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 . This office action is in response to the set of claims received on October 22, 2024. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2, lines 2-3 “an end effector DRB” should read --an end effector DRA--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2, line 3 “the patient DRB” should read --the patient DRA--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9, line 5 “the last robot arm” should read --the last one of the robot arms--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9, line 11 “the cameras” should read --the pair of optical cameras--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9, line 15 “the cameras” should read --the pair of optical cameras--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11, line 2 “a rotation” should read --the rotation--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13, line 3 “the robot arms” should read --the plurality of robot arms--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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 the limitation "the cutter axis" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the patient" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the cutting plane" in lines 5 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the range of movement" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the cutter axis" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the cutter DRB" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the patient" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the patient DRB" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what “DRB” stands for. It is recommended to spell out what DRB stands for.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "an end effector DRB" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the cutting plane" in lines 5 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the range of movement" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the cutting plane" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lavallee et al. (WO 2018/10945A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lavallee et al. discloses a robotic surgical system (Figure 2) comprising: a robot arm(100, Figure 2); an end effector (4, Figure 5) capable of being attached to the robot arm and having: a base (5, Figure 5) adapted to be moved by the robot arm of a surgical robot; a base arm (24, Figure 8B) extending from the base; a tracking system (200, Figure 2); a surgical cutter (2, Figure 2) for cutting a bone with a cutting element along a plane defined by rotation of the cutting element about the cutter axis, the surgical cutter (2, Figure 2) having a cutter dynamic reference array (DRA) (203, Figure 11) whose pose is trackable by the tracking system; a patient DRA (201, Figure 11) attachable to the patient and trackable by the tracking system such that the tracking system determines a pose of the surgical cutter relative to the patient based on tracking the cutter DRA and the patient DRA.
Regarding claim 2, Lavallee et al. discloses wherein the end effector includes an end effector DRB (202, Figure 11) for tracking by the tracking system.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavallee et al. (WO 2018/10945A1) in view of Lavallee et al. (WO 2018/104439 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Lavallee et al. fails to disclose wherein the end effector includes a sensor configured to sense a rotation of the surgical cutter and determine a rotational position of the surgical cutter relative to the end effector.
Lavallee et al. “4439”, however, discloses wherein the end effector (4, Figure 3) includes a sensor capable of sensing a rotation of the surgical cutter and determine a rotational position of the surgical cutter relative to the end effector (page 12, lines 37-38 and Figure 13, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Lavallee et al. “0945” with a sensor attached to the end effector as taught by Lavallee et al. “4439” in order to provide feedback information to a user about the end effector’s position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 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.
Claims 9-16 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: None of the prior art discloses a robotic surgical system comprising a plurality of robot arms, a tracking system having a pair of optical cameras, a cutter dynamic reference array and patient dynamic reference array containing optical markers for tracking by the cameras. These features, in combination with the other required limitations of the claim, is not shown in the prior art nor would it be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the prior art references in a manner that would read on the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA S JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-5963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8am to 4pm EST).
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at 571-272-4705. 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.
/Diana Jones/Examiner, Art Unit 3775
/KEVIN T TRUONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3775