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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the top cover and bottom cover must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Based on the lack of written description regarding the structure of the top cover of a respective reducer and the bottom cover of a respective motor in the specification, and the lack of depiction in the drawings, it is unclear what structure is being claimed, and what function said feature has in said invention.
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.
Claims 1, 13, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bajo et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0116737).
Regarding claim 1, Bajo teaches an instrument drive (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 7), comprising a plurality (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0147, lines 1-2) of motors (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0147, lines 4-5), a plurality of reducers (Paragraph 0148, lines 22-24), a plurality of reducer output stages (Paragraph 0148, lines 14-15), and a plurality of driving disc assemblies (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0148, line 26), wherein each respective motor of the plurality of motors is configured to drive a respective reducer to rotate a respective driving disc assembly via a respective reducer output stage (Paragraph 0148, lines 24-29), wherein the instrument drive further comprises: a plurality of output stage magnetic rings (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0150, lines 1-2), wherein a respective output stage magnetic ring (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0150, lines 5-6) of the plurality of output stage magnetic rings is coaxially disposed with the respective reducer output stage and configured to rotate synchronously with the respective reducer output stage (Paragraph 0150, lines 5-8); and a plurality of output stage encoders (Fig. 12A-12B, paragraph 0150, line 8), wherein a respective output stage encoder of the plurality of output stage encoders is spaced apart from the respective reducer output stage (Fig. 12A-12B, paragraph 0150, lines 8-9) in a radial direction of the respective reducer output stage (Fig. 12A-12B) and configured to detect rotation of the respective output stage magnetic ring (Paragraph 0150, lines 9-10, and paragraph 0148, lines 9-11).
Regarding claim 13, Bajo teaches an instrument drive (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 7) of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0147, lines 1-2) of motors (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0147, lines 4-5) includes an input bearing and an output bearing (Fig. 3B-3D, paragraph 0072, lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 15, Bajo teaches an instrument drive (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 7) of claim 1, wherein the instrument drive further comprises: a plurality of input stage magnetic rings (Paragraph 0158, lines 8-9), wherein a respective input stage magnetic ring of the plurality of input stage magnetic rings is coaxially arranged (Paragraph 0158, lines 9-10) with an input stage of the respective motor (Fig. 15A, paragraph 0158, line 21) and is configured to rotate synchronously with the input stage of the respective motor (Paragraph 0158, lines 11-13); and a plurality of input stage encoders (Paragraph 0162, line 5), fixedly disposed in the instrument drive (Paragraph 0162, lines 6-7), and a respective input stage encoder of the plurality of input stage encoders being configured to detect rotation of a respective input stage magnetic ring (Paragraph 0162, lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 16, Bajo teaches an instrument drive (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 7) of claim 15, wherein the respective input stage magnetic ring (Paragraph 0158, lines 8-9) is coaxially arranged (Paragraph 0158, lines 9-10) with a sensing unit (Paragraph 0103, line 6) of a respective input stage encoder (Paragraph 0162, line 5).
Regarding claim 18, Bajo teaches a surgical robot (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 6), comprising an instrument drive (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 7), wherein the instrument drive includes a plurality (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0147, lines 1-2) of motors (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0147, lines 4-5), a plurality of reducers (Paragraph 0148, lines 22-24), a plurality of reducer output stages (Paragraph 0148, lines 14-15), and a plurality of driving disc assemblies (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0148, line 26), wherein each respective motor of the plurality of motors is configured to drive a respective reducer to rotate a respective driving disc assembly via a respective reducer output stage (Paragraph 0148, lines 24-29), wherein the instrument drive further includes: a plurality of output stage magnetic rings (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0150, lines 1-2), wherein a respective output stage magnetic ring (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0150, lines 5-6) of the plurality of output stage magnetic rings is coaxially disposed with the respective reducer output stage and configured to rotate synchronously with the respective reducer output stage (Paragraph 0150, lines 5-8); and a plurality of output stage encoders (Fig. 12A-12B, paragraph 0150, line 8), wherein a respective output stage encoder of the plurality of output stage encoders is spaced apart from the respective reducer output stage (Fig. 12A-12B, paragraph 0150, lines 8-9) in a radial direction of the respective reducer output stage (Fig. 12A-12B) and configured to detect rotation of the respective output stage magnetic ring (Paragraph 0150, lines 9-10, and paragraph 0148, lines 9-11).
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.
Claims 2-3, 6-9, 12, 14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajo et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0116737) in view of Heidenhain (DE 102005005111).
Regarding claim 2, Bajo teaches an instrument drive (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 7) of claim 1, wherein the instrument drive further comprises an output sensing plate (Fig. 10C, paragraph 0129, line 2) disposed between (Fig. 10C and 11A) an output stage bearing (Paragraph 0148, lines 19-20) of the respective reducer (Paragraph 0148, lines 22-24) and the respective drive disc assembly (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0148, line 26), and the output sensing plate defines a plurality of through holes (Fig. 10C, paragraph 0129, lines 2-3), wherein a respective through hole of the plurality of through holes allows the respective reducer output stage (Paragraph 0148, lines 14-15) to pass through (Fig. 10C, paragraph 0129, lines 3-5).
Bajo does not teach that the plurality of output stage encoders are mounted to the output sensing plate. Heidenhain, however, teaches a rotational encoder that includes an output sensing plate (Fig. 1, paragraph 0052, line 1). Furthermore, Heidenhain teaches that encoders (Fig. 1, paragraph 0052, line 2) can be mounted to the output sensing plate (Fig. 1, paragraph 0052, lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bajo to incorporate the teachings of Heidenhain to include that an output sensing plate is disposed between an output stage bearing of the respective reducer and the respective drive disc assembly, and that encoders can be mounted to the output sensing plate. Doing so would ensure that the plurality of encoders are located in the most optimal position to detect rotation of the respective output stage magnetic ring, as recognized by Heidenhain.
Regarding claim 3, Bajo teaches an instrument drive (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 7) of claim 2, wherein the respective output stage magnetic ring (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0150, lines 5-6) is mounted to (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0150, lines 4-7) the respective driving disc assembly (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0148, line 26). Bajo does not teach that the respective output stage encoder is mounted to a side of the output sensing plate facing the respective driving disc assembly. Heidenhain, however, teaches a rotational encoder that further specifies that the encoder (Paragraph 0052, line 2) can be mounted to a side of the output sensing plate facing the respective driving disc assembly (Fig. 7, paragraph 0042, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bajo to incorporate the teachings of Heidenhain to include that the respective output stage encoder is mounted to a side of the output sensing plate facing the respective driving disc assembly. Doing so would ensure that the respective encoder is located in the most optimal position to detect rotation of the respective output stage magnetic ring, as recognized by Heidenhain.
Regarding claim 6, Bajo in view of Heidenhain discloses the claimed invention of claim 2. However, Bajo does not teach that the respective output stage magnetic ring is mounted to the respective reducer output stage and close to the output stage bearing of the respective reducer, and the respective output stage encoder is mounted to a side of the output sensing plate facing the output stage bearing of the respective reducer.
Heidenhain teaches a rotational encoder that includes a respective output stage magnetic ring (Paragraph 0052, lines 1-2) which is mounted (Paragraph 0049, lines 8-9) to a respective reducer output stage (Paragraph 0049, line 1) and close to (Fig. 1-2) an output stage bearing (Fig. 1, paragraph 0049, line 3) of the respective reducer. Heidenhain also teaches an output stage encoder (Paragraph 0052, line 2) that is mounted to a side (Fig. 7, paragraph 0042, lines 1-4) of the output sensing plate (Paragraph 0052, line 1) facing the output stage bearing of the respective reducer (Fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bajo to incorporate the teachings of Heidenhain to include that the respective output stage magnetic ring is mounted to the respective reducer output stage and is close to the output stage bearing, and the respective output stage encoder is mounted to a side of the output sensing plate facing the output stage bearing of the respective reducer. Doing so would ensure that the respective output stage magnetic ring and output stage encoder are in the proper locations in order to accurately detect rotation of the respective output stage magnetic ring, as recognized by Heidenhain.
Regarding claim 7, Bajo teaches an instrument drive (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 7) of claim 6 that includes the output stage bearing (Fig. 3B-3D, paragraph 0072, lines 10-13) of the respective reducer (Paragraph 0148, lines 22-24). Bajo does not teach that the output stage bearing includes an outer bearing and an inner bearing, and that the respective output stage magnetic ring is close to the outer bearing. Heidenhain, however, teaches a rotational encoder that includes an output stage bearing with an outer bearing and an inner bearing (Fig. 1, paragraph 0049, line 3). Furthermore, Heidenhain teaches a respective output stage magnetic ring is close to the outer bearing (Fig. 1, paragraph 0052, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bajo to incorporate the teachings of Heidenhain to include that the output stage bearing includes an inner and outer bearing, and that the respective output stage magnetic ring is close to the outer bearing. Doing so would limit axial movement of the reducer output stage, as recognized by Heidenhain.
Regarding claim 8, Bajo teaches an instrument drive (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 7) of claim 7 that includes an output stage bearing (Fig. 3B-3D, paragraph 0072, lines 10-13). Bajo does not teach that the output stage bearing includes an outer and inner bearing, wherein the outer bearing is spaced apart from the inner bearing, or the outer bearing abuts against the inner bearing. Heidenhain, however, teaches a rotational encoder that includes an output stage bearing with an outer and an inner bearing (Fig. 1, paragraph 0049, line 3). Furthermore, Heidenhain teaches that outer bearing can be spaced apart from the inner bearing (Fig. 2). While Heidenhain does not explicitly show that the outer bearing abuts against the inner bearing, it would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the two bearings could be moved to abut against each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bajo to incorporate the teachings of Heidenhain to include that the output stage bearing has an outer and inner bearing, wherein the outer bearing is spaced apart from the inner bearing, or the outer bearing abuts against the inner bearing. Doing so would limit axial movement of the reducer output stage, as recognized by Heidenhain.
Regarding claim 9, Bajo teaches an instrument drive (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 7) of claim 7. Bajo does not teach that the instrument drive includes an outer bearing that is made of a non-magnetic material or a weak magnetic material. Heidenhain, however, teaches a rotational encoder that includes an output stage bearing with an outer bearing (Fig. 1, paragraph 0049, line 3).
Bajo, however, teaches that the housing of said instrument drive “may be made of a suitable material that … reduces electromagnetic noise that might confound sensor readings” (Paragraph 0111, lines 10-15). Although Bajo does not explicitly disclose that components inside the housing are made of a non-magnetic or weak magnetic material, it would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that using non-magnetic or weak magnetic materials would reduce electromagnetic noise.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bajo to incorporate the teachings of Heidenhain to include that the output stage bearing has an outer bearing made of a non-magnetic or weak magnetic material. Doing so would ensure that the components inside the housing of the instrument drive, such as the outer bearing, reduce electromagnetic noise that might confound the encoder sensor readings, as recognized by Heidenhain.
Regarding claim 12, Bajo teaches an instrument drive (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 7) of claim 1 that includes the plurality of reducer output stages (Paragraph 0148, lines 14-15). Bajo does not explicitly teach that the plurality of reducer output stages are made of non-magnetic materials or weak magnetic materials. Bajo, however, teaches that the housing of said instrument drive “may be made of a suitable material that … reduces electromagnetic noise that might confound sensor readings” (Paragraph 0111, lines 10-15). It would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that using non-magnetic or weak magnetic materials would reduce electromagnetic noise.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try making the plurality of reducer output stages out of non-magnetic or weak magnetic materials. Doing so would ensure that the components inside the housing of the instrument drive, such as the outer bearing, reduce electromagnetic noise that might confound the encoder sensor readings, as recognized by Bajo.
Regarding claim 14, Bajo teaches an instrument drive (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 7) of claim 13 that includes an input bearing (Fig. 3B-3D, paragraph 0072, lines 10-13). Bajo does not explicitly teach that the input bearing is made of a non-magnetic or a weak magnetic material. Bajo, however, teaches that the housing of said instrument drive “may be made of a suitable material that … reduces electromagnetic noise that might confound sensor readings” (Paragraph 0111, lines 10-15). It would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that using non-magnetic or weak magnetic materials would reduce electromagnetic noise.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try making the input bearing out of a non-magnetic or a weak magnetic material. Doing so would ensure that the components inside the housing of the instrument drive, such as the input bearing, reduce any electromagnetic noise that might confound the encoder sensor readings, as recognized by Bajo.
Regarding claim 17, Bajo teaches an instrument drive (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 7) of claim 1, wherein the respective motor (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0147, lines 4-5) includes one or more of a bottom cover (Fig. 10C, paragraph 0126, lines 8-9), a base (Fig. 10D-10E, paragraph 0127, lines 1-4), and a housing (Fig. 10C, paragraph 0126, line 2) being made of a non-magnetic material or a weak magnetic material (Paragraph 0111, lines 11-12).
Bajo does not explicitly disclose that the bottom cover or base are made of a non-magnetic or a weak magnetic material. Bajo, however, teaches that the housing of said instrument drive “may be made of a suitable material that … reduces electromagnetic noise that might confound sensor readings” (Paragraph 0111, lines 10-15). It would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that using non-magnetic or weak magnetic materials would reduce electromagnetic noise.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try making the bottom cover and the base out of non-magnetic or weak magnetic materials. Doing so would ensure that the components inside the housing of the instrument drive, such as the bottom cover and the base, reduce any electromagnetic noise that might confound the encoder sensor readings, as recognized by Bajo.
Regarding claim 19, Bajo teaches a surgical robot (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 6) of claim 18, wherein the instrument drive (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 7) further includes an output sensing plate (Fig. 10C, paragraph 0129, line 2) disposed between (Fig. 10C and 11A) an output stage bearing (Paragraph 0148, lines 19-20) of the respective reducer (Paragraph 0148, lines 22-24) and the respective driving disc assembly (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0148, line 26), and the output sensing plate defines a plurality of through holes (Fig. 10C, paragraph 0129, lines 2-3), wherein a respective through hole of the plurality of through holes allows the respective reducer output stage (Paragraph 0148, lines 14-15) to pass through (Fig. 10C, paragraph 0129, lines 3-5).
Bajo does not teach that the plurality of output stage encoders are mounted to the output sensing plate. Heidenhain, however, teaches a rotational encoder that includes an output sensing plate (Fig. 1, paragraph 0052, line 1). Furthermore, Heidenhain teaches that encoders (Fig. 1, paragraph 0052, line 2) can be mounted to the output sensing plate (Fig. 1, paragraph 0052, lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bajo to incorporate the teachings of Heidenhain to include that an output sensing plate is disposed between an output stage bearing of the respective reducer and the respective drive disc assembly, and that encoders can be mounted to the output sensing plate. Doing so would ensure that the plurality of encoders are located in the most optimal position to detect rotation of the respective output stage magnetic ring, as recognized by Heidenhain.
Regarding claim 20, Bajo teaches a surgical robot (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 6) of claim 19, wherein the respective output stage magnetic ring (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0150, lines 5-6) is mounted to (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0150, lines 4-7) the respective driving disc assembly (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0148, line 26). Bajo does not teach that the respective output stage encoder is mounted to a side of the output sensing plate facing the respective driving disc assembly. Heidenhain, however, teaches a rotational encoder that further specifies that the encoder (Paragraph 0052, line 2) can be mounted to a side of the output sensing plate facing the respective driving disc assembly (Fig. 7, paragraph 0042, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bajo to incorporate the teachings of Heidenhain to include that the respective output stage encoder is mounted to a side of the output sensing plate facing the respective driving disc assembly. Doing so would ensure that the respective encoder is located in the most optimal position to detect rotation of the respective output stage magnetic ring, as recognized by Heidenhain.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajo et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0116737) in view of Reis (U.S. Patent No. 8,602,031) and Heidenhain (DE 102005005111).
Regarding claim 4, Bajo teaches an instrument drive (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 7) of claim 3 that includes a plurality of driving disc assemblies (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraph 0148, line 26). Bajo does not teach that each respective driving disc assembly includes a driving disc guide portion and a driving disc, wherein the driving disc guide portion is coupled to a shaft of the respective reducer output stage, the driving disc is in sliding fit with the driving disc guide portion, and the respective output stage magnetic ring is coupled to the driving disc guide portion.
Reis, however, teaches a medical robotic system that includes multiple driving disc assembles, where each includes a driving disc guide portion (Fig. 5F, Col. 6, line 65) and a driving disc (Fig. 5A, Col. 7, lines 4-5). Reis also teaches that driving disc guide portion is coupled to a shaft of a respective reducer output stage (Fig. 5F, Col. 6, lines 64-65), and that the driving disc is in sliding fit with the driving disc guide portion (Fig. 5F).
Heidenhain, however, teaches a rotational encoder that includes an output stage magnetic ring (Fig. 1-2, paragraph 0049, line 8) that is coupled to the bottom of a driving disc assembly and around a hollow shaft region (Fig. 1-2, paragraph 0049, lines 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bajo to incorporate the teachings of Reis and Heidenhain to include that each respective driving disc assembly includes a driving disc guide portion and a driving disc, wherein the driving disc guide portion is coupled to a shaft of the respective reducer output stage, the driving disc is in sliding fit with the driving disc guide portion, and the respective output stage magnetic ring is coupled to the driving disc guide portion. Doing so would ensure that the driving disc guide portion and driving disc can be securely connected to the reducer output stage in order to drive transmission of the surgical instrument, as recognized by Reis and Heidenhain. Although Heidenhain does not explicitly disclose that the output stage magnetic ring is coupled to the driving disc guide portion, the driving disc guide portion encompasses the bottom of the driving disc assembly, and therefore it would be obvious to couple the output stage magnetic ring to the driving disc guide assembly.
Regarding claim 5, Bajo in view of Reis and Heidenhain discloses the claimed invention of claim 4. However, Bajo does not explicitly teach that the driving disc and the driving disc guide portion are made of non-magnetic materials or weak magnetic materials. Bajo, however, teaches that the housing of said instrument drive “may be made of a suitable material that … reduces electromagnetic noise that might confound sensor readings” (Paragraph 0111, lines 10-15). It would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that using non-magnetic or weak magnetic materials would reduce electromagnetic noise.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try making the driving disc and the driving disc guide portion out of non-magnetic or weak magnetic materials. Doing so would ensure that the components inside the housing of the instrument drive, such as the driving disc assembly, reduce electromagnetic noise that might confound the encoder sensor readings, as recognized by Bajo.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajo et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0116737) in view of Reis (U.S. Patent No. 8,602,031).
Regarding claim 10, Bajo teaches an instrument drive (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 7) of claim 1 that includes a plurality of output stage encoders (Fig. 12A-12B, paragraph 0150, line 8) and a plurality of reducer output stages (Paragraph 0148, lines 14-15). Bajo does not teach that the plurality of output stage encoders are disposed outside a convex polygon formed by connecting centers of the plurality of reducer output stages. Reis teaches a medical robotic system that includes a plurality (Fig. 4C) of reducer output stages (Fig. 5F, Col. 6, lines 64-65), where the connecting centers of said reducer output stages forms a convex polygon (Fig. 4A-4B).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bajo and Reis to include that the connecting centers of the plurality of reducer output stages form a convex polygon. Doing so would ensure that the plurality of reducer output stages are spaced far enough apart from one another in order to properly drive the surgical instrument, as recognized by Reis. Although Bajo does not explicitly teach that the plurality of output stage encoders are disposed outside a convex polygon, Bajo does show that the respective encoders are located to the side and spaced apart from the respective reducer output stages (Fig. 12A-12B, paragraph 0150, lines 8-9). Therefore, it would be obvious to try locating the output stage encoders outside said convex polygon taught in Reis.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajo et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0116737) in view of Tang (CN 113635343).
Regarding claim 11, Bajo teaches an instrument drive (Fig. 1, paragraph 0065, line 7) of claim 1 that includes a plurality of reducers (Paragraph 0148, lines 22-24). Bajo does not teach that a respective reducer includes a top cover made of a non-magnetic material or a weak magnetic material. Tang, however, teaches a medical high bending moment joint module with a reducer (Fig. 1, paragraph 00044, lines 1-3) that includes a top cover (Fig. 1, paragraph 00055, lines 8-9).
Bajo, however, teaches that the housing of said instrument drive “may be made of a suitable material that … reduces electromagnetic noise that might confound sensor readings” (Paragraph 0111, lines 10-15). It would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that using non-magnetic or weak magnetic materials would reduce electromagnetic noise.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bajo to incorporate the teachings of Tang to include that the respective reducer includes a top cover. Doing so would ensure that the reducer is protected from dust and dirt, as recognized by Tang. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try making the top cover of a respective reducer out of a non-magnetic or a weak magnetic material. Doing so would ensure that the components inside the housing of the instrument drive, such as the top cover, reduce any electromagnetic noise that might confound the encoder sensor readings, as recognized by Bajo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: European Patent No. 3033031, CN 112402018, WIPO Pub. No. 2022/175838, U.S. Patent No. 11,259,881, U.S. PGPub No. 2013/0325034, and U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0405407.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Heidi Hilsmier whose telephone number is (571)272-2984. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Fridays from 7:30 AM - 4:30 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.
/H.A.H./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796