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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 06/29/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-11, 13-21, and 23-28 remain pending in the application. The amendments overcome the claim objections and rejections under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the previous office action dated 02/27/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 06/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) in view of Irion have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 23 and 25 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) in view of Waterbury have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Waterbury further in view of Mishra which teaches operating the surgical system in a manual mode.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 24 in view of Waterbury have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Because the device of claims 1 and 24 recites an apparatus, the device of Waterbury need only be configured to perform the intended function of having a manual repositioning control mode. The surgery system is at least configured such that an operator can manually grasp and adjust the position of one of the arms during use, and thereby manually controlling a position of the instrument. Therefore, applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waterbury (US 2019/0231450).
Regarding claim 1, Waterbury discloses an arthroscopic surgery system (100 and 40, FIG 1-2, [0059]) for assisting a surgeon in performing surgery (abstract, [0059]) comprising: a frame (110) configurable to extend above or beside at least a portion of a patient to be operated (Patient side cart 100 is understood to be positioned adjacent to the patient, [0059-0060]); and one or more surgical arms (120, 130, 140, 150, FIG 3, [0060]) extending from the frame (FIG 1), wherein each surgical arm is configured to work with one or more different arthroscopic instruments (Instruments 200, FIG 3, [0067]. [0072-0073] discloses the variety of end effectors for use with the instruments which can be arthroscopic instruments); wherein the system is configured to provide a plurality of distinct control methodologies for controlling the one or more surgical arms and the associated one or more arthroscopic instruments during arthroscopic surgery (The arms are arranged to perform the surgery, [0072-0073], as directed by the surgeon using surgeon console 40, [0063-0066, 0068, 0072]), the control methodologies comprising:(i) a manual repositioning control mode in which the surgeon physically repositions at least one of the surgical arms (The surgery system is at least configured such that an operator can manually grasp and adjust the position of one of the arms during use, and thereby manually controlling a position of the instrument);(ii) a manual gesturing control mode in which physical movement applied by the surgeon to a controller associated with one of the surgical arms is translated into controlled movement of one of the arthroscopic instruments ( Operation mode using left and right input devices 41, 42, [0064-0065 and 0072]); and (iii) a precision robotic control mode in which the surgeon controls powered movement of one of the arthroscopic instruments using a controller input device (wherein 43 is the controller input device, [0065] discloses an additional mode where f the processor 43 is used to implement the methods, cross-coupling control logic, and controllers described herein” and [0066] discloses that 43 can implement software. This operation mode is interpreted as a precision robotic control mode operated by pressing a button on a screen for example); wherein the plurality of control methodologies are selectively operable by the surgeon during a surgical procedure (The surgeon is able to choose which method of operation to apply).
Regarding claim 2, Waterbury discloses each of the one or more surgical arms extend from a corresponding one or more plurality of locations on the frame (Extending from their respective attachment points to the frame, FIG 1, [0060-0061]).
Regarding claim 9, Waterbury discloses at least one of the one or more surgical arms comprises a modular end plate (122, FIG 3, [0067-0039] which includes 124, 126, and 128. The holder is modular because it releasably attaches to instrument 200) which is configured to engage with a variety of different arthroscopic instruments (Instruments 200, FIG 3, [0067]. [0072-0073] discloses the variety of end effectors for use with the instruments which can be arthroscopic instruments).
Regarding claim 10, Waterbury discloses the modular end plate includes one or more electronic, sensing and/or drive elements and/or interface elements configured to engage with corresponding elements of an arthroscopic instrument (interference elements 128 and 128 directly engage with 220 of the instrument and form parts of the transmission assembly 210, which controls actuation of the end effector and translation of the instrument [0069-0071]).
Regarding claim 13, Waterbury discloses a hand unit (210, wherein 210 is formed at the proximal end of shaft 220 and is releasable from 128, [0070], therefore it can be placed in the hand of a user) associated with a surgical arm of the one or more surgical arms and/or the modular end plate (210 is associated with the arm when connected to 128), wherein the hand unit is configured to be positioned in a user's hand for the manual movement of the one or more of the surgical arms (210 is at least configured to be positioned in the hand of a user and used to manually control a position of the instrument or arm or example if the robotic control was disconnected).
Regarding claim 14, Waterbury discloses at least one of the surgical arms has at least three degrees of freedom and more preferably at least six degrees of freedom selected from the group consisting of: (i) forward; (ii) back; (iii) up; (iv) down; (v) left; (vi) right; (vii) yaw; (viii) pitch; and (ix) roll (The pivotal connections of the arm shown in FIG 3 comprises at least 6 degrees of freedom, [0056]).
Regarding claim 24, Waterbury discloses an arthroscopic surgery system (100 and 40, FIG 1-2, [0059]) for assisting a surgeon in performing surgery (abstract, [0059]) comprising: a frame (110) configurable to extend above or beside at least a portion of a patient to be operated (Patient side cart 100 is understood to be positioned adjacent to the patient, [0059-0060]); and one or more surgical arms (120, 130, 140, 150, FIG 3, [0060]) extending from the frame (FIG 1), wherein each surgical arm comprises a modular end plate (122, FIG 3, [0067-0039] which includes 124, 126, and 128. The holder is modular because it releasably attaches to instrument 200) configured to work with a variety of different arthroscopic instruments (Instruments 200, FIG 3, [0067]. [0072-0073] discloses the variety of end effectors for use with the instruments which can be arthroscopic instruments); one or more arthroscopic instrument (200) coupled, in use, to the one or more surgical arms via the modular end plate (Via the connection between 122 and 180/200 as described in [0067-0069]); wherein the system is configured to provide a plurality of distinct control methodologies for controlling the one or more surgical arms and the associated one or more arthroscopic instruments (The arms are arranged to perform the surgery, [0072-0073], as directed by the surgeon using surgeon console 40, [0063-0066, 0068, 0072]), the control methodologies comprising:(i) a manual repositioning control mode permitting physical repositioning of at least one of the surgical arms (The surgery system is at least configured such that an operator can manually grasp and adjust the position of one of the arms during use, and thereby manually controlling a position of the instrument);(ii) a manual gesturing control mode in which physical movement applied to a controller associated with a surgical arms is translated into controlled movement of an the arthroscopic instruments via the modular end plate (Operation mode using left and right input devices 41, 42, [0064-0065 and 0072]); and (iii) a precision robotic control mode in which powered movement of an arthroscopic instruments is controlled via the modular end plate (wherein 43 is the controller input device, [0065] discloses an additional mode where f the processor 43 is used to implement the methods, cross-coupling control logic, and controllers described herein” and [0066] discloses that 43 can implement software. This operation mode is interpreted as a precision robotic control mode operated by pressing a button on a screen for example).
Regarding claim 26, Waterbury discloses at least one controller used to operate one or more of the control methodologies is mounted at or adjacent a distal portion of a surgical arm, such that the surgeon is able to operate said control methodology while remaining at the patient during surgery ([0066] discloses “although being shown as part of or being physically adjacent to the surgeon console 40, the processor 43 may also be distributed as subunits throughout the telesurgery system”).
Regarding claim 27, Waterbury discloses a console (40), comprising a display (45, [0139]) and one or more user input devices (41, 42, 44) to enable a user to interact with the system when operating one or more of the control methodologies ([0064-0065]).
Regarding claim 28, Waterbury discloses at least one of the one or more surgical arms is in wireless communication with a controller of the system during operation of one or more of the control methodologies (Controller 43 communicates wirelessly with the surgical arms because the arms are a part of patient side cart 100, FIG 1, which is shown to be a separate structure from surgeon console 40, FIG 2).
Regarding claim 1, Waterbury discloses in an alternative interpretation an arthroscopic surgery system (100 and 40, FIG 1-2, [0059]) for assisting a surgeon in performing surgery (abstract, [0059]) comprising: a frame (110 including the linages of 120, 130, 140, 150 and instrument holder 122, FIG 3, [0069]) configurable to extend above or beside at least a portion of a patient to be operated (Patient side cart 100 is understood to be positioned adjacent to the patient, [0059-0060]); and one or more surgical arms (210) extending from the frame (FIG 3), wherein each surgical arm is configured to work with one or more different arthroscopic instruments (210 is connected to shaft 220 which can comprise a variety of different end effectors 230. [0072-0073] discloses the variety of end effectors for use with the instruments which can be arthroscopic instruments); wherein the system is configured to provide a plurality of distinct control methodologies for controlling the one or more surgical arms and the associated one or more arthroscopic instruments during arthroscopic surgery (The arms are arranged to perform the surgery, [0072-0073], as directed by the surgeon using surgeon console 40, [0063-0066, 0068, 0072]), the control methodologies comprising:(i) a manual repositioning control mode in which the surgeon physically repositions at least one of the surgical arms (The surgery system is at least configured such that an operator can manually grasp and adjust the position of one of the arms during use, and thereby manually controlling a position of the instrument);(ii) a manual gesturing control mode in which physical movement applied by the surgeon to a controller associated with one of the surgical arms is translated into controlled movement of one of the arthroscopic instruments ( Operation mode using left and right input devices 41, 42, [0064-0065 and 0072]); and (iii) a precision robotic control mode in which the surgeon controls powered movement of one of the arthroscopic instruments using a controller input device (wherein 43 is the controller input device, [0065] discloses an additional mode where f the processor 43 is used to implement the methods, cross-coupling control logic, and controllers described herein” and [0066] discloses that 43 can implement software. This operation mode is interpreted as a precision robotic control mode operated by pressing a button on a screen for example); wherein the plurality of control methodologies are selectively operable by the surgeon during a surgical procedure (The surgeon is able to choose which method of operation to apply).
Regarding claim 2, Waterbury discloses in the alternative interpretation each of the one or more surgical arms extend from a corresponding one or more plurality of locations on the frame (Extending from their respective attachment points to the frame, FIG 1 and 3, [0060-0061]).
Regarding claim 3, Waterbury discloses in the alternative interpretation the one or more surgical arms are removably coupled to the frame (210 is removable from 128 of the frame, [0070]).
Regarding claim 4, Waterbury discloses in the alternative interpretation the one or more surgical arms are configured to be driven along a track provided on the frame (210 is driven along the track 124 provided on the frame, [0069]).
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.
Claim(s) 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waterbury (US 2019/0231450) in view of Irion et al. (US 2003/0229338).
Regarding claims 5-8, Waterbury discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Waterbury is silent regarding the frame at least comprises an annular frame assembly for receiving one or more of the surgical arms, wherein at least the annular frame assembly is rotatable, wherein the annular frame assembly further comprises intersecting frame sections passing through a geometrically central region of the annular frame assembly, the frame sections being coupled to an articulable arm during use, and wherein the intersecting frame sections are mutually perpendicular to each other.
However, Irion discloses an arthroscopic surgery system (10, FIG 1, the device is at least configured for use in an arthroscopic procedure) for assisting a surgeon in performing surgery (By assisting in repeatable and reliable placement of the surgical tool) comprising: a frame (Holder 20, including 54, 22, 34, FIGs 1-3) configurable to extend above or beside at least a portion of a patient to be operated ([0067, 0081], wherein 14 is the portion of the patient to be operated, FIG 1-2); and one or more surgical arms (12) extending from the frame (FIG 1-2), wherein each surgical arm is configured to work with a variety of different arthroscopic instruments (The arm 12 is at least configured to comprise a variety of end effectors, [0004] discloses scissor, forceps, and endoscope); wherein the frame at least comprises an annular frame assembly (54, see annular shape in FIG 3-4) for receiving one or more of the surgical arms (54 is an integral part of the frame which receives and attaches to arm 12), at least the annular frame assembly is rotatable (54 can be rotated to achieved a desired positioning on the body surface 14 of the patient, [0081]. Rotation is possible prior to application of an adhesive as contemplated in [0083]), the annular frame assembly further comprises intersecting frame sections (22 and 34) passing through a geometrically central region of the annular frame assembly (FIG 3), the frame sections being coupled to an articulable arm during use (82 and 78 attach to 22 and 34, FIGS 1-2, and are interpreted as articulable arms because they rotate during use to articulate the frame sections, [0087-0090]), and the intersecting frame sections are mutually perpendicular to each other (FIG 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the shape of the frame of Waterbury with that taught by Irion, thereby comprising a rotatable annular frame assembly having mutually perpendicular intersecting frame sections passing through a geometrically central region of the annular frame assembly and coupled to an articulable arm during use, for the purpose of substituting a frame shape configured to achieve a desired positioning and degree of motion relative to a patient in a manner which is advantageous for a particular procedure.
Claim(s) 11, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waterbury (US 2019/0231450) in view of Mishra et al. (US 2025/0235274).
Regarding claims 11, Waterbury discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 9.
Waterbury is silent regarding the modular end plate comprises one or more buttons which can be used to control the surgical arm.
However, Mishra et al. discloses a surgery system (FIG 1) having a frame (61) and a surgical arm (40, FIG 2, [0041]), wherein the surgical arm comprises a modular end plate (46 and 52,[0047]) configured to engage with a variety of different instruments ([0047], 52 attaches to instrument 50), the modular end plate comprises one or more buttons (53, FIG 1, [0048]) which can be used to control the surgical arm (53 are manual override buttons, allowing for the user to place the arm in manual mode), wherein the one or more buttons are configured to put the surgical arm into a manual mode wherein the surgical arm can be physically repositioned by a user ([0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the modular end plate of Waterbury to comprise one or more buttons configured to put the surgical arm into a manual mode wherein the surgical arm can be physically repositioned by a user, as taught by Mishra et al., for the purpose of providing a mechanism to switch between robotic and manual control of the surgical arms.
Regarding claim 23, Waterbury discloses a method of arthroscopic surgery ([0011] discloses the method may be used during an arthroscopic surgery), the method comprising the steps of: providing an arthroscopic surgery apparatus (100, FIGs 1-2. The method of performing a surgery includes a step of providing the equipment in an operating room) comprising a frame (110) and one or more surgical arms (120, 130, 140, 150, FIG 3, [0060]) extending from the frame (FIG 1); attaching an arthroscopic instrument to one or more of the surgical arms (Instruments 200, FIG 3, [0067]. [0072-0073] discloses the variety of end effectors for use with the instruments which can be arthroscopic instruments. The instruments are releaseably attached to the arms); positioning the frame and/or attached arthroscopic instrument to extend above or beside at least a portion of a patient to be operated ([0071] “. As the instrument holder carriage 128 translates along the instrument holder frame 124, the elongate shaft 220 of the surgical instrument 200 is moved along the longitudinal axis 222. In such a manner, the end effector 230 can be inserted and/or retracted from a surgical workspace within the body of a patient”); and utilising the one or more surgical arms to assist a surgeon when performing surgery (The arms are arranged to perform the surgery, [0072-0073], as directed by the surgeon using console 40, [0063-0066]); wherein the method further comprises selectively operating a plurality of distinct control methodologies during the surgical procedure(The arms are arranged to perform the surgery, [0072-0073], as directed by the surgeon using surgeon console 40, [0063-0066, 0068, 0072]), the control methodologies comprising: (ii) applying physical movement to a controller (41, 42) associated with a surgical arm to cause controlled movement of an arthroscopic instrument (Operation mode using left and right input devices 41, 42, [0064-0065 and 0072]); and (iii) controlling powered movement of an arthroscopic instrument using a controller input device (wherein 43 is the controller input device, [0065] discloses an additional mode where f the processor 43 is used to implement the methods, cross-coupling control logic, and controllers described herein” and [0066] discloses that 43 can implement software. This operation mode is interpreted as a precision robotic control mode operated by pressing a button on a screen for example).
Waterbury is silent regarding a control methodology of manually physically repositioning at least one of the surgical arms.
However, Mishra et al. discloses a surgery system (FIG 1) having a frame (61) and a surgical arm (40, FIG 2, [0041]), wherein the surgical arm comprises a modular end plate (46 and 52,[0047]) configured to engage with a variety of different instruments ([0047], 52 attaches to instrument 50), the modular end plate comprises one or more buttons (53, FIG 1, [0048]) which can be used to control the surgical arm (53 are manual override buttons, allowing for the user to place the arm in manual mode), wherein the one or more buttons are configured to put the surgical arm into a manual mode wherein the surgical arm can be physically repositioned by a user ([0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system Waterbury to comprise one or more buttons configured to put the surgical arm into a manual mode and complete a step where the surgical arm is physically repositioned by a user, as taught by Mishra et al., for the purpose of providing a mechanism to switch between robotic and manual control of the surgical arms and allow the operator to control positioning of the instrument at the surgical site instead of remotely.
Regarding claim 25, Waterbury discloses a method of performing arthroscopic surgery ([0011] discloses the method may be used during an arthroscopic surgery) comprising: providing an arthroscopic surgery system (100 and 40, FIGs 1-2. The method of performing a surgery includes a step of providing the equipment in an operating room) for assisting a surgeon in performing surgery (By transferring the input of the surgeon at the console 40 to the patient side cart 100 which operates on the patient), wherein the arthroscopic surgery system comprises a frame a frame (110) configurable to extend above or beside at least a portion of a patient to be operated (Patient side cart 100 is understood to be positioned adjacent to the patient, [0059-0060]) and one or more surgical arms (120, 130, 140, 150, FIG 3, [0060]) extending from the frame (FIG 1), wherein each surgical arm comprises a modular end plate (122, FIG 3, [0067-0039] which includes 124, 126, and 128. The holder is modular because it releasably attaches to instrument 200) configured to work with a variety of different arthroscopic instruments (Instruments 200, FIG 3, [0067]. [0072-0073] discloses the variety of end effectors for use with the instruments which can be arthroscopic instruments); attaching an arthroscopic instrument to each surgical arm via a modular end plate ([0067] discloses A cannula 180 and a surgical instrument 200 and are, in turn, releasably coupled to the instrument holder 122), wherein the arthroscopic instrument comprises an identifier (The specific end effector 230 is interpreted as an identifier because it identifies the instrument and allows for a determination to be made of which instrument is best suited for a particular operation, FIG 3-6, [0072]); identifying the arthroscopic instrument utilising the identifier ([0072] discloses the instruments of at least some of the manipulators are removed and replaced during a surgical procedure. Replacing the surgical instrument requires visual inspection of the end effector to determine which instrument is desired, therefore comprising a step of identifying the arthroscopic instrument utilising the identifier); selectively operating a plurality of distinct control methodologies for controlling the arthroscopic instrument via the modular end plate (The arms are arranged to perform the surgery, [0072-0073], as directed by the surgeon using surgeon console 40, [0063-0066, 0068, 0072]), the control methodologies comprising: (ii) manual gesturing control in which physical movement applied to a controller (41, 42) associated with a surgical arm is translated into controlled movement of the arthroscopic instrument (Operation mode using left and right input devices 41, 42, [0064-0065 and 0072]); and (iii) precision robotic control in which powered movement of the arthroscopic instrument is controlled via the modular end plate (wherein 43 is a controller input device, [0065] discloses an additional mode where the processor 43 is used to implement the methods, cross-coupling control logic, and controllers described herein” and [0066] discloses that 43 can implement software. This operation mode is interpreted as a precision robotic control mode operated by pressing a button on a screen for example).
Waterbury is silent regarding a control methodology of manually physically repositioning at least one of the surgical arms.
However, Mishra et al. discloses a surgery system (FIG 1) having a frame (61) and a surgical arm (40, FIG 2, [0041]), wherein the surgical arm comprises a modular end plate (46 and 52,[0047]) configured to engage with a variety of different instruments ([0047], 52 attaches to instrument 50), the modular end plate comprises one or more buttons (53, FIG 1, [0048]) which can be used to control the surgical arm (53 are manual override buttons, allowing for the user to place the arm in manual mode), wherein the one or more buttons are configured to put the surgical arm into a manual mode wherein the surgical arm can be physically repositioned by a user ([0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system Waterbury to comprise one or more buttons configured to put the surgical arm into a manual mode and complete a step where the surgical arm is physically repositioned by a user, as taught by Mishra et al., for the purpose of providing a mechanism to switch between robotic and manual control of the surgical arms and allow the operator to control positioning of the instrument at the surgical site instead of remotely.
Claim(s) 15-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waterbury (US 2019/0231450) in view of Bonutti et al. (US 2017/0112577).
Regarding claim 15, Waterbury discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Waterbury is silent regarding at least one drape configured to extend over at least one of the one or more surgical arms.
However, Bonutti et al. discloses an arthroscopic surgery system (100, FIG 1, [0060 and 0075] describe the system being used in arthroscopic procedures) comprising at least one drape (0031]) configured to extend over at least one or more surgical arms (Arms 212, FIG 2 of the component 112, wherein the drape can be disposed over tool 230 which is equivalent to an arm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system to further comprise a drape configured to extend over at least one of the surgical arms, as taught by Bonutti, for the purpose of providing a sterilization cover to a part of the instrument which may be manually operated by a user such as to change out the surgical instrument for one with a different end effector.
Regarding claim 16-17, Waterbury discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Waterbury is silent regarding the one or more arthroscopic instruments include an identifier to allow the system to identify the arthroscopic instrument of the one or more arthroscopic instruments attached, in use, to a surgical arm wherein the identifier comprises an electronic tag.
However, Bonutti et al. discloses an arthroscopic surgery system (100, FIG 1, [0060 and 0075] describe the system being used in arthroscopic procedures) having one or more arthroscopic instruments (214, FIG 2, [0029]) having an identifier (250, FIG 2, [0033]) to allow the system to identify the arthroscopic instrument attached, in use, to a surgical arm ([0033] discloses identifier 250 is used to locate the instrument) wherein the identifier comprises an electronic tag (The identifier 250 is understood to be an electronic tag because is configured for use with “a scanner 302 that is configured to locate procedural component markers 250 positioned on procedural components 112. Marker 250 information is transmitted to computing device 102 to determine component location relative to patient 200, other components of system 100, and/or the operating room”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system such that the instruments include an electronic tag identifier, as taught by Bonutti et al., for the purpose of aiding in the identification and locating of the instrument of the system in relation of the patient and operating space ([0033]).
Regarding claim 18, Waterbury discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Waterbury is silent regarding at least one of the one or more arthroscopic instruments comprises a surgical camera.
However, Bonutti et al. discloses an arthroscopic surgery system (100, FIG 1, [0060 and 0075] describe the system being used in arthroscopic procedures) having one or more arthroscopic instruments (214, FIG 2, [0029]), wherein at least one of the instruments is a camera (110, FIG 2, [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system such that at least one of the arthroscopic instruments comprises a surgical camera., , as taught by Bonutti, for the purpose of obtaining images of the surgical field and “For example, in a knee arthroplasty procedure, the imagine device(s) 110 used in the procedure would provide the surgeon images of the knee as well as relative joints (e.g., hip and ankle) to ensure an effective procedure” ([0033]).
Regarding claim 21, Waterbury discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Waterbury is silent regarding one or more consumables wherein the one or more consumables comprise a readable identifier and wherein the system further comprises a reader for reading the readable identifier and determining whether the one or more consumables are genuine consumables.
However, Bonutti et al. discloses an arthroscopic surgery system (100, FIG 1, [0060 and 0075] describe the system being used in arthroscopic procedures) having one or more arthroscopic instruments (214, FIG 2, [0029]) comprising one or more consumables (250, FIG 2, [0033]) wherein the one or more consumables comprise a readable identifier (The identifier 250 is understood to have an readable identifier because is configured for use with “a scanner 302 that is configured to locate procedural component markers 250 positioned on procedural components 112. Marker 250 information is transmitted to computing device 102 to determine component location relative to patient 200, other components of system 100, and/or the operating room”) and wherein the system further comprises a reader (Scanner 302) for reading the readable identifier and determining whether the one or more consumables are genuine consumables ([0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system to comprise a consumable having a readable identifier and a reader, as taught by Bonutti et al., for the purpose of aiding in the identification and locating of the instrument of the system in relation of the patient and operating space ([0033]).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waterbury (US 2019/0231450) in view of Bonutti et al. (US 2017/0112577), in further view of Tomatsu et al. (US 2025/0176804).
Regarding claim 19, Waterbury/Bonutti discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 18.
The device as modified by Bonutti is silent regarding the surgical camera comprising a reusable base portion including an interface for providing images from the camera and a disposable distal portion releasably coupled to the reusable base portion.
However, Tomatsu teaches a surgical system (FIG 2) having an arm (1420) holding an instrument (5005, 7100, 100), wherein the instrument comprises a surgical camera (5006, [0085-0086] discloses instrument 100 is an endoscope) comprising a reusable base portion (5005 and 7100, FIG 3, [0085-0086] wherein the base is resuable because it can be detached from 100) including an interface (5005) for providing images from the camera ([0060-0064]) and a disposable distal portion (100) releasably coupled to the reusable base portion ([0086] discloses 100 can be detached from 5005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the surgical camera such that it comprises a reusable base portion and a disposable distal portion, as taught by Tomatsu, for the purpose of reducing costs by allowing for some components of the camera to be sanitized and reused while other single-use components are disposed of.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waterbury (US 2019/0231450) in view of Russell et al. (US 2021/0290329).
Regarding claim 20, Waterbury discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Waterbury is silent regarding a fluid management system including one or more pumps and valves to regulate fluid pressure and/or flow and/or visual acuity at a surgery site, wherein the one or more pumps and valves are connected to the surgery site by tubing.
However, Russell teaches a surgical system (FIG 1) comprising a surgical arm (104, FIG 2, [0027-0029]) configured to work with a surgical instrument ([0036] tool drive 206 is operably connected to a variety of surgical instruments) and wherein the system comprises a fluid management system (212, [0004 and 0037] “A fluid pathway (e.g., port, tube, lumen, channel, or the like) that allows for transmission of a fluid (e.g., insufflation gas) along the robotic arm, and directly to the cannula, is further integrated into the system“) including one or more pumps (214) and valves ([0004] “a valve that enables the flow of fluid to be stopped as desired”) to regulate fluid pressure and/or flow and/or visual acuity at a surgery site (“for controlling gas flow to/from the surgical site”), wherein the one or more pumps and valves are connected to the surgery site by tubing ([0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Waterbury to comprise a fluid management system including one or more pumps and valves to regulate fluid pressure and/or flow at a surgery site, wherein the one or more pumps and valves are connected to the surgery site by tubing, as taught by Russell, for the purpose of providing the ability to control a flow of fluid to and from the surgical site to allow for smoke evacuation, particulate removal, pneumoperitoneum, or management of other conditions within the associated surgical site or surgical cavity during the surgical procedure (Russell [0037]).
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 BROOKE N LABRANCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 5712727134. 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.
/BROOKE LABRANCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights