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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated May 21, 2026.
Claims 1, 7-9, 11-19, 21, and 23-27 are pending.
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 present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 11-14, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duval et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0065110 – “Duval”) in view of Yagi (US PGPUB 2015/0306347 – “Yagi”) and Fujitani (US PGPUB 2017/0065153 – “Fujitani”).
Regarding Claim 1, Duval discloses:
A robotic device (Duval FIG. 21A, robotic system including a console 2102, an instrument support system 2104, and a video system 2016) comprising:
an articulatable elongate member (Duval FIG. 17, surgical instrument assembly 1700 including a guide tube 1708) comprising; i) a bending section (Duval FIG. 17, guide tube 1708; Duval paragraph [0136], “guide tube that is inside the patient…an extreme distal segment may be rigid, and one or more other proximal segments are flexible. The flexible segments may be…actively controllable ("steerable"). Such active control may be done using, for example, sets of opposing cables (e.g., one set controlling "pitch" and an orthogonal set controlling "yaw"; three cables can be used to perform similar action”; see also flexible assembly 1220 that actively bends, as described in Duval paragraph [0176]) connected to a rigid distal end (Duval FIG. 17B, distal end 1742a of rigid guide tube 1742), wherein the tube of the bending section has a plurality of internal working channels passing therethrough (Duval FIG. 26A, working channels 2606a and 2606b for instruments, and imaging system channel 2606c for optical system), ii) a flexible shaft (Duval FIG. 27, proximal part of primary guide tube 2702 that has channels 2714) connecting the bending section to a handle portion (Duval FIG. 17, actuator mechanism 2712), wherein the bending section of the articulatable elongate member is articulatable by a plurality of pull wires (Duval paragraph [0136], “proximal segment is rigid…an extreme distal segment may be rigid, and one or more other proximal segments are flexible. The flexible segments may be…actively controllable ("steerable"). Such active control may be done using, for example, sets of opposing cables (e.g., one set controlling "pitch" and an orthogonal set controlling "yaw"; three cables can be used to perform similar action”) all of which having a distal end anchored to the rigid distal end and a proximal end connected to the handle portion (Duval FIG. 23, instrument assembly 2302; Duval paragraph [0260], “As shown in FIG. 23, a transmission mechanism is positioned at the proximal ends of each instrument or guide tube:…transmission mechanism 2308a for primary guide tube 2308, and transmission mechanism 2310a for secondary guide tube 2310….In one aspect, mating disks are used as in the da Vinci.RTM. Surgical System instrument interface, as shown in more detail below. In another aspect, mating gimbal plates and levers are used. Various mechanical components (e.g., gears, levers, cables, pulleys, cable guides, gimbals, etc.) in the transmission mechanisms are used to transfer the mechanical force from the interface to the controlled element. Each actuator mechanism includes at least one actuator (e.g., servomotor (brushed or brushless)) that controls movement at the distal end of the associated instrument or guide tube”), and wherein the handle portion is releasably coupled to a first driving mechanism mounted to a first robotic arm to steer the rigid distal end via the plurality of pull wires (Duval paragraph [0260], “Each transmission mechanism is mechanically and removably coupled to an associated actuator mechanism: transmission mechanism 2306a to actuator mechanism 2312, transmission mechanism 2308a to actuator mechanism 2314, transmission mechanism 2310a to actuator mechanism 2316.”);
an imaging instrument (Duval FIG. 17B, endoscopic image capture component 1756) removably coupled to the articulatable elongate member via a first working channel (Duval FIG. 26A, imaging system channel 2606c) internal to the articulatable elongate member (Duval FIG. 17, guide tube 1708), wherein the imaging instrument comprises a bending section (Duval FIG. 17B, parallel motion mechanism 1752; Duval paragraph [0201], “parallel motion mechanism 1752 heaves and sways image capture component 1756 up and to the side) and a camera embedded at a distal portion of the imaging instrument (Duval paragraph [0133], “stereoscopic imaging system/image capture component/camera device may be placed at the distal end of an instrument wherever an end effector is shown or described (the device may be considered a "camera instrument")), wherein the imaging instrument is deployable and wherein the bending section of the imaging instrument is articulated by one or more pull wires to independently steer the camera relative to the articulatable elongate member thereby allowing a field of view of the camera to be controlled relative to the articulatable elongate member (Duval paragraph [0136], “an extreme distal segment may be rigid, and one or more other proximal segments are flexible. The flexible segments may be passive or they may be actively controllable ("steerable"). Such active control may be done using, for example, sets of opposing cables (e.g., one set controlling "pitch" and an orthogonal set controlling "yaw"; three cables can be used to perform similar action)”);
a first steerable instrument (Duval FIG. 17B, surgical instrument 1740a) removably coupled to the articulatable elongate member via a second working channel (Duval FIG. 26A, working channel 2606a) internal to the articulatable elongate member (Duval FIG. 26A, guide tube 2604), wherein the first steerable instrument comprises a bending section (Duval FIG. 17B, wrist 1746a) located at a base of a first end effector (Duvall FIG. 17B, end effector 1748a); and
a second steerable instrument (Duval FIG. 17B, surgical instrument 1740b) removably coupled to the articulatable elongate member via a third working channel internal (Duval FIG. 26A, working channel 2606b) to the articulatable elongate member, wherein the second steerable instrument comprises a bending section (Duval FIG. 17B, wrist 1746b) located at a base of a second end effector (Duval FIG. 17B, end effector 1748b), wherein an exit port of the second working channel and an exit port of the third working channel are formed on substantially opposite sides of the rigid distal end (Duval FIG. 26A, showing working exit ports for working channels 2606a and 2606b on opposite sides of guide tube 2604), wherein the opposing exit port geometry of the second working channel and the third working channel causes the first steerable instrument (Duval FIG. 17B, surgical instrument 1740a) and the second steerable instrument (Duval FIG. 17B, surgical instrument 1740b) to naturally divert away from the rigid distal end upon exiting the exit ports of the second working channel and the third working channel respectively, such that the first instrument and the second instrument are controlled to divert away from the rigid distal end as they exit the exit ports of the second working channel and the third working channel (Duval FIG. 17B, showing surgical instrument 1740a and surgical instrument 1740a diverting away from the distal end of the distal Duval FIG. 17B, showing parallel motion mechanisms 1744a,1744b diverting first and second instruments 1748a and 1748b away from distal end 1742a of rigid guide tube 1742) and are steered back in the field of view of the camera by articulating the bending section of the first steerable instrument and the bending section of the second steerable instrument to form a triangulation configuration (Duval FIG. 17B, showing wrists 1746a and 1746b steering instruments 1748a and 1748b back into the field of view of camera 1756 to form a triangulation configuration), wherein an operation of the first end effector of the first steerable instrument and the second end effector of the second steerable instrument is captured in the field of view of the camera of the imaging instrument without blocking a view of the camera of the imaging instrument (Duval FIG. 17B, showing camera 1756 having a clear view of instruments 1748a and 1748b; Duval paragraph [0201], “parallel motion mechanism 1752 heaves and sways image capture component 1756 up and to the side, and wrist mechanism 1754 orients image capture component 1756 to place the center of the field of view between the instrument tips if the instruments are working to the side of the guide tube's extended centerline”).
Although Duval discloses that the distal end connected to the bending section is rigid (Duval paragraph [0136], “guide tube that is inside the patient…distal segment may be rigid”), Duval does not explicitly disclose wherein the distal end connected to an insertion portion is composed of a metallic material.
Yagi is analogous art in the field of minimally invasive surgery that teaches wherein the distal end (Yagi FIG. 2A, metallic distal end tip 50) connected to an insertion portion (Yagi FIG. 2A, proximal portion of catheter 1) is composed of a metallic material (Yagi 2A, metallic distal end tip 50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the metallic material used to construct Yagi’s metallic distal tip 50 in Duval’s distal end 1742a. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a distal end that is strong enough to pass through a hard structure, such as a calcified lesion (see Yagi paragraph [0027]).
Duval in view of Yagi does not explicitly teach wherein the bending section comprises a tube formed with cut pattern to achieve an articulation.
Fujitani is analogous art in the field of minimally invasive surgery that teaches wherein the bending section (Fujitani FIG. 2, bending tube 22) comprises a tube formed with cut pattern (Fujitani FIG. 2, bending slits 24) to achieve an articulation (Fujitani FIG. 5,showing bending slits 24 promoting articulation of bending tube 22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fujitani’s slits with Duval’s guide tube 1708 in the robotic device taught by Duval in view of Yagi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a robotic device having a bending section that is highly flexible, as well as lighter, as a result of the slits in the bending section.
Regarding Claim 7, Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Fujitani further teaches wherein the imaging instrument (Fujitani FIG. 1, endoscope 1) comprises an illuminating device embedded at the distal portion of the imaging instrument (Fujitani FIG. 1, distal end portion 6; Fujitani paragraph [0026], “In the distal end portion 6 among the components…illumination means…arranged”).
Regarding Claim 9, Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
The embodiment of Duval described in the rejection of Claim 1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the camera is controlled to roll about a longitudinal axis of the articulatable elongate member or a longitudinal axis of the imaging instrument.
However, a second embodiment of Duval, shown in Duval FIG. 19, teaches wherein the camera (Duval FIG. 19, imaging system 1906) is controlled to roll about a longitudinal axis of the articulatable elongate member or a longitudinal axis of the imaging instrument (Duval FIG. 19, showing imaging system 1906 rolling about a longitudinal axis; Duval paragraph [0217], “imaging system 1906 may roll within the channel…In other aspects the distal end 1912 alone may roll about imaging system 1906's longitudinal axis, as shown by the arrows”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the roll of the imaging system shown in Duval FIG. 19 with the surgical instrument assembly 1700 shown in Duval FIG. 17, as described in Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani in the rejection of Claim 1 above. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscopic system capable of placing an endoscopic surgical site within the field of view of the camera/imaging system (see Duval paragraph [0217]).
Regarding Claim 11, Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
The embodiment of Duval described in the rejection of Claim 1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the imaging instrument and the first steerable instrument are withdrawn into the first working channel and the second working channel when the robotic device is in a first mode.
However, a second embodiment of Duval shown in Duval FIG. 5 teaches wherein the imaging instrument (Duval FIG. 5, imaging system 511) and the first steerable instrument (Duval surgical instrument 502a) are withdrawn into the first working channel (Duval FIG. 5, channel 506a) and the second working channel (Duval FIG. 5, channel 506a) when the robotic device (Duval FIG. 5, minimally invasive surgical instrument assembly 500) is in a first mode (Duval FIG. 5, showing both imaging system 511 and surgical instrument 502a withdrawn into their respective channels in tube 504).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the withdrawn positioning of Duval’s imaging system 511 and surgical instrument 502a in the device taught by the first embodiment of Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a robotic device whose imaging device and surgical tools are protected when advancing and positioning the insertion portion of the robotic device towards an internal surgical site.
Regarding Claim 12, Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
The embodiment depicted in Duval FIG. 17B and described in the rejection of Claim 1 discloses wherein the imaging instrument (Duval FIG. 17B, endoscopic image capture component 1756) and the first steerable instrument (Duval FIG. 17B, surgical instrument 1740a) are extended out of the rigid distal end of the articulatable elongate member (Duval FIG. 17B, distal end 1742a of guide tube 1742) when the robotic device is in a second mode (Duval FIG. 17B, showing endoscopic image capture component 1756 and surgical instrument 1740a extended out of distal end 1742a).
Regarding Claim 13, Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Duval further discloses wherein the imaging instrument (Duval FIG. 17A, image capture component 1722) is steerable via the first driving mechanism (Duval FIG. 17A, joints 1714, 1718, and/or 1720; Duval paragraph [0136], “a distal segment of an instrument…is flexible…The flexible segments…may be actively controllable ("steerable"). Such active control may be done using, for example, sets of opposing cables (e.g., one set controlling "pitch" and an orthogonal set controlling "yaw"; three cables can be used to perform similar action). Other control elements such as small electric or magnetic actuators, shape memory alloys, electroactive polymers ("artificial muscle"), pneumatic or hydraulic bellows or pistons, and the like may be used.“).
Regarding Claim 14, Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Duval further discloses wherein the first driving mechanism (Duval FIG. 23, linear actuator 2312b for surgical instrument 2306) is mounted to a first robotic support system (Duval FIG. 23, instrument assembly 2302; Duval paragraph [0259], “instrument assembly 2302 includes surgical instrument 2306, primary guide tube 2308 that surrounds instrument 2306, and secondary guide tube 2310 that surrounds primary guide tube 2308”; Examiner interprets instrument assembly 2302 as including the joints/connections shown in support system 2104 shown in Duval FIG. 21A).
Regarding Claim 19, Duval discloses:
A method for a robotic device comprising:
providing an articulatable elongate member (Duval FIG. 17, surgical instrument assembly 1700 including guide tube 1708) comprising a plurality of working channels internal to the articulable elongate member (Duval FIG. 26A, working channels 2606a and 2606b for instruments, and imaging system channel 2606c for optical system), wherein the articulatable elongate member comprises i) a bending section (Duval FIG. 17, guide tube 1708; Duval paragraph [0136], “guide tube that is inside the patient…an extreme distal segment may be rigid, and one or more other proximal segments are flexible. The flexible segments may be…actively controllable ("steerable"). Such active control may be done using, for example, sets of opposing cables (e.g., one set controlling "pitch" and an orthogonal set controlling "yaw"; three cables can be used to perform similar action”; see also flexible assembly 1220 that actively bends, as described in Duval paragraph [0176]) connected to a rigid distal end (Duval FIG. 17B, distal end 1742a of rigid guide tube 1742), wherein the tube of the bending section has a plurality of internal working channels passing therethrough (Duval paragraph [0270], “Instrument transmission mechanisms 2602a,2602b transfer control forces from servomotors to instruments inserted via guide tube 2604's working channels 2606a,2606b.” Examiner interprets this passage as teaching that the working channels 2606a, 2606b pass through all of the guide tube 2604, including the bending section(s).), ii) a flexible shaft (Duval FIG. 27, proximal part of primary guide tube 2702 that has channels 2714) connecting the bending section to a handle portion (Duval FIG. 17, actuator mechanism 2712), and wherein the bending section of the articulatable elongate member is articulatable a plurality of pull wires (Duval paragraph [0136], “proximal segment is rigid…an extreme distal segment may be rigid, and one or more other proximal segments are flexible. The flexible segments may be…actively controllable ("steerable"). Such active control may be done using, for example, sets of opposing cables (e.g., one set controlling "pitch" and an orthogonal set controlling "yaw"; three cables can be used to perform similar action”) all of which having a distal end anchored to the rigid distal end and a proximal end connected to the handle portion (Duval FIG. 23, instrument assembly 2302; Duval paragraph [0260], “As shown in FIG. 23, a transmission mechanism is positioned at the proximal ends of each instrument or guide tube:…transmission mechanism 2308a for primary guide tube 2308, and transmission mechanism 2310a for secondary guide tube 2310….In one aspect, mating disks are used as in the da Vinci.RTM. Surgical System instrument interface, as shown in more detail below. In another aspect, mating gimbal plates and levers are used. Various mechanical components (e.g., gears, levers, cables, pulleys, cable guides, gimbals, etc.) in the transmission mechanisms are used to transfer the mechanical force from the interface to the controlled element. Each actuator mechanism includes at least one actuator (e.g., servomotor (brushed or brushless)) that controls movement at the distal end of the associated instrument or guide tube”), and wherein the handle portion is releasably coupled to a first driving mechanism mounted to a first robotic arm to steer the rigid distal end via the plurality of pull wires (Duval paragraph [0260], “Each transmission mechanism is mechanically and removably coupled to an associated actuator mechanism: transmission mechanism 2306a to actuator mechanism 2312, transmission mechanism 2308a to actuator mechanism 2314, transmission mechanism 2310a to actuator mechanism 2316.”);
coupling an imaging instrument (Duval FIG. 17B, endoscopic image capture component 1756) to the articulatable elongate member via a first working channel (Duval FIG. 26A, imaging system channel 2606c) of the plurality of working channels. wherein the imaging instrument comprises a bending section (Duval FIG. 17B, parallel motion mechanism 1752; Duval paragraph [0201], “parallel motion mechanism 1752 heaves and sways image capture component 1756 up and to the side) and a camera embedded at a distal portion of the imaging instrument (Duval paragraph [0133], “stereoscopic imaging system/image capture component/camera device may be placed at the distal end of an instrument wherever an end effector is shown or described (the device may be considered a "camera instrument")), wherein the imaging instrument is deployable and wherein the bending section of the imaging instrument is articulated by one or more pull wires to independently steer the camera relative to the articulatable elongate member thereby allowing a field of view of the camera to be controlled relative to the articulatable elongate member (Duval paragraph [0136], “an extreme distal segment may be rigid, and one or more other proximal segments are flexible. The flexible segments may be passive or they may be actively controllable ("steerable"). Such active control may be done using, for example, sets of opposing cables (e.g., one set controlling "pitch" and an orthogonal set controlling "yaw"; three cables can be used to perform similar action)”);
coupling a first steerable instrument (Duval FIG. 17B, surgical instrument 1740a) to the articulatable elongate member via a second working channel working channel (Duval FIG. 26A, working channel 2606a) internal to the articulatable elongate member (Duval FIG. 26A, guide tube 2604), wherein the first steerable instrument comprises a bending section (Duval FIG. 17B, wrist 1746a) located at a base of a first end effector (Duvall FIG. 17B, end effector 1748a);
coupling a second steerable instrument (Duval FIG. 17B, surgical instrument 1740b) to the articulatable elongate member via a third working channel (Duval FIG. 26A, working channel 2606b) of the plurality of working channels, wherein the second steerable instrument comprises a bending section (Duval FIG. 17B, wrist 1746b) located at a base of a second end effector (Duval FIG. 17B, end effector 1748b), wherein an exit port of the second working channel and an exit port of the third working channel are formed on substantially opposite sides of the rigid distal end (Duval FIG. 26A, showing working exit ports for working channels 2606a and 2606b on opposite sides of guide tube 2604), wherein the opposing exit port geometry of the second working channel and the third working channel causes the first steerable instrument (Duval FIG. 17B, surgical instrument 1740a) and the second steerable instrument (Duval FIG. 17B, surgical instrument 1740b) to naturally divert away from the rigid distal end upon exiting the exit ports of the second working channel and the third working channel respectively (Duval FIG. 17B, showing surgical instrument 1740a and surgical instrument 1740a diverting away from the distal end of the distal Duval FIG. 17B, showing parallel motion mechanisms 1744a,1744b diverting first and second instruments 1748a and 1748b away from distal end 1742a of rigid guide tube 1742);
controlling the first instrument and the second instrument to exit the exiting ports of the second working channel and the third working channel and divert away from the rigid distal end (Duval FIG. 17B, showing surgical instrument 1740a and surgical instrument 1740a diverting away from the distal end of the distal Duval FIG. 17B, showing parallel motion mechanisms 1744a,1744b diverting first and second instruments 1748a and 1748b away from distal end 1742a of rigid guide tube 1742), and steering the first instrument and the second instrument back in the field of view of the camera to form a triangulation configuration (Duval FIG. 17B, showing wrists 1746a and 1746b steering instruments 1748a and 1748b back into the field of view of camera 1756 to form a triangulation configuration); and
capturing an operation of the first end effector of the first steerable instrument and the second end effector of the second steerable instrument in the field of view of the camera of the imaging instrument without blocking a view of the camera of the imaging instrument (Duval FIG. 17B, showing camera 1756 having a clear view of instruments 1748a and 1748b; Duval paragraph [0201], “parallel motion mechanism 1752 heaves and sways image capture component 1756 up and to the side, and wrist mechanism 1754 orients image capture component 1756 to place the center of the field of view between the instrument tips if the instruments are working to the side of the guide tube's extended centerline”).
Although Duval discloses that the distal end connected to the bending section is rigid (Duval paragraph [0136], “guide tube that is inside the patient…distal segment may be rigid”), Duval does not explicitly disclose wherein the distal end connected to an insertion portion is composed of a metallic material.
Yagi is analogous art in the field of minimally invasive surgery that teaches wherein the distal end (Yagi FIG. 2A, metallic distal end tip 50) connected to an insertion portion (Yagi FIG. 2A, proximal portion of catheter 1) is composed of a metallic material (Yagi 2A, metallic distal end tip 50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the metallic material used to construct Yagi’s metallic distal tip 50 in Duval’s distal end 1742a. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a distal end that is strong enough to pass through a hard structure, such as a calcified lesion (see Yagi paragraph [0027]).
Duval in view of Yagi does not explicitly teach wherein the bending section comprises a tube formed with cut pattern to achieve an articulation.
Fujitani teaches wherein the bending section (Fujitani FIG. 2, bending tube 22) comprises a tube formed with cut pattern (Fujitani FIG. 2, bending slits 24) to achieve an articulation (Fujitani FIG. 5,showing bending slits 24 promoting articulation of bending tube 22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fujitani’s slits with Duval’s guide tube 1708 in the robotic device taught by Duval in view of Yagi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a robotic device having a bending section that is highly flexible, as well as lighter, as a result of the slits in the bending section.
Regarding Claim 21, Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Duval further discloses wherein the operation of the first steerable instrument and the second steerable instrument captured in the field of view of the camera is not blocked by the first steerable instrument or the second steerable instrument(Duval FIG. 17B, showing camera 1756 having a clear view of instruments 1748a and 1748b).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duval et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0065110 – “Duval”) in view of Yagi (US PGPUB 2015/0306347 – “Yagi”), Fujitani (US PGPUB 2017/0065153 – “Fujitani”), and Finkman et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0253270 – “Finkman”).
Regarding Claim 8, Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani does not explicitly teach wherein the imaging instrument comprises one or more nozzles for clearing a view of the camera.
Finkman is analogous art in the field of minimally invasive surgery that teaches wherein the imaging instrument (Finkman FIG. 1, insertion tube 23) comprises one or more nozzles (Finkman FIG. 1, nozzle 40 at distal end of fluid working channel 38; Finkman paragraph [0027], “nozzle contains a narrowed segment adjacent to the distal end, which causes the irrigation fluid to exit the working channel”) for clearing a view of the camera.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Finkman’s fluid nozzle with the robotic device by Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a robotic device that has fluid source for irrigation any region of interest, including other instruments, treatment sites, etc.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duval et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0065110 – “Duval”) in view of Yagi (US PGPUB 2015/0306347 – “Yagi”), Fujitani (US PGPUB 2017/0065153 – “Fujitani”), and Brock (US PGPUB 2008/0033453 – “Brock”).
Regarding Claim 15, Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani does not explicitly teach wherein the first steerable instrument is articulated via a second driving mechanism.
Brock is analogous art in the field of minimally invasive surgery that teaches wherein the first steerable instrument (Brock FIG. 10, tool 18) is articulated via a second driving mechanism (Brock FIG. 13, instrument driver 550).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Brock’s instrument driver with the robotic device taught by Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a robotic instrument capable of both rotational movement (from instrument driver 550) that is created by linear movement of a carriage (see carriage 552 in Brock FIG. 11), thus resulting in both rotational and linear movement of the endoscopic instrument.
Regarding Claim 16, Duval in view of Yagi, Fujitani, and Brock teaches the features of Claim 15, as described above.
Brock further teaches wherein the second driving mechanism (Brock FIG. 10, surgical instrument 14 that includes instrument driver 550) is mounted to a second robotic support system (Brock FIG. 11, carriage 226).
Regarding Claim 17, Duval in view of Yagi, Fujitani, and Brock teaches the features of Claim 16, as described above.
Brock further teaches wherein the first robotic support system (Brock FIG. 11, base piece 234 for instrument driver 550) and the second robotic support system (Brock FIG. 11, carriage 226) are removably coupled (Brock FIG. 11, support post 228; Brock paragraph [0081], “base piece 234 is supported under the carriage 226 by means of the support post 228”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duval et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0065110 – “Duval”) in view of Yagi (US PGPUB 2015/0306347 – “Yagi”), Fujitani (US PGPUB 2017/0065153 – “Fujitani”), and Phee et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0230697 – “Phee”).
Regarding Claim 18, Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani does not explicitly teach wherein the proximal end of the articulatable elongate member is removably coupled to the first driving mechanism.
Phee is analogous art in the field of minimally invasive surgery that teaches wherein the proximal end of the articulatable elongate member (Phee FIG. 2, flexible shaft portion of primary endoscope probe 100 shown Phee FIG. 1) is removably coupled to the first driving mechanism (Phee FIG. 1B, quick release structure 500,600; Phee paragraph [0155], “quick release structure 500, 600 is configured for communicating or transferring actuation forces generated by the actuation controller 700 to the disposable actuation assembly 300, which further communicates or transfers such forces to an endoscopy instrument or tool which is disposed/disposable at and/or beyond the distal end 104 of the primary endoscope probe 100…Such quick release structures 500, 600 can also be configured for communicating forces exerted upon portions of robot arms 400 and/or end effectors by tissues or objects to the actuation controller's force sensing elements, such as by way of communicating or transferring particular distortion forces to actuation-side tendon elements.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Phee’s quick release structure with the robotic device taught by Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscopic device having interchangeable/detachable insertion portions in order to accommodate different types of endoscopic procedures, as supported by the different types of insertion portions.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duval et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0065110 – “Duval”) in view of Yagi (US PGPUB 2015/0306347 – “Yagi”), Fujitani (US PGPUB 2017/0065153 – “Fujitani”), Brock (US PGPUB 2008/0033453 – “Brock”), and Romo et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0184032 – “Romo”).
Regarding Claim 23, Duval in view of Yagi, Fujitani, and Brock teaches the features of Claim 16, as described above.
Duval in view of Yagi, Fujitani, and Brock does not explicitly teach wherein the first robotic support system is mounted to a first mobile cart and the second robotic support system is mounted to a second mobile cart, and wherein the first robotic support system and second robotic system are removably coupled.
Romo is analogous art in the field of minimally invasive surgery that teaches wherein the first robotic support system is mounted to a first mobile cart (Examiner-annotated Romo FIG. 2A shown above, first cart) and the second robotic support system is mounted to a second mobile cart (Romo FIG. 2A, second cart), and wherein the first robotic support system and second robotic system are removably coupled (Romo FIG. 2A, showing arm 202 and arm 204 removably coupled by flexible endoscope leader 212, which a person having skill in the art would recognize as both the arms 202/204 and their respective first and second carts begin capable of being connected/disconnected by the respective tool bases 206 and 208).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Romo’s carts in the method taught by Duval in view of Yagi, Fujitani, and Brock. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method in which robotic components are secured and yet mobile.
Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duval et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0065110 – “Duval”) in view of Yagi (US PGPUB 2015/0306347 – “Yagi”), Fujitani (US PGPUB 2017/0065153 – “Fujitani”), Brock (US PGPUB 2008/0033453 – “Brock”), and Romo et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0184032 – “Romo”).
Regarding Claim 24, Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani teaches the features of Claim 19, as described above.
Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani does not explicitly teach wherein the first driving mechanism is mounted to a first robotic support system.
Romo is analogous art in the field of minimally invasive surgery that teaches wherein the first driving mechanism (Romo FIG. 2A, tool base 206 controlling endoscope sheath 210; Romo paragraph [0120], “Tool base 206 has controllable endoscope sheath 210 operatively connected thereto.”) is mounted to a first robotic support system (Romo FIG. 2A, arm 202).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Romo’s robotic support system with method taught by Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a robotic device capable of steering/driving an endoscopic sheath/cannula.
Regarding Claim 25, Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani teaches the features of Claim 19, as described above.
Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani does not explicitly teach wherein the first steerable instrument is articulated via a second driving mechanism.
Romo is analogous art in the field of minimally invasive surgery that teaches wherein the first steerable instrument (Romo FIG. 2A, leader 212) is articulated via a second driving mechanism (Romo FIG. 2A, tool base 208; Romo paragraph [0120], “Tool base 208 has flexible endoscope leader 212 operatively connected thereto.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Romo’s robotic support system with the robotic device used in the method taught by Duval in view of Yagi and Fujitani. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a robotic device capable of steering/driving an endoscopic sheath/cannula.
Regarding Claim 26, Duval in view of Yagi, Fujitani, and Romo teaches the features of Claim 25, as described above.
Romo further teaches wherein the second driving mechanism (Romo FIG. 2A, tool base 208) is mounted to a second robotic support system (Romo FIG. 2A, second arm 204).
Regarding Claim 27, Duval in view of Yagi, Fujitani, and Romo teaches the features of Claim 26, as described above.
Romo further teaches wherein the first robotic support system is mounted to a first mobile cart (Romo FIG. 2A, first cart) and the second robotic support system is mounted to a second mobile cart (Romo FIG. 2A, second cart), and wherein the first robotic support system and second robotic system are removably coupled (Romo FIG. 2A, showing arm 202 and arm 204 removably coupled by flexible endoscope leader 212, which a person having skill in the art would recognize as both the arms 202/204 and their respective first and second carts begin capable of being connected/disconnected by the respective tool bases 206 and 208).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-16, filed May 21, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1, 7-9, 11-19, 21, and 23-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 Duval et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0065110 – “Duval”), Yagi (US PGPUB 2015/0306347 – “Yagi”), and Fujitani (US PGPUB 2017/0065153 – “Fujitani”).
More specifically, Applicant’s argument I on page 7-9 regarding the rejection of Claim 1 directed towards the application of Bakos et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0010299 – “Bakos”) are moot since Bakos is no longer cited in the rejection of Claim 1.
Applicant’s argument II on page 9-12 regarding the rejection of Claim 1 directed towards the application of a first embodiment of Duval et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0065110 – “Duval”), shown in Duval FIG. 12A, are moot since a second embodiment of Duval, shown in Duval FIG. 17B, is now relied upon in the rejection of Claim 1.
Applicant’s argument III on page 12-14 regarding the rejection of Claim 1 directed towards the application of Bakos and Swayze et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0049795 – “Swayze”), are moot since Bakos and Swayze are no longer cited in the rejection of Claim 1.
Applicant’s argument IV on page 14-15 regarding the rejection of Claim 1 directed towards the application of Phee et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0230697 – “Phee”), are moot since Phee is no longer cited in the rejection of Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes, but is not limited to:
Trusty et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0152610 – “Trusty”), which depicts in Trusty FIG. 1 a camera 110 and working channel articulation joints 60, 70 extending from a distal end of a flexible sleeve 30; and
Larkin (US PGPUB 2016/0235486 – “Larkin”), which depicts in Larkin FIG. 17B a camera 1756 and instruments 1746a and 1746b extending away from a distal end of a surgical instrument assembly.
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 JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
6/18/26
Prosecution Insights