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 Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 02 March 2026. As per the amendment: claims 20 and 38-44 remain withdrawn, claims 3-4, 7, 11, 14, and 17-18 have been cancelled, claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 19 have been amended and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 19 are presently pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously cited 35 USC § 112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01 December 2025.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 14-16 of Remarks, filed 02 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Sachs have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC 103 under Bozung (US 2017/0150975 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Bozung and further in view of Shelton IV et al. (US Patent 10,258,418 B2), hereinafter Shelton IV..
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to recite the subject matter found in now canceled claims 3-4, 7, 13-14, and 17-18 and more specifically the limitation of “a first sensor assembly configured to sense a linear position of the shuttle magnet in the slot and to generate first sensor data that is processed to determine a number of rotations of the male segment assembly or a rotational angular position of the male segment assembly” (emphasis added). Examiner notes that Bozung teaches many of the amended limitations and Shelton IV has been used to establish the relationship between linear position of a shuttle magnet and the rotational position of a male segment assembly.
Thus, claims 1-2 are now rejected under 35 USC 103, as described in detail below.
No specific additional arguments were presented for previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of dependent claims 2, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 19, nor specifically with respect to the previously cited references: Hendrick, Diel, or Bozung.
Thus, claims 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as described in detail below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 03/31/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachs et al. (US 2019/0216562 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Sachs in view of Bozung (US 2017/0150975 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Bozung and further in view of Shelton IV et al. (US Patent 10,258,418 B2), hereinafter Shelton IV.
Regarding claim 1, Sachs discloses a surgical robotic arm (right robotic arm 103, left robotic arm 104) of a surgical robotic system (Abstract: “A system for use in surgery”, Figure 1A), comprising a plurality of articulation segments that are mechanically and operatively coupled together (Figure 2A: actuators 110-116, [0076] “This arm is comprised of multiple robotic joints”), wherein the one or more of the plurality of articulation segments includes a rotary, actuation mechanism ([0078]-[0080] second, fourth, and sixth provides rotary actuation) having:
a male segment assembly (rotary male body 159, [0133]-[0135])
a female segment assembly (rotary female body 160),
wherein the male segment assembly is disposed within the female segment assembly ([0135] “A rotary male body 159 is inserted within the rotary female body 60”)and is rotatable relative thereto by one or more cables about a longitudinal axis ([0133] “rotary actuators are cable driven”, [0141] “With the rotary male body 159 fixed within the rotary female body 160, actuation cables are fed along a path from the proximally attached actuator. These cables are fed into the space between the rotary male body and the rotary female body. FIG. 10D shows a section view of the rotary cable actuator.”, [0142], Figures 10A, B, and D), and rotatable to an extend greater than 360 degrees ([0142] “The actuation cables each wrap around the rotary male body a plurality of times allowing for numerous revolutions of actuation”, [0144] “It should be noted that some amount of coupled motion occurs due to twisting of cables passing through the hole 178, however this twisting provides a negligible effect for actuations within one full rotation degrees) and very little effect for actuations with two full rotations”).
Sachs fails to explicitly disclose a male segment assembly having: a rotary shaft element having a main body having an outer surface, and an engagement element coupled to the outer surface of the rotary shaft element and having a spiral groove formed in an outer surface thereof, a female segment assembly having an outer housing element disposed about at least a portion of the engagement element and having a slot formed therein that exposes at least a portion of the spiral groove, a shuttle assembly mounted within the slot formed in the outer housing element, the shuttle assembly including a shuttle magnet, wherein a portion of the shuttle assembly seats within the spiral groove of the engagement element, and a first sensor assembly configured to sense a linear position of the shuttle magnet in the slot and to generate first sensor data that is processed to determine a number of rotations of the male segment assembly or a rotational angular position of the male segment assembly.
