DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/09/2025 has been entered.
As indicated by the amendment submitted with the request for continued examination: claims 1, 4, 9, 17 and 18 have been amended, claims 3 and 15-16 have been cancelled, and new claims 21-35 have been added. Claims 1-2, 4-14 and 17-32 are presently pending in the application.
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) 21-22 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al. (US 2011/0282357 A1) in view of Devengenzo et al. (US 2017/0095300 A1) in view of Itkowitz et al. (US 2017/0333275 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Rogers discloses an apparatus for performing surgery, comprising: a holding arm (Fig. 2A; 232/230/228/226/222/218); a holding arm interface (Fig. 2A; 234/240/238/250) including a handle (portion of 234 that can be held by a hand; Fig. 2A), an electrical connector (within 234/238/250; Fig. 1A; par. [0076]), a body (238/250; Fig. 2A) secured to the holding arm (Figs. 2A-2B); wherein the handle (234; Fig. 2A) is disposed above the body (238/250; Fig. 2A); an actuation unit (242; par. [0091]; Fig. 2B) detachably secured to a proximal side of the body (detachably secured to the proximal end of 238/250 at 240; Fig. 2A and 30A; par. [0091] and [0192]) of the holding arm interface; an endoscope sheath assembly (2200/1800; Fig. 22; par. [0165]) comprising an inner sheath (2200; par. [0165]) and an outer sheath (1800; par. [0165]) detachably secured to a distal side of the body (detachable secured to the distal end of 238/250 at 250) of the holding arm interface (par. [0163] – the sheath assembly is mounted to 1754 of holding arm interface portion 250/1750; see Figs. 19A-20B and 24A-24D) opposite the actuation unit (Fig. 2A); wherein the body (238/250) of the holding arm interface (234/238/250) is between the actuation unit (242) and the endoscope sheath assembly (2200/1800; Fig. 2A).
However, Rogers does not specifically disclose that the holding arm interface includes an interface mount, the interface mount being detachably secured to the holding arm. Devengenzo teaches an analogous apparatus (Fig. 1) having an electrical connector (170) that is also an interface connection (170) between an analogous holding arm interface (150/120/122/124) and a holding arm (140/142; Figs. 2-3; par. [0046]). The interface connection (170) includes an interface mount (172; Figs. 3, 5 and 9-10; par. [0046] and [0050]-[0052]) on the holding arm interface (150/120/122/124; Fig. 2A), that is detachably secured to the holding arm (140/142; Figs. 2 and 3). Devengenzo teaches that providing an interface connection, including an interface mount, between two components provides a configuration wherein the arm can be disconnected to be cleaned, repaired, or replaced (par. [0046] and [0049]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide an interface mount on the holding arm interface and holding arm of Rogers such that the holding arm interface can be disconnected to be cleaned, repaired, or replaced, as taught by Rogers.
However, Rogers does not specifically disclose a first button on the handle, wherein the first button is configured to selectively operate a feature of the system. Itkowtiz teaches an analogous apparatus (Fig. 2) having an analogous handle (Fig. 2 – portions of the arm that can be held by operator such as 227/240/260) comprising a first button (par. [0100] – unlocking button), wherein the button is configured to selectively operate a feature of the system (par. [0100] – unlock button unlocks the arm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the unlock button on the handle of Rogers in order to verify that the arm portions of the apparatus are locked or unlocked, or to lock or unlock the portions, as taught by Itkowitz.
Regarding claim 22, Rogers in view of Devengenzo in view of Itkowitz disclose the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the holding arm (Fig. 2A; 232/230/228/226/222/218) comprises an articulated holding arm.
Regarding claim 32, Rogers in view of Devengenzo in view of Itkowitz disclose the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the holding arm interface (Fig. 2A; 234/240/238/250) further includes a bracket (upper portion of 234 on the opposite side of the interface mount; Fig. 2A) disposed on the handle (lower portion of 234; Fig. 2A), the bracket (upper portion of 234 on the opposite side of the interface mount) extending upwardly form the body (238/250; Fig. 2A; 234 extends in an upward direction from the body), such that the interface mount (Devengenzo: 172) is disposed on an upper end of the holding arm interface (Fig. 2A; interface mount is disposed on a proximal end of 234 to connect to 230).
Claim(s) 23-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers in view of Devengenzo in view of Itkowitz as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Lathrop et al. (US 2017/0143436 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Rogers in view of Devengenzo in view of Itkowitz disclose the apparatus of claim 21, further comprising: a removable cartridge (960a; Figs. 9A-9B; par. [0120]) disposed on the actuation unit (242/542; par. [0120] and [0123]; Fig. 10), the removable cartridge (960a) comprising an instrument body (960b; Frigs. 9A-9B) extending through the holding arm interface (1754 of 1750/250) and into the endoscope sheath assembly (2200/1800; Fig. 2A).
Although Rogers discloses the removable cartridge comprising an instrument body, and also contemplates other surgical instrument usable with apparatus (par. [0101]), it does not specifically disclose that the removable cartridge comprises a concentric tube array. Lathrop teaches an analogous apparatus (Fig. 1) having an analogous cartridge (50; par. [0043]; Fig. 2) wherein the cartridge comprises a concentric tube array (60; Figs. 2 and 6). Lathrop teaches that using a concentric tube array as the surgical instrument provides increased degrees of freedom for the instrument as each tube can rotates and extend/retract to manipulate the end effector (par. [0045]-[0048]; Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a concentric tube array as the surgical instrument in the apparatus of Rogers in order to provide an instrument with more degrees of freedom, as taught by Lathrop, in order to improve the ability to manipulate the end effector during a surgical procedure
Regarding claim 24, Rogers in view of Devengenzo in view of Itkowitz in view of Lathrop disclose the apparatus of claim 23, further comprising: a channel (Figs. 22 and 23A) disposed inside the inner sheath (2200), wherein the concentric tube array (Lathrop: 60) is positioned inside the channel (Fig. 22).
Regarding claim 25, Rogers in view of Devengenzo in view of Itkowitz in view of Lathrop disclose the apparatus of claim 24, wherein the holding arm interface (Fig. 2A; 234/240/238/250) further includes a bracket (upper part of 234; Fig. 2A) disposed between the body (238/250; Fig. 2A) and the interface mount (Devengenzo: 172; portion of 234 that connects to 230), the bracket (upper part 234) extending upwardly form the body (238/250; Fig. 2A; 234 extends in an upward direction from the body), such that the interface mount (Devengenzo: 172) is disposed on an upper end of the holding arm interface (Fig. 2A; interface mount is disposed on a proximal end of 234 to connect to 230).
Regarding claim 26, Rogers in view of Devengenzo in view of Itkowitz in view of Lathrop disclose the apparatus of claim 24, wherein the actuation unit (242) is detachable relative to the holding arm interface (detaches from 238/250) along a longitudinal insertion axis (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 27, Rogers in view of Devengenzo in view of Itkowitz in view of Lathrop disclose the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the endoscope sheath assembly (1800/2200) is detachable relative to the holding arm interface (detaches from 1754/250/1750) along the longitudinal insertion axis (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 28, Rogers in view of Devengenzo in view of Itkowitz in view of Lathrop disclose the apparatus of claim 27, wherein the concentric tube array (Lathrop: 60) is at least one of: axially moveable along the longitudinal insertion axis (via movement 242 along 344; Figs. 3-4B); or angularly moveable about the longitudinal insertion axis (par. [0168]).
Regarding claim 29, Rogers in view of Devengenzo in view of Itkowitz in view of Lathrop disclose the apparatus of claim 28, wherein the body (238/250) of the holding arm interface comprises a base plate (240a/340a; par. [0084] and [0091]) and a shell (240/340; par. [0091]), wherein the base plate (240a/340a) is angularly moveable relative to shell (240/340) about the longitudinal insertion axis at a rotating joint (par. [0091]).
Regarding claim 30, Rogers in view of Devengenzo in view of Itkowitz in view of Lathrop disclose the apparatus of claim 29, wherein the actuation unit (242) is angularly moveable relative to the holding arm interface (Fig. 2A; 240/238/250) via the rotating joint (240a/340a/240/340; par. [0091] and [0168]).
Regarding claim 31, Rogers in view of Devengenzo in view of Itkowitz in view of Lathrop disclose the apparatus of claim 30, further comprising a brake (par. [0005] and [0186] – within servomotor; Fig. 28) disposed on the body of the holding arm interface, wherein the brake is configured to selectively angularly lock the actuation unit at a desired angular orientation relative to the holding arm interface (stops rotation of the rotatable base place to hold the actuation unit at a desired position).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: In the Final Rejection of 05/08/2025, claims 1-20 were pending with claims 1-12 and 15 rejected, and claims 13-14 and 16-20 objected to for depending upon a rejected base claim. Reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in claims 13 and 16 were provided (see page 7 of the Final Rejection of 05/08/2025). In the RCE filed 11/09/2025, Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 9, 17 and 18, canceled claims 3 and 15-16, and added new claims 21-32. Claims 1-2, 4-14 and 17-32 are presently pending in the application. Applicant amended independent claim 1 to include the subject matter of objected to claim 16 and intervening claims 3 and 15. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-14 and 17-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that new claim 21 is allowable as it contains the subject matter of dependent claim 13. However, the intervening claims were not incorporated into new claim 21. As discussed above, claim 21 is rejected over Rogers in view of Devengenzo. Accordingly, claims 21-32 are rejected.
Conclusion
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYNAE E BOLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3620. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYNAE E BOLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
11/30/2025