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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 and 4 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 and 2 of copending Application No. 18/698,847 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 5, 8, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-5 of copending Application No. 18/698,847 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 5, 8, and 9 of the instant application are merely broad presentations of claims 3-5 of copending Application No. 18/698,847.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 215646355; “Chen”; While this reference was provided on the IDS filed 03/11/24, no translation of the specification was filed. A translation of the specification from this reference is included with this Office Action. An annotated version of Figure 1 of Chen is included below.).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a power supply protection circuit (figure 1) for a surgical robot (The Background paragraph teaches a medical robot used during an operation.), comprising a main power supply module (Input source A and AC/DC converter B), a backup power supply module (elements C, D, E, F in figure 1 below) and at least one selection circuit (G, H), wherein,
the main power supply module (A, B) and the backup power supply module (C-F) are located at an input end of the selection circuit (G, H) and are respectively configured to provide main power (from A, B) and backup power (from C-F) to the selection circuit (G, H); and
the selection circuit (G, H) is configured to determine one of the main power supply module (A, B) and the backup power supply module (C-F) as power inputted according to input voltages detected from the main power supply module and the backup power supply module (If the voltage of AC/DC module B is greater than a preset threshold of 20.25V, the output of the AC/DC module B is selected by the 24V output selection module H. If the voltage of AC/DC module B is less than the preset threshold of 20.25V, the output of the voltage stabilizing circuit E is selected by the 24V output selection module H. If the voltage of AC/DC module B is greater than a preset threshold of 4V, the output of the AC/DC module B is selected by the 48V output selection module G. If the voltage of AC/DC module B is less than the preset threshold of 4V, the output of the boosting circuit module F is selected by the 48V output selection module G.), and output power to supply power to the surgical robot (medical robot).
PNG
media_image1.png
502
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Chen
As for claim 2, Chen teaches wherein the selection circuit is configured to: select the main power supply module as the power inputted in response to that a first input voltage corresponding to the main power supply module is not less than a preset voltage threshold; and select the backup power supply module as the power inputted in response to that the first input voltage is less than the preset voltage threshold (If the voltage of AC/DC module B is greater than a preset threshold of 20.25V, the output of the AC/DC module B is selected by the 24V output selection module H. If the voltage of AC/DC module B is less than the preset threshold of 20.25V, the output of the voltage stabilizing circuit E is selected by the 24V output selection module H. If the voltage of AC/DC module B is greater than a preset threshold of 4V, the output of the AC/DC module B is selected by the 48V output selection module G. If the voltage of AC/DC module B is less than the preset threshold of 4V, the output of the boosting circuit module F is selected by the 48V output selection module G.).
As for claim 3, Chen teaches wherein the preset voltage threshold is a maximum output voltage of the backup power supply module (The preset voltage threshold is 20.25V and the battery voltage is 19.8V).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches wherein the selection circuit is configured to: select the main power supply module as the power inputted in response to that a first input voltage corresponding to the main power supply module is not less than a second input voltage corresponding to the backup power supply module; and select the backup power supply module as the power inputted in response to that the first input voltage is less than the second input voltage (If the voltage of AC/DC module B is greater than a preset threshold of 20.25V, the output of the AC/DC module B is selected by the 24V output selection module H. If the voltage of AC/DC module B is less than the preset threshold of 20.25V, the output of the voltage stabilizing circuit E is selected by the 24V output selection module H. The preset voltage threshold is 20.25V and the battery voltage is 19.8V).
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches wherein the backup power supply module (C-F) is configured to: output power to the selection circuit (G, H) in response to that the backup power supply module (C-F) is used as the power inputted, and store power in response to that the main power supply module is used as the power inputted (Battery D is charged when the battery voltage is monitored and determined to be lower than a threshold.).
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches wherein the backup power supply module comprises a charging device and a rechargeable battery which are electrically connected with each other, and the charging device is configured to store power in the rechargeable battery in response to that the main power supply module is used as the power inputted (Battery D is charged when the battery voltage is monitored and determined to be lower than a threshold.).
As for claim 8, Chen teaches wherein the power supply protection circuit comprises at least two selection circuits (G, H) with different output voltages (48V, 24V).
As for claim 9, Chen teaches a power supply system for a surgical robot (Figure 1), comprising the power supply protection circuit according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches a surgical robot (medical robot used during an operation), comprising the power supply system according to claim 9.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches the power supply protection circuit for the surgical robot according to claim 6, as detailed above, but fails to teach further comprising a plurality of direct current (DC) to direct current (DC) converters, wherein, input ends of the DC to DC converters are electrically connected to the rechargeable battery, and output ends of the DC to DC converters are electrically connected to a corresponding selection circuit.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to utilize DC/DC converters in power supply systems to boost/buck DC voltage levels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add DC/DC converters to the power supply system of Chen because such a modification would have been additions of well-known power supply system components for adjusting DC levels of supplied power.
Conclusion
The prior art references made of record and not relied upon teach power supply systems, comprising: main power supply modules, backup power supply modules, and selection circuits.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEVI GANNON whose telephone number is (571)272-7971. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/LEVI GANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849 January 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights