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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, and 16-24) and Species 1A, 2B, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6B, 7A, and 8B, and identifying that pending claims (1, 4, 5, 7-11, and 16-24) encompasses this election in the reply filed on 04/21/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 25-27 are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re claim 8, the limitation, “the dimensions of the toothed rack and toothed gear, and the radius of the second pulley” lacks antecedent basis.
In re claim 9, the limitation, “the dimensions of the toothed rack, the toothed gear, the first rod and the second rod” lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1, 4-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter et al. (US 2018/0168628) in view of Beira (US 2017/0367778).
In re claim 1, Hunter discloses a robotic surgical instrument (fig. 1: 1000) comprising:
a shaft (1400);
an articulation (1200; [0382]) attached to a distal end (fig. 1: left side of 1400) of the shaft (fig. 1),
the articulation configured to articulate an end effector ([0382]: 1200 articulates end effector 1100; fig. 1),
the articulation driveable by a distal driving element (fig. 6: 1710; [0385, 0390]); and
a driving mechanism (fig. 87: 2250; [0461]) comprising: an instrument interface element (fig. 5: combination of 1600 and 1620; fig. 87; [0461])
secured to an end of a proximal driving element (fig. 87: 1624 is secured to end of proximal driving element 2252) and
configured to engage a drive interface element (2260) of a drive assembly (fig. 87: combination of 2252, 2254, 1724/1726, 2256, 2246, 2260, and 2262),
wherein motion of the drive interface element results in a first displacement [0463-0464] of the end of the proximal driving element (fig. 87-88; [0463-0464]; and
a gearing mechanism (fig. 87: combination of 1724/1726, 2256, 2260, and 2262)
engaging
the proximal driving element (fig. 87) and
the distal driving element (fig. 87: gearing mechanism engaged with 1710R’) and
being configured to transfer the first displacement of the end of the proximal driving element to a different second displacement [0464] of an end of the distal driving element (fig. 87-88; [0463-0464]: transferring displacement causes surgical end effector to pivot).
Hunter fails to disclose the gearing mechanism comprising:
a first pulley about which the proximal driving element is constrained to move,
the first pulley being configured to
rotate about an axis, and
having a first pulley radius; and
a second pulley about which the distal driving element is constrained to move,
the second pulley being one of a plurality of pulleys each having a different radius and being configured to rotate about the same axis;
where the first pulley radius is different to each of the respective radii of the plurality of pulleys;
in which a ratio of the first and second displacements is a function of the ratio of the first pulley radius to the radius of the second pulley.
Beira teaches an analogous surgical instrument [0001] comprising a gearing mechanism comprising (fig. 26: combination of 27a, 27a-1, 27a-2, 26, 33, and 30), wherein the gearing mechanism comprises:
a first pulley (27a-1) about which a proximal driving element (33) is constrained to move (fig. 26),
the first pulley being configured to
rotate about an axis (26), and
having a first pulley radius (fig. 26: 27a-1 would have a radius; [0044]: each pulley may have a different diameter); and
a second pulley (27a-2) about which a distal driving element (30) is constrained to move (fig. 26),
the second pulley being one of a plurality of pulleys (fig. 26: plurality of pulleys is combination of 27a-1 and 27a-2) each having a different radius ([0044]: different diameters on pulleys may be used to where the second pulley could have a different radius than the first pulley) and being configured to rotate about the same axis (fig. 26: 27a-1 and 27a-2 both rotate around axis 26);
where the first pulley radius is different to each of the respective radii of the plurality of pulleys ([0044]: different diameters on pulleys may be used);
a gearing mechanism (fig. 87: combination of 1724/1726, 2256, 2260, and 2262)
engaging
the proximal driving element (fig. 87) and
the distal driving element (fig. 87: gearing mechanism engaged with 1710R’) and
transfer a first displacement of an end of the proximal driving element (fig. 26: right side of 33) to a different second displacement of an end of the distal driving element (fig. 26: right side of 3; [0044]: transferring displacement between the proximal driving element and the distal driving element causes end-effector member 5 to rotate around axis 6),
in which a ratio of a first and second displacements is a function of the ratio of the first pulley radius to the radius of the second pulley ([0044]: ratios of the first and second displacements would be affected by ratio of the first pulley radius to the radius of the second pulley because the displacement being transferred to rotate end-effector member 5 would be affected by the radius of the pulleys 27a-1 and 27a-2).
Beira further teaches that different movement amplification ratios can be achieves by using different diameters on the pulleys [0044], and the rotation of the pulleys enable an end-effector member to be rotated [0044].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the robotic surgical instrument taught by Hunter, to provide a first pulley about which the proximal driving element is constrained to move, the first pulley being configured to rotate about an axis, and having a first pulley radius; and a second pulley about which the distal driving element is constrained to move, the second pulley being one of a plurality of pulleys each having a different radius and being configured to rotate about the same axis; where the first pulley radius is different to each of the respective radii of the plurality of pulleys; in which a ratio of the first and second displacements is a function of the ratio of the first pulley radius to the radius of the second pulley, as taught by Beira, because different movement amplification ratios can be achieves by using different diameters on the pulleys, and the rotation of the pulleys enable an end-effector member to be rotated.
In re claim 4, regarding the limitations, “wherein
the distal driving element is constrained to move about one of the plurality of pulleys and
the ratio of the first and second displacements is a function of the ratio of the radius of the first pulley to the radius of the pulley about which the distal driving element is constrained to move”
see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 1 above, where the distal driving element is constrained to move about the second pulley.
In re claim 5, regarding the limitations, “wherein the ratio of the first and second displacements is selected from a discrete number of ratios” see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 1 above, where the ratio of the first and second displacements would be based and selected on a discrete number of ratios to achieve the desired movement amplification ratios.
At the time the instant application was filed it would be obvious to try to provide wherein the ratio of the first and second displacements is selected from a discrete number of ratios. Furthermore, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397, especially since the claimed discrete number of ratios is not disclosed as being crucial or unexpected.
Even if the proposed combination fails to yield “wherein the ratio of the first and second displacements is selected from a discrete number of ratios”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide wherein the ratio of the first and second displacements is selected from a discrete number of ratios ,since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 7, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Hunter unless otherwise stated) wherein the gearing mechanism comprises a toothed rack (fig. 87: 2256 of the gearing mechanism comprises a rack of teeth; [0462]: shifter driven rack 2256).
wherein the first pulley (proposed combination from claim 1 would yield a first pulley connected to the proximal driving element)
comprises a toothed gear (fig. 87: first pulley would comprise toothed gear 2262) and
is configured to engage the toothed rack such that motion of the toothed rack results in rotation of the toothed gear (fig. 87: rotation of the toothed rack 2256 would cause rotation of 2262; [0462, 0464]).
In re claim 8, regarding the limitations, “wherein the distal driving element is constrained to move about a pulley and the ratio of the first and second displacements is a function of the dimensions of the toothed rack and toothed gear, and the radius of the second pulley”, see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 1 above, where the distal driving element is constrained to move about the second pulley and the ratio of the first and second displacements would be a function of the dimensions of the toothed rack and toothed gear, and the radius of the second pulley.
In re claim 9, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Hunter unless otherwise stated)
wherein the proximal driving element further comprises
a first rod (fig. 5: 1602) secured to the instrument interface element (fig. 5); and
a second rod (1620)
secured to the toothed rack (fig. 89: 1620 is secured to 2256; [0462]) and
configured to moveably engage with the first rod [0396-0397] such that displacement of the first rod results in displacement of the toothed rack ([0396-0397]: 1602 advances 1620; [0462]: 1620 movably engages with 2254 of 2252 which moves 2256; [0464-0465]: 2252 and 2256 are moveably engageable),
wherein the ratio of the first and second displacements is a function of the dimensions of the toothed rack, the toothed gear, the first rod and the second rod ([0462]: dimensions of the toothed rack, the toothed gear, the first rod and the second rod would directly affect the ratio of the first and second displacements since the transferred linear and rotating forces would be affected by the dimensions of each component; [0396-0397]).
In re claim 10, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Hunter unless otherwise stated) wherein
the first rod comprises an aperture (1608; [0397]: 1602 includes a longitudinal slot 1608) and
the second rod is configured to be threaded through the aperture in the first rod ([0397]: 1608 receives a tab on proximal end of the distal firing bar 1620).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter et al. (US 2018/0168628) in view of Beira (US 2017/0367778) in view of Awtar et al. (US 2014/0142595).
In re claim 11, the proposed combination fails to yield wherein the first pulley is a first truncated cone and the second pulley is a second truncated cone.
Awtar teaches a minimal access tool for surgery [0003]
comprising of
a first pulley (fig. 17: 98) and
a second pulley (100),
wherein
the first pulley is a first truncated cone (fig. 17; [0077]) and
the second pulley is a second truncated cone (fig. 17; [0077]).
Awtar further teaches that having a design (i.e. the truncated cone as shown in fig. 17) may scale a user’s input rotation [0077], therefore providing a variable transmission ration between a user’s hand rotation and a tool output [0077].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the robotic surgical instrument yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the first pulley is a first truncated cone and the second pulley is a second truncated cone, as taught by Awtar, because the truncated cone may scale a user’s input rotation, therefore providing a variable transmission ration between a user’s hand rotation and a tool output.
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter et al. (US 2018/0168628) in view of Beira (US 2017/0367778) in view of Overmyer et al. (US 2021/0059773).
In re claim 16, the proposed combination fails to yield the instrument comprising a memory and being configured to store in memory the ratio of the first and second displacements.
Overmyer teaches closure systems for robotic surgical tools [0025] and teaches
a robotic surgical system (fig. 1: 100) comprising an instrument (fig. 4: 408) comprising a memory ([0052]: 408 may house an internal computer that may include a memory) and being configured to store in memory ([0052]: memory stores information relating to drive housing 408 and surgical tool 400; [0101-0104]) angular displacement measurements [0099] of a plurality of motors [0099],
the instrument being configured to transmit the angular displacement measurements to a control unit (fig. 6: 622; [0103]: memory communicates with internal computer 622) configured to control a surgical robot ([0107]: 622 controls surgical tool 400; [0048]: 408 is connected to 604 which may be used in conjunction with robot manipulator 104; fig. 3 and fig. 6),
the control unit being configured to determine the angular displacement measurements ([0099]: housing 408 receives information from rotary encoders to determine angular displacement),
wherein the control unit is configured to determine the angular displacement measurements using information transmitted from the instrument to the control unit ([0099-0100]: rotary encoders is used to determine angular displacement measurements).
Overmyer further teaches that angular displacement measurements provide information on an efficiency of a surgical tool [0100], and that the device can store measurements internally [0101] and be used to determine improper usage of the end effector [0092-0093, 0099].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the robotic surgical instrument yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the instrument comprising a memory and being configured to store in memory the ratio of the first and second displacements, as taught by the angular displacement measurements of Overmyer, because measurements provide information on an efficiency of a surgical tool, and because internal storage of the measurements can be used to determine improper usage of the end effector.
In re claim 17, regarding the limitation, “the instrument being configured to transmit to the ratio of the first and second displacements to a control unit configured to control a surgical robot”, see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 16 above.
In re claim 18, the proposed combination yielded in re claim 1 above yields (all mapping directed to Hunter unless otherwise stated) a system ([0377]: tool drive assembly may be part of a robotic system) comprising:
a robot arm ([0377-0378]: surgical tool assembly 1000 is interpreted as a robot arm since it may be connected robotic surgical system and comprises a handle assembly 500 that is gripped by a clinician; fig. 1);
the instrument of claim 1 (see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 1 above); and
a control unit ([0377]: handle assembly 500 may be interpreted as a control unit).
The proposed combination fails to yield a control unit being configured to determine the ratio of the first and second displacements.
Regarding the limitation, “a control unit being configured to determine the ratio of the first and second displacements”, see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 16 above.
In re claim 19, regarding the limitation, “wherein the control unit is configured to determine the ratio of the first and second displacements using information transmitted from the instrument to the control unit”, see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 16 above.
In re claim 20, regarding the limitation, “wherein the control unit is configured to determine the second displacement by measuring the tension in the distal driving element and/or by measuring motion of the end effector of the instrument”, the proposed combination in re claim 18 above would yield the recited limitation, since Hunter teaches that first and second displacements cause the surgical end effector to move (Hunter: [0463-0464]: end effector is moved to desired location, which affects the second displacement and motors also need to be in sync; [0413]: microcontroller may provide position of distal firing bar as it’s advanced distally and also detects position of the firing member assembly), and placing the rotary encoders of Beira (see above) on the end effector
In re claim 21, the proposed combination yielded in re claim 1 above yields (all mapping directed to Hunter unless otherwise stated) the robot arm comprising a drive assembly ([0381]: combination of movable drive member 540 and drive gear arrangement) having a drive assembly interface element ([0380]: driving movable drive member 540 is interpreted as a drive assembly interface element since it moves between distal and proximal directions via a motor 505; [0411]: motor drives 1602 to move distally),
the drive assembly interface element being configured to engage with the instrument interface element such that motion of the drive interface element results in motion of the instrument interface element ([0411]: motor used to drive 1602 via movable drive member 540 [0380]); and
the robot arm being configured to apply a force to the drive assembly interface element ([0380]: motor 505 of the robot arm applies force to 540),
wherein the control unit is configured to derive the first displacement from a sensed displacement of the drive assembly interface element ([0380]: sensor can detect position of drive member 540; proposed combination yielded by claim 16 above would yield the first displacement being derived by the control unit).
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter et al. (US 2018/0168628) in view of Beira (US 2017/0367778) in view of Chassot et al. (US 2019/0239972).
In re claim 22, the proposed combination fails to yield
wherein each pulley in the plurality of pulleys of the instrument comprises a sensor configured to detect whether the distal driving element is constrained to move about that pulley, and
the instrument is configured to communicate to the control unit, about which pulley of the plurality of pulleys the distal driving element is constrained to move.
Chassot teaches remotely actuated surgical robot systems [0002] and teaches
wherein each pulley in a plurality of pulleys [0175] of an instrument (fig. 39: 901) comprises a sensor [0175] configured to detect whether rotational movement of a pulley ([0175]: sensors measure rotational movement of the pulley), and
the instrument is configured to communicate to a control unit [0177], the rotational movement of a pulley [0175, 0177].
Chassot further teaches that the sensors measure various degrees-of-motion of the instrument [0175].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the robotic surgical instrument yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein each pulley in the plurality of pulleys of the instrument comprises a sensor configured to detect whether the distal driving element is constrained to move about that pulley, and the instrument is configured to communicate to the control unit, about which pulley of the plurality of pulleys the distal driving element is constrained to move, as taught by the angular displacement measurements of Chassot, because the sensors measure various degrees-of-motion of the instrument.
The proposed combination would yield
wherein each pulley in the plurality of pulleys of the instrument comprises a sensor configured to detect whether the distal driving element is constrained to move about that pulley, and
the instrument is configured to communicate to the control unit, about which pulley of the plurality of pulleys the distal driving element is constrained to move,
since detecting the rotational movement of the pulley would also provide information about which pulley of the plurality of pulleys the distal driving element is constrained to move.
In re claim 23, the proposed combination yielded in re claim 22 above would yield “wherein the instrument is configured to communicate to the control unit, the diameter of the pulley about which the distal driving element is constrained to move”, since it’s inherent that a control unit receiving information about which of the plurality of pulleys the distal driving element is constrained to move about would also receive information regarding the diameter of the pulley, so that appropriate and accurate measurements regarding movement and force could be made during control of the pulleys and the distal driving element.
In re claim 24, the proposed combination would yield “wherein the control unit is configured to determine the ratio of the first and second displacements using the diameter of the first pulley and the diameter of the pulley about which the distal driving element is constrained to move”, since it’s inherent that the ratio of the first and second displacements would be dependent on the diameter of the first pulley and the diameter of the pulley about which the distal driving element is constrained to move and would also affect the control of the pulley and the distal driving element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Lee et al. (US 2014/0296637) discloses an endoscope apparatus (abstract) comprising of a displacement sensor [0036] measuring rotation of a pulley [0036].
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
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights