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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 and 17-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 May 19, 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.
Claims 15 and 16 are 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 15 recites “The method of claim 14, wherein: attaching the first procedure-specific end effector to the robotic platform comprises…” however, there is no recitation in claim 14 of attaching the first procedure-specific end effector to the robotic platform. Claim 14 recites “removing the first procedure-specific end effector from the robotic platform…and attaching the second procedure-specific end effector to the robotic platform”. As the aforementioned recitation of “attaching the first procedure-specific end effector to the robotic platform” is absent from claim 14, claims 15 and 16 are rendered indefinite.
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(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chav et al. (US 2022/0020219 A1).
Re Claim 11, Chav discloses a method, comprising: uploading a first procedure-specific code to a robotic platform 704, the first procedure-specific code, when executed by a processor 1002 of the robotic platform 704, causes the robotic platform 700 to operate a first procedure-specific end effector to perform a first type of procedure; attaching the first procedure-specific end effector 712 to the robotic platform 704; and causing the robotic platform 704 to perform the first type of procedure (Pars. 0059-0063 and 0072-0079, Figs. 7 and 10).
Re Claim 12, Chav discloses uploading a second procedure-specific code to the robotic platform, the second procedure-specific code, when executed by the processor 1002 of the robotic platform 704, causes the robotic platform 704 to operate the first procedure-specific end effector 712 to perform a second type of procedure; and causing the robotic platform 704 to perform the second type of procedure (Pars. 0062 and 0072-0079, Figs. 7 and 10).
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chav et al. (US 2022/0020219 A1).
Re Claim 14, Chav discloses uploading a second procedure-specific code to the robotic platform 704, the second procedure-specific code, when executed by the processor 1002 of the robotic platform 704, causes the robotic platform 704 to operate a second procedure-specific end effector 112 to perform a second type of procedure; attaching the second procedure-specific end effector 112 to the robotic platform 704; and causing the robotic platform 704 to perform the second type of procedure (Pars. 0062 and 0072-0079, Figs. 7 and 10). Chav does not explicitly disclose removing the first procedure-specific end effector from the robotic platform however, as the invention of Chav discloses attaching a second procedure-specific end effector 112 to the robot platform 704 to perform a second type of procedure, the removal of the first procedure-specific end effector from the robotic platform would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the first procedure-specific end effector would need to be removed from the robotic platform in order to attach a second/or another procedure-specific end effector from the robotic platform.
Claim(s) 13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chav et al. (US 2022/0020219 A1), as applied to claim 11, in view of Roh et al. (US 2023/0104580 A1).
Re Claim 13, Chav does not explicitly disclose attaching the first procedure-specific end effector to the robotic platform comprises attaching the first procedure-specific end effector to the robotic platform via a first customized holder, the first customized holder is shaped and sized based on the first procedure-specific end effector.
Roh discloses a method comprising: attaching a first procedure-specific end effector 452 to a robotic platform 440; and causing the robotic platform 440 to perform a first type of procedure (Pars. 0105-0109 and 0113); attaching the first procedure-specific end effector 452 to the robotic platform 440 comprises attaching the first procedure-specific end effector 452 to the robotic platform via a first customized holder, the first customized holder is shaped and sized based on the first procedure-specific end effector 452 (Par. 0114, Figs. 4A and 4B). Note: Roh states “The end effectors 452 can include, without limitation, imagers (e.g., cameras, optical guides, etc.), robotic grippers, instrument holders, cutting instruments (e.g., cutters, scalpels, or the like), drills, cannulas, reamers, rongeurs, scissors, clamps, or other equipment or surgical tools disclosed herein. In some embodiments, the end effectors can be reusable or disposable surgical tools. The number and configuration of end effectors can be selected based on the configuration of the robotic system, procedure to be performed, surgical plan, etc. Imaging and viewing technologies can integrate with the surgical robot 440 to provide more intelligent and intuitive results”. Based on this disclosure the Examiner construes one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of fabricating a customized holder specific to the end effector as desired based on the operation that needs to be performed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Chav by utilizing a first customized holder as disclosed by Roh, as a known means of attaching a procedure-specific end effector to a robotic platform.
Re Claim 15, Chav does not explicitly disclose attaching the first procedure-specific end effector to the robotic platform comprises attaching the first procedure-specific end effector to the robotic platform via a first customized holder, the first customized holder is shaped and sized based on the first procedure-specific end effector; and attaching the second procedure-specific end effector to the robotic platform comprises attaching the second procedure-specific end effector to the robotic platform via a second customized holder, the second customized holder is shaped and sized based on the second procedure-specific end effector.
Roh discloses a method comprising: attaching a first and a second procedure-specific end effector 452 to a robotic platform 440; and causing the robotic platform 440 to perform a first type of procedure and a second type of procedure (Pars. 0105-0109 and 0113); attaching the first procedure-specific end effector 452 to the robotic platform 440 comprises attaching the first procedure-specific end effector 452 to the robotic platform via a first customized holder, the first customized holder is shaped and sized based on the first procedure-specific end effector 452 and attaching the second procedure-specific end effector 452 to the robotic platform 440 comprises attaching the second procedure-specific end effector 452 to the robotic platform 440 via a second customized holder, the second customized holder is shaped and sized based on the second procedure-specific end effector 452 (Par. 0114, Figs. 4A and 4B). Note: Roh states “The end effectors 452 can include, without limitation, imagers (e.g., cameras, optical guides, etc.), robotic grippers, instrument holders, cutting instruments (e.g., cutters, scalpels, or the like), drills, cannulas, reamers, rongeurs, scissors, clamps, or other equipment or surgical tools disclosed herein. In some embodiments, the end effectors can be reusable or disposable surgical tools. The number and configuration of end effectors can be selected based on the configuration of the robotic system, procedure to be performed, surgical plan, etc. Imaging and viewing technologies can integrate with the surgical robot 440 to provide more intelligent and intuitive results”. Based on this disclosure the Examiner construes one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of fabricating customized holders specific to the first and second procedure-specific end effectors as desired based on the type of operation that needs to be performed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Chav by utilizing first and second customized holders, respectively as disclosed by Roh, as a known means of attaching a procedure-specific end effector to a robotic platform.
Re Claim 16, the combination as applied to claim 15 remains as previously applied. Chav does not explicitly disclose removing the first procedure-specific end effector and the first customized holder from the robotic platform prior to attaching the second procedure-specific end effector and the second customized holder to the robotic platform however, as the invention of Chav discloses attaching a second procedure-specific end effector 112 to the robot platform 704 to perform a second type of procedure, the removal of the first procedure-specific end effector from the robotic platform would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the first procedure-specific end effector would need to be removed from the robotic platform in order to attach a second/or another procedure-specific end effector from the robotic platform.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAYAN SALONE whose telephone number is (571)270-7739. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-60 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, David Bryant can be reached at (571)272-4526. 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.
/BAYAN SALONE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights