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 § 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 9-14 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.
The preambles of claims 9-14 all recite “The surgical robot of claim 8.” However, a surgical robot was never previously recited, and instead claim 8 is directed to a “surgical robot method.” Therefore, it is unclear if the claims are clarifying structure of a previously unrecited surgical robot in claim 8, or if the claims are supposed to depend from claim 1. For examination purposes, it is assumed that the claims properly depend from claim 8 and the claim 8 was supposed to positively recite a surgical robot.
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.
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 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (“Design and Modeling of a Polymer Force Sensor” NPL, hereinafter Kumar) in view of Quintanar et al. (US 2013/0345539, hereinafter Quintanar) and further in view of Campagna (US 2021/0393353).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 8-10, Kumar discloses a surgical robot (See page 1) comprising a robotic base (i.e., positioning device of Fig. 1) with an attached end effector (i.e., grasping device of Fig. 1) and a flex/strain sensor (i.e., force sensor of Fig. 1 and Section II). The flex/strain sensor is radiolucent in order to allow for adequate image acquisition and generates haptic feedback data (Section II. A. 3. and last paragraph of page 1 and Section II. A. 5.). As seen in Fig. 3(b), the flex/strain sensor has a lead. However, Kumar is silent as to the end effector and the lead also being radiolucent even thought they acknowledge that radiolucent materials allows for image acquisition of the target tissues.
Attention is directed to the analogous art of Quintanar, which discloses radiolucent conductive leads made of carbon attached to physiological sensors such that the leads do not interfere with image acquisition during a medical procedure (par. 0013, 0059, 0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date to make the leads of Kumar out of radiolucent material as taught by Quintanar in order to allow for clear image acquisition of target tissues, as desired by both Kumar and Quintanar.
Attention is further directed to the analogous art of Campagna, which discloses a surgical robot with radiolucent end effectors such that the leads do not interfere with image acquisition during a medical procedure (par. 0007, 0055, 0103). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date to make the end effector of Kumar out of radiolucent material as taught by Campagna in order to allow for clear image acquisition of target tissues, as desired by both Kumar and Campagna.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, Quintanar and Campagna in view of Kong (CN 110859618, hereinafter Kong; all citation directed to the attached English Translation).
Kumar, as modified above, discloses the applicant’s basic invention, including a conductive radiolucent lead for medical applications, but is silent as to the lead being formed at least in part with graphene or Carbon nanotubes. The Kong reference also teaches a conductive lead for medical applications and thus is analogous art with Kumar. Kong discloses the conductive portion of the lead can be formed at least in part with graphene or Carbon nanotubes (last paragraph of page 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date to make the lead of Kumar out of graphene or Carbon nanotubes as taught by Kong, as Kong discloses the material to be predictively functional as a conductive material for a lead for medical applications that would not have affected the overall operation or purpose of Kumar.
Claims 5, 6, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, Quintanar and Campagna in view of Almalki et al. (“Advancements in Conductive Cotton Thread-Based Graphene: A New Generation of Flexible, Lightweight, and Cost-effective Electronic Applications” NPL, hereinafter Almalki).
Kumar, as modified above, discloses the applicant’s basic invention, including a conductive radiolucent lead for medical applications, but is silent as to the lead being formed at least in part with cotton-thread-based Graphene. The Almalki reference also teaches a conductive lead for medical applications and thus is analogous art with Kumar. Almalki discloses the conductive portion of the lead can be formed at least in part with cotton-thread based Graphene (see Introduction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date to make the lead of Kumar out of cotton-thread based Graphene as taught by Almalki, as Almalki discloses the material to be predictively functional as a conductive material for a lead for medical applications that is also flexible, cost-effective, environmentally friendly and lightweight (see Section 3.8).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, Quintanar and Campagna in view of Lipow (US 2006/0087746).
Kumar, as modified above, discloses the applicant’s basic invention, including a flex/strain sensor for providing haptic feedback to a user, but is silent as to the haptic feedback being delivered to a glove. The Lipow reference also teaches a surgical robot with haptic feedback and thus is analogous art with Kumar. Lipow discloses a glove 113b that can output haptic feedback (par. 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date to deliver the haptic feedback of Kumar to a glove as taught by Lipow, in order to optimize control of the robot to the user (par. 0062).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric D Bertram whose telephone number is (571)272-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-6pm Central Time.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/Eric D. Bertram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796