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 .
Note:
All citations with respect to the present application 18/635,217 are citing the paragraph numbers as in the Pre-Grant Publication US 2025/0288371 A1.
All citations with respect to the specification of prior-filed application 18/603,494 are citing the paragraph numbers as in the Pre-Grant Publication US 2025/0288370 A1.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claim 1 – 9) in the reply filed on 04/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 1 – 20 remain pending in the application;
Claim 10 – 20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, No. 18/603,494, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Regarding limitation “wherein at least one of the wheels is powered by a motor” in independent claim 1, here is no disclosure in the specification prior-filed application 18/603,494 related to the motor. The closest disclosure in the specification of prior-filed application 18/603,494 is recited as: “The robotic base station 12 may include a motorized propulsion and positioning system to transport the robotic system 10. In this manner, one or more base wheels 30 may be powered and steerable by the user before or during the procedure” in [0070]. The above disclosure does not recite a specific motor associated with at least one wheel. A “motorized propulsion and positioning system” is a very broad category which can be various different mechanism other than wheel. Thus, the specification of prior-filed application fails to provide adequate written description support for the above claimed limitation.
Therefore, the effective filing date of all claims of present application 18/635,217 is set as the filing date as 04/15/2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 line 2, limitation "connects" should read "is connected".
Claim 4 line 3, limitation "which engages" should read "which is configured to engage".
Claim 5 line 2, limitation "which disengages" should read "which is configured to disengage".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 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 6 recites the limitation "the drive wheels" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is limitation “two front wheels and two rear wheels” recited in claim 1 line 2 – 3, and limitation “at least one of the wheels is powered by a motor” in claim 1 line 4. However, none of the above limitation is introduced as the drive wheels. Since any wheel can be driven either directly by a motor or indirectly via mechanical connection, it is unclear the claimed “drive wheels” are reciting which wheels.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable wheel(s).
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.
Claim 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. (US 2022/0370159 A1; published on 11/24/2022) (hereinafter "Johnson2022").
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a multi-arm surgical robotic system ("Surgical robot system 100 may include … one or more robot arms 104 …" [0032]; "Similar to surgical robot system 100, FIG. 3 illustrates a surgical robot system 300 …" [0041]) comprising:
a moveable base station ("… cabinet 316 …" [0041]; see the casters 314, which enable the movement of base station), including an on-board computer ("Cabinet 316 may house certain components of surgical robot system 300 including but not limited to ... a computer 408 …" [0042]; see Fig.4), the base station having two front wheels and two rear wheels attached to a bottom tray ("… casters 314 …" [0041]; see Fig.3; "Omni- wheels 62, 64 are separated into front portion omni-wheels 62, left and right, and rear portion omni-wheels 64, also left and right." [0081]; see Fig.13), and a handle ("… a handle 412 …" [0042]) for directional control of the base station ("A person, such as a health care professional operating the robot system 100, may position the device by using the handles 17, 19 and the motion control portion 504." [0082]; see Fig.13, handles 17 and 19 are the same handle 412 shown in Fig.4), wherein at least one of the wheels is powered by a motor ("… motor 1100 under the direction of the motion control 504, transmits power to each of the wheels 62, 64 as desired." [0089]);
a display ("… a display 304 ..." [0041]) electronically coupled to the computer ("Connector panel 320 may serve to connect different devices and components to system 300 and/or associated components and modules." [0047]; "The location, orientation, and position of structures having these types of markers may be provided to computer 408 which may be shown to a user on display 304." [0051]);
a camera ("… camera stand 302, in a docked configuration … Camera stand 302 may comprise camera 326." [0041]) electronically coupled to the computer ("Connector panel 320 may serve to connect different devices and components to system 300 and/or associated components and modules … a port to connect to ... and cameras 326 associated with camera stand 302. Connector panel 320 may also include other ports to allow USB, Ethernet, HDMI communications to other components, such as computer 408." [0047]) and configured to detect one or more tracking markers ("Tracking subsystem 532 may correspond to camera stand 302 including camera 326 as described with respect to FIG. 3. Position sensor 504 may be camera 326. Tracking subsystem may track the location of certain markers …" [0051]); and
a pair of surgical arms ("Surgical robot system 100 may include … one or more robot arms 104 …" [0032]; "... upper arm 306, lower arm 308 ..." [0052]) electronically coupled to the computer ("Connector panel 320 may serve to connect different devices and components to system 300 and/or associated components and modules." [0047]) and movable based on commands processed by the computer ("Computer 504 may receive and process information from other components (for example, tracking subsystem 532, platform subsystem 502, and/or motion control subsystem 506) ..." [0050]; "Motion control subsystem 506 may be configured to physically move vertical column 312, upper arm 306, lower arm 308 ..." [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, Johnson2022 discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the rear wheels are steerable casters ("The capabilities of the omni- wheels 62, 64 may also be used so that the system moves about a specified axis. This may be any convenient axis …" [0085]) with motorized propulsion ("… motor 1100 under the direction of the motion control 504, transmits power to each of the wheels 62, 64 as desired." [0089]).
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.
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.
Claim 3 and 7 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson2022, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 2020/0156683 A1; published on 05/21/2020) (hereinafter "Johnson2020").
Regarding claim 3, Johnson2022 teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, except wherein the motor is a stepper motor mounted to a top of the bottom tray.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Johnson2020 teaches wherein the motor is a stepper motor ("A suitable motor 10 may be, but is not limited to, a permanent magnet stepper, a hybrid synchronous stepper, a variable reluctance stepper, a lavet type stepping motor … Additionally, motor 10 may comprise a unipolar or bipolar stepper motor." [0017]) mounted to a top of the bottom tray ("... base 50 may provide a structure upon which stabilizer wheel assembly 2 and body 44 may be disposed." [0030]; See Fig.6; See also Fig.1, motor 10 is within the upper portion of assembly 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the motorized wheel as taught by Johnson2022 with the stabilizer wheel assembly as taught by Johnson2020. Doing so the "ability to perform a medical procedure on a patient with a stable device may greatly diminish the possibility of harming a patient during the medical procedure", and "the techniques used with the stabilizer wheel assembly may enhance the overall medical procedure and the results of the procedure" (see Johnson2020; [0004]).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson2022 teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, except wherein the base station further includes a stabilizer assembly including a stationary housing and an inner stabilizer shaft, wherein the inner stabilizer shaft is configured to protrude from the end of the stationary housing and contact the floor to stabilize the base station.
However, in the same filed of endeavor, Johnson2020 teaches wherein the base station further includes a stabilizer assembly ("FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment of a stabilizer wheel assembly 2." [0015]) including a stationary housing (see Fig. 1, the external structure of assembly 2 is the stationary housing) and an inner stabilizer shaft ("… stabilizing leg assembly 22 may be used to stabilize a medical device ... a nut 26, a stabilizing leg 28, a foot 30 ..." [0021]), wherein the inner stabilizer shaft is configured to protrude from the end of the stationary housing and contact the floor to stabilize the base station ("Rotation of lead screw 24 ... and may dispose stabilizing leg 28 onto the contact surface." [0021]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the motorized wheel as taught by Johnson2022 with the stabilizer wheel assembly as taught by Johnson2020. Doing so the "ability to perform a medical procedure on a patient with a stable device may greatly diminish the possibility of harming a patient during the medical procedure", and "the techniques used with the stabilizer wheel assembly may enhance the overall medical procedure and the results of the procedure" (see Johnson2020; [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson2022 in view of Johnson2020 teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 7, and Johnson2020 further teaches wherein the inner stabilizer shaft defines a helical groove configured to engage a ball bearing in the stationary housing to guide deployment of the stabilizer shaft ("The rotational force, for creating up and down movement of stabilizing leg 28, may be transferred from lead screw 24 to stabilizing leg 28 through nut 26. Nut 26 may be disposed upon lead screw 24 and stabilizing leg 28." [0021]; helical groove is the inner surface of nut, which engages lead screw, as defined in nut-screw mechanics).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the motorized wheel as taught by Johnson2022 with the stabilizer wheel assembly as taught by Johnson2020. Doing so the "ability to perform a medical procedure on a patient with a stable device may greatly diminish the possibility of harming a patient during the medical procedure", and "the techniques used with the stabilizer wheel assembly may enhance the overall medical procedure and the results of the procedure" (see Johnson2020; [0004]).
Regarding claim 9, Johnson2022 in view of Johnson2020 teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 8, and Johnson2020 further teaches wherein the inner stabilizer shaft defines a helical groove configured to engage a ball bearing in the stationary housing to guide deployment of the stabilizer shaft ("As nut 26 and stabilizing leg 28 traverse lead screw 24, lead screw 24 may enter into a pocket 36 of stabilizing leg 28, best illustrated in FIG. 2. Pocket 36 may allow stabilizing leg 28 and nut 26 to traverse lead screw 24 without binding and/or collapsing lead screw 24." [0022]; here the nut 26 is the deployment portion and the pocket 36 is the stabilization portion).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the motorized wheel as taught by Johnson2022 with the stabilizer wheel assembly as taught by Johnson2020. Doing so the "ability to perform a medical procedure on a patient with a stable device may greatly diminish the possibility of harming a patient during the medical procedure", and "the techniques used with the stabilizer wheel assembly may enhance the overall medical procedure and the results of the procedure" (see Johnson2020; [0004]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson2022, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Berhan (US 2009/0197730 A1; published on 08/06/2009).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson2022 teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, except wherein the powered wheel includes a splined shaft connected to an output shaft of a reduction gearbox for the motor, the splined shaft connects to a central shaft, which engages miter gearing to transmit torque to the wheel.
However, in the same field of torque transmission to wheel, Berhan teaches wherein the powered wheel includes a splined shaft connected to an output shaft of a reduction gearbox for the motor ("The speed reduction planetary gear unit 40 includes a sun gear 70, ring gear 72, a carrier 74 secured to shaft 44, and a set of planet pinions 76 … Sun gear is connected by a spline 78 to shaft 38, which is secured to rotor 36." [0028]; see Fig.2), the splined shaft connects to a central shaft, which engages miter gearing to transmit torque to the wheel ("The drive unit input, prop shaft 26, is driveably connected to a shaft 44, which is secured to a final drive gear set that includes bevel pinion 46. A bevel gear 48 meshing with bevel pinion 46 is secured to a ring gear of a differential mechanism 50, which drives the axle shafts 30, 31 and wheels 28, 29." [0023]; see Fig.2).
Both Johnson2022 and Berhan are solving the problem of wheel driving torque transmission, and they have similar structural components such as motor, wheel, shaft etc. Therefore, Johnson2022 and Berhan are analogous arts.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the motorized wheel as taught by Johnson2022 with the transmission assembly as taught by Berhan. "The motor provides both axial displacement and rotation in one unit. Rotation and displacement can be controlled separately, providing two fully independent degrees of freedom" (see Berhan; [0012]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson2022 in view of Berhan, as applied in claim 4, and further in view of Broderick et al. (US 2017/0135747 A1; published on 05/18/2017) (hereinafter "Broderick").
Regarding claim 5, Johnson2022 in view of Berhan teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 4, and Berhan further teaches wherein the powered wheel includes a manual override assembly, which disengages the splined shaft from the central shaft ("FIG. 3 shows rotor 36 displaced leftward from the position of FIG. 2 along the axis of prop shaft 26 while supported by bearings 80, 82, located between the prop shaft and rotor. The spline 84 on the end of shaft 38 is formed with axially-directed teeth that disengage the axially-directed teeth of the spline 78 that is formed on sun gear." [0029]).
Both Johnson2022 and Berhan are solving the problem of wheel driving torque transmission, and they have similar structural components such as motor, wheel, shaft etc. Therefore, Johnson2022 and Berhan are analogous arts.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the motorized wheel as taught by Johnson2022 with the transmission assembly as taught by Berhan. "The motor provides both axial displacement and rotation in one unit. Rotation and displacement can be controlled separately, providing two fully independent degrees of freedom" (see Berhan; [0012]).
In addition, Broderick teaches a manual override assembly including a release lever having a release shaft and a release fork ("The lever 1230 can be biased by a spring 1232, such as a torsion spring, and can engage the bailout shaft 1236 by extending between two stoppers 1234 that extend around the bailout shaft 1236." [0112]; see Fig.19, the upper portion of lever 1230 is the shaft and the lower portion between two stopers is the fork), which disengages the splined shaft from the central shaft ("The drive bevel gear 1256 disengages a motor bevel gear 1254 as the drive bevel gear 1256 moves proximally, as seen in FIG. 20 and similar to FIG. 18." [0112]; the shaft connecting gear 1254 is the splined shaft and the shaft 1242 connecting gear 1256 is the central shaft).
Both Berhan and Broderick are solving the problem of disengaging torque transmission by disengaging corresponding shafts, and they have similar structural components such as motor, shaft and gears etc. Therefore, Berhan and Broderick are analogous arts.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the motor driving disengagement as taught by Berhan with the disengaging lever as taught by Broderick. Doing so would make it possible to disengage driving power in the event of a failure one a motorized device (see Broderick; [0005]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson2022, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Schena et al. (US 2007/0163816 A1; published on 07/19/2007) (hereinafter "Schena").
Regarding claim 6, Johnson2022 teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, except wherein the handle is coupled to a steering shaft connected to a steering sprocket in the base station, the steering sprocket is coupled via chain to sprockets fitted to each of the drive wheels, thereby synchronizing steering control to both rear wheels.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schena teaches wherein the handle is coupled to a steering shaft ("The steering tiller subassembly 900 includes the tiller 202 with handlebars which an equipment operator EO uses to steer the PSC." [0070]; see Fig.7) connected to a steering sprocket in the base station ("The steering function generator 1000 is a slot/cam/parallelogram mechanism which generates the proper wheel angles (LWA and RWA) as a function of the input steering angle (also referred to as the tiller angle TA)." [0071]; see Fig.7 and Fig.10, the tiller 202 is connected to the steering function generator 1000), the steering sprocket is coupled via chain to sprockets fitted to each of the drive wheels ("FIG. 16 illustrates both left and right sides of the steering system and its linkage." [0108]; see the chain of links in Fig.16), thereby synchronizing steering control to both rear wheels ("FIG. 16 further illustrates how the short links 1004L,1004R are pivotally coupled to the chassis (ground) 210 at the pivotal shafts 1041 and how the tiller link 1001 is pivotally coupled to the chassis (ground) 210 at the pivotal shaft 1013." [0109]; "The steerable wheels 205L,205R are pointed to the right so that the axes 301, 302G, 303G substantially intersect at the left center turn point 305G." [0059]; see Fig.8, the rear wheels 205L and 205R are synchronized in steering to generate the desired turn as shown in Fig.8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wheel steering as taught by Johnson2022 with the wheel steering as taught by Schena. Doing so would make it possible to "provide a steering system for heavy medical equipment, such as a robotic surgical system, that operates with a small turning radius to provide a highly mobile medical equipment system" (see Schena; [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bar (US 2023/0380916 A1; published on 11/30/2023) teaches a mobile robotic surgery system with dual-arms, a computer, a display, a camera and a plurality of wheels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAO SHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-8059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 am to 5:00 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, Anne M. Kozak can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/CHAO SHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights