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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/15/2026. Claims being examined are group I: claims 1-11.
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.
Claim 10 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the plurality of LEDs". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since neither claim 1 or 7 on which it depends on discloses a plurality of LEDs. Examiner suggest changing it to “a plurality of LEDs”
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 1-2, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harris et al. (US 20200405406) herein referred to as Harris.
Regarding claim 1, Harris discloses A surgical robotic system, (Figure 2) comprising: a surgical robotic arm (Figure 4A, 13120; Figure 60, 13120) including: an elongated rail (See annotated figure 60); a pair of jaws attached to an end portion of the elongated rail (Figure 60, 3272); and a first coil configured to receive an electric current (Figure 60, 3171a; Paragraph [0489]; wherein electrical sensors are RFID readers); and at least one surgical port (Figure 60 60, 3273) including: a head configured to be grasped by the pair of jaws of the surgical robotic arm (Figure 60, 3282; Paragraph [0489]; wherein element 3282 disposed on the collar is where the pairs of graspers/jaws of the robotic arm grasp); a cannula extending distally from the head and configured to receive a surgical instrument (See annotated Figure 60 below); a memory having stored therein information about the at least one surgical port (Paragraph [0495]; wherein RFID tags contain memory such that it stores the identity or type of information); and a second coil in communication with the memory and configured to be inductively coupled to the first coil of the surgical robotic arm whereby the information about the at least one surgical port is transferred from the second coil to the first coil (Figure 60, 3282; Paragraph [0489-0495]; wherein RFID readers are in communication with the memory for the purpose of reading the stored identity of type of information of a RFID tag).
PNG
media_image1.png
307
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Harris discloses the surgical robotic system according to claim 1, wherein the second coil extends around an opening defined by the head (Figure 61A; wherein second coil 3282 extends around the opening in the head in which it encapsulates the entire space it sits in)
Regarding claim 6, Harris discloses the surgical robotic system according to claim 1, further comprising a computer (Figure 22, 15002) configured to receive, from the first coil, the information about the at least one surgical port (Paragraph [Paragraph [0481]; wherein computer processor receives signals from the sensors which was seen as the first coil to which it provides information on if the mating of a cannula and surgical port was successful]).
Regarding claim 7, Harris discloses the surgical robotic system according to claim 6, wherein the computer is configured to issue a visual or audible warning upon determining that the surgical port is incompatible with a surgical instrument of the surgical robotic system (Paragraph [0481]; wherein computer will display visual warning that the a component is missing therefore is seen as incompatible).
Regarding claim 8, Harris discloses the surgical robotic system according to claim 1, wherein the information about the at least one surgical port includes calibration settings for the at least one surgical port or an insertion depth of a surgical instrument through the at least one surgical port (Claims 2 & 3).
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Anderson et al. (US 20060161136) herein referred to as Anderson.
Regarding Claim 3, Harris discloses the surgical robotic system according to claim 1, wherein the head includes a collar defining an annular recess therein configured to be grasped by the pair of jaws (See annotated Figure 62A below). However, Harris does not explicitly disclose the second coil being attached to the collar.
PNG
media_image2.png
257
327
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Anderson discloses a surgical robotic system (Figure 1) wherein a second coil is attached to a collar (Figure 11A, 302). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the placement of the second coil to be on the collar as taught by Anderson. The motivation being it would be obvious to try different locations of the second coil to see which allows for the best grip of the surgical port while also allowing the coils to be in communication with each other (MPEP 2143 (D)).
Regarding Claim 4, Harris in view of Anderson disclose the surgical robotic system according to claim 3. Harris also discloses wherein the first coil is attached to at least one of the pair of jaws (Paragraph [0489]; wherein the sensors 3271a can be positioned at the grasper therefore is seen as attached to it)
Claim 5 & 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Garbus et al. (US 20170105811) herein referred to as Garbus.
Regarding Claim 5, Harris discloses the surgical robotic system according to claim 1. However, Harris does not explicitly disclose wherein the information about the at least one surgical port includes a length of the cannula of the at least one surgical port and a diameter of the cannula of the at least one surgical port.
Garbus discloses a surgical robotic system (Figure 1) wherein the information about the at least one surgical port includes a length of the cannula of the at least one surgical port and a diameter of the cannula of the at least one surgical port (Paragraph [0031]; wherein the identification information may comprise at least one of a length of the tube and a diameter of the tube). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information provided by Harris to include the length of the cannula and the diameter. The motivation being allow for different types of cannulas to be used and automatically identified by the system (Garbus, Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding Claim 11, Harris discloses the surgical robotic system according to claim 1. However, Harris does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one surgical port includes a plurality of surgical ports, the cannula of each surgical port of the plurality of surgical ports having a discrete length and diameter.
Garbus discloses a surgical robotic system (Figure 1) wherein the at least one surgical port includes a plurality of surgical ports (Figure 1, wherein 120 is the surgical port and there is four total surgical ports), the cannula of each surgical port of the plurality of surgical ports having a discrete length and diameter (Paragraph [0039]; wherein each cannula can have varying length and diameter based on what they are used for). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surgical port taught by Harris to include a plurality of surgical ports with cannulas of discrete length and diameter as taught by Garbus. The motivation being to allow for different operations during a surgical procedure (Garbus, Paragraph [0038] & Paragraph [0039])
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Liang et al. (US 8795313) herein referred to as Liang.
Regarding Claim 9, Harris discloses the surgical robotic system according to claim 1. However, Harris does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one surgical port includes a plurality of LEDs in communication with the second coil such that the plurality of LEDs are configured to be powered by the inductive coupling between the first and second coils.
Liang discloses coil detachment system (Figure 4) wherein the at least one port includes a plurality of LEDs in communication with the second coil such that the plurality of LEDs are configured to be powered by the inductive coupling between the first and second coils (Column 7, lines 5-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surgical port taught by Harris to include a plurality of LEDs as taught by Liang. The motivation being to provide a visual indication for a user that coils are attached (Liang, Column 7, lines 5-16).
Regarding Claim 10, Harris discloses the surgical robotic system according to claim 7. However, Harris does not explicitly disclose wherein the surgical robotic system is configured to illuminate the plurality of LEDs in response to detecting a fault with the at least one surgical port.
Liang discloses coil detachment system (Figure 4) wherein the surgical robotic system is configured to illuminate the plurality of LEDs in response to detecting a fault with the at least one surgical port (Column 7 lines 25-29; wherein detachment can be seen as a fault if user is trying to attach the two coils together). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surgical port taught by Harris to include a plurality of LEDs as taught by Liang. The motivation being to provide a visual indication for a user that coils are not attached (Liang, Column 7, lines 25-29).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA M PAPE whose telephone number is (703)756-5947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
ALYSSA M. PAPE
Examiner
Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
