DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 09/18/2025, Claim 4 has been cancelled, and Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending. In response to the amendment, the previous objection of Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 have been obviated
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Griffith teaches a macropositioning arm as claimed but fails to disclose claimed brake and that the macropositioning arm is a passive arm movable by the operator. Nowlin teaches a macropositioning arm that has the claimed brake and release button and the macropositioning arm is a passible arm as claimed. It would have been obvious to apply these teachings of Nowlin to Griffith such that the macropositioning arm of Nowlin can be moved manually by the operator.
Applicant argues against the references individually and the Examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Nowlin and Griffith is different than each other, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-13 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the electromagnetic brakes" in Claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is rejected for incorporating errors from the parent claim by dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths (US PGPub 2014/0052153) in view of Nowlin (US PGPub 2007/0013336).
Regarding Claim 1, Griffiths teaches a robotic surgical assembly comprising:
a macropositioning arm (support linkage; 74; Paragraph 0057; Figure 6) (support linkage 122; Figure 7-8; Paragraph 0061) with a plurality of degrees of freedom (see Figures 6 or 7; Paragraph 0057 or 0061) and comprising a support link (Paragraph 0045) (orienting platform 76; Figure 6; Paragraph 0057) (orienting platform; 124; Paragraph 0061; Figure 7);
two micromanipulators for micro-positioning respective surgical instruments, each of the micromanipulators having a plurality of motorized degrees of freedom controllable by a controller (82; Figures 6-8; Paragraph 0057 and 0061);
wherein:
said two micromanipulators (82) are both attached to said support link (74; Figure 6) (124; Figure 7-8) of the macropositioning arm (support linkage 74; Figure 6)(support linkage 122; Figure 7-8);
Griffiths fails to disclose:
said macropositioning arm includes a brake with a release button, the release button being switchable to allow an operator to move at least one of the degrees of freedom of the macropositioning arm by carrying the macropositioning arm around.
Wherein the macropositioning arm is a passive arm manually movable by the operator.
Griffiths does disclose an input button (152; Figure 11-12; Paragraph 0075) that is on the micromanipulator but does not disclose a break with a release button is claimed on the macropositioning arm).
Nowlin teaches a robotic surgical system wherein the macropositioning arm (520; Figure 8A) comprises a break with a release button (port clutch input 516c; Figure 8A; Paragraph 0072, 0078-0080) the release button (516c) being switchable to allow an operator to move at least one of the degrees of freedom of the macropositioning arm by carrying the macropositioning arm around (Paragraph 0078-0080), , wherein Nowlin teaches the macropositioning arm is a passive arm manually movable by an operator (Paragraph 0072 and 0078-0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the macropositioning arm of Griffiths to be a passive arm manually and to include a break with release button, as taught by Nowlin, for the advantage of providing a simple approach to allow manual adjustment of the pose of the macropositioning element (Paragraph 0079; Nowlin)
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of references disclosed above teaches the robotic surgical assembly of claim 1, wherein Griffiths teaches the surgical instruments respectively micro-positioned by the two micromanipulators each have a terminal portion, and wherein said terminal portions share a same overlapped workspace, while keeping ability to move independently (see Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references disclosed above teaches the robotic surgical assembly of claim 1, wherein Nowlin teaches the release button (516c) is switchable between a brake position and a release position (Paragraph 0072 and 0078-0080).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references disclosed above teaches the robotic surgical assembly of claim 1, wherein Nowlin teaches the macropositioning arm is a passive arm manually movable by an operator (Paragraph 0072 and 0078-0080).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references disclosed above teaches the robotic surgical assembly of claim 1, wherein Griffiths teaches the macropositioning arm comprises at least three degrees of freedom defined by links and joints of the macropositioning arm (Figures 6-7)
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references disclosed above teaches the robotic surgical assembly of claim 1, wherein Griffiths teaches the macropositioning arm (122) comprises a plurality of rotational joints (90 and 98) having parallel substantially vertical axes (Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references disclosed above teaches the robotic surgical assembly of claim 1, wherein Griffiths teaches the macropositioning arm comprises five degrees of freedom, wherein said five degrees of freedom are a translational movement which is substantially vertical, and four substantially rotational movements (See Figures 6-7; Paragraph 0059 and 0062).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references disclosed above teaches the robotic surgical assembly of claim 1, wherein Nowlin teaches the braking device is an electromagnetic brake (Paragraph 0072; since the signal is not mechanical but is passed through the controller and processor, it’s the examiner’s position that the brake is an electromagnetic brake since the information to the processor is transmitted electromagnetically).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references disclosed above teaches the robotic surgical assembly of claim 1, wherein Nowlin teaches said release button is operable by pressure, when the release button is depressed the release button is in said release position, and when the release button is raised or undepressed the release button is in said brake position (Paragraph 0072 and 0078-0080)
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of references disclosed above teaches the robotic surgical assembly of claim 1, wherein Griffiths teaches further comprising a cart (72) , wherein the macropositioning arm is connected to said cart (Figure 8; Paragraph 0058).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of references disclosed above teaches the robotic surgical assembly of claim 10, wherein Griffiths teaches the macropositioning arm (122) is connected to said cart along a linear sliding guide (86/88) that allows for up and down movement to become closer to or further from an operatory field (See Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of references disclosed above teaches the robotic surgical assembly of claim 10, wherein Griffiths teaches said macro-positioning arm comprises a first arm link, connected to said cart and mobile with respect to said support along a linear sliding guide, and wherein said support link is articulated with respect to said first arm link.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of references disclosed above teaches the robotic surgical assembly of claim 14, wherein Griffiths teaches the first link of the macro-positioning arm (88/86) is connected to the cart by a rack and pinion mechanism (88 and 86) that provides for manually controlling movement of said macro-positioning arm within a dedicated linear sliding guide along a vertical linear displacement axis (Paragraph 0059; Figures 6-8).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of references disclosed above teaches the robotic surgical assembly of claim 15, wherein Griffiths teaches the macropositioning arm comprises a second arm link (92), connected to said first arm link (88/86) around a first axis of movement and articulated with respect to the support link (124).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of references disclosed above teaches the robotic surgical assembly of claim 16, wherein Griffiths teaches said macropositioning arm further comprises a third arm link (94) connected to the second arm link (92) and mobile with respect to said second arm link (92) around a second axis of movement (Figure 7)
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of references disclosed above teaches the robotic surgical assembly of claim 17, wherein Griffiths teaches said macro-positioning arm further comprises a fourth arm link (the unlabeled link between 98 and 124 in Figure 7) connected to said third arm link (94) and mobile (via joint 98) with respect to said third arm link (94) around a third axis of movement, and but fails to disclose wherein said release button is positioned on a bottom side of the fourth arm link to facilitate grasping and activation of the fourth arm link.
Nowlin teaches the release button is on the last link before the support link (518; in Figure 8A) and states that the pose clutch input (516c) can be mounted along a link of the manipulator on the bottom side. (the examiner notes that Applicant has not defined specifically the bottom side relative to another structure since the links can rotate relative to one another).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place the release button on the bottom side of the arm for the advantage to make it closer to a shorter user and alternatively it would have been obvious to modify the placement of the release button on the link since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of references disclosed above teaches the robotic surgical assembly of claim 18, wherein Griffiths teaches said support member is mobile with respect to said fourth arm link around a fourth axis of movement of the arm that is orthogonal to said third axis of movement of the arm (see Figures 6-8 in which the fourth arm is between joint 98 and the support link) (See also Figure 13-14).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of references disclosed above teaches the robotic surgical assembly of claim 1, wherein the support link (76; Figure 6)(122; Figure 7) comprises a vision system seat to house at least a vision system of the robotic surgical assembly (Paragraph 0080; furthermore in Figure 6 the orienting platform 76 has a tools (82) once of which can be a camera).
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record, Griffiths (US PGPub 2014/0052153) in view of Nowlin (US PGPub 2007/0013336), does not disclose or fairly suggest, either singly or in combination of any of the prior art of record, the claimed invention of Independent Claim 12, which recites, inter alia "wherein the macropositioning arm comprises four links connected to each other in series by passive rotational joints each having vertical and parallel movement axes; wherein inside each rotational joint, the electromagnetic brakes allow the position of each single member to be locked in space".
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED GAMIL GABR whose telephone number is (571)272-0569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 270-5953. 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.
MOHAMED GAMIL GABR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3771
/MOHAMED G GABR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771