DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed January 18, 2024, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 1-16 are pending with claims 3, 4, 6-8, 10-13 and 15 amended. The following is a complete response to the January 18, 2024 communication.
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 .
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.
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cadouri (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0297282 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Cadouri provides for an electrosurgical generator unit for mounting to a robotic surgical tool (300), the electrosurgical generator unit comprising: a housing (housing formed by console 326). a signal generator contained within the housing (formed by RF boards 346), the signal generator being configured to generate an electrosurgical signal for use by an electrosurgical instrument supported by the robotic surgical tool (see [0057] with such being capable of outputting energy to an instrument functionally capable of use on a robotic surgical instrument), and an energy delivery structure to couple the electrosurgical signal into the robotic surgical tool (cable interfaces 340a/b), and a cooling assembly for removing heat from the electrosurgical generator unit (fan 348 as in [0057]).
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, 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gombert (DE-102013002832 A1) further in view of Cadouri (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0297282 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gombert provides an apparatus for a robot-assisted surgical system, the apparatus comprising: a robotic surgical tool comprising an articulated robot arm for supporting an electrosurgical instrument (2 with the arm formed by arm elements 21 and 22 for supporting an electrosurgical instrument 27). Gombert further provides for an electrosurgical generator unit mounted to the robotic surgical tool, the electrosurgical generator unit for generating an electrosurgical signal for use by the electrosurgical instrument (generator 4).
Gombert fails to provide for a cooling assembly for removing heat from the electrosurgical generator of the surgical system. Cadouri discloses an exemplary electrosurgical generator for generating a similar type of energy as that of Gombert (generator 302) and further provides for the inclusion of a cooling assembly in the form of a fan 348 to provide for the removal of heat from the electrosurgical generator (See [0057]). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized a cooling fan as in Cadouri to the generator of Gombert to provide for the removal of excess heat generated by the generator during operation. Such would ensure that the electrical components of the generator would not overheat during use and/or provide for longer operation times of operation of the generator.
Regarding claim 2, Gombert provides for a connector for mounting the electrosurgical generator unit to the robotic surgical tool (receiving area in arm 22 as in figure 2 forms a connector to receive 4).
Regarding claim 15, in view of the combination in the rejection of claim 1 above, the robotic surgical tool comprises the cooling assembly (via the fan being included in the generator which is a portion of the robotic surgical tool).
Claims 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gombert (DE-102013002832 A1) in view of Cadouri (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0297282 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chordia et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2006/0060333 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Gombert, while contemplating the placement of the generator (4) to be placed at various locations along the device including within the surgical robotic system, fails to specifically disclose that the electrosurgical generator unit comprises a housing, a signal generator contained within the housing, the signal generator being configured to generate the electrosurgical signal for use by the electrosurgical instrument, and an energy delivery structure to couple the electrosurgical signal into the robotic surgical tool.
Cadouri, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further provides that its electrosurgical generator includes a housing (452), a signal generator contained within the housing (boards 448 with 454) wherein the signal generator is configured to generate the electrosurgical signal for use by the electrosurgical instrument (448/454 configured to output signals to 456; see at least [0065] and [0066]), and an energy delivery structure to couple the electrosurgical signal into the robotic surgical tool (interface board 456).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the structure noted above of the electrosurgical generator as in Cadouri as the general structural components of the generator 4 in Gombert. Gombert already contemplates the need for the generator to be included within the system and Cadouri readily establishes that such a structure as in figure 4 “can be permanently or semi-permanently mounted to a support structure” including “another suitable support structure”. Such would allow for the generator to be securely mounted to the robotic system and/or be removable coupled to allow for replacement of the generator if needed.
Regarding claim 4, in view of the combination with Cadouri in the rejection of claim 1, the cooling assembly includes a fan, but fails to include a heat sink arranged to be in thermal communication with the electrosurgical generator unit when the electrosurgical generator unit is mounted to the robotic surgical tool. Chordia provides for an exemplary manner of providing for cooling of electronic components wherein a air-cooled (i.e. air blown by a fan) includes a heat sink to provide for the cooling, and further provides for a liquid-cooled arrangement including a heat sink (14). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized a heat sink in the fan-cooled version per Cadouri or for a liquid-cooled arrangement with a heat sink as in Chordia to provide for an exemplary manner of cooling the one or more integrated circuits in the generator per the combination of Gombert/Cadouri to provide a known and desirable manner of removing heat from the integrated circuits within the generator.
Regarding claim 5, in view of the combination with Chordia above, Chordia further provides that it is known in the art for the inclusion of a heat pipe for thermally coupling between the heat sink and the electronic circuit (see [0005] providing for “a heat pipe” and that such “is exposed to a heat source while the other end is exposed to a heat sink”). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the heat pipe in addition to the heat sink in the fan-cooled version per Cadouri to provide for an exemplary manner of cooling the one or more integrated circuits in the generator per the combination of Gombert/Cadouri so as to provide a known and desirable manner of removing heat from the integrated circuits within the generator.
Regarding claim 6, the combination in the rejection of claim 1 above fails to specifically provides that the cooling assembly comprises a resilient, thermally conductive connector for positioning between the robotic surgical tool and the electrosurgical generator unit to press against the robotic surgical tool and the electrosurgical generator unit when the electrosurgical generator unit is mounted to the robotic surgical tool. Chordia provides for an exemplary manner of providing for cooling of electronic components wherein a air-cooled (i.e. air blown by a fan) or for a liquid-cooled arrangement wherein the liquid cooling arrangement includes a plurality of structures external to the cooled electronic board (see figure 3 of Chordia providing for the additional features of the cooling system of 13/14/15/16) wherein the cooling system includes a resilient thermally conductive connector for positioning between the robotic surgical tool and the electrosurgical generator unit to press against the robotic surgical tool and the electrosurgical generator unit when the electrosurgical generator unit is mounted to the robotic surgical tool (via at least the piping 16 being external to the control board). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the liquid-cooled arrangement in Chordia to provide for an exemplary manner of cooling the one or more integrated circuits in the generator per the combination of Gombert/Cadouri wherein such would result in a known and desirable manner of removing heat from the integrated circuits within the generator.
Regarding claim 7, the combination in the rejection of claim 1 above fails to specifically provides that wherein the cooling assembly comprises one or more fins arranged to be in thermal communication with the electrosurgical generator unit when the electrosurgical generator unit is mounted to the robotic surgical tool. Chordia provides for an exemplary manner of providing for cooling of electronic components wherein a air-cooled (i.e. air blown by a fan) or for a liquid-cooled arrangement wherein such includes one or more finds arranged to be in thermal communication with an electronic circuit (see figure 5 and ]0056] of Chordia providing for raised fin-like portions for the micro-channel heat exhcnager). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the liquid-cooled arrangement with the microchannel heat exchanger as in Chordia to provide for an exemplary manner of cooling the one or more integrated circuits in the generator per the combination of Gombert/Cadouri wherein such would result in a known and desirable manner of removing heat from the integrated circuits within the generator. The combination would result in the fins of the microchannel exchanger being in thermal communication with the electronic circuit of the generator as required by claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gombert and Cadouri fails to provide that the cooling assembly comprises an electrically controlled active cooling mechanism for actively cooling the apparatus. Chordia provides for an exemplary manner of providing for cooling of electronic components wherein a air-cooled (i.e. air blown by a fan) or for a liquid-cooled arrangement wherein such includes an electrically controlled active cooling mechanism for actively cooling the apparatus (such as in the embodiment in figure 3 with the electronic control of the cooling system including the control of the pump 13; see also [0054]). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the liquid-cooled arrangement as in Chordia to provide for an exemplary manner of cooling the one or more integrated circuits in the generator per the combination of Gombert/Cadouri wherein such would result in a known and desirable manner of removing heat from the integrated circuits within the generator.
Regarding claim 9, in view of the combination in the rejection of claim 8 above, the combined arrangement would provide for an energy delivery structure to provide electrical power to the active cooling mechanism (via the requisite structure to power the pump 13 as well as the other electronic control required to implement the liquid cooling in the combination in the rejection of claim 8).
Regarding claim 10, in view of the combination in the rejection of claim 8 above, Chordia further provides for a sensor for detecting a temperature of the apparatus and a controller to control the active cooling mechanism based on the detected temperature (see [0039] providing for the inclusion of the control mechanism and sensors to provide for the active control over the pump and temperature).
Regarding claim 11, in view of the combination in the rejection of claim 8 above, Chordia further provides, the combination provides that the active cooling mechanism comprises a fan to direct air flow over a surface of the apparatus (see at least [0040], [0042], [0044], [0046], [0047], [0049] and [0050] providing for a fan per Chordia).
Regarding claim 12, in view of the combination in the rejection of claim 8 above, Chordia further provides the active cooling mechanism comprises a heat pump to remove heat from the apparatus (pump 13 per Chordia).
Regarding claim 13, in view of the combination in the rejection of claim 8 above, Chordia further provides for one or more conduits arranged to be in thermal communication with the electrosurgical generator unit when the electrosurgical generator unit is mounted to the robotic surgical tool, and wherein the active cooling mechanism is configured to circulate a coolant fluid through the one or more conduits (see [0054] of Chordia providing for the fluid in the system to be circulated therethrough).
Regarding claim 14, in view of the combination in the rejection of claim 8 above, the combined arrangement would provide that the robotic surgical tool comprises the one or more conduits (via the conduit being including in the robotic tool when the generator is mounted thereto).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD HUPCZEY, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 8 am - 4 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/Ronald Hupczey, Jr./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794