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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed04/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 in view of the following:
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
CN110063792A to Guangjun et al. (previously presented) in view of US Pat Pub No. 20120126079 to Russell (previously presented) and US Pat Pub No. 20160000512 to Gombert et al.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guangjun in view of Russell and Gombert as applied to claims above, and further in view of US Pat Pub No. 20190365491 to Yu.
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed04/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
CN110063792A to Guangjun et al. (hereinafter “Guangjun”) in view of US Pat Pub No. 20120126079 to Russell and US Pat Pub No. 20160000512 to Gombert et al. (hereinafter “Gombert”).
Regarding claims 1 and 10. (original) Guangjun discloses apparatus (fig. 1) for linking a surgical instrument to a rigid frame (Description, machine translated “surgical robot 8”, fig. 13), the apparatus comprising: a. a clamping unit (1, fig. 2) comprising (i) a clamp-actuator (14) and (ii) to clamp the clamping unit to the rigid frame (para 0045, operating table); b. a mediating member (“formed by rods 41, 42, fig. 7) for mediating between the surgical instrument and the clamping unit, proximally engaged with the clamping unit (via element 2, fig. 1); c. respective force-transfer mechanisms for vertically displacing (“vertical adjustment mechanism 21, fig. 3) the mediating member relative to the clamping unit and for pivoting (via mounting base 3, fig. 7) the mediating member in intrinsic rotation in a pitch axis (via mounting base 3, fig. 7); and
d. a plurality of mechanical actuators placed to actuate the force- transmission mechanisms (fig 3, 7).
Guangjun fails to disclose two opposing clamps attached bilaterally to the clamping unit, each one of the two opposing clamps being individually effective, when actuated by a clamp-actuator.
Russell, from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known to provide a clamping unit (bedrail clamp assembly 700, fig 7, para 0050) comprising two opposing clamps (702 and 704, on opposite sides of block 706) and wherein each of the clamps being individually effective, when actuated by a clamp actuator (knob 82, fig 6). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the disclosure of Guangjun with the teachings of Russell to provide the predictable result of providing additional functions of a second clamping device.
It is further noted that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Guangjun as modified by Russel renders obvious the limitations above but fails to disclose the bilateral attachment being such that the two opposing clamps are oriented in opposing respective directions.
Gombert from a similar field of endeavor teaches the clamping jaws are opposing facing (para 0018). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the disclosure of Guangjun as modified by Russell with the known teachings of Gombert to provide the predictable result of clamping surgical instruments.
Regarding claim 4. (currently amended) Guangjun as modified by Russell and Gombert renders obvious the apparatus of claim 1,wherein the instrument-docking assembly includes a docking interface adapted for securing the surgical instrument thereto (Guangjun, “surgical robot 8”, fig 13).
Regarding claim 6. (currently amended) Guangjun as modified by Russell and Gombert renders obvious the apparatus of claim_1 wherein the two clamps are jointly actuatable by a single clamp-actuator (understood to be a design choice, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) – “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”).
Regarding claim 8. (currently amended) Guangjun as modified by Russell and Gombert renders obvious the apparatus of claim_1 wherein the rigid frame comprises a rail of a patient bed (Guangjun “a guide rail 222”).
Regarding claim 9. (currently amended) Guangjun as modified by Russell and Gombert renders obvious the apparatus of claims 2
Regarding claim 11. (original) Guangjun as modified by Russell and Gombert renders obvious the method of claim 10, additionally comprising, before the attaching: selecting a vertical orientation of the clamping unit from (i) a first vertical orientation in which the clamp-actuator is disposed above the two opposing clamps and (ii) a second vertical orientation in which the clamp- actuator is disposed below the two opposing clamps, wherein the attaching is performed in accordance with the selected vertical orientation (Guangjun, fig 1-3, “horizontal adjustment assembly 22 “ – The claim does not provide any details regarding the exact orientation or degrees, thus under its broadest reasonable interpretation, it is understood that the claimed details fall within the normal activity of the PHOSITA. Also see MPEP 2143 – KSR factors: “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success ).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guangjun in view of Russell and Gombert as applied to claims above, and further in view of US Pat Pub No. 20190365491 to Yu.
Regarding claim 2. (original) Guangjun as modified by Russell renders obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the mediating member is distally engaged with an instrument-docking assembly (Guangjun, formed elements 5, 6, and 7) but fails to explicitly disclose arranged to rotate intrinsically in a yaw axis about the mediating member.
Yu from a similar field of endeavor teaches a similar device to provide vertical and pivotal adjusting (fig. 2, para 0016, 0019-0021). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the disclosure of Guangjun in view of Russell and Gombert with the teachings of Yu to provide the predictable result of providing vertical and pivotal adjusting.
Conclusion
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 SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 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, Jennifer S 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights