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 office action is in response to the Response Election/Restriction received on February 09, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on February 09, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 09, 2026.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the third joint axis" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore (WO 2024/175889A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moore discloses a multi-arm surgical robotic system (200, Figure 2) comprising: a moveable base station (201 and 210, Figure 2, i.e. capable of moving into place for a surgical procedure), including an on-board computer (page 12, lines 25-26); two or more motorized surgical arms (202) attached to the base station (one or more described page 12, lines 20-22) and electronically coupled to and controlled by the computer (page 15, lines 5-8), each surgical arm having seven arm links interconnected by seven joints (J1-J7 page 14, lines 11-31), thereby providing movement with seven degrees of freedom, wherein each surgical arm is configured to position a pedicle screw for placement into a vertebral body (i.e. since a surgical instrument attaches to the surgical arm, the arm is capable of positioning a pedicle screw during a surgical procedure).
Regarding claim 2, Moore discloses wherein the seven joints each have a singular axis of rotation (page 14, lines 10-27-page 15, lines 15-26, Figure 2 represents a series of articulated joints along a singular axis of rotation).
Regarding claim 3, Moore discloses wherein each successive joint has an orthogonal rotation axis compared to a previous joint (page 14, lines 10-27, Figure 2 represents joints arranged such that their axes intersect to provide wrist-like motion).
Regarding claim 4, Moore discloses wherein the seven joints are revolute joints (page 13, line 16).
Regarding claim 5, Moore discloses wherein the seven arm links include, starting from the base station, a first link, a second link, a third link, a fourth link, a fifth link, a sixth link, and a seventh link, which are interconnected by the seven joints including a first joint, a second joint, a third joint, a fourth joint, a fifth joint, a sixth joint, and a seventh joint (see joint chain J1-J7 providing more than 7 degrees of freedom and redundancy, page 13, lines 11-29).
Regarding claim 6, Moore discloses wherein an axis of rotation for the fifth joint, sixth joint, and seventh joint all intersect at a single point (Figure 2 represents a planar configuration and parallel alignment to define coordinated motion plans, page 13, lines 11-29).
Regarding claim 7, Moore discloses wherein coordinate system origins of the second link through to the seventh link are all coplanar(Figure 2 represents a planar configuration and parallel alignment to define coordinated motion plans, page 13, lines 11-29).
Regarding claim 8, Moore discloses wherein the third link is offset such that a third joint axis and fifth joint axis remain co-planar ( page 13, lines 11-29 describe a co-planar joint arrangement).
Regarding claim 9, Moore discloses wherein each surgical arm has a docked position such that the fifth, sixth, and seventh links align next to the first and second links (page 14, lines 11-27 describe redundant joints and the adoption of different poses while maintaining the same wrist position).
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.
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (WO 2024/175889A1) in view Hoffman et al. (US Publication 2009/0245600), hereinafter “Hoffman”.
Regarding claim 10, Moore discloses a moveable base station (201 and 210, Figure 2, i.e. capable of moving into place for a surgical procedure), including an on-board computer(page 12, lines 25-26), and a pair of surgical arms attached to the base station and electronically coupled to the computer and movable based on commands processed by the computer(page 15, lines 5-8), wherein the surgical arms have seven arm links interconnected by seven joints(J1-J7 page 14, lines 11-31), thereby providing movement with seven degrees of freedom wherein each surgical arm is configured to position a pedicle screw for placement into a vertebral body(i.e. since a surgical instrument attaches to the surgical arm, the arm is capable of positioning a pedicle screw during a surgical procedure).
Moore fails to disclose a monitor arm attached to the base station, which supports a display electronically coupled to the computer; a camera arm attached to the base station, which supports a camera electronically coupled to the computer and configured to detect one or more tracking markers.
Hoffman, however, discloses a multi-arm robotic system (152m Figure 1B), moveable base station (107 and 172, Figure 1B), one or more robotic surgical arms (158, Figure 1B), monitor arm (158E, Figure 1B) attached to the base station, which supports a display (154, Figure 1B) electronically coupled to the computer; a camera arm (158B, Figure 1C) attached to the base station, which supports a camera (i.e. endoscopic camera 101B) electronically coupled to the computer and capable of detecting one or more tracking markers (via transducers or sensors described in paragraph [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Moore with a multi-arm robotic system including a monitor and camera arms coupled to a computer as taught by Hoffman in order to improve efficiency, reduce spatial footprint, and enhance coordination.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Moore’s system discloses wherein the surgical arms, monitor arm, and camera arm are motorized and controlled by the computer for automatic positioning [paragraph 0047 of Hoffman].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (WO 2024/175889A1) in view Hoffman et al. (US Publication 2009/0245600); further in view of Dong et al. (US Patent 10,470,379); hereinafter “Dong”.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Moore’s system fails to disclose a microscope camera incorporated into the surgical robotic system to magnify the surgical site.
Dong, however, teaches a microscope camera (18) incorporated into the surgical robotic system (17, 18) to magnify the surgical site (Column 25, lines 65-Column 26, line 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the multi-arm robotic system of Moore with a microscope camera incorporated into the robotic system as taught by Dong, in order to have different zoom settings and magnifications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 and 16 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
Prosecution Insights