DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-5 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. The term “flexible” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “flexible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the exact degree of flexibility of the joint is not clear.
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) 1,4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bailey et al (US20190060008A1); hereinafter Bailey.
Regarding claim 1, Bailey teaches a surgical robot ([0003] motion-assisted positioning arm) configured by a plurality of links ([0003] plurality of arm segments) and to be mounted with a surgical tool ([0032] end effector 146, [0036] The end effector 146 may be configured to receive surgical instruments, such as imaging devices or surgical tools), wherein at least some links connecting between links are formed by a flexible joint having flexibility ([0052] A flexible joint may couple two segments or bodies which may not be aligned. For example, flexible joints may include joints utilized with soft robotics).
Regarding claim 4, Bailey teaches the robot of claim 1. Bailey further teaches wherein to the flexible joint, a flexible structure serially fixed to an output shaft of a driving motor is connected (fig. 3 shows a structure serially fixed to the output shaft).
Regarding claim 5, Bailey teaches the robot of claim 1. Bailey further teaches wherein a surgical tool for ophthalmic surgery is mounted ([0043] In some embodiments, the medical procedure may include any one of surgical navigation, robotic surgery, robotically-assisted surgery, an ophthalmology procedure, or an endoscopy procedure - if the system is used for an ophthalmology procedure than a corresponding surgical tool must be mounted).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey in view of Xu et al (US 20200405279 A1); hereinafter Xu. Bailey teaches the robot of claim 1. Bailey fails to teach a spring element. Xu teaches the flexible joint has a spring element in a rotation direction ([0034] the surgical flexible instrument 10 also includes an elastic connecting mechanism 40. The elastic connecting mechanism 40 includes a joint 401, a coupling male connecter 402, a third support plate 403, a fourth support plate 404 and a spring 405). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Bailey with Xu because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Wu teaches “When the coupling male connecter 402 is approaching axially but not aligned to the coupling female connecter 503 (the coupling female connecter 503 will be described in detail below, and is fixedly connected to the rotating shaft of the driving motor), the coupling female connecter 503 will push the coupling male connecter 402 to move axially, and compress the spring 405. At this time, since the coupling female connecter 503 rotates axially, when it rotates to an extent in which it aligns to the coupling male connecter 402, the spring 405 will spring the coupling male connecter 402 back to restore the position, then the connection between the coupling male connecter and the coupling female connecter is achieved and the rotary motion can be transferred to the screw 303 and the double-head threaded rod 221 or driving screw 221a” ([0034]). Therefore, the spring element would be obvious since it allows for the position of the elements to be restored after deformation and forces can be transferred from one element to another.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey and Xu further in view of Moritani (US 20190160654). The combination of Bailey and Xu teaches robot according to claim 2. The combination fails to teach the material of the spring. Moritani teaches the spring element is any of polyimide, carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP), glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP), and polyester ([0018] The motor frame 17 is formed of a resin. The cover section 44b and the motor cover 19 are formed of a resin. In addition, the resin parts may be formed of a composite material such as CFRP (Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastics) or FRP (Fiber Reinforced Plastics), a composite material of a resin and other materials, or a bake material (a paper bake material, a cloth bake material, or the like)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Bailey and Xu with Moritani because it is obvious to try in that there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Given that the purpose of using these materials is the quality of being flexible and safe to use in an operating room, there are limited options for materials that are commonly used in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dhrasti SNEHAL Dalal whose telephone number is (571)272-0780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm, Alternate Friday off, 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Carl Layno can be reached at (571) 272-4949. 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.
/D.S.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796