DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the previously presented prior art does not teach all of the limitations of the claimed invention, namely, a drive connector including one or more cables and at least one of the one or more cables comprising a plurality of individual wires, each wire of the plurality of individual wires comprising tungsten, and each wire of the plurality of the individual wires having a polished outer surface. Applicant argues that:
Primary reference Schlesinger does not suggest that each wire of the pull wire 302 includes tungsten;
Secondary reference Kanazawa does not teach each wire of the plurality of wires having a polished outer surface; and
The cited references do not consider the technical problem of a loss of cable tension over time, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to polish each wire of a plurality of wires in a cable.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and offers the following reasoning:
With regards to the primary reference, in paragraphs [0042-0043] Schlesinger teaches cable metal wires of braided pull wires for use as a drive connector in a surgical instrument, specifically pointing to tungsten cables due to their high tensile strength and high modulus. It can be appreciated that one of ordinary skill in the art has an understanding that ‘cable’ refers to a group of wires bundled together, and both the terms ‘cable’ and ‘braided wire’ comprise multiple individual wires. Schlesinger teaches the use of tungsten cable wires, which by nature of its naming suggests the presence of multiple wires each containing tungsten to form a cable.
Examiner also offers the secondary reference Kanazawa for further clarity regarding the tungsten cables comprising multiple tungsten wires each having a polished outer surface. In paragraph [0055], and the corresponding step S28 of Fig. 4, Kanazawa performs an electrolytic polishing to smooth the surface of the tungsten wire 10. With regards to paragraphs [0083-0089] and corresponding Figs. 7 and 8, it can be seen that individual strands of polished tungsten wire 10 can be twisted together to form twisted wire 20 or even twisted rope 30. Therefore, the combination of Schlesinger and Kanazawa does teach the limitation of the one or more cables comprising a plurality of individual wires, each wire of the plurality of individual wires comprising tungsten, and each wire of the plurality of the individual wires having a polished outer surface.
Applicant alleges that the cited references do not consider the technical problem of a loss of cable tension over time and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to polish each wire of a plurality of wires of a cable. Kanazawa teaches the advantageous effects of using tungsten wire including that of its high tensile strength and high breakage strength against torsion while remaining thin (Kanazawa [0045]), and that after each tungsten strand 10 is polished, a plurality of strands may be twisted together to form a cable 20 or rope 30, where the polished tungsten strands have a high breakage strength and therefore produce highly reliable twisted cables or ropes (Kanazawa [0088]). Therefore, it can be appreciated that the tungsten rope is formed as taught with the consideration of strength and longevity in mind, which would be motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art in order to produce a reliable, long-lasting product. In response to applicant's argument that the cited references do not consider the technical problem of a loss of cable tension over time, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
With this in consideration, the rejection as previously presented is maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 06/23/2023 and 07/17/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Found in claim 1 and its dependents, such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a moveable component,” described in the specification as an end effector associated with one or more surgical tasks; and
“a drive element,” described in the specification as a means to control the motion of the moveable component, including drive shafts and capstans.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, and 22-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlesinger (US 20180001058 A1) in view of Kanazawa et al (US 20220220591 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schlesinger teaches a surgical instrument (200) comprising:
a shaft comprising a proximal end and a distal end (catheter body 216 having proximal end 217 and distal end 218 as shown in Fig. 2);
a moveable component (see [0037]; auxiliary medical instrument 226 not shown in the figures and; Fig. 2 illustrating movement of the distal end 218 of the flexible catheter body 216) coupled to the distal end of the shaft (see [0039-0042] having a medical instrument attached to the distal end 218 of the flexible catheter body 216);
a mechanical structure coupled to the proximal end of the shaft (instrument body housing 204),
the mechanical structure comprising a drive element (see [0038-0039]; housing 204 may include drive inputs and; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/286,644, filed Sep. 30, 2008, disclosing “Passive Preload and Capstan Drive for Surgical Instruments” incorporated by reference by Schlesinger); and
a drive connector (pull wire assembly 300) coupled between the drive element (located in housing 204) and the moveable component (see [0042] having a pull wire extending between the instrument body housing 204 and the distal end 218, wherein the instrument is connected at the attachment site on the distal end),
the drive connector comprising one or more cables (see [0042-0043], Fig. 3 having pull wire 302 as the drive connector),
at least one of the one or more cables comprising a plurality of individual wires (see [0047]; ‘the pull wire 302 can be a cable metal wire, solid wire, or braided wire,’ wherein it interpreted that a braided wire must inherently comprise a plurality of individual wires),
each wire of the plurality of individual wires comprising tungsten (see [0042]; tungsten cable wires are desirable).
Schlesinger is silent regarding wherein each wire of the plurality of individual wires having a polished outer surface. However, Kanazawa teaches a wire made of tungsten, manufactured to increase the breakage strength against torsion in comparison to conventional manufacturing, wherein a cable is formed comprising a plurality of individual wires, and each wire of the plurality of individual wires having a polished outer surface (see Kanazawa [0055]; after the drawing processing, electrolytic polishing may be performed to smooth the surface of the tungsten wire, [0083-0089]; a plurality of strands of polished tungsten wire 10 can be twisted to form a cable 20 or rope 30).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surgical instrument having cables comprising a plurality of individual wires comprising tungsten of Schlesinger with the wires having a polished outer surface as taught by Kanazawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to smooth out the surface of the tungsten wires (Kanazawa [0055]).
Regarding claim 2, Schlesinger and Kanazawa teach the surgical instrument of claim 1. Schlesinger is silent regarding wherein the cable comprises a plurality of strands; and one or more of the plurality of strands comprises the plurality of individual wires.
However, Kanazawa teaches wherein the cable comprises a plurality of strands (see Fig. 8, [0083-0089]; rope 30 comprising a plurality of strands); and one or more of the plurality of strands comprises the plurality of individual wires (see Fig. 7, [0083-0089]; twisted wire 20 made of multiple individual wires 10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schlesinger’s surgical instrument having a drive connector comprising one or more cables with a cable comprising a plurality of strands, one or more of the strands comprising a plurality of individual wires as taught by Kanazawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a strong cable that has a high breakage strength against force and torsion (Kanazawa [0088]).
Regarding claim 3, Schlesinger and Kanazawa teach the surgical instrument of claim 1. Schlesinger is silent regarding the cable comprises a core strand and a plurality of outer strands surrounding the core strand; and the core strand comprises the plurality of individual wires.
However, Kanazawa teaches wherein the cable comprises a core strand and a plurality of outer strands surrounding the core strand; and the core strand comprises the plurality of individual wires. See annotated Fig. 8 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
356
429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Schlesinger and Kanazawa teach the surgical instrument of claim 1. Schlesinger is silent regarding the cable comprises a core strand and a plurality of outer strands surrounding the core strand; and one or more strands of the plurality of strands comprises the plurality of individual wires.
However, Kanazawa teaches wherein the cable comprises a core strand and a plurality of outer strands surrounding the core strand; and one or more strands of the plurality of strands comprises the plurality of individual wires. See annotated Fig. 8 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
356
429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Schlesinger and Kanazawa teach the surgical instrument of claim 1. Schlesinger is silent regarding the cable comprises a core strand and a plurality of outer strands surrounding the core strand; and the core strand and the plurality of outer strands comprise the plurality of individual wires.
However, Kanazawa teaches wherein the cable comprises a core strand and a plurality of outer strands surrounding the core strand; and the core strand and the plurality of outer strands comprise the plurality of individual wires. See annotated Fig. 8 below.
Regarding claim 6, Schlesinger and Kanazawa teach the surgical instrument of claim 1. Schlesinger further teaches each wire of the plurality of individual wires consists essentially of tungsten, doped tungsten, or a tungsten alloy (see [0042]; tungsten cable wires are desirable). Examiner is interpreting ‘consisting essentially of’ as limiting the claim to the specified material, tungsten, and any material that does not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of said material (see MPEP 2111.03.III). In the prior art of Schlesinger, tungsten is specified as a desirable material due to its high tensile strength and high modulus ([0042]), so a material comprising tungsten that does not include additional elements which would compromise the strength and modulus of the cable are interpreted by the Examiner to meet the limitation as it is presented in the claim.
PNG
media_image3.png
352
429
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schlesinger’s surgical instrument having a drive connector comprising one or more cables with a cable comprising a core strand and a plurality of strands, the core strand and/or the surrounding strands comprising a plurality of wires as taught by Kanazawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a strong cable that has a high breakage strength against force and torsion (Kanazawa [0088]).
Regarding claim 8, Schlesinger and Kanazawa teach the surgical instrument of claim 1. Schlesinger is silent regarding wherein each wire of the plurality of individual wires has a diameter smaller than 0.175 mm.
However, Kanazawa teaches wherein each wire of the plurality of individual wires has a diameter smaller than 0.175 mm (see Kanazawa [0010]; tungsten wire 10 has a diameter D that is less than or equal to 100 μm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schlesinger’s surgical instrument havinf a drive connector comprising one or more cables, at least one of the one or more cables comprising a plurality of individual wires with individual wires having a diameter less than 0.175 mm as taught by Kanazawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for the plurality of individual wires to be thin and high in both tensile strength and breakage strength against torsion (Kanzawa [0045]).
Regarding claim 10, Schlesinger and Kanazawa teach the surgical instrument of claim 1. Schlesinger further teaches wherein the cable has a diameter smaller than 2.0mm (see [0043] wherein the outer diameter D3 of the pull wire may range from 0.15mm to 0.25mm).
Regarding claim 22, Schlesinger and Kanazawa teach the surgical instrument of claim 1. Schlesinger further teaches wherein during a first state of the drive connector (302), the drive connector is stationary; during a second state of the drive connector, the drive connector is urged by the drive element to translate in a first direction; and the one or more cables are in tension during the first and second states of the drive connector. It can be appreciated that the pull wire 302 enables the articulation of a distal portion of the catheter 216 ([0021]), wherein an end effector may be attached. The pull wire 302 extends between the drive element housed in the instrument body housing 204 and the movable member ([0042]), therefore it can be appreciated that the pull wire can exist in a first state wherein the wire is stationary and the end effector is not being articulated, and a second state wherein the drive element is causing translation in a direction to actuate the end effector, the pull wire being under tension so that the translation results in an actuation of the effector.
Regarding claim 25, it can be appreciated that by virtue of the pull wire assembly, Schlesinger further teaches a third state of the drive connector wherein the drive connector translates in a direction opposite to the first direction to cause actuation of the end effector in an opposite direction. Schlesinger teaches that the pull wire is coupled to the assembly so that it may translate axially to drive actuation of the distal end of the instrument ([0062]). It can also be appreciated that the pull wire(s) are in tension during the first, second, and third states of the drive connector by virtue of the securing elements 304 that is configured to maintain force on the pull wire ([0045-0046]).
Regarding claims 23-24 and 26-27, the claims limitations are identified as functional language and statements of intended use and have been carefully considered but are not considered to impart any further structural limitations over the prior art. The device of the prior art as taught by Schlesinger and Kanazawa is structurally identical to that of the device of the claims and therefore necessarily performs in the same manner as claimed. The functional limitations as recited in claims 22 and 23 are characteristics of the device of the prior art, and therefore a prima facie case for obviousness can be established with the understanding that the device of the prior art is configured for surgical use which would require routine surgical, cleaning, and autoclave sterilization cycles as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2114(I).
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlesinger (US 20180001058 A1) in view of Kanazawa et al (US 20220220591 A1) and Manzo et al (US 20060079884 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Schlesinger and Kanazawa teach the surgical instrument of claim 1. They are silent regarding wherein the drive connector comprises a hypotube; the hypotube comprises a proximal end; and the cable is coupled between the proximal end of the hypotube and the drive element.
However, Manzo teaches a surgical instrument (5) comprising a shaft (23) having a movable component (28) coupled to the distal end of the shaft and a drive connector comprising one or more cables (68 and/or 74), wherein the drive connector comprises a hypotube (70);
the hypotube comprises a proximal end; and
the cable is coupled between the proximal end of the hypotube and the drive element (see [0036]; housing 24 which mounts to interface housing 21 that transfers actuator inputs to the surgical instrument 5). See annotated Fig. 6C below. Note that housing 24 and interface housing 21 are not pictured in Fig. 6C but can be seen in Fig. 4 that gives a wider view of the surgical instrument assembly.
PNG
media_image4.png
383
776
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surgical instrument as taught by Schlesinger and Kanazawa with the drive connector comprising a hypotube as taught by Manzo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce capacitive current leakage near the electrically live wrist member (Manzo [0044]).
Regarding claim 12, Schlesinger and Kanazawa teach the surgical instrument of claim 1. They are silent regarding wherein the drive connector comprises a hypotube; the hypotube comprises a distal end; and the cable is coupled between the distal end of the hypotube and the moveable component.
However, Manzo teaches wherein the drive connector comprises a hypotube (70); the hypotube comprises a distal end; and the cable (68 and/or 74) is coupled between the distal end of the hypotube and the moveable component (28). See annotated Fig. 6C below.
PNG
media_image5.png
383
776
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surgical instrument as taught by Schlesinger and Kanazawa with the drive connector comprising a hypotube as taught by Manzo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce capacitive current leakage near the electrically live wrist member (Manzo [0044]).
Regarding claim 13, Schlesinger and Kanazawa teach the surgical instrument of claim 1. They are silent regarding wherein:
the drive connector comprises a first hypotube and a second hypotube, the first hypotube comprising a proximal end and a distal end, and the second hypotube comprising a proximal end and a distal end;
the one or more cables comprise a first cable, a second cable, a third cable, and a fourth cable;
the first cable is coupled between the drive element and the proximal end of the first hypotube;
the second cable is coupled between the distal end of the first hypotube and the movable component;
the third cable is coupled between the drive element and the proximal end of the second hypotube; and
the fourth cable is coupled between the distal end of the second hypotube and the movable component.
However, Manzo teaches wherein:
the drive connector comprises a first hypotube (a first of a plurality of hypotube 70 as shown in Fig. 6C annotated below) and a second hypotube (a second of a plurality of hypotube 70 as shown in Fig. 6C annotated below), the first hypotube comprising a proximal end and a distal end, and the second hypotube comprising a proximal end and a distal end;
the one or more cables comprise a first cable, a second cable, a third cable, and a fourth cable (first, second, third, and fourth cables of a plurality of cables 68 as shown in Fig. 6C annotated below);
the first cable is coupled between the drive element and the proximal end of the first hypotube;
the second cable is coupled between the distal end of the first hypotube and the movable component;
the third cable is coupled between the drive element and the proximal end of the second hypotube; and
the fourth cable is coupled between the distal end of the second hypotube and the movable component. See annotated Fig. 6C below.
PNG
media_image6.png
541
792
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surgical instrument as taught by Schlesinger and Kanazawa with the drive connector comprising a hypotube and a first, second, third, and fourth cable coupled between the hypotubes, moveable component, and drive element as taught by Manzo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce capacitive current leakage near the electrically live wrist member while using the cable assemblies to drive actuation of the wrist assembly and/or end effector (Manzo [0044]).
Regarding claim 14, Schlesinger and Kanazawa teach the surgical instrument of claim 1. They are silent regarding wherein:
the drive connector comprises a first hypotube and a second hypotube,
the first hypotube comprising a proximal end and a distal end, and
the second hypotube comprising a proximal end and a distal end;
the one or more cables comprise a first cable, a second cable, and a third cable;
the first cable is coupled between the drive element and the proximal end of the first hypotube;
the second cable is coupled between the distal end of the first hypotube and the distal end of the second hypotube;
the movable component is coupled to the second cable between the distal end of the first hypotube and the distal end of the second hypotube; and
the third cable is coupled between the drive element and the proximal end of the second hypotube.
However, Manzo teaches wherein:
the drive connector comprises a first hypotube (70) and a second hypotube (72),
the first hypotube comprising a proximal end and a distal end (as labeled in annotated Fig. 6C below), and
the second hypotube comprising a proximal end and a distal end (as labeled in annotated Fig. 6C below);
the one or more cables comprise a first cable, a second cable, and a third cable;
the first cable is coupled between the drive element and the proximal end of the first hypotube (cable 74 as shown in annotated Fig. 6C below);
the second cable is coupled between the distal end of the first hypotube and the distal end of the second hypotube (cable 68 as shown in annotated Fig. 6C below);
the movable component (28) is coupled to the second cable between the distal end of the first hypotube and the distal end of the second hypotube (cable 68 as shown in annotated Fig. 9A below); and
the third cable is coupled between the drive element and the proximal end of the second hypotube (see Manzo [0044]; cables 68 extend within shaft 23 from the interface 24, wherein the drive elements are housed, to the wrist/end effector assembly. It can be appreciated that the third cable not pictured in Fig. 6C is located between the interface 24 and the proximal end of the second hypotube 72).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surgical instrument as taught by Schlesinger and Kanazawa with the drive connector comprising a hypotube and a first, second, and third cable coupled between the hypotubes, moveable component, and drive element as taught by Manzo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce capacitive current leakage near the electrically live wrist member while using the cable assemblies to drive actuation of the wrist assembly and/or end effector (Manzo [0044]).
Regarding claim 15, Schlesinger and Kanazawa teach the surgical instrument of claim 1. Schlesinger further teaches wherein the mechanical structure comprises a second drive element (see [0026]; teleoperational assembly 102 includes a teleoperational manipulator assembly comprising a plurality of motors that drive motion of the system 200; it can be appreciated that these plurality of motos includes a first and second drive element). They are silent regarding wherein:
the drive connector comprises a first hypotube and a second hypotube,
the first hypotube comprising a proximal end and a distal end, and
the second hypotube comprising a proximal end and a distal end;
the one or more cables comprise a first cable, a second cable, a third cable, and a fourth cable;
the first cable is coupled between the drive element and the proximal end of the first hypotube;
the second cable is coupled between the distal end of the first hypotube and the movable component;
the third cable is coupled between a second drive element and the proximal end of the second hypotube; and
the fourth cable is coupled between the distal end of the second hypotube and the movable component.
However, Manzo teaches wherein:
the drive connector comprises a first hypotube (a first of a plurality of hypotube 70 as shown in Fig. 6C annotated below) and a second hypotube (a second of a plurality of hypotube 70 as shown in Fig. 6C annotated below), the first hypotube comprising a proximal end and a distal end, and the second hypotube comprising a proximal end and a distal end;
the one or more cables comprise a first cable, a second cable, a third cable, and a fourth cable (first, second, third, and fourth cables of a plurality of cables 68 and/or 74 as shown in Fig. 6C annotated below);
the first cable is coupled between the drive element and the proximal end of the first hypotube;
the second cable is coupled between the distal end of the first hypotube and the movable component;
the third cable is coupled between a second drive element and the proximal end of the second hypotube; and
the fourth cable is coupled between the distal end of the second hypotube and the movable component. See annotated Fig. 6C below.
PNG
media_image7.png
541
792
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It can be appreciated that based on the interpretation of a drive element, in combination with the teaching of Schlesinger that the drive connector/hypotube assemblies of Manzo may be grouped together so that the upper set of cables and hypotubes correspond to one drive element and the lower set of cables and hypotubes correspond to another drive element. Groupings of drive connectors shown in annotated Fig. 6C below.
PNG
media_image8.png
444
763
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surgical instrument as taught by Schlesinger and Kanazawa with the drive connector comprising a hypotube and a first, second, third, and fourth cable coupled between the hypotubes, moveable component, and first and second drive elements as taught by Manzo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce capacitive current leakage near the electrically live wrist member while using the cable assemblies to drive actuation of the wrist assembly and/or end effector (Manzo [0044]).
Regarding claim 16, Schlesinger and Kanazawa teach the surgical instrument of claim 1. Schlesinger further teaches wherein the mechanical structure comprises a second drive element (see [0026]; teleoperational assembly 102 includes a teleoperational manipulator assembly comprising a plurality of motors that drive motion of the system 200; it can be appreciated that these plurality of motos includes a first and second drive element). They are silent regarding wherein:
the drive connector comprises a first hypotube and a second hypotube,
the first hypotube comprising a proximal end and a distal end, and
the second hypotube comprising a proximal end and a distal end;
the one or more cables comprise a first cable, a second cable, and a third cable;
the mechanical structure comprises a second drive element;
the first cable is coupled between the drive element and the proximal end of the first hypotube;
the second cable is coupled between the distal end of the first hypotube and the distal end of the second hypotube;
the movable component is coupled to the second cable between the distal end of the first hypotube and the distal end of the second hypotube; and
the third cable is coupled between the second drive element and the proximal end of the second hypotube.
However, Manzo teaches wherein:
the drive connector comprises a first hypotube (one of a plurality of hypotube 70 as shown in annotated Fig. 6C below) and a second hypotube (one of a plurality of hypotube 70 as shown in annotated Fig. 6C below),
the first hypotube comprising a proximal end and a distal end, and
the second hypotube comprising a proximal end and a distal end;
the one or more cables comprise a first cable, a second cable, and a third cable (cable portions 68 and 74 as shown in annotated Fig. 6C below);
the first cable is coupled between the drive element and the proximal end of the first hypotube (cable 74 as shown in annotated Fig. 6C below);
the second cable is coupled between the distal end of the first hypotube and the distal end of the second hypotube (cable 68 as shown in Fig. 6C and more detail in Fig. 9A below);
the movable component (28) is coupled to the second cable between the distal end of the first hypotube and the distal end of the second hypotube (cable 68 as shown in more detail in annotated Fig. 9A below); and
the third cable is coupled between a second drive element and the proximal end of the second hypotube (cable 74 as shown in annotated Fig. 6C below).
PNG
media_image9.png
462
856
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It can be appreciated that based on the interpretation of a drive element, in combination with the teaching of Schlesinger that the drive connector/hypotube assemblies of Manzo may be grouped together so that the upper set of cables and hypotubes correspond to one drive element and the lower set of cables and hypotubes correspond to another drive element. Groupings of drive connectors shown in annotated Fig. 6C below.
PNG
media_image8.png
444
763
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surgical instrument as taught by Schlesinger and Kanazawa with the drive connector comprising a hypotube and a first, second, and third cable coupled between the hypotubes, moveable component, and first and second drive elements as taught by Manzo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce capacitive current leakage near the electrically live wrist member while using the cable assemblies to drive actuation of the wrist assembly and/or end effector (Manzo [0044]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALISHA J SIRCAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9-6:30, Friday 9-5:30 CT.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792