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
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)(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 1-5, 7-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Azizian et al. (U.S. Patent 2014/0163736).
Regarding claim 1, Azizian et al. disclose a system comprising:
a chassis (“Patient-Side Cart 3010 with multiple robot or movable arms,” see [0063] and figure 9);
at least three robotic arms (for example see the four robotic arms 32, 34, 36, and 38, see [0071] and figure 9) disposed on the chassis including at least one arm configured to carry a camera (arm 38 holds an endoscope having a camera, see [0071], [0074] and figure 9) and at least two arms each of which is configured to carry a surgical tool (see robotic arms 32, 34, and 36 hold instruments 31, 33, and 35 respectively, see [0071] and figure 9); and
a central control unit configured to kinematically track and coordinate the movement of the at least three robotic arms in a surgical robotic space relative to a common origin using robotic kinematics for arm localization without assistance of the navigation cameras or other imaging equipment during at least a portion of a robotic surgical procedure when viewing of at least one surgical tool by the camera is blocked (see [0014]-[0016], and [0045]-[0046] for example).
Regarding claim 2, Azizian et al. disclose the claimed invention, see [0014]-[0028].
Regarding claim 3, Azizian et al. disclose the claimed invention, see figure 9 where the first end is the left end/side and the second end is the right end/side.
Regarding claims 4-5, Azizian et al. disclose the claimed invention, see figure 8.
Regarding claim 7, Azizian et al. disclose the claimed invention, see the platforms 4012 in figure 13.
Regarding claim 8, Azizian et al. disclose the claimed at least a third robotic arm disposed on the chassis and carrying a camera or other sensor (arm 38 holds an endoscope having a camera, see [0071], [0074] and figure 9).
Regarding claim 9, Azizian et al. disclose the claimed invention see the handle arrangement (see figure 8 and 13) that serves as a user interface.
Regarding claim 11, Azizian et al. disclose a method for performing robotic surgery comprising:
providing a robotic surgical chassis (“Patient-Side Cart 3010 with multiple robot or movable arms,” see [0063] and figure 9) having a common origin and first and second robotic arms (for example see the four robotic arms 32, 34, 36, and 38, see [0071] and figure 9) mounted to move relative to the common origin;
controlling movement of the first and second robotic arms (see [0014]-[0028]) in a surgical robot coordinate space relative to the common origin using robotic kinematics for arm localization without the assistance of navigation cameras or other imaging equipment during at least a portion of the robotic surgery.
Regarding claim 12, Azizian et al. disclose robotically controlling the movement
of the at least two robotic arms with the assistance of navigation cameras or other imaging
equipment with or without using robotic kinematics for localization during at least another
portion of the robotic surgery (see [0014]-[0028]).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azizian et al. (U.S. Patent 2014/0163736) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Fukuno et al. (U.S. Patent 2022/0071718).
Regarding claim 6, Azizian et al. show the invention above but fail to explicitly recite the at least two robotic arms are configured to be folded into the single chassis during storage and positioning of the system under the surgical table.
Like Azizian et al., Fukuno et al. disclose a surgical robot having a mobile chassis/cart with multiple robotic arms and teach providing the system with multiple robotic arms that are folded into the chassis/cart in order to provide a known and workable way of storing the arms when they are not in use (see [0056] and figures 1, 4-5, and 7).
Therefore, at the time of the of invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Azizian et al., as taught by Fukuno et al., to the system with multiple robotic arms that are folded into the chassis/cart in order to provide a known and workable way of storing the arms when they are not in use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON F ROANE whose telephone number is (571)272-4771. The examiner can normally be reached generally Mon-Fri 8am-9pm.
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.
/AARON F ROANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights