CTFR 18/223,331 CTFR 96708 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment, filed 18 March 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1, 8, and 17-19 are amended. Claims 9-16, 23-37, and 44-52 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-8, 17-22, and 38-43 are pending in the instant application. Claims 38-43 remain withdrawn. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed 18 March 2026, with respect to the claim objections to claims 1 and 17-19 and the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-8 and 17-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment. The claim objections to claims 1 and 17-19 and the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-8 and 17-22 have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wapler (WO0119272A1) and further in view of Shoham (WO2005/074368A2) and Carlnäs (US4719816). Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7-8 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wapler (WO0119272A1) and further in view of Shoham (WO2005/074368A2, Carlnäs (US4719816), and Pryor (US4460826). Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 17-21 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wapler (WO0119272A1) and further in view of Shoham (WO2005/074368A2), Carlnäs (US4719816) and Urquhart (US2005/0049486A1) Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 22 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wapler (WO0119272A1) and further in view of Shoham (WO2005/074368A2), Carlnäs (US4719816), Urquhart (US2005/0049486A1), and Pryor (US4460826). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-8 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 17 recite the limitation "wherein a portion of the plurality of actuators is coupled to the base by U-joint connections and spherical joints at a platform side" in lines 7-8 and 8-9, respectively. The claim is indefinite because, as written, the claim states that a portion of the actuators are coupled to the base by U-joint connections and also connected to the base by spherical joints on a platform side. From the language of the claim, it is unclear what is being claimed. The spherical joints on the platform side should reference the actuator being coupled to the platform via the spherical joints. Claims 2-8 and 18-22 inherit the same deficiency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-fti The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-fti The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-fti This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). 07-21-fti Claim s 1-6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wapler (WO0119272A1) in view of Shoham (WO2005/074368A2) and further in view of Carlnäs (US4719816) . Regarding claim 1, Wapler discloses a robot for image-guided interventions (Abstract), said robot comprising: a base member (Figure 2, “13”); a plurality of actuators coupled to the base member (Figure 2, 16); a platform operably coupled to the plurality of actuators (Figure 2, 14); and the base member and the platform being arranged so that the platform is moveable with respect to the base member responsive to the plurality of actuators (Page 1). Wapler discloses the actuators are connected to the base and platform, but does not disclose a portion of the plurality of actuators is coupled to the base by U-joint connections and spherical joints at a platform side. Shoham discloses a similar structure to Wapler (Shoham, Figure 2) and further discloses the actuators are connected to the base by U-joints and the actuators are connected to the platform by spherical joints (Shoham Page 8). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the robot as taught by Wapler, with the actuators being connected to the base by U-joints and the actuators being connected to the platform by spherical joints as taught by Shoham, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of controlled movement of the platform (Wapler, Page 3). Modified Wapler discloses each actuator comprises electric linear drives with a threaded spindle for precision adjustment of the platform (Page 2) but does not teach the actuator comprising a pneumatic stepper motor. Carlnäs discloses a device for precise adjustment of actuators which linearly displace a piston similar to the actuators disclosed by Wapler (col. 1, line 48 - col. 2, line 11). The device comprises a knob -12- for coarse adjustment and a pneumatic stepper motor for precision adjustment (col. 1, lines 62-66 and col. 2, lines 9-11, col. 2, lines 16-23). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pneumatic stepper motor similar to that described by Carlnäs as part of each actuator disclosed by modified Wapler because as taught by Carlnäs, they allow for automated positioning of precision equipment (col. 3, lines 26-34) which would increase the safety and reliability of Wapler's device. Regarding claim 2, Carlnäs discloses the stepper motor is pneumatic (controlled by air pressure) (col. 1, lines 62-66 and col. 2, lines 9-11) and the motor is a rotary stepping motor comprising a plurality of pneumatic ports -16- wherein sequential pressurizing of the ports causes a stepping motion (illustrated in fig. 3 and described at col. 2, lines 28-41). Regarding claim 3, Carlnäs illustrates the motor includes at least three ports -16- (fig. 2). Though not explicitly described, the motor could be set in a stepping motion by sequentially pressuring at least three of the ports in a six-step pneumatic commutation process because the motor comprises the necessary ports for such a process. Since this is an apparatus claim, the prior art need only describe a structure capable of carrying out the process and not necessarily the process itself. Regarding claim 4, the motor disclosed by Carlnäs comprises a gear head -9- that converts rotary motion of the motor to linear movement of the piston -1- along an axis of the actuator via spindle -3- (col. 1, lines 50-53 and col. 2, lines 12-13 and 27-35). Regarding claim 5, Carlnäs discloses the stepper motor further includes a first moving element, spindle -3-, that rotates responsive to the motor’s stepping motion due to its fixed relationship with gear -9- (col. 2, lines 12-13) and a second moving element, piston -1-, that engages the spindle so that the piston moves linearly along an axis of the actuator responsive to rotation of the spindle (col. 1, lines 53-61). Regarding claim 6, Carlnäs discloses the spindle may comprise an internally threaded sleeve on the end thereof while the piston may comprise corresponding threads engaging the sleeve (Col 1, lines 53-61). The first and second elements therefore define a nut and screw respectively . 07-22-fti Claim s 7 and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wapler (WO0119272A1) in view of Shoham (WO2005/074368A2) and Carlnäs (US4719816) , as applied to claim s 1, 2 and 6 above, and further in view of Pryor (US4460826) . Regarding claim 7, Carlnäs discloses it is often of value to sense the position of the actuator, for example via optical monitoring of gear or spindle rotation and/or linear motion of the piston (col. 3, lines 19-25). Modified Wapler is silent as to the optical encoder and fiber claimed. Pryor discloses a fiber optic rotational encoder for sensing rotation of a toothed wheel (such as a gear) and also a fiber optic limit switch for indicating when an element is displaced all the way forward (this constitutes a zero reference for linear movement) (col. 2, lines 29-35 and col. 3, lines 6-10). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the robot as taught by modified Wapler, with the use of optical encoders and limit switches for indicating motor operation and/or piston location as taught by Pryor, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of allowing for precise monitoring of platform location. Regarding claim 8, Pryor discloses fiber optic cables -10- optically interconnect the optical encoder to electro-optical interface elements (controller -2-) that detect light beam interruptions caused by moving elements (such as teeth on a wheel or gear) (col. 2, lines 29-39). It is also the examiner’s position that the limit switch functions in a similar manner, i.e. detecting interruptions in a transmitted light signal; these interruptions are also transmitted via fiber optic cables to the controller (electro-optical interface elements) (col. 3, lines 7-13). The controller -2- outputs electrical signals (col. 2, lines 13-15). The fiber optic cables -10- have a length so that the interface elements -2- are located a distance away from the device itself, which in the combination taught by modified Wapler in view of Pryor is an imaging device . 07-21-fti Claim s 17-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wapler (WO0119272A1) in view of Shoham (WO2005/074368A2) and further in view of Carlnäs (US4719816) and Urquhart (US2005/0049486A1) Regarding claim 1, Wapler discloses a robotic system comprising a robot (Abstract), including a base member (Figure 2, “13”); a plurality of actuators coupled to the base member (Figure 2, 16); a platform operably coupled to the plurality of actuators (Figure 2, 14); and the base member and the platform being arranged so that the platform is moveable with respect to the base member responsive to the plurality of actuators (Page 1), and a control unit that is configured to control operation of the robot (Page 2). Wapler discloses the actuators are connected to the base and platform, but does not disclose a portion of the plurality of actuators is coupled to the base by U-joint connections and spherical joints at a platform side. Shoham discloses a similar structure to Wapler (Shoham, Figure 2) and further discloses the actuators are connected to the base by U-joints and the actuators are connected to the platform by spherical joints (Shoham Page 8). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the robot as taught by Wapler, with the actuators being connected to the base by U-joints and the actuators being connected to the platform by spherical joints as taught by Shoham, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of controlled movement of the platform (Wapler, Page 3). Modified Wapler discloses each actuator comprises electric linear drives with a threaded spindle for precision adjustment of the platform (Page 2) but does not teach the actuator comprising a pneumatic stepper motor. Carlnäs discloses a device for precise adjustment of actuators which linearly displace a piston similar to the actuators disclosed by Wapler (col. 1, line 48 - col. 2, line 11). The device comprises a knob -12- for coarse adjustment and a pneumatic stepper motor for precision adjustment (col. 1, lines 62-66 and col. 2, lines 9-11, col. 2, lines 16-23). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pneumatic stepper motor similar to that described by Carlnäs as part of each actuator disclosed by modified Wapler because as taught by Carlnäs, they allow for automated positioning of precision equipment (col. 3, lines 26-34) which would increase the safety and reliability of Wapler's device. Modified Wapler is silent as to a control unit operably coupled to each actuator configured to control operation of the robot. However, Urquhart discloses a control unit -34- which is operably coupled to a plurality of actuators of a stereotactic positioning robot system and configured to control operation of the robot [0075]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the robot as taught by modified Wapler, with a control unit which controls operation of the robot disclosed by modified Wapler because Urquhart discloses such a controller provides a completely automatic system for medical device positioning [0075]; this allows for more consistency and less opportunity for human error. Regarding claim 18, Carlnäs discloses the stepper motor is pneumatic (controlled by air pressure) (col. 1, lines 62-66 and col. 2, lines 9-11) and the motor is a rotary stepping motor comprising a plurality of pneumatic ports -16- wherein sequential pressurizing of the ports causes a stepping motion (illustrated in fig. 3 and described at col. 2, lines 28-41). It was disclosed supra that the control unit of Urquhart is configured to control the actuators. Regarding claim 19, Carlnäs illustrates the motor includes at least three ports -16- (fig. 2). Though not explicitly described, the motor could be set in a stepping motion by sequentially pressuring at least three of the ports in a six-step pneumatic commutation process because the motor comprises the necessary ports for such a process. Since this is an apparatus claim, the prior art need only describe a structure capable of carrying out the process and not necessarily the process itself. It was disclosed supra that the control unit of Urquhart is configured to control the actuators. Regarding claim 20, the motor disclosed by Carlnäs comprises a gear head -9- that converts rotary motion of the motor to linear movement of the piston -1- along an axis of the actuator via spindle -3- (col. 1, lines 50-53 and col. 2, lines 12-13 and 27-35). Regarding claim 21, Carlnäs discloses the stepper motor further includes a first moving element, spindle -3-, that rotates responsive to the motor’s stepping motion due to its fixed relationship with gear -9- (col. 2, lines 12-13) and a second moving element, piston -1-, that engages the spindle so that the piston moves linearly along an axis of the actuator responsive to rotation of the spindle (col. 1, lines 53-61) . 07-21-fti Claim 22 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wapler (WO0119272A1) in view of Shoham (WO2005/074368A2), Carlnäs (US4719816) and Urquhart (US2005/0049486A1), as applied to claim 18, and further in view of Pryor (US4460826) . Regarding claim 22, Modified Wapler, as modified by Carlnäs, discloses it is often of value to sense the position of the actuator, for example via optical monitoring of gear or spindle rotation and/or linear motion of the piston (Carlnäs, col. 3, lines 19-25). Modified Wapler is silent as to the optical encoder and fiber claimed. Pryor discloses a fiber optic rotational encoder for sensing rotation of a toothed wheel (such as a gear) and also a fiber optic limit switch for indicating when an element is displaced all the way forward (this constitutes a zero reference for linear movement) (col. 2, lines 29-35 and col. 3, lines 6-10). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use optical encoders and limit switches similar to those disclosed by Pryor for indicating motor operation and/or piston location in the system disclosed by modified Wapler because they allow for precise monitoring of platform location. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 Marc D Honrath whose telephone number is (571)272-6219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00. 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, Charles A Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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. /CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 3791 /M.D.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/223,331 Page 2 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/223,331 Page 3 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/223,331 Page 4 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/223,331 Page 5 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/223,331 Page 6 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/223,331 Page 7 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/223,331 Page 8 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/223,331 Page 9 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/223,331 Page 10 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/223,331 Page 11 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/223,331 Page 12 Art Unit: 3791
Prosecution Insights