DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 and 21-24 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/12/2026.
Claims 13-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/06/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-12, 15-16 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 lines 4-6 recite the limitation “the first robotic arm comprising a first setup linkage and a first distal manipulator linkage that collectively define a first hardware-constrained remote center of motion”. However, the originally filed application fails to disclose this limitation and therefore is considered new matter.
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.
Claims 1-12, 15-16 and 21-22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 lines 4-6 recite the limitation “the first robotic arm comprising a first setup linkage and a first distal manipulator linkage that collectively define a first hardware-constrained remote center of motion”. It is unclear how the first setup linkage and the first distal manipulator linkage collectively define a first hardware-constrained remote center of motion.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-12, 15-16 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mintz (US 20190000576 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mintz discloses a surgical robotics system (see Figs. 5-10; 36) comprising: a table-based robotic system (43, 38, 37) comprising a shared mount platform (43) and a table (38) supported on a column (37); a first robotic arm (39) coupled to the shared mount platform, the first robotic arm comprising a first setup linkage (distal linkage of 39) and a first distal manipulator linkage (see Figs. 18, 22A-22D and 23A-23C; 1800) that collectively define a first hardware-constrained remote center of motion (1845), the first setup linkage being adjustable to manipulate a pose of the first distal manipulator linkage and a location of the first hardware-constrained remote center of motion (see paragraph [0091], wherein the arms 39 may be mounted on the carriages through a set of arm mounts 45 comprising a series of joints that may individually rotate and/or telescopically extend to provide additional configurability to the robotic arms 39), the first distal manipulator linkage being mechanically constrained (via 1820) to isolate a degree of freedom of motion of a first tool (1825) coupled thereto to articulate the first tool about the first hardware-constrained remote center of motion (see paragraph [0153], wherein the instrument driver 1820 can move the medical instrument 1825 in other degrees of freedom, for example roll of the medical instrument 1825 around the insertion axis 1825B); and a second robotic arm (see Figs. 5-10; any other 39) coupled to the shared mount platform (43), the second robotic arm comprising a second setup linkage (distal linkage of 39) and a second distal manipulator linkage (see Figs. 18, 22A-22D and 23A-23C; 1800) that collectively define a second hardware-constrained remote center of motion (1845), the second setup linkage being adjustable to manipulate a pose of the second distal manipulator linkage and a location of the second hardware-constrained remote center of motion (see paragraph [0091], wherein the arms 39 may be mounted on the carriages through a set of arm mounts 45 comprising a series of joints that may individually rotate and/or telescopically extend to provide additional configurability to the robotic arms 39), the second distal manipulator linkage being mechanically constrained (via 1820) to isolate a degree of freedom of motion of a second tool (1825) coupled thereto to articulate the second tool about the second hardware-constrained remote center of motion (see paragraph [0153], wherein the instrument driver 1820 can move the medical instrument 1825 in other degrees of freedom, for example roll of the medical instrument 1825 around the insertion axis 1825B).
Regarding claim 2, Mintz discloses the shared mount platform (43) comprises a shoulder (shoulder between 43 and 45) coupled to the column (37), a first link coupled to the shoulder by a first rotary joint, and a second link coupled to the first link by a second rotary joint (see Figs. 5-10, wherein a plurality of links and joints are disclosed between the distal link of 39 and the shoulder 45).
Regarding claim 3, Mintz discloses the shared mount platform (43) further comprises an adjustable arm support (45) coupled to the second link, the adjustable arm support being configured to support the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm thereon (see Figs. 5-10).
Regarding claim 4, Mintz discloses the first distal manipulator linkage (1800) constrains the motion of the first tool (1825) in a single joint (1805E).
Regarding claim 5, Mintz discloses the distal manipulator linkage (1800) constrains the motion of the first tool (1825) in a set of joints (1805A-1805E).
Regarding claim 6, Mintz discloses the first robotic arm (39) comprises a base yaw joint (see Fig. 18; 1805A) coupling the first setup linkage (distal linkage of 39) to the first distal manipulator linkage (1800), the base yaw joint having a rotational axis (1835A) that extends through the first hardware-constrained remote center of motion (1845).
Regarding claim 7, Mintz discloses the first robotic arm (39) can reposition the first distal manipulator linkage (1800) while maintaining the first hardware-constrained remote center of motion (1845; see paragraph [0156], wherein actuation of the motorized joints 1805A-1805E of robotic arm 1800 can be controlled programmatically by the controller 206 (automatically or in response to user guidance at console 200) based on different sets of motion constrains corresponding to different medical procedures…the robotic arm 1800 can be controlled via a software-constrained remote center architecture).
Regarding claim 8, Mintz discloses the first distal manipulator linkage (1800) of the first robotic arm (39) comprises a parallelogram linkage (see Fig. 18; 1810A-1810D) configured to articulate about the first hardware-constrained remote center of motion (1845).
Regarding claim 10, Mintz discloses the parallelogram linkage (1810A-1810D) comprises four links that are rotatably coupled to each other at three rotary joints (1805B, 1805C, 1805D), the three rotary joints being configured to rotate in a 1:1:1 ratio (see paragraph [0156], wherein actuation of the motorized joints 1805A-1805E of robotic arm 1800 can be controlled programmatically by the controller 206 (automatically or in response to user guidance at console 200) based on different sets of motion constrains corresponding to different medical procedures…the robotic arm 1800 can be controlled via a software-constrained remote center architecture. Therefore, the rotary joints can be configured to rotate in a 1:1:1 ratio).
Regarding claim 11, Mintz discloses the four links (see Fig. 18; 1810A-1810D) comprise a pitch base link (18010A), a first pitch link (18010B), a second pitch link (18010C), and a stage link (1810D), the pitch base link being coupled to the first pitch link via a first pitch joint (1805B), the first pitch link being coupled to the second pitch link via a second pitch joint (1805C), and the second pitch link being coupled to the stage link via a third pitch joint (1805C).
Regarding claim 12, Mintz discloses the stage link (1810D) supports a tool driver (1820), the tool driver being configured to support the first tool (1825) thereby for articulation about the first hardware-constrained remote center of motion (1845).
Regarding claim 15, Mintz discloses the first setup linkage (distal linkage of 39) comprises a roll joint (see paragraph [0091], wherein a set of arm mounts 45 comprising a series of joints that may individually rotate and/or telescopically extend).
Regarding claim 16, Mintz discloses the first setup linkage (distal linkage of 39) is a robotic setup joint that is motorized (see paragraph [0027], wherein motorized joints are disclosed).
Regarding claim 21, Mintz discloses the shared mount platform (43) comprises a rail (44), wherein the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm are supported on the rail (see Figs. 5-10).
Regarding claim 22, Mintz discloses the first robotic arm (39) is configured to limit teleoperated motion of the first tool (1825) to joints of the first distal manipulator linkage (1800) while a proximal part of the first robotic arm does not move during the teleoperated motion (see Figs. 22A-22D and 23A-23C).
Regarding claim 23, Mintz discloses a surgical robotics system (see Figs. 5-10; 36) comprising: a surgical table (46, 37, 38) comprising a base (46), a column (37) supported on the base, and a patient platform (38) supported on the column, the patient platform being configured to support a patient thereon; a rail (44) coupled to the surgical table; a first robotic arm (39) supported on the rail, the first robotic arm comprising a first setup linkage (distal linkage of 39) and a first distal manipulator linkage (see Figs. 18, 22A-22D and 23A-23C; 1800), the first distal manipulator linkage being mechanically constrained (via 1820) to isolate a degree of freedom of motion of a first tool (1825) coupled thereto about a first hardware-constrained remote center of motion (1845), the first setup linkage being adjustable to manipulate a pose of the first distal manipulator linkage and a location of the first hardware-constrained remote center of motion (see paragraph [0091], wherein the arms 39 may be mounted on the carriages through a set of arm mounts 45 comprising a series of joints that may individually rotate and/or telescopically extend to provide additional configurability to the robotic arms 39); and a second robotic arm (see Figs. 5-10; any other 39) supported on the rail (44), the second robotic arm comprising a second setup linkage (distal linkage of 39) and a second distal manipulator linkage (see Figs. 18, 22A-22D and 23A-23C; 1800), the second distal manipulator linkage being mechanically constrained (via 1820) to isolate a degree of freedom of motion of a second tool (1825) coupled thereto about a second hardware-constrained remote center of motion (1845), the second setup linkage being adjustable to manipulate a pose of the second distal manipulator linkage and a location of the second hardware-constrained remote center of motion (see paragraph [0091], wherein the arms 39 may be mounted on the carriages through a set of arm mounts 45 comprising a series of joints that may individually rotate and/or telescopically extend to provide additional configurability to the robotic arms 39).
Regarding claim 24, Mintz discloses a surgical robotics system (see Figs. 5-10; 36) comprising: a column (37); a rail (44) coupled to the column; a first robotic arm (39) supported on the rail, the first robotic arm comprising a first setup linkage (distal linkage of 39) and a first distal manipulator linkage (see Figs. 18, 22A-22D and 23A-23C; 1800), the first distal manipulator linkage being mechanically constrained (via 1820) to isolate a degree of freedom of motion of a first tool (1825) coupled thereto about a first hardware-constrained remote center of motion (1845), the first setup linkage being adjustable to manipulate a pose of the first distal manipulator linkage and a location of the first hardware-constrained remote center of motion (see paragraph [0091], wherein the arms 39 may be mounted on the carriages through a set of arm mounts 45 comprising a series of joints that may individually rotate and/or telescopically extend to provide additional configurability to the robotic arms 39), the first robotic arm being configured to limit teleoperated motion of the first tool to joints of the first distal manipulator linkage while a proximal part of the first robotic arm does not move during the teleoperated motion of the first tool (see Figs. 22A-22D and 23A-23C); and a second robotic arm (see Figs. 5-10; any other 39) supported on the rail (44), the second robotic arm comprising a second setup linkage (distal linkage of 39) and a second distal manipulator linkage (see Figs. 18, 22A-22D and 23A-23C; 1800), the second distal manipulator linkage being mechanically constrained (via 1820) to isolate a degree of freedom of motion of a second tool (1825) coupled thereto about a second hardware-constrained remote center of motion (1845), the second setup linkage being adjustable to manipulate a pose of the second distal manipulator linkage and a location of the second hardware-constrained remote center of motion (see paragraph [0091], wherein the arms 39 may be mounted on the carriages through a set of arm mounts 45 comprising a series of joints that may individually rotate and/or telescopically extend to provide additional configurability to the robotic arms 39), the second robotic arm being configured to limit teleoperated motion of the second tool to joints of the second distal manipulator linkage while a proximal part of the second robotic arm does not move during the teleoperated motion of the second tool (see Figs. 22A-22D and 23A-23C).
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 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mintz (US 20190000576 A1) in view of Schena (US 20130325032 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Mintz fails to disclose the parallelogram linkage comprises one powered joint and two passive joints, wherein rotation of the passive joints is mechanically constrained by a limiter mechanism comprising a band, belt, chain, or link. However, Schena teaches the parallelogram linkage (see Fig. 6; 70) comprises one powered joint (80) and two passive joints (84, 88), wherein rotation of the passive joints is mechanically constrained by a limiter mechanism comprising a band, belt, chain, or link (see paragraph [0062], wherein belts or links are disclosed). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Mintz with one powered joint and two passive joints constrained by a limiter mechanism, as taught by Schena, so that rotation of the second parallelogram link 86 relative to the first parallelogram link 82 can be driven by rotation of the first parallelogram link 82 relative to the extension link 78 such that the same relative orientation between the second parallelogram link 86 and the extension link 78 is maintained for all angular orientation of the first parallelogram link 82 relative to the extension link 78 and so that rotation of the conical sweep mechanism 90 relative to the second parallelogram link 86 can be driven by rotation of the second parallelogram link 86 relative to the first parallelogram link 82 such that the same relative orientation between the insertion axis 96 and the first parallelogram link 82 is maintained for all angular orientation of the second parallelogram link 86 relative to the first parallelogram link 82 (see paragraph [0062]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that amended claim 14 is directed to the elected Subspecies C, and should be rejoined and examined on the merits, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. According the MPEP 821.04, “The propriety of a restriction requirement should be reconsidered when all the claims directed to the elected invention are in condition for allowance, and the nonelected invention(s) should be considered for rejoinder. Rejoinder involves withdrawal of a restriction requirement between an allowable elected invention and a nonelected invention and examination of the formerly nonelected invention on the merits. In order to be eligible for rejoinder, a claim to a nonelected invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim.” In this instance, no claims directed toward the elected species have been found allowable, and therefore the propriety of the restriction will not be reconsidered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Mintz does not disclose all the limitations of claim 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. More specifically, Applicant argues that Mintz discloses “the robotic arm 1800 can be controlled via a software-constrained remote center architecture” and not the “hardware-constrained remote center of motion” required by the claims. First, paragraph [0209] of the instant application reads “A hardware-constrained remote center of motion can include any mechanism that is able to isolate a degree of freedom (DoF) of laparoscopic tool motion to motion of a single joint or set of joints that only perform that motion”. Second, paragraph [0153] of Mintz reads “An instrument driver 1820 can be coupled to the second motorized joint 1805E to secure and/or manipulate medical instrument 1825. The instrument driver 1820 can be the instrument driver described with respect to FIG. 12 in some embodiments. Movement of the second motorized joint 1805E along the distal face 1815B of the fourth linkage 1810D and/or coordinate movement of the additional motorized joints 1805A-1805E, alone or together with one or more setup joints, can translate into linear motion of the medical instrument 1825 along the insertion axis 1825B.” As disclosed by paragraph [0153] and shown in Fig. 18 of Mintz, the joint 1805E alone can translate the medical instrument 1825 along the axis 1825B. More specifically, the joint 1805E includes a mechanism, 1820, that isolates a single degree of motion, i.e., along 1825B, of the tool 1825 to a single joint 1805E. As such, Mintz discloses a hardware-constrained remote center of motion consistent with Applicant’s own disclosure.
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights