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 .
Formal Matters
Applicant’s Response and Amendments filed 17 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 4-6 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 7, 9-11, 14, and 15 are currently amended. New claims 16, and 17 are added. Claims 1-3 and 7-17 are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments and Amendments filed 17 December 2025 have been fully considered. Applicant’s amended claims incorporate limitations from previous claims 4-6 into claim 1. Similarly, new claim 16 incorporates limitations from previous claim 9 and new claim 17 incorporates limitations from previous claim 10.
Applicant’s argument as to the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, and 13-15 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as to Simi et al., US 20180250085, is persuasive in light of Applicant’s amendments. The rejection is withdrawn as set forth below.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments drawn to claims 4, 9, and 10 under Simi in view of Holop, Applicant argues that Holop FIGs 24A and 24B show one handle mounted on the visible side, but a second handle is not shown. Applicant’s argument has been fully considered and is addressed below in the modified rejection, necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant’s arguments note the cancellation of claims 4-6. Applicant argues that claims 11 and 12 are patentable over Simi for the reasons discussed as relevant to claim 1. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but the are not persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims and the need to modify the rejections of record based on the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections/Objections Withdrawn
The objection to claim 9 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to claim 14 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 3, 10, 11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simi et al., US 20180250085 (6 September 2018) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. However a new rejection is set forth below, necessitated by amendment.
Rejections drawn to cancelled claims 4-6 are moot in light of the cancellation of the claims. However, insofar as the subject matter of the claims has been incorporated into other claims, modified rejections are set forth below.
Claim Rejections Maintained and Modified – Necessitated by Amendment
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, 7-10, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simi et al., US 20180250085 (6 September 2018) in view of Holop et al., 20110277775 (17 November 2011) and further in view of Anderson et al., US 20180092706 (5 April 2018) (all previously cited of record).
Regarding independent claim 1, Simi teaches a robotic surgery assembly (Abstract; robotic surgery assembly 100) comprising:
a macro-positioning passive arm (¶106, macro-positioning arm 30) comprising a plurality of arm links (FIGs 1A-B, ¶93) connected one another in series and articulated through rotational joints (FIGs 1A-B, rotational joint 171; ¶316, a series of sequential members);
two motorized manipulators both attached to a same link of the macro-positioning passive arm (FIGs 1C; ¶126, support member 38 comprising a first micro-positioning device 141 and a second micro-positioning device 241),
wherein the macro-positioning passive arm (FIGs 1A-B, ¶106, macro-positioning arm 30) comprises
a plurality of arm links of said macro-positioning arm (FIGs 1A-C, macro-positioning arm 30; FIGs 8 and 9A, links 32, 33, support 38) comprises:
a first most distal link having an elongated body oriented substantially horizontally that acts as said same link (FIG 1B, support 38; detailed view at FIG 9A, support 38, axis dd; ¶135),
a second link proximal to the first most distal link and connected thereto via a distal rotational joint having substantially vertical rotational axis (FIGs 1B, 8, arm member 34, axis cc; ¶135)
a third link proximal to said second link and connected thereto via a second rotational joint having substantially vertical rotational axis (FIGs 1B, 8, arm member33, axis bb; ¶135)
Simi does not expressly teach two handles for the hand manipulation of the macro-positioning arm by an operator.
However, Simi teaches that the macro-positioning arm 30 is a passive mechanism meant to be manually moved by an operator (¶137).
Holop teaches robotic surgical assemblies including robotic manipulator arms comprising two handles (FIGs 24A-D, handles on link 2438 and instrument manipulator assembly platform 2440; ¶173).
Neither Simi nor Holop expressly teach wherein two handles are at said same link of the macro-positioning arm and positioned at opposite sides thereof, with respect to the distal rotational joint.
Anderson teaches two handles for manipulating may be included on a side of the housing to facilitate a gross positioning mode in which large positional adjustments are performed (¶52, “[m]anipulations of the pose (i.e., location and/or orientation of parts of the arm) may be manually controlled and/or controlled with one or more actuators. Some movements of the arm may be triggered based on user input (e.g., as determined by sensors built into the support arm, handles coupled to the housing, etc.) and controlled by software. Manual adjustments of the arm may involve disengaging a clutch (e.g., with a touch sensor, button, handle, etc.) that is configured to resist movement of the arm”). Anderson also teaches handle 512 that may be grasped to reposition and repose the support arm as the result of pushing and/or pulling on the handle (¶57). Anderson teaches that handles may be located on both sides of the housing to permit ambidextrous use (¶72, a left side handle 626 and a right side handle 626).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Simi, Holop, and Anderson given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Simi, Holop, and Anderson all teach in the same field of endeavor, robotic surgical systems comprising robotic manipulator arms.
Although, Simi discloses the claimed base macro-positioning arm comprising a plurality of links, including specific first, second, and third links connected to joints having the requisite functions, Simi does not teach that the arm comprises two handles at the same link and positioned on opposite sides thereof with respect to the distal rotational joint.
Holop specifically addresses assemblies comprising robotic manipulator arms comprising two handles (FIGs 24A-D, handles on link 2438 and instrument manipulator assembly platform 2440; ¶173). Because Simi teaches that the macro-positioning arm 30 is a passive mechanism meant to be manually moved by an operator (¶137), a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to manually manipulate a macro-positioning arm of Simi’s architecture would reasonably consult Holop’s dual handle solution. Holop’s dual handle solution can be incorporated alongside Simi’s arm using known assembly methods without redesigning Simi’s macro-positioning arm.
Anderson discloses a robotic assembly and teaches that two handles for manipulating pose, location, and/or orientation of parts of the arm (¶¶52, 57). Anderson also specifically teaches that handles may be grasped to reposition and repose the support arm as the result of pushing and/or pulling on the handle (¶57), similar to the teachings of Simi. Additionally, Anderson specifically addresses handles located on both sides of the housing to permit ambidextrous use (¶72, a left side handle 626 and a right side handle 626). A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to manually move Simi’s macro-positionable robotic arm would look for established connectors and articulation designs to avoid creating a novel robot arm interface. Anderson’s dual handles and articulation links can be adapted to the same link of the macro-positioning arm of Simi positioned at opposite sides for ambidextrous use of Simi’s arm link to enable manual repositioning of the arm related to pose, location, and/or orientation by grasping the handles.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (manual manipulation of pose, location, and/or orientation of robotic arm linkages to macro-position a robotic arm manually) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding handles to the robotic arm links in need of repositioning where the handles can be located near and opposite of one another for greater stability and to reduce torque during manual movement), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 2, Simi modified by Holop and Anderson teaches the robotic surgery assembly of claim 1, as set forth above.
Simi teaches wherein brakes are provided within the rotational joints (¶650, “[i]nside each rotational joint, electromagnetic brakes allow the position of each single member to be locked in space”).
Regarding claim 3, Simi modified by Holop and Anderson teaches the robotic surgery assembly of claim 2, as set forth above.
Simi teaches wherein said brakes are magnetic brakes (¶157, electromagnetic brake device) and the macro-positioning passive arm (¶650, macro-positioning arm 30) comprises electro-magnetic means (¶650, “[i]nside each rotational joint, electromagnetic brakes allow the position of each single member to be locked in space”) for locking/unlocking at least some of said brakes (¶650, dedicated brake release button 35).
The phrase “electro-magnetic means” is broadly interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The Specification recites “electro-magnetic means”, but only by way of a non-limiting example “for example one or more solenoid valves, for locking/unlocking at least some of said brakes”. Accordingly, the “electromagnetic brakes” taught by Simi at ¶157 and ¶650 meet the limitation of claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, Simi modified by Holop and Anderson teaches the robotic surgery assembly of claim 1, as set forth above.
Simi teaches wherein said distal rotational joint (FIGs 8, 9A, rotational dial nut 43, axis dd) is in a central portion of the first most distal link (FIGs 8, 9A, support 38) so that the first most distal link can pivot around the distal rotational joint (¶147).
Regarding claim 8, Simi modified by Holop and Anderson teaches the robotic surgery assembly of claim 7, as set forth above.
Simi teaches, wherein the central portion is at half the length of the first most distal link (FIGs 8, 9A, rotational dial nut 43, axis dd).
Regarding claim 9, Simi modified by Holop and Anderson teaches the robotic surgery assembly of claim 1, as set forth above.
Simi teaches the assembly further comprising a robotic cart (FIGs 1A-C; ¶¶221, 647, cart 104).
Holop teaches the assembly further comprising a tower (“side support system 100 includes a floor-mounted base 108 or alternatively a ceiling mounted base 110 … the base maybe moveable or fixed (e.g. to the floor ceiling, wall or other equipment such as an operating table) (¶81) and a telescopically extendable portion configured to extend in a vertical direction to adjust the height of the macro-positioning arm (FIG 2B, see arrows at vertical setup link, 214).
Regarding claim 10, Simi modified by Holop and Anderson teaches the robotic surgery assembly of claim 9, as set forth above, wherein said cart comprises a cart handle (Simi: FIGs 1A-C; ¶647, cart 104, retractable handle 106).
Regarding claim 13, Simi modified by Holop and Anderson teaches the robotic surgery assembly of claim 1, as set forth above.
Simi teaches wherein said same link (FIGs 1C; ¶126, support member 38 comprising a first micro-positioning device 141 and a second micro-positioning device 241), and the two motorized manipulators encased within respective cases (FIG 1C; ¶126, a first micro-positioning device 141 and a second micro-positioning device 241) delimit together a window upwardly and laterally (FIGs 9B-C, space between the two micro-positioning devices).
Regarding claim 14, Simi modified by Holop and Anderson teaches the robotic surgery assembly of claim 1, as set forth above. Simi teaches wherein the two motorized manipulators are arranged flanking one another (FIGs 1C, 9A).
The term “flanking” is broadly interpreted as being side-by-side.
Regarding claim 15, Simi modified by Holop and Anderson teaches the robotic surgery assembly of claim 1, as set forth above.
Simi teaches comprising a master controller assembly (¶82, control device master) with two master input tools (FIG 1C, micro-positioning device 141 and a second micro-positioning device 241),
each master input tool controlling one branch of the robotic system (FIGs 1C, micro-positioning device 141 and a second micro-positioning device 241,
said branch comprising one of said motorized manipulators and elements attached downstream thereto (FIGs 2A, 3; ¶90, surgical end effector).
Regarding claim 16, Simi modified by Holop and Anderson teaches the robotic surgery assembly of claim 9 wherein the third link is connected through a third rotational joint to said telescopically extendable portion (FIG 2B, arrow at manipulator assembly rotational setup joint 216).
Regarding claim 17, Simi modified by Holop and Anderson teaches the robotic surgery assembly of claim 10, as set forth above, wherein the cart comprises ground contact units (¶221, mobile cart; FIG 2B, spherical joint 173).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simi et al., US 20180250085 (6 September 2018) in view of Holop et al., 20110277775 (17 November 2011) and Tsao et al., US 20130123798 (16 May 2013), and further in view of Anderson et al., US 20180092706 (5 April 2018).
Regarding claim 11, Simi modified by Holop and Anderson teaches the robotic surgery assembly of claim 1, as set forth above.
Simi teaches wherein said first distal link (FIGs 1C; ¶126, support member 38) further comprises two attachment portions (FIGs 1C; ¶126, support member 38 comprising a first micro-positioning device 141 and a second micro-positioning device 241) each configured to connect to one motorized manipulator (¶654, first motorized slide 51, second motorized slide 52, third motorized slide 42), and
wherein the distal rotational joint (¶654, motorized rotary joint 46) is between the attachment portions of the first most distal link so that a pivoting action pivoting the first most distal link about the distal rotational joint axis (¶187 longitudinal axis of rotation rr) pivots by a pivoting angle (FIGs 1C, 9A; ¶106 micro-positioning device 41, 141, 241, 341 having multiple degrees of freedom at least of translation).
Simi modified by Holop and Anderson does not expressly teach a pivoting angle determines the motorized manipulators to flip their position.
Tsao teaches robotic systems for microsurgery comprising a planar remote center of motion (RCM) device (Abstract). Tsao teaches that the RCM device 100 comprises one or more rotational joints 102 and/or prismatic joints 103 (¶36). Tsao teaches two RCM assemblies 210A and 210B that are configured substantially symmetrically relative to the axes 201A and 201B, respectively (FIG 4, ¶42). Tsao also teaches a first remote center of motion assembly 410A positioned adjacent to a second remote center of motion assembly 410B and oriented 180 degrees opposed to the second remote center of motion assembly 410B (FIG 7; ¶49). Tsao teaches that to place to remote centers of motion 404A and 404B within close proximity of each other, the two symmetrically opposite assemblies 410A and 410B may be placed next to each other such that the axes of rotation 406A and 406B of the shafts 501A and 501B are parallel (¶49). Tsao teaches that the configuration of FIG 7 allows for a large range of motion needed during many microsurgical procedures (¶53). Tsao also teaches that the surgical instruments 101 can be oriented such that their centerlines 105 lie in a single plane 502. In this configuration, the absolute value of the difference between the first angle 510 about the axis of rotation 406A and the second angle 512 about the axis of rotation 406B is 180 degrees (¶53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Simi, Holop, and Anderson, as set forth above, with the teachings of Tsao, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Simi, Holop, Anderson, and Tsao all teach in the same field of endeavor, robotic surgical systems comprising robotic manipulator arms.
In addition to the macro-positioning systems of Simi, Holop, and Anderson, Simi teaches at least two micro-positioning device having multiple degrees of freedom at least of translation. Tsao specifically addressed at least two micro-positioning devices that are configured substantially symmetrically comprising RCM rotational and/or prismatic joints that provides for a large range of motion needed during many microsurgical procedures. Tsao teaches that these rotational and/or prismatic joints comprise pivoting angles measuring 180 degrees, such that the motorized manipulators flip their positions. Simi to include a symmetrical mounting structure with an RCM as taught by because Tsao teaches that its configuration allows for a large range of motion needed for many microsurgical procedures Because Simi teaches both macro- and micro-positioning systems, including where the micro-positioning device has multiple degrees of freedom of at least translation, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking expanded degrees of freedom for microsurgical procedures would reasonably consult Tao’s remote center of motion (RCM) solution. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the distal linkage of Simi to include a symmetrical mounting structure with an RCM as taught by because Tsao teaches that its configuration allows for a large range of motion needed for many microsurgical procedures. Tsao’s RCM solution can be incorporated alongside Simi’s macro- and micro-positioning arms using known assembly methods without redesigning Simi’s robotic arms.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (manual manipulation of pose, location, and/or orientation of robotic arm linkages to micro-position a robotic arm to include multiple degrees of freedom necessary for microsurgery) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding the RCM mechanism of Tsao to the robotic arms of Simi), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 12, Simi modified by Holop, Anderson, and Tsao teach the robotic surgery assembly of claim 11, as set forth above.
Tsao teaches wherein the attachment portions are symmetrically arranged with respect to the distal rotational joint (FIG 4, ¶42; FIG 7, ¶49; also ¶53).
New Claim Rejections
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 16 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.
New claim 16 recites “a third rotational joint”. Claim 16 is dependent on claim 9, which is dependent on claim 1. Claim 1 recites “a third rotational joint”, but it is unclear whether the “a third rotational joint” of claim 1 is the same “a third rotational joint” of claim 16 or whether the “a third rotational joint” of claim 16 is a different third rotational joint, given that the claims comprise a plurality of arm links.
Applicant is referred to Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (2008). A five member expanded panel of the Board held that "if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, as indefinite."
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The prior art made of record and not presently relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Auld et al., US 20170135771 (18 May 2017) teaches a robotic surgical system.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERIE M POLAND whose telephone number is (703)756-1341. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (9am-9pm CST) and R-F (9am-3pm CST).
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/CHERIE M POLAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/SHAUN L DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights