Patent Application 18311765 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVING EXTERNAL - Rejection

Patent Application 18311765 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVING EXTERNAL

Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVING EXTERNAL WORKSPACE IN ROBOTIC SURGICAL SYSTEMS

Application Information

• Invention Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVING EXTERNAL WORKSPACE IN ROBOTIC SURGICAL SYSTEMS
• Application Number: 18311765
• Submission Date: 2025-05-19T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-05-03T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-05-03T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 606
• National Sub-Class: 001000
• Examiner Employee Number: 99347
• Art Unit: 3792
• Tech Center: 3700

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 1
• 103 Rejections: 5

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0360100🔗
• US 0216550🔗
• US 0344421🔗

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 .

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 extension 160, which can be in the form of a foot plate, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).  No new matter should be entered.
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.

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.

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.


Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.  The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claim discloses a “foot plate,” however it is unclear what this refers to. Applicant’s specification does not describe a foot plate, where the specification reads “a novel plate or extension 160 that extends from an adjustable arm support 105. The extension 160 can be in the form of a footplate,” (¶[0142]) and Figure 29 does not show foot plate 160, only showing extensions 160a and 160b. Furthermore, Applicant claims “a novel plate or extension 160” but does not provide details or specifics as to what a foot plate is, how it operates, or why it is novel. One skilled in the art would not be able to discern what is meant by a foot plate based on the inadequate description.

Claims 11 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 11, the claim reads “wherein the extension plate extends medially or laterally outwardly from a longitudinal axis of the extension plate.” It is unclear where the extension plate extends from since the claim defines the extension plate based on the longitudinal axis of itself. For the purposes of examination, Examiner interprets that the extension plate extends from an axis.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant claims a “foot plate,” however there is inadequate explanation in Applicant’s specification to explain what a foot plate is. Applicant’s specification reads “The extension 160 can be in the form of a footplate,” (¶[0142]) and Figure 29 does not show foot plate 160, only showing extensions 160a and 160b. It is unclear what a foot plate is referring to. Additionally, a foot plate is not a term of art, at least in the context of the claimed extension, that would imply its meaning. Typically, a foot plate would imply a plate being operated by a person’s foot, however, the drawings do not indicate anything at or near floor level. For the purposes of examination, Examiner interprets that a foot plate is any plate that extends from the device.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.


Claims 1, 3-6, 9-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eyre et al. (hereinafter “Eyre”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0216550 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Eyre teaches a robotic surgical system (Abstract, see also Figures 13A-B), comprising: a table for supporting a patient (¶[0012], where “a system can include a table for supporting a patient positioned on the table”), an adjustable arm support coupled to the table (¶[0012], which teaches “an arm support coupled to at least one of the table or table support”), and one or more robotic arms coupled to the adjustable arm support (¶[0012], where “The system can also include a first robotic arm coupled to the arm support,” ¶[0232], where “systems can include adjustable arm supports as described in this section for supporting one or more robotic arms”), wherein the adjustable arm support is capable of at least one degree of freedom (¶[0240], where “the adjustable arm support 1305 is attached to the bed with a support structure that provides several degrees of freedom… arm support 1305 is configured with four degrees of freedom”) such that the adjustable arm support can swing in a non-parallel angle in a direction of the table (¶[0240], where “A third degree of freedom can allow the adjustable arm support to pivot up as shown. As will be described below, this degree of freedom can be used to adjust a distance between the side of the table 1301 and the adjustable arm support 1305”).  
Regarding claim 3, Eyre teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Eyre teaches that the adjustable arm support swings horizontally in the direction of the table, a first end of the adjustable arm support is closer to the table, and a second end of the adjustable arm support is farther from the table (Figure 13A, as shown above, where the referenced arrow shows one side of the adjustable arm support 1305 swinging out such that it swings horizontally in the direction of the table with a first end closer to the table and a second end farther from the table).  
Regarding claim 4, Eyre teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Eyre teaches that the one or more robotic arms include a first robotic arm and a second robotic arm (¶[0271], where “a first adjustable arm support 1305A supports a first robotic arm 1402A and a second robotic arm 1402B”), wherein the first robotic arm is positioned closer to the first end of the adjustable arm support and the second robotic arm is positioned closer to the second end of the adjustable arm support (Figure 14C, where a first robotic arm 1402A is closer to a first end of adjustable arm support 1305A and a second robotic arm 1402B is closer to a second end of the adjustable arm support 1305A).  
Regarding claim 5, Eyre teaches all limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Eyre teaches that the first robotic arm is coupled to a scope (¶[0238], where “the systems are configured for both laparoscopic and endoscopic procedures,” ¶[0270], where “one or more of the robotic arms 1402A, 1402B, 1402C, 1402D can operate laparoscopic surgical instruments or tools, and one or more of the other of the 1402A, 1402B, 1402C, 1402D can operate a camera laparoscopically inserted into the patient,” Figure 14C, where the first robotic arm 1402A is holding a surgical instrument for a laparoscopic procedure. Examiner takes the position that since one or more of the robotic arms can operate a camera laparoscopically, this equates to a scope that can be operated by the first robotic arm.) and the second robotic arm is coupled to an instrument (¶[0270], Figure 14C, where the second robotic arm 1402B is holding a surgical instrument for a laparoscopic procedure).  
Regarding claim 6, Eyre teaches all limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Eyre teaches that the first robotic arm is coupled to an extender bar (Figure 25A, insertion axis body 2113, ¶[0327], where “the robotic arm 2100 can be configured such that the insertion axis body 2113 can be configured to be generally reversible. In some embodiments, having an ability to operate a robotic arm 2100 with an instrument driver 2115 far from the remote center can mitigate arm collisions”), wherein a first end of the extender bar is coupled to the first robotic arm (Figure 25A, where a first end of the insertion axis body 2113 is attached to the robotic arm) and a second end of the extender bar is coupled to a cannula (¶[0327], where “the robotic arm 2100 can be configured such that a cannula can be mounted on either side 2113A, 2113B of the insertion axis housing 2113. This can be used to changes the distance of separation between the remote center and the wrist 2121. This can provide an additional option to control to vary the position of the robotic arm 2100”), wherein the first robotic arm is capable of translating the extender bar so as to move the cannula in a pitch or yaw axis (¶[0310], where “The robotic arm 2100 can also include a degree of freedom 2159 permitting wrist yaw … this degree of freedom 2159 can allow adjustment between an insertion axis body 2113 or an instrument driver 2115 and the distal link 2111. In some embodiments, this degree of freedom 2159 is used to adjust an angle of rotation of the component attached to the distal link 2111 relative to the distal link 2111,” ¶[0311], where “The robotic arm 2100 can also include a degree of freedom 2161 permitting wrist pitch. This degree of freedom 2161 can allow additional adjustment of the component connected to the distal link 2111 relative to the distal link 2111.” Examiner takes the position that since the insertion axis body is an extension of the robotic arm that a pitch or yaw movement by the robotic arm will inherently be translated to the attached extension.). 
Regarding claim 9, Eyre teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Eyre teaches that the adjustable arm support comprises a split rail including a first rail segment and a second rail segment (¶[0262], where “a first robotic arm 1402A is illustrated attached to the bar or rail 1307A of the first adjustable arm support 1305A, and a second robotic arm 1402B is illustrated attached to the bar or rail 1307B of the second adjustable arm support 1305B.” Examiner takes the position that since a split rail is essentially two separate rail segments that a first and second rail is equivalent to a split rail.), wherein the first rail segment is independently controllable relative to the second rail segment (¶[0273], where “in embodiments that include two adjustable arm supports 1305A, 1305B, the rail 1307A, 1307B of each adjustable arm support 1305A, 1305B can be translated along its corresponding axis 1329A, 1329B, independently of the other rail”).  
Regarding claim 10, see the rejection of claim 1 above.  However, claim 10 adds that “the adjustable arm support comprises an extension plate that protrudes outwardly from the adjustable arm support.” Eyre teaches that the adjustable arm support comprises an extension plate that protrudes outwardly from the adjustable arm support (Figure 14B, where adjustable arm support 1305B has an extension that protrudes outwardly from the adjustable arm support and off the end of the bar or rail 1307B).  
Regarding claim 11, Eyre teaches all limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Eyre teaches that the extension plate extends medially or laterally outwardly from a longitudinal axis of the extension plate (Figure 14B, where adjustable arm support 1305B has an extension that protrudes outwardly from the adjustable arm support).  
Regarding claim 12, Eyre teaches all limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Eyre teaches that the one or more robotic arms include a first robotic arm that is capable of translating along the adjustable arm support and the extension plate (¶[0262], where “The distal end of the second robotic arm 1402B includes an instrument drive mechanism 1406B,” which allows for translation along the adjustable arm support, ¶[0268], where “the second robotic arm 1402B, the third robotic arm 1402C, and the fourth robotic arm 1402D can each be configured to translate back and forth along the rail 1307B of the second adjustable arm support 1305B.” Examiner takes the position that since the extension plate is a part of the adjustable arm support that translation along the adjustable arm support inherently includes translation along the attached extension.).  
Regarding claim 13, Eyre teaches all limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Eyre teaches that the extension plate comprises a foot plate (Figure 14A, where adjustable arm support 1305A has a plate, bar or rail connector 1311, that is equivalent to a foot plate since it is a plate extending from the arm support. In view of the indefinite nature of the claim and the lack of description in Applicant’s specification, Examiner interprets this extension to be equivalent to a foot plate.).  
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1 above.  However, claim 15 adds that “the first robotic arm has a height differential relative to the second robotic arm.” Eyre teaches that the first robotic arm has a height differential relative to the second robotic arm (¶[0266], where “The adjustable arm supports 1305 can have continuous movement (e.g., vertical or longitudinal) and can be stopped at any point as desired by a surgeon or clinician. This can be beneficial, for example, in creating a height differential between the arm supports, which can be advantageous for certain types of surgeries, such as when one set of robotic arms needs to reach low and the other needs to reach over a patient”).
Regarding claim 18, Eyre teaches all limitations of claim 15 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Eyre teaches that the first robotic arm comprises a first base (¶[0262], where “the first robotic arm 1402A includes a base 1404A”), a first proximal link, and a first distal link (Figure 14A, where the first robotic arm 1402A has a proximal and distal link separated by a joint), and the second robotic arm comprises a second base (¶[0262], where “the second robotic arm 1402B includes a base 1404B”), a second proximal link, and a second distal link (Figure 14A, where the second robotic arm 1402B has a proximal and distal link separated by a joint).  
Regarding claim 19, Eyre teaches all limitations of claim 18 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Eyre teaches that the first base has a height differential relative to the second base (Figure 14A, where first base 1404A is at a different height from second base 1404B).  
Regarding claim 20, Eyre teaches all limitations of claim 18 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Eyre teaches that the first distal link has a height differential relative to the second distal link (Figure 14A, where the first robotic arm 1402A is at a different height from the second robotic arm 1402B, consequently creating a height differential between the first and second distal links).

