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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated May 22, 2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20-23 are pending.
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.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0168753 – “Scheib”).
Regarding Claim 1, Scheib discloses:
A drape (Scheib FIG. 12B, sterile drape 1270) for covering a medical robot (Scheib paragraph [0006], “a sterile adapter for use in a robotic surgical system”), the drape comprising:
an attachment (Scheib FIG. 12B, surgical tool 20 attached to frame 1210) detachably attached to the medical robot (Scheib FIG. 12B, tool driver 10 detachably attached to frame 1210);
a flexible sheet (Scheib FIG. 12B, sterile drape 1270) covering the medical robot, the flexible sheet being fixed to the attachment (Scheib paragraph [0060], “a sterile drape 1270 may be coupled to the peripheral projection 1260, such as through thermal bonding, thereby forming a sterile barrier that may be used to cover the tool driver”); and
a flexible body (Scheib FIG. 12B, peripheral projection 1260) that prevents the flexible sheet from being pinched between the attachment and the medical robot (Scheib paragraph [0061], “the peripheral projection 1260 may extend between about 0.2 cm and about 1.5 cm, between about 0.5 cm and about 1.0 cm, or between about 0.5 cm and 0.7 cm (e.g., about 0.6 cm)”, thereby preventing drape 1270 from being pinched between frame 1210 and tool driver 10).
The first embodiment shown in Scheib FIG. 12A/B does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the flexible body comprises a first plate-shaped body and a second plate-shaped body that orthogonal to the first plate-shaped body,
wherein each of the first plate-shaped body and the second plate-shaped body has an extending portion that extends outward from an outer surface of the attachment and wherein the flexible sheet is fixed to the first plate-shaped body and the second plate-shaped body.
A second embodiment shown in Scheib FIG. 1 teaches:
wherein the flexible body (Examiner-annotated Scheib FIG. 1 shown below, sterile adapter 110; Scheib paragraph [0011], “at least one peripheral projection may extend laterally around at least a portion of the frame perimeter (e.g., as a flange or partial flange). A sterile drape may then be coupled to the projection, such as by thermal bonding or another suitable coupling process, to form at least part of the sterile barrier system. In some variations, the peripheral projection may include a flexible elastomeric material”) comprises a first plate-shaped body and a second plate-shaped body that orthogonal to the first plate-shaped body (Scheib FIG. 1, first plate-shaped body orthogonal to second plate-shaped body in adapter 110; Scheib paragraph [0038], “a sterile drape 120 configured to cover at least the tool driver 10, and a sterile adapter 110 coupled to the sterile drape 120 and located between the tool driver 10 and the surgical tool 20”).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the first plate-shaped body and the second plate-shaped body has an extending portion that extends outward from an outer surface of the attachment and wherein the flexible sheet is fixed to the first plate-shaped body and the second plate-shaped body (Scheib FIG. 1, first plate-shaped body and second plate-shaped body extending away from tool driver 10; Scheib paragraph [0038], “a sterile drape 120 configured to cover at least the tool driver 10, and a sterile adapter 110 coupled to the sterile drape 120 and located between the tool driver 10 and the surgical tool 20”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Scheib’s adapter 110 in Scheib FIG. 1 for Scheib’s peripheral projection 1260 shown in Scheib FIG. 12B.. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of a system that securely couples a tool driver 10 to a surgical tool 20, as shown in Scheib FIG. 3B.
Regarding Claim 2, Scheib discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Scheib further discloses wherein the flexible body (Scheib FIG. 12B, peripheral projection 1260) has a flexibility greater than a flexibility of the attachment (Scheib FIG. 12B, frame 1210; Scheib paragraph [0062], “the frame 1210 may be made of a material that is relatively rigid, such as polycarbonate or ABS, while the peripheral projection 1260 may include a relatively more flexible material”) and less than a flexibility of the flexible sheet (Scheib paragraph [0062], “One exemplary method of making a sterile adapter with a peripheral projection includes co-injection molding a frame and at least one peripheral projection that extends laterally around at least a portion of the perimeter of the frame, and coupling a sterile drape to the peripheral projection. The co-injection molding may include introducing a first material into a first portion of a mold corresponding to the frame, and introducing a second material that is less rigid than the first material into a second portion of the mold corresponding to the peripheral projection.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Scheib discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Scheib further discloses wherein each of the first plate-shaped body and the second plate-shaped body is fixed to the flexible sheet in an area including an end portion of the extended portion (Scheib FIG. 1, showing first plate-shaped body and second plate-shaped body of side end portion of adapter 100 fixed to sterile drape 120; Scheib paragraph [0038], “sterile barrier 100 may, for example, include a sterile drape 120 configured to cover at least the tool driver 10, and a sterile adapter 110 coupled to the sterile drape 120 and located between the tool driver 10 and the surgical tool 20”).
Regarding Claim 6, Scheib discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Scheib further discloses wherein a first adhesive layer is provided on at least a part of an outer surface of the flexible body, the flexible sheet is attached to the flexible body by the first adhesive layer (Scheib paragraph [0060], “a sterile drape 1270 may be coupled to the peripheral projection 1260”; Scheib paragraph [0063], “Coupling the sterile drape to the peripheral projection may include…epoxy or other adhesive”).
Regarding Claim 7, Scheib discloses the features of Claim 6, as described above.
Scheib further discloses wherein the first adhesive layer is provided on a surface of each of the first plate-shaped body and the second plate-shaped body and extends to an end portion of the extended portion of the corresponding one of the first plate-shaped body and the second plate-shaped body (Scheib FIG. 1, showing first plate-shaped body and second plate-shaped body of side end portion of adapter 100 fixed to sterile drape 120; Scheib paragraph [0038], “sterile barrier 100 may, for example, include a sterile drape 120 configured to cover at least the tool driver 10, and a sterile adapter 110 coupled to the sterile drape 120 and located between the tool driver 10 and the surgical tool 20”).
Regarding Claim 21, Scheib teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Scheib further teaches wherein the flexible sheet (Scheib FIG. 12B, sterile drape 1270) is fixed to a surface of the flexible body (Scheib FIG. 12B, peripheral projection 1260) that faces the attachment (Scheib FIG. 12B, surgical tool 20).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0168753 – “Scheib”) in view of Richmond et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0143429 – “Richmond”).
Regarding Claim 3, Scheib discloses:
A drape (Scheib FIG. 12B, sterile drape 1270) for covering a medical robot (Scheib paragraph [0006], “a sterile adapter for use in a robotic surgical system”), the drape comprising:
an attachment (Scheib FIG. 12B, surgical tool 20 attached to frame 1210) detachably attached to the medical robot (Scheib FIG. 12B, tool driver 10 detachably attached to frame 1210);
a flexible sheet (Scheib FIG. 12B, sterile drape 1270) covering the medical robot, the flexible sheet being fixed to the attachment (Scheib paragraph [0060], “a sterile drape 1270 may be coupled to the peripheral projection 1260, such as through thermal bonding, thereby forming a sterile barrier that may be used to cover the tool driver”).
Scheib does not explicitly disclose a flexible body that prevents the flexible sheet from being pinched between the attachment and the medical robot, wherein the flexible body is translucent.
Richmond teaches a flexible body (Richmond FIG. 6A, translucent protective dome 645; Absent anything in the present specification that defines/limits a degree of flexibility, Examiner interprets “flexible” as any amount of flex in a formed dome) that prevents the flexible sheet from being pinched between the attachment and the medical robot (Examiner interprets this a mere intended use, which provides no structural limitation), wherein the flexible body is translucent (Richmond FIG. 6A, translucent protective dome 645).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Richmond’s translucent protective dome with the drape disclosed by Scheib. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a drape the is prevented from being pinched both by Scheib’s peripheral projection 1260 and Richmond’s dome 645, as well as allowing a person to view the components of the robotic system without accidental collision therewith (see Richmond paragraph [0067]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0168753 – “Scheib”) in view of Hörer (US PGPUB 2012/0227751 – “Hörer”).
Regarding Claim 8, Scheib discloses the features of Claim 6, as described above.
Scheib does not explicitly disclose wherein the drape further comprises a second adhesive layer provided on a side of the flexible sheet opposite to a side to which the first adhesive layer is attached, and the flexible sheet comprises an interposed portion between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer.
Hörer teaches wherein the drape further comprises a second adhesive layer provided on a side of the flexible sheet opposite to a side to which the first adhesive layer is attached, and the flexible sheet comprises an interposed portion between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer (Hörer FIG. 4, surgical drape 10 and tape 15; Hörer paragraph [0057], “the surgical drape 10 has an opposed upper end 11. To fix the placement tool 1 to the patient 2, the upper end 11 has one side of a piece of tape 15 having adhesive on both sides adhered thereto”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hörer’s double-sided tape with the drape disclosed by Scheib. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a drape that can be affixed to both a placement tool and the patient, in order to secure the placement tool to a specific position relative to the patient.
Regarding Claim 9, Scheib in view of Hörer teaches the features of Claim 8, as described above.
Hörer further teaches wherein the attachment is on a side of the second adhesive layer opposite to a side facing the flexible sheet (Hörer paragraph [0057], “the surgical drape 10 has an opposed upper end 11. To fix the placement tool 1 to the patient 2, the upper end 11 has one side of a piece of tape 15 having adhesive on both sides adhered thereto”).
Regarding Claim 10, Scheib in view of Hörer teaches the features of Claim 8, as described above.
Hörer further teaches wherein a cover film is provided on a side of the second adhesive layer opposite to a side facing the flexible sheet and configured to protect the second adhesive layer (Hörer paragraph [0057], “To fix the placement tool 1 to the patient 2, the upper end 11 has one side of a piece of tape 15 having adhesive on both sides adhered thereto, the other side carrying a removable protective film.”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0168753 – “Scheib”) in view of Hörer (US PGPUB 2012/0227751 – “Hörer”) and Wall (US Patent 3,025,957 – “Wall”).
Regarding Claim 11, Scheib in view of Hörer teaches the features of Claim 8, as described above.
Scheib in view of Hörer does not explicitly teach wherein the interposed portion of the flexible sheet comprises a folded portion of the flexible sheet.
Wall teaches wherein the interposed portion of the flexible sheet comprises a folded portion of the flexible sheet (Wall FIG. 1, folded portion of surgical drape 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wall’s pleat with the drape taught by Scheib in view of Hörer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a drape that can be folded during storage in order to save space, and also being capable of unfolding without self-entanglement.
Claims 12-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0168753 – “Scheib”) in view of Wang et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0087238 – “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 12, Scheib discloses:
A drape (Scheib FIG. 12B, sterile drape 1270) for covering a medical robot (Scheib paragraph [0006], “a sterile adapter for use in a robotic surgical system”), the drape comprising:
an attachment (Scheib FIG. 12B, surgical tool 20 attached to frame 1210) detachably attached to the medical robot (Scheib FIG. 12B, tool driver 10 detachably attached to frame 1210);
a flexible sheet (Scheib FIG. 12B, sterile drape 1270) covering the medical robot, the flexible sheet being fixed to the attachment (Scheib paragraph [0060], “a sterile drape 1270 may be coupled to the peripheral projection 1260, such as through thermal bonding, thereby forming a sterile barrier that may be used to cover the tool driver”); and
a flexible body (Scheib FIG. 12B, peripheral projection 1260) that prevents the flexible sheet from being pinched between the attachment and the medical robot (Scheib paragraph [0061], “the peripheral projection 1260 may extend between about 0.2 cm and about 1.5 cm, between about 0.5 cm and about 1.0 cm, or between about 0.5 cm and 0.7 cm (e.g., about 0.6 cm)”, thereby preventing drape 1270 from being pinched between frame 1210 and tool driver 10), and
wherein the drape (Scheib FIG. 12B, drape 1270) is further configured to cover a holder (Scheib FIG. 12B, adapter 1200) at an end of an arm of the medical robot, the holder being detachable from the end of the arm (Scheib FIG. 12B, tool driver 10 detachably attached to frame 1210), and configured to hold an insertion member (Scheib FIG. 1, tool shaft connected to surgical tool 20) to be inserted into a patient.
Scheib does not explicitly disclose that the holder is rotatable around the arm;
wherein the attachment comprises a bearing structure, and the bearing structure comprises:
a ring-shaped fixation member that is attached to the arm in a state in which the holder is inserted into the ring-shaped fixation member; and
a ring-shaped rotating member that is slidably and rotatably attached to the ring-shaped fixation member in a state in which the holder is inserted into the ring-shaped rotating member and that is rotatable together with the holder, and
wherein the flexible sheet comprises:
a first sheet that is attached to the fixation member and that is configured to cover the arm, and is not attached to the flexible body ; and
a second sheet that is attached to the ring-shaped rotating member and rotatable together with the rotating member, and that is configured to cover the holder.
Wang teaches that the holder (Wang FIG. 7, tool driver 84) is rotatable around the arm (Wang FIG. 7, robotic arm assembly 26);
wherein the attachment comprises a bearing structure, and the bearing structure comprises:
a ring-shaped fixation member that is attached to the arm in a state in which the holder is inserted into the ring-shaped fixation member (Wang FIG. 7, quick disconnect 98 for connection to tool driver 84); and
a ring-shaped rotating member that is slidably and rotatably attached to the ring-shaped fixation member in a state in which the holder is inserted into the ring-shaped rotating member and that is rotatable together with the holder (Wang FIG. 7, input piston 106 for connection to output piston 108 in tool driver 84), and
wherein the flexible sheet comprises:
a first sheet (Wang, FIG. 7, drape 125) that is attached to the fixation member and that is configured to cover the arm (Wang FIG. 7, showing drape 125 connected to quick disconnect 98 and covering robotic arm assembly 26), and is not attached to the flexible body (Wang FIG. 7, showing drape 125 loosely surrounding robotic arm assembly 26; Wang paragraph [0107], “drape 125 has a substantially open end 300 wherein the robotic arm assembly 26 may be emplaced into the drape 125. The drape 125 additionally includes a substantially tapered enclosed end 302 that effectively separates the arm assembly 26 from the operating room environment”); and
a second sheet (Wang, FIG. 7, drape 124) that is attached to the ring-shaped rotating member and rotatable together with the rotating member, and that is configured to cover the holder (Wang FIG. 7, showing drape 124 connected to output piston 108 and covering tool driver 84).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Scheib’s single drape with Wang’s two drapes. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of dedicated drapes for different components of the robotic device, in order to make the different components detachable without sacrificing sterile protection thereof.
Regarding Claim 13, Scheib in view of Wang teaches the features of Claim 12, as described above.
Wang further reaches wherein the flexible body (Wang FIG. 7, quick disconnect 98) comprises a tube (Wang FIG. 7, outer sleeve 96) that is provided on an outer periphery of the fixation member (Wang paragraph [0103], “an outer sleeve 96 which cooperates with a spring biased ball quick disconnect fastener 98“).
Regarding Claim 14, Scheib in view of Wang teaches the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Wang further teaches wherein the tube extends in a direction away from the rotating member (Wang FIG. 7, showing outer sleeve 96 extending away from quick disconnect 98).
Regarding Claim 15, Scheib in view of Wang teaches the features of Claim 12, as described above.
Wang further teaches:
wherein the rotating member comprises a recessed portion on an outer periphery of the rotating member (Wang FIG. 7, showing recessed portion(s) of tool driver 84 to which drape 124 is secured) in which an adhesive layer is disposed, and
wherein the adhesive layer is configured to attach the rotating member to the second sheet (Wang FIG. 7, showing drape 124 attached to tool driver 84; Wang paragraph [0107], “drape 125 also includes a plurality of tape 308 having adhesive 310 disposed thereon. At least one piece of tape 308 is opposedly arranged the other pieces of tape 308 to effectuate the closing of the drape 125 about the arm assembly 26”; see also Wang paragraph [0146]).
Regarding Claim 16, Scheib discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Scheib does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the attachment comprises a separator is disposed between the medical robot and an insertion member, the insertion member being held by the medical robot and configured to be inserted into a patient, the separator being configured to isolate the insertion member from the medical robot and transmit power in forward and backward directions from a power transmitter of the medical robot to a movable part of the insertion member, and
wherein the separator comprises:
a slider having a first engagement portion engaged with the power transmitter and a second engagement portion engaged with the movable part of the insertion member, the slider being configured to transmit the power received from the power transmitter to the movable part; and
a separator main body comprising a through-hole through which a part of the slider is inserted, the separator main body being detachably attached to the medical robot.
Wang teaches:
wherein the attachment (Wang FIG. 7, holder 86) comprises a separator (Wang FIG. 7, quick disconnect fastener 98) is disposed between the medical robot (Wang FIG. 7, arm 26) and an insertion member (Wang FIG. 7, end effector 80), the insertion member being held by the medical robot and configured to be inserted into a patient, the separator being configured to isolate the insertion member from the medical robot and transmit power in forward and backward directions from a power transmitter of the medical robot to a movable part of the insertion member (Wang FIG. 7, worm gear 87; Wang paragraph [0102], “holder 86 includes a worm gear 87 that is driven by a motor in the robotic arm assembly 26 to rotate the collar 85 and in turn rotate the instrument 82 about its longitudinal axis”) , and
wherein the separator comprises:
a slider (Wang FIG. 7, rod 92) having a first engagement portion engaged with the power transmitter and a second engagement portion engaged with the movable part of the insertion member, the slider being configured to transmit the power received from the power transmitter to the movable part (Wang paragraph [0103], “first finger 90 is coupled to a rod 92 that extends through a center channel 94 of the instrument 82”); and
a separator main body (Wang FIG. 7, outer sleeve 96 of instrument 82) comprising a through-hole through which a part of the slider is inserted, the separator main body being detachably attached to the medical robot.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang’s surgical instrument 82 with the drape assembly disclosed by Scheib. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a robotic system that is capable of cutting and/or stapling (see Wang paragraph [0103]).
Regarding Claim 20, Scheib in view of Wang teaches the features of Claim 16, as described above.
Wang further teaches wherein an edge of a portion of the first plate-shaped body (Wang FIG. 7, showing plate-shaped body to which sterile drape 124 is attached located around the slider (Wang FIG. 7, rod 92 and quick disconnect fastener 98 when connected to front loading tool driver 84) is coplanar with an edge of the separator main body (Wang FIG. 7, quick disconnect fastener 98) located around the slider.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0168753 – “Scheib”) in view of Wang et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0087238 – “Wang”) and Hörer (US PGPUB 2012/0227751 – “Hörer”).
Regarding Claim 17, Scheib in view of Wang teaches the features of Claim 16, as described above.
Scheib in view of Wang does not explicitly teach:
the drape comprises a first adhesive layer provided on a side of the flexible body facing the separator main body and a second adhesive layer provided on a side of the separator main body facing the flexible body, and
wherein the flexible sheet comprises an interposed portion interposed between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer.
Hörer teaches:
the drape comprises a first adhesive layer provided on a side of the flexible body facing the separator main body and a second adhesive layer provided on a side of the separator main body facing the flexible body (Hörer FIG. 4, surgical drape 10 and tape 15; Hörer paragraph [0057], “the surgical drape 10 has an opposed upper end 11. To fix the placement tool 1 to the patient 2, the upper end 11 has one side of a piece of tape 15 having adhesive on both sides adhered thereto”), and
wherein the flexible sheet comprises an interposed portion interposed between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer (Hörer FIG. 1, interior layer of surgical drape 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hörer’s double-sided tape with the drape taught by Scheib in view of Wang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a drape that can be affixed to both a placement tool and the patient, in order to secure the placement tool to a specific position relative to the patient.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0168753 – “Scheib”) in view of Wang et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0087238 – “Wang”), Hörer (US PGPUB 2012/0227751 – “Hörer”), and Calderwood (US PGPUB 2002/0133058 – “Calderwood”).
Regarding Claim 18, Scheib in view of Wang and Hörer teaches the features of Claim 17, as described above.
Scheib further discloses wherein the flexible sheet is attached to the first adhesive layer (Scheib paragraph [0063], “Coupling the sterile drape to the peripheral projection may include…epoxy or other adhesive”).
Scheib in view of Wang and Hörer does not explicitly teach:
wherein the flexible body comprises an opening portion, and
wherein the sheet is attached so as not to cover the opening portion.
Calderwood teaches:
wherein the flexible body (Calderwood FIG. 3, ring segments 18) comprises an opening portion (Calderwood FIG. 3, showing opening within ring segments 18), and
wherein the sheet (Calderwood FIG. 3, flexible plastic material 20) is attached so as not to cover the opening portion (Calderwood FIG. 3, showing flexible plastic material 20 connected to the outer periphery of ring segments 18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Calerdwood’s ring segments with the drape taught by Scheib in view of Wang and Hörer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a drape that allows an instrument to pass through the flexible body (see Calderwood FIG. 1).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0168753 – “Scheib”) in view of Soto et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0099232 – “Soto”).
Regarding Claim 22, Scheib teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Scheib does not explicitly teach another flexible sheet between the attachment and the medical robot, the another flexible sheet being not fixed to the flexible body and preventing the another flexible sheet from being pinched between the attachment and the medical robot.
Soto teaches another flexible sheet (Soto FIG. 6, surgical drape 22) between the attachment (Soto FIG. 6, instrument mounting system 20) and the medical robot (Soto FIG. 6, surgical robot 11), the another flexible sheet being not fixed to the flexible body and preventing the another flexible sheet from being pinched between the attachment and the medical robot (Soto FIG. 6, showing surgical drape 22 secured by drape belts 58/60 covering surgical robot 11 and instrument mounting system 20, without any structure of fixed to a flexible body or preventing another flexible sheet from being pinched between the instrument mounting system 20 and the surgical robot 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Soto’s overdrape 22 with the drape system taught by Scheib. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a draping system that provides redundant protection to the medical robot from dust, dirt, patient fluids, etc.
Regarding Claim 23, Scheib discloses:
A drape (Scheib FIG. 12B, sterile drape 1270) for covering a medical robot (Scheib paragraph [0006], “a sterile adapter for use in a robotic surgical system”), the drape comprising:
an attachment (Scheib FIG. 12B, surgical tool 20 attached to frame 1210) detachably attached to the medical robot (Scheib FIG. 12B, tool driver 10 detachably attached to frame 1210);
a flexible sheet (Scheib FIG. 12B, sterile drape 1270) covering the medical robot, the flexible sheet being fixed to the attachment (Scheib paragraph [0060], “a sterile drape 1270 may be coupled to the peripheral projection 1260, such as through thermal bonding, thereby forming a sterile barrier that may be used to cover the tool driver”); and
a flexible body (Scheib FIG. 12B, peripheral projection 1260) between the attachment and the medical robot (Scheib paragraph [0061], “the peripheral projection 1260 may extend between about 0.2 cm and about 1.5 cm, between about 0.5 cm and about 1.0 cm, or between about 0.5 cm and 0.7 cm (e.g., about 0.6 cm)”, thereby preventing drape 1270 from being pinched between frame 1210 and tool driver 10).
Scheib does not explicitly teach the flexible body being not fixed to the flexible sheet and preventing the flexible sheet from being pinched between the attachment and the medical robot.
Soto teaches the flexible body being not fixed to the flexible sheet (Soto FIG. 6, surgical drape 22) and preventing the flexible sheet from being pinched between the attachment and the medical robot (Soto FIG. 6, showing surgical drape 22 secured by drape belts 58/60 covering surgical robot 11 and instrument mounting system 20, without any structure of fixed to a flexible body or preventing another flexible sheet from being pinched between the instrument mounting system 20 and the surgical robot 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Soto’s overdrape 22 with the drape system taught by Scheib. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a draping system that provides redundant protection to the medical robot from dust, dirt, patient fluids, etc.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed May 22, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-2 and 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive, in view of the present amendments that include the newly-claimed features of “wherein the flexible body comprises a first plate-shaped body and a second plate-shaped body that orthogonal to the first plate-shaped body, wherein each of the first plate-shaped body and the second plate-shaped body has an extending portion that extends outward from an outer surface of the attachment and wherein the flexible sheet is fixed to the first plate-shaped body and the second plate- shaped body”. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of a second embodiment of Scheib et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0168753 – “Scheib”), as described above in the rejection of exemplary Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1-2 and 4-7 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed May 22, 206, with respect to the rejection of Claim 3 have been fully considered by they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues on page 12 that the purpose of the transparent/translucent dome 645 in FIG. 6A of Richmond et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0143429 – “Richmond”) is not to see the flexible sheet, but rather to see the robotic arm. First, the claim does not claim that the purpose of the translucent flexible body is to see the flexible sheet. Second, even if this feature would claim, it would provide no structural limitation in the claimed feature of making the flexible body translucent. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 3 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14, filed May 22, 206, with respect to the rejection of Claims 12-16 and 19-20 have been fully considered by they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Wang et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0087238 – “Wang”) does not teach a sterile drape connected to an instrument attachment. Wang is not cited for this feature. Rather, Scheib is cited for teaching an attachment (Scheib FIG. 12B, surgical tool 20 attached to frame 1210) and a flexible sheet (Scheib FIG. 12B, sterile drape 1270) fixed to the attachment (Scheib paragraph [0060], “a sterile drape 1270 may be coupled to the peripheral projection 1260” (and thus surgical tool 20), “such as through thermal bonding, thereby forming a sterile barrier that may be used to cover the tool driver”). Thus, the rejection of Claims 12-16 and 19-20 is maintained.
Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes the following:
Perkins (US Patent 5,496,259 – “Perkins”) teaches in Perkins FIG. 3 a polyethylene film drape 44 that forms a sleeve that covers a handle portion and an attached sterile grip mechanism 36.
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 JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
07/16/26
Prosecution Insights