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 .
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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axis" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 lines 11-12 recite …that is constrained by a surgical instrument guide…. The claim is unclear if this is the same surgical instrument guide recited earlier in the claim or a second surgical instrument guide.
Claim 1 lines 30-31 recite …that is constrained by a surgical instrument guide. The claim is unclear if this is the same surgical instrument guide recited earlier in the claim or a second/third surgical instrument guide.
Regarding claims 1-9, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For example, claim 1 lines 7-8 recite …a first surgical instrument (e.g. for removing tissue from the body).
Claim 10 lines 9-10 recite …that is constrained by a surgical instrument guide…. The claim is unclear if this is the same surgical instrument guide recited earlier in the claim or a second surgical instrument guide.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the axis" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 10-18, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For example, claim 10 lines 7-8 recite …a first surgical instrument (e.g. for removing tissue from the body).
The examiner recommends the applicant review the claims for any additional issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowable over the prior art. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as discussed above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1:
Crawford discloses a method comprising:
(claim 1) moving a mobile cart (15) transporting a robotic surgical system (for example see Figures 1-8b) including
(claim 1) a robotic arm (23) in proximity to an operating table
(claim 1) wherein the robotic arm has
(claim 1) an end effector (30) with
(claim 1) a surgical instrument guide (50) attached thereto
(claim 1) wherein the surgical instrument guide is sized and shaped to hold and/or restrict movement of one of a plurality of surgical instruments (see paragraphs 136 and 525) therethrough
(claim 1) stabilizing the mobile cart (this is inherent since the surgeon would not want the cart moving around during use)
(claim 1) maneuvering the first surgical instrument in a manner that is constrained by the surgical instrument guide including
(claim 1) a rigid hollow tubular structure having a proximal open end and a distal open end
(claim 1) wherein the structure defines an axis along which movement of a surgical instrument sliding through the structure is restricted
(claim 1) wherein the structure has an interior shaped and sized to accommodate the surgical instrument sliding through the guide such that movement of the surgical instrument is constrained to move along the axis defined by the guide
(claim 1) removing the first surgical instrument from the surgical instrument guide
(claim 1) wherein the surgical instrument guide facilitates rapid exchange of surgical instruments (the guide allows for quick use of a drill and then a driver)
(claim 1) maneuvering a second surgical instrument (a screw driver) in a manner that is constrained by the surgical instrument guide
Crawford fails to disclose the device wherein the tubular structure includes a longitudinal notch along its length sized in relation to a peg to permit a marker attached to the surgical instrument to be viewable by a navigation camera during movement of the surgical instrument through the guide, to constrain movement of the navigation marker in a fixed orientation, and/or permit the surgical instrument to slide along the guide. The examiner was unable to find a reference or a combination of references that disclose and/or teach the limitations of claim 1 as presented.
Regarding claim 10:
Crawford discloses a method comprising:
(claim 10) moving a robotic surgical system (15; for example see Figures 1-8b) including
(claim 10) a robotic arm (23) in proximity to an operating table
(claim 10) wherein the robotic arm has
(claim 10) an end effector (30) with
(claim 10) a surgical instrument guide (50) attached thereto
(claim 10) wherein the surgical instrument guide is sized and shaped to hold and/or restrict movement of one of a plurality of surgical instruments (see paragraphs 136 and 525) therethrough
(claim 10) maneuvering the first surgical instrument in a manner that is constrained by the surgical instrument guide including
(claim 10) a rigid hollow tubular structure having a proximal open end and a distal open end
(claim 1) wherein the structure defines an axis along which movement of a surgical instrument sliding through the structure is restricted
(claim 10) wherein the structure has an interior shaped and sized to accommodate the surgical instrument sliding through the guide such that movement of the surgical instrument is constrained to move along the axis defined by the guide
(claim 10) removing the first surgical instrument from the surgical instrument guide
(claim 10) wherein the surgical instrument guide facilitates rapid exchange of surgical instruments (the guide allows for quick use of a drill and then a driver)
(claim 10) maneuvering a second surgical instrument (a screw driver) in a manner that is constrained by the surgical instrument guide
Crawford fails to disclose the device wherein the tubular structure includes a longitudinal notch along its length sized in relation to a peg to permit a marker attached to the surgical instrument to be viewable by a navigation camera during movement of the surgical instrument through the guide, to constrain movement of the navigation marker in a fixed orientation, and/or permit the surgical instrument to slide along the guide. The examiner was unable to find a reference or a combination of references that disclose and/or teach the limitations of claim 10 as presented.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references the examiner felt were relevant to the application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Woodall whose telephone number is (571) 272-5204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong, at (571. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS W WOODALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights