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
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) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gombert et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0374445).
Gombert et al. discloses an end effector (2) for use with a surgical robotic arm formed of a plurality of links (3, 6) and joints (5, 5’) and a reamer tool, the reamer tool including a shaft, a tool engagement surface coupled to the shaft, and a reamer head attached to the shaft, the end effector comprising a mount (7) adapted to attach to the surgical robotic arm; a body portion (45) extending between a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end being coupled to the mount (7)(Figure 1); and a guide (11) located at the distal end of the body portion and being configured to receive the reamer tool, the guide including a pair of arms (14, 15), each arm extending to an arm end and the arm ends being spaced apart from one another to provide an opening between the arm ends (Figure 2), and wherein a channel is formed between the arms (Figure 2), the guide enabling a portion of the shaft to move through the opening between the arm ends such that the portion of the shaft can enter and exit the channel, the arms defining a guide engagement surface that is arc-shaped and configured to enable contact with the tool engagement surface to facilitate alignment of the reamer tool and the guide (Figure 2). It is noted that the robotic arm elements and the reamer are only functionally claimed. Thus on the structure of the end effector is claimed and what needs to be shown in the prior art to anticipate the claim 13 as well as any of the dependent claims that refer to the structure of the reamer or robotic arm.
Regarding claim 14, the opening of the guide is sized to be equal to or greater than a diameter of the shaft to permit the shaft to move through the opening and wherein the opening of the guide is sized to be lesser than a diameter of the tool engagement surface to prohibit the tool engagement surface to move through the opening. Depending on the specific reamer, the opening of the guide is sized to perform the claimed function
Regarding claim 15, the channel of the guide has a cylindrical profile (Figure 2) and a channel diameter that is greater than a diameter of the shaft and that is substantially equal to the tool engagement surface. Depending on the tool selected, the channel diameter sized for this limitation. Furthermore, from Figure 1, it can be construed that the shaft 12 of a tool is less that the channel diameter and there is a tool engagement gripped by 11 that has substantially equal diameter to the channel.
Regarding claim 16, the guide is configured to interchangeably support the reamer tool and an impactor tool (considered capable of).
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(s) 1, 2, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gombert et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0374445) in view of Suarez et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8753346).
Gombert et al. discloses a surgical system comprising: a surgical object (12) and a surgical robotic arm formed of a plurality of links (3, 6) and joints (5) and supporting a guide (11) configured to support the surgical object, the guide including a pair of arms (14, 15), each arm extending to an arm end and the arm ends being spaced apart from one another to provide an opening between the arm ends (Figure 2, 3), and wherein a channel is formed between the arms (Figure 2, 3), the guide enabling a portion of a shaft of the surgical object (Figure 3) shaft to move through the opening between the arm ends such that the portion of the shaft can enter and exit the channel (Figure 2, 3), the arms defining a guide engagement surface that is arc-shaped and configured to enable contact with a tool engagement surface to facilitate alignment of the surgical object (12) (Figure 1).
Gombert et al. fails to disclose that the surgical object is a reamer comprising a shaft, a tool engagement surface coupled to the shaft, and a reamer head attached to the shaft, wherein the reamer tool is configured to rotatably drive the reamer head. Suarez et al teaches a surgical system with a reamer (100) having a shaft (110), a tool engagement surface (104) and a reamer head (116) attached to the shaft. The reamer allows for hip replacement surgery. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to construct the system of Gombert et al. with the claimed reamer in view of Suarez so that a hip replacement surgery could be performed.
Regarding claim 2, Gombert et al. fails to disclose the system further comprising: an impactor tool comprising a head arranged to receive impact force, an interface adapted to releasably attach to a prosthesis, a shaft extending along a tool axis between the head and the interface, and an engagement surface disposed between the head and the interface; and wherein the guide is configured to interchangeably support the reamer tool and the impactor tool.
Suarez et al. teaches a surgical system with a reamer (100) and an impactor tool (300) comprising a head (312) arranged to receive impact force, an interface (300b) adapted to releasably attach to a prosthesis (316)(Column 10, Lines 50-67), a shaft extending along a tool axis between the head and the interface (Figure 10B), and an engagement surface disposed between the head and the interface (Area through end effector 40); and wherein the guide is configured to interchangeably support the reamer tool and the impactor tool (Column 10, Lines 35-37). The ability to switch tools allows for the robotic device to aid in the entire hip replacement surgery. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to construct the system of Gombert et al. that could switch between a reamer and impactor in view of Suarez so that the robot could aid in the entire hip replacement surgery.
Regarding claim 10, the guide engagement surface of Gombert et al. has a C-shaped profile (Figure 2, Gombert).
Regarding claim 11, the guide engagement surface defines a common arc having first and second arc ends each terminating at one of the arm ends, and wherein the common arc has an arc reference angle greater than 180-degrees (Figure 2, Gombert).
Regarding claim 12, the channel extends along a guide axis and the guide defines a length along the guide axis and wherein the channel extends along an entirety of the length of the guide (Figure 1, 2, Gombert).
Regarding claim 17, Gombert et al. discloses a tool assembly for use with a surgical robotic arm formed of a plurality of links and joints, an end effector comprising: amount (7) adapted to attach to the surgical robotic arm; a body portion (45) extending between a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end being coupled to the mount (7)(Figure 1); and a guide (11) located at the distal end of the body portion and being configured to receive the reamer tool, the guide including a pair of arms (14, 15), each arm extending to an arm end and the arm ends being spaced apart from one another to provide an opening between the arm ends (Figure 2), and wherein a channel is formed between the arms (Figure 2), the arms defining a guide engagement surface that is arc-shaped and configured to enable contact with the tool engagement surface to facilitate alignment of the reamer tool and the guide (Figure 2).
Gombert et al. fails to disclose that the tool assembly is a reamer comprising a shaft, a tool engagement surface coupled to the shaft, and a reamer head attached to the shaft, wherein the reamer tool is configured to rotatably drive the reamer head. Suarez et al teaches a surgical system with a reamer (100) having a shaft (110), a tool engagement surface (104) and a reamer head (116) attached to the shaft. The reamer allows for hip replacement surgery. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to construct the system of Gombert et al. with the claimed reamer in view of Suarez so that a hip replacement surgery could be performed. It is noted that the combination would allow for the guide portion enabling a portion of the shaft to move through the opening between the arm ends such that the portion of the shaft can enter and exit the channel.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gombert et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0374445) in view of Suarez et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8753346) and further in view of Auld et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0086932).
Gombert et al. and Suarez et al. disclose the invention except for the robotic arm comprise a force-torque sensor. Auld et al. teaches a robotic surgical system with a robotic arm (950) having a force-torque sensor (paragraph 116) for detecting movement of a surgical instrument (paragraph 116). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to construct the device of Gombert et al. and Suarez et al. with a force-torque sensor further in view of Auld et al. so that movements of the surgical instrument could be detected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 4-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art alone or in combination fails to disclose the surgical system further including a trigger coupled to the guide to control the surgical robotic arm. The reamer tool having a cylindrical profile having a first diameter, the tool engagement surface of the reamer having a second diameter that is larger than the first diameter. The tool further having a flange located on the shaft.
The prior art alone or in combination fails to disclose the method of operating a surgical system having a reamer head attached to the shaft, wherein the reamer tool is configured to rotatably drive the reamer head, and a surgical robotic arm supporting a guide having a pair of arms extending to an arm end and the arm ends being spaced apart from one another to provide an opening between the arm ends, and wherein a channel is formed between the arms, the guide enabling a portion of the shaft to move through the opening between the arm ends such that the portion of the shaft can enter and exit the channel, the arms defining a guide engagement surface that is arc-shaped. The shaft of the reamer tool is moved to enter the channel of the guide; with the shaft located in the channel, bringing the tool engagement surface into contact with the guide engagement surface for aligning the reamer tool with the guide; and with the reamer tool being aligned with the guide, controlling the surgical robotic arm to guide movement of the reamer tool relative to a surgical site.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 9:00 M-F.
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.
/ANDREW YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775