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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13, and 15-17, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grave (EP3241747; cited by Applicant).
Grave discloses:
Re claim 1. A surgical assistance robot system (Intended use. The Examiner notes that the device of Grave is capable of being used to assist in surgery. For example, the device of Grave could be used in a combat field to deploy a drone to deliver surgical tools/supplies to a medic, or to deploy a drone to transmit data to allow for performing remote surgery in the battlefield. See cited Rosser NPL. Or the device of Grave could be used to deploy a drone to “aerially deliver patients or equipment to hospitals for treatment and surgery” as suggested by Moskowitz (US2020/0281670).) for positioning a surgical robot, the system comprising a support structure (10b) and a robot positioner (13e)(Fig. 8), wherein:
the support structure is configured to support the robot positioner and comprises:
a prismatic body (10b) with a polygonal base and with vertical vertices perpendicular to the base limiting lateral faces of the prismatic body (See Fig. 8), and
a cavity (enclosed space within 10b) with an opening that starts from a first vertical vertex (at 89d) of the vertical vertices and extends horizontally along a first lateral face of the base limiting lateral faces to a second vertical vertex (vertical vertex on the right side of the opening in Fig. 8) of the vertical vertices adjacent to the first vertical vertex (see Fig. 8);
the robot positioner is configured to position the robot and comprises:
a vertical support (at 89d) being arranged along the first vertical vertex and comprises a first degree of freedom corresponding to a rotation with respect to a vertical axis (at 89d) coinciding with the first vertical vertex of the support structure; and
a first support section (13e; Fig. 8) extending horizontally from a first end located at the vertical support and a second end opposite to the first end (Fig. 8);
wherein:
the robot positioner is configured to be coupled at the second end of the first support section to the robot (including 92c, 12), the robot comprising an end effector (17; Fig. 8); and
the system has at least one robot storage position wherein the first support section and the robot with the end effector are housed inside of the cavity (para. [0008]-[0010]).
Re claim 2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the connection between the robot positioner and the robot further comprises an intermediate support section (at 89e) (see Fig. 8) through which the robot positioner is configured to be coupled to the robot, the intermediate support section extends from a first end connected to the second end of the first support section and a second end opposite to the first end, the connection between the intermediate support section and the first support section having a degree of freedom corresponding to a rotation about the vertical axis (see Fig. 8).
Re claim 3. The system according to claim 2, wherein the robot positioner comprises a plurality of additional support sections articulated between them forming a kinematic chain that extends from the first support section and the intermediate support section (see Fig. 8).
Re claim 4. The system according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of support sections comprises a second support section extending from a first end connected to the second end of the first support section and a second end connected to the first end of the intermediate support section, and wherein at the robot storage position the plurality of support sections are also housed inside of the cavity (See Fig. 8).
Re claim 6. The system according to claim 1, wherein the polygonal base is quadrangular (see Fig. 8).
Re claim 7. The system according to claim 1, wherein the vertical support (at 89d) is arranged along the first vertical vertex (at 89d) as a projection out of the prismatic body (See Fig. 8).
Re claim 8. The system according to claim 1, wherein the support structure further comprises displacement means (para. [0044] - the “first motor” allows displacement of the robot relative to the support structure) arranged in the base of the prismatic body.
Re claim 9. The system according to claim 1, wherein the support structure comprises a polygonal base support (lower portion of structure seen in Fig. 8) on which the prismatic body is supported in a fix way (See Fig. 8), and wherein according to a plan view orthogonal to the vertical axis, the polygonal base support goes beyond the prismatic body and partially surrounds the base of the prismatic body so that this base of the prismatic body is embedded in the base support (See Fig. 8).
Re claim 11. The system according to claim 1, wherein said system has a first robot working position in which the vertical support (at 89d) is rotated around the vertical axis (at 89d) relative to the position of the vertical support at the robot storage position of the system so that the kinematic chain formed by the first support section and the robot with the end effector moves away from the inside of the cavity and remains outside this cavity (See Fig. 8).
Re claim 13. The system according to claim 2, wherein the intermediate support (at 89e) section of the positioner is connected to a first section (92c) of the robot so that the intermediate support section and the first section move together as a rigid body (see 92c) during positioning by the positioner (See Fig. 8).
Re claim 15. The system according to claim 1, wherein at the robot storage position the first support section is oriented towards (The Examiner notes that the first support section of Grave is three dimensional, and extends in three orthogonal directions. This includes extending towards the second lateral face.) a second lateral face (See Fig. 8) of the base limiting lateral faces.
Re claim 16. The system according to claim 1, wherein at the robot storage position the first support section is oriented towards (The Examiner notes that the first support section of Grave is three dimensional, and extends in three orthogonal directions. This includes extending towards the third lateral face.) a third lateral face of the base limiting lateral faces adjacent to a second lateral face (See Fig. 8) of the base limiting lateral faces.
Re claim 17. The system according to claim 1, further comprising a robot coupled to the robot positioner at the second end of the first support section, wherein at the robot storage position the robot is housed inside of the cavity (See Fig. 8; para. [0008]-[0010]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grave (EP3241747; cited by Applicant) in view of Timm (US2018/0333215).
Re claim 10
Grave further discloses wherein the polygonal base support comprises a protruding portion projecting from each vertex of the polygonal base support out of the same (See Fig. 8), but does not disclose the displacement means comprises a wheel arranged at each protruding portion.
Timm teaches the displacement means comprises a wheel (1468; para. [0031], [0070]; see Fig. 12) arranged at each protruding portion, for the purpose of moving the device relative to the floor (para. [0031], [0070]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Grave such that the displacement means comprises a wheel arranged at each protruding portion, as taught by Timm, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of moving the device relative to the floor.
Re claim 14
Grave discloses all claim dependency limitations, see above, but is silent to wherein the opening of the cavity additionally extends horizontally along a second lateral face of the base limiting lateral faces adjacent to the first lateral face, and wherein the second lateral face extends partially between the second vertical vertex and a third vertical vertex.
Timm teaches wherein the opening of the cavity additionally extends horizontally along a second lateral face of the base limiting lateral faces (See Fig 12. The opening in Timm extends along two lateral faces, rather than along only one lateral face; see also para. [0106] - the orientation can be changed so the opening is relative to vertical vertices rather than horizontal vertices) adjacent to the first lateral face, and wherein the second lateral face extends partially between the second vertical vertex and a third vertical vertex, for the purpose of choosing the desired number of degrees of freedom (para. [0031]) in order to improve the range of motion of the device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Grave such that wherein the opening of the cavity additionally extends horizontally along a second lateral face of the base limiting lateral faces adjacent to the first lateral face, and wherein the second lateral face extends partially between the second vertical vertex and a third vertical vertex, as taught by Timm, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of choosing the desired number of degrees of freedom in order to improve the range of motion of the device.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grave (EP3241747; cited by Applicant) in view of Affiliated (CN113786243; cited by Applicant).
Re claim 5
Grave discloses all claim dependency limitations, see above, but is silent to wherein the vertical support (at 89d) comprises an upper end having a second degree of freedom corresponding to a vertical displacement according to a direction parallel to the vertical axis displaceable between a first lower position and a second upper position, the first end of the first support section being located at the upper end of the vertical support; and wherein at the robot storage position the upper end of the vertical support is in the first lower position.
Affiliated teaches wherein the vertical support comprises an upper end having a second degree of freedom corresponding to a vertical displacement (movement of 8-1 up and down as seen in Fig. 4) according to a direction parallel to the vertical axis displaceable between a first lower position and a second upper position (See Fig. 4)(See eighth paragraph on page 2 of Applicant-provided translation), the first end of the first support section being located at the upper end of the vertical support; and wherein at the robot storage position the upper end of the vertical support is in the first lower position (See Fig. 4), for the purpose of increasing and improving the range of motion of the device by allowing up-and-down movement of the end effector (See eighth paragraph on page 2 of Applicant-provided translation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Affiliated such that wherein the vertical support comprises an upper end having a second degree of freedom corresponding to a vertical displacement according to a direction parallel to the vertical axis displaceable between a first lower position and a second upper position, the first end of the first support section being located at the upper end of the vertical support; and wherein at the robot storage position the upper end of the vertical support is in the first lower position, as taught by Harbin, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing and improving the range of motion of the device by allowing up-and-down movement of the end effector.
Re claim 12
Affiliated as modified above further suggests:
the system has a second robot working position in which the vertical support is rotated around the vertical axis relative to the position of the vertical support at the robot storage position, and the vertical support is displaced from the first lower position to the second upper position, such that the kinematic chain formed by the first support section and the robot with the end effector is moved away from the support structure (See Fig. 8 in Grave and Fig. 4 in Affiliated. Note how the arm, including component 8-1, slides up and down.).
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grave (EP3241747; cited by Applicant) in view of Harbin (CN106625677; cited by Applicant).
Re claim 5
Grave discloses all claim dependency limitations, see above, but is silent to wherein the vertical support (at 89d) comprises an upper end having a second degree of freedom corresponding to a vertical displacement according to a direction parallel to the vertical axis displaceable between a first lower position and a second upper position, the first end of the first support section being located at the upper end of the vertical support; and wherein at the robot storage position the upper end of the vertical support is in the first lower position.
Harbin teaches wherein the vertical support comprises an upper end having a second degree of freedom corresponding to a vertical displacement according to a direction parallel to the vertical axis displaceable between a first lower position and a second upper position, the first end of the first support section being located at the upper end of the vertical support; and wherein at the robot storage position the upper end of the vertical support is in the first lower position (See Figs. 1 & 2; see first paragraph of page 3 of Applicant-provided translation), for the purpose of increasing and improving the range of motion of the device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Grave such that wherein the vertical support comprises an upper end having a second degree of freedom corresponding to a vertical displacement according to a direction parallel to the vertical axis displaceable between a first lower position and a second upper position, the first end of the first support section being located at the upper end of the vertical support; and wherein at the robot storage position the upper end of the vertical support is in the first lower position, as taught by Harbin, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing and improving the range of motion of the device by allowing up and down movement (see first paragraph of page 3 of the translation).
Re claim 12
Grave as modified above further suggests:
the system has a second robot working position in which the vertical support is rotated around the vertical axis relative to the position of the vertical support at the robot storage position, and the vertical support is displaced from the first lower position to the second upper position, such that the kinematic chain formed by the first support section and the robot with the end effector is moved away from the support structure (See Fig. 8 in Grave and Figs 1, 2 in Harbin. Note how the arm, including component 2 in Harbin, slides between positions. The term vertical is a relative term and under BRI the horizontal and vertical and lateral directions can be considered switched.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the prior art Graves (EP3241747; previously cited by Applicant) is not a surgical assistance robot system or surgical robot. The Examiner notes that the limitation(s) of “surgical assistance robot system” and “surgical robot” are found only in the preamble. This/these limitation(s) are intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02.II. Per this section of the MPEP, “[t]o satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” The Examiner respectfully notes that the device of Graves is capable of being used as a surgical assistance robot system and surgical robot, and capable of positioning itself, itself being the surgical robot. The device of Graves deploys and retrieves a drone. The Examiner notes that drones are recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art as being able to be used to assist surgery, for example delivering surgical supplies to either hospitals or to the field, or serving as a communications link for performing remote surgery. (See Moskowitz (US2020/0281670) and see the cited Rosser NPL article as evidence of this recognition.) The device of Graves delivers and retrieves drones, and so is clearly capable of delivering and retrieving a drone used in assisting surgery, and therefore the device of Graves itself may reasonably be considered a surgical assistance robot system and surgical robot.
The Applicant argues that the device of Grave does not disclose a vertical support comprising a first degree of freedom, because in Grave the structure 70 is arranged on motor 89d. The Examiner notes that the rotation cause by motor 89d permits the first degree of freedom. Rotation is a degree of freedom. Rotation caused by a motor is still a degree of freedom.
The Applicant argues that Grave does not have an end effector. The Examiner notes that the cradle (see 17c) of Graves is a kind of end effector that holds a drone. The cradle of Graves may not be the specific kind of end effector envisioned by the Applicant, but nevertheless it is still an end effector. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the cradle/end effector of Graves is housed within the cavity of Graves when not deployed outside of the cavity.
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 GREGORY T PRATHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY T PRATHER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/MINNAH L SEOH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights