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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 02/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending, claims 1-8 and 14-20 have been withdrawn from consideration, and claims 9-13 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Priority
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 9 are not supported by parent application U.S. 17/501,194. Therefore, claim 9 and all dependent claims thereof will be treated with a priority date of 04/10/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Agrawal et al. (U.S. 2016/0374541).
With respect to claim 9, Agrawal et al. teaches an endoscope system (see FIGS. 5-9), comprising:
an endoscope (118) including a curved portion that can be driven to bend (para [0059]), a flexible portion through which a bending wire that bends the curved portion is inserted (FIG. 3H), and an imaging portion configured to capture an image (FIG. 3I);
a processor comprising hardware (120), the processor being configured to:
receive estimated shape information based on a predetermined control parameter (command value which represents a target deflection for example in units of degrees, para [0090] for example);
control an actuator to bend the curved portion (a surgical robotics system 100 actuates the endoscope 118 shown in FIG. 5A in the negative yaw axis 303, positive yaw axis 302, negative pitch axis 305, and positive pitch axis 304 as shown in FIG. 3A, para [0090]);
determine relative shape information of the curved portion based on the image captured by the imaging portion, wherein the estimated shape information and the relative shape information comprises a shape of the curved portion (the calibration module 125 records, using sensors (e.g., image sensors, accelerometers, gyroscopes, strain gauges, etc.) of the surgical robotic system 100 and/or the endoscope 118, the actual deflection of the endoscope 118 (e.g., in units of degrees) in each axis, para [0090], see also ); and
update a control parameter for controlling the bending of the curved portion based on a comparison between the received relative shape information and the estimated shape information (the calibration module 125 can store the actual deflection, as well as other data associated with the calibration procedure such as the corresponding range of command values and the unique identifier of the endoscope 118, in the calibration store 135, para [0090]. See also 750 FIG. 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al. (U.S. 2016/0374541) in view of Tojo et al. (U.S. 2016/0128552).
Agrawal et al. teaches an endoscope system as set forth above. However, Agrawal et al. does not teach confirming that the distal end portion has been suspended and arranged.
With respect to claim 10, Tojo et al. teaches the processor is further configured to, before bending the curved portion, confirm that a distal end portion including the curved portion of the endoscope has been suspended and arranged (para [0111]-[0114]).
With respect to claim 11, Tojo et al. teaches an endoscope system with a processor configured to, before bending the curved portion, confirm that a marker having a marker pattern capable of identifying elative position information has been arranged below the distal end portion, in a vertical direction (FIG. 17).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Agrawal et al. to utilize the means of confirming that the distal end portion has been suspended and arranged in the manner taught by Tojo et al. in order to confirm the pattern is properly located with respect to the endoscope (para [0113] of Tojo et al.).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al. (U.S. 2016/0374541) in view of Tojo et al. (U.S. 2016/0128552) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Sato (U.S. 2016/0073858).
Agrawal et al. in view of Tojo et al. teaches an endoscope as set forth above. However, Agrawal et al. in view of Tojo et al. does not teach the processor is configured to instruct a user to rearrange the marker.
With respect to claim 12, Sato teaches an endoscope system wherein a processor is configured to instruct a user to rearrange a calibration device as needed (para [0047]-[0051]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Graetzel et al. to include user instructions in the manner taught by Sato in order to ensure the calibration operation is performed in accordance with a predetermined procedure (para [0042] of Sato). Such a modification would result in the modified processor being configured to instruct a user to rearrange the marker when the endoscope cannot image the marker pattern both before and after bending the curved portion.
With respect to claim 13, Tojo et al. teaches the marker is formed in a sheet shape (FIG. 17).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9 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 Alexandra Newton Surgan whose telephone number is (571)270-1618. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm EST.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/ALEXANDRA L NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights