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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0331613) in view Robinson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0228264).
Regarding claim 1 and 14, Lee et al. disclose a surgical robotic system comprising:
an operating table having a table top (the top/upper surface of “table 401B,” see [0100]-[0101] and figures 8E-8F, and alternate/equivalent counterparts in other embodiments) mounted on a pedestal (“column 402B,” see [0102] and figures 8E-8F, and alternate/equivalent counterparts in other embodiments);
a table adapter (one or more of “column rings 405B and 405C,” see [0101] and figures 8E-8F, and alternate/equivalent counterparts in other embodiments) directly connected to the pedestal; and
a plurality of robotic arms (the plurality of “robotic arms 470A,” see [0094]-[0095] and figures 4A-4B, and 8C-8F, and alternate/equivalent counterparts in other embodiments) directly connected to the table adapter of the operating table and stowable at different locations underneath the operating table (see figures 8A-8F),
wherein the table adapter is movable vertically up and down with respect to the pedestal (see abstract, [0006], [0086], [0088]-[0090] for example).
Lee et al. fail to disclose a tool drive coupled to each of the plurality of robotic arms, the tool drive having longitudinal tracks slidingly engaged with a tool carriage configured to receive a tool.
Like Lee et al., Robinson et al. disclose a surgical robotic system having a plurality of robotic arms attached to surgical instruments, a surgical table and table top and teach providing the system with a tool drive (“actuating portion 158,” see [0046] and figure 2A) coupled to each of the plurality of robotic arms, the tool drive having longitudinal tracks (see the tracks in figure 2A) slidingly engaged with a tool carriage (“mountable housing 401,” see [0065] and figures 2A-2D) configured to receive a tool (“proximal end of the shaft 404,” see [0067] and figures 2A-2D) in order to provide a known and workable manner of enhancing manipulation of each surgical tool.
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 Lee et al., as taught by Robinson et al., to provide the system with a tool drive coupled to each of the plurality of robotic arms, the tool drive having longitudinal tracks slidingly engaged with a tool carriage configured to receive a tool in order to provide a known and workable manner of enhancing manipulation of each surgical tool.
Regarding claims 2-4, and 15-17, Lee et al. show the invention but fail to recite:
the carriage includes a plurality of rotary drives configured to operate the tool {claims 2, and 15};
the plurality of rotary drives are arranged in two rows {claim 3, and 16};
the carriage includes a motor with a hollow rotor and a planetary gear transmission at least partially disposed within the hollow rotor {claim 4}.
Like Lee et al., Robinson et al. disclose a surgical robotic system having a plurality of robotic arms attached to surgical instruments, a surgical table and table top and teach providing the system with the carriage that include a plurality of rotary drives (“rotatable drivers 234,” see [0065] and figure 2C) arranged in rows, having a hollow rotor (“rotatable receiving members 418,” see [0065]-[0066] and figures 2B-2D) and a planetary gear transmission (“pins 422 of rotatable receiving members 418,” see [0073]-[0074] and figures 2B-2D) at least partially disposed within the hollow rotor (see figures 2B-2D) and configured to operate the tool in order to provide a known and workable manner of enhancing manipulation of each surgical tool.
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 Lee et al., as taught by Robinson et al., to provide the system with the carriage that include a plurality of rotary drives arranged in rows, having a hollow rotor and a planetary gear at least partially disposed within the hollow rotor and configured to operate the tool in order to provide a known and workable manner of enhancing manipulation of each surgical tool.
Regarding claims 5, and 18, Lee et al. disclose the table adapter includes a single structure coupled to the pedestal that supports the plurality of robotic arms, see figures 4A-4B, and 8A-8F.
Regarding claims 6, and 19, Lee et al. disclose the table adapter includes two interface
mechanisms on opposite sides of the operating table (the two opposing positions of the column rings connected to the robotic arms 470C and 470D see figure 8E for example).
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al. disclose the table adapter is movable relative to
the operating table within a plane of the operating table ( considering a vertical plane passing through the table and pedestal, see abstract, [0006], [0086] for example).
Regarding claims 8-10, and 20, Lee et al. disclose the claimed invention see figures 8A-8F.
Regarding claims 11-12, Lee et al. disclose the claimed invention see figures 8A-8F.
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al. disclose the claimed invention see [0064] and [0131].
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