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 .
Priority
The applicant’s claim to foreign priority of PRO 62/898,472 on 9/10/2019 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant filed an IDS on 8/13/25. It has been annotated and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “patient platform” (Note: This is most likely the table 38, but an explicit connection needs to be made) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Furthermore, the number 105 is used to describe both the adjustable arm support in Fig. 12 and the links in Fig. 21. As they are not the same part, a distinction needs to be made.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. The claims of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of US Patents 1235704, 11234780 and 11771510. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims in the instant application are encompassed by the claims of US Patents 11234780 and 11771510 as mapped below:
Instant Application 19267349
US Patent12357405
US Patent11234780
US Patent 11771510
1, 10, 15
1, 10, 15
1, 12
1, 11
2
2
1, 12
3
3
3
3
4, 11
4, 11
4
4
5, 12
5, 12
5
5
6, 13, 16
6, 13, 16
7, 18
7, 18
8, 14, 17
8, 14, 17
9, 19
9, 19
20
20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 2, 10 and 15), the term “link” seems to lack written description. As described and labeled in the specification, there is no “link” which connects both to the adjustable arm support and a patient platform. As best understood, the Applicant may be referring to a bar or rail connector 111 as this is attached to the column of the patient platform and the adjustable arm support; even so, the column of the patient platform is technically different than the patient platform.
If this bar or rail connector 111 is construed to be the link, the claim further lacks written description because it does not seem to translate in the longitudinal direction relative to the patient platform. The bar or rail connector 107 moves longitudinally, but it does not connect to the patient platform.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowlin et al. (US 2011/0264112 hereinafter Nowlin) in view of Mirbagheri et al. (US 20160374771 hereinafter Mirbagheri).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 10 and 15), Nowlin teaches a robotic medical system, comprising:
an adjustable arm support;
a link coupled to the adjustable arm support and a patient platform;
a robotic arm coupled to the adjustable arm support, wherein the robotic arm is configured to be coupled to a medical tool that is configured to be delivered through a patient supported by the patient platform; and
a processor configured to translate the adjustable arm support in the longitudinal direction relative to the patient platform while maintaining a remote center of movement (RCM) of the medical tool (See at least: Fig. 1B; [0048] via “The robotic systems will often comprise telerobotic, telesurgical, and/or telepresence systems that include processors configured as master-slave controllers. By providing robotic systems employing processors appropriately configured to move manipulator assemblies with articulated linkages having relatively large numbers of degrees of freedom, the motion of the linkages can be tailored for work through a minimally invasive access site. The large number of degrees of freedom may also allow a processor to position the manipulators so as to inhibit interference or collisions between these moving structures, and the like.”; [0062] via “In use, a patient P is supported by a table T adjacent one or more manipulator support bases 302. Base 302 is generally supported from above, and may be ceiling mounted, supported by a wall of a room in which surgical station 300 is disposed, mounted to a surgical table…”; [0063] via “Surgical station 300 typically includes a plurality of robotic manipulators 304, often having three or more robotic manipulators, with the exemplary embodiment including four robotic manipulators supported by base 302.”).
but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the link is configured to translate the adjustable arm support in a longitudinal direction relative to the patient platform.
However, Mirbagheri teaches wherein the link is configured to translate the adjustable arm support in a longitudinal direction relative to the patient platform (See at least: Figs. 1B-1D; [0047] via “an adjustable arm support coupled to the patient platform for translating relative to the patient platform.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Nowlin in view of Mirbagheri to teach wherein the link is configured to translate the adjustable arm support in a longitudinal direction relative to the patient platform so that the adjustable arm can be positioned to optimally place a surgical tool to perform a surgical procedure on a patient.
Regarding claim 2, Nowlin in view of Mirbagheri teaches wherein the link comprises a first end coupled to the adjustable arm support and a second end coupled to the patient platform (Refer at least to claim 2 for reasoning and rationale.)
Regarding claim 3, Nowlin teaches wherein the medical tool comprises an end effector that is inserted through an incision or natural orifice of the patient while maintaining the RCM (See at least: Fig. 1C).Regarding claim 4 (and similarly 11), Nowlin teaches wherein the processor is configured to translate the adjustable arm support in the longitudinal direction relative to the patient platform while maintaining a position of the end effector of the medical tool coupled to the robotic arm (Refer at least to claim 1 for reasoning and rationale.).
Regarding claim 5 (and similarly 12), Nowlin teaches wherein the processor is configured to translate the adjustable arm support in the longitudinal direction relative to the patient platform while the medical tool is teleoperatively controlled by a clinician (See at least: [0016] via “FIG. 1A is a perspective view illustrating a master surgeon console or workstation for inputting surgical procedure commands, the console including a processor for generating manipulator command signals in response to the input commands.”).
Regarding claim 6 (and similarly 13 and 16), Nowlin fails to teach a second adjustable arm support and a second link, wherein the second link is coupled to the second adjustable arm support and the patient platform, wherein the second link is configured to translate the second adjustable arm support in the longitudinal direction relative to the patient platform.
However, Mirbagheri teaches teach a second adjustable arm support and a second link (See at least: Figs. 1B-1D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Nowlin in view of Mirbagheri to teach a second adjustable arm support and a second link, wherein the second link is coupled to the second adjustable arm support and the patient platform, wherein the second link is configured to translate the second adjustable arm support in the longitudinal direction relative to the patient platform so that multiple adjustable arms can be positioned to optimally place a surgical tool to perform a surgical procedure on a patient to complete tasks needing more than one tool to accomplish.
Regarding claim 7 (and similarly 18), Nowlin in view of Mirbagheri teaches a second robotic arm coupled to the second adjustable arm support (Refer at least to claim 6 for reasoning and rationale.)
Regarding claim 8 (and similarly 14 and 17), wherein the adjustable arm support is configured to translate in the longitudinal direction relative to a first side of the patient platform, and wherein the second adjustable arm support is configured to translate in the longitudinal direction relative to a second side of the patient platform, wherein the second side is opposite to the first side (Refer at least to claim 6 for reasoning and rationale.) Regarding claim 9 (and similarly 19), further comprising a second robotic arm coupled to the adjustable arm support (Refer at least to claim 6 for reasoning and rationale.)
Regarding claim 20, Nowlin teaches wherein the medical tool comprises an instrument or a camera (See at least: Figs. 1C and 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights