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 08/26/2025, with respect to the objection of claims 4 and 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 4 and 8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 08/26/2025, with respect to the claim interpretation of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the "rotational axis" as providing sufficient structure and "rotatable about" the rotational axis as providing sufficient acts for performing the claimed function "to actuate the hinged robotic actuator." Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear what structural component causes the rotatable mechanism to rotate about a rotational axis, where “rotatable about a rotation axis” does not provide sufficient structure to describe what component causes rotation. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand a “rotational axis” to be structure. Furthermore, whether or not there are “sufficient acts to perform[] the claimed function” relates to “step for” and not a “means for” performing the claimed function. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the claim interpretation is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, filed 08/26/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 11-12, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that “A person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the separate pairs of actuation tendons of Pistor as being a ‘plurality of contoured surfaces [that allow] the hinged robotic actuator to actuate in a manner that provides substantially decoupled actuation’” and that “the Office's interpretation that Pistor teaches decoupled actuation is unfounded in view of the explicit teachings of Pistor,” where Pistor teaches that “as a given segment is moved, there is coupled actuation of the opposite tendon in the segment and provides a solution to accommodate for this coupled actuation, i.e., by slacking the opposite tendon”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Pistor teaches a plurality of contoured surfaces (Figures 7a and 7b, integrated pulley and tendon guide 704, which has a pulley portion 706 and a tendon guide portion 708), and that the plurality of contoured surfaces allow[] the hinged robotic actuator to actuate in a manner that provides substantially decoupled actuation from another actuator of the robotic arm distal to the hinged robotic actuator (¶[0038], where “pulling on one of the first pair of actuation tendons can cause a segment of the robotic instrument to move in a first plane (e.g., the X-plane), and pulling on one of the second pair of actuation tendons can cause the segment to move in a second plane(e.g., the Y-plane),” ¶[0049], where “actuation tendon guides 544 comprise a plurality of lumens integrally formed into the wall of each robotic link. The actuation tendons (not shown) can be routed through tendon guides 544,” ¶[0053], where “The integrated pulley and tendon guide 704 combines the features of both the pulleys (e.g., pulley wheels 242 and pulley slots 243 in FIG. 2) and guide blocks or actuation tendon guides (e.g., guide blocks 444 in FIG. 4 or tendon guides 544 in FIG. 5) into a single component.”). The tendon guides are contoured surfaces through which the actuation tendons are routed through. Furthermore, Pistor does in fact teach decoupled actuation. The dictionary definition of “decoupled” is “to eliminate the interrelationship of: separate” (decoupled. 2025. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved September 26, 2025, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decoupled). Pistor teaches pulling on a first pair of actuation tendons to cause movement in a first plane, such as the X-plane, and pulling on a second pair of actuation tendons to cause movement in a second plane, such as the Y-plane (Pistor ¶[0038]). The actuation of the first and second pairs of actuation tendons is substantially decoupled since there is a separate actuation of each pair of the actuation tendons.
