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 Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 17 December 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 11, and 16 have been amended, claims 21-23 remain cancelled, and claims 24-26 have been added. Thus, claims 1-20 and 24-26 are presently pending under examination.
Response to Arguments
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112
Applicant’s amendments to the specification and the claims have overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office mailed 06/17/2025.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 102/103
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-9, filed 17 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. under He have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kambe et al. (US 2022/0330790 A1), hereinafter Kambe.
Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 16 to specifically recite the limitation of “a drive mechanism mounted at a right angle relative to an actuation direction of the dexterous manipulation device” and further argues that the cited He et al. document does not disclose or suggest the present claim. The examiner agrees and has instead used Kambe to teach the amended limitation, as explained in detail below.
Therefore, claims 1-10, 16-20, and newly added claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103, as described in detail below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9-10, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 under Malkowski (US 2013/0012929) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kambe.
Applicant has amended independent claim 11 to specifically recite the limitation of “one or more actuation wires configured to move in one or more planes of motion distinct from the actuation direction” and further argues that the cited Malkowski document does not disclose or suggest the present claim. The examiner agrees and has instead used Kambe to teach the amended limitation, as explained in detail below.
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “independent claim 11 calls for actuation wires configured to move in an x-y plane”, see pg. 9) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as described in detail below.
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 11 and 26 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. Claims 11 and 26 recite the limitation of “one or more actuation wires configured to move in one or more planes of motion distinct from the actuation direction” (emphasis added) is not positively recited in the specification. Applicant is asked to point out the support for this limitation in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-10, 16-20, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 2018/0125596 A1, previously cited), hereinafter He in view of Kambe et al. (US 2022/0330790 A1), hereinafter Kambe.
Regarding claim 1, He discloses a dexterous manipulation device ([0012] “a dexterous manipulation device”, Abstract, [0002] “The present disclosure relates generally to manipulator devices, and in preferred aspects, to high dexterity sub-millimetric robotic devices.”) comprising:
a plurality of disc elements (Figure 7-8 and Figure 14: the disc-like elements 50), each having a curved top surface and a corresponding curved bottom surface ([0076] “Instead of flat, the top and bottom surfaces of each element are curved, i.e., cylindrical surfaces as shown in FIGS. 10-13”); and
actuation wires threaded through apertures of each disc element (view Figure 7: the cables 32 are threaded through the apertures, [0037] “The cabling system may connect the disc elements through the apertures configured to rotate about an axis and two degrees of rotational freedom.”),
wherein the disc elements are stacked alternating with the curved top and bottom surfaces of adjacent disc elements forming a rolling joint ([0076] “By assembling the elements alternately in orthogonal directions, the contact surfaces between the adjacent elements form rolling joints 54, as shown in FIG. 7.”), and
wherein the dexterous manipulation device has a total of 45 degrees of bending motion (Figure 9, [0076] “FIG. 9 illustrates the end effector 50 in a 45 bending position.”) with two degrees of freedom ([0063] “Components of the device preferably utilize a variable neutral-line mechanism to articulate and rotate an end effector having two degrees of freedom.”, [0067]).
He fails to explicitly disclose c) a drive mechanism mounted at a right angle relative to an actuation direction of the dexterous manipulation device.
However, Kambe teaches a medical device comprising an insertion portion comprising a joint and a wire attached to the joint; and a drive device that is detachably connected to the medical device and bends the joint by electrically driving the wire ([0007], Figure 4) wherein c) a drive mechanism (rotating drum 156) mounted at a right angle relative to an actuation direction of the dexterous manipulation device ([0194]-[0195] “The rotating drum 156 is rotatably supported by the support member 155 about a drum rotation axis 156r extending along the longitudinal direction A. The rotating drum 156 includes a take-up pulley 156a and a coupling portion 156c. The take-up pulley 156a tows or sends out the first upper bending wire 161u and the first lower bending wire 161d by rotating about the drum rotation axis 156r. When the take-up pulley 156a rotates clockwise when viewed from the distal end side to the proximal end side, the first upper bending wire 161u is wound around the take-up pulley 156a and towed, and the first lower bending wire 161d is sent out from the take-up pulley 156a. On the contrary, when the take-up pulley 156a rotates counterclockwise, the first upper bending wire 161u is sent out from the take-up pulley 156a, and the first lower bending wire 161d is wound around the take-up pulley 156a and towed.”, [0148] “The distal ends of the first upper bending wire 161u and the first lower bending wire 161d fixed to the first distal end portion 116 are disposed on both sides in the UD direction with the central axis O in the longitudinal direction A interposed therebetween.”, view Figure 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified He to incorporate the teachings of Kambe to have c) a drive mechanism mounted at a right angle relative to an actuation direction of the dexterous manipulation device, as these prior art references are directed to surgical elongated instruments with disc elements. One would be motivated to do this as it allows for efficient/accurate movement and control of the manipulator, as recognized by Kambe ([0143]).
Regarding claim 2, He in view of Kambe teaches the dexterous manipulation device of claim 1 (as shown above). He further discloses wherein outer apertures of each disc element (four apertures 58a, 58b, 58c and 58d) are disposed outside of a contact region between neighboring disc elements (view Examiner modified Figure 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 3, He discloses the dexterous manipulation device of claim 2 (as shown above), wherein a center apertures of each disc element (center apertures 56) is disposed inside the contact region between neighboring disc elements (view Examiner modified Figure 11 and 12).
Applicant’s Figure
He’s Figures 11 and 12
PNG
media_image1.png
306
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
889
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, He in view of Kambe teaches the dexterous manipulation device of claim 1 (as shown above). He further discloses wherein each disc element is about 0.2 mm thick ([0076] “Each disc-like element may be... approximately 0.25 mm in height”)
Although He does not explicitly teach these ranges, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use values within these ranges because He’s ranges are shown to be effective and they overlap heavily with the applicant’s ranges, therefore discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, He in view of Kambe teaches the dexterous manipulation device of claim 1 (as shown above). He further discloses, wherein the apertures formed through each disc element are about 0.2 mm in diameter ([0076] “All the apertures may be approximately 0.2 mm in diameter.”).
Regarding claim 6, He in view of Kambe teaches the dexterous manipulation device of claim 1 (as shown above). He further discloses wherein the device is robotically controlled (Claim 3: “The device of claim 1 wherein the device is robotically controlled”, Claim 1: a dexterous manipulation device).
Regarding claim 7, He in view of Kambe teaches the dexterous manipulation device of a claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the device is less than about 0.9 mm in diameter ([0076] “Each disc-like element may be approximately 0.9 mm in diameter”, Figure 15).
Regarding claim 8, He in view of Kambe teaches the dexterous manipulation device of claim 1 (as shown above). He further discloses wherein the length of the stacked disc elements is about 3 mm or less (Figure 15: the length is shown to be 3 mm).
Regarding claim 9, He in view of Kambe teaches the dexterous manipulation device of claim 1 (as shown above). He further discloses wherein a distal end of the device includes one of a needle tip, forceps, a pipette, an intra-ocular device, or a gripper ([0022] “The end effector of the device may comprise one or more of a variety of manipulation tools or devices. The device can thus function as a forceps, light pipe, laser probe, needle, pick, and endoscope, among others. In some embodiments, the end effector may include a forceps and the forceps may be suitably actuated by the actuation wires thereby controlling the movement. In other embodiments, the end effector may have a needle tip, including a steerable needle tip. In some embodiments, the end effector also may include a pipette. The end effector also may comprise an illumination unit.”, [0028] “In some embodiments, the device may be an intraocular device inserted within a patient eye during an ocular surgical procedure”).
Regarding claim 10, He in view of Kambe teaches the dexterous manipulation device of claim 1 (as shown above). He fails to explicitly disclose wherein disc elements provided at a proximate end of the device include about 9 apertures to provide four degrees of freedom.
However it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at 9 apertures, recognizing that additionally apertures is directly correlated to increasing degrees of freedom, which are desirable characteristics, and since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.01 V1-B. Please not that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, He discloses a dexterous manipulation device ([0012] “a dexterous manipulation device”, Abstract, [0002] “The present disclosure relates generally to manipulator devices, and in preferred aspects, to high dexterity sub-millimetric robotic devices.”) comprising:
a plurality of disc elements (Figure 7-8 and Figure 14: the disc-like elements 50); and
actuation wires threaded through apertures of each disc element (view Figure 7: the cables 32 are threaded through the apertures, [0037] “The cabling system may connect the disc elements through the apertures configured to rotate about an axis and two degrees of rotational freedom.”),
wherein the disc elements are stacked alternating with the partially curved top and bottom surfaces of adjacent disc elements forming a rolling joint ([0076] “By assembling the elements alternately in orthogonal directions, the contact surfaces between the adjacent elements form rolling joints 54, as shown in FIG. 7.”), and
wherein the dexterous manipulation device has a total of 45 degrees of bending motion (Figure 9, [0076] “FIG. 9 illustrates the end effector 50 in a 45 bending position.”) with two degrees of freedom ([0063] “Components of the device preferably utilize a variable neutral-line mechanism to articulate and rotate an end effector having two degrees of freedom.”, [0067]).
He further discloses wherein “Instead of flat, the top and bottom surfaces of each element are curved, i.e., cylindrical surfaces as shown in FIGS. 10-13” ([0076]), but fails to explicitly disclose the plurality of disc elements, each having a partially curved top surface and a partially curved bottom surface corresponding to the curved top surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He to have the disc elements, each having a partially curved top surface and a partially curved bottom surface corresponding to the curved top surface, since it has been held that changing the shape was a matter of choice one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Additionally, the present disclosure has no criticality for having a partially curved top surface and a partially curved bottom surface corresponding to the curved top surface for the disc elements.
He fails to explicitly disclose c) a drive mechanism mounted at a right angle relative to an actuation direction of the dexterous manipulation device.
However, Kambe teaches a medical device comprising an insertion portion comprising a joint and a wire attached to the joint; and a drive device that is detachably connected to the medical device and bends the joint by electrically driving the wire ([0007], Figure 4) wherein c) a drive mechanism (rotating drum 156) mounted at a right angle relative to an actuation direction of the dexterous manipulation device ([0194]-[0195] “The rotating drum 156 is rotatably supported by the support member 155 about a drum rotation axis 156r extending along the longitudinal direction A. The rotating drum 156 includes a take-up pulley 156a and a coupling portion 156c. The take-up pulley 156a tows or sends out the first upper bending wire 161u and the first lower bending wire 161d by rotating about the drum rotation axis 156r. When the take-up pulley 156a rotates clockwise when viewed from the distal end side to the proximal end side, the first upper bending wire 161u is wound around the take-up pulley 156a and towed, and the first lower bending wire 161d is sent out from the take-up pulley 156a. On the contrary, when the take-up pulley 156a rotates counterclockwise, the first upper bending wire 161u is sent out from the take-up pulley 156a, and the first lower bending wire 161d is wound around the take-up pulley 156a and towed.”, [0148] “The distal ends of the first upper bending wire 161u and the first lower bending wire 161d fixed to the first distal end portion 116 are disposed on both sides in the UD direction with the central axis O in the longitudinal direction A interposed therebetween.”, view Figure 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified He to incorporate the teachings of Kambe to have c) a drive mechanism mounted at a right angle relative to an actuation direction of the dexterous manipulation device, as these prior art references are directed to surgical elongated instruments with disc elements. One would be motivated to do this as it allows for efficient/accurate movement and control of the manipulator, as recognized by Kambe ([0143]).
Regarding claim 17, He in view of Kambe teaches the dexterous manipulation device of claim 16 (as shown above). He further discloses wherein neighboring disc elements maintain constant contact with each other ([0076] “In other words, at any time, two parts will have one contact line thereby achieving movement.”, view Figure 9, in a configuration of 45 degrees of bending motion the disc elements maintain contact with each other, [0078] “pretension in the actuation wires can maintain the disc-like elements positioned together.”).
Regarding claim 18, He in view of Kambe teaches the dexterous manipulation device of claim 17 (as shown above). He further discloses wherein the apertures formed through each disc element are arranged to provide a minimum contact length of about 0.7 mm between neighboring disc elements ([0078] “The contact region is a rectangle with a length 1=0.9 mm, and a width of 2b”).
Although He does not explicitly teach these ranges, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use values within these ranges because He’s ranges are shown to be effective and they overlap heavily with the applicant’s ranges, therefore discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 19, He in view of Kambe teaches the dexterous manipulation device of claim 17 (as shown above). He further discloses wherein the length of the stacked disc elements is about 2 mm or less ([0030] “In some exemplary embodiments, the size of the end effector is less than 3 mm in length”, Claim 6, Figure 15: the length is shown to be 3 mm).
Although He does not explicitly teach these ranges, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use values within these ranges because He’s ranges are shown to be effective and they overlap heavily with the applicant’s ranges, therefore discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 20, He in view of Kambe teaches the dexterous manipulation device of claim 16 (as shown above). He further discloses wherein each disc element is about 0.2 mm thick ([0076] “Each disc-like element may be... approximately 0.25 mm in height”)
Although He does not explicitly teach these ranges, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use values within these ranges because He’s ranges are shown to be effective and they overlap heavily with the applicant’s ranges, therefore discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 24, He in view of Kambe teaches the dexterous manipulation device of claim 16 (as shown above). He further discloses wherein the device is less than about 0.9 mm in diameter (Claim 5, [0019] “the end effector…preferable may be less than 0.9 mm or 0.8 mm in diameter or cross-section”, [0030] “the size of the end effector may be less than 0.9 mm in diameter”).
Regarding claim 25, He in view of Kambe teaches the dexterous manipulation device of claim 1 (as shown above). He fails to explicitly disclose the device further comprising actuation wires configured to move in an x-y plane.
However, Kambe teaches the device further comprising actuation wires configured to move in an x-y plane (view Figures 4 and 13, [0195] explains the towing and sending out of the bending wire 161u and 161d, Examiner notes that these wires are moving along the longitudinal A direction, which Examiner interprets to the be the x-y plane).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified He to incorporate the teachings of Kambe to have the actuation wires configured to move in an x-y plane as these prior art references are directed to elongated surgical instruments. One would be motivated to do this as it allows for efficient/accurate movement and control of the manipulator, as recognized by Kambe ([0143]).
Regarding claim 26, He in view of Kambe teaches the dexterous manipulation device of claim 16 (as shown above). He fails to explicitly disclose wherein the actuation wires are configured to move in one or more planes of motion distinct from the actuation direction.
However, Kambe teaches wherein the actuation wires are configured to move in one or more planes of motion distinct from the actuation direction (view Figures 4 and 13, [0148]-[0149] “The distal ends of the first upper bending wire 161u and the first lower bending wire 161d fixed to the first distal end portion 116 are disposed on both sides in the UD direction with the central axis O in the longitudinal direction A interposed therebetween. The first left bending wire 1611 and the first right bending wire 161r are wires that bend the first joint 113 in the LR direction.”, [0136]-[0137])
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified He to incorporate the teachings of Kambe to have the actuation wires configured to move in one or more planes of motion distinct from the actuation direction, as these prior art references are directed to elongated surgical instruments. One would be motivated to do this to have a compact configuration and precise control of the device.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malkowski (US 2013/0012929 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Malkowski in view of Kambe.
Regarding claim 11, Malkowski discloses a surgical system (surgical articulation system 10), comprising:
a dexterous manipulation device (an articulatable member 50) including at least one bending portion (articulation section 52) actuated by wires (Figure 19, [0049] “Cables 330 extend from articulation mechanism 30 to articulation section 52 and are attached to articulation section 52 such that upon rotation of one of rotating members 380 and 382, a respective bar member 340 or 342 rotates to pull one of cables 330 proximally and to allow another of cables 330 to move distally. When the one of bar members 340 and 342 pulls the one of cables 330 proximally, articulation section 52 is bent or articulated in a direction corresponding to the pulled cable 330.”); and
Malkowski fails to explicitly disclose c) one or more actuation wires configured to move in one or more planes of motion distinct from the actuation direction.
However, Kambe teaches a medical device comprising an insertion portion comprising a joint and a wire attached to the joint; and a drive device that is detachably connected to the medical device and bends the joint by electrically driving the wire ([0007], Figure 4) wherein b) a drive mechanism (rotating drum 156) mounted at a right angle relative to an actuation direction of the dexterous manipulation device ([0194]-[0195] “The rotating drum 156 is rotatably supported by the support member 155 about a drum rotation axis 156r extending along the longitudinal direction A. The rotating drum 156 includes a take-up pulley 156a and a coupling portion 156c. The take-up pulley 156a tows or sends out the first upper bending wire 161u and the first lower bending wire 161d by rotating about the drum rotation axis 156r. When the take-up pulley 156a rotates clockwise when viewed from the distal end side to the proximal end side, the first upper bending wire 161u is wound around the take-up pulley 156a and towed, and the first lower bending wire 161d is sent out from the take-up pulley 156a. On the contrary, when the take-up pulley 156a rotates counterclockwise, the first upper bending wire 161u is sent out from the take-up pulley 156a, and the first lower bending wire 161d is wound around the take-up pulley 156a and towed.”, [0148] “The distal ends of the first upper bending wire 161u and the first lower bending wire 161d fixed to the first distal end portion 116 are disposed on both sides in the UD direction with the central axis O in the longitudinal direction A interposed therebetween.”, view Figure 4); and c) one or more actuation wires configured to move in one or more planes of motion distinct from the actuation direction (view Figures 4 and 13, [0148]-[0149] “The distal ends of the first upper bending wire 161u and the first lower bending wire 161d fixed to the first distal end portion 116 are disposed on both sides in the UD direction with the central axis O in the longitudinal direction A interposed therebetween. The first left bending wire 1611 and the first right bending wire 161r are wires that bend the first joint 113 in the LR direction.”, [0136]-[0137])
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Malkowski to incorporate the teachings of Kambe to have b) a drive mechanism mounted at a right angle relative to an actuation direction of the dexterous manipulation device; and c) one or more actuation wires configured to move in one or more planes of motion distinct from the actuation direction, as these prior art references are directed to surgical elongated instruments with disc elements. One would be motivated to do this as it allows for efficient/accurate movement and control of the manipulator, as recognized by Kambe ([0143]).
Regarding claim 12, Malkowski in view of Kambe teaches the system of claim 11 (as shown above). Malkowski further discloses wherein the bending portion (articulation section 52) is a plurality of disc elements (Figure 9: articulatable link 54, [0049] “Articulation section 52 includes articulatable links 54”) each having a curved top surface and a corresponding curved bottom surface (view Figure 9: the articulatable links 54 appear to have curved top and bottom surfaces, [0049] “each adjacent link 54 is rotationally offset about the longitudinal axis of the articulation section 52”) and wherein the wires are threaded through apertures of each disc element ([0049] “Cables 330 extend from articulation mechanism 30 to articulation section 52 and are attached to articulation section 52”, view Figure 9: the cable 330 is extending through apertures present on the links)
Regarding claim 13, Malkowski in view of Kambe teaches the system of claim 11 (as shown above). Malkowski further discloses, wherein the drive mechanism is detachable from the dexterous manipulation device (view Figure 1 and 3: the distal opening 326 is where the articulatable member 50 is attached, [0041] “Housing 302 also includes a distal portion 324 having a distal opening 326 and cable pathways 328 extending proximally from distal opening 326 for the reception of cables 330 therethrough”).
Regarding claim 14, Malkowski in view of Kambe teaches the system of claim 11 (as shown above). Malkowski further discloses the system further comprising a body unit (Figure 2: a distal portion 324 of the housing 302) mated between the drive mechanism (rotating members 380 and 382) and the dexterous manipulation device (an articulatable member 50, view Figure 1 and 2: it is clear that the distal portion 324 is between the articulatable member and the rotating members).
Regarding claim 15, Malkowski in view of Kambe teaches the system of claim 13 (as shown above). Malkowski further discloses wherein the drive mechanism (articulation mechanism 30) includes a housing (housing 302) and a plurality of pulleys (view Figure 9 and 10: upper and lower pulley 362).
Malkowski and Kambe, alone or in combination, fails to explicitly teach wherein the drive mechanism includes a motor within the housing.
However, Malkowski teaches wherein “Lever 22 may mechanically actuate end effector 60 or may actuate an electric motor or other electronic component (not shown) to actuate end effector 60.” ([0040], view Figure 1: the actuated end effector).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize a motor and place the motor within the housing to actuate the end effector. Further, it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to properly position a motor in the housing to actuate the end effector.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 5712724156. 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.
/ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/MICHAEL W KAHELIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights