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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, and 6, the claim limitations “an input circuit”, “a mode switching determining circuit”, “a mode switch”, and “a compensation controller” were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not recite or disclose any circuits. Furthermore, the specification does not recite or disclose any “switch” and “controller”. Therefore, these claim limitations are new matter because the specification does not disclose any circuit, switch and a controller.
Regarding claim 2, the claim limitations “a surgical instrument image capturing circuit”, “a tension measuring circuit”, “a tension variation calculating circuit”, “a tension input value comparison determining circuit” were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not recite or disclose any circuits. Therefore, these claim limitations are new matter because the specification does not disclose any circuit.
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitations “an image information learning circuit”, “a tension information learning circuit” were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not recite or disclose any circuits. Therefore, these claim limitations are new matter because the specification does not disclose any circuit.
Regarding claim 8, the claim limitations “a surgical instrument image capturing circuit”, “a tension measuring circuit” were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not recite or disclose any circuits. Therefore, these claim limitations are new matter because the specification does not disclose any circuit.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected as they depend from rejected claim.
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 1-2, and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tully et al. (US 2020/0352554; hereinafter Tully), in view of Donhowe et al. (US 2020/0184248; hereinafter Donhowe), in view of Kawai et al. (US 2004/0138530; hereinafter Kawai).
Regarding claim 1, Tully discloses a robotic system. Tully shows a hysteresis compensation control apparatus for a flexible overtube (see abstract and fig. 1), comprising: an input circuit (see fig. 1 and par. [0152]), configured to receive both image information and tension information of a flexible surgical instrument driven by a traction wire (see fig. 1; par. [0096], [0097], [0123], [0132], [0140], [0149], [0152] [0153], [0157]), wherein both the image information and the tension information are used for mode switching of the flexible surgical instrument driven by the traction wire (wire (see fig. 1; par. [0096], [0097], [0123], [0132], [0140], [0149], [0152] [0153], [0157]); a mode switching determining circuit (see fig. 1 and par. [0152]), configured to generate a control mode switching signal for switching between a control mode associated the image information and a control mode associated the tension information based on a current state of the flexible surgical instrument (see par. [0152], [0154], [0155]), and configured to determine whether the current state indicating that the flexible surgical instrument is controlled in a predefined tension control modeling based on the tension information of the flexible surgical instrument (see fig. 1; par. [0096], [0097], [0123], [0132], [0140], [0149], [0152] [0153], [0157]); a mode switch, configured to switch a first control mode from a tension information-based flexible tube control to an image information-based flexible tube control or configured to switch a second control mode from the image information based flexible tube control to the tension information-based flexible tube control according to the control mode switching signal (see fig. 1; par. [0096], [0097], [0123], [0132], [0140], [0149], [0152] [0153], [0157]); and a compensation controller, configured to compensatingly control the flexible surgical instrument having hysteresis characteristics based the traction wire (see par. [0140], [0152], [0153], [0155]).
But, Tully fails to explicitly state determining whether the current state indicating that a tip region image of the flexible surgical instrument is not visible or is hidden by another flexible surgical instrument based on the image information of the flexible surgical instrument, and compensatingly control the flexible surgical instrument having hysteresis characteristics based on a tension error value of the traction wire calculated by learning model.
Donhowe discloses a robotic surgical safety via video processing. Donhowe teaches determining whether the current state indicating that a tip region image of the flexible surgical instrument is not visible (see par. [0040], [0041], [0059]; fig. 3A-B, 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of determining whether the current state indicating that a tip region image of the flexible surgical instrument is not visible in the invention of Tully, as taught by Donhowe, to ensure safety during surgery by knowing exact location of the instrument.
But, Tully and Donhowe fail to explicitly state compensatingly control the flexible surgical instrument having hysteresis characteristics based on a tension error value of the traction wire calculated by the learning model.
Kawai discloses an apparatus for traction positional control Kawai teaches compensatingly control the flexible surgical instrument having hysteresis characteristics based on a tension error value of the traction wire calculated by learning model (see par. [0030], [0078], [0128], [0138], [0146], [0157]-[0157]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of compensatingly control the flexible surgical instrument having hysteresis characteristics based on a tension error value of the traction wire calculated by learning model in the invention of Tully and Donhowe, as taught by Kawai, to provide an improved endoscopes by incorporating a traction positional control which would help the surgical instrument avoid damaging tissue.
Regarding claim 2, Tully, Donhowe and Kawai disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Donhowe shows a surgical instrument image capturing circuit configured to capture an image of the flexible surgical instrument (see [0123]); a tension measuring circuit for measuring traction force the surgical instrument (see fig. 1; par. [0096], [0097], [0123], [0132], [0140], [0149], [0152] [0153], [0157]), and that the surgical instrument image capturing circuit inserted into the channel of the tube body to capture the image of the surgical instrument (see 800 in fig. 2, par. [0142], [0143]), and tension force of the traction wire (see fig. 2, par. [0142], [0143], [0154], [0155]). And, Kawai teaches a tension variation calculating circuit calculating a tension variation that a wire tension value of the wire is varied on the basis of traction force measured by the tension measuring circuit (see par. [01046], [0157]-[0157]); and a tension input value comparison determining circuit comparing and determining the wire tension value input on the basis of traction force measured by the tension measuring circuit (see par. [01046], [0157]-[0157]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a tension variation calculating circuit calculating a tension variation that a wire tension value of the wire is varied on the basis of traction force measured by the tension measuring circuit; and a tension input value comparison determining circuit comparing and determining the wire tension value input on the basis of traction force measured by the tension measuring circuit in the invention of Tully and Donhowe, as taught by Kawai, to provide an improved endoscopes by incorporating a traction positional control which would help the surgical instrument avoid damaging tissue.
Regarding claim 6, Tully and Donhowe disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Tully shows wherein the mode switching circuit switches an image information-based flexible tube control to a tension information-based flexible tube control according to the control mode switching signal (see par. [0142], [0143], [0149]-[0157].
Regarding claim 7, Tully and Donhowe disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Tully shows wherein the image information for determining a current state of the surgical instrument is image information obtained by capturing a tip region of the surgical instrument inserted into a channel of a tube body and towed by a traction wire (see fig. 2, par. [0142], [0143], [0154], [0155]).
Regarding claim 8, Donhowe and Tully disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Tully shows a surgical instrument image capturing circuit configured to capture an image of the flexible surgical instrument (see par. [0123]); and a tension measuring circuit for measuring traction force the surgical instrument (see fig. 1; par. [0096], [0097], [0123], [0132], [0140], [0149], [0152] [0153], [0157]), the surgical instrument image capturing circuit inserted into the channel of the tube body to capture the image of the surgical instrument (see 800 in fig. 2, par. [0142], [0143]), and wherein the image information of the tip region of the surgical instrument captured by the surgical instrument image capturing circuit is transmitted to the mode switching determining circuit to determine the current state of the surgical instrument (see par. [0142], [0143], [0149]-[0157]), and tension force of the traction wire (see fig. 2, par. [0142], [0143], [0154], [0155]).
Regarding claim 9, Tully and Donhowe disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Tully shows wherein the mode switching determining circuit determines whether it is possible to control the image information-based flexible tube control mode on the basis of the image information of the tip region of the surgical instrument (see par. [0142], [0143], [0149]-[0157]).
Regarding claim 10, Tully discloses a robotic system. Tully shows receiving both image information and tension information of a flexible surgical instrument driving by a traction wire (traction (wire (see fig. 1; par. [0096], [0097], [0123], [0132], [0140], [0149], [0152] [0153], [0157])), wherein both the image information and the tension information are used for mode switching of the flexible surgical instrument driving by the traction wire (see fig. 1; par. [0096], [0097], [0123], [0132], [0140], [0149], [0152] [0153], [0157]); determining whether the flexible surgical instrument is controlled in a predefined tension control modeling used on the tension information of the flexible surgical instrument (see fig. 1; par. [0096], [0097], [0123], [0132], [0140], [0149], [0152] [0153], [0157]); switching a first control mode from an image information-based compensation control to a tension information-based compensation control (see fig. 1; par. [0096], [0097], [0123], [0132], [0140], [0149], [0152] [0153], [0157]); and a compensation controller, configured to compensatingly control the flexible surgical instrument having hysteresis characteristics based the traction wire (see par. [0140], [0152], [0153], [0155]).
But, Tully and Donhowe fail to explicitly state compensatingly control the flexible surgical instrument having hysteresis characteristics based on a tension error value of the traction wire.
Donhowe discloses a robotic surgical safety via video processing. Donhowe teaches determining whether the current state indicating that a tip region image of the flexible surgical instrument is not visible (see par. [0040], [0041], [0059]; fig. 3A-B, 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of determining whether the current state indicating that a tip region image of the flexible surgical instrument is not visible in the invention of Tully, as taught by Donhowe, to ensure safety during surgery by knowing exact location of the instrument. The examiner notes after incorporating the teaching of Donhowe with prior art Tully would provide the claim limitation "switching a first control mode from an image information-based compensation control to a tension information-based compensation control when it is determined that the surgical instrument is not visible" since prior art Donhowe teaches determining whether a tip region image of the flexible surgical instrument is not visible (see par. [0040], [0041], [0059]; fig. 3A-B, 6-7), and Tully teaches switching a first control mode from an image information-based compensation control to a tension information-based compensation control (see par. [0142], [0143], [0149]-[0157]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefit of switching to tension information based compensation to move the flexible instrument in camera field of view when the instrument is not visible in the image to avoid accidental damage to healthy tissue during surgery.
But, Tully and Donhowe fail to explicitly state compensatingly control the flexible surgical instrument having hysteresis characteristics based on a tension error value of the traction wire calculated by the learning model.
Kawai discloses an apparatus for traction positional control Kawai teaches compensatingly control the flexible surgical instrument having hysteresis characteristics based on a tension error value of the traction wire (see par. [0030], [0078], [0128], [0138], [0146], [0157]-[0157]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of compensatingly control the flexible surgical instrument having hysteresis characteristics based on a tension error value of the traction wire in the invention of Tully and Donhowe, as taught by Kawai, to provide an improved endoscopes by incorporating a traction positional control which would help the surgical instrument avoid damaging tissue.
Regarding claim 11, Donhowe and Tully disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Tully shows determining whether the first control mode corresponds to the predefined tension based on the tension information of the flexible surgical instrument (see fig. 1; par. [0096], [0097], [0123], [0132], [0140], [0149], [0152] [0153], [0157]) and compensatingly controlling the flexible surgical instrument having hysteresis characteristics on the basis of the image information of the flexible surgical instrument (see fig. 1; par. [0096], [0097], [0123], [0132], [0140], [0149], [0152] [0153], [0157]). The examiner notes that the claim limitation “...switching a second control mode from the tension information-based compensation control to the image information-based compensation control when it is determined that the first control mode does not correspond to the predefined tension control modeling” is directed to a conditional statement and to express a claim that is dependent on certain conditions being met or circumstances existing, and does not further limit. The conditional claim limitation “...switching a second control mode from the tension information-based compensation control to the image information-based compensation control when it is determined that the first control mode does not correspond to the predefined tension control modeling” is not required if the control mode does correspond to the predefined tension control modeling.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Tully et al. (US 2020/0352554; hereinafter Tully), in view of Donhowe et al. (US 2020/0184248; hereinafter Donhowe), in view of Kawai et al. (US 2004/0138530; hereinafter Kawai) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heye (US 2023/0329807).
Regarding claim 5, Tully, Donhowe and Kawai disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Donhowe shows a tension information learning circuit for learning according to a predetermined learning model based on tension information of the surgical instrument (see fig. 6 and 7; par. [0024], [0027], [0041], [0047], [0048], [0075), and image information learning circuit configured to learn according to a predetermined learning model based on image information of the flexible surgical instrument (see par. [0053]), and Kawai teaches calculating the tension error value of the traction wire (see par. [0030], [0078], [0128], [0138], [0146], [0157]-[0157]), but Tully, Donhowe, and Kawai fail to explicitly state calculating an image error.
Heye discloses a medical tool with length conservation mechanism for actuating tension bands. Heye teaches calculating imaging errors (see par. [0067]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching calculating an image area, in the invention of Tully, Donhowe, and Kawai, as taught by Heye, to prover a better quality of image by compensating imaging errors caused by optical aberrations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/29/2025, with respect to previous prior art rejection of claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection applied in the prior art rejection record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Furthermore, the examiner notes that prior art Tully does teach a mode switching determining circuit (see fig. 1 and par. [0152]), configured to generate a control mode switching signal for switching between a control mode associated the image information and a control mode associated the tension information based on a current state of the flexible surgical instrument (par. [0152], [0154], [0155] states the system comprises a switch/toggle to switch controlling between the imaging device to instrument or instrument to imaging device).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhao et al. (US 2009/0088773) disclose methods of locating and tracking robotic instruments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797