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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 26 November 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups 1 and 2 have the same technical features. The Examiner agrees to the traversal and withdraws the restriction of Groups 1 and 2. Claims 1-19 will be examined and claims 20-27 will be considered non-elected.
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(s) 1, 3-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saw et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0084985) in view of Anderson (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0080966).
Saw et al. discloses a drilling device, comprising: an outer tube (28) including a proximal end, a distal end, and a first concentric through hole centered on a longitudinal axis extending from the proximal end to the distal end (Figure 2B); at least one inner tube (50) movably nested within the outer tube including a proximal end, a distal end, and a second concentric through hole centered on the longitudinal axis (Figure 2B-3B), wherein the at least one nested inner tube is concentric with the outer tube (Figure 3B); and a flexible drive shaft (10) including a proximal end, a distal end and a tool tip (8) positioned at the distal end (Figure 2B), wherein the flexible drive shaft extends through the second concentric through hole of the at least one inner tube (Figure 3A), and is configured to provide a rotational torque to the tool tip (the device is described as a drill and thus it can be construed that the flexible drive shaft provides rotational toque to the tool tip).
Saw et al. fails to disclose that the drilling device is a robot. Anderson teaches a robotic drilling device (paragraph 6, “The device further includes a programmable electronics package configured to sense torque in at least the second drive element”). The drilling robot provides a safer, more controlled drilling method and device. It would have been obvious to provide the system of Saw et al. with a drilling robot in view of Anderson to provide a more controlled drilling method and device.
The following claims are unpatentable over Saw et al. in view of Anderson, however reference is made to Saw et al. unless otherwise stated.
Regarding claim 3, the at least one inner tube (50) is curved (Figure 2B).
Regarding claim 4, the at least one inner tube (50) comprises a curved portion and a linear portion (Figure 2B).
Regarding claim 5, the at least one inner tube is pre-treated to follow a preset curvature (paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 6, Saw et al. in view of Anderson fails to disclose the radius of the preset curvature is 5 to 200 mm. It would have been obvious to one to construct the the preset radius of curvature between 5 to 200 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the manner in which the product is made is not given patentably weight so long as the final product is shown. Saw et al in view of Anderson discloses the inner tube as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, the at least one inner tube comprises nitinol (paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 10, Saw et al. in view of Anderson fails to disclose the outer tube has a diameter of 1 to 20 mm, a wall thickness of 0.05 to 4 mm, and a length of 5 to 500 mm and the first concentric through hole has a diameter of 1 to 20 mm. It would have been obvious to one to construct the outer tube with the given parameters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Saw et al. in view of Anderson fails to disclose the at least one inner tube has a diameter of 1 to 20 mm, a wall thickness of 0.05 to 5 mm, and a length of 5 to 500 mm and the second concentric through hole has a diameter of 1 to 20 mm. It would have been obvious to one to construct the inner tube with the given parameters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Saw et al. discloses drilling system, comprising: an outer tube (28) including a proximal end, a distal end, and a first concentric through hole centered on a longitudinal axis extending from the proximal end to the distal end (Figure 2B); at least one inner tube (50) movably nested within the outer tube including a proximal end, a distal end, and a second concentric through hole centered on the longitudinal axis (Figure 2B-3B), wherein the at least one nested inner tube is concentric with the outer tube (Figure 3B); and a flexible drive shaft (10) including a proximal end, a distal end and a tool tip (8) positioned at the distal end (Figure 2B), wherein the flexible drive shaft extends through the second concentric through hole of the at least one inner tube (Figure 3A), and is configured to provide a rotational torque to the tool tip (the device is described as a drill and thus it can be construed that the flexible drive shaft provides rotational toque to the tool tip).
Saw et al. fails to disclose a manipulation system configured to provide a manipulative force and a drilling torque and a drilling robot device movably connected to the manipulation system and configured to receive the manipulative force. Anderson et al. teaches a drilling robot system comprising a manipulation system (25) to provide force and a drilling torque (via buttons 234, 232); and a drilling robot device movably connected to the manipulation system and configure to receive the manipulative force (paragraph 33-35). The drilling robot system provides a safer, more controlled drilling method and device. It would have been obvious to provide the system of Saw et al. with a drilling robot system in view of Anderson to provide a more controlled drilling method and device.
The following claims are unpatentable over Saw et al. in view of Anderson, however reference is made to Anderson unless otherwise stated.
Regarding claim 13, the manipulation system comprises a handheld manipulator (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, the manipulation system comprises a robotic arm (Paragraph 96).
Regarding claim 15, the robotic arm is configured to perform a robotic assisted procedure (paragraph 96).
Regarding claim 16, the robotic assisted procedure comprises a surgical procedure (paragraph 96).
Regarding claim 17, the manipulation system comprises a drill motor (60) configured to provide a torque to the tool tip via the flexible drive shaft, and a hand operated linear slide to translationally actuate the at least one inner tube, flexible drive shaft and tool tip (actuating button 234 with the hand will translationally actuate tube 120, analogous to inner tube of applicant).
Regarding claim 18, the manipulation system comprises a drill motor (60) configured to provide a torque to the tool tip via the flexible drive shaft, and a translational actuation motor (30) configured to actuate a translational actuation mechanism to translationally actuate the inner tube, flexible drive shaft and tool tip. Paragraph 34, discloses the motor (60) for movement of working tool (110) and drive shaft (40) that moves tube (120) (analogous to applicants’ inner tube) is driven by motor a motor (30). Thus, the combination teaches claim 18.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saw et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0084985) in view of Anderson (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0080966) and further in view of Peters et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2002/0038129)
Saw et al. and Anderson disclose the claimed invention except for the flexible drive shaft comprising a torque coil. Peters et al. discloses a flexible drive shaft comprising a torque coil (68) that allows it to transmit torque. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to construct the flexible drive shaft of Saw et al. in view of Anderson, since applicant has not disclosed that such solve any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a torque transmitting flexible shaft. In re Dailey and Eilers, 149 USPQ 47 (1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art alone or in combination fails to disclose a drilling robot system having manipulation system and a drilling robot movably connected to the manipulation system such that the manipulation system comprises a drill spline shaft for transferring torque by a drill motor to a tool tip via a drill carriage and a flexible drive shaft, a rotational actuation motor for rotating an inner tube via rotational actuation spline shaft and a main housing unit, and a translational actuation motor for linearly actuating the drilling robot via rotating a translational actuation lead screw and the main housing unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 9:00 M-F.
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at 571-272-4705. 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.
/ANDREW YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775