Furthermore, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Pistor does not teach that the plurality of contoured surfaces allowing the hinged robotic actuator to actuate in a manner that provides substantially decoupled actuation from another actuator of the robotic arm distal to the hinged robotic actuator since “in a manner that provides substantially decoupled actuation from another actuator of the robotic arm distal to the hinged robotic actuator” is functional and intended use. The limitation of allowing certain movement is functional language as to how the surfaces function and interact with one another, and there is not structural meaning given to the robotic arm nor another hinged actuator. The preamble of claim 1 is directed to a hinged robotic actuator and not a robotic arm of a surgical system nor multiple hinged robotic actuators to give sufficient structural meaning to this limitation in the claim. Since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Furthermore, Applicant contends that “Scarfogliero teaches that a series of idler pullies 18, 20 mounted on a fixed shaft 19 that is not rotatable with joint 1 is used to enable actuation of the hinged joints 2, 3 in a rotational and hinged joint system. Removing the idler pulley and shaft system of Scarfogliero in favor of the embedded pulleys and tendon guide of Pistor would frustrate the operation of the hinged joints 2, 3 of Scarfogliero. These distinctions which make the teachings of Scarfogliero and Pistor inapplicable to each other become apparent when comparing the teachings of Scarfogliero and Pistor in their entirety,” and that “A person or ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to modify the idler pulley system of Scarfogliero, adapted for use in a rotational and hinged joint robotic arm, with the pulley system of Pistor, adapted for used in a segmented robotic arm with only hinged actuators. As such the conclusory statement that it would have been obvious to modify the robotic arm of Scarfogliero, that has rotational and hinged actuators, with the teachings of the robotic arm of Pistor, that only has hinged actuators, appears motivated by hindsight reasoning. Accordingly, the proposed combination of Scarfogliero and Pistor is inoperable.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures. In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973). Both Scarfogliero and Pistor teach hinged robotic arms, which would have suggested the combination to those of ordinary skill in the art.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a rotatable mechanism” in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 11-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scarfogliero et al. (hereinafter “Scar”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0131695 A1) in view of Pistor et al. (hereinafter “Pistor”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0116081 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Scar teaches a hinged robotic actuator for a robotic arm of a surgical robotic system (Abstract, which teaches a “robotic arm especially suited for laparoscopic surgery,” Figure 2H, which shows robotic arms with hinged joints), the hinged robotic actuator sized and dimensioned for insertion through a trocar (¶[0069], where “the apparatus 100 also comprises a support body 103, or introducer, having a cylindrical-shaped tubular structure in its entirety analogous to and compatible with that of a trochar,” ¶[0070], where “The support body 103 is thus adapted to serve as an introducer for the arms 101 and 102 into the body of the patient, allowing the passage of both through it”), the hinged robotic actuator comprising: a main hinge body (Figure 7, which shows a main hinge body attached to joint 2), and a rotatable mechanism coupled to the main hinge body, the rotatable mechanism rotatable about a rotation axis to actuate the hinged robotic actuator (¶[0138], where “With reference to FIGS. 12 and 13, the abovementioned cable transmission means provide for a particular arrangement of idler pulleys within the casing of the arm with the aim of allowing the cables for actuating the joints 2 and 3 to pass beyond the first torsional joint 1.” Examiner takes the position that a pulley will have an inherent rotation axis.).
Although Scar teaches the cables passing through the joints (¶[0143], where “passage of the cable beyond the joint 2 and for actuating the joint 3 is then accomplished through an idler mechanism similar to that described above and evidently housed in the arm portion interposed between the joints 2 and 3”) and the pulleys actuating respective joints such that there is decoupled actuation (¶[0192], where “the pulleys--by means of cables 50--controlling the degrees of freedom. Such cables 50 are routed into the introducer body 103. A series of idler and return pulleys 51 guide the cables 50 towards the opening and coupling mechanisms of the arm and towards the respective joints to be actuated within the robotic arm”), it does not teach a passageway extending through the main hinge body, the passageway having a plurality of contoured surfaces, nor the plurality of contoured surfaces allowing the hinged robotic actuator to actuate in a manner that provides substantially decoupled actuation from another actuator of the robotic arm distal to the hinged robotic actuator.
Pistor teaches a passageway extending through the main hinge body, the passageway having a plurality of contoured surfaces (Figures 7a and 7b, integrated pulley and tendon guide 704, which has a pulley portion 706 and a tendon guide portion 708), and the plurality of contoured surfaces allowing the hinged robotic actuator to actuate in a manner that provides substantially decoupled actuation from another actuator of the robotic arm distal to the hinged robotic actuator (¶[0038], where “pulling on one of the first pair of actuation tendons can cause a segment of the robotic instrument to move in a first plane (e.g., the X-plane), and pulling on one of the second pair of actuation tendons can cause the segment to move in a second plane(e.g., the Y-plane),” ¶[0049], where “actuation tendon guides 544 comprise a plurality of lumens integrally formed into the wall of each robotic link. The actuation tendons (not shown) can be routed through tendon guides 544,” ¶[0053], where “The integrated pulley and tendon guide 704 combines the features of both the pulleys (e.g., pulley wheels 242 and pulley slots 243 in FIG. 2) and guide blocks or actuation tendon guides (e.g., guide blocks 444 in FIG. 4 or tendon guides 544 in FIG. 5) into a single component.” Examiner takes the position that since the actuation tendons are channeled through the tendon guides and since the actuation tendons cause movement of their respective segments, that this is equivalent to decoupled actuation of each segment, where each hinge is an actuator, aided by the tendon guides.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Pistor, which teaches a passageway extending through the main hinge body, the passageway having a plurality of contoured surfaces, where the plurality of contoured surfaces allowing the hinged robotic actuator to actuate in a manner that provides substantially decoupled actuation from another actuator of the robotic arm distal to the hinged robotic actuator, with the invention of Scar in order to keep the actuation tendons positioned along the hinges in each link (Pistor ¶[0049]) and to allow for multiple degrees of freedom (Pistor ¶[0038], where the different segment movements allow for degrees of freedom in different planes of motion).
Regarding claim 2, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Scar teaches the robotic arm includes a plurality of actuators coupled in series (Figure 7, where joints 2 and 3 are connected in series).
Pistor teaches the plurality of contoured surfaces allowing actuation of one of the plurality of actuators without actuation of another (See ¶[0038], ¶[0049], and ¶[0053] from the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Scar teaches a distal body hingedly connected with the main hinge body (Figure 7, where part of the arm protrudes from joint 2 and connects to joint 3, which is distally connected to the main hinge body of joint 2).
Regarding claim 8, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Scar teaches that the main hinge body has a first portion with an inward facing first surface (Figure 7, where joint 2 has an inward facing first surface on the left side of the joint), a second portion with an inward facing second surface opposite the first surface (Figure 7, where a second inward facing second surface on the right side opposes the first surface in joint 2), and a gap therebetween (Figure 7, where a gap can be seen between the two surfaces), wherein the rotatable mechanism comprises a pulley or capstan at least partially disposed in the gap between the first surface and the second surface of the main hinge body (Figure 7, where a pulley is positioned between the two surfaces, Figure 13, where the pulley of joint 2 is more clearly shown), and wherein the distal body extends at least partially over an outward facing third surface of the main hinge body and at least partially over an outward facing fourth surface of the main hinge body facing away from the third surface (Figure 7, where outward facing surfaces extend from the main hinge body and joint 2 in both outward directions).
Regarding claim 9, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Pistor teaches that the passageway extending through the main hinge body extends through the first portion of the hinge body (Figure 7a, where an inward facing first surface has the integrated pulley and tendon guide 704, which has a pulley portion 706 and a tendon guide portion 708 extending through it), and wherein the hinged robotic actuator further comprises a second passageway extending through the second portion of the main hinge body (Figure 8, which shows the curved passageway of Figure 7b being incorporated into multiple links in series such that the second portion of the main hinge body, which is the other side of the link, also incorporates a passageway extending through it like that in Figure 7b, ¶[0029], where “FIG. 8 illustrates an elongate robotic instrument comprising a plurality of universal links”), the second passageway having a second plurality of contoured surfaces (¶[0029], where “FIG. 8 illustrates an elongate robotic instrument comprising a plurality of universal links.” Examiner takes the position that since the other links have the same contoured surface as shown in Figure 7b that there is a second plurality of contoured surfaces incorporated into attached links.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Pistor, which teaches that the passageway extending through the main hinge body extends through the first portion of the hinge body, wherein the hinged robotic actuator further comprises a second passageway extending through the second portion of the main hinge body, the second passageway having a second plurality of contoured surfaces, with the invention of Scar in order to position the actuation tendons in alignment along each hinge (Pistor ¶[0054]), preventing cable derailment during actuation (Pistor ¶[0055]).
Regarding claim 11, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Scar teaches that the distal body comprises a female component hingedly connected with the main hinge body (Figure 7, joint 2, Figures 12 and 13, where joint 2 has a portion with a cavity that is a female portion. Examiner takes the position that a female component is one that has a cavity or opening to receive a male connector, and since joint 2 has this cavity or opening, having the same structural configuration as Applicant, the joint comprises a female component connected to the main hinge body.).
Regarding claim 12, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Scar teaches that the female component includes or defines a female bearing surface (Figure 7, joint 2, Figures 11 and 12, where the female component has a female bearing surface since the surface of the component is constructed to receive a connector to attach the component to a male component).
Regarding claim 15, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Scar teaches a male hinge body that is a portion of, is attached to, or is configured to attach to the main hinge body (Figure 7, joint 2, Figures 12 and 13, where joint 2 has a portion with a protrusion that is a male portion. Examiner takes the position that a male component is one that has a protrusion to connect to a female connector, and since joint 2 has this protrusion, having the same structural configuration as Applicant, the joint comprises a male hinge body connected to the main hinge body.).
Regarding claim 16, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 15 as described in the rejection above.
Pistor teaches that the male hinge body has a surface with a contoured profile corresponding to the contoured surfaces of the passageway (Figure 5c, where a contour is along a protrusion, equivalent to a male component, next to the integrated tendon guides 544, which are equivalent to contoured surfaces of the passageway).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Pistor, which teaches that the male hinge body has a surface with a contoured profile corresponding to the contoured surfaces of the passageway, with the invention of Scar since it is an obvious design that is not critical nor unexpected (See MPEP 2144.04) and since the contour allows the cables to continuously pass through the hinge to reach other segments of the device.
Regarding claim 17, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 15 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Scar teaches that the male hinge body includes or defines a male bearing surface (Figure 7, joint 2, Figures 11 and 12, where the male component has a male bearing surface since the surface of the component is constructed to attach the male component to a female component).
Regarding claim 18, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 15 as described in the rejection above.
Pistor teaches that the male hinge body includes a boss functioning as a hinge pin and defining a hinge axis (¶[0043], where “the inner hinge portion of a one link is coupled to the outer hinge portion of another link, a rivet or other fixation device (not shown) can additionally secure the hinge portions together ... such an axial load is not solely borne by hinge pins that hold the two links together”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Pistor, which teaches that the male hinge body includes a boss functioning as a hinge pin and defining a hinge axis, with the invention of Scar in order to provide an effective load distribution when the links are axially compressed and hold the two links together (Pistor ¶[0043]).
Claims 3-4, 6-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scar in view of Pistor as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0135204 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Although Pistor teaches a plurality of contoured surfaces, or tendon guides, that cables, or actuation tendons, pass through to actuate hinged actuators, such as a distal actuator (Figures 7a and 7b, ¶[0038]), neither Scar nor Pistor teach that, in use, the plurality of contoured surfaces enable a pass-through cable to pass through the contoured pathway for actuation of a distal actuator of the robotic arm and maintain a length of the pass-through cable disposed within the hinged actuator substantially constant over substantially all of a range of motion of the hinged actuator.
Lee teaches a robotically controlled medical instrument that includes a bending section (Abstract) where, in use, the plurality of contoured surfaces enable a pass-through cable to pass through the contoured pathway for actuation of a distal actuator of the robotic arm and maintain a length of the pass-through cable disposed within the hinged actuator substantially constant over substantially all of a range of motion of the hinged actuator (¶[0110], where “within the bellows 662 each of the cables is contained in its own cable sleeve 292. These sleeves are sufficiently stiff to maintain constant cable lengths within the flexible or bendable section,” ¶[0111], where “The individual cable sleeves also define a substantially fixed length pathway for each cable so that even though the instrument may move or rotate the cable lengths stay the same within the section 660”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Lee, which teaches that, in use, the plurality of contoured surfaces enable a pass-through cable to pass through the contoured pathway for actuation of a distal actuator of the robotic arm and maintain a length of the pass-through cable disposed within the hinged actuator substantially constant over substantially all of a range of motion of the hinged actuator, with the modified invention of Scar since the limited twisting of the cable bundle prevents the formation of kinks or loops in individual cables that might occur if the cables were left straight and parallel to one another and so that actuation of one of the degrees-of-freedom does not cause a responding action at another degree-of-freedom (Lee ¶[0111]).
Regarding claim 4, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Although Pistor teaches a plurality of contoured surfaces, or tendon guides, that cables, or actuation tendons, pass through to actuate hinged actuators, such as a distal actuator (Figures 7a and 7b, ¶[0038]), neither Scar nor Pistor teach that, in use, the plurality of contoured surfaces enable a plurality of pass-through cables to pass through the contoured pathway for actuation of a plurality of distal actuators of the robotic arm and maintain a length of the plurality of pass- through cable disposed within the hinged actuator substantially constant over substantially all of a range of motion of the hinged actuator.
Lee teaches that, in use, the plurality of contoured surfaces enable a plurality of pass-through cables to pass through the contoured pathway for actuation of a plurality of distal actuators of the robotic arm and maintain a length of the plurality of pass- through cable disposed within the hinged actuator substantially constant over substantially all of a range of motion of the hinged actuator (¶[0110], where “within the bellows 662 each of the cables is contained in its own cable sleeve 292. These sleeves are sufficiently stiff to maintain constant cable lengths within the flexible or bendable section,” ¶[0111], where “The individual cable sleeves also define a substantially fixed length pathway for each cable so that even though the instrument may move or rotate the cable lengths stay the same within the section 660”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Lee, which teaches that, in use, the plurality of contoured surfaces enable a plurality of pass-through cables to pass through the contoured pathway for actuation of a plurality of distal actuator of the robotic arm and maintain a length of the plurality of pass- through cable disposed within the hinged actuator substantially constant over substantially all of a range of motion of the hinged actuator, with the modified invention of Scar since the limited twisting of the cable bundle prevents the formation of kinks or loops in individual cables that might occur if the cables were left straight and parallel to one another and so that actuation of one of the degrees-of-freedom does not cause a responding action at another degree-of-freedom (Lee ¶[0111]).
Regarding claim 6, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Although Scar teaches a distal body and cables passing through the joints of the robotic arm, Scar does not teach that the distal body defines a plurality of guide holes, the plurality of guide holes and the passageway of the main hinge body determining a neutral axis of passage through the hinged actuator whose length does not substantially change over a range of motion of the actuator.
Pistor teaches that the distal body defines a plurality of guide holes (Figures 7a and 7b, actuation tendon guides 746, ¶[0054], where “Actuation tendon guides 746 can be positioned on the universal link in alignment with the inner hinge portions to provide lumens for which to route actuation tendons along the inner hinge portions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Pistor, which teaches that the distal body defines a plurality of guide holes, with the invention of Scar in order to position the actuation tendons in alignment along each hinge (Pistor ¶[0054]), which prevents cable derailment under compression or slack of the actuation tendons since the cables are guided and aligned by the lumens (Pistor ¶[0055]).
Neither Scar nor Pistor teach a neutral axis of passage through the hinged actuator whose length does not substantially change over a range of motion of the actuator.
Lee teaches a neutral axis of passage through the hinged actuator whose length does not substantially change over a range of motion of the actuator (¶[0111], where “The individual cable sleeves also define a substantially fixed length pathway for each cable so that even though the instrument may move or rotate the cable lengths stay the same within the section 660”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Lee, which teaches a neutral axis of passage through the hinged actuator whose length does not substantially change over a range of motion of the actuator, with the modified invention of Scar since the limited twisting of the cable bundle prevents the formation of kinks or loops in individual cables that might occur if the cables were left straight and parallel to one another and so that actuation of one of the degrees-of-freedom does not cause a responding action at another degree-of-freedom (Lee ¶[0111]).
Regarding claim 7, Scar in combination with Pistor and Lee teaches all limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Pistor teaches that the plurality of guide holes of the distal body and the passageway of the main hinge body enable a plurality of pass-through cables to extend through the hinged actuator along the neutral axis (Figures 7a and 7b, integrated pulley and tendon guide 704, which has a pulley portion 706 and a tendon guide portion 708, tendon guides 746, ¶[0053], where “each universal can provide for an actuation tendon wrapping around pulley portion 706 …, or, alternatively, can be used as a intermediate link in which the actuation tendons pass through the lumens of the tendon guide portion 708 of each link,” ¶[0054], where “Actuation tendon guides 746 can be positioned on the universal link in alignment with the inner hinge portions to provide lumens for which to route actuation tendons along the inner hinge portions”).
Regarding claim 10, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Although Pistor teaches a plurality and second plurality of contoured surfaces, or tendon guides, that cables, or actuation tendons, pass through to actuate hinged actuators, such as a distal actuator (Figures 7a and 7b, ¶[0029], ¶[0038]), neither Scar nor Pistor teach that, in use, the plurality of contoured surfaces enable a pass-through cable to pass through the contoured pathway for actuation of a distal actuator of the robotic arm and maintain a length of the pass-through cable disposed within the hinged actuator substantially constant over substantially all of a range of motion of the hinged actuator, nor that a second plurality of contoured surfaces enable a second pass-through cable to pass through the contoured pathway for actuation of a distal actuator of the robotic arm and maintain a length of the second pass-through cable disposed within the hinged actuator substantially constant over substantially all of a range of motion of the hinged actuator.
Lee teaches a robotically controlled medical instrument that includes a bending section (Abstract) where, in use, the plurality and second plurality of contoured surfaces enable a pass-through cable and a second pass-through cable to pass through the contoured pathway for actuation of a distal actuator of the robotic arm and maintain a length of the pass-through cable and the second pass-through cable disposed within the hinged actuator substantially constant over substantially all of a range of motion of the hinged actuator (¶[0110], where “within the bellows 662 each of the cables is contained in its own cable sleeve 292. These sleeves are sufficiently stiff to maintain constant cable lengths within the flexible or bendable section,” ¶[0111], where “The individual cable sleeves also define a substantially fixed length pathway for each cable so that even though the instrument may move or rotate the cable lengths stay the same within the section 660.” Examiner takes the position that since there are multiple cables within the system that there is at least a first and second cable incorporated in the design.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Lee, which teaches that, in use, the plurality and second plurality of contoured surfaces enable a pass-through cable and a second pass-through cable to pass through the contoured pathway for actuation of a distal actuator of the robotic arm and maintain a length of the pass-through cable and the second pass-through cable disposed within the hinged actuator substantially constant over substantially all of a range of motion of the hinged actuator, with the modified invention of Scar since the limited twisting of the cable bundle prevents the formation of kinks or loops in individual cables that might occur if the cables were left straight and parallel to one another and so that actuation of one of the degrees-of-freedom does not cause a responding action at another degree-of-freedom (Lee ¶[0111]).
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scar in view of Pistor as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Yeung at al. (hereinafter “Yeung”) (U.S. Pat. No. 8,444,631 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Scar teaches that the rotatable mechanism comprises a pulley or a capstan (¶[0138], where “With reference to FIGS. 12 and 13, the abovementioned cable transmission means provide for a particular arrangement of idler pulleys within the casing of the arm with the aim of allowing the cables for actuating the joints 2 and 3 to pass beyond the first torsional joint 1”).
Although Scar teaches a hinged robotic actuator with rotatable pulleys, neither Scar nor Pistor elaborate on the direction of rotation for the pulley to teach that the pulley or the capstan is rotated in a first direction of rotation by an actuator cable and is rotated in a second direction of rotation opposite the first direction of rotation by the same actuator cable.
Yeung teaches a surgical manipulator with a manipulator arm and an end-effector held by the robotic arm (Abstract), where the pulley or the capstan is rotated in a first direction of rotation by an actuator cable and is rotated in a second direction of rotation opposite the first direction of rotation by the same actuator cable (Col. 11, lines 12-19, where “The cable-pulley system thus is only responsible for the angled transmission of motion from the input to the output side and thus forms a bi-directional coupling mechanism since rotation of the input shaft about its axis in one direction causes rotation of the output shaft about its axis in one direction, and rotation of the input shaft by the drive mechanism in the other direction causes rotation of the output shaft about its axis in the other direction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Yeung, which teaches that the pulley or the capstan is rotated in a first direction of rotation by an actuator cable and is rotated in a second direction of rotation opposite the first direction of rotation by the same actuator cable, with the modified invention of Scar since a cable-pulley system provides high fidelity (Yeung Col. 16, line 35).
Regarding claim 20, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Neither Scar nor Pistor teach at least one strain gauge attached to a component of the hinged robotic actuator experiencing strain during loading of the main hinge body.
Yeung teaches at least one strain gauge attached to a component of the hinged robotic actuator experiencing strain during loading of the main hinge body (Col. 24, lines 50-56, where “the tool-actuation force sensor 604 is mounted on the angled actuation bar 603 between the point where the bar 603 is supported by the vertical guide rod 606 and the interface 607 with the tool-actuator subassembly 452. The sensor 604 takes the form of a strain gauge, at which point on the bar 603 the elastic vertical deflection due to the tool-actuation can be measured”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Yeung, which teaches at least one strain gauge attached to a component of the hinged robotic actuator experiencing strain during loading of the main hinge body, with the modified invention of Scar in order to enable the sensing of tool-actuation forces and determine the vertical force required to actuate the tool (Yeung Col. 25, lines 18 and 24-25).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scar in view of Pistor as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Murphy et al. (hereinafter “Murphy”) (U.S. Pat. No. 8,540,748 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Scar teaches that the rotatable mechanism comprises a pulley or a capstan (¶[0138], where “With reference to FIGS. 12 and 13, the abovementioned cable transmission means provide for a particular arrangement of idler pulleys within the casing of the arm with the aim of allowing the cables for actuating the joints 2 and 3 to pass beyond the first torsional joint 1”).
Although Scar teaches a hinged robotic actuator with rotatable pulleys, neither Scar nor Pistor elaborate on the direction of rotation for the pulley to teach that the pulley or the capstan is rotated in a first direction of rotation by a first actuator cable and is rotated in a second direction of rotation opposite the first direction of rotation by a second actuator cable.
Murphy teaches a surgical instrument with a pulley portion to pivot links of the surgical instrument (Abstract), where the pulley or the capstan is rotated in a first direction of rotation by a first actuator cable and is rotated in a second direction of rotation opposite the first direction of rotation by a second actuator cable (Abstract, where “The first control cable is then routed around the pulley portion of the link in a first circumferential direction. Similarly, a second control cable that pivots the link in the opposite direction extends out of the surgical instrument shaft and crosses the width of the instrument in a second crossing direction. The second control cable is then routed around the pulley portion of the link in a second circumferential direction that is opposite the first circumferential direction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Murphy, which teaches that the pulley or the capstan is rotated in a first direction of rotation by a first actuator cable and is rotated in a second direction of rotation opposite the first direction of rotation by a second actuator cable, with the modified invention of Scar since routing the control cables across the instrument allows the pulley portion to provide a larger moment arm for the link while avoiding friction at the openings where the cables extend from the instrument shaft (Murphy Col. 2, line 67 – Col. 3, lines 1-3).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scar in view of Pistor as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Fell (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0221016 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Scar in combination with Pistor teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Although Pistor teaches a position sensor (¶[0037], where “instrument 100 provides room for at least two working channels or lumens 124 and 126. These working lumens can house various components, such as … position and orientation sensors (e.g., electromagnetic sensors (such as those made by the Ascension company), accelerometers, etc). In some embodiments, position and orientation sensors can be placed in other portions of the instrument, such as along the inner or outer wall of the instrument”), neither Scar nor Pistor teach that the position sensor measures a position of a portion of the hinged robotic actuator relative to another portion of the hinged robotic actuator.
Fell teaches a path-following robot, such as for creating a path to a target surgical site, includes a series of interconnected elements including a lead element at one end thereof, and a plurality of actuators each operably coupled to one of the plurality of elements (Abstract) with a position sensor or encoder for measuring a position of a portion of the hinged robotic actuator relative to another portion of the hinged robotic actuator (¶[0025], where “each element 12 in the robot 10 includes encoded positional actuators (e.g., motors) that link the elements 12 together and allow for the tracking of the precise relational spherical (tilt) and rotational movement between any two elements 12. The relative position of element A may be recorded, relative to the next element B”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Fell, which teaches a position sensor or encoder for measuring a position of a portion of the hinged robotic actuator relative to another portion of the hinged robotic actuator, with the modified invention of Scar in order to track rotational and spherical relationship between the two elements and know and control the exact spatial position of each element relative to its zero point and thus to each other. This allows for the proper coordinate positioning of each element in the robot as each element approaches its predetermined destination (Fell ¶[0025).
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 SEFRA D. MANOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5937. The examiner can normally be reached M-W: 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET, Th: 7:00 AM - 2:00 PM ET, F: 7:00 AM - 3:30 PM ET.
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, James Kish can be reached at (571)272-5554. 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.
/SEFRA D. MANOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3792