However, Bozung teaches a surgical instrument wherein a male segment assembly has a rotary shaft element having a main body having an outer surface (intermediate shaft 1224), and an engagement element coupled to the outer surface of the rotary shaft element and having a spiral groove formed in an outer surface thereof (leadscrews 1238, [0066] “Each of the leadscrews 1238 has a plurality of threads 1239 therealong), a female segment assembly having an outer housing element disposed about at least a portion of the engagement element (Figure 9: housing 1258) and having a slot formed therein that exposes at least a portion of the spiral groove (view Figure 9: area between 1258 and 1250), a shuttle assembly (carriage 1242) mounted within the slot formed in the outer housing element (view Figures 9 and 10), the shuttle assembly including a shuttle magnet ([0073] “This could be accomplished by placing a magnet on the carriage 1242 and one or more hall-effect sensors along the housing 1258”), wherein a portion of the shuttle assembly seats within the spiral groove of the engagement element ([0067] “The carriage 1242 includes threads 1247 to interface with the threads 1239 of the leadscrews 1238. The carriage 1242 may cooperate with the leadscrews 1238 according to various embodiments.”) and a first sensor assembly configured to sense a linear position of the shuttle magnet in the slot and to generate first sensor data ([0073] “The linear block 1228 further includes a translation encoder 1268 disposed about the housing 1258 to sense the linear position of the carriage 1242. It should be appreciated that the translation encoder 1268 senses a position of the carriage 1242, which provides one method for the position of the nose tube 1212 and accessory 202 to be determined. This could be accomplished by placing a magnet on the carriage 1242 and one or more hall-effect sensors along the housing 1258.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sachs to incorporate the teachings of Bozung to have a male segment assembly having: a rotary shaft element having a main body having an outer surface, and an engagement element coupled to the outer surface of the rotary shaft element and having a spiral groove formed in an outer surface thereof, a female segment assembly having an outer housing element disposed about at least a portion of the engagement element and having a slot formed therein that exposes at least a portion of the spiral groove, a shuttle assembly mounted within the slot formed in the outer housing element, the shuttle assembly including a shuttle magnet, wherein a portion of the shuttle assembly seats within the spiral groove of the engagement element, and a first sensor assembly configured to sense a linear position of the shuttle magnet in the slot, as these prior art references are directed to surgical instruments. One would be motivated to do this increase degrees of freedom ([0007]-[0008]) and for determining position of the shuttle ([0073], as recognized by Bozung.
Sachs and Bozung, alone or in combination, fail to teach to generate first sensor data that is processed to determine a number of rotations of the male segment assembly or a rotational angular position of the male segment assembly.
However, Shelton IV teaches a system for controlling articulation forces in a robotic surgical arm with a surgical end effector wherein “the displacement member 11111 may be coupled to any sensor suitable for measuring displacement…Displacement sensors may comprise linear variable differential transformers (LVDT)… a magnetic sensing system comprising a movable magnet and a series of linearly arranged Hall effect sensors, a magnetic sensing system comprising a fixed magnet and a series of movable linearly arranged Hall effect sensors… An electric motor 11120 can include a rotatable shaft 11116 that operably interfaces with a gear assembly 11114 that is mounted in meshing engagement with a set, or rack, of drive teeth on the displacement member 11111. A sensor element 11126 may be operably coupled to a gear assembly 11114 such that a single revolution of the sensor element 11126 corresponds to some linear longitudinal translation of the displacement member 11111 A single revolution of the sensor element 11126 associated with the position sensor 11112 is equivalent to a longitudinal displacement d1 of the of the displacement member 11111, where d1 is the longitudinal distance that the displacement member 11111 moves from point “a” to point “b” after a single revolution of the sensor element 11126 coupled to the displacement member 11111. The sensor arrangement 11102 may be connected via a gear reduction that results in the position sensor 11112 completing one or more revolutions for the full stroke of the displacement member 11111. The position sensor 11112 may complete multiple revolutions for the full stroke of the displacement member 11111.”(Column 23, lines 2-47).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sachs and Bozung to incorporate the teachings of Shelton IV to have generate first sensor data that is processed to determine a number of rotations of the male segment assembly or a rotational angular position of the male segment assembly, as these prior art references are directed to surgical instruments. One would be motivated to do this track the placement/displacement of the surgical instrument.
Regarding claim 2, Sachs in view of Bozung further in view of Shelton IV teaches the surgical robotic arm of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the slot is a linear slot (Figure 10A-10B: contoured pathway 169 and 177, [0142] “The pathways are formed into the rotary female body 160”).
Sachs and Shelton IV, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the shuttle assembly is sized and configured for contacting the spiral groove such that the shuttle assembly moves linearly in the linear slot as the male segment assembly is rotated.
However, Bozung teaches a surgical instrument wherein the shuttle assembly (carriage 1242) is sized and configured for contacting the spiral groove such that the shuttle assembly moves linearly in the linear slot (space inside the housing 1258) as the male segment assembly is rotated ([0067] “The linear block 1228 also includes a carriage 1242 to move linearly or axially along the leadscrews 1238…The carriage 1242 includes threads 1247 to interface with the threads 1239 of the leadscrews 1238”, [0008] “The drive gear is configured to interface with each of the driven gears to enable rotation of each of the leadscrews such that the carriage linearly translates along the leadscrews”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sach and Shelton IV to incorporate the teachings of Bozung to have the shuttle assembly is sized and configured for contacting the spiral groove such that the shuttle assembly moves linearly in the linear slot as the male segment assembly is rotated, as these prior art references are directed to surgical systems. One would be motivated to do this to allow for linear translation, as recognized by Bozung ([0070], Abstract).
Alternatively, claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachs in view of Bozung in view of Shelton IV as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Diel et al. (US Patent 11,013,566 B2, previously cited), hereinafter Diel.
Regarding claim 2, Sachs in view of Bozung in view of Shelton IV teaches the surgical robotic arm of claim 1 (as shown above). Sachs further discloses wherein the female segment assembly includes a linear slot (Figure 10A-10B: contoured pathway 169 and 177, [0142] “The pathways are formed into the rotary female body 160”).
Sachs, Bozung, and Shelton IV, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the shuttle assembly is sizzed and configured for contacting the spiral groove such that the shuttle assembly moves linearly in the linear slot as the male segment assembly is rotated.
However, Diel teaches wherein the shuttle assembly is sized and configured for contacting the spiral groove (follower 342, Column 11, lines 36-39: “a follower 342 is connected to first end 341 of lever 340, with follower 342 engaged with the gear section of worm drive 330. For example, follower 342 may be disposed within groove 336 between portions of threaded section 334”) such that the shuttle assembly moves linearly in the linear slot as the male segment assembly is rotated (Column 11, lines 42-45: “As worm drive 330 is rotated, such as via rotation of actuation input mechanism 322, follower 342 is driven upward or downward relative to chassis 320, such as along the directions indicated by arrows 333 in the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 6”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sachs, Bozung, and Shelton IV to incorporate the teachings of Diel to have the shuttle assembly is sizzed and configured for contacting the spiral groove such that the shuttle assembly moves linearly in the linear slot as the male segment assembly is rotated, as these prior art references are directed to surgical systems. One would be motivated to do this convert rotational motion to translation motion efficiently, as recognized by Diel (Column 10, lines 10-53).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachs in view of Bozung in view of Shelton IV as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hendrick et al. (US 2017/0095299 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Hendrick.
Regarding claim 5, Sachs in view of Bozung in view of Shelton IV teaches the surgical robotic arm of claim 1 (as shown above). Sachs, Bozung, and Shelton IV, alone or in combination, fail to teach the arm further comprising a second sensor assembly configured to sense the rotational angle of the male segment assembly and for generating second sensor data.
However, Hendrick teaches a robotic surgical apparatus comprising actuator models used for robotic arms (Abstract, [0121]) wherein “each tube actuation module can include a magnetic lead screw rotational position sensor (not shown) and a magnetic lead screw linear position sensor 290…The angular position of the tube can also be sensed magnetically with a multi-pole ring magnet associated with the keyed collar of the rotator assembly.” ([0123])
It would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sachs, Bozung, and Shelton IV to incorporate the teachings of Hendrick to have a second sensor assembly configured to sense the rotational angle of the male segment assembly and for generating second sensor data, as these prior art references are directed to surgical systems. One would be motivated to do this as sensing the position of the robotic arm tubes allows for safe operation of the system, as recognized by Hendrick ([0122]).
Regarding claim 6, Sachs in view of Bozung in view of Shelton IV further in view of Hendrick teaches the surgical robotic arm of claim 5 (as shown above). Sachs, Bozung, and Shelton IV, alone or in combination, fail to teach the arm further comprising a computing unit for processing the first sensor data and the second sensor data to determine a rotational position of the male segment assembly.
However, Hendrick teaches wherein “The controller 406, knowing the kinematic model for each robotic arm and being provided with precise position feedback through the sensors, can be inherently aware of the positions of the robotic arms in space and with respect to each other.” ([0129]) wherein the sensors are motor rotational position sensors, magnetic lead screw rotational position sensor, and magnetic lead screw linear position sensor ([0123]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sachs, Bozung, and Shelton IV to incorporate the teachings of Hendrick to have the arm further comprising a computing unit for processing the first sensor data and the second sensor data to determine a rotational position of the male segment assembly, as these prior art references are directed to surgical systems. One would be modified to do this to be able to be aware of the robotic arm positions in space and with respect to each other to be able to situate the arms appropriately and perform geometric collaborations between robotic arms and for the safe operation of the system, as recognized by Hendrick ([0129] and [0122]).
Regarding claim 8, Sachs in view of Bozung further in view of Shelton IV teaches the surgical robotic arm of claim 1 (as shown above). Sachs and Bozung, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the sensing assembly comprises a first plurality of sensors for generating the first sensor data indicative of the number of rotations of the male segment assembly, and a second plurality of sensors for generating second sensor data indicative of the rotational angular position of the male segment assembly, wherein the first sensor data and the second sensor data can be processed to determine a rotational position of the one or more structural components of the male segment assembly.
However, Shelton IV discloses wherein “the displacement member 11111 may be coupled to any sensor suitable for measuring displacement…Displacement sensors may comprise linear variable differential transformers (LVDT)… a magnetic sensing system comprising a movable magnet and a series of linearly arranged Hall effect sensors, a magnetic sensing system comprising a fixed magnet and a series of movable linearly arranged Hall effect sensors… An electric motor 11120 can include a rotatable shaft 11116 that operably interfaces with a gear assembly 11114 that is mounted in meshing engagement with a set, or rack, of drive teeth on the displacement member 11111. A sensor element 11126 may be operably coupled to a gear assembly 11114 such that a single revolution of the sensor element 11126 corresponds to some linear longitudinal translation of the displacement member 11111 A single revolution of the sensor element 11126 associated with the position sensor 11112 is equivalent to a longitudinal displacement d1 of the of the displacement member 11111, where d1 is the longitudinal distance that the displacement member 11111 moves from point “a” to point “b” after a single revolution of the sensor element 11126 coupled to the displacement member 11111. The sensor arrangement 11102 may be connected via a gear reduction that results in the position sensor 11112 completing one or more revolutions for the full stroke of the displacement member 11111. The position sensor 11112 may complete multiple revolutions for the full stroke of the displacement member 11111.”(Column 23, lines 2-47).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sachs and Bozung to incorporate the teachings of Shelton IV to the sensing assembly comprises a first plurality of sensors for generating the first sensor data indicative of the number of rotations of the male segment assembly, wherein the first sensor data can be processed to determine a rotation position of the male segment assembly, as these prior art references are directed to surgical instruments. One would be motivated to do this track the placement/displacement of the surgical instrument.
Sachs, Bozung, and Shelton IV, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the sensing assembly comprises a second plurality of sensors for generating second sensor data indicative of the rotational angular position of the male segment assembly, wherein the second sensor data can be processed to determine a rotational position of the one or more structural components of the male segment assembly.
However, Hendrick further teaches wherein the sensing assembly comprises a second plurality of sensors for generating second sensor data indicative of the rotational angular position of the male segment assembly, wherein the second sensor data can be processed to determine a rotational position of the one or more structural components of the male segment assembly ([0123] “each tube actuation module can include a magnetic lead screw rotational position sensor (not shown) and a magnetic lead screw linear position sensor 290…The angular position of the tube can also be sensed magnetically with a multi-pole ring magnet associated with the keyed collar of the rotator assembly.”, [0129] “The controller 406, knowing the kinematic model for each robotic arm and being provided with precise position feedback through the sensors, can be inherently aware of the positions of the robotic arms in space and with respect to each other.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sachs, Bozung, and Shelton IV to incorporate the teachings of Hendrick to wherein the sensing assembly comprises a second plurality of sensors for generating second sensor data indicative of the rotational angular position of the male segment assembly, wherein the second sensor data can be processed to determine a rotational position of the one or more structural components of the male segment assembly, as these prior art references are directed to surgical systems. One would be motivated to do this as sensing the position of the robotic arm tubes allows for safe operation of the system, as recognized by Hendrick ([0122]).
Regarding claim 16, Sachs in view of Bozung in view of Shelton IV further in view of Hendrick teaches the surgical robotic arm of claim 8 (as shown above). Sachs, Bozung, and Hendrick, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the surgical robotic arm is operatively coupled to a surgical robotic system including a computing unit configured for receiving: the first sensor data and for determining, based on the first sensor data, the number of rotations of the male segment assembly, and the second sensor data and for determining, based on the second sensor data, the rotational angular position of the male segment assembly.
However, Shelton IV teaches wherein the surgical robotic arm (robotic manipulators 106) is operatively coupled to a surgical robotic system (robotic arm slave cart 100) including a computing unit (controller 11104, [0120] “the controller 11104 includes a processor 11108 and a memory 11106”) configured for receiving: the first sensor data and for determining, based on the first sensor data, the number of rotations of the male segment assembly (view Figure 27, Column 23, lines 2-47: “the displacement member 11111 may be coupled to any sensor suitable for measuring displacement…Displacement sensors may comprise linear variable differential transformers (LVDT)… a magnetic sensing system comprising a movable magnet and a series of linearly arranged Hall effect sensors, a magnetic sensing system comprising a fixed magnet and a series of movable linearly arranged Hall effect sensors… An electric motor 11120 can include a rotatable shaft 11116 that operably interfaces with a gear assembly 11114 that is mounted in meshing engagement with a set, or rack, of drive teeth on the displacement member 11111. A sensor element 11126 may be operably coupled to a gear assembly 11114 such that a single revolution of the sensor element 11126 corresponds to some linear longitudinal translation of the displacement member 11111 A single revolution of the sensor element 11126 associated with the position sensor 11112 is equivalent to a longitudinal displacement d1 of the of the displacement member 11111, where d1 is the longitudinal distance that the displacement member 11111 moves from point “a” to point “b” after a single revolution of the sensor element 11126 coupled to the displacement member 11111. The sensor arrangement 11102 may be connected via a gear reduction that results in the position sensor 11112 completing one or more revolutions for the full stroke of the displacement member 11111. The position sensor 11112 may complete multiple revolutions for the full stroke of the displacement member 11111.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sachs and Bozung to incorporate the teachings of Shelton IV to have the surgical robotic arm is operatively coupled to a surgical robotic system including a computing unit configured for receiving: the first sensor data and for determining, based on the first sensor data, the number of rotations of the male segment assembly, as these prior art references are directed to surgical instruments. One would be motivated to do this track the placement/displacement of the surgical instrument.
Sachs, Bozung, and Shelton IV, alone or in combination, fail to teach the second sensor data and for determining, based on the second sensor data, the rotational angular position of the male segment assembly.
However, Hendrick further teaches wherein the surgical robotic arm (robotic arms 150) is operatively coupled to a surgical robotic system (robot 20, [0044] “a robotic surgical apparatus can include a robotic arm”) including a computing unit (controller 400, [0125] “the controller 400 can be configured to control operation of the concentric tube robotic arm 150”) configured for receiving: the second sensor data and for determining, based on the second sensor data, the rotational angular position of the male segment assembly ([0123] “each tube actuation module can include a magnetic lead screw rotational position sensor (not shown) and a magnetic lead screw linear position sensor 290…The angular position of the tube can also be sensed magnetically with a multi-pole ring magnet associated with the keyed collar of the rotator assembly.”, [0129] “The controller 406, knowing the kinematic model for each robotic arm and being provided with precise position feedback through the sensors, can be inherently aware of the positions of the robotic arms in space and with respect to each other.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sachs, Bozung, and Shelton IV to incorporate the teachings of Hendrick to have the surgical robotic system includes a computing unit configured for receiving the second sensor data and for determining, based on the second sensor data, the rotational angular position of the one or more structural components of the male segment assembly, as these prior art references are directed to surgical systems. One would be motivated to do this as sensing the position of the robotic arm tubes allows for safe operation of the system, as recognized by Hendrick ([0122]).
.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachs in view of Bozung in view of Shelton IV in view of Hendrick as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Diel.
Regarding claim 9, Sachs in view of Bozung in view of Shelton IV further in view of Hendrick teaches the surgical robotic arm of claim 8 (as shown above).
Sachs, Bozung, Shelton IV, and Hendrick, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the spiral groove is configured for seating the shuttle assembly and causing the shuttle assembly to travel along a path, wherein the spiral groove has a first hard stop formed at one end of the path and a second hard stop formed at an opposed end of the path, and wherein the shuttle assembly is movable within the spiral groove upon rotation of the male segment assembly to an extent 360 degrees, and wherein the first hard stop and the second hard stop determine a maximum number of rotations of the male segment assembly.
However, Diel teaches wherein the spiral groove (a helically wrapped threaded section 334) is configured for seating a shuttle assembly and causing the shuttle assembly to travel along a path (follower 342, Column 11, lines 36-45: “a follower 342 is connected to first end 341 of lever 340, with follower 342 engaged with the gear section of worm drive 330. For example, follower 342 may be disposed within groove 336 between portions of threaded section 334…As worm drive 330 is rotated, such as via rotation of actuation input mechanism 322, follower 342 is driven upward or downward relative to chassis 320, such as along the directions indicated by arrows 333 in the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 6”), wherein the spiral groove has a first hard stop formed at one end of the path (Figure 4: top of the mount 332 that encompasses the worm drive 330, Figure 6: 332) and a second hard stop formed at an opposed end of the path (Figure 4: bottom of the mount 332 that encompasses the worm drive 330, Figure 6: 320), and wherein the shuttle assembly is movable within the spiral groove upon rotation of the male segment assembly to an extent 360 degrees, and wherein the first hard stop and the second hard stop determine a maximum number of rotations of the male segment assembly (Column 10, lines 57-67: “Threaded section 334 may continuously spiral about worm drive 330 one complete turn (e.g., 360 degrees) or more along a longitudinal direction of worm drive 330, according to an exemplary embodiment. According to another exemplary embodiment, threaded section 334 may continuously spiral about worm drive 330 more than one complete turn (e.g., more than 360 degrees) along a longitudinal direction of worm drive 330. For example, threaded section 334 may continuously spiral about worm drive 330 about two turns or more (e.g., about 720 degrees or more), along a longitudinal direction of worm drive 330.”, Column 11, lines 42-46: “As worm drive 330 is rotated, such as via rotation of actuation input mechanism 322, follower 342 is driven upward or downward relative to chassis 320, such as along the directions indicated by arrows 333 in the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 6”, Column 9, line 64- Column 10, line 4: “force transmission mechanism 310 includes one or more stops to limit the rotational movement of shaft 312, such as, for example, to limit the rotational movement of shaft 312 to +/−360 degrees or less. According to another exemplary embodiment, force transmission mechanism 310 includes one or more stops to limit the rotational movement of shaft 312, such as, for example, to limit the rotational movement of shaft 312 to +/−320 degrees or less”, Column 11, lines 28-32: “lateral movement of first end 341 relative to worm drive 330, such as along the directions indicated by arrows 350 in FIG. 6, is minimized or prevented by gear mount 332 and the engagement between first end 341 and worm drive 330”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sachs, Bozung, Shelton IV, and Hendrick to incorporate the teachings of Diel to have the one or more structural components of the male segment assembly includes a groove formed therein for seating a shuttle element configured for traveling along a path, wherein the groove has a first hard stop formed at one end of the path and a second hard stop formed at an opposed end of the path, and wherein the shuttle element is movable within the groove upon rotation of the male segment assembly to an extent greater than 360 degrees, and wherein the first hard stop and the second hard stop determine a maximum number of rotations of the one or more structural components of the male segment assembly, as these prior art references are directed to surgical systems. One would be motivated to do this to limit and control the rotations of the surgical robotic components.
Regarding claim 10, Sachs/Bozung/Shelton IV/Hendrick/Diel teach the surgical robotic arm of claim 9 (as shown above). Sachs further teaches wherein the shuttle assembly further includes a bearing ([0136] “The rotary male body is constrained relative to the rotary female body by means of a bearing system comprising two ball bearings, a small ball bearing 161 and a large ball bearing 162 (FIG. 10A and FIG. 10B)”, [0139 ] “Additionally, the splined surface between the rotary male body and the splined ball bearing race ring 165 prevents the splined ball bearing race ring from rotating relative to the rotary male body during use.).
Regarding claim 12, Sachs/Bozung/Shelton IV/Hendrick/Diel teach the surgical robotic arm of claim 9 (as shown above). Sachs, Bozung, Shelton IV, and Hendrick, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the slot of the female segment assembly is configured and positioned to communicated with at least a portion of the spiral groove.
However, Diel teaches wherein the slot of the female segment assembly (space comprised in the mount 332) is configured and positioned to communicate with at least a portion of the spiral groove (Column 10, lines 40-42: “A mount 332 holds and supports worm drive 330 relative to the chassis 320, as shown in FIGS. 3, 4, and 6.”, Figure 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sachs, Bozung, Shelton IV, and Hendrick to incorporate the teachings of Diel to have the slot of the female segment assembly is configured and positioned to communicated with at least a portion of the spiral groove, as these prior art references are directed to surgical systems. One would be motivated to hold and support the rotary element, as recognized by Diel (Column 10, lines 40-42).
Regarding claim 13, Sachs/Bozung/Shelton IV/Hendrick/Diel teaches the surgical robotic arm of claim 12 (as shown above).
Sachs, Bozung, Shelton IV, and Hendrick, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the shuttle assembly further includes: a shuttle element, the shuttle magnet coupled to one end of the shuttle element, and a bearing coupled to an opposed end of the shuttle element for contacting the spiral groove, wherein the shuttle assembly is configured to move linearly within the slot.
However, Diel further discloses the shuttle assembly further includes: a shuttle element, wherein the shuttle assembly is configured to move linearly within the slot (follower 342, Column 11, lines 36-45: “a follower 342 is connected to first end 341 of lever 340, with follower 342 engaged with the gear section of worm drive 330. For example, follower 342 may be disposed within groove 336 between portions of threaded section 334…As worm drive 330 is rotated, such as via rotation of actuation input mechanism 322, follower 342 is driven upward or downward relative to chassis 320, such as along the directions indicated by arrows 333 in the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 6”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sachs, Bozung, Shelton IV, and Hendrick, to incorporate the teachings of Diel to have shuttle assembly further includes: a shuttle element, wherein the shuttle assembly is configured to move linearly within the slot, as these prior art references are directed to surgical systems.. One would be motivated to do this convert rotational motion to translation motion efficiently, as recognized by Diel (Column 10, lines 10-53).
Sachs, Shelton IV, Hendrick, and Diel, alone or in combination, fail to teach the shuttle magnet coupled to one end of the shuttle element, and a bearing coupled to an opposed end of the shuttle element for contacting the spiral groove
However, Bozung teaches a surgical instrument such that a shuttle magnet is coupled to one end of the shuttle element ([0073] “This could be accomplished by placing a magnet on the carriage 1242 and one or more hall-effect sensors along the housing 1258”) and a bearing coupled to an opposed end of the shuttle element for contacting the groove ([0069] “rolling mechanisms (e.g., bearings), or the like, for interfacing with the threads 1239 of the leadscrews 1238.”, [0072] “Each aperture 1254 includes a bearing 1256 to rotatably support one end of the leadscrews 1238… It should be appreciated that the other end of the leadscrews 1238 are rotatably disposed in the housing 1250 by bearings 1262. It should also be appreciated that the intermediate shaft 1224 is rotatably supported in the housing 1258 by a bearing 1264.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sachs, Shelton IV, Hendrick, and Diel to incorporate the teachings of Bozung to have the shuttle magnet coupled to one end of the shuttle element, and a bearing coupled to an opposed end of the shuttle element for contacting the spiral groove, as these prior art references are directed to surgical systems. One would be motivated to do this to rotatably support the leadscrews and to determine the position of the shuttle along the male segment assembly, as recognized by Bozung ([0072]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 15, Sachs/Bozung/Shelton IV/Hendrick/Diel teach the surgical robotic arm of claim 13 (as shown above). Sachs, Bozung, Shelton IV, and Diel, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the arm further comprises a second magnet coupled to the male segment assembly and rotatable therewith, wherein the second plurality of sensors are configured to sense a rotational angular position of the second magnet and generate the second sensor data.
However, Hendrick teaches a second magnet coupled to the male segment assembly and rotatable therewith, wherein the second plurality of sensors are configured to sense a rotational angular position of the second magnet and generate the second sensor data ([0123]-[0124] “For instance, in addition to the motor rotational position sensors, each tube actuation module can include a magnetic lead screw rotational position sensor (not shown) and a magnetic lead screw linear position sensor 290. Positional sensing of this type can be implemented in a variety of manners… The angular position of the tube can also be sensed magnetically with a multi-pole ring magnet associated with the keyed collar of the rotator assembly… The magnetic position sensors sense actual tube position. The strip magnet sensor and ring magnet sensor can provide absolute accuracy on tube position and rotation with a high resolution, such as 10 micrometers (μm) linearly and 0.019° rotationally… Absolute rotational position sensing can be obtained via a Hall sensor 292 for sensing a magnet embedded in the actuator motor drive gear.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sachs, Bozung, Shelton IV, and Diel to incorporate the teachings of Hendrick to have a second magnet coupled to the male segment assembly and rotatable therewith, wherein the second plurality of sensors are configured to sense a rotational angular position of the second magnet and generate the second sensor data, as these prior art references are directed to surgical systems. One would be motivated to do this as sensing the position of the robotic arm tubes allows for safe operation of the system, as recognized by Hendrick ([0122]).
Regarding claim 19, Sachs/Bozung/Shelton IV/Hendrick/Diel teaches the surgical robotic arm of claim 15 (as shown above). Sachs , Shelton IV, Hendrick, and Diel, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the female segment assembly further comprises an abutment element for axially separating the engagement element from a bearing element disposed about a portion of the other surface of the rotary shaft element.
However, Bozung teaches the female segment assembly further comprises an abutment element for axially separating the engagement element from a bearing element disposed about a portion of the other surface of the rotary shaft element ([0072] “The linear block 1228 also includes a housing 1258 disposed about the other end of the leadscrews 1238 and connected to the bearing 1234 disposed about the rotor 1230. The housing 1258 extends axially and is connected to the end holder 1250 by a plurality of fasteners 1260. The housing 1258 is disposed in the outer casing 1208 and is fixed relative thereto. It should be appreciated that the other end of the leadscrews 1238 are rotatably disposed in the housing 1250 by bearings 1262.”, view Figure 9 and 10: the leadscrews 1238 are separated from the bearing 1234)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sachs , Shelton IV, Hendrick, and Diel to incorporate the teachings of Bozung to have the female segment assembly further comprises an abutment element for axially separating the engagement element from a bearing element disposed about a portion of the other surface of the rotary shaft element, as these prior art references are directed to surgical systems. One would be motivated to do this as to prevent damage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Manzo et al. (US 20120310254 A1) teaches a worm gear that interacts with a stop portion that limits the rotation and movement of the worm gear ([0065])
Goldenberg et al. (US 20160228189 A1) teaches hard stops that limit the rotation of a shaft ([0075])
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 5712724156. 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.
/ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights