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 . This action is in response to the Response to Election/Restriction filed on December 26, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on December 26,2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 26,2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 9, “the each end effector” should read --the end effector--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 2, line 1, “the surgical arms” should read --the pair of surgical arms--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 3, line 1, “the surgical arms” should read --the pair of surgical arms--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 4, line 1, “the surgical arms” should read --the pair of surgical arms--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 5, line 1, “each of the surgical arms” should read --each of the pair of surgical arms--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 6, line 1, “one of the surgical arms” should read --one of the pair of surgical arms--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 7, line 1, “one of the surgical arms” should read --one of the pair of surgical arms--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 8, line 1, “the surgical arms” should read --the pair of surgical arms--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 10, line 1, “the monitor and camera arms” should read --the monitor arm and camera arm--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 12, line 1, “each of the surgical arms” should read --each of the pair of surgical arms--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 13, line 4, “a rotary joint” should read --the rotary joint--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Crawford et al. (US Publication 2019/0000569), hereinafter “Crawford”.
Regarding claim 1, Crawford discloses a multi-arm surgical robotic system (300, Figures 3-5) comprising: a moveable base station (400, Figure 4), including an on-board computer (408, Figure 4); a display (304, Figure 3) electronically coupled to the computer; a camera (326, Figure 3) electronically coupled to the computer and capable of detecting one or more tracking markers (via tracking subsystem 532 paragraph 0065); a pair of surgical arms (306 and 308, Figure 3) electronically coupled to the computer and movable based on commands processed by the computer; and an end effector (310, Figure 3) electronically coupled to each surgical arm wherein the each end effector is positioned to enable a tool to perform a surgical procedure on a spinal element (i.e. surgical instrument 608 is capable of performing a surgical procedure on a spinal element).
Regarding claim 2, Crawford discloses wherein the surgical arms are configured to synchronize with respect to one another [paragraph 0066].
Regarding claim 9, Crawford discloses a multi-arm surgical robotic system (300, Figures 3-5) comprising: a moveable base station(400, Figure 4), including an on-board computer(408, Figure 4); an arm positioner (301, Figure 3) attached to the base station; a monitor arm (holds 304, Figure 3) attached to the arm positioner, which supports a display (304, Figure 3) electronically coupled to the computer; a camera arm (302, Figure 3) attached to the arm positioner, which supports a camera (326, Figure 3) electronically coupled to the computer and capable of detecting one or more tracking markers(via tracking subsystem 532 paragraph 0065); and a pair of surgical arms (306 and 308, Figure 3) attached to the arm positioner and electronically coupled to the computer and movable based on commands processed by the computer wherein the pair of surgical arms are capable of enabling a tool to access a spinal element(i.e. surgical instrument 608 is capable of performing a surgical procedure on a spinal element).
Regarding claim 10, Crawford discloses wherein the monitor and camera arms are motorized and controlled by the computer for automatic positioning of the display and camera, respectively (movement via motors and controllers described in paragraph 0057].
Regarding claim 11, Crawford discloses wherein the arm positioner includes a vertical column, which provides for telescoping movement (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 15, Crawford discloses wherein a free end of each surgical arm includes an end effector interface (310, Figure 3)for securing an end effector for precise positioning of an instrument.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al. (US Publication 2019/0000569) in view of Fuerst et al. (US Publication 2022/0280238), hereinafter “Fuerst”.
Regarding claim 3, Crawford fails to disclose wherein the surgical arms are configured to perform independent surgical tasks simultaneously.
Fuerst, however, discloses a surgical robotic system wherein the surgical arms are capable of performing independent surgical tasks simultaneously [paragraph 0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute the surgical arms of Crawford with surgical arms that are capable of performing independent surgical tasks simultaneously as taught by Fuerst in order to efficiently and successfully position and orient the robotic arms while reducing setup time and without any collisions.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Crawford’s system discloses a surgical robotic system wherein the surgical arms are capable of performing independent surgical tasks sequentially (i.e. consecutively) [paragraph 0006 of Fuerst].
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al. (US Publication 2019/0000569) in view of Coste-Maniere et al. (US Publication 2003/0109780), hereinafter “Coste-Maniere”.
Regarding claim 5, Crawford fails to disclose wherein each of the surgical arms is configured to be controlled by different users.
Coste-Maniere, however, teaches wherein each of the surgical arms is configured to be controlled by different users [paragraph 0115].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute the surgical arms of Crawford with surgical arms capable of being controlled by different users as taught by Coste-Maniere in order to enhance planning of laparoscopic, robotic, and other minimally invasive surgery.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Crawford’s system discloses wherein one of the surgical arms capable of performing one type of task while the other surgical arm is configured to perform a different type of task(i.e. each arm may be on its own base and therefore capable of performing a different type of task [paragraph 0115] of Coste-Maniere).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al. (US Publication 2019/0000569) in view of Fitzsimons et al. (US Publication 2023/0165649), hereinafter “Fitzsimons”.
Regarding claim 8, Crawford fails to disclose wherein the surgical arms automatically perform a verification procedure.
Fitzsimons, however, discloses wherein the surgical arms automatically perform a verification procedure [paragraph 0068].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute the surgical arms of Crawford with surgical arms automatically perform a verification procedure as taught by Fitzsimons in order to autonomously pick up the appropriate tool.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA S JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-5963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8am to 4pm EST).
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at 571-272-4705. 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.
/Diana Jones/Examiner, Art Unit 3775
/KEVIN T TRUONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3775