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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR
1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/19/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 6 are amended.
Claims 7-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 2/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of
claim(s) 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made by Bruno in view of Richley in view of Bukesov.
35 U.S.C. 103: “a robot adapted to perform spinal surgery.”
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that Bruno, alone or in combination with the prior art,
does not teach, “a robot adapted to perform spinal surgery.” After further search and consideration, the examiner previously disclosed art, Klaus, to teach a surgical tool that may ablate and interrogate a patient bone (fig. 1; paragraph 39-41 and 46-48). Bruno does not explicitly state that this tool can be used for spinal surgery. However, Richley, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that lasers may be used to vaporize bones to open the foraminal space and vaporize intervening tissue to enable the disc, vertebra and nerves of a patient’s spine (paragraph 164). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform laser spinal surgery with the surgical tool of Bruno in view of Klaus as supported by Richley for the benefit of vaporizing bone to open the foraminal space and vaporize intervening tissue to enable the disc, vertebra and nerves of the patient’s spine.
Furthermore, the claims are directed to an apparatus comprising a robot “adapted to perform.” Since the prior art of Bruno in view of Klaus and Bukesov teaches the claimed elements of the robot comprising the arm, end effector, laser to emit first and second pulses through a laser conduit, light detector, irrigator and suction generator they teach that the robot is adapted to perform spinal surgery. However, for the sake of prosecution an additional teaching of Richley has been provided to show that it is well known to use robots to perform spinal surgeries. Please see 2114(II)
35 U.S.C. 103: “an irrigator configured to provide, through a cooling lumen of the laser
instrument.”
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that Bruno, alone or in combination with the prior art,
does not teach, “an irrigator configured to provide, through a cooling lumen of the laser
instrument.” After further search and consideration, the examiner will refer to previously disclosed art, Bukesov, to teach an irrigation suction/pumping system configured to operatively control a flow of irrigation fluid through an irrigation lumen 434 and suction of fluid and waste through a suction lumen 436 (paragraph 100 and 107). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surgical system of Bruno to add an irrigation system from Bukesov for the benefit of flushing away stone fragments and/or waste during the laser surgical procedure.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUNO et al. EP: EP
3117792 A1, hereinafter Bruno in view of BRUNO et al. WO: WO 2020127866 A1, hereinafter Klaus in view of Richley et al. US Pub.: US 20050222681 A1, hereinafter Richley in view of Bukesov et al. US Pub.: US 20210038304 A1, hereinafter Bukesov.
Regarding claim 1, Bruno teaches an apparatus comprising:
a robot adapted to perform a spinal surgery and including:
an arm (2) (figs. 1, 2; paragraph 14-15 and 32-35); A compact solid state photoablation laser mounted in a robotic arm 2.
and an end effector (22) coupled to the arm (fig. 1, 22; paragraph 32-35); The last segment of the robotic arm 22 equates to the end effector.
a laser instrument (laser head unit (3)) configured to attach to the end effector for controlled movement by the robot (fig. 1, 22; paragraph 32-35); A laser head unit 3 is disclosed to be attached to the end effector 22.
a light detector (optical sensor (unlabeled)) configured to detect the second laser pulses (paragraph 23-24). An optical coherence tomography instrument is disclosed to capture images for determining the depth of the hard tissue to be ablated.
However, Bruno does not teach a laser instrument configured perform spinal surgery and to selectively emit: a first laser pulses through a laser conduit of the attached laser instrument at a wavelength selected to affect disc tissue or cartilage tissue without ablating bone; and a second laser pulses through a laser conduit of the attached laser instrument configured to interrogate a target region; an irrigator configured to provide, through a cooling lumen of the laser instrument a fluid proximate tissue affected by the laser instrument to provide cooling and a medium to evacuate debris; and a suction generator configured to remove, through a suction lumen of the laser instrument, the fluid.
Klaus, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a laser instrument configured to selectively emit:
a first laser pulses through a laser conduit of the attached laser instrument at a wavelength selected to affect disc tissue or cartilage tissue without ablating bone (fig. 1; paragraph 39-41 and 46-48); The control unit may adjust the laser beam to identify tissue type using plume analysis. This is the third beam disclosed.
and a second laser pulses through a laser conduit of the attached laser instrument configured to interrogate a target region (fig. 1; paragraph 39-41 and 46-48); The control unit may adjust the laser beam to ablate or interrogated a target region of the identified tissue type. This is the first and second beam disclosed.
Richley, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that lasers may be used to vaporize bones to open the foraminal space and vaporize intervening tissue to enable the disc, vertebra and nerves of a patient’s spine (paragraph 164).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform laser spinal surgery with the surgical tool of Bruno in view of Klaus as supported by Richley for the benefit of vaporizing bone to open the foraminal space and vaporize intervening tissue to enable the disc, vertebra and nerves of the patient’s spine.
Bukesov, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an irrigator configured to provide, through a cooling lumen (434) of the laser instrument, a fluid proximate tissue affected by the laser instrument to provide cooling and a medium to evacuate debris (fig. 4b; paragraph 100 and 107); Cooling irrigation lumen is disclosed to be 434.
a suction generator configured to remove, through a suction lumen (436) of the laser instrument, the fluid (fig. 4b; paragraph 100 and 107). A flush controller acts as a suction generator to flash waste and fluid from the target area. Suction lumen is disclosed to be 436.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Richley with the flush control of Bukesov for the benefit of flushing out debris from the target tissue.
Regarding claim 2, Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Richley in further view of Bukesov teaches
the claimed invention except for a computer coupled to the light detector and having one or more processors configured to perform topographical analysis or spectral analysis based on the detected second laser pulses. Klaus further teaches: a computer coupled to the light detector and having one or more processors configured to perform topographical analysis or spectral analysis based on the detected second laser pulses (paragraph 48-49). The plume analyzing arrangement can comprise a laser spectroscope. Therefore spectral analysis is performed because laser spectroscopy is a branch of the study.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Richley in view of Bukesov with the spectral analysis from Klaus for the benefit of allowing for a comparably quick analysis such that the substances can be identified more or less in real-time time or, at least, within the time of the intervention
Regarding claim 3, Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Richley in further view of Bukesov teaches
the claimed invention and Bruno further teaches further comprising: a laser generator configured to generate the first laser pulses according to parameters (fig. 1, 31; paragraph 17) but does not teach the computer is further configured to modify the parameters based on the topographical analysis or spectral analysis. Klaus further teaches wherein the computer is further configured to modify the parameters based on the topographical analysis or spectral analysis (paragraph 48-49). The plume analyzing arrangement can comprise a laser spectroscope. Therefore spectral analysis is performed because laser spectroscopy is a branch of the study.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Richley in view of Bukesov with the spectral analysis from Klaus for the benefit of allowing for a comparably quick analysis such that the substances can be identified more or less in real-time time or, at least, within the time of the intervention
Regarding claim 4, Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Richley in further view of Bukesov teaches
the claimed invention and Bruno further teaches further comprising a reference array coupled to the attached laser instrument and configured to permit the tracking of a location of the laser instrument (paragraph 51). The navigation auto tracking system comprises a set of infrared emitters, an infrared antenna, a set of data stored and processed in a central operating console to correct the position of the photoablation beam.
Regarding claim 5, Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Richley in further view of Bukesov teaches
the claimed Invention, and Bruno further teaches wherein the reference array includes two or more tracking fiducials (paragraph 51). The navigation auto tracking system comprises a set of infrared emitters. Therefore, two or more tracking fiducials are disclosed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno in view of Klaus in
view of Richley in view of Bukesov in view of HIRVONEN et al. US Pub.: US 2017/0119466 A1, Hereinafter Hirvonen.
Regarding claim 6, Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Richley in further view of Bukesov does not
teach a coupling configured to couple the laser instrument to a robot.
Hirvonen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a coupling configured to couple the laser instrument to a robot (fig. 1; paragraph 61). The laser head 101 is coupled to the robotic arm 102.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus from Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Richley in further view of Bukesov to couple the laser instrument to a robotic arm from Hirvonen for the benefit of providing efficient and safe surgical movement during procedure and to detach the device when necessary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN J TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0486. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. 8:30 am - 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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/T.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/MALLIKA D FAIRCHILD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights