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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Tanner et al. US2020/0163726.
For claim 1, Tanner discloses “An endoscope surgical robot control device (fig 51A-F) that controls the movement of an insertion tube, the control device comprising:
a translation movement part (arcuate arm at ref #404 and rail system 406; fig 51D; 0435) configured to control translation movement of the insertion tube in a translation direction;
a pitch rotation part (0040 of applicant’s specification defines the pitch rotation part as element 122. In fig 5, element 122 comprises a first joint 12211, the extending arm connecting to a second joint 12212, and bending arm 1222. The comparable components are found in Tanner: i.e. the joint at ref #20 as the first joint, the arm extending therefrom, the joint at the end of the arm and the arm extending from the second joint which attaches to the roll rotation part; fig 3A is referenced herein as an embodiment in accordance with the cited embodiment above per 0132, i.e. fig 51A-F; additionally, 0434-0435 states that the embodiment of fig 51A-F is “similar to the embodiment described previously, except that it further has both a bed-side control 402 and a bed-side display”, which clearly defines the difference between the embodiments and what is the same. US11,481,433, incorporated by reference explains at 0129 for fig 3.2, the extension member 15 rotates about axis of a distal extending shaft 55, where rotation about axis 55 is the pitch rotation; see fig below
PNG
media_image1.png
522
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in communication with the translation movement part and configured to control pitch rotation of the insertion tube around a pitch rotation axis; and
a roll rotation part (proximal joint shown in fig 5C and corresponding arm providing roll control, this joint is in communication with the arm extending from the second joint of the pitch rotation part) in communication with the pitch rotation part and configured to control roll rotation of the insertion tube around a roll rotation axis which is perpendicular to the pitch rotation axis;
wherein the roll rotation part is directly connected to the pitch rotation part and configured to rotate independently of the pitch rotation part (the roll rotation part is connected directly to the pitch rotation part as seen in fig 3C and the joints are separate and independent of each other thereby providing the ability to rotate independently 0040, 0359: describes roll rotation control which is provided by the annotated joint in fig 5C:
PNG
media_image2.png
458
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
), and
wherein the roll rotation axis is not coaxial with the translation direction (fig 3C shows the axes are not coaxial)”,
wherein the pitch rotation part includes:
the pitch rotation arm (arm extending orthogonally from top end of setup joint 404; fig 51D) which is configured to rotate around the pitch rotation axis (joint rotation at junction); and
a handle (arm extending orthogonally from pitch rotation arm which connects to the roll rotation part) having a first end and a second end, the first end connected to the pitch rotation arm and the second end connected to the roll rotation part (fig 51D),
wherein, when the handle performs the roll rotation (as previously mentioned above and seen in fig 5C, the roll rotation is about the joint that is proximally located in the figure and identified by the green arrow:
PNG
media_image2.png
458
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This roll joint provides rotation about an axis that is perpendicular to the pitch axis as annotated in fig 51D:
PNG
media_image3.png
490
686
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the pitch rotation axis remains fixed regardless of the roll rotation of the handle (the pitch rotation therefore remains fixed when the roll rotation is performed as seen in fig 51D, for further clarification, 0356 describes separate pitch, yaw, extension, and roll incoming commands).
wherein the control device is configured to be manipulated by a user to generate and transmit an input signal (0317, 0356 describes user controlled commands for pitch, yaw, and roll which manipulate the device via user control).
For claim 2, Tanner discloses “The device of claim 1, wherein the endoscope surgical robot control device is configured such that the translation movement, the pitch rotation and the roll rotation are operable independently from one another (the claim is considered to be a method step in an apparatus claim and therefore does not further structurally limit the scope of the apparatus aside from providing for a device capable of such a step, which is disclosed at fig 12-19; 0049, 0050, 0318, 0435, 0356 describes separate pitch, yaw, extension, and roll incoming commands)”.
For claim 3, Tanner discloses “The device of claim 1, wherein the translation movement part is in direct communication with the pitch rotation part, and the pitch rotation part is in direct communication with the roll rotation part (“communication” is interpreted as being in direct line of sight, fig 51D)”.
For claim 4, Tanner discloses “The device of claim 1, wherein the translation movement part comprises: a sliding guide (rail system 406; fig 51D) extending along the translation direction in a forward and backward direction; and slider (portion of setup joint 404 traversing on the rail system 406; fig 51D), one end of which is configured to slide along the sliding guide and the other end of which has a sliding arm which extends upward and is connected to the pitch rotation part (fig 51D)”.
For claim 6, Tanner discloses “The device of claim 1, wherein the roll rotation part comprises: a roll rotation arm (instrument driver 16; fig 5C) connected to the handle and configured to rotate around the roll rotation axis (rotation about proximal joint shown in fig 5C)”.
For claim 15, Tanner discloses “An endoscope surgical robot system, comprising:
an endoscope apparatus (0059, 0546) having an insertion tube and an endoscope camera to monitor a surgical procedure where the insertion tube is inserted; .
a driving module (motorized control and manipulator assemblies; 0546) connected to the endoscope apparatus and configured to perform pitch rotation or roll rotation of the endoscope apparatus;
the endoscope surgical robot control device of claim 1 (see claim 1); and
a controller (0049, 0668, 0676, 0679) to control operation of the driving module based on an input signal generated by the endoscope surgical robot control device”.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sharon et al. US2023/0346495.
For claim 7, Tanner does not disclose “The device of claim 4, wherein the handle comprises: a first fine adjustment wheel configured to control fine translation movement of the insertion tube; and a second find adjustment wheel configured to control fine pitch rotation of the insertion tube”.
Sharon teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing a fine adjustment wheel for manipulation (0208-0209). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Sharon into the invention of Tanner in order to configure the device e.g. as claimed because it allows more precise control of manipulation.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kim et al. US2013/0103199.
For claim 8, Tanner does not disclose “The device of claim 1, wherein the handle comprises: a joystick configured to move in at least four directions to control fine translation movement and fine pitch rotation of the insertion tube, wherein movement of the joystick in an up and down direction controls the fine translation movement, and movement of the joystick in a left and right direction controls the fine pitch rotation, the up and down direction being parallel with the roll rotation axis, and the left and right direction being parallel with the pitch rotation axis”.
Kim teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing a joystick for manipulation and control of a longitudinal insertable instrument including fine control (fig 1-5; 0027, 0038, 0049). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Kim into the invention of Tanner in order to configure the device e.g. as claimed, by incorporating a joystick for manipulation including the particular claimed axes of control as a finite number of possible solutions obvious to try for a skilled artisan because it provides a single handed control mechanism.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. US2021/0196293.
For claim 9, Tanner does not disclose “The device of claim 1, further comprising: a basket controller configured to control a basket connected to the basket controller through a link within the insertion tube, wherein the basket controller comprises: a translation actuator configured to control translation movement of the basket; and an open and close actuator configured to control open and close operation of the basket”.
Lin teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing a basket controller in a similar insertable instrument (0026, 0066). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Lin into the invention of Tanner in order to configure the device e.g. as claimed because it allows automated control of a basket device to access human anatomy for retrieving samples by a single operator (0026, 0066).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Labonville et al. US2010/0080669.
For claim 10, Tanner does not disclose “The device of claim 1, further comprising: a forceps controller configured to control forceps connected to the forceps controller through a link within the insertion tube, wherein the forceps controller controls translation movement of the forceps and an open and close operation of the forceps”. Labonville teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing grip controllers 28 (fig 5-7; 0007, 0037) for forceps. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Labonville into the invention of Tanner in order to configure the device e.g. as claimed because it provides the added functionality of a forceps instrument with the corresponding controls.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Diolaiti et al. US2010/0274087.
For claim 11, Tanner does not disclose “The device of claim 1, further comprising: a laser controller configured to control a laser generation device within the insertion tube, the laser controller controls translation movement of the laser generation device and operation of the laser generation device”.
Diolaiti teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing controls for a laser instrument (0159). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Diolaiti into the invention of Tanner in order to configure the device e.g. as claimed because it provides the added functionality of a laser device with the corresponding controls.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatta US2015/0245874.
For claim 12, Tanner does not disclose “The device of claim 1, wherein the translation movement part is configured to control movement of the insertion tube in a forward and backward direction, and wherein the insertion tube is configured to move di/k when the translation movement part moves d1/k being positive integer”.
Hatta teaches in the same field of endeavor, adjusting a scaling ratio for control and instrument motion (0058). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Hatta into the invention of Tanner in order to configure the device e.g. as claimed because it allows for fine movement control (0058).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The interview conducted with Sungyeop Chung on 4/9/2026 established that the applicant’s arguments presented in the current response (page 10) was interpreting the rejection such that the roll joint was the joint on the proximal end of the exterior of the housing for the robotic instrument driver 16 in fig 3C as provided and identified by Sungyeop Chung. This interpretation is further supported by applicant’s response dated 7/22/2025 citing fig 3A (page 9) with annotated axis “Axis B” offered as the joint axis. This is a misrepresentation of the rejection and the joint which is considered to provide the roll motion. The roll joint cited is provided in fig 5C and annotated with an arrow (page 6 of office action). Without conceding that even the exterior miscited joint on the housing of the robotic instrument driver 16 does in fact limit any axes of rotation, the joint of the rejection is interior to the housing and is completely different from the joint which applicant is referencing. As such, applicant’s argument is considered not persuasive.
Applicant’s next argument spanning page 10 and 11 argues the connection of the proximal joint and the “the pitch rotation arm equivalent” is not taught by fig 5C of Tanner. This joint does in fact connect to the pitch rotation arm as seen in fig 3E where the pitch rotation arm section are considered connected to this joint because the arm holds up the robotic instrument driver 16 which contains the joint in question.
Applicant’s next argument on page 11 is considered to interpret the roll joint as described in paragraph u. above and is therefore misrepresenting the roll joint.
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.
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 JAE K WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-0837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-2:30p, 6p-9p.
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.
/Jae Woo/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
04/13/26
Prosecution Insights