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.

Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyre.
Regarding claim 2, Eyre teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Eyre teaches that the adjustable arm support is capable of at least five degrees of freedom (¶[0232], where “the adjustable arm supports include at least three or four degrees of freedom that allow for adjustment of the position of the bar, track, or rail.” Examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to include a fifth degree of freedom to the adjustable arm support because it amounts to mere duplication of parts, the same parts used for the four degrees of freedom, duplicated for a fifth, especially since “at least three or four” suggests that more than four degrees of freedom can be utilized. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.), wherein the at least five degrees of freedom include vertical translation (¶[0232], where “One of the degrees of freedom can allow the adjustable arm support to be adjusted vertically relative to the table”), biceps curl (¶[0249], where “The adjustable arm support 1305 can include a third joint 1317 as shown. The third joint 1317 can be configured to provide the third degree of freedom (pivot up) for the adjustable arm support 1305,” ¶[0240], where “the third joint 1317 can allow the rail 1307 to pivot upwards in a “biceps curl” type fashion from a stowed position to an elevated position”), lateral translation (¶[0240], where “the adjustable arm support 1305 is attached to the bed with a support structure that provides several degrees of freedom (e.g. … lateral translation …”), tilt (¶[0240], where “A second degree of freedom can allow the adjustable arm support 1305 to tilt”), and horizontal swing (Figure 13A, where an arrow overlaying arm support 1305 shows the horizontal swing movement. See the relevant portion of Figure 13A below).  

    PNG
    media_image1.png
    635
    834
    media_image1.png
    Greyscale


Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyre in view of Farritor et al. (hereinafter “Farritor”) (WO 2017/201310 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Eyre teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Eyre does not teach that the adjustable arm support is curved, or wherein the adjustable arm support is undulating.  
Farritor teaches a robotic surgical device (Abstract) where the adjustable arm support is curved, or wherein the adjustable arm support is undulating (¶[0201], where “The second track 464 is made up of two arms 464A, 464B that are positioned to define a track space 467 therebetween such that a carriage 466 can be moveably coupled to the first and second arms 464A, 464B and move along the track space 467. In various embodiments, the two arms 464A, 464B are curved in an arc as shown such that the carriage 466 moves along the arc,” Figure 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Farritor, which teaches that the adjustable arm support is curved, or wherein the adjustable arm support is undulating, with the invention of Eyre in order to provide a roll degree of freedom for the device (Farritor ¶[0203]).

Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyre in view of Alvarez et al. (hereinafter “Alvarez”) (U.S. Pat. No. 9,763,741 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Eyre teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Eyre does not teach one or more sensors on the adjustable arm support for detecting an external object, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a vision-based sensor, wherein a map of external objects is generated based on information from the vision-based sensor.  
Alvarez teaches a robotic system that utilizes an endoscope with a mounted digital camera (Abstract) with one or more sensors on the adjustable arm support for detecting an external object, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a vision-based sensor, wherein a map of external objects is generated based on information from the vision-based sensor (Col. 30, lines 44-47, where “Using stereoscopic image capture, the depth of the pixels in the two-dimensional captured images may be determined to build a three-dimensional map of objects in the camera view.” Examiner takes the position that a camera is a vision-based sensor and that external objects are inherently detected since they are captured by the camera and mapped. Examiner also takes the position that since the “surgical robotic system may incorporate both external sensor-based and internal vision-based navigation technologies in order to assist the physician with guidance to the desired anatomical location within the patient” (Col. 5, lines 62-65), that the sensor can be applied to the adjustable arm support.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Alvarez, which teaches one or more vision-based sensors on the adjustable arm support for detecting and mapping external objects, with the invention of Eyre since this technique enables the system to develop three-dimensional maps of the local surroundings around the endoscope while navigating in inside the patient's anatomy which extends the pre-determined three-dimensional computer models and allows for a more complete mapping of external objects (Alvarez Col. 30, lines 48-54).

Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyre in view of Cagle et al. (hereinafter “Cagle”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0344421 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Eyre teaches all limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Although Eyre teaches an extension plate, it does not teach that the extension plate is removably coupled from the adjustable arm support. 
Cagle teaches a surgical robotic arm apparatus (Abstract) that the extension plate is removably coupled from the adjustable arm support (¶[0024], where “the robotic arms 230 can be permanently or releasably coupled, in a fixed or movable location, to an arm adapter (also referred to as an “arm support”) that is coupled to or separate from the surgical table.” Examiner takes the position that since the robotic arms are removable from the arm support that the extension plate is also removably coupled to the adjustable arm support since it is an extension of the robotic arms.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Cagle, which teaches that the extension plate is removably coupled from the adjustable arm support, with the invention of Eyre so that the robotic arms can be efficiently and repeatedly coupled to and/or removed from the surgical table (Cagle ¶[0034]).

Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyre in view of Mantri et al. (hereinafter “Mantri”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0360100 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Eyre teaches all limitations of claim 15 as described in the rejection above.
Although Eyre teaches a robotic arm, it does not teach that the first robotic arm comprises a riser, wherein the riser comprises a static riser or a dynamic riser in a form of an actuatable joint, wherein the dynamic riser comprises a spherical shoulder joint, a prismatic joint, or a rotary joint formed between a first riser link and a second riser link.  
Mantri teaches that the first robotic arm comprises a riser (¶[0179], where “mechanical arm 442 carries a probe mount 1334 to which a probe 450 may be mounted ... the probe mount 1334 comprises a riser 1336 configured to elevate the probe”), wherein the riser comprises a static riser or a dynamic riser in a form of an actuatable joint, wherein the dynamic riser comprises a spherical shoulder joint, a prismatic joint, or a rotary joint formed between a first riser link and a second riser link (Figure 13, mechanical arm 442 and segments 1330, where the segments are equivalent to riser links and mechanical arm 442 incorporates a riser).  
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Mantri, which teaches that that the first robotic arm comprises a riser, wherein the riser comprises a static riser or a dynamic riser in a form of an actuatable joint, wherein the dynamic riser comprises a spherical shoulder joint, a prismatic joint, or a rotary joint formed between a first riser link and a second riser link, with the invention of Eyre so that so that the first arm and second arm do not interfere with one another when portions of the robotic arm are aligned in a vertical plane (Mantri ¶[0208]).
Regarding claim 17, Eyre in combination with Mantri teaches all limitations of claim 16 as described in the rejection above.
Although Eyre teaches an adjustable arm support with adjustable height, it does not teach that an axis of rotation extends between the first riser link and the second riser link, wherein the axis of rotation extends generally along a length of the adjustable arm support or extends generally perpendicular to a length of the adjustable arm support.  
Mantri teaches an axis of rotation extends between the first riser link and the second riser link (Figure 13, where segments 1330 are equivalent to riser links, ¶[0178], where “a mechanical arm may have two, three, four or more segments 1330 that are each coupled to one another by joints 1332 that allow relative pivotal or rotational movement between adjacent segments 1330”), wherein the axis of rotation extends generally along a length of the adjustable arm support or extends generally perpendicular to a length of the adjustable arm support (Figure 13, where, as the mechanical arm 442 moves upward, there will be an axis of rotation that extends generally along a length of the links).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Mantri, which teaches that an axis of rotation extends between the first riser link and the second riser link, wherein the axis of rotation extends generally along a length of the adjustable arm support or extends generally perpendicular to a length of the adjustable arm support, with the invention of Eyre in order to vertically space portions of the robotic arm (Mantri ¶[0179]).
 
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEFRA D. MANOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, James Kish can be reached at 571-272-5554. 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.



/SEFRA D. MANOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3792          


/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796