion and the second coupler portion and movable between a clamped configuration with the first alignment pin engaged with the first alignment socket and the second alignment pin engaged with the second alignment socket for securing the first coupler portion to the second coupler portion (See para. [0032]).
Re claim 2. The coupling system of claim 1, wherein the first coupler portion (14A) is coupled to the surgical robotic arm (12; para. [0030]) and the second coupler portion (18B) is coupled to the end effector (16; para. [0030]).
Re claim 6. The coupling system of claim 1, wherein the first configuration of the first alignment pin (28) is defined as a cylinder extending in a first axial direction between the boss and a first pin end, wherein a first length is defined between the boss and the first pin end (See Fig. 9).
Re claim 7. The coupling system of claim 6, wherein the second configuration of the second alignment pin (32D) is defined as a rod extending in the first axial direction between the boss and a second pin end, wherein an outer surface of the rod comprises two edges parallel to the first axial direction (See Fig. 9; see also Fig. 7 & 32B as an alternative).
Re claim 8. The coupling system of claim 7, wherein a second length is defined between the boss and the second pin end, and wherein the second length is less than the first length of the first alignment pin (See Fig. 9).
Re claim 9. The coupling system of claim 7, wherein the second alignment pin (32D) comprises, an upper adjacent pair of pin surfaces and a lower adjacent pair of pin surfaces, wherein the upper adjacent pair intersect to define a first edge and the lower adjacent pair intersect to define a second edge (see annotated Fig. 9 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
796
994
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 10. The coupling system of claim 9, wherein the upper adjacent pair and the lower adjacent pair are arranged on opposing sides of the second alignment pin (see annotated Fig. 9 above).
Re claim 11. The coupling system of claim 9, wherein two rounded surfaces are arranged between the upper adjacent pair and the lower adjacent pair (Note that this claim can be interpreted to either mean that one of the rounded surfaces is arranged between the upper adjacent pair and the other of the rounded surfaces is arranged between the lower adjacent pair, or interpreted to mean both of the two rounded surfaces are jointly positioned between the upper adjacent pair and the lower adjacent pair).
PNG
media_image2.png
796
994
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 12. The coupling system of claim 1, wherein engagement between the first alignment pin (28) and the first alignment socket (34) has a first surface area and engagement between the second alignment pin (32D) and the second alignment socket (38A) has a second surface area, and wherein the first surface area is greater then the second surface area (See Fig. 9. Since pin 28 is longer than pin 32D the surface area for first alignment pin 28’s engagement will be larger).
Re claim 13. The coupling system of claim 1, wherein the boss (including 20) comprises a front face with the first alignment pin (28) protruding from the front face further than the second alignment pin (32D) such that the first alignment pin engages the first alignment socket prior to the second alignment pin engaging the second alignment socket when the boss is engaged with the socket body and the front face moved toward the floor surface (para. [0067]).
Re claim 14. The coupling system of claim 1, wherein the first coupler portion (including 14A) further comprises a mounting hub fixedly coupled to the surgical robotic arm and wherein the mounting hub defines a tilt axis aligned with a rotary joint of the surgical robotic arm, and wherein the boss (including 20) protrudes parallel to the tilt axis (See Fig. 1).
Re claim 15. The coupling system of claim 14, wherein the tilt axis is perpendicular to a first axial direction along with the boss is engaged with the receiver (See annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
710
830
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US2022/0410407).
Re claim 3
Matsumoto discloses all claim dependency limitations, see above, but does not disclose a tension hole is defined in the boss (including 20) and extends in a first axial direction therethrough. Rather, Matsumoto discloses a tension hole (26) defined in the second coupler portion (18B) that mates with a projection portion 22 defined in the boss (including 20).
In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) teaches a rearrangement of parts is unpatentable when it would not have modified the operation of the device. Additionally, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) teaches the particular placement of a part when it does not modify the operation of the device is an obvious matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Matsumoto such that the position of the tension hole (26) and the projection portion (22) are swapped such that the tension hole (26) is rearranged to be defined in the boss (including 20) in the first coupler portion (14A) and the projection portion 22 is rearranged to be on the second coupler portion (18B), as held by courts, as an obvious rearrangement of parts and as an obvious matter of design choice, with a reasonable expectation of success, as held by the courts, since such a modification would not modify the operation of the device.
Matsumoto as modified above further suggests:
Re claim 4. The coupling system of claim 3, wherein the tension hole (26, as modified to be in the position of where 22 is shown) is arranged between the first alignment pin (28) and the second alignment pin (32D) (modified tension hole 26 is between the first alignment pin 28 and the second alignment pin 32D in a direction from pin 28 to pin 32D).
Re claim 5. The coupling system of claim 4, wherein a center of the tension hole (26, as modified to be in the position of where 22 is shown) is spaced from a line extending between a center of the first alignment pin (28) and a center of the second alignment pin (32D).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Du (US5,098,253) discloses an automatic tool-exchanging device that has a pair of pins (103), a pair of sockets, and a clamp mechanism (104). Du is silent to the pins being of different lengths.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY T PRATHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. 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.
/GREGORY T PRATHER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618