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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-23 are 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 11 recites “a device” in line 10 of the claim. A lack of clarity arises if this is the same device or different device than what is recited in line 1 of the claim. For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the recited devices are the same.
Claims 12-21 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 11 and because they inherit and do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 11.
Claim 22 recites “a device” in line 10 of the claim. A lack of clarity arises if this is the same device or different device than what is recited in line 1 of the claim. For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the recited devices are the same.
Claim 23 recites “a device” in line 10 of the claim. A lack of clarity arises if this is the same device or different device than what is recited in line 1 of the claim. For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the recited devices are the same.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-16, 18-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCormick (US 4611377 A) in view of Aviles (US 4601637 A) and Cox (US 20170252380 A1).
With respect to claim 11, McCormick discloses a method using a device (see Abstract: interchangeable robot end-of-arm tooling system for performing multiple tasks using interchangeable tools within a work cell; and see Fig. 1, robot arm #14) comprising:
a head (see Fig. 1 and 3-4 and see Col 3 lines 59-61: quick change adapter #26 is permanently mounted to end #100 of robot arm #14) comprising at least one actuator (see col 4 lines 25-64: quick change adapter #26 carries a pneumatically actuated locking mechanism comprises of piston #114, balls #126 and receiver #122 that engages and releases each tools probe #152),
a working part, being capable of engaging, by means of a reversible attachment, with an attachment element so as to form, with the head, a tool capable of being actuated by the at least one actuator (see Fig. 1 and col 2 lines 49-67: robot arm #14 is capable of interchanging between several tools including tools such as drill #28, 36, 38 and 40 to perform tasks; and see Fig. 5 and col 4 lines 65-67 – col 5 lines 1-56: drill #170 is used with the system of the present invention wherein drill #170 mates with quick change adapter #26 by means of a probe #172 and locator pin #173 where it is actuated using the pneumatically actuated locking mechanism of adapter #26), and
a device for spatially moving the head (see Fig. 1: robot arm #14 moves the quick change adapter #26),
the method comprising:
attaching a working part by moving the head (see Fig. 10 and col 7 lines 62-67 – col 8 lines 1-20: step 512 has the robot moving the adapter to the tool and the preprocessor grasps the tool with the adapter #26) ,
using the tool by actuating the actuator (see Fig. 10 and col 7 lines 62-67 – col 8 lines 1-20: a perform line is pulsed and the perform task subroutine runs in steps 520-522 and a drop tool in step 524 where the tool is dropped by retracting the balls #126 in quick change), and
McCormick does not specifically disclose handling or treating an umbilical cord and further does not specifically disclose the at least one actuator being configured to make at least one of the attachment elements rotate about its axis of rotation and/or to make a rectilinear movement at least at one of the attachment elements according to an axis parallel to an axis connecting two attachment element and at least two attachment elements or two working parts, each working part being capable of engaging, by means of a reversible attachment, with an attachment element so as to form, with the head, a tool capable of being actuated by the at least one actuator. McCormick does not specifically disclose attaching a working part onto a first attachment element and attaching the other working part onto a second attachment element by moving the head.
Aviles teaches two attachment elements (see Fig. 2-3 and col 4 lines 4-22: pair of opposed fingers #24 and #25 each finger bearing a dovetail shaped rail #32) and two working parts (see col 5 lines 28-67: finger gripper tools #36 that attach to the two blades #96) and each working part is attached onto an first and second attachment element by moving the head (see col 4 lines 23-42, the control means provides movement of gripper to cause dovetail shaped rail #32 to slide lengthwise into dovetail shaped opening and locking means then lock each tool to its finger). Further Aviles teaches the at least one of the attachment elements rotate about its axis of rotation and/or to make a rectilinear movement at least at one of the attachment elements according to an axis parallel to an axis connecting two attachment elements (see Fig.9 and see col 4 lines 23-42) and separating at least one of the working parts from the corresponding attachment element (see Fig. 9, both finger gripper tools #36 are separated from each respective finger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McCormick with the teachings of Aviles to have added two attachment elements and two working elements because it would have resulted in the predictable result of having the same robot do multiple tasks such as clamping, cutting and dispensing with interchangeable parts (Aviles: col 3 lines 55-62).
McCormick and Aviles do not teach using the tool on an umbilical cord.
Cox teaches an umbilical cord as a work object that a tool is used on (see paragraph 0071 and Fig. 1: tool is used on umbilical cord).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McCormick and Aviles with the teachings of Cox to have used a tool on an umbilical cord because it would have resulted in the predictable result of automating a process that requires sequential operational steps (Cox: see [0076]) in sterile conditions (Cox: see [0087]).
With respect to claim 12, all limitations of claim 11 apply in which the combination of McCormick and Aviles further teaches wherein the device further comprises an independent actuator for each attachment element (McCormick: see col 1 lines 44-64: independent computer control of each end of arm tool through preprocessor and to actuate each finger tool).
With respect to claim 13, all limitations of claim 11 apply in which the combination of McCormick and Aviles wherein the at least one actuator is configured to make the attachment elements rotate about their axis of rotation and the axes of rotation of the attachment elements are distinct (Aviles: see Fig.9 and see col 4 lines 23-42) .
With respect to claim 14, all limitations of claim 11 apply in which the combination of McCormick and Aviles wherein the reversible fastening is magnetic or mechanical (McCormick: see col 2 lines 43-67: cables and hoses and screws).
With respect to claim 15, all limitations of claim 14 apply in which the combination of McCormick and Aviles wherein the reversible fastening is mechanical and comprises a pusher allowing separating the working part from the corresponding attachment element (McCormick: see col 2 lines 43-67: cables and hoses and screws).
With respect to claim 16, all limitations of claim 11 apply in which Cox further teaches wherein the tool is a clamp and each working part is a jaw of the clamp (Cox: see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0071-0074: apparatus includes clamping mechanism #120 with first housing #121 and second housing #122).
With respect to claim 18, all limitations of claim 11 apply in which Cox further teaches wherein the tool is a cutting tool configured to cut the umbilical cord, and the working parts comprise a blade and a cord pusher (Cox: see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0071-0074: apparatus includes clamping mechanism #120; and see paragraph 0084-0085: blade and carriage pusher).
With respect to claim 19, all limitations of claim 11 apply in which Cox further teaches wherein portions of the working parts intended to be in contact with the umbilical cord comprise a biocompatible material (Cox: see paragraph 0085: base plate #11 is made of soft material with multiple clamps to hold onto various parts of umbilical cord).
With respect to claim 20, all limitations of claim 19 apply in which Cox further teaches wherein portions of the working parts intended to be in contact with the umbilical cord comprise a polymer material (Cox: see paragraph 0085: base plate #11 is made of soft material with multiple clamps to hold onto various parts of umbilical cord).
With respect to claim 23, McCormick discloses a device configured for handling or treating a biological object by means of a cutting tool capable of being actuated configured to cut the biological object (see Abstract: interchangeable robot end-of-arm tooling system for performing multiple tasks using interchangeable tools within a work cell; and see Fig. 1, robot arm #14), the device comprising:
a head (see Fig. 1 and 3-4 and see Col 3 lines 59-61: quick change adapter #26 is permanently mounted to end #100 of robot arm #14) comprising at least one actuator (see col 4 lines 25-64: quick change adapter #26 carries a pneumatically actuated locking mechanism comprises of piston #114, balls #126 and receiver #122 that engages and releases each tools probe #152),
a working parts, being capable of cooperating, by means of a reversible fastening, with an attachment element so as to form, with the head, the tool capable of being actuated by the at least one actuator (see Fig. 1 and col 2 lines 49-67: robot arm #14 is capable of interchanging between several tools including tools such as drill #28, 36, 38 and 40 to perform tasks; and see Fig. 5 and col 4 lines 65-67 – col 5 lines 1-56: drill #170 is used with the system of the present invention wherein drill #170 mates with quick change adapter #26 by means of a probe #172 and locator pin #173 where it is actuated using the pneumatically actuated locking mechanism of adapter #26), and
a device for moving the head in the space (see Fig. 1: robot arm #14 moves the quick change adapter #26),
McCormick does not specifically disclose handling or treating a biological object by means of a cutting tool and further does not specifically disclose and at least two attachment elements, the at least one actuator being configured to make at least one of the attachment elements rotate about its axis of rotation and/or to make at least one of the attachment elements perform a rectilinear movement according to an axis parallel to an axis connecting the two attachment elements or two working parts wherein the working parts comprise a blade and a cord pusher.
Aviles teaches two attachment elements (see Fig. 2-3 and col 4 lines 4-22: pair of opposed fingers #24 and #25 each finger bearing a dovetail shaped rail #32) and two working parts (see col 5 lines 28-67: finger gripper tools #36 that attach to the two blades #96) and each working part is attached onto an first and second attachment element by moving the head (see col 4 lines 23-42, the control means provides movement of gripper to cause dovetail shaped rail #32 to slide lengthwise into dovetail shaped opening and locking means then lock each tool to its finger). Further Aviles teaches the at least one of the attachment elements rotate about its axis of rotation and/or to make a rectilinear movement at least at one of the attachment elements according to an axis parallel to an axis connecting two attachment elements (see Fig.9 and see col 4 lines 23-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McCormick with the teachings of Aviles to have added two attachment elements and two working elements because it would have resulted in the predictable result of having the same robot do multiple tasks such as clamping, cutting and dispensing with interchangeable parts (Aviles: col 3 lines 55-62).
McCormick and Aviles do not teach handling or treating a biological object by means of a cutting tool wherein the working parts comprise a blade and a cord pusher.
Cox teaches handling or treating a biological object by means of a cutting tool (see paragraph 0071 and 0086 and Fig. 1: tool is used on umbilical cord to cut the umbilical cord into two separate pieces) wherein the working parts comprise a blade and a cord pusher (see paragraph 0084-0085: blade and carriage pusher).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McCormick and Aviles with the teachings of Cox to have used a tool to handle a biological object with a cutting tool because it would have resulted in the predictable result extracting and cutting an umbilical cord into separate pieces (Cox: see [0086]) in sterile conditions (Cox: see [0087]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCormick in view of Aviles and Cox as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Eliuk (US 20060259195 A1).
With respect to claim 17, all limitations of claim 11 apply in which McCormick, Aviles and Cox do not specifically teach wherein the tool is a liquid sampling or ejection tool, and the working parts comprise a fastening module of a plunger syringe, and a plunger pusher adapted to move, when the corresponding actuator is actuated, the plunger of a syringe fastened to the fastening module.
Eliuk teaches tool as an liquid sampling tool (see paragraph 0450: syringe) a fastening module of a plunger syringe (see paragraph 0450: syringe barrel gripper #5210 holds syringe barrel) and a plunger pusher adapted to move, when the corresponding actuator is actuated, the plunger of a syringe fastened to the fastening module (see paragraph 0450: syringe plunger gripper #5210 that slides to push and pull the plunger within barrel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McCormick, Aviles and Cox with the teachings of Eliuk to have a tool as an liquid sampling tool with a plunger syringe and plunger pusher because it would have resulted in the predictable result of drawing fluid from a target location (Eliuk: see [0157] and further for fluid transfer (Eliuk: see [0455]-[0458]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCormick in view of Aviles and Cox as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Murali (US 20160252537 A1).
With respect to claim 21, all limitations of claim 11 apply in which McCormick, Aviles and Cox do not teach wherein the device further comprises: at least one sensor configured to locate the umbilical cord, and a control device configured to control the device for moving the head and the at least one actuator of the head according to the location of the umbilical cord determined by the sensor.
Murali teaches a sensor configured to locate an umbilical cord and a control device configured to control the device for moving the head and the at least one actuator of the head according to the location of the umbilical cord determined by the sensor (see paragraph 0023, 0052-0053: robotic assembly comprises a plurality of sensors that interface with control unit to control movement of robotic assembly in predefined path to locate tissue; and see paragraph 0015, umbilical cord tissue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McCormick, Aviles and Cox with the teachings of Murali to have included a sensor and a control device because it would have resulted in the predictable result of positioning a robotic assembly to locate target of interest (Murali: see [0052]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCormick in view of Aviles, Cox and Eliuk.
With respect to claim 22, McCormick discloses a device configured for handling or treating a biological object using a liquid sampling or ejection tool capable of being actuated (see Abstract: interchangeable robot end-of-arm tooling system for performing multiple tasks using interchangeable tools within a work cell; and see Fig. 1, robot arm #14), the device comprising:
a head (see Fig. 1 and 3-4 and see Col 3 lines 59-61: quick change adapter #26 is permanently mounted to end #100 of robot arm #14) comprising at least one actuator (see col 4 lines 25-64: quick change adapter #26 carries a pneumatically actuated locking mechanism comprises of piston #114, balls #126 and receiver #122 that engages and releases each tools probe #152),
a working parts, being capable of cooperating, by means of a reversible fastening, with an attachment element so as to form, with the head, the tool capable of being actuated by the at least one actuator (see Fig. 1 and col 2 lines 49-67: robot arm #14 is capable of interchanging between several tools including tools such as drill #28, 36, 38 and 40 to perform tasks; and see Fig. 5 and col 4 lines 65-67 – col 5 lines 1-56: drill #170 is used with the system of the present invention wherein drill #170 mates with quick change adapter #26 by means of a probe #172 and locator pin #173 where it is actuated using the pneumatically actuated locking mechanism of adapter #26), and
a device for moving the head in the space (see Fig. 1: robot arm #14 moves the quick change adapter #26),
McCormick does not specifically disclose handling or treating a biological object using a liquid sampling or ejection tool and further does not specifically disclose and at least two attachment elements, the at least one actuator being configured to make at least one of the attachment elements rotate about its axis of rotation and/or to make at least one of the attachment elements perform a rectilinear movement according to an axis parallel to an axis connecting the two attachment elements or two working parts wherein the working parts comprise a fastening module of a plunger syringe, and a plunger pusher adapted to move, when the corresponding actuator is actuated, the plunger of a syringe fastened to the fastening module.
Aviles teaches two attachment elements (see Fig. 2-3 and col 4 lines 4-22: pair of opposed fingers #24 and #25 each finger bearing a dovetail shaped rail #32) and two working parts (see col 5 lines 28-67: finger gripper tools #36 that attach to the two blades #96) and each working part is attached onto an first and second attachment element by moving the head (see col 4 lines 23-42, the control means provides movement of gripper to cause dovetail shaped rail #32 to slide lengthwise into dovetail shaped opening and locking means then lock each tool to its finger). Further Aviles teaches the at least one of the attachment elements rotate about its axis of rotation and/or to make a rectilinear movement at least at one of the attachment elements according to an axis parallel to an axis connecting two attachment elements (see Fig.9 and see col 4 lines 23-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McCormick with the teachings of Aviles to have added two attachment elements and two working elements because it would have resulted in the predictable result of having the same robot do multiple tasks such as clamping, cutting and dispensing with interchangeable parts (Aviles: col 3 lines 55-62).
McCormick and Aviles do not teach handling or treating a biological object using a liquid sampling or ejection tool wherein the working parts comprise a fastening module of a plunger syringe, and a plunger pusher adapted to move, when the corresponding actuator is actuated, the plunger of a syringe fastened to the fastening module.
Cox teaches handling or treating a biological object by means of a cutting tool (see paragraph 0071 and 0086 and Fig. 1: tool is used on umbilical cord to cut the umbilical cord into two separate pieces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McCormick and Aviles with the teachings of Cox to have used a tool to handle a biological object because it would have resulted in the predictable result of automating a process that requires sequential operational steps (Cox: see [0076]) in sterile conditions (Cox: see [0087]).
McCormick, Aviles and Cox do not teach handling or treating a biological object using a liquid sampling or ejection tool wherein the working parts comprise a fastening module of a plunger syringe, and a plunger pusher adapted to move, when the corresponding actuator is actuated, the plunger of a syringe fastened to the fastening module.
Eliuk teaches tool as an ejection tool (see paragraph 0450: syringe) a fastening module of a plunger syringe (see paragraph 0450: syringe barrel gripper #5210 holds syringe barrel) and a plunger pusher adapted to move, when the corresponding actuator is actuated, the plunger of a syringe fastened to the fastening module (see paragraph 0450: syringe plunger gripper #5210 that slides to push and pull the plunger within barrel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McCormick, Aviles and Cox with the teachings of Eliuk to have a tool as an liquid sampling tool with a plunger syringe and plunger pusher because it would have resulted in the predictable result of drawing fluid from a target location (Eliuk: see [0157] and further for fluid transfer (Eliuk: see [0455]-[0458]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIDHI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2379. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays 9AM-5PM.
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 Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/N.N.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights