DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
4. It is noted that Claims 8-17 have been newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 2, 6, 10, and 17, as well as Claims 3, 8, 9, and 12 for being dependent upon claim 2, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
7. Claim 2 recites the limitation "shaft body" in the final line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “an elongate shaft body”, which is not recited in Claim 2, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as “elongate shaft body”. Further correction is required.
8. Claims 6, 10, and 17 recite the same limitation of “shaft body”. Therefore, they are recited under the same reasoning as outlined above. Further correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Felder U.S. 2018/0206904 (herein referred to as “Felder”).
11. Regarding Claim 1, Felder teaches a treatment tool (see at least Figs. 1, 6, 7, 9-18) comprising:
a. a tubular insertion tube (Fig. 7, ref num 202) at least a part of which is configured to be inserted into a body (para 0002, “elongate flexible shafts are introduced into the body through a natural orifice”);
b. an end effector (Fig. 7, ref num 204) that is provided at a distal end of the insertion tube (see Fig. 7, ref num 204 is at the distal end of 202) and is bendable with respect to the insertion tube (para 0089, “the wrist 206 can allow for fine movements and angulation of the end effector 204 relative to the elongate shaft 202 to which the end effector 204 is coupled… angle the end effector 204 relative to a longitudinal axis 202A of the elongate shaft 202”), the end effector being configured to apply treatment energy to a living tissue according to supplied power to treat the living tissue (para 0088, “end effector 204 in this illustrated embodiment includes opposed lower and upper jaws 210, 212… configured to deliver energy to tissue engaged between the jaws 210, 212”; para 0099 describes the power supplied);
c. an elongate shaft body (Fig. 9, ref num 206 which is made up of ref nums 216, 218, 220) that is provided in the end effector (see Fig. 11) to bend the end effector with respect to the insertion tube about a rotation axis (Figs. 9 and 11, rotation axis = “P2”; para 0090, “a second pivot axis P2 about which the second linkage 218, and hence the end effector 204… is configured to pivot… the second joint 224 defines a second plane in which the second linkage 218 is configured to move… to adjust the end effector’s yaw relative to the shaft 202”), the elongate body extending longitudinally along the rotation axis (see Fig. 9, ref num 206 extends longitudinally along “P2”) and having an outer peripheral surface located on a circumference of a specific circle centered on the rotation axis when viewed from a direction along the rotation axis (see Figs. 9 and 14; ref num 206 has an outer peripheral surface located on a circle of rotation axis “P2”); and
d. a wiring (Figs. 17 and 18, ref num 248) that is inserted through the insertion tube (see Figs. 13-18, it is understood ref num 248 is inserted through ref num 202; para 0099) and serves as a supply path of the power (para 0099, “energy or electrical cable 248 configured to provide energy to the electrodes at the end effector 204”) wherein the elongate shaft body includes a passage (Figs. 13, 17, and 18, ref num 252) through which the wiring is inserted such that the wiring passes through an inside portion of the elongate shaft body (see Fig. 13, ref num 252 is inserted through inside of ref num 206; para 102).
12. Regarding Claim 4, Felder teaches the end effector includes an electrode (Fig. 9, ref num 210e) configured to apply high frequency energy to the living tissue according to the supplied power (para 0088, “an electrode 210e… configured to deliver energy to tissue engaged between the jaws 210, 212 such as by each of the electrodes 210e receiving one pole from a bipolar energy source to create bipolar energy between the electrodes”), the high frequency energy being the treatment energy (para 0099).
13. Regarding Claim 6, Felder teaches the passage is a groove or a hole provided in the shaft body (see Figs. 10 and 13, ref num 252 is a hole provide through ref num 206).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
15. Claims 2, 8-10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felder and in view of Worrell U.S. 9,220,559 (herein referred to as “Worrell”).
16. Regarding Claims 2 and 17, Felder teaches a pair of transmission members (Fig. 9, ref nums 226a-d) that are each inserted through the insertion tube (para 0092, “the articulation cables 226a, 226b, 226c, 226d are also spaced radially around the longitudinal axis 202A of the elongate shaft 202”) and are each fixed to the end effector (para 0093, “distal ends 228a, 228b, 226c, 228d of each of the articulation cables 226a, 226b, 226c, 226d are fixedly coupled to the end effector 204”); wherein each transmission member is configured to transmit a driving force for bending the end effector with respect to the insertion tube (para 0091, “input from the tool driver to the tool housing 208 can thus be configured to actuate the articulation cables 226a, 226b, 226c, 226d to cause selective movement of selected one or more articulation cables… to cause selected articulation of the end effector 204”).
Felder fails to teach the pair of transmission members are arranged along the outer peripheral surface in a state of sandwiching the shaft body (2) and the pair of transmission members are arranged to be in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the shaft body (17).
Worrell teaches a treatment tool of analogous art (Figs. 1, 5, and 9), wherein the tool comprises an end effector (Fig. 9, ref num 204 and Fig. 5, ref num 104) and an elongate shaft body (Fig. 9, ref num 202 and Fig. 5, ref num 102). The tool also comprises a pair of transmission members (Fig. 5, ref num 140, 142; Col. 13, lines 15-16, “articulation bands (140, 142)”), such that the pair of transmission members are arranged along an outer peripheral surface in a state of sandwiching the shaft body arranged in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the shaft body (Fig. 9, ref nums 220, 222 define recesses in the outer peripheral surface of ref num 202; Col. 13, lines 12-18, “recesses (220, 222) are configured to receive respective articulation cables (not shown). Such articulation cables may be operable in a manner similar to that described above for articulation bands (140, 142). In some other versions, recesses (220, 222) are configured to form channels that receive bands instead of cables”). This configuration allows the articulation section to bend (Col. 13, lines 11-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felder to arrange the pair of transmission members along the outer peripheral surface in a state of sandwiching the shaft body as this produces the same expected result of articulating the end effector.
17. Regarding Claim 8, Felder teaches the wiring is disposed between the pair of transmission members (Fig. 10, ref num 252, which ref num 248 is disposed through, is between ref nums 226a-d).
18. Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Felder fails to teach a wall is provided between each of the pair of transmission members and the wiring, such that the shaft body is configured to form the wall.
Worrell teaches a treatment tool of analogous art (Figs 5 and 6), wherein there is a wall (Figs. 6 and 7, ref nums 110, 112, 114 create walls) provided between the pair of transmission members and a wiring (Fig. 6, ref num 120 and 122 are where bands 140, 142 are disposed; ref num 124 is configured to receive a wire that powers the end effector; Col. 11, lines 54-56, “ Recess (124) is configured to receive a wire (not shown). Such a wire may be configured to provide electrical communication between end effector (104) and a power source”). The wall is formed by the shaft body (Fig. 5, ref num 102 is made up of ref nums 110). This reduces the articulation load when using the transmission members (Col. 11, lines 51-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felder to have a wall between the pair of transmission members and the wiring in order to improve the mechanical advantage when articulating the end effector.
19. Regarding Claim 14, Felder fails to teach the outer peripheral surface includes a pair of outer peripheral surfaces, and wherein the passage is provided between the pair of outer peripheral surfaces.
Worrell teaches a tool of analogous art (Figs. 5-7), wherein the tool comprises an elongate shaft body with an outer peripheral surface (Figs. 5 and 6, ref num 102 has outer peripheral surface made up of ref num 110), such that the outer peripheral surface includes a pair of outer peripheral surfaces (Fig. 6, ref nums 120 and 122). The tool also comprises a passage (Fig. 6, ref num 124) in which the power wiring is disposed through (ref num 124 is configured to receive a wire that powers the end effector; Col. 11, lines 54-56, “Recess (124) is configured to receive a wire (not shown). Such a wire may be configured to provide electrical communication between end effector (104) and a power source”). This passage is between the pair of outer peripheral surfaces (see Fig. 6, ref num 124 is between ref nums 120 and 122). The passage is configured to articulate with the transmission members (Col. 11, lines 56-59). Therefore, this configuration allows the articulation section to bend (Col. 13, lines 11-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felder to have a pair of peripheral surfaces that the passage is between, as this produces the same expected result of articulating the end effector.
20. Regarding Claim 15, Felder teaches the end effector includes a first grasper (Figs. 7, 9, and 10, ref num 210) and a second grasper (Figs. 7, 9, and 10, ref num 212) configured to be opened and closed with respect to the first grasper (para 0095, “end effector 204 is configured to move between an open position in which the jaws 210, 212 are open and a closed position in which the jaws 210, 212 are closed”), and wherein the passage extends linearly along a longitudinal direction of the first grasper (see Fig. 10, ref num 252 extends linearly along a longitudinal direction of ref num 210).
21. Regarding Claim 16, Felder teaches the passage passes through the rotation axis (see Figs. 9 and 11, ref num 252 passes through axis “P2”).
22. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felder and Worrell, and further in view of Johnson 2021/0052333 (herein referred to as “Johnson”).
23. Regarding Claim 3, Felder teaches the pair of transmission members extend toward a distal end of the end effector (see Figs. 9 and 15, ref nums 226a-d extend towards distal end of ref num 204), and wherein the wiring is disposed between the pair of transmission members spaced apart from each other (Fig. 10, ref num 252, which ref num 248 is disposed through, is between ref nums 226a-d).
Felder fails to teach the pair of transmission members are in a state of being spaced apart from each other by a distance smaller than a diameter of the specific circle.
Johnson teaches the transmission members (Fig. 4, ref nums 408a-d) extend towards the distal end of the end effector (see Fig. 4) in a state of being space apart from each other by a distance smaller than the diameter of a circle (see the spacing between ref nums 408a-d is smaller than the diameter of the linkages 402b and 402c), and the wiring (Fig. 4, ref num 422) is disposed between the transmission members (Figs. 4 and 6B, ref num 422 is between ref nums 408a-d). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the pair of transmission members spaced apart and the wiring disposed between them, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
24. Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felder and in view of Johnson.
25. Regarding Claim 5, Felder fails to teach the end effector includes a heater configured to generate heat according to the supplied power and apply thermal energy to living tissue, the thermal energy being the treatment energy.
Johnson teaches a tool of analogous art (Figs. 2 and 4), wherein the tool comprises an end effector (Fig. 4, ref num 204), such that the end effector comprises a structure configured to generate heat according to the supplied power and apply thermal energy to living tissue, the thermal energy being the treatment energy (para 0031, “place the surgical tool 200 in communication with a generator 216 that supplies energy such as… heat energy.. to the end effector”; Fig. 4, ref num 424 applies the energy to the tissue). Different types of energy being used is well known in the art (para 0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felder to have the end effector apply thermal energy, as this produces the same expected result of treating the target tissue.
26. Regarding Claim 7, Felder fails to teach a portion of the passage on a side of a proximal end of the passage, a width of the passage increases towards the proximal end.
Johnson teaches a tool of analogous art (Fig. 2), wherein the tool comprises a passage (Fig. 6B, ref num 610), wherein the passage has a power wiring inserted therethrough (Fig. 4, ref num 422 is the power wiring; para 0050, “conduits 610 may be configured to receive the electrical conductor 422”). Johnson also teaches that the passage may be formed of various sizes (para 0051). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the proximal end of the passage increase in width, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
27. Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felder.
28. Regarding Claim 11, Felder fails to teach explicitly in a cross section of the treatment tool along the rotation axis, the wiring is positioned below a central axis of the insertion tube.
However, Felder does teach that the wiring may be offset from the central axis of the insertion tube (para 0101, “the energy cable 248 are each offset from the longitudinal axis 202A of the shaft 202”; para 0100, “the energy cable 248 is above the cutting element cable 242… but can be at any location”). Therefore, it is contemplated that the wiring may be below the central axis of the insertion tube. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the wiring below the central axis of the insertion tube, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
29. Regarding Claim 13, Felder teaches the end effector includes a first grasper (Figs. 7, 9, and 10, ref num 210) and a second grasper (Figs. 7, 9, and 10, ref num 212) configured to be opened and closed with respect to the first grasper (para 0095, “end effector 204 is configured to move between an open position in which the jaws 210, 212 are open and a closed position in which the jaws 210, 212 are closed”), and wherein the treatment tool further comprises: a rod that is movably inserted into the insertion tube (Figs. 15 and 16, ref num 240); and a link mechanism (Fig. 15, ref num 238) configured to connect the rod and the second grasper to open and close the second grasper with respect to the first grasper (para 0097, “links 236a, 236b each have distal ends pivotally attach to a hub 238 that is slideably attach to a jaw support rod 240, and each have proximal ends pivotally attached to the top jaw 212… in response to the actuation of the first and second closure cables 120a, 120b, the first and second closure cables 210a, 230b translate longitudinally, thereby causing the hub 238 to slide either proximally.. or distally… to cause the end effector 204 to open… [or] to close”).
Felder fails to explicitly teach in a cross section of the treatment tool along the rotation axis, the wiring is position lower than the link mechanism.
However, Felder does teach that the wiring may be offset from the central axis of the insertion tube (para 0101, “the energy cable 248 are each offset from the longitudinal axis 202A of the shaft 202”; para 0100, “the energy cable 248 is above the cutting element cable 242… but can be at any location”). Therefore, it is contemplated that the wiring may be below the central axis of the insertion tube. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the wiring lower than the link mechanism, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
30. 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.
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNIE L SHOULDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (alternate Fridays) 8AM-5PM 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. 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.
/ANNIE L SHOULDERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794