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 . 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 119 (drive transfer shaft). 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. 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 19-21 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.
Regarding claims 19-21, there is no antecedent basis for “the floating plate” in claim 19. Claims 20 and 21 depend from claim 19 and are therefore also indefinite.
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 2-6, 10-14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shelton (US 2014/0005640).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Shelton discloses a sterile interface module for coupling a robot instrument to a robot assembly including a body member (310, figs. 11-15) to selectively couple the robot instrument to the robot assembly ([0220]), and a plurality of drive transfer assemblies that protrude from the body (320 protruding from a surface on both the tool side and the assembly side), where the drive assemblies transmit rotational force to the robot instrument (300, fig. 15) from the robot assembly (330, fig. 11). Shelton further discloses an electrical connection through the body that includes a first connector (340) and a second connector (342) connected by a wire (whatever small, conductive element allows electrical transmission between the connectors, see [0222]). This electrical connection can be considered a “jumper” and/or “jumper assembly” within the breadth of those terms.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 18 and 19, the jumper is “supported” on the side of the body which faces the instrument via the jumper connection that connects to the instrument (342). The side of the body that connects to the instrument is the opposite side of the body which includes the protruding drive transfer assemblies which are for connecting to the robot assembly (cf. figs. 11 and 15). It is reiterated that one body side (316) faces the robot assembly and the other body side (314) faces the robot instrument. The jumper can be considered “supported” by the entire body, including both sides, as the jumper electrically connects the robot instrument to the robot assembly through the body.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 13 and 14, Shelton further discloses a floating plate (318, fig. 13) slidably supported and movable relative to the body to facilitate selective connection of the robot instrument to the body member ([0221]), where the floating plate has apertures for each of the drive transfer assemblies ([0221], fig. 13).
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.
Claims 7, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton in view of Anderson (US 2015/0051618).
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 20, Shelton does not disclose the floating plate is spring biased. However, using springs to bias movable elements in one direction or the other is common in the art. Anderson, for example, discloses a robotic system and generally teaches that an element can have a spring to bias a movable element in one direction or the other ([0033]) while specifically noting that the spring is not shown, presumably because springs to bias elements is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, before the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify any movable element in Shelton to be spring biased, such as suggested by Anderson, including the floating plate, that would produce the predictable result of biasing that movable element in a direction.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton in view of Strobl (US 2016/0270842).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Shelton does not disclose one of the electrical connectors is a pogo pin. However, pogo pins and many other kinds of electrical connectors are common in the art. Stroble, for example, discloses an electrosurgical system and teaches that connectors can be any of several times of connectors including pogo pins ([0133]). Therefore, before the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the module of Shelton to have any commonly known type of electrical connectors, including pogo pins as taught by Strobl, that would produce the predictable result of allowing the module to electrically connect to the robot instrument and/or the robot assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 16 and 21 (assuming claim 19 should depend from claim 13) 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: using pairs of tabs to lock elements together is very common in the art (e.g. figs. 6A-B of US 2007/0073247 to Ewaschuk or and figs. 5a-b of US 2015/0257841 to Dachs), and references such as Shelton discussed above include some form of latch to hold the parts of the system together (see discussion associated with elements 337 and 338 in fig. 11). However, the prior art does not teach that a floating plate (as defined in the claims relative to the body member and the drive transfer assembly) would benefit from tabs that extend through the second side of the body member. It is also noted that the floating pate being spring biased (claims 7 and 15) is not relevant to the allowability of claims 8, 16 and 21, but the rest of the limitations are.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Regarding a device which notes that a wire can be used as a jumper to form an electrical connection between two connectors, see paragraph [0025] of US 2017/0303989 to Kirwan. Regarding a related robotic system that shows the drive transfer assemblies extending farther from the body than Shelton, see figures 9 and 12B of US 2008/0046122 to Manzo. It is noted that numerous references were cited in the parent case (US 16/643,646) regarding jumpers. The more specific the pending claims get with respect to the now functionless jumper (being divorced, as the claimed invention is, from the broader system), the more likely it is that one or more of those references will become relevant enough to use in a rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL WAYNE FOWLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. 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.
/DANIEL W FOWLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights