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 Group I, claims 1 – 18 in the reply filed on 16 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02 August 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1 – 6, 10 – 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss et al (US 20220395342 A1) in view of Hu et al (CN 209236564 U, relied upon translation attached with this office action);
With regards to claim 1, Weiss et al teaches;
The claimed “a scanner assembly configured to image the eye” has been read on the taught ([0056], “The system 100 comprises a computing device 102, one or more imaging devices 112…”; [0063], “The imaging device 112 may be operable to image anatomical feature(s) (e.g., a bone, veins, tissue, etc.) and/or other aspects of patient anatomy to yield image data… The imaging device 112 may be or comprise […], an optical coherence tomography (OCT) scanner…”; An OCT scanner reads on a scanner. Imaging tissue reads on being configured to image an eye.);
The claimed “a tissue sampling assembly connected to the scanner assembly and configured to obtain a tissue sample from the eye, the tissue sample assembly comprising a biopsy member” has been read on the taught ([0100], “…a tool 412 is supported by the first robotic arm 447 and an imaging device 432 is supported by the second robotic arm 448… the tool 412 may be used to […] perform a biopsy, or any other surgical task or procedure.”);
The claimed “wherein the biopsy member is selectively adjustable between a first configuration for imaging of the eye and a second configuration for procurement of a tissue sample from the eye” has been read on the taught ([0084], “The first robotic arm may orient the first component at one or more poses. In some embodiments, the one or more poses may be based on one or more steps from a surgical plan such as the surgical plan 120.”; [0086], “The second robotic arm may orient the second component at one or more poses that are different from the one or more poses of the first component.”; [0100] – [0104] describe positioning and registration of the biopsy member and scanner assembly.).
However, Weiss et al does not explicitly disclose an eye support assembly configured to secure an ex vivo eye.
In the analogous art of eyeball fixing device, Hu teaches;
The claimed “an eye support assembly configured to secure an ex vivo eye” has been read on the taught ([0002], “This utility model belongs to the field of medical devices, specifically relating to a fixation structure for fixing an isolated eyeball.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanner and tissue assembly as taught by Weiss et al with the eye support assembly as taught by Hu, for the predictable benefit of improving medical operation efficiency and stability as taught by Hu ([0004], “It can stably fix the isolated eyeball, which is convenient for ophthalmologists to perform various ocular surgical operations on the isolated eyeball and for researchers to separate and take up various ocular tissues, thereby improving the efficiency and stability of operation.”).
With regards to claim 2, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu.
Weiss et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the scanner assembly comprises an optical axis, wherein in the first configuration the biopsy member is not aligned with the optical axis and in the second configuration the biopsy member is aligned with the optical axis” ([0101], “In at least one embodiment, the tool 412 may be in a field of view of the imaging device 432 when the imaging device 432 tracks the target 404. In other embodiments, the tool 412 may not be in the field of view of the imaging device 432 when the imaging device 432 tracks the target 404.”; The tool being in the field of view reads on the biopsy aligned with the optical axis. The tool not being in the field of view reads on the biopsy member not being aligned with the optical axis. See also [0104]).
With regards to claim 3, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu.
Weiss et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the scanner assembly comprises an optical coherence tomography (OCT) scanner” has been read on the taught ([0063], “The imaging device 112 may be or comprise […], an optical coherence tomography (OCT) scanner…”).
With regards to claim 4, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu.
Weiss et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the scanner assembly comprises a distance sensor configured to determine distance between the scanner assembly and the eye support assembly” has been read on the taught ([0069], “The navigation system 118 may include one or more cameras or other sensor(s) for tracking one or more reference markers, navigated trackers, or other objects within the operating room or other room in which some or all of the system 100 is located… the navigation system 118 may be used to track a position and orientation (i.e., pose) of the imaging device 112, the robot 114 and/or robotic arm 116, and/or one or more surgical tools (or, more particularly, to track a pose of a navigated tracker attached, directly or indirectly, in fixed relation to the one or more of the foregoing).”; Navigation system 118 including sensors reads on the scanner assembly further comprising a distance sensor.
With regards to claim 5, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu.
Weiss et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the tissue sampling assembly includes a connector attached to the scanner assembly, wherein the connector enables the biopsy member to move between the first and second configurations” has been read on the taught ([0074], “…the robot 236 includes a first robotic arm 247 (which may comprise one or more members 247A connected by one or more joints 247B) and a second robotic arm 248 (which may comprise one or more members 248A connected by one or more joints 248B), each extending from a base 240.”; Base 240, which is attached to the scanner assembly and the biopsy member, reads on a connector. The robotic arms being attached to the base read on the base enabling the biopsy member to move.).
With regards to claim 6, the device of claim 5 is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu.
The claimed “wherein the biopsy member is attached to the connector via a hinged connection, and wherein movement between the first and second configurations comprises moving the biopsy member about the hinged connection” has been read on the taught ([0074], “…the robot 236 includes a first robotic arm 247 (which may comprise one or more members 247A connected by one or more joints 247B) and a second robotic arm 248 (which may comprise one or more members 248A connected by one or more joints 248B)…”; Joints 247B and 248B read on hinged connections.).
With regards to claim 10, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu.
Weiss et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the eye support assembly comprises a vacuum chamber and an eye holder connected to the vacuum chamber, wherein the eye holder is configured to receive a posterior segment of the eye and wherein the vacuum chamber is configured to provide suction to the eye to secure the eye within the eye holder.
Hu et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the eye support assembly comprises a vacuum chamber and an eye holder connected to the vacuum chamber, wherein the eye holder is configured to receive a posterior segment of the eye and wherein the vacuum chamber is configured to provide suction to the eye to secure the eye within the eye holder” has been read on the taught ([0007], “…a fixing base, a receiving base rotatably mounted on the upper end of the fixing base, an elastic support detachably mounted on the receiving base, and a syringe connected to the receiving base via a tubing…”; [0018], “When the air pressure in the closed space decreases (pull the piston of the syringe), the thinning part bends downward, causing the clamping wall to move inward and clamp the eyeball located in the receiving part, while the corrugated deformation part relaxes.”; The receiving base and elastic support read on the eye holder. The syringe and tubing read on a vacuum chamber);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanner and tissue assembly as taught by Weiss et al with the eye support assembly as taught by Hu, for the predictable benefit of stabilizing the eyeball to facilitate surgery, as read on Hu ([0018], “In this way, the lower end of the receiving part is fixed, the upper part of the eyeball is fixed by the clamping wall, and the position of the eyeball remains stable, which facilitates surgery or related scientific experiments.”).
With regards to claim 11, the device of claim 10 is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu.
Weiss et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the eye holder comprises a contoured and perforated upper surface.
Hu et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the eye holder comprises a contoured and perforated upper surface” has been read on the taught ([0044], “…multiple notches 45 are formed at equal intervals along the circumferential direction on the clamping wall; and a corrugated deformation portion 43 is formed on the upper part of the receiving portion.”; Notches and a corrugated portion reads on a contoured and perforated upper surface; please see Figure 6.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanner and tissue assembly as taught by Weiss et al with the eye support assembly as taught by Hu, for the predictable benefit of stabilizing the eyeball to facilitate surgery, as read on Hu ([0018], “In this way, the lower end of the receiving part is fixed, the upper part of the eyeball is fixed by the clamping wall, and the position of the eyeball remains stable, which facilitates surgery or related scientific experiments.”).
With regards to claim 12, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu.
Weiss et al does not explicitly disclose a stage platform on which the eye support assembly is attached.
Hu et al further teaches;
The claimed “a stage assembly comprising a stage platform on which the eye support assembly is attached” has been read on the taught ([0007], “…an ex vivo eyeball fixation device for ophthalmology, characterized in that: it includes a fixing base, a receiving base rotatably mounted on the upper end of the fixing base…”; a fixing base reads on a stage platform.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanner and tissue assembly as taught by Weiss et al with the eye support assembly as taught by Hu, for the predictable benefit of stabilizing the eyeball to facilitate surgery, as read on Hu ([0018], “In this way, the lower end of the receiving part is fixed, the upper part of the eyeball is fixed by the clamping wall, and the position of the eyeball remains stable, which facilitates surgery or related scientific experiments.”).
With regards to claim 17, Weiss et al teaches;
The claimed “a scanner assembly configured to enable imaging of the eye, the scanner assembly comprising an optical axis and an optical coherence tomography (OCT) scanner” has been read on the taught ([0056], “The system 100 comprises a computing device 102, one or more imaging devices 112…”; [0063], “The imaging device 112 may be operable to image anatomical feature(s) (e.g., a bone, veins, tissue, etc.) and/or other aspects of patient anatomy to yield image data… The imaging device 112 may be or comprise […], an optical coherence tomography (OCT) scanner…”; Imaging tissue reads on being configured to image an eye. One of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that an OCT scanner comprises an optical axis, as defined as the direction in which the scanner is pointed.);
The claimed “a tissue sampling assembly configured to obtain a tissue sample from the eye” and “the tissue sampling assembly including […] a biopsy member” have been read on the taught ([0100], “…a tool 412 is supported by the first robotic arm 447 and an imaging device 432 is supported by the second robotic arm 448… the tool 412 may be used to […] perform a biopsy, or any other surgical task or procedure.”);
The claimed “the tissue sampling assembly including a connector attached to the scanner assembly” has been read on the taught ([0074], “…the robot 236 includes a first robotic arm 247 (which may comprise one or more members 247A connected by one or more joints 247B) and a second robotic arm 248 (which may comprise one or more members 248A connected by one or more joints 248B), each extending from a base 240.”; Base 240, which is attached to the scanner assembly and the biopsy member, reads on a connector.);
The claimed “wherein the connector enables selective adjustment of the biopsy member between (i) a first configuration in which the biopsy member is not aligned with the optical axis to thereby enable imaging of the eye, and(ii) a second configuration in which the biopsy member is aligned with the optical axis to thereby enable procurement of a tissue sample from the eye” has been read on the taught ([0084], “The first robotic arm may orient the first component at one or more poses. In some embodiments, the one or more poses may be based on one or more steps from a surgical plan such as the surgical plan 120.”; [0086], “The second robotic arm may orient the second component at one or more poses that are different from the one or more poses of the first component.”; [0100] – [0104] describe positioning and registration of the biopsy member and scanner assembly.).
However, Weiss et al does not explicitly disclose an eye support assembly configured to secure an ex vivo eye, the eye support assembly comprising a vacuum chamber and an eye holder connected to the vacuum chamber, wherein the eye holder comprises a contoured and perforated upper surface configured to receive a posterior segment of the eye, and wherein the vacuum chamber is configured to provide suction to the eye to secure the eye within the eye holder.
In the analogous art of eyeball fixing devices, Hu teaches;
The claimed “an eye support assembly configured to secure an ex vivo eye” has been read on the taught ([0002], “This utility model belongs to the field of medical devices, specifically relating to a fixation structure for fixing an isolated eyeball.”);
The claimed “wherein the eye support assembly comprises a vacuum chamber and an eye holder connected to the vacuum chamber, wherein the eye holder is configured to receive a posterior segment of the eye and wherein the vacuum chamber is configured to provide suction to the eye to secure the eye within the eye holder” has been read on the taught ([0007], “…a fixing base, a receiving base rotatably mounted on the upper end of the fixing base, an elastic support detachably mounted on the receiving base, and a syringe connected to the receiving base via a tubing…”; [0018], “When the air pressure in the closed space decreases (pull the piston of the syringe), the thinning part bends downward, causing the clamping wall to move inward and clamp the eyeball located in the receiving part, while the corrugated deformation part relaxes.”; The receiving base and elastic support read on the eye holder. The syringe and tubing read on a vacuum chamber);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanner and tissue assembly as taught by Weiss et al with the eye support assembly as taught by Hu, for the predictable benefit of stabilizing the eyeball to facilitate surgery, as read on Hu ([0018], “In this way, the lower end of the receiving part is fixed, the upper part of the eyeball is fixed by the clamping wall, and the position of the eyeball remains stable, which facilitates surgery or related scientific experiments.”).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss et al (US 20220395342 A1) in view of Hu (CN 209236564 U) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lapczyna et al (US 20200408788 A1).
With regards to claim 7, the device of claim 5 is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu.
Weiss et al in view of Hu does not explicitly disclose wherein the biopsy member is selectively attachable to the connector via a slide connection. However, Weiss et al does teach that any number of arms may be used, as read on the taught ([0096], “It will also be appreciated, that the method 300 may be executed with any number of robotic arms and/or imaging devices…”).
According to MPEP 2144.04(V)(C), making components removable may be prima facie obvious; please see In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the biopsy member selectively attachable, for the predictable benefit of creating a system where the biopsy member can be removed for maintenance.
However, Weiss et al in view of Hu does not explicitly disclose wherein the biopsy member is selectively attachable to the connector via a slide connection.
In the analogous art of devices for laboratory treatments, Lapczyna et al teaches;
The claimed “wherein the biopsy member is selectively attachable to the connector via a slide connection” has been read on the taught ([0118], “The robot device may also comprise a rail system, in which case the head section is attached to a movable sliding or rolling element that can be moved via this rail system to the positions determined by the arrangement of the rail system.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the selectively attachable arm that is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu with the slide connection as taught by Lapczyna et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Weiss et al in view of contains a base device, upon which the claimed device including a slide connection can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Lapczyna et al teaches a comparable device of a robotic arm that has been approved in the same way of the claimed invention, with a slidable connection. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of a slide connection to the base device of Weiss et al in view of Hu, for the predictable benefit of allowing the biopsy member to be slidably attached and detached for maintenance.
With regards to claim 8, the device of claim 5 is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu and further in view of Lapczyna et al.
Weiss et al in view of Hu does not explicitly disclose wherein the slide connection of the connector and biopsy member comprises a mount track and corresponding grooves.
Lapczyna et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the slide connection of the connector and biopsy member comprises a mount track and corresponding grooves” has been read on the taught ([0118], “The robot device may also comprise a rail system, in which case the head section is attached to a movable sliding or rolling element that can be moved via this rail system to the positions determined by the arrangement of the rail system.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the selectively attachable arm that is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu with the rail as taught by Lapczyna et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Weiss et al in view of contains a base device, upon which the claimed device including a rail can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Lapczyna et al teaches a comparable device of a robotic arm that has been approved in the same way of the claimed invention, with a slidable connection. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of a slide connection to the base device of Weiss et al in view of Hu, for the predictable benefit of allowing the biopsy member to be slidably attached and detached for maintenance.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss et al (US 20220395342 A1) in view of Hu (CN 209236564 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meer et al (US 20090304159 A1).
With regards to claim 9, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu.
Weiss et al further teaches that the system and device is suitable for use in biopsy procedures, as read on the taught ([0100], “For example, the tool 412 may be used to […] perform a biopsy, or any other surgical task or procedure.”)
However, Weiss et al in view of Hu does not explicitly disclose wherein the biopsy member includes a biopsy mount and a biopsy punch detachably connected thereto.
In the analogous art of biopsy devices including holders, Meer et al teaches;
The claimed “wherein the biopsy member includes a biopsy mount and a biopsy punch detachably connected thereto” has been read on the taught ([0030], “Optionally, a biopsy device for fine needle or punch biopsy, is arranged on the object support section 7, which is fixedly connected to the base plate 9 and has a positioning device for the fine needle and/or punching part.”; Base plate 9 reads on a biopsy mount.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biopsy system with a tool as taught by Weiss et al in view of Hu with the mounted biopsy punch as taught by Meer et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(B), simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Weiss et al in view of Hu contains a system for biopsies which differs from the claimed device by having a generic tool instead of a biopsy punch. The substituted components of a mounted biopsy punch and its use is known in the art of Meer et al. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the generic tool for the known biopsy punch and mount, for the predictable result of creating a system which can perform a punch biopsy.
Weiss et al in view of Hu and further in view of Meer et al does not explicitly disclose wherein a biopsy punch is detachably connected.
According to MPEP 2144.04(V)(C), making components removable may be prima facie obvious; please see In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the biopsy punch detchably connected, for the predictable benefit of creating a system where the biopsy punch can be removed for maintenance or replaced to one of a different size/depth.
Claims 13, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss et al (US 20220395342 A1) in view of Hu et al (CN 209236564 U) as applied to claims 12 or 17 above, and further in view of Fox et al (US 20190265456 A1).
With regards to claim 13, the device of claim 12 is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu.
Weiss et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the stage assembly further comprises an orientation member enabling tip, tilt, and rotation of the eye support assembly; and/or a horizontal translation member configured to selectively move the eye support assembly horizontally upon the stage platform.
Hu et al further teaches;
The claimed “an orientation member enabling rotation of the eye support assembly” has been read on the taught ([0037], “…a rotating rod 15 fixedly connected to the middle of the upper end of the positioning plate, and an anti-detachment plate 16 fixedly connected to the upper end of the rotating rod.”; see figure 2).
However, Weiss et al in view of Hu does not explicitly disclose an orientation member enabling tip, tilt, and rotation of the eye support assembly.
In the analogous art of tissue imaging systems, Fox et al teaches;
The claimed “an orientation member enabling tip, tilt, and rotation of the eye support assembly” has been read on the taught ([0050], “In stage 70, upper plate 71a is movable with respect to base 71b in tip, tilt and rotation… For example stage 70 may be a Model No. TTR001—Tip, Tilt, & Rotation Stage manufactured by Thorlabs, Inc., but other stages may be used.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotatable eye support as taught by Weiss et al in view of Hu with the tip, tilt, and rotation stage as taught by Fox et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Weiss et al in view of Hu contains a base device of an eye support with a base, upon which the claimed device including a stage assembly enabling tip, tilt, and rotation can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Fox et al teaches a comparable device of a robotic arm that has been improved in the same way of the claimed invention, with a tip, tilt, and rotation enabled stage. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of a stage to the base device of Weiss et al in view of Hu, for the predictable benefit of allowing the biopsy member to oriented for experiments.
With regards to claim 14, the device of claim 12 is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu and further in view of Fox et al.
Weiss et al in view of Hu does not explicitly disclose wherein the stage assembly further comprises a vertical translation member configured to selectively move the stage platform vertically and thereby move the eye support assembly vertically relative to the scanner assembly and tissue sampling assembly.
Fox et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the stage assembly further comprises a vertical translation member configured to selectively move the stage platform vertically and thereby move the eye support assembly vertically relative to the scanner assembly and tissue sampling assembly” has been read on the taught ([0063], “…coupling member 97 is rotated clockwise or counterclockwise to raise or lower plate 87 until the target is in focus on display 23.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye support as taught by Weiss et al in view of Hu with the vertical translation member as taught by Fox et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Weiss et al in view of Hu contains a base device of an eye support with a base, upon which the claimed device including a stage assembly including a vertical member can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Fox et al teaches a comparable device of a robotic arm that has been improved in the same way of the claimed invention, with a vertical translation member. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of a vertical member to the base device of Weiss et al in view of Hu, for the predictable benefit of allowing the biopsy member to be oriented for experiments.
With regards to claim 18, the device of claim 17 is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu.
Hu et al further teaches that an eye support assembly can be used with a stage, as read on ([0007], “…it includes a fixing base…”; Figure 1 shows fixing base arranged as a clamp for a table.).
However, Weiss et al in view of Hu does not explicitly disclose the device further comprising a stage on which the eye support assembly is attached, wherein the stage is connected to a vertical translation member configured to selectively move the stage vertically and thereby move the eye support assembly vertically relative to the scanner assembly and tissue sampling assembly.
In the analogous art of tissue imaging systems, Fox et al teaches;
The claimed “a stage on which the eye support assembly is attached, wherein the stage is connected to a vertical translation member configured to selectively move the stage vertically and thereby move the eye support assembly vertically relative to the scanner assembly and tissue sampling assembly” has been read on the taught ([0063], “…coupling member 97 is rotated clockwise or counterclockwise to raise or lower plate 87 until the target is in focus on display 23.”; Plate 87 reads on a stage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye support as taught by Weiss et al in view of Hu with the vertical translation member as taught by Fox et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Weiss et al in view of Hu contains a base device of an eye support with a base, upon which the claimed device including a stage assembly including a vertical member can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Fox et al teaches a comparable device of a robotic arm that has been improved in the same way of the claimed invention, with a vertical translation member. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of a vertical member to the base device of Weiss et al in view of Hu, for the predictable benefit of allowing the biopsy member to be oriented for experiments.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss et al (US 20220395342 A1) in view of Hu et al (CN 209236564 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al (CN 107411821 A, cited on the IDS provided 02 August 2024, relied upon translation attached with this office action.)
