Patent Application 15733719 - Medical Robot

Title: Medical Robot

Application Information

Invention Title: Medical Robot
Application Number: 15733719
Submission Date: 2025-05-16T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2020-10-02T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2020-10-02T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 606
National Sub-Class: 001000
Examiner Employee Number: 95425
Art Unit: 3771
Tech Center: 3700

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 5

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

US 0250078🔗
US 0123802🔗

Office Action Text

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 .

Response to Amendment
As of the reply filed 3/19/2025, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended. Claims 15-20 remain withdrawn from consideration.

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.

Regarding Applicant’s argument that “Vogele does not disclose that the adaptors are selected from a group of adaptors interchangeably configured for use with different instruments, a different number of instruments, and different relative arrangements of these instruments”, the Examiner disagrees. Amended claim 1 presents “[an adaptor] selected from a group of interchangeable instrument adaptors” and then further defines that group to comprise “a plurality of differently shaped instrument adaptors [comprising] a plurality of differently shaped instrument adaptors having a standardized rear portion for connecting the lower actuator arm and the upper actuator arm, respectively, and an attachment mechanism for connecting to the lower gimbal mount and the upper gimbal mount, respectively” (emphasis added). This is an improper Markush group, as it recites a list of alternatively usable members (see MPEP 2117), but the group is an open group (see MPEP 2173.05(h), the use of “comprising” renders the claim indefinite, see below 112(b) rejection). Since a Markush claim “recites a list of alternatively useable members” (see MPEP 2117), only one of the claimed adaptors from the provided list is required in order to read on the claim. Since Vogele recites the attachment mechanism/receiving opening, this reference continues to read on claim 1.

Furthermore, since the structures of the “differently shaped instrument adaptors” are not defined by the claim and the reconfiguring limitations are functional limitations (see MPEP 2112.01), any instrument adaptor can be considered to be provided for reconfiguring the medical robot for different procedures requiring different instruments, a different number of instruments, or different relative arrangement of the instruments.

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 1-14 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 “wherein the group of interchangeable instrument adaptors comprises a plurality of differently shaped instrument adaptors having a standardized rear portion for connecting the lower actuator arm and the upper actuator arm, respectively, and an attachment mechanism for connecting to the lower gimbal mount and the upper gimbal mount, respectively” (emphasis added), which renders the claim indefinite because it presents an improper open Markush group. Use of the open phrase “comprising” renders the claim unclear “because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim” (see MPEP 2173.05(h)). It is recommended that the claim be amended to replace “comprising” with “consisting of”. Examination will continue under the assumption that the claim recites a closed, proper Markush group.

Dependent claims 2-14 inherit the deficiency of claim 1.

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.

The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.

Claims 1-2, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuart (PGPub US 2007/0250078 A1) in view of Charles et al. (WO 00/30557) and Vogele (WO 2016/177463 A1).

With respect to claim 1, Stuart discloses a medical robot (PP [0022]: "the manipulator 10 can be used as a slave robot in a master-slave robotic system"), comprising:
a lower body (28);
a linear lower arm actuator (20) arranged within the lower body (28, see Fig. 1, 20 is radially within the edges of housing 28 and therefore can be considered within the lower body);
a lower actuator arm (16 in Fig. 2), extending through a frontal opening of the lower body (28, see 16 extend through front open portion of 28 in Fig. 1) and movable within a lower plane by the linear lower arm actuator (20);
a lower gimbal mount (lower joint 34, PP [0027]: "each control arm 16, 18 is connected to the tool shaft 14 using an appropriate universal or gimbals joint") attached to the lower actuator arm (16), the lower gimbal mount (lower joint 34) comprising a lower inner gimbal element (inwardly facing portion of lower joint 34 which touches tool shaft 14) having at least two degrees of freedom allowing pitch and roll within the lower plane (PP [0027]: “The joints between the tool support shaft and the control arms should provide six degrees of freedom to the tool shaft”);
an upper actuator arm (18 in Fig. 2), movable within an upper plane;
an upper gimbal mount (upper joint 36, PP [0027]: "each control arm 16, 18 is connected to the tool shaft 14 using an appropriate universal or gimbals joint ") attached to the upper actuator arm (18), the upper gimbal mount (upper joint 36) comprising an upper inner gimbal element (inwardly facing portion of upper joint 36 which touches tool shaft 14) having at least two degrees of freedom allowing pitch and roll within the upper plane (PP [0027]: “The joints between the tool support shaft and the control arms should provide six degrees of freedom to the tool shaft”);
a guide tube (14) attached to the lower gimbal mount (34) and to the upper gimbal mount (36), the guide tube (14) extending upwardly through a central opening of the upper inner gimbal element (inner face of 36, PP [0024]: “the tool support shaft 14 is supported by a pair of, in this case, vertically spaced support or control arms 16, 18”); and
a linear actuator (30) attached to an upper end of the guide tube (14, PP [0026]: “In particular a linear actuator 30 is incorporated into the tool support shaft 14”) above the upper gimbal mount (36, 14 extends into 30 above 36), the linear actuator being adapted to longitudinally move a medical instrument (12) which extends through the guide tube (14, PP [0026]: “a linear actuator 30 is incorporated into the tool support shaft 14 which is operatively connected to the tool 12 (via a shaft or other means) so as to permit lengthwise movement of the tool 12 in a telescoping manner relative to the longitudinal axis of the tool support shaft 14”).

However, since Stuart discloses a lower linear actuator (20 in Fig. 2) and a lower rotational actuator (24), this reference fails to disclose multiple linear actuators arranged within the lower body, wherein the lower actuator arm is movable within a lower plane by the linear lower arm actuators. Stuart further fails to disclose a lower instrument adaptor and an upper instrument adaptor each selected from a group of interchangeable instrument adaptors, wherein the group of interchangeable instrument adaptors comprises a plurality of differently shaped instrument adaptors having a standardized rear portion for connecting the lower actuator arm and the upper actuator arm, respectively, and an attachment mechanism for connecting to the lower gimbal mount and the upper gimbal mount, respectively, and wherein the plurality of instrument adaptors are provided for reconfiguring the medical robot for different medical procedures requiring different instruments, a different number of instruments, or different relative arrangement of the instruments.

In the same field of surgical manipulators (abstract), Charles et al. teaches a surgical manipulator (70 in Fig. 5) comprising a lower arm (84) comprising two lower linear actuators (81 and 83) configured to move the lower arm (84) in the x and y axes (see arrows in Fig. 5).

It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the Stuart disclosure according to the teachings of Charles et al. such that the device of Stuart comprises a plurality of lower arm linear actuators rather than one lower arm linear actuator and one lower arm rotary actuator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification because it is a simple substitution of actuators that would have yielded predictable results, since the linear actuators as taught by Charles et al. still enable that same movement along the x and y axes in the lower arm plane.

Stuart as modified by Charles et al. further fails to disclose a lower instrument adaptor and an upper instrument adaptor each selected from a group of interchangeable instrument adaptors, wherein the lower gimbal mount and the upper gimbal mount are attached to the lower/upper arms (respectively) via respective lower and upper instrument adaptors, wherein the group of interchangeable instrument adaptors comprises a plurality of differently shaped instrument adaptors having a standardized rear portion for connecting the lower actuator arm and the upper actuator arm, respectively, and an attachment mechanism for connecting to the lower gimbal mount and the upper gimbal mount, respectively, and wherein the plurality of instrument adaptors are provided for reconfiguring the medical robot for different medical procedures requiring different instruments, a different number of instruments, or different relative arrangement of the instruments.

In the same field of surgical manipulators (abstract), Vogele teaches a lower instrument adaptor (see Figs. 2-3, the unmarked receiving opening within the arm that the lower 5 in Fig. 3 enters can be considered the instrument adaptor because it is a receiving opening/attachment mechanism) selected from a group of interchangeable instrument adaptors (this is broad, the structures of the group is not defined, see below);
a lower mount (lower 5 in Fig. 3) attached to the lower actuator arm (lower unmarked arm in Fig. 2) via the lower instrument adaptor (see Figs. 2-3, 5 in Fig. 3 enters through the receiving opening/attachment mechanism of the unmarked arms to connect to 1 in Fig. 2);
an upper instrument adaptor (see Figs. 2-3, the unmarked receiving opening within the arm that the upper 5 in Fig. 3 enters can be considered the instrument adaptor because it is a receiving opening) selected from the group of interchangeable instrument adaptors (this is broad, the structures of the group is not defined, see below);
an upper mount (upper 5 in Fig. 3) attached to the upper actuator arm (upper unmarked arm in Fig. 2) via the upper instrument adaptor (see Figs. 2-3, 5 in Fig. 3 enters through the receiving opening/attachment mechanism of the unmarked arms to connect to 1’ in Fig. 2);
wherein the group of interchangeable instrument adaptors comprises a plurality of differently shaped instrument adaptors having a standardized rear portion for connecting the lower actuator arm and the upper actuator arm, respectively, and an attachment mechanism for connecting to the lower mount and the upper mount, respectively (see Figs. 2-3, each 5 in Fig. 3 enters through a receiving opening/attachment mechanism of the unmarked arms to connect to 1’ and 1 in Fig. 2, this claim is broad since it presents the group as including the interchangeable adaptors and the attachment mechanism, Vogele teaches the attachment mechanism/receiving opening and therefore reads on the claim, furthermore no defined structures of the interchangeable instrument adaptors are claimed so the limitation is largely functional), and
wherein the plurality of instrument adaptors are provided for reconfiguring the medical robot for different medical procedures requiring different instruments, a different number of instruments, or different relative arrangement of the instruments (the claim requires “a group of interchangeable instrument adaptors… wherein the [group] comprises a plurality of differently shaped instrument adaptors… and an attachment mechanism”, the current claim does not actually require the plurality of adaptors and only presents a Markush group comprising the plurality of adaptors or the attachment mechanism, in this case Vogele teaches the attachment mechanism and therefore reads on the claim).

It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to have modified the Stuart disclosure to incorporate the instrument adaptor mechanisms of Vogele. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would be a simple substitution of gimbal mount structures that would have yielded predictable results, since the Vogele manipulator is substantially similar to the manipulator of Stuart and the instrument adaptor mechanisms taught by Vogele would enable attachment between the gimbal mounts and arms of Stuart.

Regarding claim 2, Stuart as modified by Charles et al. and Vogele further discloses:
wherein the guide tube (14 in Fig. 2 of Stuart, see also annotated Fig. 2 above in Response to Arguments section) is substantially cylindrical (the portion of 14 extending between 34 and 36 is cylindrical);
wherein the guide tube (14 in Fig. 2) is secured at a lower end within the lower inner gimbal element (lower joint 34, PP [0027]: "each control arm 16, 18 is connected to the tool shaft 14 using an appropriate universal or gimbals joint").

However, Stuart fails to disclose wherein the guide tube can slide and rotate freely within the upper inner gimbal element.

In the same field of surgical manipulators (abstract), Charles et al. teaches a surgical manipulator (50 in Fig. 3), comprising a guide tube (11), an upper gimbal mount (34), and a lower gimbal mount (57), wherein the guide tube (11) is slidably arranged within the upper gimbal mount (34, page 10, lines 25-30: “one of the joints (such as the first joint 57 in Figure 3) is fixed against translation with respect to the third link 56 in the lengthwise direction of the third link, while the other joint (the second joint 64 in this example) is capable of translating with respect to the third link 56 in the lengthwise direction thereof”) and able to rotate freely within the upper gimbal mount (page 8, line 27: “The tool support shaft 11 can also be made to rotate about the z axis, if desired”).

It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Stuart disclosure with the teachings of Charles et al. such that the guide tube can slide and rotate freely within the upper inner gimbal element. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification because Charles et al. teaches that allowing one joint to be fixed to the guide tube while the other holds it in a way where it is free to rotate and slide is a known method of allowing the distance between those joints to vary as they move in parallel planes in space (page 10, lines 25-26: “The joints 57, 64 are arranged so that the distance between them can vary as they move in parallel planes in space”), which is desirable because it increases the degrees of freedom of the surgical instrument. Modifying the Stuart reference to include this feature would have been using a known technique to improve a similar surgical manipulator in the same way, increasing its mobility.

Regarding claim 4, Stuart as modified by Charles et al. and Vogele further discloses wherein the attachment mechanism (see Figs. 2-3, each 5 in Fig. 3 enters through a receiving opening/attachment mechanism of the unmarked arms to connect to 1’ and 1 in Fig. 2) for connecting the lower gimbal mount (lower joint 34 in Fig. 1 of Stuart) includes a receiving opening (see Figs. 2-3 of Vogele, each 5 enters through an unmarked receiving opening) which receives an attachment shaft (lower 5 in Fig. 3 of Vogele) of the lower gimbal mount (lower joint 34 in Fig. 1 of Stuart, the combination as proposed would combine the receiving portion/shaft attachment structure of Vogele with the gimbal mount of Stuart); and
wherein the attachment mechanism (see Figs. 2-3, each 5 in Fig. 3 enters through a receiving opening/attachment mechanism of the unmarked arms to connect to 1’ and 1 in Fig. 2) for connecting the upper gimbal mount (upper joint 36 in Fig. 1 of Stuart) includes a receiving opening (see Figs. 2-3 of Vogele, each 5 enters through an unmarked receiving opening) which receives an attachment shaft (upper 5 in Fig. 3 of Vogele) of the upper gimbal mount (upper joint 36 in Fig. 1 of Stuart, the combination as proposed would combine the receiving portion/shaft attachment structure of Vogele with the gimbal mount of Stuart).

Regarding claim 12, Stuart as modified by Charles et al. and Vogele further discloses wherein the linear actuator (30 in Fig. 2 of Stuart) comprises:
an actuating rod (PP [0026]: "In particular a linear actuator 30 is incorporated into the tool support shaft 14 which is operatively connected to the tool 12 (via a shaft or other means) so as to permit lengthwise movement of the tool 12 in a telescoping manner relative to the longitudinal axis of the tool support shaft 14", emphasis added);
a linear motor arranged within a main body portion of the linear actuator (see PP [0039-0040]), the linear motor being adapted to move the actuating rod (see PP [0039] and PP [0026] above);
a rotational actuator (32) firmly connected to the actuating rod (32 is firmly connected to 30, therefore it is firmly connected to the connecting shaft/actuating rod within).

Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuart (PGPub US 2007/0250078 A1) in view of Charles et al. (WO 00/30557) and Vogele (WO 2016/177463 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Morimoto et al. (US Patent No. 5,943,914).

Regarding claim 3, Stuart as modified by Charles et al. and Vogele fails to disclose wherein the lower inner gimbal element comprises a threaded opening through which a screw clamps the lower end of the guide tube to the lower inner gimbal element, since Stuart does not show any structural details of the gimbal elements.

In the same field of manipulators (abstract), Morimoto et al. teaches a micromanipulator (see Fig. 1) comprising two arms (40 and 50) with two gimbals (col. 7, lines 12-14: “FIG. 7 shows a close-up view of the dual two-axis gimbals shown by gimbal brackets 69 and 69' of FIG. 6”), top and bottom (69 and 84 in Fig. 7). Morimoto et al. additionally discloses wherein the lower gimbal mount (69 in Fig. 7, col. 7, lines 22-25) comprises an inner gimbal element (69) with a threaded opening through which a screw (68) clamps a lower end of a guide tube to the inner gimbal element (see Fig. 8, unmarked gimbals + screw clamp guide tube to 69).

It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Stuart and Charles et al. combination to include the structural details of the gimbal joints as taught by the Morimoto et al. reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification because it is a simple substitution of gimbal joint structures that would have yielded predictable results, since Morimoto et al. teaches a manipulator system that works in the same way as the Stuart reference. Imparting the gimbal structure of Morimoto et al. onto the gimbals of Stuart, whose structures are not disclosed, would have been a simple modification to one of ordinary skill in the art who is familiar with how gimbal mounts work.

Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuart (PGPub US 2007/0250078 A1) and Charles et al. (WO 00/30557) and Vogele (WO 2016/177463 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Comber et al. (PGPub US 2013/0123802 A1).

Regarding claim 6, Stuart further discloses wherein the linear actuator (30 in Fig. 1) comprises
a lower body portion (see annotation below) which extends around an upper end of the guide tube (14, PP [0026]: “In particular a linear actuator 30 is incorporated into the tool support shaft 14”) and a main body portion (portion of 30 that sticks out in Fig. 1, see annotation below) arranged at a lateral offset above the lower body portion (portion of 30 that sticks out, the directional term “above” is not defined by the claim, since “above” is a relative term, depending on the frame of reference the portion highlighted below is above the lower body portion), and
wherein the main body portion (see below) comprises a scale on a face of the main body portion (see circles and horizontal lines on 30, markings which have known geometries can be considered a scale because they provide a visual reference of size or distance, see MPEP 2112.01) proximal to the medical instrument (proximal is a relative term, the markings in Fig. 1 can be considered proximal to 12).

PNG
media_image1.png
210
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale

However, Stuart as modified by Charles et al. and Vogele fails to disclose wherein the lower body portion is secured to the upper end of the guide tube by a clamping screw.

In the same field of manipulators (abstract), Comber et al. teaches a device comprising a linear actuator (PP [0055]: "Turning to FIGS. 8-10, depicting the rotation mechanisms of a single module 122, each tube 410, 412, 414 to be rotated may be moved by a rotational actuator 618R1, 618R2 including a linear-to-rotary transmission mechanism 956 converting translation of a linear actuator to rotation of the shaft 944 to which the tube is clamped") which imparts motion to a tube (944 in Figs. 8-10), wherein a clamping screw is provided to securely clamp a lower body portion of the linear actuator (956) to an upper end of the guide tube (PP [0058]: "Each rotating tube 410, 412, 414 may be clamped to a thick-walled first shaft 944 using, for example, an aluminum collet 1170 and a collet nut 1172, as shown in FIG. 11").

It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the Stuart, Charles et al., and Vogele combination to incorporate the clamping screw arrangement of the Comber et al. reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it is a simple substitution of attachment mechanisms between the shaft and the actuator that would have yielded predictable results, since the Comber et al. reference is also intended to impart motion to a shaft.

Regarding claim 7, Stuart discloses wherein a receiving opening (opening of 30 through which the unmarked shaft extends in Fig. 1) is formed within a lower body portion of the linear actuator (portion of 30 in Fig. 1, see annotation above).

However, Stuart as modified by Charles et al. and Vogele fails to disclose wherein a clamping screw is provided to securely clamp the lower body portion of the linear actuator to an upper end of the guide tube.

In the same field of manipulators (abstract), Comber et al. teaches a device comprising a linear actuator (PP [0055]: "Turning to FIGS. 8-10, depicting the rotation mechanisms of a single module 122, each tube 410, 412, 414 to be rotated may be moved by a rotational actuator 618R1, 618R2 including a linear-to-rotary transmission mechanism 956 converting translation of a linear actuator to rotation of the shaft 944 to which the tube is clamped") which imparts motion to a tube (944 in Figs. 8-10), wherein a clamping screw is provided to securely clamp a lower body portion of the linear actuator (956) to an upper end of the guide tube (PP [0058]: "Each rotating tube 410, 412, 414 may be clamped to a thick-walled first shaft 944 using, for example, an aluminum collet 1170 and a collet nut 1172, as shown in FIG. 11").

It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the Stuart, Charles et al., and Vogele combination to incorporate the clamping screw arrangement of the Comber et al. reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it is a simple substitution of attachment mechanisms between the shaft and the actuator that would have yielded predictable results, since the Comber et al. reference is also intended to impart motion to a shaft.

Regarding claim 8, Stuart as modified by Charles et al., Vogele, and Comber et al. further discloses wherein the medical instrument (12 in Figs. 1-2 of Stuart) extends through the lower body portion of the linear actuator (30, see also PP [0026]).

Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuart (PGPub US 2007/0250078 A1) and Charles et al. (WO 00/30557) and and Vogele (WO 2016/177463 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zanne (US Patent No. 9,095,686 B2).

Regarding claim 9, Stuart discloses wherein the linear actuator (30 in Fig. 1) comprises:
an actuating rod (PP [0026]: "In particular a linear actuator 30 is incorporated into the tool support shaft 14 which is operatively connected to the tool 12 (via a shaft or other means) so as to permit lengthwise movement of the tool 12 in a telescoping manner relative to the longitudinal axis of the tool support shaft 14", emphasis added); and
a linear motor (see PP [0039-0040]) arranged within a main body portion of the linear actuator (30), the linear motor being adapted to move an actuating rod (see PP [0026]).

However, Stuart as modified by Charles et al. and Vogele fails to disclose an instrument clamp firmly attached to the actuating rod since Stuart is silent on the connection mechanism between the instrument and the actuating rod.

In the same field of instrument manipulators (abstract), Zanne et al. teaches a device configured to translate an instrument (see Figs. 1-3) including an instrument clamp (col 3. lines 6-12: “In accordance with a first embodiment of the invention emerging from FIGS. 1, 2 and 3 of the accompanying drawings, the shaft that moves in translation 6 consists of a hollow tube that is provided with permanent magnets and through which the elongated element 2 passes, whereby the latter is made integral by magnetization or by tightening with said tubular movable shaft 6”, col. 3, lines 24-26: “A connection by mechanical tightening by means of a ring or two opposite rings is also possible relative to the implementation of a hollow shaft 6”) firmly attached to the actuating rod (2) of a linear motor (5).

It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the Stuart, Charles et al., and Vogele combination to include the instrument and actuating rod connection mechanism as taught by the Zanne et al. reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification because it is a simple substitution of connection mechanisms that would have yielded predictable results, attaching the actuating rod to the instrument via the instrument clamp.

Regarding claim 10, Stuart as modified by Charles et al., Vogele, and Zanne et al. further discloses wherein the linear motor (30 in Fig. 1 of Stuart) is a piezo-electrical linear actuator (PP [0021]: "the manipulator 10 can be adapted to accommodate an actuator dedicated to powering the tool such as for example an electric, pneumatic or hydraulic actuator").

Regarding claim 11, Stuart as modified by Charles et al., Vogele, and Zanne et al. further fails to explicitly disclose wherein a longitudinal axis of the actuating rod extends radially offset from and in parallel with a longitudinal axis of the guide tube, since Stuart is silent on the precise location of the actuating rod.

In the same field of manipulators (abstract), Charles et al. teaches a manipulator (50 in Fig. 3) comprising an actuating rod (65) and a guide tube (11), wherein a longitudinal axis of the actuating rod extends radially offset from and in parallel with a longitudinal axis of the guide tube (see in Fig. 3, 65 and 11 are offset from one another, page 11, lines 4-8: “the third linear actuator 65 acts in a direction parallel to a line connecting the first and second joints 57, 64, but it may instead act in a different direction. The line of action of the third linear actuator 65 is shown as being offset from a line connecting the first and second joints 57, 64 but may also be aligned with it”).

It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Stuart, Charles et al., and Vogele combination to include the teachings of Charles et al. and incorporate an actuating rod which is offset from and parallel with a longitudinal axis of the guide tube. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification because it is a known feature in the manipulator art that would have yielded predictable results when applied to the Stuart reference, since Stuart does not teach away from this arrangement or disclose an alternate arrangement of parts.

Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuart (PGPub US 2007/0250078 A1) and Charles et al. (WO 00/30557) and and Vogele (WO 2016/177463 A1), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Scheib et al. (WO 2015/199896 A1).

Regarding claim 13, Stuart fails to disclose wherein the rotational actuator comprises a pinion gear, the pinion gear having a central opening through which the medical instrument can be inserted and into which the medical instrument can be releasably clamped, since Stuart is silent on the structure of the rotational actuator.

In the similar field of articulated drives (abstract), Scheib et al. teaches a rotational actuator (see Fig. 11), wherein the rotational actuator comprises a pinion gear (126), the pinion gear (126) having a central opening through which the medical instrument can be inserted (PP [0072]: “Pinion (126) is disposed on a shaft (128)”) and into which the medical instrument can be releasably clamped (this is functional language, the shaft of a medical instrument can be releasably clamped into the pinion 126).

It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the Stuart, Charles et al., and Vogele combination to include the teachings of Scheib et al. and incorporate the pinion structure as described above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification because Scheib et al. illustrates that this pinion mechanism is a known feature in the art of rotational actuators used in imparting rotational motion onto a shaft and including this mechanism in the rotational actuator of Stuart therefore would have yielded predictable results.

Regarding claim 14, Stuart as modified by Charles et al., Vogele, and Scheib et al. further discloses wherein the rotational actuator (30 in Fig. 1 of Stuart) further comprises a gear rack (130 in Fig. 11 of Scheib et al.) which engages the pinion gear (126), the gear rack (130) being adapted to be moved by a linear motor (102) arranged within a housing of the rotational actuator (see Fig. 11).

Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and is dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the claims were amended to resolve the 112(b) rejection and if claim 5 were rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.

The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The subject matter of claim 5 filed on 8/23/2023 could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record.

With respect to claim 5, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious at the effective filing date of the invention: the feature of wherein the attachment shafts of the lower gimbal mount and the upper gimbal mount each comprise two circumferential grooves, and wherein the attachment shafts of the lower gimbal mount and the upper gimbal mount are retained within the respective receiving openings of the upper instrument adaptor and the an lower instrument adaptor by two spring- loaded securing brackets each, the spring-loaded securing brackets having retaining pins which engage the circumferential grooves, in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim.

The closest prior art is Stuart and Vogele, which discloses each of the limitations as described above for claims 1 and 4, which claim 5 depends from.

However, Stuart and Vogele fail to disclose the attachment mechanisms as required by claim 5. Furthermore, the prior art of record does not suggest any motivation to modify these disclosures to arrive at these features.

Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bridget E. Rabaglia whose telephone number is (571)272-2908. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached on (571) 272-4696. 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.

/BRIDGET E. RABAGLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/TAN-UYEN T HO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771