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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/13/2026 has been entered.
As indicated by the amendment submitted with the request for continued examination: claims 21 and 37 have been amended. Claims 21-40 are presently pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 21-25, 30-32 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reis et al. (US 2014/0069437 A1) in view of Kilroy et al. (US 2015/0150635 A1) in view of Jinno et al. (US 2010/0198253 A1) in view of Bogusky (US 2014/0148673 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Reis disclose a surgical instrument, comprising: an instrument base (104; Fig. 8A; par. [0069]); an elongate shaft (106; par. [0048]-[0050]; Fig. 8D) extending from the instrument base (104); a first idler (Fig. 8D – 150/152 located at the top left corner of 104; par. [0070]) disposed in the instrument base (104), wherein a first wire (par. [0071] – actuation element) extends from the first idler and connects to the elongate shaft (via 158; par. [0071]; Fig. 8D); and a second idler (Fig. 8D - 150/152 located at the top right corner of 104; par. [0070]) disposed in the instrument base (104), wherein a second wire (par. [0071] – actuation element) extends from the second idler and connects to the elongate shaft (via 158; par. [0071]; Fig. 8D).
However, Reis does not specifically disclose that the second idler is angled relative to the first idler to define a non-zero angle therebetween, wherein the first and second idlers are mounted in the instrument base such that the first and second idlers are angled toward the elongate shaft. Kilroy teaches angling first and second pulleys (par. [0164]-[0165]; Figs. 12A-12C) relative to each other to define a non-zero angle therebetween (par. [0164]-[0165]; Figs. 12A-12C) in order to decrease cross over and friction between the wires that are routed around the pulleys, thereby making routing of the wires more advantageous (par. [0165]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to angle the second idler relative to the first idler to define a non-zero angle therebetween in order to decrease cross over and friction between the wires that are routed around the pulleys, thereby making routing of the wires more advantageous, as taught by Kilroy. Jinno teaches angling first and second pulleys (156 and 156; par. [0204] and [0216]; Figs. 19, 29-30, and 33) relative to each other and toward an elongate shaft (152/152a; par. [0204] and [0216]; Figs. 19, 29-30, and 33). Similar to Kilroy, Jinno teaches that the angled arrangement of the pulleys and the grooves within them reduce frictional damage to the wires routed therethrough (par. [0216; Figs. 30 and 33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to angle the first and second idlers toward the elongate shaft in order to reduce frictional damage and decrease cross over to the wires routed therethrough, as taught by Jinno and Kilroy.
However, Reis does not specifically disclose that the first and second wires wrap around the elongate shaft. Bogusky teaches an analogous apparatus (Fig. 6) wherein the wires (108; par. [0092]-[0093) wrap around the elongate shaft (100/138; par. [0099]-[0100]; Figs. 7-9). Bogusky teaches that its configuration of the wires on the elongate shaft minimize the known mechanical challenges in a laterally flexible, but axially rigid, catheter (par. [0013]; see also par. [0006]-[0012]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to wrap the wires around the elongate shaft in order to minimize the known mechanical challenges in a laterally flexible, but axially rigid, catheter, as taught by Bogusky.
Regarding claim 22, Reis in view of Kilroy in view of Jinno in view of Bogusky disclose the surgical instrument of claim 21, wherein the first idler (Fig. 8D - 150/152 located at the top left corner of 104; par. [0070]) is positioned on a first lateral side (Fig. 8D – left side) of the elongate shaft and the second idler (Fig. 8D - 150/152 located at the top right corner of 104; par. [0070]) is positioned on a second lateral side (Fig. 8D – right side) of the elongate shaft.
Regarding claim 23, Reis in view of Kilroy in view of Jinno in view of Bogusky disclose the surgical instrument of claim 22, further comprising: a third idler (Fig. 8D - 150/152 located at bottom left corner of 104; par. [0070]) disposed in the instrument base (104) on the first lateral side (Fig. 8D – left side) of the elongate shaft, wherein a third wire (par. [0071] – actuation element) extends from the third idler and wraps around the elongate shaft (Bogusky: par. [0099]-[0100]; Figs. 7-9), and wherein the third idler is angled relative to the first idler (angle is zero degrees); and a fourth idler (Fig. 8D - 150/152 located at bottom right corner of 104; par. [0070]) disposed in the instrument base (104) on the second lateral side (Fig. 8D – right side) of the elongate shaft, wherein a fourth wire (par. [0071] – actuation element) extends from the fourth idler and wraps around the elongate shaft (Bogusky: par. [0099]-[0100]; Figs. 7-9), and wherein the fourth idler is angled (zero degrees) relative to the second idler and the third idler.
Regarding claim 24, Reis in view of Kilroy in view of Jinno in view of Bogusky disclose the surgical instrument of claim 21, wherein the first and second idlers are positioned on the same lateral side of the elongate shaft (Fig. 8D - 150/152 located at the top left corner of 104 and 150 located at the bottom left corner of 104; par. [0070]).
Regarding claim 25, Reis in view of Kilroy in view of Jinno in view of Bogusky disclose the surgical instrument of claim 21, further comprising an idler carriage (110/116; Figs. 1A, 3B, 4A) mounted to the elongate shaft (106; Figs. 1A and 4A), wherein the first and second idler gears are coupled to the idler carriage (Fig. 9A).
Regarding claim 30, Reis in view of Kilroy in view of Jinno in view of Bogusky disclose the surgical instrument of claim 21, further comprising: a first spool (140/160; par. [0070]; Fig. 8C), wherein the first wire (par. [0071] – actuation element) extends from the first idler (152) to the first spool (140/160), and wherein rotation of the first spool (140/160) rotates the first idler (152; par. [0070]); and a second spool(140/160; par. [0070]; Fig. 8C) , wherein the second wire (par. [0071] – actuation element) extends from the second idler (152) to the second spool (140/160), and wherein rotation of the second spool (140/160) rotates the second idler (152).
Regarding claim 31, Reis in view of Kilroy in view of Jinno in view of Bogusky disclose the surgical instrument of claim 21, wherein rotation of the first idler (152) delivers the first wire (par. [0071] – actuation element) to the elongate shaft (106) at a consistent location (Bogusky: par. [0099]-[0100]; Figs. 7-9).
Regarding claim 32, Reis in view of Kilroy in view of Jinno in view of Bogusky disclose the surgical instrument of claim 21, wherein the elongate shaft (106) is configured to articulate based on rotation of the first idler (par. [0070] – actuates steering of the elongate shaft; Bogusky: par. [0099]-[0100]; Figs. 7-9).
Regarding claim 37, Reis disclose a surgical instrument, comprising: an instrument base (100; Fig. 3B; par. [0048]) comprising a base (110/114; par. [0051] and [0054]; Fig. 3B and 4A) configured to couple to a robotic drive mechanism (104; par. [0048] and [0051]; Figs. 3B and 4A), wherein the base (110/114) defines a base plane (Figs. 3AB, 4A, and 8D – plane on 114); an elongate shaft (106; par. [0048]-[0050]; Fig. 8D) extending from the instrument base (100); a first idler (Fig. 8D – 150/152 located at the top left corner of 104; par. [0070]) defining a first plane and mounted within the instrument base (100), wherein a first wire (par. [0071] – actuation element) extends from the first idler and connects to the elongate shaft (via 158; par. [0071]; Fig. 8D); and a second idler (Fig. 8D - 150/152 located at the top right corner of 104; par. [0070]) defining a second plane and mounted within the instrument base (100), wherein a second wire (par. [0071] – actuation element) extends from the second idler and connects to the elongate shaft (via 158; par. [0071]; Fig. 8D).
However, Reis does not specifically disclose that the first plane intersects the base plane, and the second plane intersects the first plane and the base plane, wherein the first and second idlers are mounted in the instrument base such that the first and second idlers are angled toward the elongate shaft. Kilroy teaches angling first and second pulleys (par. [0164]-[0165]; Figs. 12A-12C) relative to each other to define a non-zero angle therebetween (par. [0164]-[0165]; Figs. 12A-12C) in order to decrease cross over and friction between the wires that are routed around the pulleys, thereby making routing of the wires more advantageous (par. [0165]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to angle the second idler relative to the first idler to define a non-zero angle therebetween in order to decrease cross over and friction between the wires that are routed around the pulleys, thereby making routing of the wires more advantageous, as taught by Kilroy. Such angling of the idlers of modified Reis provides a configuration wherein the first plane intersects the base plane, and the second plane intersects the first plane and the base plane. Jinno teaches angling first and second pulleys (156 and 156; par. [0204] and [0216]; Figs. 19, 29-30, and 33) relative to each other and toward an elongate shaft (152/152a; par. [0204] and [0216]; Figs. 19, 29-30, and 33). Similar to Kilroy, Jinno teaches that the angled arrangement of the pulleys and the grooves within them reduce frictional damage to the wires routed therethrough (par. [0216; Figs. 30 and 33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to angle the first and second idlers toward the elongate shaft in order to reduce frictional damage and decrease cross over to the wires routed therethrough, as taught by Jinno and Kilroy.
However, Reis does not specifically disclose that the first and second wires wrap around the elongate shaft. Bogusky teaches an analogous apparatus (Fig. 6) wherein the wires (108; par. [0092]-[0093) wrap around the elongate shaft (100/138; par. [0099]-[0100]; Figs. 7-9). Bogusky teaches that its configuration of the wires on the elongate shaft minimize the known mechanical challenges in a laterally flexible, but axially rigid, catheter (par. [0013]; see also par. [0006]-[0012]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to wrap the wires around the elongate shaft in order to minimize the known mechanical challenges in a laterally flexible, but axially rigid, catheter, as taught by Bogusky.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-29 and 33-36 are allowed. In the Non-Final Rejection of 05/08/2025, claim 26 was 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. In the Amendment of 06/26/2025, Applicant rewrote claim 26 in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and intervening claim 25. Accordingly, claim 26, and claims 27-29 and 33-36 depending therefrom, are allowed.
In the Final Rejection of 10/20/2025, claim 38 was 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 (see page 8 of the Final Rejection of 10/20/2025 for reasons for indicating allowable subject matter).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see claim amendments and Remarks, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21 and 37 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jinno, as discussed above.
Conclusion
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 03/22/26