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 December 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
“Applicant respectfully submits that Shimmura fails to anticipate at least "a static arm coupled perpendicularly to the support pole at a first end" as recited in claim 1” (see page 6of Remarks). However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The locking function ensures that the arm does not rotate and is thus considered to be “static” when the locking function is engaged. Furthermore, the ability of the arm to rotate does not disqualify it from being in a fixed or “static” position when the locking function is engaged. Therefore, for reasons stated above and previously made of record, the claims remain rejected under Shimmura et al. as previously made of record and detailed below.
“Further, Applicant respectfully submits that Shimmura fails to anticipate at least "wherein a proximal end of the swivel arm is rotationally coupled to a second end of the static arm.".” (page 7 of Remarks). However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As depicted in Figure 7 of Shimmura et al., the swivel arm is rotationally coupled to the static arm wherein “a proximal end of the swivel arm” is “rotationally” coupled. The claim does not recite the limitation that the static arm engages or is “coupled” at a point on the proximal end of the swivel arm. The claim merely states that the “swivel arm” is “rotationally coupled” to a “second end of the static arm” which is met by Figure 7 of Shimmura et al. and previously made of record.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., static arm is coupled to a point on the proximal end of a swivel arm) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
“Additionally, Applicant respectfully submits that Shimmura fails to show or suggest at least "wherein the tool holder comprises a locking joint controlled by an actuator, wherein the tool holder can be locked into position along multiple axes of rotation." (page 8 of Remarks). However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites “wherein the tool holder can be locked into position along multiple axes of rotation”. By locking the tool holder into position, it is in a fixed position or locked “along multiple axes of rotation”. As such, Shimmura et al. does in fact disclose “the tool holder can be locked into position along multiple axes of rotation”.
Therefore for the reasons stated above and previously made of record, the claims remain rejected under Shimmura et al. as detailed below.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimmura et al. (US 20010027313 A1).
As to claim 1, Shimmura et al. discloses a surgical tool support device (Abstract; Figure 7; [0088]) comprising: a vertical support pole (depicted as 41b in Figure 7, [0088]); a static arm coupled perpendicularly to the support pole at a first end (support arm, depicted as 42 in Figure 7, includes a horizontal portion extending perpendicular from an upper end of support 41b; Figure 7; [0088]; And since the only adjustment capability between support 41b and support arm 42 is rotation about vertical axis of rotation Oa, it is fixed/statically extending perpendicular thereto); a swivel arm (depicted as 43 in Figure 7), wherein a proximal end of the swivel arm is rotationally coupled to a second end of the static arm (a lower end of the support member 43 is coupled for rotation about axis of rotation Ob relative to an upper end of support arm 42; Figure 7; [0095]); and a tool holder (depicted as 50 in Figure 7) coupled to a distal end of the swivel arm (an upper end of support member 43 is coupled to arm 50a of the link mechanism 50; Figure 7; [0095]), wherein the tool holder comprises a locking joint controlled by an actuator, wherein the tool holder can be locked into a position along multiple axes of rotation (link mechanism 50 includes a socket section 50b and ball section 50c forming a ball and socket joint which is locked by an electromagnetic lock 16h (actuator) to stop tilting about a nutational point T1 having three degrees of freedom and so prevents rotation along three axes; Figure7; [0091-0092, 0102-0103]).
As to claim 2, Shimmura et al. discloses an actuator control, wherein the actuator control is a button (release switch, depicted as 17 in Figure 7; the actuator control for releasing the electromagnetic lock 16h is in the form of a button; [0107]).
As to claim 3, Shimmura et al. discloses wherein the actuator is a solenoid or a motor brake ([0121-0125]).
As to claim 4, Shimmura et al. discloses the support pole is configured to clamp to an operating table or bed ([0088, 0097]; Figure 7).
As to claim 5, Shimmura et al. discloses the support pole is affixed to a movable base ([0088]; Figure 7; Shimmura et al. discloses “that can be fixed to a surgical bed”[0088] which is movable. As such, Shimmura et al. discloses “the support pole is affixed to a movable base”).
As to claim 6, Shimmura et al. discloses the tool holder (depicted as 50 in Figure 7) comprises a surgical tool seat (holding section, depicted as 13 in Figure 7; [0092]) configured to receive a surgical tool (ridged scope, depicted as 12 in Figure 7), wherein the surgical tool seat is rotatable along multiple axes and wherein a position of the surgical tool seat is lockable via the actuator (the ball and socket joint formed by socket section 50b and ball section 50c is released by an electromagnetic lock 16h (actuator) to enable tilting about nutational point T1 of the rigid scope 12 in the holding section 13 with three degrees of freedom (multiple axes); Figure7; [0092, 0102-0103]).
As to claim 7, Shimmura et al. discloses a resistance force mechanism (counterweight, depicted as 21 in Figure 7; [0061, 0093, 0117]) is coupled to the vertical support pole (depicted as 41b in Figure 7, [0088]), wherein the resistance force mechanism provides an amount of force necessary to offset a weight of the tool holder and a tool such that near-zero force is required by a user to raise or lower the static arm ([0061, 0093, 0117]).
As to claim 9, Shimmura et al. discloses the resistance force mechanism (counterweight, depicted as 21 in Figure 7; [0061, 0093, 0117]) and the vertical support pole (depicted as 41b in Figure 7, [0088]) are housed in a base (Figure 7).
As to claim 17, Shimmura et al. discloses a surgical tool support device (Abstract; Figure 7; [0088]) comprising: a vertical support pole (depicted as 41b in Figure 7, [0088]); a static arm coupled perpendicularly to the support pole at a first end (support arm, depicted as 42 in Figure 7, includes a horizontal portion extending perpendicular from an upper end of support 41b; Figure 7; [0088]; And since the only adjustment capability between support 41b and support arm 42 is rotation about vertical axis of rotation Oa, it is fixed/statically extending perpendicular thereto); a swivel arm (depicted as 43 in Figure 7), wherein a proximal end of the swivel arm is coupled to a second end of the static arm (a lower end of the support member 43 is coupled for rotation about axis of rotation Ob relative to an upper end of support arm 42; Figure 7; [0095]); and a tool holder (depicted as 50 in Figure 7) coupled to a distal end of the swivel arm (an upper end of support member 43 is coupled to arm 50a of the link mechanism 50; Figure 7; [0095]); and at least one attachment (installation table, depicted as 1a in Figure 6 and 41a in Figure 7; installation table configured for attachment and thus “at least one attachment”); wherein the vertical support pole comprises resistance force mechanism (counterweight, depicted as 21 in Figure 7; [0061, 0093, 0117]) to offset weight of the surgical tool for repositioning the surgical tool ( [0061, 0093, 0117]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimmura et al. (US 20010027313 A1). Shimmura et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed with resistance force mechanism (counterweight, depicted as 21 in Figure 7; [0061, 0093, 0117]) with a threaded screw shaft (depicted as 20 in Figure 1), but does not disclose the resistance force mechanism comprises a constant force coil spring. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the anchoring means of the resistance force mechanism (counterweight) to include a constant force coil spring, since they are extremely well known machinery components and the inclusion of such componentry would optimize device cost and function.
As to claims 18-20, Shimmura et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed with a scope (depicted as 12 in Figure 7; [0058-0059]) but does not explicitly disclose an attachment holds a second tool in a position relative to the scope. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Shimmura et al. to also include a second tool holder, such as a hook, a clip, a mesh basket, or a shelf, in order to provide the predictable results of ensuring additional surgical tools are accessible to the doctor during necessary medical procedures.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALYSSA M ALTER whose telephone number is (571)272-4939. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, David E Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/ALYSSA M ALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796