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
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iceman (US 2018/0042682 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Iceman discloses an apparatus, comprising: a chassis (base portion 106); one or more robotic arms (robotic arm 102) mounted to the chassis and configured to perform robotic surgery (Para. 0040); multiple wheel units (casters 110) comprising respective wheels and configured to alternate the wheels between a lower position, in which the wheels support the chassis, and an upper position; and one or more legs connected to the chassis and configured to support the chassis while the wheels are in the upper position (Para. 0047).
Regarding claim 3, Iceman discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. Iceman further discloses wherein each of the wheel units further comprises a rotating element coupled to the wheel of the wheel unit from above and configured to rotate between a wheel-down orientation, in which the wheel is in the lower position, and a wheel-up orientation, in which the wheel is in the upper position (Para. 0042).
Regarding claim 21, Iceman discloses an apparatus, comprising: a chassis (base portion 106); multiple wheel units (casters 110) comprising respective wheels and configured to alternate the wheels between a lower position, in which the wheels support the chassis, and an upper position (Figs. 3-4), each of the wheel units further comprising a rotating element coupled to the wheel of the wheel unit from above and configured to rotate between a wheel-down orientation, in which the wheel is in the lower position, and a wheel-up orientation, in which the wheel is in the upper position; and one or more legs connected to the chassis and configured to support the chassis while the wheels are in the upper position (see immobilization assembly 200 and vertical column 104; Figs. 3 & 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4 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.
5. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iceman.
Regarding claim 2, Iceman discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. Iceman differs from the invention as claimed because Iceman does not disclose wherein a maximum height of each of the wheel units from a base of the chassis is less than 15 cm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have include wherein a maximum height of each of the wheel units from a base of the chassis is less than 15 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The reason for making the modification would be to maximize the efficiency of the device while conforming to packaging constraints.
6. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iceman in view of Sarokhan et al. (US 2013/0231814 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Iceman discloses the apparatus according to claim 3. Iceman differs from the invention as claimed because Iceman does not disclose wherein each of the wheel units further comprises a wheel-down sensor configured to output a wheel-down signal indicating whether the rotating element is in the wheel-down orientation.
Sarokhan et al., however, teaches wherein each of the wheel units further comprises a wheel-down sensor configured to output a wheel-down signal indicating whether the rotating element is in the wheel-down orientation (Para. 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included wherein each of the wheel units further comprises a wheel-down sensor configured to output a wheel-down signal indicating whether the rotating element is in the wheel-down orientation as taught by Sarokhan et al. on the invention of Iceman for the purpose of providing for remote sensing and analysis of location (Para. 0084).
Regarding claim 5, Iceman discloses the apparatus according to claim 3. Iceman differs from the invention as claimed because Iceman does not disclose wherein each of the wheel units further comprises a wheel-up sensor configured to output a wheel-up signal indicating whether the rotating element is in the wheel-up orientation.
Sarokhan et al., however, teaches wherein each of the wheel units further comprises a wheel-up sensor configured to output a wheel-up signal indicating whether the rotating element is in the wheel-up orientation (Para. 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included wherein each of the wheel units further comprises a wheel-up sensor configured to output a wheel-up signal indicating whether the rotating element is in the wheel-up orientation as taught by Sarokhan et al. on the invention of Iceman for the purpose of providing for remote sensing and analysis of location (Para. 0084).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 6 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. The prior art does not fairly teach or disclose wherein each of the wheel units further comprises a pivot coupled to the chassis, wherein the rotating element comprises a first portion, which is coupled to the wheel, and a second portion, and wherein the rotating element is coupled to the pivot between the first portion and the second portion, such that the rotating element is configured to rotate about the pivot. Modifying the art to meet the claimed language would require hindsight reasoning to reconstruct the device. Claims 7-20 depend from claim 6.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and cited on PTO Form 892 is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY LYNN JOHNS whose telephone number is (313) 446-4852. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00-5:30.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303 297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L JOHNS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights