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, see Remarks, filed 11/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 20040049205 (Lee – previously presented).
Since the examiner is using different sections of the reference to form a 103 rejection, this action is being marked as a second non-final rejection.
The applicant argues that the sliding movement of the carriage has no connection to the cable segments 220, 222 of the coupling system 200 or the movement of the surgical instrument. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. See paragraphs [0005]-[0007], [0059], [0064] which states that “When the system 10 is in operation, as the carriage 58 moves back and forth with the linear motion B-B (FIG. 9E), the cable segments 220 and 222 roll freely over the pulleys 202, 204, 206, and 208 without rotating the driven capstan 232. That is, the linear movement of the carriage 58 does not influence, and is therefore decoupled from, the degrees-of-freedom of movement C-C, D-D, E-E, F-F, and G-G.”
The applicant argues that Lee is silent as to any magnification of the movement. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. The claim as written does not provide any details regarding the magnification of the movement amount. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, any magnification of the movement, whether positive or negative, would read over the claimed limitation. Here, the surgeon’s operation of the system which results in the movement of the tool is understood to be magnified due to the nature of the operation of the device. Also see para 0021 stating “the cable coupling mechanism provides a 2:1 ratio reduction of cable length movement”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No 20040049205 to Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1. Lee discloses a surgical tool (e.g., para 0048 “surgical instrument 14”) comprising: a slider disposed movably in a linear direction relative to a main body (e.g., para 0034, 0057-0059, 0064 “carriage 58 of the slider mechanism 34”), the main body including at least a treatment portion configured to perform a medical procedure (e.g., para 0051 “surgical instrument 14 [] tool 44”, para 0057 “surgical system 14 is coupled to a carriage 58 of the slider mechanism”); a plurality of converters configured to move a converted movement amount which is obtained by converting a movement amount of the slider with a magnification factor (e.g., para 0005-0007, 0021, 0059 “Each movement is driven from a respective motor capstan 22 a of the drive unit or array 22 through push/pull wires or cables of the bundle of cables 36 coupled to the slider mechanism 34”, para 0063-0064 “coupling system”, figs 4, 7-9E); and a plurality of transmission wires configured to transmit the converted movement amount to the treatment portion (e.g., para 0063, 0064, fig. 7-9E, “cable segments”).
Regarding claim 2. Lee discloses the surgical tool according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of converters comprises: a plurality of conversion wires (e.g., para 0062-0063, fig. 7-9E, “cable segments”), each conversion wire having a first end attached to the slider and a second end attached to the main body (para 0062, 0063 “anchors”); and a plurality of movable pulleys (para 0063 “stationary pulleys fixed to the slider” are understood to move relative to the overall device; and/or “sliding pulleys”), wherein the plurality of conversion wires are disposed along circumferential surfaces of the plurality of movable pulleys (para 0063 “cable 230”).
Regarding claim 3. Lee discloses the surgical tool according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of converters are disposed on a first side and on a second side of moving directions of the slider, the second side being opposite from the first side (fig 3, 7-8, it is noted that sides are not identified).
Regarding claim 4. The surgical tool according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of converters are disposed on a first side and on a second side of moving directions of the slider, the second side being opposite from the first side (fig 3, 7-8, it is noted that sides are not identified,).
Regarding claim 5. Lee discloses a surgical tool (e.g., para 0048 “surgical instrument 14”) comprising: a main body (e.g., para 0034, 0057 “carriage 58 of the slider mechanism 34”) including a treatment portion (e.g., para 0048 “endoscope 15”); a slider disposed in the main body and configured to move linearly relative to the main body (e.g., para 0034, 0057 “carriage 58 of the slider mechanism 34”); a plurality of converters coupled to the slider and to the main body, and configured to move a converted movement amount which is obtained by applying a magnification factor to a movement amount of the slider (e.g., para 0063 “coupling system”, figs 4, 7-9E); and a plurality of transmission wires coupled to the plurality of converters and the treatment portion, and configured to transmit the converted movement amount to the treatment portion (e.g., para 0063, fig. 7-9E, “cable segments”).
Regarding claim 6. Lee discloses the surgical tool according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of converters comprises: a plurality of conversion wires (e.g., para 0062-0063, fig. 7-9E, “cable segments”), each conversion wire having a first end attached to the slider and a second end attached to the main body (para 0062, 0063 “anchors”); and a plurality of movable pulleys (para 0063 “stationary pulleys fixed to the slider” are understood to move relative to the overall device; and/or “sliding pulleys”), wherein the plurality of conversion wires are disposed along circumferential surfaces of the plurality of movable pulleys (para 0063 “cable 230”).
Regarding claim 7. Lee discloses the surgical tool according to claim 6, wherein the plurality of converters are disposed on lateral sides of the slider (fig 3, 7-8, it is noted that sides are not identified).
Regarding claim 8. The surgical tool according to claim 5, wherein the plurality of converters are disposed on lateral sides of the slider (fig 3, 7-8, it is noted that sides are not identified, it is further understood that duplication of parts is not novel, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 pm.
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, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796