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 Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In ll. 2, the phrase “a a” should be re-written as --a--. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note
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.
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) 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman et al. (US 8,608,745), herein referred to as Guzman, and in view of Schenberger et al. (US 7,691,106), herein referred to as Schenberger, and further in view of Doglin et al. (US 5,071,426), herein referred to as Doglin.
Regarding claim 1, Guzman discloses a surgical cutting tool (100) (figures 7-9) comprising a housing (102), a saw blade (118) configured to (i.e. capable of) attach to the housing (102), and a blade guide (120) coupled to the housing (102) and comprising at least one wall (figures 7-9) configured to (i.e. capable of) slidably contact the saw blade (118) to prevent flexion of the saw blade (col. 10, ll. 41-45 and figures 7-9).
Yet, Guzman lacks a detailed description on a motor located in the housing to operate the saw blade for cutting a bone.
However, Schenberger teaches a motor (20) (col. 9, ll. 50-60) located in a housing (25) (figure 1) to operate a saw blade (10) for cutting a bone (30b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Guzman’s surgical cutting tool with a motor located in the housing to operate the saw blade for cutting a bone as taught by Schenberger, since such a modification would provide a driving source for the cutting tool (col. 9, ll. 50-60).
Next, Guzman discloses the blade guide (120) configured to move between a retracted and extended positions (col. 10, ll. 56-67 and col. 11, ll. 1-9) via actuator (116). Yet, the modified Guzman’s surgical cutting tool further lacks the blade guide comprising a biasing device configured to passively bias the blade guide towards an extended position, wherein in response to contact between the blade guide and the bone, the blade guide is configured to passively retract away from the extended position and against the bias of the biasing device.
However, Doglin teaches a blade guide (316) comprising a biasing device (324) (col. 6, ll. 40-43 and figure 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the modified Guzman’s blade guide actuator with a biasing device as taught by Doglin, since such a modification is a mere substitution of one known actuator for another to yield predictable results, wherein Guzman clearly contemplates alternative actuators may be used.
Thus, the modified Guzman’s surgical cutting tool has the blade guide (120 of Guzman) comprising a biasing device (324 of Doglin) configured to (i.e. capable of) passively bias the blade guide (120 of Guzman) towards an extended position (figure 9 of Guzman), wherein in response to contact between the blade guide and the bone (considered functional), the blade guide (120 of Guzman) is configured to (i.e. capable of) passively retract away from the extended position (figure 9 of Guzman) and against the bias of the biasing device (324 of Doglin).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Guzman’s surgical cutting tool has wherein the biasing device is a spring (324 of Doglin) (col. 6, ll. 40-43 and figure 13 of Doglin).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Guzman’s surgical cutting tool has wherein the at least one wall comprises a lower wall (134 of Guzman) located beneath the saw blade (118 of Guzman) (figure 8 of Guzman).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Guzman’s surgical cutting tool has wherein the at least one wall includes a lower wall (134 of Guzman) located beneath the saw blade (118 of Guzman) an upper wall (130 of Guzman) located above the saw blade (118 of Guzman) (figures 8 and 9 of Guzman), a passage (figures 8 and 9 of Guzman) is defined between the lower wall (134 of Guzman) and the upper wall (130 of Guzman), and the saw blade (118 of Guzman) is located in the passage (figures 8 and 9 of Guzman).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Guzman’s surgical cutting tool has wherein the saw blade (118 of Guzman) comprises a distal end (128 of Guzman) comprising teeth (119 of Guzman) for cutting the bone, and a planar configuration (figures 7 and 8 of Guzman) defining a longitudinal axis (figures 7 and 8 of Guzman).
Regrading claim 7, the modified Guzman’s surgical cutting tool discloses all the features/elements as claimed including wherein the blade guide (120 of Guzman) is configured to (i.e. capable of) move along the longitudinal axis of the of saw blade (118 of Guzman) (figures 8 and 9 of Guzman) but lacks the distal end of the saw blade extends beyond the blade guide when the blade guide is in the extended position, and the blade guide gradually moves away from the distal end of the saw blade as the blade guide gradually retracts away from the extended position.
However, the Examiner notes that the mechanism of the distal end of the saw blade extends beyond the blade guide when the blade guide is in the extended position, and the blade guide gradually moves away from the distal end of the saw blade as the blade guide gradually retracts away from the extended position or vice a versa (e.g. reversal of the mechanism) would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art as there are finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Guzman’s surgical cutting tool with the distal end of the saw blade extends beyond the blade guide when the blade guide is in the extended position, and the blade guide gradually moves away from the distal end of the saw blade as the blade guide gradually retracts away from the extended position, since such a modification would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art and it appears the tool would perform equally well in cutting bone/tissue.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Guzman’s surgical cutting tool has wherein the saw blade (118 of Guzman) is an oscillating saw blade (col. 10, ll. 30-40 of Guzman).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Guzman’s surgical cutting tool has wherein the blade guide (120 of Guzman) comprises a front face (figures 7-9 of Guzman) that is configured to (i.e. capable of) contact the bone.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Guzman’s surgical cutting tool has being configured to (i.e. capable of) mount to a distal end of a robotic arm (considered functional).
Regarding claim 11, Guzman discloses a system (10) (figure 1) comprising a surgical cutting tool (100) (figures 7-9) comprising a housing (102), a saw blade (118) configured to (i.e. capable of) attach to the housing (102), and a blade guide (120) coupled to the housing (102) and comprising at least one wall (figures 7-9) configured to (i.e. capable of) slidably contact the saw blade (118) to prevent flexion of the saw blade (col. 10, ll. 41-45 and figures 7-9).
Yet, Guzman lacks a detailed description on a motor located in the housing to operate the saw blade for cutting a bone.
However, Schenberger teaches a motor (20) (col. 9, ll. 50-60) located in a housing (25) (figure 1) to operate a saw blade (10) for cutting a bone (30b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Guzman’s surgical cutting tool with a motor located in the housing to operate the saw blade for cutting a bone as taught by Schenberger, since such a modification would provide a driving source for the cutting tool (col. 9, ll. 50-60).
Next, Guzman discloses the blade guide (120) configured to move between a retracted and extended positions (col. 10, ll. 56-67 and col. 11, ll. 1-9) via actuator (116). Yet, the modified Guzman’s surgical cutting tool further lacks the blade guide comprising a biasing device configured to passively bias the blade guide towards an extended position, wherein in response to contact between the blade guide and the bone, the blade guide is configured to passively retract away from the extended position and against the bias of the biasing device.
However, Doglin teaches a blade guide (316) comprising a biasing device (324) (col. 6, ll. 40-43 and figure 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the modified Guzman’s blade guide actuator with a biasing device as taught by Doglin, since such a modification is a mere substitution of one known actuator for another to yield predictable results, wherein Guzman clearly contemplates alternative actuators may be used.
Thus, the modified Guzman’s surgical cutting tool has the blade guide (120 of Guzman) comprising a biasing device (324 of Doglin) configured to (i.e. capable of) passively bias the blade guide (120 of Guzman) towards an extended position (figure 9 of Guzman), wherein in response to contact between the blade guide and the bone (considered functional), the blade guide (120 of Guzman) is configured to (i.e. capable of) passively retract away from the extended position (figure 9 of Guzman) and against the bias of the biasing device (324 of Doglin).
Lastly, Guzman’s system lacks a robotic manipulator, the surgical cutting tool configured to be coupled to the robotic manipulator.
However, Schenberger teaches a robotic manipulator (col. 10, ll. 52-63), a surgical cutting tool (25) configured to be coupled to the robotic manipulator (col. 10, ll. 52-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Guzman’s system with a robotic manipulator, the surgical cutting tool configured to be coupled to the robotic manipulator as taught by Schenberger, since such a modification would provide for a more precise controlled surgery (col. 10, ll. 52-63).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Guzman’s robotic cutting system has wherein the biasing device is a spring (324 of Doglin) (col. 6, ll. 40-43 and figure 13 of Doglin).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Guzman’s robotic cutting system has wherein the at least one wall comprises a lower wall (134 of Guzman) located beneath the saw blade (118 of Guzman) (figure 8 of Guzman).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Guzman’s robotic cutting system has wherein the blade guide (120 of Guzman) comprises a front face (figures 7-9 of Guzman) that is configured to (i.e. capable of) contact the bone.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Guzman’s robotic cutting system has wherein the saw blade (118 of Guzman) is an oscillating saw blade (col. 10, ll. 30-40 of Guzman).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Guzman’s robotic cutting system has comprising a controller (12 of Guzman) coupled to the robotic manipulator (col. 10, ll. 52-63 of Schenberger) and the controller (12 of Guzman) being configured to (i.e. capable of) obtain data defining a cutting plane for the bone to be cut by the surgical cutting tool (figure 40 of Guzman), control the robotic manipulator (col. 10, ll. 52-63 of Schenberger) to align the surgical cutting tool (100 of Guzman) to the cutting plane (figure 40 of Guzman), and control the robotic manipulator (col. 10, ll. 52-63 of Schenberger) to constrain the surgical cutting tool (100 of Guzman) to the cutting plane (figure 40 of Guzman) and to move the surgical cutting tool along the cutting plane to perform the cut of the bone (col. 20, ll. 1-11 of Guzman).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Guzman’s robotic cutting system has wherein the controller (12 of Guzman) is further configured to (i.e. capable of) obtain data defining a predetermined depth of the bone to be cut by the surgical cutting tool (100 of Guzman) along the cutting plane (col. 20, ll. 1-25 and figure 40 of Guzman), and control the robotic manipulator (col. 10, ll. 52-63 of Schenberger) to move the surgical cutting tool (100 of Guzman) along the cutting plane to perform the cut of the bone to the predetermined depth (col. 20, ll. 1-25 and figure 40 of Guzman).
Regarding claim 19, Guzman discloses a method of operating a surgical cutting tool (100) (figures 7-9) for cutting a bone (Abstract), the surgical cutting tool (100) including a housing (102), a saw blade (118) attached to the housing (102), and a blade guide (120) coupled to the housing (102) and at least one wall (figures 7-9) configured to (i.e. capable of) slidably contact the saw blade (118) (figures 7-9).
Yet, Guzman lacks a detailed description on a motor located in the housing to operate the saw blade.
However, Schenberger teaches a motor (20) (col. 9, ll. 50-60) located in a housing (25) (figure 1) to operate a saw blade (10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Guzman’s method having a surgical cutting tool with a motor located in the housing to operate the saw blade for cutting a bone as taught by Schenberger, since such a modification would provide a driving source for the cutting tool (col. 9, ll. 50-60).
Next, Guzman discloses the blade guide (120) configured to move between a retracted and extended positions (col. 10, ll. 56-67 and col. 11, ll. 1-9) via actuator (116). Yet, the modified Guzman’s surgical cutting tool further lacks the blade guide comprising a biasing device.
However, Doglin teaches a blade guide (316) comprising a biasing device (324) (col. 6, ll. 40-43 and figure 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the modified Guzman’s blade guide actuator with a biasing device as taught by Doglin, since such a modification is a mere substitution of one known actuator for another to yield predictable results, wherein Guzman clearly contemplates alternative actuators may be used.
The modified Guzman’s method further lacks the method comprising passively biasing the blade guide to an extended position with the biasing device, performing initial cutting of the bone with the surgical cutting tool while the blade guide is in the extended position, and performing further cutting of the bone with the surgical cutting tool and contacting the blade guide with the bone such that the blade guide passively retracts away from the extended position and against the bias of the biasing device for preventing flexion of the saw blade.
However, the Examiner notes that the mechanism of passively biasing the blade guide to an extended position with the biasing device, performing initial cutting of the bone with the surgical cutting tool while the blade guide is in the extended position, and performing further cutting of the bone with the surgical cutting tool and contacting the blade guide with the bone such that the blade guide passively retracts away from the extended position and against the bias of the biasing device for preventing flexion of the saw blade or vice a versa (e.g. reversal of the mechanism) would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art as there are finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Guzman’s method with passively biasing the blade guide to an extended position with the biasing device, performing initial cutting of the bone with the surgical cutting tool while the blade guide is in the extended position, and performing further cutting of the bone with the surgical cutting tool and contacting the blade guide with the bone such that the blade guide passively retracts away from the extended position and against the bias of the biasing device for preventing flexion of the saw blade, since such a modification would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art and it appears the tool would perform equally well in cutting bone/tissue.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Guzman’s method discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks wherein a robotic manipulator coupled to the surgical cutting tool is utilized for performing the steps of: performing initial cutting of the bone, and performing further cutting of the bone.
However, Schenberger teaches a robotic manipulator (col. 10, ll. 52-63) coupled to a surgical cutting tool (25) is utilized for performing the steps of: performing initial cutting of the bone (figure 1 and col. 10, ll. 52-63), and performing further cutting of the bone (figure 1 and col. 10, ll. 52-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Guzman’s method with a robotic manipulator coupled to the surgical cutting tool is utilized for performing the steps of performing initial cutting of the bone, and performing further cutting of the bone as taught by Schenberger, since such a modification would provide for a more precise controlled surgery (col. 10, ll. 52-63).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman, Schenberger, Doglin as applied to claims above, and further in view of Carroll (US 2,455,655).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Guzman’s surgical cutting tool discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks wherein the blade guide comprises a telescoping member coupled between the housing and the at least one wall, the telescoping member being configured to extend in the extended position and passively retract in response to contact between the blade guide and the bone.
However, Carroll teaches a blade guide (10+34) (figures 1 and 2) comprises a telescoping member (34) (col. 2, ll. 38-42) coupled between a housing (12) and at least one wall (figures 1 and 2), the telescoping member (34) being configured to (i.e. capable of) extend in the extended position and passively retract in response to contact between the blade guide and the bone (considered functional).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Guzman’s surgical cutting tool with wherein the blade guide comprises a telescoping member coupled between the housing and the at least one wall as taught by Carroll, since such a modification would provide an alternative blade guide/guard.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Guzman’s robotic cutting system discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks wherein the blade guide comprises a telescoping member coupled between the housing and the at least one wall, the telescoping member being configured to extend in the extended position and passively retract in response to contact between the blade guide and the bone.
However, Carroll teaches a blade guide (10+34) (figures 1 and 2) comprises a telescoping member (34) (col. 2, ll. 38-42) coupled between a housing (12) and at least one wall (figures 1 and 2), the telescoping member (34) being configured to (i.e. capable of) extend in the extended position and passively retract in response to contact between the blade guide and the bone (considered functional).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Guzman’s robotic cutting system with wherein the blade guide comprises a telescoping member coupled between the housing and the at least one wall as taught by Carroll, since such a modification would provide an alternative blade guide/guard.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SI MING KU whose telephone number is (571)270-5450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30am-6pm.
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at (571)272-4705. 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.
/SI MING KU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights