DETAILED ACTION
A complete action on the merits of pending claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11-13, 16, 19, 22, 28, 30, 34, 40, 43, and 55-57 appears below.
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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Note
Spivey uses dithering as a method that is used to overcome static friction. However, as used by the applicant and as seen in Pantera US 20040097914, presented in the Final Rejection filed 7/2/25, dithering can be changing or adjusting a signal. This would mean that changing a dither can be seen as dithering a dither.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 12, 16, 28, 30, 43, and 55-57 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spivey by US 20120109184 in view of Zhang US 20180092640.
Regarding claims 1, 28, and 55, Spivey teaches an instrument having a first jaw and a second jaw (Fig. 4 42a and 42b) configured to grasp a material (par. [0009]); an actuator the first and second jaws to apply force to the grasped material (par. [0034] actuator 50); and a controller coupled to the one or more actuators (par. [0053] mechanism 60); wherein the controller is configured to: determine that actuation of the one or more actuators should be dithered; and in response to the determination (par. [0043] activation or 60 by sensor), configure a nonzero magnitude of an electrical dithering signal based on one or more of a setpoint or a setpoint limit for an electrical control signal (par. [0007] vibrations overcome static friction therefore the setpoint is the point at which the static friction is overcome, this would also be a nonzero magnitude) that actuate the one or more actuators to grasp the material (par. [0010] actuator is used to close jaws); and dither the one or more electrical control signals by applying the electrical dithering signal to the one or more electrical control signals (par. [0012] and [0050] frictional forces reduced by vibrations the signal for overcoming the forces is a changing signal and the operation of the vibration mechanism is actuated by control circuitry), dither one or more control signals to the one or more actuators so as to cause variations in a force or torque applied by the one or more actuators (par. [0012] frictional forces reduced by vibrations), wherein a magnitude of a dithering signal that dithers the one or more control signals is based on one or more of a setpoint or a setpoint limit for the one or more control signals (par. [0007] vibrations overcome static friction therefore the setpoint is the point at which the static friction is overcome).
Spivey does not explicitly teach the actuator comprising one or more of a motor, a solenoid, a servo, a hydraulic device, or a pneumatic device and a percentage of one or more of a setpoint or a setpoint limit for an electrical control signal that controls the actuator to configure a position of the one or more of the first and second jaws to grasp the material.
Zhang, in an analogous device, teaches a user that is able to input a jaw closure distance. The position of the jaws is based upon tissue characteristics at the treatment site. A motor controls the jaw closure by turning a shaft a set number of times based upon the desired jaw distance (par. [0077]). The different selections of jaw opening distances and turns of the motor is seen as a percentage of the maximum opening distance and motor turns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the device of Spivey to use an adjustable motor, as in Zhang. This allows the device to transmit exact values of closure so there is not excessive or inadequate squeezing of the tissue between the jaws (Zhang par. [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, Spivey teaches wherein the material is bodily tissue ([0009]).
Regarding claims 3, 30 and 56, Spivey teaches wherein the one or more of the setpoints of the setpoint limit for electrical control signal corresponds to a force setpoint for the actuator, a torque setpoint for the actuator, a position setpoint for the actuator, or a current setpoint for the actuator (par. [0007] vibrations overcome static friction therefore the setpoint is the point at which the static friction is overcome).
Regarding claim 12, Spivey teaches wherein a frequency of the dithering is at or above a natural frequency for the instrument (par. [0050] the vibrations reduce the friction force; thus, the natural frequency doesn’t make the vibrations high than the natural frequency).
Regarding claims 16, 43, and 57, Spivey teaches wherein the controller is further configured to perform at least one of: begin dithering of the control signal for a first period of time before cutting energy, sealing energy, or both cutting and sealing energy is applied using one or more electrodes on the first jaw, the second jaw, or both the first jaw and the second jaw; or continue the dithering of the control signal for a second period of time after the cutting energy, the sealing energy, or both the cutting and sealing energy is no longer applied (pars. [0047] the jaws are closed and then tissue is cut [0007] vibrating to reduce static friction which is caused before movement therefore the vibrations happen before the jaws close thus before cutting).
Claims 5, 9, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spivey in view of and Zhang as applied to claims 1 and 28 above, and further in view of Kawai US 20110015786.
Regarding claims 5, 9, and 34, Spivey and Zhang do not explicitly teach wherein the dithering is superimposed on the control signal and wherein a magnitude of the dithering is: a percentage of a setpoint for a respective one of the control signal; or a percentage of a setpoint limit for a respective one of the control signal and wherein a magnitude of the dithering is limited so as not to violate one or more setpoint limits for a respective one of the control signal.
Kawai, in an analogous device, teaches a signal that moves the motor for treatment has the dither signal superposed onto it so it becomes a signal component of the treatment signal (par. [0164]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the device of Spivey and Zhang to have the dither signal part of the control signal, as in Kawai. This presents the advantage of knowing the total force of the actuator when the dither force is combined in.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spivey in view of and Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goldenberg US 20100121269.
Regarding claim 11, Spivey and Zhang do not explicitly teach wherein a frequency of the dithering is between 5 and 10 Hertz inclusive.
Goldenberg, in an analogous dither method, teaches using a dither frequency of 1-20 Hz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the device of Spivey and Zhang to have a frequency between 5 and 10 HZ, as taught by Goldenberg. 2-20 Hz is the frequency needed to overcome static friction in a medical device (par. [0077]).
Claims 13, 19, 22, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spivey in view of and Zhang as applied to claims 1 and 28 above, and further in view of Reis US 20080234631.
Regarding claims 13, 19, 22, and 40, Spivey and Zhang do not explicitly teach wherein to determine that the actuation of the actuator should be dithered, the controller is configured to determine whether one or more articulation conditions is present, the one or more articulation conditions including: an articulation of an articulated wrist of the instrument is above an articulation threshold; a change in the articulation of the articulated wrist is above a change in articulation threshold; or a rate of change of the articulation of the articulated wrist is above an angular speed threshold and wherein to determine that the actuation of the actuator should be dithered, the controller is configured to determine whether one or more grasping conditions is present, the one or more grasping conditions including: the force applied to grasp the material by the first and second jaws is below a first force threshold; the force applied to grasp the material by the first and second jaws is above a second force threshold; or a change in the force applied to grasp the material by the first and second jaws is above a force change threshold.
However, Spivey does teach using dither to reduce the static friction on an end effector (par. [0007]). The end effector of Spivey is a pair of forceps (Fig. 2). The pivot point of the jaws can be considered a wrist.
Reis, in an analogous method for dithering, teaches using dither to determine the force applied to an area, for instance, to tissue (par. [0071]). The dither strokes changes with regard to the force applied (Fig. 7M).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the device of Spivey and Zhang to use dither on tissue to be treated, as in Reis. This presents the advantage of increasing dither with increased force (par. [0076]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would realize the importance of this since friction increases with force.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 28, and 55 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RYAN T. CLARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7606. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM MT.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached on (571)272-1213. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights