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 Group I, claims 1-7, 9-10, 12 and 16 in the reply filed on March 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20, 23 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 March 9, 2026.
Applicant has amended claim 24, originally identified in the January 28, 2026 Restriction as an independent claim of Group III, to now be dependent on claim 1. The restriction requirement identifying Group III is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 9, 2026 has been entered. Claims 24 and 31 are amended. Claims 8, 11, 13-17, 21-22, 27-28, 30, 32 are canceled. Claims 18-20, 23 are withdrawn. Currently, claims 1-7, 9-10, 12, 24-26, 29 and 31 are pending for examination.
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) 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Overmyer et al. (US 2018/0161111).
Regarding claim 1, Overmyer et al. discloses a system 118, comprising: an instrument drive system (“surgical robot” [0116]), comprising: a first housing 202; a first magnetic coupling member 224 within the first housing (fig. 9-10; “each of the stators 224 can include an electromagnet” [0118]); and a motor (“Each of the motors (e.g., stepper or brushless motors) has associated therewith a stator 224” [0118]; “a DC brushless or stepper motor” [0119]) mechanically coupled to the first magnetic coupling member ([0119]), the motor configured to rotate the first magnetic coupling member (“a control system thereof, is configured to control the stators 224 to cause movement thereof such that current in the stators 224 create a magnetic field, e.g., as in a DC brushless or stepper motor” [0119]; “FIG. 14 illustrates rotational movement (arrow R1) of the rotor/stator coupling and shows gear teeth of the stator 402 and the rotor 418” [0126]); and a medical instrument (“a surgical tool” [0116]), comprising: a second housing 200; a rotor 222 within the second housing (fig. 9); and a second magnetic coupling member (fig. 9-10; “each of the rotors 222 can include a permanent magnet” [0118]) within the second housing and mechanically coupled to the rotor, the second magnetic coupling member being spaced from 404 and magnetically coupled to the first magnetic coupling member (fig. 10-12, 14); and wherein rotation of the first magnetic coupling member causes rotation of the second magnetic coupling member and the rotor (“Torque can be delivered to one or more of the rotors 222 via their associated one or more of the stators 224” [0119]; “FIG. 14 illustrates rotational movement (arrow R1) of the rotor/stator coupling” [0126]).
Regarding claim 2, Overmyer et al. discloses wherein the first housing 202 of the instrument drive system seals the first magnetic coupling member 224 and the motor (“a DC brushless or stepper motor” [0119]) within the first housing (fig. 9), and wherein the second housing 200 of the medical instrument seals the rotor 222 and the second magnetic coupling member within the second housing (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Overmyer et al. discloses wherein the second magnetic coupling member (fig. 9-10; “each of the rotors 222 can include a permanent magnet” [0118]) is within a protruding portion of the second housing 200 of the medical instrument, wherein the protruding portion is located within a recessed portion formed by the first housing 202 of the instrument drive system, and wherein the first magnetic coupling member is positioned around an interior surface of the recessed portion (fig. 9-10).
Regarding claim 5, Overmyer et al. discloses wherein the first magnetic coupling member is axially spaced from the second magnetic coupling member in a direction parallel with an axis of rotation of the first magnetic coupling member (fig. 9-10).
Regarding claim 6, Overmyer et al. discloses wherein the first magnetic coupling member includes a first plurality of magnets rotationally spaced around an axis of rotation of the first magnetic coupling member (“The number of magnets in the rotor 418 can be the same as the number of poles of the stator 402, e.g., eight in this illustrated embodiment, or can have a different number, e.g., a number in a range of four to eight” [0126]; figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 9, Overmyer et al. discloses wherein the system further comprises an air gap between the first magnetic coupling member 402 and the second magnetic coupling member 418, and wherein a sterile barrier 404 (“cap 404 configured as a protective cover”) extends within the air gap (fig. 11; [0123]).
Regarding claim 10, Overmyer et al. discloses wherein the second magnetic coupling member includes a second plurality of magnets rotationally spaced around an axis of rotation of the second magnetic coupling member (“The number of magnets in the rotor 418 can be the same as the number of poles of the stator 402, e.g., eight in this illustrated embodiment, or can have a different number, e.g., a number in a range of four to eight” [0126]; figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 24, Overmyer et al. discloses wherein the first magnetic coupling member includes a first position sensor ([0135]) and the second magnetic coupling member includes a second position sensor ([0120]), and wherein the system further comprises: a control system comprising: a processor 302; and a memory 304 comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the control system to: receive position data from the first and second position sensors indicating position of the first position sensor relative to the second position sensor; and based on the received position data, determine a torque applied to the second magnetic coupling member ([0120]).
Regarding claim 25, Overmyer et al. discloses wherein the first magnetic coupling member includes a magnet array (“The number of magnets in the rotor 418 can be the same as the number of poles of the stator 402, e.g., eight in this illustrated embodiment, or can have a different number, e.g., a number in a range of four to eight” [0126]; figs. 11-12), and wherein the first position sensor is coupled to the magnet array ([0135]).
Regarding claim 26, Overmyer et al. discloses wherein the first magnetic coupling member includes a housing, and wherein the first position sensor is coupled to the housing (fig. 31).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Overmyer et al. (US 2018/0161111).
Regarding claim 4, Overmyer et al. does not expressly disclose in the Figure 9-11 embodiment the first magnetic coupling member includes an aperture; and the second magnetic coupling member is located within the aperture when the first housing is mechanically coupled to the second housing. In a different embodiment (fig. 30-31) however, Overmyer et al. discloses an instrument drive system comprising a first magnetic coupling member 1000 including an aperture; and a second magnetic coupling member 1004 of a medical instrument located within the aperture when the instrument drive system and medical instrument are mechanically coupled (fig. 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Overmyer et al. such that first magnetic coupling member includes an aperture; and the second magnetic coupling member is located within the aperture when the first housing is mechanically coupled to the second housing in situations where the system comprises a stator with a set of electromagnets with a central single rotor of a medical instrument ([0134]) given OVermyer et al. envisions this embodiment, the results of such a modification being reasonably predictable.
Statement Regarding Prior Art
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6, which is dependent on claim 1. The closest prior art for claim 6 is Overmyer et al. (US 2018/0161111), but the prior art does not teach a first magnetic coupling member of an instrument drive system that includes a first plurality of magnets rotationally spaced around an axis of rotation of the first magnetic coupling member where the first plurality of magnets includes a first subset of magnets with a polarity directed radially outward; a second subset of magnets with a polarity directed radially inward; and a third subset of magnets with a polarity directed generally perpendicularly to the polarity of the first and second subsets of magnets.
Claim 29 is dependent on claim 24 which is dependent on claim 1. Claim 24 requires the first magnetic coupling member includes a first position sensor and the second magnetic coupling member includes a second position sensor. Claim 29 requires comparison of position data from the first position sensor with position data from the second position sensor, and wherein determining the torque applied to the second magnetic coupling member is based on the comparison. Overmyer et al. fails to disclose or teach determining the torque applied to the second magnetic coupling member based on a comparison of the first and second positioned sensors.
Claim 31 is dependent on claim 24 which is dependent on claim 1. Claim 31 requires determining a torque applied to the medical instrument based on the torque applied to the second magnetic coupling member. Overmyer et al. fails to disclose or teach determination of the torque applied to the medical instrument based on a torque applied to the second magnetic coupling member.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-7pm, flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERICA S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights