DETAILED ACTION
The following Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on September 5, 2025. Claims 1-13 and 16-21 are currently pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 5, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Concerning the “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103” section on pages 10-18 of the Applicant’s Response filed on September 5, 2025, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 4-7, 18, and 19 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. Line 3 of claims 4, 6, 18 and 10 recite the limitation of “the curvature of the channel”. However, the channel has not been defined as curved, therein lacking antecedent basis for the limitation in the claims. Claims 5 and 7 are further rejected for being dependent on indefinite claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-12, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webster et al. (US 2009/0171271, hereinafter Webster) in view of Olson et al. (US 2014/0257327), Moll et al. (US 2008/0027464, hereinafter Liu) and Nalluri et al. (US 2013/0066358, hereinafter Nalluri).
Concerning claims 1-3, the Webster et al. prior art reference teaches an apparatus for performing surgery (Figure 1; 100), comprising: a manipulator including an elongate device extending from the manipulator (Figure 1; 102) including a guide tube (Figure 2D; 110), the guide tube including a proximal end extending toward the surgical robot and a curved distal end extending away from the manipulator (Figure 2A; 212), an inner tube housed inside the guide tube (Figure 2D; 115), wherein the inner tube is axially movable and rotatable relative to the guide tube ([¶ 0053]), a surgical tool disposed in the inner tube (Figure 2D; 120, 125), the surgical tool protruding from a distal end of the inner tube (Figure 2D; 125), and a drive module (Figure 1; 135, 140), wherein the drive module controls axial movement and rotation of the guide tube ([¶ 0056]), wherein the drive module controls axial movement and rotation of the inner tube independent of the control of the axial movement and rotation of the guide tube ([¶ 0056]), but it does not specifically teach a surgical robot including an endoscopic device extending from the surgical robot, the endoscopic device including an outer sheath, an inner sheath and a channel disposed inside the inner sheath, a tool cartridge, nor does it teach the value of the radius of curvature of the guide tube.
However, the Olson reference teaches an apparatus for performing surgery (Figure 2; 500), comprising: a surgical robot (Figure 2; 508) including a manipulator device (Figure 2; 300) including an elongated device extending from the surgical robot, the elongated device including an outer sheath (Figure 4; 412), an inner sheath (Figure 4; 408), and a channel disposed inside the inner sheath; and a catheter device positioned inside the channel (Figure 2; 406), wherein the catheter device may include a tool cartridge ([¶ 0043), wherein the reference states that the catheter or medical device may be controlled by a single cartridge ([¶ 0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the manipulator of the Webster reference be used with the surgical robot of the Olson reference, with the active cannula of the Webster reference being used as the catheter device of the manipulator system, to provide a remote guidance system configured to eliminate or minimize buckling of the active cannula during automatic manipulation of the system (Olson; [¶ 0010]), wherein it would further be obvious to have the drive modules of the Webster reference be controlled by a single cartridge as in the Olson reference given the Olson reference defines a cartridge as a form factor that allows for robotically controlled movement within a robotic system (Olson; [¶ 0043]).
Although the Olson reference does not teach the elongate device being an endoscopic device, the Moll reference teaches a similar apparatus for performing surgery comprising a surgical robot and manipulator with a catheter guidance system, wherein the guidance catheter may be an endoscopic catheter (Moll; [¶ 0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the elongate device of the Webster and Olson combination be an endoscopic catheter as in the Moll reference given the Moll reference teaches that an endoscopic catheter is an obvious catheter type used within a robotic surgical system (Moll; [¶ 0040]).
Furthermore, the Webster reference teaches that the radius of curvature of the guide tube may have many different curve shapes (Webster; [¶ 0045]), while the Nalluri reference teaches a catheter for sinus surgery that includes a highly-curved distal end extending away from the surgical instrument (Figure 6; 210), wherein the reference teaches that the curve may have a radius of curvature of approximately 5 mm to 25 mm, and may specifically be 14 mm ([¶ 0027]), which converts to a curvature value of 71.4 m-1, which is about 72 m-1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the curved distal end of the Webster reference be a highly-curved distal end including a curvature of about 72 m-1 as in the Nalluri reference given it has been disclosed as an appropriately sized curvature for nasal passages (Nalluri; [¶ 0027]).
Concerning claims 8 and 9, the combination of the Webster, Olson, Moll, and Nalluri references as discussed above teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the Webster reference further teaches that the guide tube may include a first curved region and a second curved region, wherein the first curved region and the second curved region may be oriented opposite each other in substantially the same plane of curvature ([¶ 0088 | Figure 2D; 110).
Concerning claim 10, the combination of the Webster, Olson, Moll, and Nalluri references as discussed above teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the Webster reference teaches the first curved region including a first arc length and the second curved region including a second arc length ([¶ 0088] | Figure 2D), and although the reference does not specifically state that the second arc length is less than the first arc length, or that the second curved region includes a curvature between about 35 m-1 and about 45 m-1, the reference states that the flexible tubes may have many complex shapes and degrees of curvature ([¶ 0088]), wherein the reference further defines the length of the curved section and radius of curvature as a result effective variables that dictate the final path and configuration of the manipulator ([¶ 0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second arc length less than the first arc length and the second curved region include a curvature between 35 m-1 and about 45 m-1 as a routine optimization of a result effective variable that would affect the final path and configuration of the manipulator (Webster; [¶ 0071]).
Concerning claim 11, the combination of the Webster, Olson, Moll, and Nalluri references as discussed above teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the Webster reference further teaches the guide tube comprising nitinol ([¶ 0050]).
Concerning claims 12 and 13, the combination of the Webster, Olson, Moll, and Nalluri references as discussed above teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the Webster reference teaches the outer sheath being curved, wherein the inner sheath would also curve with the outer sheath (Figure 10), and wherein given the Webster reference teaches that the flexible tubes may have many complex shapes and degrees of curvature ([¶ 0088]), the curvature of the inner tube may be less than the curvature of the highly-curved distal end of the guide tube and less than the curvature of the channel.
Concerning claim 21, the combination of the Webster, Olson, Moll, and Nalluri references as discussed above teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the inner sheath is disposed in the outer sheath, wherein the endoscopic device further includes a sheath insert disposed in the inner sheath (the cables/tendons controlling the sheath via the cartridge may be defined as a sheath insert), and wherein the channel is disposed in the sheath insert (Olson; [¶ 0046]).
Claim(s) 16, 17, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webster et al. (US 2009/0171271, hereinafter Webster) in view of Moll et al. (US 2011/0238083, hereinafter Moll), Johnson et al. (US 2018/0256015, hereinafter Johnson) and Nalluri et al. (US 2013/0066358, hereinafter Nalluri).
Concerning claims 16 and 17, the Webster et al. prior art reference teaches an apparatus for performing surgery (Figure 1; 100), comprising: a manipulator including an elongate device extending from the manipulator (Figure 1; 102) including a guide tube (Figure 2D; 110), the guide tube including a proximal end extending toward the surgical robot and a curved distal end extending away from the manipulator (Figure 2A; 212), an inner tube housed inside the guide tube (Figure 2D; 115), wherein the inner tube is axially movable and rotatable relative to the guide tube ([¶ 0053]), a surgical tool disposed in the inner tube (Figure 2D; 120, 125), the surgical tool protruding from a distal end of the inner tube (Figure 2D; 125), and a drive module (Figure 1; 135, 140), wherein the drive module controls axial movement and rotation of the guide tube ([¶ 0056]), wherein the drive module controls axial movement and rotation of the inner tube independent of the control of the axial movement and rotation of the guide tube ([¶ 0056]), but it does not specifically teach the manipulator being an endoscopic device extending from a surgical robot, the endoscopic device including an outer sheath, an inner sheath and a channel disposed inside the inner sheath, having first and second channels, first and second guide tubes, first and second inner tubes, or first and second tool cartridges, nor does it teach the value of the radius of curvature.
However, the Moll reference teaches a robotically assisted minimally invasive surgical device that includes an endoscope manipulator which is attached to a surgical robot (Figures 194A-D) including first and second channels (Figure 194B; 858, 859), first and second guide tubes (Figure 194C; 30, 818), first and second inner tubes (Figure 194D; 18, 819), and first and second tool cartridges (Figure 194C; 16, 871).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the manipulator of the Webster reference be an endoscopic device attached to a surgical robot as in the Moll reference to allow the system to provide remote steering and visualization of the operative area (Moll; [¶ 0324]), to further include the first and second channels, first and second guide tubes, or first and second inner tubes of Moll to allow multiple instruments to be delivered to the operative area (Moll; [¶ 0328]), and to include first and second tool cartridges to allow for positioning of the tool drive module for convenient access into desired locations relative to the patient (Moll; [¶ 0124]).
Although the Moll reference does not specifically teach an outer sheath and an inner sheath, the first and second channels disposed inside the inner sheath, the Johnson reference teaches an endoscopic device similar to that of the Moll reference wherein the Johnson reference teaches an outer sheath (Figure 14; 1404) and an inner sheath (Figure 14; 1406) concentric with the outer sheath and first and second channels (Figure 14; 1436, 1438) disposed within the inner sheath.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the endoscopic device of the Moll reference include an outer sheath and an inner sheath, the first and second channels disposed inside the inner sheath as in the Johnson reference to provide a suction capability within the endoscopic device (Johnson; [¶ 0015])
Furthermore, the Webster reference teaches that the radius of curvature of the guide tube may have many different curve shapes (Webster; [¶ 0045]), while the Nalluri reference teaches a catheter for sinus surgery that includes a highly-curved distal end extending away from the surgical instrument (Figure 6; 210), wherein the reference teaches that the curve may have a radius of curvature of approximately 5 mm to 25 mm, and may specifically be 14 mm ([¶ 0027]), which converts to a curvature value of 71.4 m-1, which is about 72 m-1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the highly-curved distal ends of the first and second guide tubes of the Webster combination include a curvature of about 72 m-1 as in the Nalluri reference given it has been disclosed as an appropriately sized curvature for nasal passages (Nalluri; [¶ 0027]).
Concerning claim 20, the combination of the Webster, Moll, Johnson, and Nalluri references as discussed above teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the Webster reference further teaches that the guide tube may include a first curved region and a second curved region (Figure 2D), wherein it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have both the first and second guide tubes to include said first and second curved regions.
Furthermore, although and the Webster reference does not teach the specific curvatures of the first and second curved regions, the reference states that the flexible tubes may have many complex shapes and degrees of curvature ([¶ 0088]), wherein the reference further defines the length of the curved section and radius of curvature as a result effective variables that dictate the final path and configuration of the manipulator ([¶ 0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first curved region of the first and second guide tubes have a curvature of 50 m-1 and about 100 m-1 and the second curved region of the first and second guide tubes have a curvature of 35 m-1 and about 45 m-1 as a routine optimization of a result effective variable that would affect the final path and configuration of the manipulator (Webster; [¶ 0071]).
Concerning claim 22, the combination of the Webster, Moll, Johnson, and Nalluri references as discussed above teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the inner sheath is disposed in the outer sheath, wherein the endoscopic device further includes a sheath insert disposed in the inner sheath (Johnson; Figure 14; body of scope within 1406), and wherein the channel is disposed inside the sheath insert (Figure 14; 1436, 1438).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN TRUYEN TON whose telephone number is (571)270-5122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; EST 10:00 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/MARTIN T TON/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 11/14/2025