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
Claims 2-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims were not on a separate sheet of the amendment document as required by CFR 1.121(c)(1). The claim listing should be resubmitted with the claims on a separate sheet or the claims may not be considered the claim of record when processed. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Farritor et al. (US 2015/0051446).
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Farritor discloses:
A robotic surgical device, comprising:
a) a device body (12);
b) a first robotic arm (14A) operably coupled to a distal end of the device body (see Figs. 1A and 10A, for example, showing 14A connected to the distal end of 12), the first robotic arm further comprising:
i) a first upper arm (18A);
ii) a first lower arm (20A); and
iii) a first arm elbow joint (22A) coupling the first upper arm to the first lower arm (see Fig. 1B), the first arm elbow joint comprising:
A) a first shaft (see Fig. 3E, for example showing a shaft extending from 140 coupling motor 140 to motor gear 142);
B) a first gear pair (142/146) wherein rotation of the first shaft drives the first gear pair (see Paragraph 0174); and
C) a second gear pair (148/158) wherein the first gear pair drives the second gear pair (see Paragraph 0174); and
c) a second robotic arm (14B) operably coupled the distal end of the device body (see Figs. 1A and 10A, for example, showing 14B connected to the distal end of 12), the second robotic arm further comprising:
i) a second upper arm (18B);
ii) a second lower arm (20B; and
iii) a second arm elbow joint (22B) coupling the second upper arm to the second lower arm (see Fig. 1B), the second arm elbow joint comprising:
A) a second shaft (see Fig. 3E, for example showing a shaft extending from 140 coupling motor 140 to motor gear 142; the first and second arms have the same components);
B) a third gear pair (142/146) wherein rotation of the second shaft drives the third gear pair (see Paragraph 0174); and
C) a fourth gear pair (148/158) wherein the third gear pair drives the fourth gear pair (see Paragraph 0174); and
d) a camera component (352 and Paragraph 0194) disposed through a lumen defined in the device body (sees Paragraphs 0194-0195, a camera or camera assembly is inserted through the camera lumen 32 or 358).
Regarding Claim 2, Farritor further discloses wherein the first and second robotic arms are moveable in a workspace extending from a front side to a back side of the device body (see Paragraph 0158).
Regarding Claim 3, Farritor further discloses wherein the workspace extends 180 degrees from the front side to the back side of the device body (see Paragraph 0158; also, the workspace is not part of the claimed device such that the characteristics of the workspace are functional and limiting on the structure of the claimed device so long as the device can operate within the workspace, which it can).
Regarding Claim 4, Farritor further discloses at least one actuator (120).
Regarding Claim 5, Farritor further discloses wherein the first and second robotic arms comprise at least one motor disposed within each of the first and second robotic arms (see Paragraph 0171, the arms include motors 120).
Regarding Claim 6, Farritor further discloses a camera component (352 and Paragraph 0194) disposed through a lumen defined in the device body (sees Paragraphs 0194-0195, a camera or camera assembly is inserted through the camera lumen 32 or 358).
Regarding Claim 7, Farritor further discloses wherein the camera component is configured to be an adjustable height camera (the camera can move relative to the device and is made to be tiltable to change its height; see Paragraphs 0195 and 200 and Figs. 18A-18H).
Regarding Claim 8, Farritor further discloses wherein the camera component is constructed and arranged to be capable of pitch and yaw (see Paragraphs 0194 and 200).
Regarding Claim 9, Farritor further discloses wherein the camera component comprises a distal tip configured to orient to a defined workspace (see Paragraph 0194 describing a camera that can be moved in multiple directions to define a workspace).
Regarding Claim 10, Farritor further discloses wherein the camera component comprises at least one light (Paragraphs 0198-0199).
Regarding Claim 11, Farritor further discloses first and second end effectors (28A/28B).
Regarding Claim 14, Farritor further discloses wherein the first arm elbow joint and the second arm elbow joint are configured to allow the first and second robotic arms to be extendable to a front side and a back side of the device body (see Paragraph 0158).
Regarding Claim 15, Farritor further discloses wherein the first robotic arm further comprises at least one first arm actuator (120) disposed within the first robotic arm.
Regarding Claim 16, Farritor further discloses wherein the second robotic arm further comprises at least one second arm actuator (120) disposed within the second robotic arm.
Regarding Claim 18, Farritor further discloses wherein the camera component is configured to be an adjustable height camera (the camera can move relative to the device and is made to be tiltable to change its height; see Paragraphs 0195 and 200 and Figs. 18A-18H).
Regarding Claim 19, Farritor further discloses wherein the camera component is constructed and arranged to be capable of pitch and yaw (see Paragraphs 0194 and 200).
Regarding Claim 20, Farritor further discloses wherein the camera comprises a distal tip configured to orient to a defined workspace (see Paragraphs 0194 and 200).
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,383,355. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims a robotic surgical device comprising an upper arm and forearm (considered the same as a lower arm, see claim 14), the shafts, and the gear pairs. While the claims do not have the exact same scope, the Examiner considers the patent claims to at least render the claimed elements obvious. For example, an elbow may not be explicitly claimed, but using an elbow as a connection between an upper arm and a lower forearm is considered obvious as it is a known joint known for connecting such components.
The dependent claims do not include any patentable distinctions over the patent such that they are also rejected.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-15 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,826,014. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims a robotic surgical device comprising an upper arm and forearm (considered the same as a lower arm, see claim 12), the joints, the shafts, and the gear pairs. While the claims do not have the exact same scope, the Examiner considers the patent claims to at least render the claimed elements obvious. The joints, whether shoulder or elbow, facilitate movement such that including the various gears, shafts, and motors in either an elbow joint or shoulder joint is obvious to impart the degrees of freedom on the attached components.
The dependent claims do not include any patentable distinctions over the patent such that they are also rejected.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-16 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,751,136. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims a robotic surgical device comprising an upper arm and forearm (considered the same as a lower arm, see claim 13), the joints, the shafts, and the gear pairs. While the claims do not have the exact same scope, the Examiner considers the patent claims to at least render the claimed elements obvious. The joints, whether shoulder or elbow, facilitate movement such that including the various gears, shafts, and motors in either an elbow joint or shoulder joint is obvious to impart the degrees of freedom on the attached components.
The dependent claims do not include any patentable distinctions over the patent such that they are also rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY JAY NEAL whose telephone number is (313)446-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/TIMOTHY J NEAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
