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 Invention I in the reply filed on 02/27/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/27/2026. Information Disclosure Statement The 05/10/2023 IDS cited the entire book Ultrasonic Testing of Materials . However, only a few pages of the book were provided by Applicant. As such, Examiner did not consider the entire book, as cited in the IDS. Drawings The drawings are objected to because it appears the irrigation tube is labeled as Element 204 in Figure 2, when the feature should be labeled as Element 206 to be in line with the specification. New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because they fail to comply with the following §1.84 sections. New corrected drawings in compliance with §1.84(m) are required in this application because the shading, particularly of the horn and flue in Figures 2/3, makes it difficult to determine the structure of the claimed invention . New corrected drawings in compliance with §1.84(l) are required in this application because the line quality, particularly of the horn and flue in Figures 2/3, makes it difficult to determine the structure of the claimed invention and prevents satisfactory reproduction characteristics . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows. “ irrigation source ” in Claim 12, where the generic placeholder is source, the functional language is “ provides irrigation fluid to the aspirator via an irrigation tube ”, and sufficient modifying structure is not provided in the claim; the instant application specification does not provide sufficient modifying structure for the irrigation source –see 12(a) rejection below for clarification “ aspiration source ” in Claim 12, where the generic placeholder is source, the functional language is “ provides suction to the aspirator via an aspiration tube ”, and sufficient modifying structure is not provided in the claim; the instant application specification does not provide sufficient modifying structure for the aspiration source –see 12(a) rejection below for clarification “ power source ” in Claim 12, where the generic placeholder is source, the functional language is “ provides power to the aspirator and the plurality of arm members ”, and sufficient modifying structure is not provided in the claim; the instant application specification does not provide sufficient modifying structure for the power source –see 12(a) rejection below for clarification Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim s 5-10 & 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As to Claim 5 , applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims a console for individually controlling the robotic system and the aspirator . This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe s how the console is capable of controlling the robotic system or the aspirator. The instant application describes the control of the robotic system and the aspirator relying on a power source. Instant application Figure 4 shows the power source 320 as being comprised of an arm member module 322, a power supply 322a, an electric lead 322b, a horn module 324, a generator 324a, and an electric lead 324b, which are all described in instant application Paragraphs 0052/0053. None of these features would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what the power source is, or how the power source is capable of providing to the aspirator and the plurality of arm members ; resulting in one or ordinary skill in the art being unable to determine how either of the robotic system or aspirator are controlled . Additionally, the function of controlling the robotic system and aspirator is performed via software, as evident at least in instant application Figure 4. However, the original disclosure fails to provide an algorithm, steps, or a procedure, for performing the control of either the robotic system or the aspirator. See MPEP 2161.01. As such, the instant application fails to provide sufficient written description for the claimed power source , resulting in one of ordinary skill in the art failing to As to Claim 10 , applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims the console is configured to selectively control supplying the irrigation fluid to the annular cavity and providing the vacuum to the horn via a foot pedal . This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe s how the console is capable of controlling the irrigation or the vacuum. The instant application describes the control of the aspirator relying on a power source. Instant application Figure 4 shows the power source 320 as being comprised of an arm member module 322, a power supply 322a, an electric lead 322b, a horn module 324, a generator 324a, and an electric lead 324b, which are all described in instant application Paragraphs 0052/0053. None of these features would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what the power source is, or how the power source is capable of providing to the aspirator and the plurality of arm members ; resulting in one or ordinary skill in the art being unable to determine how either of the robotic system or aspirator are controlled . Control of t he irrigation relies on an irrigation source. Instant application Figure 4 shows the irrigation source 340 as being comprised of an irrigation module 342, a fluid supply 334a , and a fluid coupling 334b, which are all described in instant application Paragraph 0055. However, none of these features would lead on e of ordinary skill in the art to determine what the irrigation source is, or how the irrigation source is capable of providing irrigation fluid to the aspirator via an irrigation tube. Control of the irrigation relies on an aspiration source. Instant application Figure 4 shows the aspiration source 330 as being comprised of an aspiration module 332, a power supply 332a , and an electric lead 332b, which are all described in instant application Paragraph 0054. Paragraph 0054 also describes aspiration source 330 may be used to activate a vacuum assembly, but does not describe the vacuum assembly as being part of the aspiration source 330. None of these features would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what the aspiration source is, or how the aspiration source is capable of providing suction to the aspirator via an aspiration tube. Additionally, the function of controlling the irrigation and vacuum is performed via software, as evident at least in instant application Figure 4. However, the original disclosure fails to provide an algorithm, steps, or a procedure, for performing the control of either the irrigation or the vacuum, either by the claimed foot pedal or any other means. See MPEP 2161.01. As such, the instant application fails to provide sufficient written description for the claimed irrigation source , aspiration source, and power source, which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to be unable to determine how the console is capable of controlling the irrigation fluid or the vacuum, via the foot pedal or any means . As to Claim 12 , applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims an irrigation source that provides irrigation fluid to the aspirator via an irrigation tube. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe the structure of the claimed irrigation source. Instant application Figure 4 shows the irrigation source 340 as being comprised of an irrigation module 342, a fluid supply 334a , and a fluid coupling 334b, which are all described in instant application Paragraph 0055. However, none of these features would lead on e of ordinary skill in the art to determine what the irrigation source is, or how the irrigation source is capable of providing irrigation fluid to the aspirator via an irrigation tube. As such, the instant application fails to provide sufficient written description for the claimed irrigation source. Applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims an aspiration source that provides suction to the aspirator via an aspiration tube. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe how the aspiration source is capable of providing suction to the aspirator via an aspiration tube. Instant application Figure 4 shows the aspiration source 330 as being comprised of an aspiration module 332, a power supply 332a , and an electric lead 332b, which are all described in instant application Paragraph 0054. Paragraph 0054 also describes aspiration source 330 may be used to activate a vacuum assembly, but does not describe the vacuum assembly as being part of the aspiration source 330. None of these features would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what the aspiration source is, or how the aspiration source is capable of providing suction to the aspirator via an aspiration tube. As such, the instant application fails to provide sufficient written description for the claimed aspiration source. Applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims a power source that provides power to the aspirator and the plurality of arm members. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describes how the power source is capable of providing to the aspirator and the plurality of arm members. Instant application Figure 4 shows the power source 320 as being comprised of an arm member module 322, a power supply 322a, an electric lead 322b, a horn module 324, a generator 324a, and an electric lead 324b, which are all described in instant application Paragraphs 0052/0053. None of these features would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what the power source is, or how the power source is capable of providing to the aspirator and the plurality of arm members . As such, the instant application fails to provide sufficient written description for the claimed power source. As to Claim 13 , applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims the console is configured to selectively control supplying the irrigation fluid to the aspirator and providing the suction to the aspirator via a foot pedal . This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe s how the console is capable of controlling the irrigation or the vacuum. The instant application describes the control of the aspirator relying on a power source. Instant application Figure 4 shows the power source 320 as being comprised of an arm member module 322, a power supply 322a, an electric lead 322b, a horn module 324, a generator 324a, and an electric lead 324b, which are all described in instant application Paragraphs 0052/0053. None of these features would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what the power source is, or how the power source is capable of providing to the aspirator and the plurality of arm members ; resulting in one or ordinary skill in the art being unable to determine how either of the robotic system or aspirator are controlled . Control of the irrigation relies on an irrigation source. Instant application Figure 4 shows the irrigation source 340 as being comprised of an irrigation module 342, a fluid supply 334a , and a fluid coupling 334b, which are all described in instant application Paragraph 0055. However, none of these features would lead on e of ordinary skill in the art to determine what the irrigation source is, or how the irrigation source is capable of providing irrigation fluid to the aspirator via an irrigation tube. Control of the irrigation relies on an aspiration source. Instant application Figure 4 shows the aspiration source 330 as being comprised of an aspiration module 332, a power supply 332a , and an electric lead 332b, which are all described in instant application Paragraph 0054. Paragraph 0054 also describes aspiration source 330 may be used to activate a vacuum assembly, but does not describe the vacuum assembly as being part of the aspiration source 330. None of these features would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what the aspiration source is, or how the aspiration source is capable of providing suction to the aspirator via an aspiration tube. Additionally, the function of controlling the irrigation and vacuum is performed via software, as evident at least in instant application Figure 4. However, the original disclosure fails to provide an algorithm, steps, or a procedure, for performing the control of either the irrigation or the vacuum, either by the claimed foot pedal or any other means. See MPEP 2161.01. As such, the instant application fails to provide sufficient written description for the claimed irrigation source , aspiration source, and power source, which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to be unable to determine how the console is capable of controlling the irrigation fluid or the vacuum, via the foot pedal or any means . 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: Th e specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-16 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. As to Claim 1 , the limitation, “ each of the plurality of arm members being coupled to each adjacent arm member via a joint ”, in Lines 3-4, is indefinite. It is not clear if the adjacent arm member is part of the plurality of arm members, or if the adjacent arm member is in addition to the plurality of arm members. For the purpose of examination, the adjacent arm member will be interpreted to be part of the plurality of arm members. Additionally, the limitation reads in a manner where all of the arm members are coupled to each other with a single joint. However, instant application Figure 1 shows the arm members coupled to each other with multiple joints. As such, the limitation is indefinite in light of the specification. Examiner suggests labeling each arm member –i.e., first arm member, second arm member—and describing how each arm member is attached to an adjacent arm member –i.e., a first arm member of the plurality of arm members is coupled to a second arm member of the plurality of arm members via a first joint—which is how the limitation will be interpreted. The limitation “ at least one of the plurality of arm members including a first receiver and a second receiver ”, in Lines 4-5, is indefinite. It is not clear if the at least one of the plurality of arm members is in addition to the adjacent arm member, or if the at least one of the plurality of arm members is part of the adjacent arm member. For the purpose of examination, the at least one of the plurality of arm members will be interpreted as part of the adjacent arm member. As to Claim 5 , the limitation “ a console for individually controlling the robotic system and the aspirator ” is indefinite. As described in the 112(a) rejection above, how the console is capable of controlling the robotic system and the aspirator lacks written description. As such, it is not clear how the console is capable of controlling the robotic system and the aspirator in view of the specification, rendering the limitation indefinite. As to Claim 10 , the limitation “ the console is configured to selectively control supplying the irrigation fluid to the annular cavity and providing the vacuum to the horn via a foot pedal ” is indefinite. As described in the 112(a) rejection above, how the console is capable of controlling the irrigation and the vacuum lacks written description. As such, it is not clear how the console is capable of controlling the irrigation and the vacuum in view of the specification, rendering the limitation indefinite. As to Claim 11 , the limitation, “each of the plurality of arm members are coupled to each adjacent arm member”, is indefinite. It is not clear if each adjacent arm member is part of the plurality of arm members, or if each adjacent arm member is in addition to the plurality of arm members. For the purpose of examination, the adjacent arm member will be interpreted to be part of the plurality of arm members. Additionally, the term “each adjacent arm member” was used in Claim 1. As such, it is not clear if the each adjacent arm member in Claim 11 is the same each adjacent arm member in Claim 1, or if the respective each adjacent arm members are different from each other. For the purpose of examination, the each adjacent arm member of Claim 11 will be interpreted as the same each adjacent arm member of Claim 1. As to Claim 1 2 , the limitation, “ each of the plurality of arm members being coupled to each adjacent arm member via a joint ”, in Lines 3-4, is indefinite. It is not clear if the adjacent arm member is part of the plurality of arm members, or if the adjacent arm member is in addition to the plurality of arm members. For the purpose of examination, the adjacent arm member will be interpreted to be part of the plurality of arm members. Additionally, the limitation reads in a manner where all of the arm members are coupled to each other with a single joint. However, instant application Figure 1 shows the arm members coupled to each other with multiple joints. As such, the limitation is indefinite in light of the specification. Examiner suggests labeling each arm member –i.e., first arm member, second arm member—and describing how each arm member is attached to an adjacent arm member –i.e., a first arm member of the plurality of arm members is coupled to a second arm member of the plurality of arm members via a first joint—which is how the limitation will be interpreted. The limitation “ at least one of the plurality of arm members including a first receiver and a second receiver ”, in Lines 4-5, is indefinite. It is not clear if the at least one of the plurality of arm members is in addition to the adjacent arm member, or if the at least one of the plurality of arm members is part of the adjacent arm member. For the purpose of examination, the at least one of the plurality of arm members will be interpreted as part of the adjacent arm member. The limitation “ an irrigation source that provides irrigation fluid to the aspirator via an irrigation tube; an aspiration source that provides suction to the aspirator via an aspiration tube; and a power source that provides power to the aspirator and the plurality of arm members ”, in Lines 17-19, is indefinite. As described in the 112(a) rejection above, each of the irrigation source, the aspiration source, and the power source lack written description. As such, it is not clear how any of the claimed irrigation source, aspiration source, or power source are capable of performing the respectively claimed functions, in view of the specification, rendering the limitation indefinite. As to Claim 13 , the limitation “ the console is configured to selectively control supplying the irrigation fluid to the aspirator and providing the suction to the aspirator via a foot pedal ” is indefinite. As described in the 112(a) rejection above, how the console is capable of controlling the irrigation and the vacuum lacks written description. As such, it is not clear how the console is capable of controlling the irrigation and the vacuum in view of the specification, rendering the limitation indefinite. As to Claim 1 5 , the limitation, “each of the plurality of arm members are coupled to each adjacent arm member”, is indefinite. It is not clear if each adjacent arm member is part of the plurality of arm members, or if each adjacent arm member is in addition to the plurality of arm members. For the purpose of examination, the adjacent arm member will be interpreted to be part of the plurality of arm members. Additionally, the term “each adjacent arm member” was used in Claim 1 2 . As such, it is not clear if the each adjacent arm member in Claim 1 5 is the same each adjacent arm member in Claim 1 2 , or if the respective each adjacent arm members are different from each other. For the purpose of examination, the each adjacent arm member of Claim 1 5 will be interpreted as the same each adjacent arm member of Claim 1 2 . 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. Claims 1- 9 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (U.S. PGPub 2022/0401166), in view of Parham (U.S. P GPub 2020/0085464 ). As to Claim 1, Hashimoto teaches a surgical apparatus (100) comprising: a robotic system (1) comprising: a plurality of arm members (at least 12/12b/13/14), each of the plurality of arm members (at least 12/12b/13/14) being coupled to (as shown in Figure 1) each adjacent arm member (12/12b/13/14) via a joint (Paragraph 0060) , and at least one (14) of the plurality of arm members ( at least 12/12b/13/14 ) including a first receiver (14a/15) and a second receiver (14b/9) ; a surgical tool (20) comprising: a handpiece (the portion of 20 supporting surgical tool 20, as shown in Figure 1 and described in Paragraph 0057)… wherein the handpiece (the portion of 20 supporting surgical tool 20, as shown in Figure 1 and described in Paragraph 0057) of the surgical tool (20) is received by (as shown in Figure 1 and described in Paragraph 0057) the first receiver (14a/15) of the at least one (14) of the plurality of arm members (at least 12/12b/13/14) and the bottom (the bottom of surgical tool 20, as viewed in Figure 1) of the surgical tool (20) is received by (as shown in Figure 1) the second receiver (14b/9) of the at least one (14) of the plurality of arm members (at least 12/12b/13/14) , such that the surgical tool (20) remains axially aligned relative to (as shown in Figure 1) the at least one (14) of the plurality of arm members (at least 12/12b/13/14) when the robotic system (1) is manipulated (as shown in Figure 1) . Hashimoto is silent on the specific function of the surgical tool , as claimed, so does not teach an aspirator comprising: a handpiece; a connector extending from the handpiece; a horn the handpiece via the connector; and a flue coaxially disposed about the horn and coupled to the handpiece via the connector . Parham describes a surgical tool , and teaches an aspirator (Figure 1) comprising: a handpiece (120) ; a connector (118) extending from (as shown in Figure 10) the handpiece (120) ; a horn (140, which includes 216/136/144/152; see Paragraphs 0058/0059) coupled to (as shown in Figure 10) the handpiece (120) via (as shown in Figure 10) the connector (118) ; and a flue (116) coaxially disposed about (as shown in Figure 10) the horn (140) and coupled to (as shown in Figure 10) the handpiece (120) via (as shown in Figure 10) the connector (118) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the aspirator , as taught by Parham , in place of the surgical tool , as taught by Hashimoto , “to percutaneously access and act upon target tissue while helping reduce collateral trauma ( Paragraph 0026).” As to Claim 2, Hashi moto, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the flue (Parham 116) further comprises a distal end (the left end of Parham 116, as viewed in Parham Figure 10) and a proximal end (the right end of Parham 116, as viewed in Parham Figure 10) , and the distal end (the left end of Parham 116, as viewed in Parham Figure 10) of the flue (Parham 116) is received by (see end of paragraph for clarification) the second receiver (Hashimoto 14b/9) . When modifying Parham into Hashimoto, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motiv ated to place the distal end of the Parham flue through Hashimoto second receiver 14b/9, since the Parham flue distal end is the end intended to contact the patient –see Parham Paragraph 0070—which is the equivalent of the side of the Hashimoto surgical tool contacting the patient –see Hashimoto Figure 1, where the patient is identified by Element P. As to Claim 3 , Hashimoto, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1-2, and continues to teach the horn (Parham 140) further includes a distal end (the left end of Parham 140/136, as viewed in Parham Figure 10) and a proximal end (the right end of Parham 140/152, as viewed in Parham Figure 10) , and the distal end (the left end of Parham 140/136, as viewed in Parham Figure 10) of the horn (Parham 140) extends beyond (as shown in Parham Figure 10) the distal end (the left end of Parham 116, as viewed in Parham Figure 10) of the flue (Parham 116) and (see end of paragraph for clarification) the second receiver (Hashimoto 14b/9) when the flue (Parham 116) is received by (as described in the Claim 2 rejection above) the second receiver (Hashimoto 14b/9) . Hashimoto Paragraph 0056 describes surgical tool 20 passing through Hashimoto second receiver portion 9 to reach the patient. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the same with the Parham horn distal end. As to Claim 4, Hashimoto, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1-3, and continues to teach the handpiece (Parham 120) f u rther comprises (as shown in Parham Figure 10) a transducer (Parham 154/156/158/160) that vibrates (Parham Paragraph 0096) the horn (Parham 140) at a predetermined frequency (the desired frequencies described in Parham Paragraph 0096) when the horn (Parham 140) is coupled to (as shown in Parham Figure 10) the connector ( Parham 118) of the handpiece (Parham 120) . As to Claim 5, Hashimoto, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach a console (Hashimoto 7; Parham 104 ) for individually controlling (Hashimoto Paragraph 0059; Parham Paragraph 0029) the robotic system (Hashimoto 1) and the aspirator (Parham Figure 1) . As to Claim 6 , Hashimoto, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 5, and continues to teach an aspiration tube (Parham 108) for providing a vacuum to the horn (Parham 140) , wherein the aspiration tube (Parham 108) extends between (as shown in Parham Figure 1; see Parham Paragraph 0128) the handpiece (Parham 120) of the aspirator (Parham Figure 1) and the console (Parham 104) . As to Claim 7, Hashimoto, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 5-6, and continues to teach an annular cavity (see Parham Figure 10 below) defined by (as shown in Parham Figure 10) a space (the volume creating the annular cavity, as shown in Parham Figure 10 below) between (as shown in Parham Figure 10) the horn (Parham 140) and the flue (Parham 116) when the flue (Parham 116) is coaxially disposed about (as shown in Parham Figure 10) the horn (Parham 140) . Parham Figure 10, Modified by Examiner As to Claim 8, Hashimoto, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 5-7, and continues to teach an irrigation tube (Parham 110) for supplying irrigation fluid to (Parham Paragraph 0156) the annular cavity (see Parham Figure 10 in the Claim 7 rejection above) , wherein the irrigation tube (Parham 110) extends between (as shown in Parham Figure 1; see Parham Paragraph 0128) the aspirator (Parham Figure 1) and the console (Parham 104). As to Claim 9 , Hashimoto, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 5-8, and continues to teach the connector (Parham 118) of the handpiece ( Parham 120 ) further comprises (as shown in Parham Figure 10 ) a vent (see Parham Figure 10 in the Claim 7 rejection above) for ventilating (see end of paragraph for clarification) the irrigation tube (Parham 110) to atmosphere (the volume outside of the Parham aspirator shown in Parham Figure 1) . One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the Parham connector 118, as shown in Parham Figure 10, ends at the dashed lines shown in the Figure 7 rejection above. This allows any fluid to continue moving through the annular cavity, eventually venting out the distal end --the left end of Parham 116, as viewed in Parham Figure 10-- of Parham flue 116. As to Claim 11, Hashimoto, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to t each of the plurality of arm members (Hashimoto 12/12b/13/14) are coupled to (as shown in Hashimoto Figure 1) each adjacent arm member (Hashimoto 12/12b/13/14) such that each of the plurality of arm members (Hashimoto 12/12b/13/14) are capable of three-dimensional movement (see end of paragraph for clarification). The Hashimoto arm below Hashimoto arm 12 in Hashimoto Figure 1 is capable of moving up and down, as indicated by the double arrows, which will also move Hashimoto arm 12 up and down (first dimension). Hashimoto arm 12 also rotates about the dashed line through the axis of the Hashimoto arm below Hashimoto 12, which moves the left end of Hashimoto arm 12 into and out of the page ( second dimension) while moving the left end of Hashimoto arm 12 left and right due to rotation (third dimension). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto, in view of Parham , further in view of Broadwin (U.S. P atent 5,015,227 ). As to Claim 10, Hashimoto, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 5-9, and continues to teach the console (Hashimoto 7; Parham 104) is configured to selectively control supplying (Parham Paragraphs 0029/0138/0147) the irrigation fluid (the fluid in fluid flow F, described in Parham Paragraph 0147) to (via Parham 110) the annular cavity (see Parham Figure 10 in the Claim 7 rejection above) and providing the vacuum to (Parham Paragraph 0138) the horn (Parham 140) . Hashimoto, as modified, continues to teach controlling the robotic system 1 via a foot control (Paragraph 0067) the surgical tool 20 via a foot pedal (71/75), but does not explicitly teach controlling the irrigation and vacuum via a foot pedal. Broadwin describes a similar aspirator, and teaches controlling the irrigation and vacuum via a foot pedal (Column 5, Lines 22-26) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a foot pedal, as taught by Broadwin , to control the irrigation and vacuum, as taught by Hashimoto, as modified, since the use of a foot pedal to control irrigation and vacuum is well-known ( Broadwin Column 5, Lines 22-26), and would yield predictable results, i.e., easy control of the irrigation and vacuum while freeing up the hands. Claims 1 2 & 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon (U.S. PGPub 2007/0089557), in view of Parham. As to Claim 12, Solomon teaches a surgical apparatus (100) comprising: a robotic system ( 1 52 ) comprising: a plurality of arm members (at least 542/543/544’ ), each of the plurality of arm members (at least 542/543/544’ ) being coupled to (as shown in Figure 5B ) each adjacent arm member ( 542/543/544’ ) via a joint ( Paragraphs 0049/0050 ), and at least one ( 544’ ) of the plurality of arm members (at least 542/543/544’) including a first receiver (545’) and a second receiver (see Figure 5B below); a surgical tool ( 101B ) comprising: a handpiece (see Figure 5B below); a connector ( see Figure 5B below ) extending from (as shown in Figure 5B ) the handpiece ( see Figure 5B below ), the handpiece ( see Figure 5B below ) being received by (as shown in Figure 5B ) the first receiver ( 545’ ) such that the connector (see Figure 5B below) extends from (as shown in Figure 5B) the first receiver ( 545’ ) … a power source (Paragraph 0056) that provides power to (Paragraph 0056) the plurality of arm members (at least 542/543/544’) . Solomon Figure 5B, Modified by Examiner Solomon does not teach the surgical tool being an aspirator, as claimed, so does not teach an aspirator comprising: a handpiece; a connector…extending from the handpiece… a horn coupled to the handpiece via the connector, the horn having a distal end, a proximal end, and a body extending therebetween; and a flue coaxially disposed about the horn and coupled to the handpiece via the connector, the flue having a distal end, a proximal end, and a body extending therebetween, the distal end of the flue being received by the second receiver such that the distal end of the horn extends beyond the distal end of the flue and the second receiver; and a console comprising: an irrigation source that provides irrigation fluid to the aspirator via an irrigation tube; an aspiration source that provides suction to the aspirator via an aspiration tube; and a power source that provides power to the aspirator … wherein the connector further includes a vent for ventilating the irrigation tube to atmosphere when the irrigation source provides the irrigation fluid to the aspirator. Parham describes a surgical tool, and teaches an aspirator (Figure 1) comprising: a handpiece (120); a connector (118)…extending from (as shown in Figure 10) the handpiece (120)… a horn (140, which includes 216/136/144/152; see Paragraphs 0058/0059) coupled to (as shown in Figure 10) the handpiece (120) via the connector (as shown in Figure 10), the horn (140) having a distal end (the left end of 140/136, as viewed in Figure 10), a proximal end (the right end of 140/152, as viewed in Figure 10), and a body (the body comprised of 136/144/152, as shown in Figure 10) extending therebetween (as shown in Figure 10); and a flue (116) coaxially disposed about (as shown in Figure 10) the horn (140) and coupled to (as shown in Figure 10) the handpiece (120) via (as shown in Figure 10) the connector (118), the flue (116) having a distal end (the left end of 116, as viewed in Figure 10), a proximal end (the right end of 116, as viewed in Figure 10), and a body (116) extending therebetween (as shown in Figure 10) … a console (104) comprising: an irrigation source (188; Paragraph 0147) that provides irrigation fluid ( irrigant ; Paragraph 0147) to the aspirator (Figure 1) via (as shown in Figure 11) an irrigation tube (110) ; an aspiration source (186; Paragraph 0135) that provides suction to (Paragraph 0153) the aspirator (Figure 1) via (as shown in Figure 11) an aspiration tube (108) ; and a power source (182; Paragraph 0135) that provides power to (Paragraph 0144) the aspirator (Figure 1) ; wherein the connector (118) further includes a vent (see Parham Figure 10 in the Claim 7 rejection above) for ventilating (see end of paragraph for clarification) the irrigation tube (110) to atmosphere (the volume outside of the aspirator shown in Figure 1) when (the vent shown in Figure 10 in the Claim 7 rejection above is always present, so one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the vent allows for ventilation when irrigant is being used in the aspirator) the irrigation source (188) provides the irrigation fluid ( irrigant ; Paragraph 0147) to the aspirator (Figure 1) . One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the Parham connector 118, as shown in Parham Figure 10, ends at the dashed lines shown in the Figure 7 rejection above. This allows any fluid to continue moving through the annular cavity, eventually venting out the distal end --the left end of Parham 116, as viewed in Parham Figure 10-- of Parham flue 116. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the aspirator, as taught by Parham, in place of the surgical tool, as taught by Solomon , “to percutaneously access and act upon target tissue while helping reduce collateral trauma (Paragraph 0026).” Modifying Parham into Solomon results in the distal end (the left end of Parham 116, as viewed in Parham Figure 10) of the flue (Parham 116) being received by the second receiver (see Solomon Figure 5B above) such that the distal end (the left end of Parham 140/136, as viewed in Parham Figure 10) of the horn (Parham 140) extends beyond (see end of paragraph for clarification) the distal end (the left end of Parham 116, as viewed in Parham Figure 10) of the flue (Parham 116) and the second receiver (see Solomon Figure 5B above). Parham Figure 10 shows the distal end of the horn extending beyond the distal end of the flue at all times. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the distal end of the horn extends beyond the distal end of the flue once the Parham aspirator is placed into the Solomon second receiver. Solomon Figure 5B shows the distal end –the bottom end of 101B, as viewed in Solomon Figure 5B-- of surgical tool 101B extending beyond the Solomon second receiver. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would also be motivated to place the distal end of the Parham horn beyond the Solomon second receiver once the Parham aspirator is modified into Solomon. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the Parham horn has to extend past the Solomon second receiver in order to function as designed when operating on a patient. As to Claim 14, Solomon, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, and continues to teach the handpiece (Parham 120) further comprises (as shown in Parham Figure 10) a transducer (Parham 154/156/158/160) that vibrates (Parham Paragraph 0096) the horn (Parham 140) at a predetermined frequency (the desired frequencies described in Parham Paragraph 0096) when the horn (Parham 140) is coupled to (as shown in Parham Figure 10) the connector (Parham 118) of the handpiece (Parham 120). As to Claim 15, Solomon, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, and continues to teach each of the plurality of arm members (Solomon 542/543/544’) are coupled to (as shown in Solomon Figure 5B) each adjacent arm member (Solomon 542/543/544’) such that each of the plurality of arm members (Solomon 542/543/544’) are capable of three-dimensional movement (see end of paragraph for clarification). Solomon arm 541 is capable or rotating, providing two dimension (left-right, and up-down) . Solomon arm 542 provides the third dimension (into and out of the page). Since Solomon arms 543/544’ movement is based on Solomon arm 541 movement, Solomon arms 543/544’ also have three dimensional movement. As to Claim 16, Solomon, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, and continues to teach the aspirator (Parham Figure 1) remains axially aligned relative to (as shown in Solomon Figure 5B) the at least one (Solomon 544’) of the plurality of arm members (Solomon 542/543/544’) when the robotic system (Solomon 152) is manipulated (as shown in Solomon Figure 5B) . Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon, in view of Parham, further in view of Broadwin . As to Claim 13, Solomon, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, and continues to teach the console (Solomon 150; Parham 104) is configured to selectively control supplying (Parham Paragraphs 0029/0138/0147) the irrigation fluid (the fluid in fluid flow F, described in Parham Paragraph 0147) to the aspirator (Parham Figure 1) and providing the suction to (Parham Paragraph 0138) the aspirator (Parham Figure 1) . Solomon, as modified, continues to teach controlling (Paragraph 0038) the robotic system and the surgical tool via a foot control (318), but does not explicitly teach controlling the irrigation and vacuum via a foot pedal. Broadwin describes a similar aspirator, and teaches controlling the irrigation and vacuum via a foot pedal (Column 5, Lines 22-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a foot pedal, as taught by Broadwin , to control the irrigation and vacuum, as taught by Solomon , as modified, since the use of a foot pedal to control irrigation and vacuum is well-known ( Broadwin Column 5, Lines 22-26), and would yield predictable results, i.e., easy control of the irrigation and vacuum while freeing up the hands.