DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-23 are withdrawn. Claims 18-20 are canceled. A complete action on the merits of pending claims 1-17 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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 21-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected surgical instrument, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/20/26.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2, 4, and 10 recite “3 kg/cm² to 16 Kg/cm²” the second K should be lowercased.
Claim 4 recites “insure” the examiner believes this is supposed to be --ensure--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 12, 15, and 16 recite an EPROM or PCB. Abbreviations and acronyms should be defined in their first use in the claims however these are not leading to an unclear scope of the claims. It does not appear that they are defined in the specification either. For examination the EPROM or PCB will be interpreted as a generic controller/memory/processor/etc. that can be used in any device. Claims 2-17 are rejected based on dependency.
Claims 2, 4, and 10 “a closure force between the jaw members repeatably falls within the range of about 3 kg/cm2 to about 16 Kg/cm2” but kg/cm2 is not a measurement of force. This unit seems to be mass (kg) over an area (cm2). There is kilogram-force which is one kilogram under the standard gravity, but this is not stated. Further, a force over an area is not force but pressure. Therefore, the examiner is not sure what this unit is, whether the force is to close the jaws or the pressure on the surfaces of the jaws when pressed together, or something different.
Claims 2-17 are rejected based on dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weir US 20180161112.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, Weir teaches communicating with an end effector assembly to recognize the end effector assembly and associated operating parameters and characteristics therewith and communicating operational data back to an EPROM or PCB (par. [0028] exchanging position, force, and torque information between controller and other units); and initiating a homing algorithm to determine a fully open position of a pair of jaw members of the end effector assembly (par. [0041] using feedback of capstan 510 to determine open angle), the homing algorithm including: initiating rotation of a jaw drive input to open the jaw members (par. [0042] turning of capstan to increase torque); calculating a baseline torque running average utilizing one or more torque sensors associated with the jaw drive input; analyzing readings from the torque sensor(s) to determine a change in the average torque over time (Δ torque); and once a predetermined change in the average torque over time (Δ torque) has been determined (par. [0028] acquisition of information including torque, par. [0042] torque is determined based on the turning of the capstan and spring constant, par. [0045] the rotations and spring constant determine what return to home torque and if needed extra force can be applied to make sure the home position is reached), equating the change in the average torque over time (Δ torque) to the jaw members being in a fully open or homing position relative to one another (par. [0042] homing position is closed but the returned to home torque is determined).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, wherein after identifying a homing position of the jaw drive input, the method includes repeatably rotating the jaw drive input a predetermined number of degrees from the homing position to compress a compression spring (par. [0042] spring force increases with rotation of capstan) such that a closure force between the jaw members repeatably falls within the range of about 3 kg/cm2 to about 16 Kg/cm2 (See 112 above, par. [0045] return to home force on the end effector can be 10N).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Weir teaches wherein the predetermined number of rotations or degrees of rotation of the jaw drive input is dependent on at least one of the type of compression spring, spring constant of the compression spring, size of jaw drive input shaft, or thread ratio of the jaw drive input shaft (par. [0042] a spring tightens based on rotations to determine the homing force).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Weir teaches wherein the predetermined number of degrees of rotation of the jaw drive input from the homing position is stored in the EPROM or PCB (par. [0028] position and torque readings are sent to control unit par. [0042] number of rotations of capstan dictates torque, position of rotation is degrees).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Weir teaches wherein the predetermined number of degrees of rotation of the jaw drive input is based on the associated operating parameters and characteristics of the end effector assembly and is stored in the EPROM or PCB (par. [0042] number of rotations of capstan dictates torque as well as the spring constant).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weir.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Weir does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined number of degrees of rotation of the jaw drive input from the homing position is in the range of about 1500 degrees to about 3000 degrees.
However, Weir teaches increasing torque on the spring based on the rotations of the capstan (par. [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the number of degrees is between 1500 degrees to about 3000 degrees. It held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). This range would be determined by the spring constant as described in Wier par. [0042] where the spring constant and rotations are the determination of torque. Further, it does not appear that these values hold any criticality to the invention.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weir in view of Hart US 20210298751.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Weir does not explicitly teach wherein after calculating a baseline torque running average utilizing one or more torque sensors associated with the jaw drive input, the method includes filtering the torque reading through a low pass filter to avoid false readings from the torque sensor(s) to allow a more accurate average torque reading.
Hart, in an analogous torque monitoring method, teaches using a torque average (par. [0061]) that is continuously monitored and run through a low pass filter (par. [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Weir to include running the torque through a low pass filter, as in Hart. The filter helps to reduce the noise I the data (Hart par. [0055])
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weir in view of Harris US 20200178971.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Weir teaches wherein after rotating the jaw drive input the predetermined number of degrees from the homing position (par. [0042] spring force increases with rotation of capstan) to insure that the closure force between the jaw members falls within the range of about 3 kg/cm2 to about 16 Kg/cm2 (See 112 above, par. [0045] return to home force on the end effector can be 10N).
Weir does not explicitly each the method includes disengaging the end effector assembly from a robotic surgical instrument and repeating the method with a new end effector assembly and communicating the homing position of the jaw members to the EPROM or PCB for calibration of the jaw drive input.
Harris, in an analogous homing method, teaches where the end effector can be switched out (par. [0790]) and the drive can be recalibrated (par. [0535]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Weir to have detachable end effectors which allow for device recalibration, as in Harris. This allows for switching of the end effector when one original is not satisfactory for its use (Harris par. [0790]).
Conclusion
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 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 at (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 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.
/R.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights