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 .
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) 1-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 12053252 B2 in view of Timm (US 11602474 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 29, Thompson discloses a method of operating a surgical system comprising: positioning a variable stiffness end effector assembly relative to a patient (Eg. Fig 1, cart 100) comprising an end effector support having a tool insertion device disposed therein (eg. Col. 6, Ln. 36 – Col. 7, Ln. 20); rigidly coupling the end effector support to the tool insertion device in a first mode by forming a rigid coupling mechanism (eg. Col. 6, Ln. 1-16, Col. 8, Ln. 50 – Col. 9 Ln. 11, Col. 11, Ln. 10 – Col. 12, Ln. 37, Col. 13, Ln. 25 – Col. 14, Ln. 45, latching mechanism having a locked and unlocked position); inserting a tool within the tool insertion device (eg. Col. 7, Ln. 40-50, Col. 8, LN. 4-31, Col. 13, Ln. 25-46); but does not disclose vibrating the tool insertion device with the tool; and decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism and compliantly coupling the tool insertion device in a second mode after vibrating.
Timm teaches a surgical system that uses a tool to vibrate the tool insertion device (eg. Col. 2, Ln. 14-32, Col. 14, Ln. 60 – Col. 15, Ln. 15, Col. 21, Ln. 35 – Col. 22, Ln. 11), sensing vibration signal (eg. Col. 10, Ln. 3 - Col. 12, Ln. 63, Col. 13, Ln. 59 – Col. 14, Ln. 28, Claim 8) and decoupling into a second mode (eg. Col. 21, Ln. 59 – Col. 22, Ln. 11, Col. 35, Ln. 23-44, Col. 35, Ln. 60 – Col. 36, Ln. 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the invention of Thompson with the vibration mechanism as taught by Timm to reduce unwanted vibrational cross-talk to enhance positional accuracy of the distal ends of robotic arms and devices attached thereto (Eg. Timm, Col. 2, Ln. 14-32, Col. 14, Ln. 60 – Col. 15).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses detecting the vibrating at a vibration sensor and wherein decoupling is performed in response to detecting vibration greater than a predetermined threshold (eg. Timm, Col. 10, Ln. 18-32, Col. 11, Ln. 40-53, Col. 21, Ln. 35 – Col. 22, Ln. 11, Claim 1).
Regarding claims 3, 28, and 30, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses detecting the vibrating at a vibration sensor and wherein generating a warning signal (eg. Timm, Col. 12, Ln. 15-63, Col. 13, Ln. 59 – Col. 14, Ln. 28, Claim 8).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism using a user interface (Eg. Thompson Fig. 8 and 10, Col. 14, Ln. 45 – Col. 15, Ln. 27, Col. 17, Ln. 30-60).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism comprises decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism and compliantly coupling the end effector support to the tool insertion device with a compliant coupling (eg. Thompson Col. 6, Ln. 1-16, Col. 9, Ln. 12 – Col. 10, Ln. 2).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism comprises decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism and compliantly coupling the end effector support to the tool insertion device with a plurality of springs (eg. Thompson, Col. 5, Ln 30-67, Col. 14, Ln. 11-31).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism comprises decoupling a plurality of pins retractably disposed between the end effector support and the tool insertion device (eg. Thompson Col. 14, Ln. 32 – Col. 15, Ln. 41, Col. 17, Ln. 9 – Col. 19, Ln. 43, Col. 20, Ln. 30-67, Col. 23, Ln. 17-28, Col. 24, Ln. 28-52, Col. 25, Ln. 52 – Col. 27, Ln. 29).
Regarding claims 8 and 21, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism comprises decoupling a plurality of cams retractably coupled between the end effector support and the tool insertion device (eg. Thompson Col. 14, Ln. 32 – Col. 15, Ln. 41, Col. 17, Ln. 9 – Col. 19, Ln. 43, Col. 20, Ln. 30-67, Col. 23, Ln. 17-28, Col. 24, Ln. 28-52, Col. 25, Ln. 52 – Col. 27, Ln. 29).
Regarding claims 9 and 22, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism comprises decoupling a plurality of cams retractably coupled between the end effector support and the tool insertion device using a motor coupled to the plurality of cams (Eg. Thompson, Col. 17, Ln. 32 – Col. 18, Ln. 40, Col. 21, Ln. 54 – Col. 23, Ln. 47 Col. 25, Ln. 10 – 27, Ln. 50, one of ordinary skill would have been able to add a motor to the moving parts to allow for automated actuation since motorizing cams is common in the art).
Regarding claims 10 and 23, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism comprises decoupling a first plurality of stops coupled to the end effector support and a second plurality of stops coupled to the tool insertion device by moving the first plurality of stops from being aligned with the second plurality of stops to where the first plurality of stops are not aligned with the second plurality of stops (eg. Thompson Col. 14, Ln. 32 – Col. 15, Ln. 41, Col. 17, Ln. 9 – Col. 19, Ln. 43, Col. 20, Ln. 30-67, Col. 23, Ln. 17-28, Col. 24, Ln. 28-52, Col. 25, Ln. 52 – Col. 27, Ln. 29).
Regarding claims 11 and 24, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling by rotating the end effector support relative to the tool insertion device (Eg. Thompson Col. 27, Ln. 49-67).
Regarding claims 12 and 25, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism comprises decoupling a plurality of fasteners retractably coupled through the end effector support, said plurality of fasteners axially retractable relative to the tool insertion device (eg. Thompson Col. 14, Ln. 32 – Col. 15, Ln. 41, Col. 17, Ln. 9 – Col. 19, Ln. 43, Col. 20, Ln. 30-67, Col. 23, Ln. 17-28, Col. 24, Ln. 28-52, Col. 25, Ln. 52 – Col. 27, Ln. 29, clamping arms).
Regarding claims 13 and 26, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the plurality of fasteners comprises rotating screws coupled to a motor (Eg. Thompson Col. 17, Ln. 32 – Col. 18, Ln. 40, Col. 21, Ln. 54 – Col. 23, Ln. 47 Col. 25, Ln. 10 – 27, Ln. 50, one of ordinary skill would have been able to add a motor to the moving parts to allow for automated actuation since motorizing cams is common in the art).
Regarding claims 14 and 27, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses decoupling the rigid coupling mechanism comprises decoupling a plurality of pneumatic cylinders retractably coupled to the end effector support by axially retracting the plurality of pneumatic cylinders relative to the tool insertion device (eg. Timm, Col. 8, Ln. 49 – Col. 9, Ln. 16, Col. 10, Ln. 18-32, one of ordinary skill could use pneumatic systems for retractable actuation of Thompson’s blocks/arms since pneumatic systems are common in robotics to provide force feedback).
Regarding claim 31, the combined invention of Thompson and Timm discloses receiving a vibration signal comprises receiving a vibration signal from a vibration sensor disposer on an end effector support, a tool insertion device or a robotic arm. (eg. Timm, Col. 10, Ln. 3 - Col. 12, Ln. 63, Col. 13, Ln. 59 – Col. 14, one of ordinary skill could place a vibration sensor where desired, see MPEP 2144.04 VI).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-2317. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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.
/MICHAEL J LAU/ Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights