DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim 20 is cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but it is moot in light of a new ground of rejection. See discussion below.
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.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reis et al. (US 20100175701 A1, 2010-07-15) (hereinafter “Reis”) in view of Cohen et al. (US 20140081113 A1, 2014-03-20) (hereinafter “Cohen”).
Regarding claims 1-20, Reis teaches a robotic drive system, comprising: a drive table (comprising, e.g., 180) comprising a support surface oriented at an angle relative to a horizontal plane (e.g., [0011] (disclosing use with robotic system which allows for variable orientation of the drive table)); and one or more hub adapters (comprising, e.g., 114) coupled with the drive table, each of the one or more hub adapters being coupleable with a corresponding hub (comprising, e.g., 182) of one or more hubs, each hub being couplable with an interventional device of one or more interventional devices; wherein the support surface (e.g.,180) is positioned between and separates the one or more hub adapters from the corresponding hubs (e.g., Figs. 9A, 9B, 10A and associated text, esp. [0072]-[0078]) (as recited in claim 1); wherein the support surface is oriented between 20 and 70 degrees from the horizontal plane (as recited in claim 2); wherein the support surface is oriented between 50 and 60 degrees from the horizontal plane (as recited in claim 3);wherein the support surface is oriented 55 degrees from the horizontal plane (as recited in claim 4); wherein the support surface is oriented between 20 and 70 degrees from a vertical plane (as recited in claim 5); wherein the support surface is oriented between 40 and 50 degrees from the vertical plane (as recited in claim 6); wherein the support surface is oriented 45 degrees from the vertical plane (as recited in claim 7); wherein each of the one or more hub adapters is magnetically couplable (e.g., construed as magnets in linear drive; [0076]) with the corresponding hub (as recited in claim 8); wherein the drive table comprises a main body (comprising, e.g., 137) and one or more extendable members (e.g., 139) (as recited in claim 9); wherein the one or more extendable members are configured to transition between a collapsed state and a deployed state (as recited in claim 10); wherein the one or more hubs are configured to move axially along the one or more extendable members (as recited in claim 11); wherein the one or more extendable members comprises a distal extendable member (construed as distal portion of 139) configured to extend distally from the main body (as recited in claim 12); wherein the one or more extendable members comprises a proximal extendable member (construed as proximal portion of 139) configured to extend proximally from the main body (as recited in claim 13); wherein at least a portion of at least one of the one or more hubs is configured to extend laterally and inferiorly relative to an inferior edge of the support surface when the hub is positioned on the support surface (e.g., Figs. 10A-10E) (as recited in claim 14); wherein each of the one or more hub adapters is configured to move axially along the drive table to drive axial movement of the corresponding hub (as recited in claim 15); wherein at least one of the one or more interventional devices is configured to be positioned laterally and inferiorly relative to an inferior edge of the support surface when the hub to which the interventional device is coupled is positioned on the support surface (as recited in claim 16); further comprising a shuttle (e.g., 186) configure to translate axially within the drive table, wherein the one or more hub adapters are coupled to the shuttle (as recited in claim 17); wherein the one or more hub adapters are configured to move axially (170, Fig. 9B) along the shuttle (as recited in claim 18); wherein the one or more hub adapters are positioned within an interior of the drive table (comprising, e.g., 127) (as recited in claim 19);
Reis does not teach wherein the support surface forms a sterile field barrier positioned between and separating the one or more hub adapters from the corresponding hubs so that the one or more hub adapters are positioned outside of a sterile field and the one or more hubs are positioned within the sterile field. Note that Reis teaches wherein the support surface is a sterile field barrier (192, Fig. 11B; [0079]).
Cohen teaches a support surface that forms a sterile barrier (e.g., comprising 142, 224) that separates a plurality of sliding rails (e.g., comprising 136) from a slide (e.g., comprising 138) so that the sliding rails are outside of a sterile field and the motorized slide (e.g., comprising 144) is within the sterile field. See, e.g., [0264], [0277]; Figs. 2, 3, 11 and associated text.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Cohen and with the invention taught by Reis such that the invention comprises one or more hub adapters coupled with the drive table, each of the one or more hub adapters being coupleable with a corresponding hub of one or more hubs and configured to drive the corresponding hub along the support surface, each hub being couplable with an interventional device of one or more interventional devices wherein the support surface forms a sterile field barrier positioned between and separating the one or more hub adapters from the corresponding hubs so that the one or more hub adapters are positioned outside of a sterile field and the one or more hubs are positioned within the sterile field (as recited in claim 1) in order to improve the sterility of the invention.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered to be pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bajo et al. (US 20220096120 A1, 2022-03-31 teaches a drive table actuated by a robotic arm. See, e.g., Fig. 2 and associated text.
Simi et al. (US 20210106393 A1, 2021-04-15) teaches one or more hub adapters (comprising, e.g., proximal motorized slide 54, Fig. 10) coupled with the drive table (38, Fig. 9D), each of the one or more hub adapters configured to couple to a corresponding hub (comprising, e.g., distal motorized slide 53, Fig. 10) so that axial movement of the each of the one or more hub adapters drives axial movement of the corresponding hub. See also Figs. 9A, 9B, 9D and associated text.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T LUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1860. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, M-F (generally).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Jackson, can be reached on 571-272-4697. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Scott Luan
/SCOTT LUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights