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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s first argument, that Low does not teach the drive pulley and coupling spool are fixedly coupled, is unpersuasive. Low does not teach that the drive pulley and the coupling spool are directedly coupled together, but they are fixedly coupled to each other through the yoke 330 (Fig. 3a).
Regarding Applicant’s second argument, that Low’s first cable portion does not cross over the second portion of the cable, is likewise unpersuasive. As cited previously in Para. 0127, the free ends are wrapped in the opposite directions, with Fig. 5d showing with crossing that occurs at capstan 620.
Newly added Claim 58 is likewise rejected under Low, as Fig. 5d shows the revolutions/wrap occurring as required in the claims.
For these reasons, the rejections to the claims are maintained.
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, 5-6, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication 20150209965 awarded to Low et al, hereinafter Low.
Regarding Claim 1, Low teaches a medical instrument (tool 30), comprising: a shaft comprising a distal end portion and a proximal end portion (Fig. 3a, shaft 30a); a tool member (grasper 310) rotatably coupled to the distal end portion of the shaft about a rotation axis (Para. 0094), and comprising a drive pulley (pulley 320) and a coupling spool (pulley 340) fixedly coupled to the drive pulley (yoke 330, Fig. 3a), the drive pulley comprising a drive surface (Para. 0093); a mechanical structure coupled to the proximal end portion of the shaft (end 680, Para. 0120) and comprising a first capstan (capstan 630a) and a second capstan (capstan 630b), the first capstan comprising a first portion and a second portion, the first portion of the first capstan comprising a drive surface (Para. 0121, the Examiner notes that any device can be divided into portions, particularly as the portions are not assigned to a physical component of the capstan, merely by its function as a drive surface), the second capstan comprising a first portion and a second portion, and the first portion of the second capstan comprising a drive surface (Para. 0121, the Examiner notes that any device can be divided into portions, particularly as the portions are not assigned to a physical component of the capstan, merely by its function as a drive surface); and a cable routed along the shaft and comprising a first proximal end, a second proximal end, and a distal portion (cable 690a, Para. 0124), the first proximal end of the cable comprising a first wrap portion and a second wrap portion, the second proximal end of the cable comprising a first wrap portion and a second wrap portion (Examiner notes as a cable wraps, further portions of the cable end wrap around further portions of the capstan), the distal portion of the cable being routed about the drive surface of the drive pulley and being wrapped at least one revolution about the coupling spool to secure the distal portion of the cable to the tool member (Fig. 3a, Para. 0098), the first proximal end of the cable being routed about the drive surface of the first portion of the first capstan the first proximal end of the cable being wrapped about the second portion of the first capstan such that the second wrap portion of the first proximal end of the cable crosses over the first wrap portion of the first proximal end of the cable (Para. 0127, “The free ends of the cable 690A are at least partially wound around the spool 630A in opposite directions”), the second proximal end of the cable being routed about the drive surface of the first portion of the second capstan (Fig. 5e, Para. 0127), and the second proximal end of the cable being wrapped about the second portion of the second capstan such that the second wrap portion of the second proximal end of the cable crosses over the first wrap portion of the second proximal end of the cable (Para. 0129, “The routing is similar to that described in FIG. 5C. The cable 690B winds around pulley 620, around pulley 640B, and terminates at spool 630B. The spool 630B is driven by a motor (e.g., motor 660B). As the spool 630B rotates, tension is applied to one side of the cable 690B while tension on the other side of the cable 690B is relaxed”).
Regarding Claim 5, Low teaches the medical instrument of claim 1, wherein: the distal portion of the cable is wrapped at least two revolutions about the coupling spool (Fig. 3a shows at least two wraps applied to spool 340).
Regarding Claim 6, Low teaches the medical instrument of Claim 1, wherein: the distal portion of the cable comprises a first segment (Fig. 3a, first revolution of cable that exits from shaft 30a into spool 340) and a second segment (second revolution of spool 340 that outputs to pulley 320a); and the distal portion of the cable is wrapped about the coupling spool such that the second segment of the distal portion of the cable crosses over the first segment of the distal portion of the cable (Fig. 3a)
Regarding Claim 58, Low teaches the instrument medical instrument of Claim 1, wherein: the first proximal end of the cable is wrapped at least one revolution about the second portion of the first capstan, and the second proximal end of the cable is wrapped at least one revolution about the second portion of the second capstan (Fig. 5c shows the cable is wrapped at least one full revolution on both capstans, and further winding would lead to more revolutions).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 20150209965 awarded to Low et al, hereinafter Low, in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20180104012 awarded to Wixey et al, hereinafter Wixey.
Regarding Claim 2, Low teaches the medical instrument of claim 1. Low does not teach wherein the cable is a polymer.
However, Wixey teaches the usage of a polymer cable (Para. 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Low by Wixey, i.e. by making the cables of Low a polymer, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended us (see MPEP 2144.07), and as shown by Wixey using polymer cables is known in the art.
Regarding Claim 3, Low modified by Wixey makes obvious the medical instrument of claim 2. Low further teaches wherein: the distal portion of the cable is devoid of a retention feature (Low does not mention a retention feature on the distal end).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 20150209965 awarded to Low et al, hereinafter Low.
Regarding Claim 7, Low teaches medical instrument of claim 1. Low does not explicitly teach wherein the first proximal end of the cable is wrapped at least two revolutions about the second portion of the first capstan; and the second proximal end of the cable is wrapped at least two revolutions about the second portion of the second capstan. However, Low does teach using at least two revolutions in spool 340 in Fig. 3a (see rejections to Claim 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Low, i.e. by specifying the winding of the capstans to have the cable wound twice in the method specified above, as it is within the skill of the artisan to determine the appropriate winding for a capstan, and this type of winding is shown in the winding of the spools in Fig. 3a.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Jess Mullins whose telephone number is (571)-272-8977. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST M-F.
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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JLM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792