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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the airflow channel (claim 6) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a second portion disposed in fluid communication with the first portion”. It is unclear what the limitation “in fluid communication” is in regards to, this could be air, which is a fluid, on the outside of the drape which would be in fluid communication, however it is unclear.
The remainder of the claims (2-9 and 11-15) are also rejected in that they depend from claim 1.
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 –
Claims 1-3, 5, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morita et al. US 2023/016675. i
Regarding claim 1: Morta discloses a surgical robot system (“surgical robot” with a drape, abstract, paragraph 0004) comprising:
a robotic arm (“arm of a surgical robot”, abstract, claim 1) extending between a distal end and a proximal end;
a keeper 43 ("base member”, paragraph 0058 and figures 2, 8A, 8B) coupled to the robotic arm, the keeper having an interface 43b/43c (“recesses” paragraph 0070 and figures 3, 5A and 5B, and
a drape (“drape unit”, title and paragraph 0005) including:
a first portion 51 (“first drape”, paragraph 0064 and figures 8A/8B) defining an opening shaped to receive the distal end of the robotic arm 51a (paragraphs 0064-65 and figures 8A/8B),
a second portion 52 (“second drape”, paragraph 0066 and figures 8A/8B) disposed in fluid communication with the first portion and defining a cavity shaped to accommodate a portion of the distal end of the robotic arm (paragraphs 0066-0068 and figures 8A/8B)
a guide 41/42 (“rotating member” and “joint member” figures 3 and 8A/8B) disposed between the first 51 (figures 8A/8B) and second portions 52 (figures 8A/8B) of the drape and having a guide interface 42b/42c (“fitting protrusions”, paragraph 0070) configured to releasably attach to the keeper interface of the keeper to secure the drape to the robotic arm (paragraphs 0058-63, 0067-68 and 0070-71).
Regarding claim 2: Morita discloses the keeper interface 43b/43c (paragraph 0070) of the keeper 43 (figures 2, 8A, 8B) includes a seat; and wherein the guide 43a (paragraph 0070) includes a retainer 42b/42c (paragraph 0070) operatively attached to the guide and shaped to releasably engage the seat of the keeper (paragraphs 0058-63, 0067-68 and 0070-71 also see figures 2-8).
Regarding claim 3: Morita discloses the guide 43a is partially formed of a resilient material (paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 5: Morita discloses that the guide 41/42 (figure 3) has an aperture with an inner parameter larger than an outer profile of the keeper 43 (figure 3; once elements 41 and 42 are connected there is an inner diameter of the two piece component, this inner diameter would be equivalent to the inner parameter of 42; 42 then has a large enough diameter to slip over 43. Stated differently the outer diameter of 142d is larger than the diameter of 43a, see figure 3).
Regarding claim 12: Morita discloses that the first drape 51 (figures 8A/8B) has a proximal portion (towards element 51 at the right side of the page) and a distal portion 51a (figures 8A/8B) which is coupled to guide 41/42 (figures 8A/8B).
Regarding claim 13: Morita discloses that the keeper 43 (figures 2, 8A, 8B) includes two interfaces 43b/43c (figure 6) and the guide 41/42 (figures 8A/8B) includes two interfaces 42b/42c (figure 3) to attach the components (paragraph 0070).
Regarding claims 14-15: Morita discloses that the keeper 43 (figure 8B) is integrated into the robotic arm adjacent to the distal end (figure 8B) and is removably connected to the robotic arm (figure 8A).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. US 2023/016675.
Regarding claim 4: Morita discloses the claimed invention however Morita does not disclose that the keeper interface has a taper with a ramped profile to resiliently enlarge the guide as the guide is passed over the keeper. Morita however does teach of an attachment mechanism for the rotating member 41 (figure 3) to the joint member which includes an edge protrusion 142c (figure 3) which is broadly considered to be a ramp with a taper. When the two components 41/42 are joined the rotating member 41 would be enlarged to slip over joint member 42 (paragraphs 0081). This illustrates an already known connection mechanism. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Morita to include a taper with a ramped profile to resiliently enlarge the guide as the guide is passed over the keeper as is shown in figure 3 of Morta, in order to join the two components in an ordinary manner.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. US 2023/016675 in view of Kazala, Jr. et a. US 2009/0299340.
Regarding claims 9 and 11: Morita discloses the claimed invention, however Morita does not disclose the materials for the drapes and that they can be the same or different materials. Kazala however teaches of first and second zones for a drape (paragraph 0031). The first and second zones can be formed of the same or different materials with one of the materials including polyisoprene (paragraph 0031). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Morita to include a drape which can have two or a singular material, as taught by Kazala, in order to have a resilient material (paragraph 0031).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are 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.
Specifically regarding claim 6, it is assumed that an airflow channel has structural components creating a channel, this is not shown in the drawings and is difficult to discern what applicant intends and airflow channel to be. However, the use of an airflow channel, which has structure, would read over the prior art.
Specifically regarding claims 7-8: the allowable subject matter includes the end effector including markers and the second portion of the drape including polyisoprene in order to view the markers once covered by the drape.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paula J. Stice whose telephone number is (303)297-4352. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am -4pm MST.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-272-5213. 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.
PAULA J. STICE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/PAULA J STICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
i Note that the Morita reference is a continuation of PCT/JP2020/015234 filed on 4/2/2020. The Morita et al. US 2023/016675 therefore qualifies as prior art in that PCT/JP2020/015234 was filed on 4/2/2020 which is prior to the priority date for this application which is 2/18/2022. Further the drawings and figure numbers in the PCT/JP2020/015234 match the drawings of Morita et al. US 2023/016675.
Prosecution Insights