With regards to claim 15, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu.
Weiss et al further teaches;
The claimed “a frame that includes a vertical support and a scanner mount attached to the vertical support” has been read on the taught (a first robotic arm 247 (which may comprise one or more members 247A connected by one or more joints 247B) and a second robotic arm 248 (which may comprise one or more members 248A connected by one or more joints 248B), each extending from a base 240.”; Base 240 reads on a vertical support. The joints read on a scanner mount attached to the vertical support. See also Figure 2).
However, Weiss et al in view of Hu does not explicitly disclose wherein the scanner assembly attaches to the scanner mount in a manner that enables rotation of the scanner assembly relative to the vertical support.
In the analogous art of medical devices for biopsies, Wang et al teaches;
The claimed “a frame that includes a vertical support” has been read on the taught ([0009], “This invention is composed of a base (1), a column (8)…”; Column 8 reads on a vertical support);
The claimed “wherein the scanner assembly attaches to the scanner mount in a manner that enables rotation of the scanner assembly relative to the vertical support” has been read on the taught ([0002], “This invention relates to a five-degree-of-freedom flexible puncture robot…”; Five degrees of freedom reads on enabling rotation around the vertical support. See also [0014], which describes the coupling of the arm to the vertical support.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanner assembly arm as taught by Weiss et al in view of Hu with the rotatable arm mount as taught by Wang et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Weiss et al in view of Hu contains a base device of a scanner assembly and vertical support, upon which the claimed device including a scanner mount which is rotatable around the vertical support can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Wang et al teaches a comparable device of a robotic arm that has been improved in the same way of the claimed invention, which is rotatable around a vertical member. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of rotation around vertical member to the base device of Weiss et al in view of Hu, for the predictable benefit of allowing the scanner assembly to be positioned freely during use of the device.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss et al (US 20220395342 A1) in view of Hu et al (CN 209236564 U) in view of Wang et al (CN 107411821 A) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Lapczyna et al (US 20200408788 A1).
With regards to claim 16, the device of claim 15 is obvious over Weiss et al in view of Hu and further in view of Wang et al.
However, this combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the frame further comprises a table from which the vertical support extends, wherein vertical table movement causes corresponding vertical movement of the scanner assembly and tissue sampling assembly.
In the analogous art of devices for laboratory treatments, Lapczyna et al teaches;
“A frame with a vertical support” has been read on the taught ([0181], “The working area 110 with the working space above is enclosed by a housing 111 with front door 112.”; [0178], “The measuring apparatus comprises a carrier device 7, mounted on the base plate 6 for carrying the holding device 2…”; Carrier device 7 reads on a vertical support. Housing 111 reads on a frame.);
The claimed “a table from which the vertical support extends, wherein vertical table movement causes corresponding vertical movement of the scanner assembly and tissue sampling assembly” has been read on the taught ([0178], “The measuring apparatus comprises a carrier device 7, mounted on the base plate 6 for carrying the holding device 2…”; Base plate 6 reads on a table. One of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the device of Lapczyna et al, which contains a robotic arm and sample holders on the table, would cause corresponding vertical movement of the robotic arm and sample assemblies.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by Weiss et al in view of Hu in view of Wang et al with the table as taught by Lapczyna et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Weiss et al in view of Hu and further in view of Wang et al contains a base device of a scanner assembly and vertical support, upon which the claimed device including a table can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Lapczyna et al teaches a comparable device of a laboratory system that has been improved in the same way of the claimed invention with a table. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of a table to the base device of Weiss et al in view of Hu in view of Wang et al, for the predictable benefit of supporting and containing all portions of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30pm EST.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights