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Claims 7-10, 12, 14-15 & 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected specie(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 20, 2026.
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, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow (US 2019/0142540) in view of Wang et al. (CN/105411680).
Claim 1.
A robot device comprising a first robot including a base portion and distal end portion:
E.G. Chow discloses patient-side support system 110, includes setup arm assembly 120, supported by base 101 and comprising setup links 104 and 106, with link 106 providing the distal portion ([0009]-[0010]).
A second robot supported by the distal end portion of the first robot:
E.G. Chow actively controlled manipulator arm assembly 130 is coupled to the end of the setup link 106 through yaw joint 111 and proximal manipulator link 113 ([0009], [0012]).
The second robot configured to support a surgical tool insertable into a patient:
E.G. Chow manipulator assembly 130 carries platform 132, entry guide manipulator assembly 133, and surgical instrument manipulator assemblies 140 having interfaces for coupling corresponding surgical instruments ([0017]-[0021]); the instrument enter the patient at the location described in [0012].
An insertion point aligned with a remote center of motion:
E.G. Chow discloses remote center 146 is the intersection of the yaw, pitch, and roll axes and is located where an instrument enters the patient ([0011]-[0012], [0016]).
The first robot operable by a user based on direct application of force:
E.G. Chow et al. setup links 104 and 106 and manually positionable by a person upon release of of the setup-joint brakes, thereby teaching user-applied force to reposition setup arm assembly 120 [0010].
A plurality of joints and corresponding lock mechanisms:
E.G. Chow et al. discloses setup arm assembly 120 includes rotational joints 103 and 105 and respective joint brakes that are released to permit manual positioning [0010].
Chow does not expressly disclose the recited electromagnetic construction and power-dependent operation of each joint brake.
However, Wang teaches:
An electromagnetic joint brake:
E.G. Brake 7 includes a brake pad and coil and controls relative rotation between sleeves 1 and 2 connecting adjacent arm supports (English translation, specific embodiment discussion of brake 7, passage beginning “The embodiment of the invention specifically provides mechanical arm, a brake 7…”).
Locking upon power-off and unlocking upon power-on:
E.G. Wang’s permanent-magnet power-off brake prevents relative rotation of sleeves 1 and 2 when de-energized and releases when current passes through its coil (immediately following passage beginning “electromagnetic brake with electric locking and power-off locking two types…”)
Selective release for repositioning:
E.G. A button energizes brake 7 to release it; the normal, de-energized condition provides braking (following passage beginning “Specifically, also can be set with the brake 7…”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement each of Chow’s respective setup-joint brakes at joints 103 and 105 using Wang’s electromagnetic power-off locking, power-on releasing brake mechanism. Chow already requires releasable brakes to hold the setup arm at selected positions, and Wang teaches this brake mechanism for the same joint-positioning and holding function in a manually adjustable surgical arm. The modification would provide secure holding without continuous energization while permitting manual repositioning when energized, with the reduced heating and electromagnetic interference expressly identified by Wang.
Reasonable expectation of success: both references employ brakes to selectively prevent relative rotation between surgical-arm members. Applying Wang’s brake mechanism at Chow’s existing braked joints would preserve their disclosed locking and release functions and leave Chow’s distal manipulator and remote-center geometry intact.
The modification applies a known braking technique to similar surgical-arm joints to obtain the predictable result of electrically releasable, power-off position holding. See KSR International Co. v Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Claim 4.
At least one lock mechanism associated with the base portion.
E.G. Chow discloses the proximal setup joint 103 and its associated brake in the base-side portion of setup arm assembly 120, which is supported by base 101 ([0009]-[0010]; Fig. 1). The claim recites association with the base portion, rather than requiring the brake to be housed within the base 101.
Electromagnetic implementation:
E.G. Wang teaches the power-off locking, power-on releasing electromagnetic brake mechanism identified in the rejection of claim 1 (English translation, specific embodiment discussion of brake 7, passage beginning “electromagnetic brake with electric locking and power-off locking two types…”).
It would have been obvious to implement Chow’s proximal setup-joint brake using Wang’s mechanism for the reasons stated for claim 1, thereby retaining the base-side joint in its selected position without continuous energization and permitting manual adjustment upon electrical release.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow (US 2019/0142540) and Wang et al. (CN/105411680), as applied to claims 1 & 4 above, in further view of Yeung et al. (US 2007/0299427).
Claim 5.
Chow in view of Wang teaches the robot device and electromagnetic joint-locking mechanisms for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein.
Chow and Wang do not expressly disclose transmitting braking force to a joint through one of the transmission media recited in claim 5.
Yeung teaches a power-off electromagnetic brake 254 coupled to the motor shaft, which is connected through harmonic device 56 and input pulley 54 to output pulley 20 and the shoulder-pitch joint ([0194]-[0195]; Figs. 18A-18E). The associated right-angle drive uses tensioned cables 9a, 90b, 92a and 92b between the input and output pulleys (“Right-Angle Drive’ section; Figs. 8 and 11A). Braking restraint is consequently conveyed through the coupled transmission to the joint; this is a mechanical inference from the disclosed connection.
It would have been obvious to employ Yeung’s cable -and-pulley transmission between an electromagnetic lock and a joint of Chow’s setup arm, as modified by Weng, to permit an offset brake location while transmitting holding force to the joint. The proposed modification retains manual repositioning when the brake is released and uses the transmission for joint restraint.
Claim 6.
The findings and rationale for claim 5 are incorporated herein.
Yeung further teaches associating the transmission with the base: right-angle drive 406 is mounted on upper base 404, and base 401 contains part of the shoulder-pitch ([0191], [0194]; Fig. 16A and 18A-18E).
It would have been obvious to locate the corresponding brake transmission at the base-side joint of Chow’s modified setup arm, following Yeung’s arrangement, to support the transmission at the base while conveying braking restraint to the joint.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 & 13 are 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 of record does not teach or suggest, in the claimed combinations, a manually operated supporting robot sized for one-handed use and carrying a smaller robot (claim 11) or the allocation of at least five degrees and freedom to the supporting robot and no more than four degrees of freedom to the actively driven, supported robot (claim 13).
AND;
Claim 16 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed coordination of manual robot setup and alignment assistance. Although the reference(s) disclose repositionable support arms and remote-center control, they do not establish assistance directed to the operator’s adjustment of the supporting robot to bring the carried robot’s tool-pivot location into coincidence with the patient entry site. This functional relationship, considered with the remaining claimed limitations, distinguishes claim from the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the previous rejection have been considered. The previous rejection is withdrawn, and a new ground of rejection based on Chow in view of Wang is presented below. The new rejection relies on Chow for the manually positionable setup arm supporting the tool-carrying manipulator and on Wang for the electromagnetic joint-locking arrangement. The accompanying rejection identifies the supporting disclosures and explains the reason for combining these teachings. Claims 11 and 13 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter, and claim 16 is indicated as allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DiMaio et al. (WO 2018/052796) is pertinent to processor-assisted manual repositioning of a surgical manipulator support and control of a tool’s remote center of motion. The reference is not relied upon because the reviewed disclosure does not establish assistance directed to the user’s operation of the first robot to align the insertion point with the remote center of motion, as required by claim 16.
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 NICOLE F JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/NICOLE F JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
