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, see pg. 8, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 18 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 8-11, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendment to independent claims 1 and 10 to include the limitation: “wherein the first RFID tag assembly is readable by the wireless communication interface when the first portion of the first RFID tag assembly and the second portion of the first RFID tag assembly are in electrical communication with each other”, and independent claim 18 to include the limitation: “wherein interrogating includes reading the first RFID tag assembly when the first portion of the first RFID tag assembly and the second portion of the first RFID tag assembly are in electrical communication with each other”, do not overcome the prior art of record.
Chassot discloses in [0134], Fig. 28 (as addressed by applicant, pg. 9 of remarks) that “At step 95B, sensors positioned within slave hub 69 read out an identifier element integrated with the selected instrument, e.g., an RFID tag, where the RFID tag contains identification information of the selected instrument. At step 95C, the control system determines whether the selected instrument is authorized based on the detection of the RFID tag.” This reads on the amendments to independent claims 1, 10, and 18.
Chassot teaches that the control system determines the type of instrument once the sensor reads out (i.e., is in electrical communication with) an RFID tag. The RFID tag/sensor combination as taught in Chassot is equivalent to the first and second portions of the RFID tag assembly, as in the instant application. Chassot also discloses that the control system is electrically coupled to the circuit board of the master unit and therefore one or more sensors [0181].
Therefore, the control system of Chassot reads the RFID tag assembly when the sensor reads an RFID tag, and necessarily that the RFID tag assembly is readable when the two assembly portions are in electrical communication with each other.
The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 is maintained. See prior art rejection below for additional details.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cline et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0023910), hereinafter ‘Cline’, in view of Chassot et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0328473), hereinafter ‘Chassot’, further in view of Solomon et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0023910), hereinafter ‘Solomon’.
Regarding claim 1, Cline teaches a patient side cart (100) that supports robotic surgical instruments [0020], the device further comprising:
a surgical robotic arm (robotic surgical instruments 102, 104, 106, 108, 110) (Fig. 1) [0021] comprising:
a robotic joint (proximal end 220 of surgical instrument 104) (Fig. 2) [0025];
an instrument drive unit (shaft 200 of robotic surgical instrument 104) configured to couple to the robotic joint (Fig. 2) [0024];
a sterile interface module (mating portion 210 of the camera 102 connecting to 104) configured to couple to the instrument drive unit (Fig. 2) [0023];
a first RFID tag assembly (RFID tag 225, RFID antenna 215) including a first portion disposed in the instrument drive unit (proximal end 220) and a second portion disposed in the sterile interface module (mating portion 210) [0025],
wherein the first portion of the first RFID tag assembly and the second portion of the first RFID tag assembly are in electrical communication with each other once the instrument drive unit is mechanically engaged with the sterile interface module [0030, must be aligned]; and
a communication interface (RFID reader 600) configured to interrogate the first RFID tag assembly [0008].
Cline does not teach a wireless RFID communication interface that reads the RFID tags when they are in electrical communication with each other.
Chassot teaches a surgical robot system (10, Fig. 1), the device further comprising:
a wireless communication interface (Figs. 41A, 41B) configured to interrogate the first RFID tag assembly [0181, control system 1100 communicates with identifier element reader 517 of slave unit 501], wherein the first RFID tag assembly is readable by the wireless communication interface when the first portion of the first RFID tag assembly and the second portion of the first RFID tag assembly are in electrical communication with each other ([0134], instrument is attached and control system reads out an RFID tag to determine the selected instrument, Fig. 28).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cline to incorporate the teachings of Chassot to
include an RFID communication interface that is wireless and reads out the RFID tags when they are in electrical communication. Doing so would allow for the mitigation of physical interference caused by data transfer wires, as recognized by Solomon [0035], and for the identification of a surgical instrument, as recognized by Chassot [0134].
Regarding claim 2, Cline, Chassot, and Solomon teach the device according to claim 1. Cline further teaches:
a latch port (Fig. 1) configured to couple to an access port (distal end 202 of surgical instrument) [Cline, 0024].
Regarding claim 3, Cline, Chassot, and Solomon teach the device according to claim 2. Cline teaches the device further comprising:
wherein the wireless communication interface includes a first antenna (antenna 215) disposed along at least a portion of the robotic joint [0025] and a second antenna disposed at the latch port (Fig. 8) (antenna 806, 808).
Regarding claim 4, Cline, Chassot, and Solomon teach the device according to claim 1. Cline teaches the device further comprising:
wherein the instrument drive unit is configured to move longitudinally along the robotic joint (shaft 200 is inserted) [0024].
Regarding claim 6, Cline, Chassot, and Solomon teach the device according to claim 1. Cline teaches the device further comprising:
wherein the first RFID tag assembly includes a first RFID tag antenna (antenna 215).
Regarding claim 10, Cline teaches a patient side cart (100) that supports robotic surgical instruments [0020], the device further comprising:
a surgical robotic arm (robotic surgical instruments 102, 104, 106, 108, 110) (Fig. 1) [0021] comprising:
a robotic joint (proximal end 220 of surgical instrument 104) (Fig. 2) [0025];
a first component (shaft 200 of robotic surgical instrument 104) configured to couple to the robotic joint (Fig. 2) [0024];
a second component (mating portion 210 of the camera 102 connecting to 104) configured to couple to the first component (Fig. 2) [0023];
a first RFID tag assembly (RFID tag 225, RFID antenna 215) including a first portion disposed in the first component (proximal end 220) and a second portion disposed in the second component (mating portion 210) [0025],
wherein the first portion of the first RFID tag assembly and the second portion of the first RFID tag assembly are in electrical communication with each other once the first component is mechanically engaged with the second component [0030, must be aligned]; and
a communication interface (RFID reader 600) configured to interrogate the first RFID tag assembly [0008].
Cline does not teach a wireless RFID communication interface that reads the RFID tags when they are in electrical communication with each other.
Chassot teaches a surgical robot system (10, Fig. 1), the device further comprising:
a wireless communication interface (Figs. 41A, 41B) configured to interrogate the first RFID tag assembly [0181, control system 1100 communicates with identifier element reader 517 of slave unit 501], wherein the first RFID tag assembly is readable by the wireless communication interface when the first portion of the first RFID tag assembly and the second portion of the first RFID tag assembly are in electrical communication with each other ([0134], instrument is attached and control system reads out an RFID tag to determine the selected instrument, Fig. 28).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cline to incorporate the teachings of Chassot to
include an RFID communication interface that is wireless and reads out the RFID tags when they are in electrical communication. Doing so would allow for the mitigation of physical interference caused by data transfer wires, as recognized by Solomon [0035], and for the identification of a surgical instrument, as recognized by Chassot [0134].
Regarding claim 11, Cline, Chassot, and Solomon teach the device according to claim 10. Cline teaches the device further comprising:
wherein the first component is an instrument drive unit (shaft 200 of robotic surgical instrument 104).
Regarding claim 14, Cline, Chassot, and Solomon teach the device according to claim 10. Cline teaches the device further comprising:
wherein the first RFID tag assembly includes a first RFID tag antenna (antenna 215).
Claims 7-9, 12, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cline et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0023910) in view of Chassot et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0328473) further in view of Solomon et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0023910) further in view of Rockrohr et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0237460), hereinafter ‘Rockrohr’.
Regarding claim 7, Cline, Chassot, and Solomon teach the device according to claim. Cline teaches the device, further comprising:
an instrument configured to couple to the sterile interface module (endoscopic camera 102 coupled to mating portion 210) (Fig. 2) [0023].
Chassot teaches wherein the wireless communication interface (Figs. 41A, 41B) is configured to interrogate the RFID tag assembly [0181, control system 1100 communicates with identifier element reader 517 of slave unit 501].
Cline, Chassot, and Solomon do not teach a second RFID assembly with portions in the sterile interface module and instrument that are in electrical communication once the two components are mechanically engaged.
Rockrohr teaches a robotic surgical system (Fig. 1), the device further comprising:
a second communication assembly (energy disconnect system 200) including a first portion disposed in the sterile interface module (sterile interface module 100) and a second portion disposed in the instrument (electromechanical surgical instrument 60) [0057, activated only when electrically coupled] (Figs. 5A-5B),
wherein the first portion of the second communication assembly and the second portion of the second communication assembly are in electrical communication with each other once the instrument is mechanically engaged with the sterile interface module [0057, activated only when electrically coupled].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cline, Chassot, and Solomon to incorporate the teachings of Rockrohr to include a communication assembly with portions in the sterile interface module and instrument that communicate when engaged/connected. Doing so would allow for a clinician to be more cognizant of the robotic surgical instrument’s electrical connections, as recognized by Rockrohr [0003]. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to also try using a second RFID tag assembly as the communication assembly. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation that the RFID tag assembly-based communication assembly would successfully communicate the connection state of the sterile interface module and the instrument as desired by Rockrohr, at least because Chassot discloses the use of RFID tag assemblies for the determination of component connections.
Regarding claim 8, Cline, Chassot, Solomon, and Rockrohr teach the device according to claim 7. Cline, Chassot, and Solomon fail to teach the additional limitations of claim 8. Rockrohr teaches the device further comprising:
wherein the first portion of the second RFID tag assembly includes a first pair of contacts (first and second electrical connectors 102, 104) [0054], and the second portion of the second RFID tag assembly includes a second pair of contacts (second and third electrical connectors 96, 98) [0056] (Figs. 5A-5B),
the first pair of contacts and the second pair of contacts of the second RFID tag assembly are configured to electrically couple to each other once the instrument is mechanically engaged with the sterile interface module [0012].
Regarding claim 9, Cline, Chassot, Solomon, and Rockrohr teach the device according to claim 8. Cline teaches the device further comprising:
wherein the second RFID tag assembly includes a second RFID tag antenna (antenna 215).
Regarding claim 12, Cline, Chassot, and Solomon teach the device according to claim 11, but do not teach a sterile interface module configured to secure a sterile drape to the instrument drive unit.
Rockrohr teaches a robotic surgical system (Fig. 1), the device further comprising:
wherein the second component is a sterile interface module configured to secure a sterile drape (sterile drape 82) to the instrument drive unit (instrument drive unit 70) [0050].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cline, Chassot, and Solomon to incorporate the teachings of Rockrohr to include a sterile interface module configured to secure a sterile drape to the instrument drive unit. Doing so would allow for the providing of a sterile barrier between components and the surgical site, as recognized by Rockrohr [0050].
Regarding claim 15, Cline, Chassot, and Solomon teach the device according to claim 10. Cline teaches the device further comprising:
a third component configured to couple to the second component (endoscopic camera 102 coupled to mating portion 210) (Fig. 2) [0023].
Chassot teaches wherein the wireless communication interface (Figs. 41A, 41B) is configured to interrogate the RFID tag assembly [0181, control system 1100 communicates with identifier element reader 517 of slave unit 501].
Cline, Chassot, and Solomon do not teach a second RFID assembly with portions in the second and third components that are in electrical communication once the two components are mechanically engaged.
Rockrohr teaches a robotic surgical system (Fig. 1), the device further comprising:
a second communication assembly (energy disconnect system 200) including a first portion disposed in the second component (sterile interface module 100) and a second portion disposed in the third component (electromechanical surgical instrument 60) [0057, activated only when electrically coupled] (Figs. 5A-5B),
wherein the first portion of the second communication assembly and the second portion of the second communication assembly are in electrical communication with each other once the third component is mechanically engaged with the second component [0057, activated only when electrically coupled].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cline, Chassot, and Solomon to incorporate the teachings of Rockrohr to include a communication assembly with portions in the second and third components that communicate when engaged/connected. Doing so would allow for a clinician to be more cognizant of the robotic surgical instrument’s electrical connections, as recognized by Rockrohr [0003]. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to also try using a second RFID tag assembly as the communication assembly. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation that the RFID tag assembly-based communication assembly would successfully communicate the connection state of the second and third components as desired by Rockrohr, at least because Chassot discloses the use of RFID tag assemblies for the determination of component connections.
Regarding claim 16, Cline, Chassot, Solomon, and Rockrohr teach the device according to claim 15. Rockrohr teaches the device further comprising:
wherein the first portion of the second RFID tag assembly includes a first pair of contacts (first and second electrical connectors 102, 104) [0054], and the second portion of the second RFID tag assembly includes a second pair of contacts (second and third electrical connectors 96, 98) [0056] (Figs. 5A-5B),
the first pair of contacts and the second pair of contacts of the second RFID tag assembly are configured to electrically couple to each other once the third component is mechanically engaged with the second component [0012].
Regarding claim 17, Cline, Chassot, Solomon, and Rockrohr teach the device according to claim 16. Cline teaches the device further comprising:
wherein the second RFID tag assembly includes a second RFID tag antenna (antenna 215).
Claims 5, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cline et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0023910) in view of Chassot et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0328473) further in view of Solomon et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0023910) further in view of Rockrohr et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0237460) further in view of Devengenzo et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2007/0119274), hereinafter ‘Devengenzo’.
Regarding claim 5, Cline, Chassot, and Solomon teach the device according to claim 1, further comprising an RFID tag assembly (Cline, RFID tag 225).
Cline, Chassot, and Solomon do not teach a second pair of contacts that electrically couple when the instrument drive unit is engaged with the sterile interface module.
Rockrohr teaches two pairs of contacts, as detailed in the rejection of claim 8, that are configured to electrically couple once the instrument is engaged with the sterile interface module:
wherein the first portion of the second RFID tag assembly includes a first pair of contacts (first and second electrical connectors 102, 104) [0054], and the second portion of the second RFID tag assembly includes a second pair of contacts (second and third electrical connectors 96, 98) [0056] (Figs. 5A-5B),
the first pair of contacts and the second pair of contacts of the second RFID tag assembly are configured to electrically couple to each other once the instrument is mechanically engaged with the sterile interface module [0012].
Rockrohr does not teach an additional two pairs of contacts that are configured to electrically couple once the instrument drive unit is engaged with the sterile interface module.
Devengenzo teaches an instrument interface of a robotic manipulator (Fig. 2A), the device further comprising:
wherein the first portion of the first communication assembly includes a first pair of contacts (manipulator 8 contacts 510) (Fig. 16D) [0071],
and the second portion of the first communication assembly includes a second pair of contacts (instrument sterile adapter 109 contacts 310) (Fig. 16D) [0071],
the first pair of contacts and the second pair of contacts are configured to electrically couple to each other once the instrument drive unit (manipulator 8) is mechanically engaged with the sterile interface module (instrument sterile adapter 109) (Figs. 16A-16B) [0068].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cline, Chassot, and Solomon to incorporate the teachings of Devengenzo to include a communication assembly with portions in the sterile interface module and instrument drive unit that communicate when engaged/connected. Doing so would allow for a clinician to be more cognizant of the robotic surgical instrument’s electrical connections, as recognized by Rockrohr [0003]. Further, as recognized by Devengenzo, the connection of the sterile interface module and instrument drive unit is crucial to establish communication with a surgical instrument [0071] so the depth of the instrument in the patient can be controlled [0050].
Regarding claim 13, Cline, Chassot, and Solomon teach the device according to claim 10, further comprising an RFID tag assembly (Cline, RFID tag 225).
Cline, Chassot, and Solomon do not teach a second pair of contacts that electrically couple when the first component is engaged with the second component.
Rockrohr teaches two pairs of contacts, as detailed in the rejection of claim 16, that are configured to electrically couple once the second component is engaged with the third component:
wherein the first portion of the second RFID tag assembly includes a first pair of contacts (first and second electrical connectors 102, 104) [0054], and the second portion of the second RFID tag assembly includes a second pair of contacts (second and third electrical connectors 96, 98) [0056] (Figs. 5A-5B),
the first pair of contacts and the second pair of contacts of the second RFID tag assembly are configured to electrically couple to each other once the third component is mechanically engaged with the second component [0012].
Rockrohr does not teach an additional two pairs of contacts that are configured to electrically couple once the first component is engaged with the second component.
Devengenzo teaches an instrument interface of a robotic manipulator (Fig. 2A), the device further comprising:
wherein the first portion of the first communication assembly includes a first pair of contacts (manipulator 8 contacts 510) (Fig. 16D) [0071],
and the second portion of the first communication assembly includes a second pair of contacts (instrument sterile adapter 109 contacts 310) (Fig. 16D) [0071],
the first pair of contacts and the second pair of contacts are configured to electrically couple to each other once the first component (manipulator 8) is mechanically engaged with the second component (instrument sterile adapter 109) (Figs. 16A-16B) [0068].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cline, Chassot, and Solomon to incorporate the teachings of Devengenzo to include a communication assembly with portions in the first and second components that communicate when engaged/connected. Doing so would allow for a clinician to be more cognizant of the robotic surgical instrument’s electrical connections, as recognized by Rockrohr [0003]. Further, as recognized by Devengenzo, the connection of the sterile interface module and instrument drive unit is crucial to establish communication with a surgical instrument [0071] so the depth of the instrument in the patient can be controlled [0050].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cline et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0023910) in view of Chassot et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0328473).
Regarding claim 18, Cline teaches an identification method for a robotic surgical system (claim 16), the method further comprising:
interrogating (RFID reader 600) a first RFID tag assembly (RFID tag 225, RFID antenna 215) including a first portion disposed in a first component (proximal end 220) and a second portion disposed in a second component (mating portion 210) [0025],
wherein the first portion of the first RFID tag assembly and the second portion of the first RFID tag assembly are in electrical communication once the first component is mechanically engaged with the second component [0030, must be aligned] and at least one of the first component and the second component is coupled to a robotic joint (proximal end 220 of surgical instrument 104) (Fig. 2) [0025]; and
determining whether the first component and the second component are mechanically engaged to each other based on the interrogation [0008, electrically coupled to transmit/receive energy only when the first half is aligned with the second].
Cline does not explicitly teach outputting a confirmation that the components are engaged or that interrogating includes reading the RFID tags when they are in electrical communication with each other.
Chassot teaches remote manipulation of a surgical robot system (claim 11), the method further comprising:
wherein interrogating includes reading the first RFID tag assembly when the first portion of the first RFID tag assembly and the second portion of the first RFID tag assembly are in electrical communication with each other ([0134], instrument is attached and control system reads out an RFID tag to determine the selected instrument, Fig. 28); and
outputting a confirming (display 21) based on the interrogation that the first component and the second component are mechanically engaged to each other [0082, display status information of surgical robotic system 10].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cline to incorporate the teachings of Chassot to include an output that confirms the attachment of components. Doing so would allow for information to be conveyed to the surgeon operating the surgical robot, as recognized by Chassot [0089], and for the identification of a surgical instrument, as recognized by Chassot [0134].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cline et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0023910) in view of Chassot et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0328473) further in view of Solomon et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0023910).
Regarding claim 19, Cline and Chassot teach the method according to claim 18, further comprising:
wherein interrogating is performed using a wireless (Chassot, Figs. 41A, 41B) communication interface (Cline, RFID reader 600) disposed in the robotic joint [Cline, 0008] [Chassot, 0181, control system 1100 communicates with identifier element reader 517 of slave unit 501].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cline to incorporate the teachings of Chassot to
include an RFID communication interface that is wireless. Doing so would allow for the mitigation of physical interference caused by data transfer wires, as recognized by Solomon [0035].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cline et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0023910) in view of Chassot et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0328473) further in view of Solomon et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0023910) further in view of Rockrohr et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0237460).
Regarding claim 20, Cline, Chassot, and Solomon teach the method of claim 19. Cline teaches the method further comprising an RFID tag assembly (RFID tag 225).
Chassot teaches wherein the wireless communication interface (Figs. 41A, 41B) is configured to interrogate the RFID tag assembly [0181, control system 1100 communicates with identifier element reader 517 of slave unit 501].
Cline, Chassot, and Solomon do not teach a method of interrogating a second RFID assembly with portions in the second and third components that are in electrical communication once the two components are mechanically engaged.
Rockrohr teaches a method for electrically activating a robotic surgical instrument (claim 19), the method comprising:
interrogating a second communication assembly (energy disconnect system 200) including a first portion disposed in the second component (sterile interface module 100) and a second portion disposed in a third component (electromechanical surgical instrument 60), [0057, activated only when electrically coupled] (Figs. 5A-5B),
wherein the first portion of the second communication assembly and the second portion of the second communication assembly are in electrical communication with each other once the third component is mechanically engaged with the second component [0057, activated only when electrically coupled].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cline, Chassot, and Solomon to incorporate the teachings of Rockrohr to include a communication assembly with portions in the second and third components that communicate when engaged/connected. Doing so would allow for a clinician to be more cognizant of the robotic surgical instrument’s electrical connections, as recognized by Rockrohr [0003]. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to also try using a second RFID tag assembly as the communication assembly. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation that the RFID tag assembly-based communication assembly would successfully communicate the connection state of the second and third components as desired by Rockrohr, at least because Chassot discloses the use of RFID tag assemblies for the determination of component connections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schena et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0325034) teaches a robotic assembly for actuation of a surgical instrument.
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 ELIZABETH L OKONAK whose telephone number is (571)272-1594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at (571) 270-5213. 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.
/E.L.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights