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 § 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, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanchez et al. (US 20050043719).
Regarding claim 1, Sanchez discloses a robotic medical surgical system 10 docking connector 16 (Fig. 1) comprising:
a docking connector housing 18, 22 (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first and second handles 32 (Fig. 2, section 0021);
a programmable push button 120, 118, 116 at least on-one of said first and second handles 32 (Fig. 4, section 0032); and
a plurality of cable connectors (section 0019);
a plurality of controllers in said docking connector housing 18, 22 (Section 0019-0020);
a plurality of electrical interfaces in said docking connector housing 18, 22 (section 0018-0019);
an interface (telecommunication) for connecting a first end of said docking connector housing 18, 22 to a robotic surgical arm 12 (section 0018); and
a mechanical interface for connecting a second end of said docking connector housing to a robotic surgical end effector 52 (Fig. 3, section 0028).
Regarding claim 3, , Sanchez discloses a robotic medical surgical system 10 (Fig. 1)comprising:
a robotic surgical arm 12 (Fig. 1);
a docking connector 16 having a first end connected to an end of said robotic surgical arm (Figs. 1-2), said docking connector comprising:
a housing 18, 22 comprising:
a first and second handles 32 (Fig. 2, section 0021);
a programmable push button 116, 118, 120 at least on-one of said first and second handles 32 (Fig. 4, section 0032); and
a plurality of cable connectors (section 0019);
a plurality of controllers in said housing 18, 22(Section 0019-0020);
a plurality of electrical interfaces in said housing 18, 22 (section 0018-0019);
an interface (telecommunication) connecting said housing 18, 22 to said robotic surgical arm 12 (section 0018); and
a mechanical interface at a second end of said docking connector for connecting said housing to a robotic surgical end effector 52 (Fig. 3, section 0028);
a robotic surgical end effector 52 mechanically connected to said mechanical interface in said docking connector (Fig. 3, section 0028); and
a plurality of electrical cables connecting said robotic surgical end effector 52 to said electrical interfaces in said docking connector 16 (Figs. 1-3, section 0022, 0028, 0031).
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) 2 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez et al. (US 20050043719) in view of Crawford (US 20200305979), cited previously.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Sanchez discloses the invention substantially as claimed however does not show A robotic medical surgical system docking connector according to claim 1, wherein said plurality of electrical interfaces comprise: a digital input output interface; an analog input output interface; a CANopen interface; a USB (5V,GND, Sig1,2) interface; and a programmable MCU interface.
Crawford discloses said plurality of electrical interfaces comprise: a digital input output interface 565; an analog input output interface 563; a CANopen interface 540 (Fig. 79, section 0130, Motion control subsystem 540 can include driver circuit 542, motors 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, stabilizers 555, 556, 557, 558, end-effector 544, and controller 546 e.g., one or more processors and associated circuitry); a USB (5V,GND, Sig1,2) interface 567(Fig. 5, section 0118, The connector panel is located at the rear of the Robotic Base Station. The connector panel includes: an equipotential terminal 562, a foot pedal connector 563, a camera connector port 564, an HDMI connector 565, an ethernet connector 566, and dual USB 3.0 ports 567); and a programmable MCU interface (Fig. 79, section 0137, The processor may include one or more data processing circuits, such as a general purpose and/or special purpose processor, e.g., microprocessor and/or digital signal processor). This allows for proper electrical connections for the robotic arm system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the device of Sanchez by adding plurality of electrical interfaces as taught by Crawford in order to facilitate proper electrical connections for the robotic arm system.
Regarding claim 5, Sanchez in view of Crawford, specifically Crawford discloses sensors 526, 530, 532 or sound devices 526 such as mic/speakers 526 for voice recognition connected to the MCU 502, 520 or CANopen interface 540 the docking system (Fig. 79), wherein the sensors 530 are configured to be programmed and controlled through the MCU 520 or CANopen interface 540 (section 0138, software to operate robot 500. Computer 522 may receive and process information from other components (for example, tracking subsystem 530, platform subsystem 502, and/or motion control subsystem 540) in order to display information to the user. Further, computer subsystem 520 may include speaker 526 to provide audio notifications from the computer 522 to the user).
Regarding claim 6, Sanchez in view of Crawford, specifically Crawford discloses the sensors 526, 530, 532 comprise sound devices 526 (Fig. 79, section 0138, Computer 522 may receive and process information from other components (for example, tracking subsystem 530, platform subsystem 502, and/or motion control subsystem 540) in order to display information to the user. Further, computer subsystem 520 may include speaker 526 to provide audio notifications from the computer 522 to the user).
Regarding claim 8, Sanchez in view of Crawford, specifically Crawford discloses the docking connector 500 (Figs. 1-2, section 0113, The Robotic Base Station is the main control center for the robotic computer system and includes the components shown) only requires CAN data communication 540 and a main power source 506, 560 through the robotic surgical arm (Fig. 79, section 0131, Input power is supplied to robot 500 via a power source 560 which may be provided to power distribution module 504. Power distribution module 504 may be configured to provide different voltage supplies to platform network interface 512, which may be provided to other components such as power motors 550, 551, 552, 553, 554 and end-effector 544).
Regarding claim 9, Sanchez in view of Crawford, specifically Crawford discloses the electrical interfaces 570, 580, 590, 530, 520, 502, 540 are connected to the robotic surgical end effector interface 544 (Fig. 5, section 0118, The connector panel is located at the rear of the Robotic Base Station. This panel contains external connection ports for various devices. The connector panel includes: an equipotential terminal 562, a foot pedal connector 563, a camera connector port 564, an HDMI connector 565, an ethernet connector 566, and dual USB 3.0 ports 567. Fig. 79, section 0130, a block diagram of electronic components of a robot 500 portion of a robot surgical platform which is configured according to embodiments) and the docking connector 500 is programmed as input output for the robotic surgical arm (Section 0135, Control panel 516 may provide various buttons or indicators that control operation of robot 500 and/or provide information regarding robot 500. For example, control panel 516 may include buttons to power on or off robot 500, lift or lower stabilizers 555-558 that may be designed to engage casters to lock robot 500 from physically moving and/or to raise and lower the robot base and/or a vertical support for the robot arm.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez et al. (US 20050043719) in view Crawford (US 20200305979), cited previously and further in view of Barral (US 20190223961), cited previously.
Regarding claim 7, Sanchez in view of Crawford discloses the invention substantially as claimed, Crawford specfically discloses a speaker (Fig. 79, section 0138, Computer 522 may receive and process information from other components for example, tracking subsystem 530, platform subsystem 502, and/or motion control subsystem 540 in order to display information to the user. Further, computer subsystem 520 may include speaker 526 to provide audio notifications from the computer 522 to the user).
However, Sanchez in view of Crawford does not disclose the sound devices comprise a microphone. Barral discloses a robotic surgery device 121 with sound devices comprise a microphone 143 and a speaker 141 (Fig. 1, section 0019, 0022, surgical robot 121 including speaker 143, and microphone 141). This allows for the user to send voice commands to controller of the surgical robot. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the device of Sanchez in view of Crawford by adding a microphone as taught by Barral in order to facilitate the user to send voice commands to controller of the surgical robot.
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 JON ERIC C MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 830AM-530PM CST.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/JON ERIC C MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/J.C.M/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
