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 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “the Examiner equates separator 46 of Haraguchi to both the separator and the bracket of claim 1. However, the rotation motor 25 (alleged driving body) does not include "exterior portion of separator 46" (alleged bracket). As such, Haraguchi fails to disclose "a driving body configured to support the holding body in a rotatable manner and apply a driving force to the holding body, the driving body including a driving force transmitter configured to transmit the driving force to the holding body and a bracket by which the driving force transmitter is supported."’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The driving body is now interpreted as being a combination of both a rotation motor 25 and a timing belt 26 (Haraguchi: fig. 2; [0038]), since the rotation motor 25 and the timing belt 26 are both involved in transmitting a rotational force to the timing pulley 27 [0038], which is interpreted as the holding device [0038].
Furthermore, Haraguchi teaches a driving body (fig. 2: combination of 25 and 26; [0038]) configured to
support the holding body in a rotatable manner ([0038-0040]: rotation motor 25 generates rotational force which is transmitted to timing pulley 27 to make the surgical instrument 12 rotate; fig. 2) and
apply a driving force to the holding body [0038-0040],
the driving body including a driving force transmitter (26; [0038-0040]) configured to transmit the driving force to
the holding body [0038-0040] and
a bracket (fig. 5B: exterior portion of 46) by which the driving force transmitter is supported (fig. 5B; [0038]: rotation motor 25 generates a torque which is transmitted to timing pulley 27 via timing belt 26; [0080]: separator 46 receives force from timing pulley 27; [0075]),
which reads on the above recited limitations.
Applicant argues, “the endoscope 11 comprises the insertion part 8 and the drive section 9. The endoscope 11 itself cannot be attachable/detachable from the insertion part 8 that makes up the endoscope 11, and thus a state of attachment therebetween cannot be detected.”
Examiner respectfully states that that although the endoscope 11 of Kanazawa comprises both the insertion part 8 and the drive section 9 (Kanazawa: fig. 10), under broadest reasonable interpretation, each of these parts can be interpreted as the separator and the holding body, respectively, and can be combined to make up the endoscope 11. Therefore, since Kanazawa teaches detecting
a state of attachment of a separator (8) to a holding body (9; [0064]) and
a state of attachment of an adapter (222) to the separator [0103, 0064],
it reads on the recited “detect a state of attachment of the separator to the holding body and a state of attachment of the adapter to the separator”, even if the endoscope comprises the separator and the holding body.
Applicant argues, “the Examiner equates the insertion part 8 of Haraguchi to the separator of claim 1, and the base end part 221 of the insertion part 8 of Haraguchi to the bracket of claim 1. Again, the equates the same component to both the separator and the bracket of claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The bracket of Haraguchi is interpreted as an exterior portion of 46 (fig. 5B), whereas the separator of Haraguchi is the entire portion of 46 (fig. 7A: combination of 46, 46a and 46b).
Applicant argues, “However, if Haraguchi were modified "to incorporate the detector of Kanazawa by having the bracket of Haraguchi include a photo interrupter that attaches to a detection target on the adapter of Haraguchi, and having the bracket of Haraguchi include a detection target that attaches to a photo interrupter on the holding body of Haraguchi" as suggested by the Examiner, modified Haraguchi would merely detect attachment/detachment of the "adapter of Haraguchi" and the "holding body of Haraguchi" to the "bracket of Haraguchi." Modified Haraguchi would not detect "a state of attachment of the separator to the holding body and a state of attachment of the adapter to the separator."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kanazawa teaches a detector (fig. 10: combination of 23/24, 93/94, and 91/92)
disposed on a bracket (fig. 10: 24 and 93 i.e. main body parts are disposed on bracket 221) of a driving body (fig. 10: driving body is combination of 8 and 9; [0045-0046]: drive motors of drive section 9 are connected to operation wires 8w1 and 8w2 of insertion part 8; [0044]) and
configured to detect
a state of attachment of a separator (8) to a holding body (9; [0064]) and
a state of attachment of an adapter (222) to the separator [0103, 0064].
The proposed combination would yield the detector of Kanazawa to be disposed on a bracket of the driving body and configured to have the bracket of Haraguchi include a photo interrupter that attaches to a detection target on the adapter of Haraguchi, and having the bracket of Haraguchi include a detection target that attaches to a photo interrupter on the holding body of Haraguchi, yielding the detection of a state of attachment of a separator to a holding body and a state of attachment of an adapter to the separator.
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.
Claims 1, 9-10, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haraguchi et al. (US 2017/0296040) in view of Kanazawa et al. (US 2012/0296159).
In re claim 1, Haraguchi discloses a surgical instrument holding device (fig. 3: 28) comprising:
an adapter (fig. 5B: 47) from which a surgical instrument (12) is detachable (fig. B6: surgical instrument 12 may be removed from adapter 47; [0076]);
a separator (46) from which the adapter is detachable (fig. 6B: 46 is detachable with 47; [0059, 0076]);
a holding body (27) from which the separator is detachable (fig. 4);
a driving body (fig. 2: combination of 25 and 26; [0038]) configured to
support the holding body in a rotatable manner ([0038-0040]: rotation motor 25 generates rotational force which is transmitted to timing pulley 27 to make the surgical instrument 12 rotate; fig. 2) and
apply a driving force to the holding body [0038-0040],
the driving body including a driving force transmitter (26; [0038-0040]) configured to transmit the driving force to
the holding body [0038-0040] and
a bracket (fig. 5B: exterior portion of 46) by which the driving force transmitter is supported (fig. 5B; [0038]: rotation motor 25 generates a torque which is transmitted to timing pulley 27 via timing belt 26; [0080]: separator 46 receives force from timing pulley 27; [0075]).
Haraguchi fails to disclose
a detector disposed on the bracket of the driving body and configured to detect
a state of attachment of the separator to the holding body and
a state of attachment of the adapter to the separator, and
a detector disposed on the bracket of the driving body and configured to detect a state of attachment of the separator to the holding body and a state of attachment of the adapter to the separator.
Kanazawa teaches an analogous supporting apparatus (fig. 1: 1) for medical device [0012] wherein
a detector (fig. 10: combination of 23/24, 93/94, and 91/92) disposed on a bracket (fig. 10: 24 and 93 i.e. main body parts are disposed on bracket 221) of a driving body (fig. 10: driving body is combination of 8 and 9; [0045-0046]: drive motors of drive section 9 are connected to operation wires 8w1 and 8w2 of insertion part 8; [0044]) and configured to detect
a state of attachment of a separator (8) to a holding body (9; [0064]) and
a state of attachment of an adapter (222) to the separator [0103, 0064].
Kanazawa further teaches that the detector detects attachment and detachment of a surgical instrument (fig. 10; [0064-0065, 0103-0104]).
The proposed combination would be for Haraguchi to incorporate the detector of Kanazawa to be disposed on a bracket of the driving body and configured to have the bracket of Haraguchi include a photo interrupter that attaches to a detection target on the adapter of Haraguchi, and having the bracket of Haraguchi include a detection target that attaches to a photo interrupter on the holding body of Haraguchi.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the surgical instrument holding taught by Haraguchi, to provide a detector disposed on the bracket of the driving body and configured to detect a state of attachment of the separator to the holding body and a state of attachment of the adapter to the separator, and wherein the detector is disposed on the bracket, as taught by Kanazawa, because doing so allows for the detection of attachment and detachment of a surgical instrument.
In re claim 9, the proposed combination yielded in re claim 1 (all mapping directed to Kanazawa unless otherwise stated) yields wherein
the detector comprises
a first light emitter (fig. 10: emitter of photo interrupter 23) configured to emit detection light to the separator (fig. 10; [0064-0065]) and
a second light emitter (fig. 10: emitter of photo interrupter 93) configured to emit detection light to the adapter (fig. 10; [0103-0104]) and
a first light receiver (fig. 10: light receiver of photo interrupter 23) configured to receive the detection light reflected by the separator (fig. 10: light receiver of photo interrupter 23 would receive the detection light reflected by the separator so it can determine if the separator 8 and the holding body 9 are connected; [0064-0065, 0129]) and
a second light receiver (fig. 10: light receiver of photo interrupter 93) configured to receive the detection light reflected by the adapter (fig. 10: light receiver of photo interrupter 93 would receive the detection light reflected by the adapter so it can determine if the separator 8 and the adapter 222 are connected; [0103-0104]).
In re claim 10, the proposed combination (all mapping directed to Haraguchi) yields a surgery assisting device (fig. 1: 11; [0027]) comprising the surgical instrument holding device (fig. 1) according to claim 1.
In re claim 21, the proposed combination yielded in re claim 1 above yields wherein the detector does not rotate in association with the holding body (proposed combination yields the detector being disposed on the bracket of the driving body and would not rotate in association with the holding body 27 of Haraguchi).
In re claim 22, the proposed combination (all mapping directed to Haraguchi) yields wherein the bracket of the driving body is configured to support the holding body in the rotatable manner (see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 1 above, wherein the driving body includes a bracket that supports the holding body in a rotatable manner).
In re claim 23, the proposed combination (all mapping directed to Haraguchi unless otherwise stated) yields wherein the bracket is not operated in association with the holding body (fig. 4: 46 which includes the exterior portion of 46 can be separated and therefore would be operated without holding body 27).
Additionally, regarding the above recited limitations, Examiner asserts that the proposed combination has all of the necessary structure to provide wherein the bracket is not operated in association with the holding body, and is therefore capable of and/or able to be configured to do the above limitations, see MPEP 2114 "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." See MPEP 2114.
Claims 2-3, 6-8, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haraguchi et al. (US 2017/0296040) in view of Kanazawa et al. (US 2012/0296159) in view of Braun et al. (US 2017/0348063).
In re claim 2, the proposed combination yields wherein:
the detector is provided with
main body sections attached to the bracket (see in re claim 1 above) and
connections (Kanazawa: fig. 10: 23 and 94) that are moved with respect to the main body sections (Kanazawa: fig. 10).
The proposed combination fails to yield wherein
the detector is provided with… detecting pins that are moved with respect to the main body sections, and
the detector detects the state of attachment of the separator and the state of attachment of the adapter according to movement of the detecting pins by an action of the separator and the adapter, respectively, on the detecting pins.
Braun teaches an analogous device (fig. 1: 10) for robot-assisted surgery [0001] wherein
a detector (fig. 6: combination of 118 and 120 as well as fig. 15: 426 and 428) is provided with a detecting pins (426 and 428) that moves with respect to main body sections (fig. 6 and fig. 15: 426 and 428 move with respect to main body sections are 118 and 120 to connect instrument unit 300 and coupling unit 100; [0123-0124]), and
the detector detects a state of attachment of the instrument unit and the coupling unit [0123-0124] according to movement of the detecting pin by an action of the coupling unit on the detecting pins ([0123-024]: when instrument unit 300 moves, the detecting pins move, which causes the coupling unit to come into contact with the detecting pin and causes the main body sections to detect attachment).
Braun further teaches that a coupling sensor may be used to determine correct attachment [0024], and that transmission may only be permitted when correct connection between both connecting areas is detected [0024].
The proposed combination would be for each of the photo interrupters yielded by the proposed combination and located on the holding body and the separator to be replaced with the detectors of Braun that detects detecting pins, and for the detection targets to instead be detecting pins that move towards the detectors so that attachment is detected.
In other words, the photo interrupter located on the holding device would comprise two coupling sensors of Braun, and would require detection of the detecting pins on the separator to confirm attachment. Similarly, the photo interrupter located on the separator would comprise two coupling sensors of Braun, and would require detection of the detecting pins on the adapter to confirm attachment. The proposed combination would yield wherein the detector is provided with detecting pins that are moved with respect to the main body sections.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the surgical instrument holding yielded by the proposed combination, to provide the detector is provided with detecting pins that are moved with respect to the main body sections and the detector detects the state of attachment of the separator and the state of attachment of the adapter according to movement of the detecting pins, as taught by Braun, because a coupling sensor may be used to determine correct attachment, and that transmission may only be permitted when correct connection between both connecting areas is detected.
Regarding the limitation “the detector detects the state of attachment of the separator and the state of attachment of the adapter according to movement of the detecting pins by an action of the separator and the adapter, respectively, on the detecting pins” the above recited limitations are directed to functional language.
Specifically, the limitation “the detector detects the state of attachment of the separator and the state of attachment of the adapter according to movement of the detecting pins by an action of the separator and the adapter, respectively, on the detecting pins” is only given patentable weight in that it alternates the material structure. The detector yielded by the proposed combination has all of the necessary structure to determine attachment/detachment (see above) and is therefore capable of and/or able to be configured to do the above limitations, see MPEP 2114 "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
In re claim 3, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Haraguchi unless otherwise stated) wherein:
the adapter is provided with
a tubular portion (fig. 6B: inner portion of 47) through which the surgical instrument penetrates (fig. 6A) and
a pressing portion (Braun: fig. 15: 426) projecting outward from an outer circumferential edge (Braun: fig. 15) of the tubular portion (yielded by the proposed combination, see Braun: fig. 15 where 426 projects outward from an outer circumferential edge),
the separator is provided with
an insertion portion (fig. 6B: inner portion of 46) through which the tubular portion is inserted (fig. 7A) and
a receiving portion (Braun: fig. 6: 118)
that projects outward from an outer circumferential edge (Braun fig. 6: portion of receiving portion projects outward from surface of 100 and proposed combination would yield in the receiving portion being on the outer surface edge of separator 46b of Haraguchi) of the insertion portion (yielded by the proposed combination) and
**against which the pressing portion is pressed (Braun: [0129]: receiving portion may be pressed by the pressing portion),
the separator is attached to the holding body in a state in which the insertion portion is inserted in the holding body (fig. 7A: insertion portion of separator 46 is inside the holding body 27),
the adapter is attached to the separator (fig. 7A) in a state in which the tubular portion is inserted in the insertion portion (fig. 7A) in a state in which the separator is attached to the holding body (fig. 7A),
**the state of attachment of the separator to the holding body is detected according to an action of the receiving portion on one of the detecting pins at a time of insertion of the insertion portion into the holding body (proposed combination yielded in re claim 2 above yields the receiving portion touching the detecting pins at time of insertion of the insertion portion into the holding body when the adapter is also attached to the separator and a state of attachment of the separator to the holding body is determined), and
**the state of attachment of the adapter to the separator is detected according to an action of the pressing portion on another one of the detecting pins at a time of insertion of the tubular portion into the insertion portion (proposed combination yielded in re claim 2 above yields the pressing portion touching the detecting pin at a time of insertion of the tubular portion into the insertion portion).
**Regarding the following limitations:
“the separator is provided with…a receiving portion…against which the pressing portion is pressed,
the state of attachment of the separator to the holding body is detected according to an action of the receiving portion on one of the detecting pins at a time of insertion of the insertion portion into the holding body, and
the state of attachment of the adapter to the separator is detected according to an action of the pressing portion on another one of the detecting pins at a time of insertion of the tubular portion into the insertion portion”,
the above recited limitations are directed to functional language.
Specifically, the limitations “detected according to an action of the receiving portion on one of the detecting pins at a time of insertion of the insertion portion into the holding body” and “detected according to an action of the pressing portion on another one of the detecting pins at a time of insertion of the tubular portion into the insertion portion” is only given patentable weight in that it alternates the material structure. The detector yielded by the proposed combination has all of the necessary structure to determine attachment/detachment (see in re claim 1 above) and is therefore capable of and/or able to be configured to do the above limitations, see MPEP 2114 "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
In re claim 6, the proposed combination yields wherein distal end surfaces (Braun fig. 15: bottom surfaces of detecting pins 426 and 428) of the detecting pins (Braun fig. 15) are formed as spherical surface portions protruding to distal end sides (Braun fig. 15: detecting pins have spherical surface and protrude to distal end sides i.e. from bottom to top).
In re claim 7, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Haraguchi unless otherwise stated) wherein:
the detector comprises a first detector configured to detect the state of attachment of the separator to the holding body (first detector is one of the two coupling sensors yielded by the proposed combination in re claim 2 above that detects attachment of the separator to the holding body) and
a second detector configured to detect the state of attachment of the adapter to the separator (second detector is one of the two second coupling sensors that is yielded by the proposed combination in re claim 2 above that detects attachment of the adapter to the separator and is positioned opposite of the first detector, i.e. if the first detector is the left coupling sensor of the two first coupling sensors, then the second detector is the right coupling sensor of the two second coupling sensors), and
the first detector and the second detector are arranged on the bracket (proposed combination yields the first and second detectors being located on the bracket) in a state in which the first detector and the second detector are separated from each other in a rotational direction of the holding body (see above, wherein the first and second detector would be separated from each other in a rotational direction of the holding body).
In re claim 8, regarding the limitation, “wherein:
the detector comprises
a first detector configured to detect the state of attachment of the separator to the holding body and
a second detector configured to detect the state of attachment of the adapter to the separator, and
the first detector and the second detector are arranged on the bracket in a state in which the first detector and the second detector are separated from each other in a rotational direction of the holding body”,
see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 7 above.
In re claim 24, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Braun unless otherwise stated) wherein the first detector and the second detector are positioned on a same surface of the bracket (see in re claim 7 above, wherein the proposed combination yields the first and second detectors being located on the bracket, and would be on the same surface, as shown in fig. 6 of Braun: 118 and 120 are on an outer exterior surface of 100).
In re claim 25, regarding the limitation, “wherein the first detector and the second detector are positioned on a same surface of the bracket”, see in re claim 24 above.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haraguchi et al. (US 2017/0296040) in view of Kanazawa et al. (US 2012/0296159) in view of Braun et al. (US 2017/0348063) in view of Ukai et al. (US 2010/0018038).
In re claim 4, the proposed combination yields wherein:
a first inclined surface (Braun: fig. 6: 118 has an inclined surface) that approaches the insertion portion in a direction of insertion of the insertion portion into the holding body (proposed combination yields the first inclined surface approaching the insertion portion in a direction of insertion of the insertion portion into the holding body so the separator and holding body are attached) is formed at an outer circumferential surface (proposed combination would yield the first inclined surface being on the outer surface) of the receiving portion (Braun: fig. 6),
a second inclined surface (Braun: fig. 15: 426 has an inclined surface) that approaches the tubular portion in a direction of insertion of the tubular portion into the insertion portion (proposed combination yields the second inclined surface approaching the tubular portion in a direction of insertion of the tubular portion into the insertion portion so the separator and adapter are attached) is formed at an outer circumferential surface (proposed combination would yield the second inclined surface being on the outer surface) of the pressing portion (Braun: fig. 15), and
The proposed combination fails to yield the detecting pins are moved with respect to the main body sections by respective sliding of the first inclined surface and the second inclined surface on distal end portions of the detecting pins.
Ukai teaches an analogous apparatus for detecting component attachment [0001] wherein a detecting pin (fig. 3: W1) is moved with respect to a main body section (101) by respective sliding of a first surface (fig. 2: W2; [0124]: W2 slides down onto W1) on a distal end portion (fig. 3: top of W1; fig. 2) of the detecting pin ([0122-0126]; fig. 2).
Ukai further teaches that the apparatus determines secure attachment with high accuracy [0014] by ensuring that a press operation is completed [0014].
The proposed combination would yield wherein the detecting pins of the proposed combination yielded in re claim 2 are moved with respect to the main body sections by respective sliding of the first inclined surface and the second inclined surface on distal end portions of the detecting pins.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the surgical instrument holding yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the detecting pins are moved with respect to the main body sections by respective sliding of the first inclined surface and the second inclined surface on distal end portions of the detecting pins, as taught by the detecting pin and first surface of Ukai, because having the detecting pins move allows for high accuracy attachment detection.
In re claim 5, the proposed combination yields wherein distal end surfaces (Braun fig. 15: bottom surfaces of detecting pins 426 and 428) of the detecting pins (Braun fig. 15) are formed as spherical surface portions protruding to distal end sides (Braun fig. 15: detecting pins have spherical surface and protrude to distal end sides i.e. from bottom to top).
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUMAISA R BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-0175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am- 5pm.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/RUMAISA RASHID BAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796