DETAILED ACTION
The following Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on January 26, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, wherein of the pending claims, claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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
Concerning the “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112” section on page 8 of the Applicant’s Response filed on January 26, 2025, the amendment to claim 12 to address the issue of improper independence has obviated the necessity of the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. §112(d). Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Concerning the “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Claim 1 – Parrini” section on pages 8-9 of the Applicant’s Response filed on January 26, 2026, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Concerning the “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Claim 1 – Charles” section on pages 9-11 of the Applicant’s Response filed on January 26, 2026, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The applicant first argues that the Charles reference does not teach the limitation of “an arm assembly operably coupled to the arm base, the arm assembly comprising a first link rotatably coupled to the arm base at a first joint, and a second link rotatably coupled to the first link at a second joint, wherein the first and second joints have parallel rotational axes”, arguing that the architecture of the Charles reference provides motion through linear actuators, not through joints that result in the links being rotatably attached to each other and the base. However, the examiner asserts that the applicant has too narrowly interpreted the term “joint”. The term “joint” may be defined as “a point at which parts of an artificial structure are joined” <thefreedictionary.com/joint>, and the claims do not teach that the first link must be directly attached to the arm assembly or that the second link must be directly attached to the first link, but merely states that each of these elements must be coupled. The Charles reference thus teaches the limitation of “an arm assembly operably coupled to the arm base, the arm assembly comprising a first link rotatably coupled to the arm base at a first joint, and a second link rotatably coupled to the first link at a second joint, wherein the first and second joints have parallel rotational axes” given the arm assembly comprises a first link (Figure 1; 16) rotatably coupled to the arm base at a first joint (Figure 1; link 16 is coupled to the arm base 28 via rotary actuator 24, which may define a joint and is rotatable), and a second link (Figure 2; 26) rotatably coupled to the first link at a second joint (Figure 1; link 18 is coupled to the first link 16 via support frame 28 and is coupled to the arm base via rotary actuator 26, which may define a joint that is rotatable), wherein the first and second joints have parallel rotational axes (Figure 1; rotation axes of rotary actuators 24 and 26 are colinear and thus parallel).
The applicant also argues that the Charles reference is not a gross positioning system for use with a robotic surgical device, arguing that “gross positioning” is intended to mean general positioning of an entire movable surgical device (in contrast to precise movement and placement of the specific components of such a device, such as an arm or end effector). However, the examiner asserts that the applicant has too narrowly interpreted the claim limitation. As defined by the applicant, “gross positioning” may mean “general positioning”, wherein “general positioning” may be any generalized motion, which the device of the Charles reference provides. Furthermore, since the Charles reference provides general motion for a slave robot, it may be defined as a gross positioning system for use with a robotic surgical device. Therefore, the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Charles stand.
Concerning the “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Claim 2 and 4-8” section on page 11 of the Applicant’s Response filed on January 26, 2026, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Concerning the “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Claim 3 and 9” section on page 12 of the Applicant’s Response filed on January 26, 2026, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the rejections of claims 3 and 9 are improper for the same reasons as claim 1. However, the examiner has argued that claim 1 is proper as discussed above. Therefore, the rejections of the claims stand.
Concerning the “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Claim 3 and 9” section on pages 12-13 of the Applicant’s Response filed on January 26, 2026, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the von Grunberg reference does not teach the limitation “an arm assembly operably coupled to the arm base, the arm assembly comprising a first link rotatably coupled to the arm base at a first joint, and a second link rotatably coupled to the first link at a second joint, wherein the first and second joints have parallel rotational axes”, arguing that the Von Grunberg reference teaches orthogonally arranged actuators that act through ball lever mechanisms on the guide-device to achieve x-y tilt and does not teach a serial arm assembly in which the first and second links are rotatably coupled to the arm base and to each other, with arm actuators disposed within the respective links to drive those rotations. However, the examiner asserts that the applicant has too narrowly interpreted the claims. The term “joint” may be defined as “a point at which parts of an artificial structure are joined” <thefreedictionary.com/joint>, and the claims do not claim that the first link must be directly attached to the arm assembly or that the second link must be directly attached to the first link as in a series, but merely states that each of these elements must be coupled. The von Grunberg reference thus teaches the limitation of “an arm assembly operably coupled to the arm base, the arm assembly comprising a first link rotatably coupled to the arm base at a first joint, and a second link rotatably coupled to the first link at a second joint, wherein the first and second joints have parallel rotational axes” given the arm assembly comprises a first link (Figure 2; first of links 10) rotatably coupled to the arm base at a first joint (Figure 1; first of links 10 is connected to the arm base 310 via the positioning ring 3, at the actuator 9, which allows the link to rotate relative to the arm base about the x-axis, therein being rotatably coupled to the arm base at the actuator), a second link rotatably coupled to the first link at a second joint (Figure 1; second of links 10 is connected to the first link 10 at first ball lever mechanism 11, which allows the link to rotate relative to the first link about the x-axis, therein being rotatably coupled to the first link), wherein the first and second joints have parallel rotational axes (both joints allow rotation about an x-axis, therein having parallel rotational axes).
The applicant also argues that the von Grunberg reference is not a gross positioning system for use with a robotic surgical device, arguing that “gross positioning” is intended to mean general positioning of an entire movable surgical device (in contrast to precise movement and placement of the specific components of such a device, such as an arm or end effector). However, the examiner asserts that the applicant has too narrowly interpreted the claim limitation. As defined by the applicant, “gross positioning” may mean “general positioning”, wherein “general positioning” may be any generalized motion, which the device of the von Grunberg reference provides. Furthermore, since the von Grunberg reference provides general motion for a slave robot, it may be defined as a gross positioning system for use with a robotic surgical device. Therefore, the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by von Grunberg stand.
Concerning the “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Claim 11-14 and 17” section on page 13 of the Applicant’s Response filed on January 26, 2026, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the rejections of claims 11-14 and 17 are improper for the same reasons as claim 1. However, the examiner has argued that claim 1 is proper as discussed above. Therefore, the rejections of the claims stand.
Concerning the “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103” section on page 13 of the Applicant’s Response filed on January 26, 2026, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the rejections of claims 15 and 16 are improper for the same reasons as claim 10. However, the examiner has argued that claim 10 is proper as discussed above. Therefore, the rejections of the claims stand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Charles et al. (US 2002/0133174, hereinafter Charles).
Concerning claim 1, the Charles et al. prior art reference teaches a gross positioning system for use with a robotic surgical device (Figures 1-2; 10), the system comprising: a positioning ring (Figure 1; 38); an arm base rotatably coupled to the positioning ring (Figure 2; 28); an arm assembly operably coupled to the arm base, the arm assembly comprising a first link (Figure 1; 16) rotatably coupled to the arm base at a first joint (Figure 1; link 16 is coupled to the arm base 28 via rotary actuator 24, which may define a joint and is rotatable), and a second link (Figure 2; 26) rotatably coupled to the first link at a second joint (Figure 1; link 18 is coupled to the first link 16 via support frame 28 and is coupled to the arm base via rotary actuator 26, which may define a joint that is rotatable), wherein the first and second joints have parallel rotational axes (Figure 1; rotation axes of rotary actuators 24 and 26 are colinear and thus parallel), and a device clamp rotatably coupled to the second link (Figure 5; 114, 144), wherein the device clamp is sized to receive a body of the robotic surgical device therein such that the body is releasably clamped thereto (Figure 5; 112).
Concerning claim 3, the Charles reference teaches the gross positioning system of claim 1, wherein the first link comprises a first arm actuator disposed within the first link (Figure 1; 24) and rotatably coupled to the arm base and the second link comprises a second arm actuator disposed within the second link and rotatably coupled to the first link (Figure 1; 26).
Concerning claim 9, the Charles reference teaches the gross positioning system of claim 1, wherein the positioning ring may be a semicircular ring (Figure 8; 160).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by von Grunberg (US 2014/0180308).
Concerning claim 1, the von Grunberg prior art reference teaches a gross positioning system for use with a robotic surgical device (Figures 1-6), the system comprising: a positioning ring (Figure 3; 3, 4); an arm base rotatably coupled to the positioning ring (Figure 4; segment 310 of robot arm which defines the arm base is rotatable about an axis to move the positioning ring, therein being rotatably coupled to the arm base); an arm assembly operably coupled to the arm base, the arm assembly comprising a first link (Figure 2; first of links 10) rotatably coupled to the arm base at a first joint (Figure 1; first of links 10 is connected to the arm base 310 via the positioning ring 3, at the actuator 9, which allows the link to rotate relative to the arm base about the x-axis, therein being rotatably coupled to the arm base at the actuator), a second link rotatably coupled to the first link at a second joint (Figure 1; second of links 10 is connected to the first link 10 at first ball lever mechanism 11, which allows the link to rotate relative to the first link about the x-axis, therein being rotatably coupled to the first link), wherein the first and second joints have parallel rotational axes (both joints allow rotation about an x-axis, therein having parallel rotational axes); a device clamp rotatably coupled to the second link, wherein the device clamp is sized to receive a body of the robotic surgical device therein such that the body is releasably clamped thereto (Figure 2; 7).
Concerning claim 2, the von Grunberg reference teaches the gross positioning system of claim 1, wherein the arm base comprises a base actuator rotatably coupled to the positioning ring (Figure 4; actuator of robotic arm 300a).
Concerning claim 4, the von Grunberg reference teaches the gross positioning system of claim 1, further comprising a port support arm disposed distal and adjacent to the positioning ring (Figure 4; guide rail 311 supports the port 4, therein allowing it to be interpreted as a port support arm, and is disposed further from the patient, therein defining it as distal and adjacent the positioning ring).
Concerning claim 5, the von Grunberg reference teaches the gross positioning system of claim 1, further comprising a port support arm comprising a port attachment structure rotatably attached to the port support arm (Figure 4; portion of positioning ring 3 which is attached to robotic arm 310 may be interpreted as a port attachment structure), wherein the port attachment structure is removably coupled to a port (Figure 2; given the port 4 may be removably coupled to the robotic arm).
Concerning claim 6, the von Grunberg reference teaches the gross positioning system of claim 4, wherein the port support arm is coupled to the gross positioning system via a connection rod (Figure 5; 306), wherein the connection rod is disposed at an angle coupled to a plane of the positioning ring, wherein the angle can range from about 0 degrees to about 45 degrees given the angle may be adjusted via a joint (Figure 5; 307).
Concerning claim 7, the von Grunberg reference teaches the gross positioning system of claim 5, wherein the port attachment structure is rotatable in relation to the to the port support arm around an axis disposed at an angle in relation to the port support arm that ranges from about 0 degrees to about 45 degrees (Figure 5; rotatable about joint 307).
Concerning claim 8, the von Grunberg reference teaches the gross positioning system of claim 4, wherein the positioning ring and the port support arm are sized to receive a portion of the robotic surgical device movably positioned therethrough (Figure 1; 8).
Concerning claim 10, the von Grunberg prior art reference teaches a gross positioning system for use with a robotic surgical device (Figures 1-6), the system comprising: a stationary positioning ring (Figure 3; 3, 4); an arm base movably coupled to the positioning ring (Figure 4; 310), wherein the arm base comprises a base actuator (Figure 4; actuator of robotic arm 300a); an arm assembly operably coupled to the arm base, the arm assembly comprising: a first link (Figure 2; first of links 10) rotatably coupled to the arm base at a first joint (Figure 1; first of links 10 is connected to the arm base 310 via the positioning ring 3, at the actuator 9, which allows the link to rotate relative to the arm base about the x-axis, therein being rotatably coupled to the arm base at the actuator), the first link comprising a first arm actuator disposed within the first link and rotatably coupled to the arm base (Figure 1; actuator at joint 9), and a second link rotatably coupled to the first link at a second joint (Figure 1; second of links 10 is connected to the first link 10 at first ball lever mechanism 11, which allows the link to rotate relative to the first link about the x-axis, therein being rotatably coupled to the first link), the second link comprising a second arm actuator disposed within the second link and rotatably coupled to the first link (Figure 1; actuator of joint 11), wherein the first and second joints have parallel rotational axes (both joints allow rotation about an x-axis, therein having parallel rotational axes); a device clamp rotatably coupled to the second link, wherein the device clamp is sized to receive a body of the robotic surgical device therein such that the body is releasably clamped thereto (Figure 2; 7); and a port support arm disposed distal and adjacent to the positioning ring (Figure 4; guide rail 311 supports the port 4, therein allowing it to be interpreted as a port support arm, and is disposed further from the patient, therein defining it as distal and adjacent the positioning ring), the port support arm comprising a port attachment structure rotatably attached to the port support arm (Figure 4; portion of positioning ring 3 which is attached to robotic arm 310 may be interpreted as a port attachment structure), wherein the port attachment structure is removably coupled to a port (Figure 2; given the port 4 may be removably coupled to the robotic arm).
Concerning claim 11, the von Grunberg reference teaches the gross positioning system of claim 10, wherein the port support arm is coupled to the gross positioning system via a connection rod (Figure 5; 306), wherein the connection rod is disposed at an angle coupled to a plane of the positioning ring, wherein the angle can range from about 0 degrees to about 45 degrees given the angle may be adjusted via a joint (Figure 5; 307).
Concerning claim 12, the von Grunberg reference teaches the gross positioning system of claim 10, wherein the positioning ring defines an opening that is sized to receive a portion of the robotic surgical device movably positioned therethrough (Figure 1; opening of port 4), the portion of the robotic surgical device comprising a first arm, a second arm, and at least a portion of the body of the robotic surgical device (Figure 1; robotic surgical instrument 8 has a first jaw that may be interpreted as a first arm, a second jaw which may be interpreted as a second arm, and an elongate shaft, which may be interpreted as a body).
Concerning claim 13, the von Grunberg reference teaches the gross positioning system of claim 10, wherein the port attachment structure is rotatable in relation to the to the port support arm around an axis disposed at an angle in relation to the port support arm that ranges from about 0 degrees to about 45 degrees (Figure 5; rotatable about joint 307).
Concerning claim 14, the von Grunberg reference teaches the gross positioning system of claim 10, wherein the positioning ring and the port support arm are sized to receive a portion of the robotic surgical device movably positioned therethrough (Figure 1; 8).
Concerning claim 17, the von Grunberg reference teaches the gross positioning system of claim 10, wherein the positioning ring comprises a full ring (Figure 3; 4).
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) 9 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Grunberg (US 2014/0180308) in view of Lipow (US 2004/0016906).
Concerning claims 9 and 15-16, the von Grunberg reference teaches the gross positioning system of claims 1 and 10, but does not specifically teach the positioning ring being a semicircular ring.
However, the Lipow reference teaches a gross positioning system similar to that of the von Gunberg reference, wherein the gross positioning system includes a positioning ring comprising a semicircular ring that extends around about 180 degrees of a circle (Figure 1A; 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the positioning ring of the von Gunberg be a semicircle as in the Lipow reference given the Lipow reference teaches that such a ring structure may be utilized for surgery on a patient’s head (Lipow; [¶ 0038]).
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 MARTIN TRUYEN TON whose telephone number is (571)270-5122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; EST 10:00 AM - 6:30 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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/MARTIN T TON/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 3/10/2026