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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached information disclosure statement have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: securing mechanism in claim 16; structure found in e.g. instant Fig. 3, securing mechanism 120; instant specification [00122].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford (US 20170258535 A1; 9/14/2017; cited in IDS) in view of Fowler (US 20100081875 A1; 4/1/2010; cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Crawford teaches a surgical system (Fig. 1-2) comprising:
a robotic manipulator supporting a guide tube (Fig. 6; Fig. 8; [0066]-[0067]); and
an instrument configured to be temporarily fixed to the guide tube (Fig. 6; Fig. 8; [0066]-[0067]).
Crawford does not teach temporarily fixed through magnetic coupling. However, Fowler teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 12; [0137]) temporarily fixed through magnetic coupling ([0109]; [0120]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Crawford to use these features as taught by Fowler because this is advantageous for attaching mechanical parts in surgical device ([0120]; MPEP 2144.07 art recognized suitability for an intended purpose).
In the combination of Crawford and Fowler, Crawford teaches a tracker configured to be supported by the instrument (Fig. 6; Fig. 8; [0066]-[0067] “tracking array 612”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Crawford and Fowler teaches the guide tube includes a top end and bottom end (Crawford Fig. 6; Fig. 8, guide tube 606; [0066]-[0067]);
the guide tube defines a channel extending between the top end and the bottom end (Crawford Fig. 6; Fig. 8, guide tube 606; [0066]-[0067]); and
the instrument comprises a body configured to be inserted into the channel when the instrument is temporarily fixed to the guide tube (Crawford Fig. 6; Fig. 8, guide tube 606, instrument 608; [0066]-[0067]) through magnetic coupling (Fowler [0120]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Crawford to use these features as taught by Fowler because this is advantageous for attaching mechanical parts in surgical device ([0120]; MPEP 2144.07 art recognized suitability for an intended purpose).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Crawford and Fowler teaches wherein the body comprises magnetic material configured to magnetically couple to the guide tube (Fowler [0120]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Crawford to use these features as taught by Fowler because this is advantageous for attaching mechanical parts in surgical device ([0120]; MPEP 2144.07 art recognized suitability for an intended purpose).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Crawford and Fowler teaches wherein the body comprises a flange configured to abut either the top end or the bottom end of the guide tube when the instrument is temporarily fixed to the guide tube (Crawford Fig. 8, there is a flared out or stop section that would prevent instrument 608 from sliding all the way into guide tube 606) through magnetic coupling (Fowler [0120]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Crawford to use these features as taught by Fowler because this is advantageous for attaching mechanical parts in surgical device ([0120]; MPEP 2144.07 art recognized suitability for an intended purpose).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Crawford and Fowler teaches wherein the instrument is configured to be inserted into the channel through the top end of the guide tube, and wherein the flange is configured to abut and rest upon the top end of the guide tube when the instrument is temporarily fixed to the guide tube (Crawford Fig. 8, there is a flared out or stop section that would prevent instrument 608 from sliding all the way into guide tube 606) through magnetic coupling (Fowler [0120]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Crawford to use these features as taught by Fowler because this is advantageous for attaching mechanical parts in surgical device ([0120]; MPEP 2144.07 art recognized suitability for an intended purpose).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Crawford and Fowler teaches wherein the instrument includes a grip portion coupled to the body and being configured to extend from the guide tube when the instrument is temporarily fixed to the guide tube (Crawford Fig. 8, there is a flared out or stop section that would prevent instrument 608 from sliding all the way into guide tube 606; Fig. 13C, handle 620; [0094]) through magnetic coupling (Fowler [0120]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Crawford to use these features as taught by Fowler because this is advantageous for attaching mechanical parts in surgical device ([0120]; MPEP 2144.07 art recognized suitability for an intended purpose).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Crawford and Fowler teaches wherein the grip portion defines the flange (Crawford Fig. 8, there is a flared out or stop section that would prevent instrument 608 from sliding all the way into guide tube 606; Fig. 13C, handle 620; [0094]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Crawford and Fowler teaches wherein the instrument is configured to be inserted into the channel through the top end of the guide tube, and wherein the grip portion is configured to extend from the top end of the guide tube when the instrument is temporarily fixed to the guide tube (Crawford Fig. 8, there is a flared out or stop section that would prevent instrument 608 from sliding all the way into guide tube 606; Fig. 13C, handle 620; [0094]) through magnetic coupling (Fowler [0120]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Crawford to use these features as taught by Fowler because this is advantageous for attaching mechanical parts in surgical device ([0120]; MPEP 2144.07 art recognized suitability for an intended purpose).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Crawford and Fowler teaches wherein the instrument comprises a shaft that extends from the body, and wherein the tracker is configured to be supported by the shaft (Crawford Fig. 6; Fig. 8, instrument 608, tracking array 612; [0066]-[0067]; [0093] “may be affixed to the instrument”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Crawford and Fowler teaches the tracker is configured to be removably attached to the shaft (Crawford Fig. 6; Fig. 8, instrument 608, tracking array 612; [0067] “may be mounted…may be attached”; [0093] “may be affixed to the instrument”; it is clear from reference that the tracking array can be removed; alternatively this would be an obvious modification via making separable; MPEP 2144.04 V); and
the tracker comprises a coupling interface configured to be installed onto and secured to the shaft (Crawford Fig. 6; Fig. 8, instrument 608, tracking array 612; [0067] “may be mounted…may be attached”; [0093] “may be affixed to the instrument”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Crawford and Fowler teaches wherein the coupling interface supports a securing mechanism disposed perpendicular to an axis of the shaft and the securing mechanism is configured to be manipulated to apply force to the shaft to secure the tracker to the shaft (Crawford Fig. 6; Fig. 8, instrument 608, tracking array 612; Fig. 14; [0049] “may be mounted (or otherwise secured)…further mounted (or otherwise secured) to the surgical tools 608”; [0081] “may be securely attached”).
Regarding claim 17, Crawford teaches a surgical instrument (Fig. 1-2) for use with a robotic manipulator that supports a guide tube (Fig. 6; Fig. 8; [0066]-[0067]), the surgical instrument comprising:
a body configured to be temporarily fixed to the guide tube (Fig. 6; Fig. 8; [0066]-[0067]).
Crawford does not teach temporarily fixed through magnetic coupling. However, Fowler teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 12; [0137]) temporarily fixed through magnetic coupling ([0109]; [0120]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Crawford to use these features as taught by Fowler because this is advantageous for attaching mechanical parts in surgical device ([0120]; MPEP 2144.07 art recognized suitability for an intended purpose).
In the combination of Crawford and Fowler, Crawford teaches the body being configured to support a tracker (Fig. 6; Fig. 8; [0066]-[0067] “tracking array 612”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Crawford and Fowler teaches wherein the guide tube includes a top end and bottom end and the guide tube defines a channel extending between the top end and the bottom end (Crawford Fig. 6; Fig. 8, guide tube 606; [0066]-[0067]), and wherein:
the body is configured to be inserted into the channel (Crawford Fig. 6; Fig. 8, guide tube 606, instrument 608; [0066]-[0067]);
the body comprises a flange configured to abut either the top end or the bottom end of the guide tube (Crawford Fig. 8, there is a flared out or stop section that would prevent instrument 608 from sliding all the way into guide tube 606); and
at least one of the body and the flange comprises magnetic material to magnetically couple to the guide tube (Fowler [0120]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Crawford to use these features as taught by Fowler because this is advantageous for attaching mechanical parts in surgical device ([0120]; MPEP 2144.07 art recognized suitability for an intended purpose).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 19, 20 is/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 prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of claim 5 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, wherein the flange comprises magnetic material configured to magnetically couple the flange to either the top end or the bottom end of the guide tube.
Fowler (US 20100081875 A1; 4/1/2010; cited in IDS) teaches using magnets and metallic materials ([0120]) but does not specifically teach use of a flange comprising magnetic material to couple to either top or bottom end of tube as recited.
The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of claim 7 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, wherein the instrument is configured to be inserted into the channel through the bottom end of the guide tube, and wherein the flange is configured to abut the bottom end of the guide tube when the instrument is temporarily fixed to the guide tube through magnetic coupling.
The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of claim 10 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, wherein the grip portion comprises magnetic material configured to magnetically couple the grip portion to either the top end or the bottom end of the guide tube.
The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of claim 12 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, wherein the instrument is configured to be inserted into the channel through the bottom end of the guide tube, and wherein the grip portion is configured to extend from the bottom end of the guide tube when the instrument is temporarily fixed to the guide tube through magnetic coupling.
The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of claim 15 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, the shaft includes a reference tip located at a distal end of the shaft; and
the coupling interface comprises a reference surface configured to abut the reference tip of the shaft.
This is best seen in instant Fig. 4.
The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of claim 19 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, a grip portion coupled to the body, wherein the grip portion defines the flange, and wherein the grip portion comprises a magnetic material configured to magnetically couple to the guide tube.
The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of claim 20 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, a shaft extending from the body, the shaft including a reference tip located at a distal end of the shaft, wherein the tracker comprises a coupling interface comprising a reference surface, the coupling interface configured to be installed onto and secured to the shaft to removably attach the tracker to the shaft, the reference surface being configured to abut the reference tip of the shaft.
This is best seen in instant Fig. 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan T Kuo whose telephone number is (408)918-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. PT.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/JONATHAN T KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights