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 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is 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 2 discloses the limitation “a scaled or translated mechanism”. The term “scaled mechanism” does not have a known embodiment in the art and the specification does not provide a corresponding hardware or software embodiment.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
It is unclear as to what is considered a “scaled mechanism” as the term does not have a known embodiment in the art and the specification does not provide a corresponding hardware or software embodiment
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the multiple degree of freedom serial chain mechanism" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutherland et al (2004/0111183) in view of Dong et al (2021/0007817).
Regarding claim 1, Sutherland et al disclose a hydraulic teleoperator for remote access inside an imaging scanner bore, comprising:
a base (wheeled base) from which is attached a multiple degree of freedom mechanism (each arm having a six of degrees of freedom of movement - abstract);
wherein the multiple degree of freedom mechanism is situated inside the imaging scanner bore (fig.10); and
wherein a teleoperator controls motions and forces of the multiple degree of freedom mechanism from a multiple degree of freedom control mechanism situated outside the imaging scanner bore (the workstation and control system has a pair of hand-controllers simultaneously manipulated by an operator to control movement of a respective one or both of the arms – abstract; fig.4; [0100]);
a single degree of freedom tool mechanism attached to a distal end of the multiple degree of freedom mechanism, wherein the single degree of freedom tool mechanism is situated inside the imaging scanner bore where the single degree of freedom tool mechanism controls a tool (collar at the actuator 149 which surrounds the tool and holds the tool along the axis of the actuator 148 – [0130]).
Sutherland et al fail to explicitly disclose wherein each degree of freedom of the multiple degree of freedom mechanism is controlled by hydraulic joints having chambers connected to a first set of hydraulic fluid lines, and wherein motions and forces of the single degree of freedom tool mechanism are controlled via second set of hydraulic fluid lines to an operator input that is outside the imaging scanner bore.
However, Dong et al teach in the same medical field of endeavor, control by hydraulic joints having chambers connected to a first set of hydraulic fluid lines , and control by a second set of hydraulic fluid lines to an operator input that is outside an imaging scanner bore (pair of piston-based cylinders (101, 102) being situated in a control room and an MRI room, respectively – [0068]; fig.1; plurality of tubes 103 - abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the multiple degree of freedom mechanism and single degree of freedom tool mechanism of Sutherland et al with hydraulic joints having chambers connected to a first set of hydraulic fluid lines and a second set of hydraulic fluid lines of Dong et al as it would provide an integrated fluid-powered transmission system for MRI-guided interventions (Dong et al – [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Sutherland et al disclose wherein the multiple degree of freedom control mechanism outside the imaging scanner bore is a translated mechanism of the multiple degree of freedom serial chain mechanism inside the imaging scanner bore ([0107]).
Regarding claim 3, Sutherland et al disclose wherein the multiple degree of freedom mechanism is a serial chain (fig.5), but fail to explicitly disclose with each degree of freedom being comprised of its own hydraulic joint connected to the first set of hydraulic lines.
However, Dong et al teach in the same medical field of endeavor, with each degree of freedom being comprised of its own hydraulic joint connected to a first set of hydraulic lines ([0072]; [0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the serial chain of Sutherland et al with each degree of freedom being comprised of its own hydraulic joint connected to a first set of hydraulic lines as it would provide an integrated fluid-powered transmission system for MRI-guided interventions (Dong et al – [0046]).
Regarding claim 4, Sutherland et al disclose wherein the multiple degree of freedom mechanism has six degrees of freedom, resulting in a total of seven degrees of freedom adding the single degree of freedom of the tool mechanism and as such enabling arbitrary positioning of the tool mechanism in all six degrees of a 3D space (each arm having a six degrees of freedom of movement…and an actuator which can slide along the axis - abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Sutherland et al disclose wherein the single degree of freedom tool mechanism is a biopsy needle insertion mechanism or an ablation needle insertion mechanism (needle driver – [0057]).
Regarding claim 6, Sutherland et al disclose wherein the single degree of freedom tool mechanism has at a distal end a skin contact point with a lumen for guidance of the tool (mobile ring – [0057]).
Regarding claim 7, Sutherland et al as modified by Dong et al disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the single degree of freedom tool mechanism has a pneumatic clutch for grip and release of a needle of the biopsy needle insertion mechanism or the ablation needle insertion mechanism.
However, Sutherland et al teaches prior art which includes a pneumatic gripper ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the single degree of freedom too mechanism gripping and releasing a needle of the biopsy needle insertion mechanism or the ablation needle insertion mechanism as it would provide a well-known and conventional fluid-powered transmission for controlling the device.
Regarding claim 9, Sutherland et al as modified by Dong et al disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Dong et al further teach in the same medical field of endeavor, wherein hydraulic fluid lines for each joint are crossed to achieve a one-to-one mapping of motion between the input and output (passive fluid transmission line – [0097]; fig.7. Examiner notes this language is disclosed to teach a passive device – [0021] of pgpub of the present application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teleoperator of Sutherland et al with the hydraulic fluid lines for each joint are crossed to achieve a one-to-one mapping of motion between the input and output as it would provide a well-known and conventional passive system.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Sutherland et al as modified by Dong et al disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Dong et al further teach in the same medical field of endeavor, wherein each chamber has a filling port and an exit port to mitigate trapped air in the hydraulic fluid lines and allowing fluid to be recycled during a filling process and wherein the filling ports house a one-way valve (fluid pipeline – fig.2; pressure regulating valve – [0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teleoperator of Sutherland et al with wherein each chamber has a filling port and an exit port to mitigate trapped air in the hydraulic fluid lines and allowing fluid to be recycled during a filling process as it would provide accurate pressurization of the system.
Regarding claim 12, Sutherland et al disclose wherein the imaging scanner bore is a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner bore (fig.10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROCHELLE DEANNA TURCHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30-2:30.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571)272-7230. 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.
/ROCHELLE D TURCHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797