DETAILED ACTION
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.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al U.S 2022/0133422.
Claim 1: Huang et al disclose a fastening device, comprising: a main body 200, wherein one end of the main body is connected to a robot arm 203; a receiving portion 202, wherein the receiving portion is in the main body, and the receiving portion has a receiving hole as best seen in fig. 5; a socket member (see paragraph 17) detachably disposed within the receiving hole, wherein the socket member has a through hole at the opening area 10511, fig. 5 that allows a surgical instrument (see paragraph 82) to be inserted into, a side of the socket member is provided with a gap along an axial direction of the through hole, the gap communicates with the through hole, and the socket member includes a limiting portion 203134, see paragraphs 20,42 that is disposed beside the gap; a first pressing member 203132 disposed on the main body; and a multi-link mechanism 300/301 disposed in the main body and the receiving portion, wherein the multi-link mechanism is connected to the first pressing member and the socket member; wherein the first pressing member 203132 can be pressed for driving the multi- link mechanism to push against the limiting portion to narrow the gap, such that the socket member is compressed to clamp the surgical instrument (see paragraphs 42,82).
Claims 2-3: Huang et al disclose wherein the multi-link mechanism includes a connecting rod (two connecting rods, see paragraphs 81) and a sliding block 203122, fig. 9, the connecting rod is disposed in the main body, the sliding block is disposed in the receiving portion, the first pressing member 203132 includes a protruding column 2011, the protruding column abuts against the connecting rod, and the sliding block abuts against the limiting portion 203134; further comprising a second
pressing member 203124, wherein the second pressing member is disposed on the
main body, the second pressing member includes at least one stopping
portion 203126, and the first pressing member further includes at least one
retaining groove; wherein, when the first pressing member is pressed, the at
least one stopping portion engages with the at least one retaining groove to
limit the first pressing member, and the protruding column pushes against
the connecting rod and drives the sliding block to push the limiting portion,
such that the socket member is compressed to clamp the surgical instrument (see fig. 9, paragraph 42).
Claim 4: Huang et al disclose wherein, when the second
pressing member 203124 is pressed, the at least one stopping portion 203126 disengages from the at least one retaining groove to return the first pressing member,
and the multi-link mechanism stops compressing the socket member due to
return of the first pressing member, such that the socket member is restored
and the surgical instrument is no longer clamped (see paragraph 42).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al.
Claim 12: Huang et al disclose a navigation system for a surgical instrument, comprising: a robot arm 203, the fastening device being connected to the robot arm (see fig. 13, claim 10), wherein the fastening device is used to clamp the surgical instrument; and a set of navigation marker elements disposed on the surgical instrument. Further, it is well known to have a set of navigation marker elements disposed on the surgical instrument (it is evidence in the same field of invention U.S 2022/0387121-Roach et al, fig. 1, paragraph 20- This disclosure can help to address these issues by including specialized instruments that allow for standard reference arrays to be secured to bones during a robotic surgical procedure. For example, a bone plate can be securable to a femur using one or more bone screws to help limit penetration distance of the fastener to help avoid interference with reaming operations. The plate can also include a hinge to allow the plate to be adjusted to accommodate bones of various sizes. The plate can include a registration marker connected thereto so that the optical navigation tracking system can identify and locate the plate to locate the bone within space, allowing the robotic surgical system to accurately track the location of the bones during a robotic-assisted surgical procedure. The plate can also attach to the bones using screws to help limit interference between the fasteners and a reamer or stem of an implant. [0021] The above discussion is intended to provide an overview of subject matter of the present patent application. It is not intended to provide an exclusive or exhaustive explanation of the invention. The description below is included to provide further information about the present patent application.
[0022] FIG. 1 illustrates a robotic surgical system 100 including a robotic surgical device 102 (e.g., a robot or a robotic arm) and a computing device 104 (e.g., a device having a processor) in accordance with at least one example of this disclosure. In an example, the robotic surgical device 102 and the computing device 104 may be coupled, such as communicatively coupled or physically connected.) So that the Huang et al in view of Roach et al would too have this advantage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-11 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (6:30-4:30).
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/VI X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights