DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Notice of Amendment
The Amendment filed 2/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 21-42 are pending in the application with claims 21, 26, 30, 32, 37, 41 amended, claims 1-20 cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 21-25 and 28-30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Sato (US Patent No. 3,557,780).
In regard to claim 21, Sato discloses a surgical instrument (Figs. 3, 25), comprising:
an elongated shaft (I,II’,III’,IV) extending between a proximal end and a distal end and defining a longitudinal axis (Figs. 3, 25);
a plurality of articulation cables (113a,115a, 113b,115b) extending along the longitudinal axis (Figs. 25,29); and
a first bending section (II’) positioned between the proximal end and the distal end of the elongated shaft, the first bending section comprising links (103, Fig. 29) having pairs of articulation holes (110a,111a,110b,111b) extending longitudinally through the links to permit the plurality of pull wires articulation cables to pass therethrough (Figs. 25, 26, 29), wherein the plurality of articulation cables extend across gaps between the links (Figs. 25,26), and wherein each pair of articulation holes comprises first and second articulation holes that are spaced apart from the longitudinal axis (i) at different radii and (ii) at a same rotation angle about the longitudinal axis (Fig. 29).
In regard to claim 22, Sato teaches wherein the first bending section comprises a multi-link wrist comprising two or more links (via links (103)), each pair of consecutive links including one or more joints (via pivot ridges (103a), Figs. 25-26) therebetween.
In regard to claim 23, Sato teaches wherein each of the one or more joints comprise a rolling joint (via pivot ridges (103a) between links).
In regard to claim 24, Sato teaches wherein: the first bending section comprises a proximal pitch joint and a distal pitch joint configured to allow articulation of the first bending section in a pitch direction (via cables (113) and pivot ridges (103a)).
In regard to claim 25, Sato teaches wherein: the first bending section comprises a proximal yaw joint and a distal yaw joint configured to allow articulation of the first bending section in a yaw direction (via cables (112) and pivot ridges (103a)).
In regard to claim 28, Sato teaches wherein the first bending section comprises a proximal pitch joint, a proximal yaw joint, a distal pitch joint, and a distal yaw joint (via bending section (IIa) having a plurality of rings (103) that function as the joints specified, Figs. 25-27).
In regard to claim 29, Sato teaches wherein the surgical instrument comprises a second bending section (IIa) distal to the first bending section (II’b) as shown in Figs. 25-26.
In regard to claim 30, Sato teaches wherein a pair of articulation cables (113a,113b) extends from a proximal portion of the surgical instrument, through the first bending section, and to the second bending section (Figs. 25-26).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 26, 27 and 31 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sato (US Patent No. 3,557,780) in view of Lee et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 20030135204, hereinafter Lee).
In regard to claim 26, Sato does not expressly teach wherein the each of the links of the first bending section comprises four pairs of articulation holes configured to receive the plurality of articulation cables extending therethrough, wherein: the four pairs of articulation holes are each spaced apart from each other by 90 degrees and wherein for each of the four pairs, the first articulation hole and the second articulation hole are formed at a same angle relative to a central axis through the links and comprise different radii measured from the central axis, wherein the links each have four pairs of articulation holes extending therethrough, and wherein the first and second articulation holes of each pair are located at a same radial position and each of the four pairs of articulation holes are radially spaced apart from each other.
Lee teaches an analogous flexible instrument (800, Fig. 21) comprising an instrument shaft having first and second bending sections (810, 815) in which four cables are used to actuate each bending section in both pitch and yaw (Par. 142).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the proximal section (IIa) of the first bending section of Sato to have four control cables as taught by Lee thereby providing the proximal and distal bending sections with both pitch and yaw movements providing the surgeon with additional degrees of freed for manipulating the bending sections.
Claim 32, 34-36 and 39-41 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sato (US Patent No. 3,557,780) in view of Takayama (US Patent No. 4,499,895).
In regard to claim 32, Sato discloses a surgical instrument assembly (Figs. 3, 25), comprising:
a surgical instrument comprising an elongated shaft (I,II’,III’,IV) extending between a proximal end and a distal end and defining a longitudinal axis (Figs. 3, 2525);
a plurality of articulation cables (113a,115a) extending along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 29);
a first bending section (II’) positioned between the proximal end and the distal end of the elongated shaft (Figs. 25-26), the first bending section comprising links (103, Fig. 29) having pairs of articulation holes (110a,111a,110b,111b) extending longitudinally through the links to permit the plurality of pull wires articulation cables to pass therethrough (Figs. 25, 26, 29), wherein the plurality of articulation cables extend across gaps between the links (Figs. 25, 26), and wherein each pair of articulation holes comprises first and second articulation holes that are spaced apart from the longitudinal axis (i) at different radii and (ii) at a same rotation angle about the longitudinal axis (Fig. 29);
an actuator mechanism (16, 17) positioned at the proximal end of the surgical instrument (Fig. 3).
Sato does not expressly teach one or more motors positioned within the actuator mechanism and configured to articulate the first bending section.
Takayama teaches an analogous endoscope in which a pulley/drum (36) for actuating angulation wires (38a, 38b) is power via an electric motor (48). When a lever (66) on the handle of the endoscope is actuated, the motor is controlled to rotate the pulley/drum. Additionally, Takayama teaches the rotation of the pulley/drum can be switched between a manual operation mode and a motor drive mode in case of motor malfunction or user preference (Col. 7, Lines 5-17).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the bending actuator of Sato to be controlled via electric motor as taught by Takayama enabling a user to precisely control an amount of deflection of the bending section based on the force applied to the lever. Additionally, the actuator mechanism of Takayama provides the additional benefit of allowing a surgeon to transition between a manual operation mode and a motor driven mode. There being no unexpected results in modifying the bending actuator of Sato to be actuated via the electric motor of Takayama.
In regard to claim 34, Sato teaches wherein the first bending section comprises a multi-link wrist comprising two or more links (via links (103)), each pair of consecutive links including one or more joints therebetween (via pivot ridges (103a), Figs. 25-26).
In regard to claim 35, Sato teaches wherein each of the one or more joints comprise a rolling joint (via pivot ridges (103a) between links).
In regard to claim 36, Sato teaches wherein: the first bending section comprises a proximal pitch joint and a distal pitch joint configured to allow articulation of the first bending section in a pitch direction (via cables (113) and pivot ridges (103a)).
In regard to claim 39, Sato teaches wherein the first bending section comprises a proximal pitch joint, a proximal yaw joint, a distal pitch joint, and a distal yaw joint (via bending section (IIa) having a plurality of rings (103) that function as the joints specified, Figs. 25-27)..
In regard to claim 40, Sato teaches wherein the surgical instrument comprises a second bending section (IIa) distal to the first bending section (II’b) as shown in Figs. 25-26.
In regard to claim 41, Sato teaches wherein a pair of articulation cables (113a,113b) extends from a proximal portion of the surgical instrument, through the first bending section, and to the second bending section (Figs. 25-26).
Claim 33 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sato (US Patent No. 3,557,780) in view of Takayama (US Patent No. 4,499,895), as applied to Claim 32, and further in view of Hibino et al. (US Patent No. 5,159,446, hereinafter Hibino).
In regard to claim 33, Sato does not expressly teach further comprising a linear actuator coupled to the surgical instrument, wherein the linear actuator is configured to cause translation of the surgical instrument.
Hibino teaches of mounting an endoscope within driving movement rollers (723) which are operated via a movement motor (723a) enabling a user to reliably control axial insertion of the endoscope shaft within a body lumen via joystick (709).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the endoscope of Sato with the driving movement rollers (723) of Hibino thereby allowing a user to precisely control axial insertion of the endoscope shaft within a body cavity. There being no unexpected results in modifying the endoscope of Sato with the driving movement rollers of Hibino.
Claims 37, 38 and 42 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sato (US Patent No. 3,557,780) in view of Takayama (US Patent No. 4,499,895), as applied to claim 32, and further in view of Lee et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 20030135204, hereinafter Lee).
In regard to claim 37, 38 and 42, Sato does not expressly teach wherein the each of the links of the first bending section comprises four pairs of articulation holes configured to receive the plurality of articulation cables extending therethrough; wherein: the four pairs of articulation holes are each spaced apart from each other by 90 degrees and wherein for each of the four pairs, the first articulation hole and the second articulation hole are formed at a same angle relative to a central axis through the links and comprise different radii measured from the central axis; wherein the links each have four pairs of articulation holes extending therethrough, and wherein the first and second articulation holes of each pair are located at a same radial position and each of the four pairs of articulation holes are radially spaced apart from each other.
Lee teaches an analogous flexible instrument (800, Fig. 21) comprising an instrument shaft having first and second bending sections (810, 815) in which four cables are used to actuate each bending section in both pitch and yaw (Par. 142).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the proximal section (IIa) of the first bending section of Sato to have four control cables as taught by Lee thereby providing the proximal and distal bending sections with both pitch and yaw movements providing the surgeon with additional degrees of freed for manipulating the bending sections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-42 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 RYAN N HENDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-5pm (PST).
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.
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795 May 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights