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 Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 15 September 2025. As per the amendment: Claims 1, 4, and 7-17 have been amended, claims 2-3 have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1 and 4-20 are presently pending and under examination.
The Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims filed 15 September 2025 have overcome the previous objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 17 June 2025.
Response to Arguments
Response to Arguments regarding 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 17 June 2025, however, in view of the amendments made claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under a new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
Response to Arguments regarding 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to incorporate the features of now cancelled claims 2-3, specifically claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the limitation of “a third guide mechanism…the third guide mechanism and a third segment cable arranged between the third guide mechanism and the proximal end of the elongate shaft in a third direction; the proximal end of the elongate shaft is located at an edge of the housing of the drive device, and the third guide mechanism is located at an edge of the housing of the drive device; the third guide mechanism comprised a plurality of pulley groups for guiding the plurality of cables, the plurality of pulley groups are located on a plurality of first planes which are substantially parallel to each other”. Additionally, applicant argues that Rogers fails to disclose a third guiding mechanism and a third segment of the cable as there is no cable between the capstan 352 and the transmission 350, the transmission 350 serves as a structure for winding and unwinding the cables and does not play a guiding role.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rogers’ capstan 352 acts as the first guide mechanism, pulley 366B acts as the second guide mechanism, and pulley 366A acts as the third guide mechanism. The capstan can act as a first guide mechanism as it is responsible for taking in or paying out the control or drive cables 380,382 (Column 9, lines 52-53), thus guiding the cables in a longitudinal direction. Examiner would like to note that the definition of guid[ing] is “directing the motion of something” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guiding) and thus the capstan is directing the cables up or down.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “plurality of cables which are substantially parallel to each other and are closely spaced form a cable”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim recites “wherein the plurality of cables are adjacent cables after being guided by the first guide mechanism”, where adjacent is defined as “not distant” or “nearby” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjacent) which is taught by Waterbury as discussed in detail below.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “in a third direction opposite to the first direction”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 recites “the third segment cable extends in the elongate shaft in a third direction”, but does not clarify if the third direction is the same or the opposite of the first direction, thus Rogers has been used to teach the limitation as described in detail below.
Applicant further argues He fails to disclose that the second guide mechanism and the third segment cable extends in the elongate shaft and that the proximal end of the elongate shaft is located at an edge of the drive device. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner has used Rogers to teach those limitations.
Therefore, claims 1, 4, 17, and 19-20 are now rejected under 35 USC 103.
No additional specific arguments were presented with previous 35 U.S.C. rejections of dependent claims 4-20, nor specifically with respect to the previously cited Prisco references.
Therefore, claims 4-20 are rejected as described below under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 and 4-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the housing of the drive device" in lines 17 and 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 4-20 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al. (US Patent 10,959,607 B2, previously cited), hereinafter Rogers or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rogers in view of Waterbury et al. (US Patent 11,241,290 B2, previously cited), hereinafter Waterbury.
Regarding claim 1, Rogers teaches a surgical instrument (Figure 3A: a robotic surgical tool 101), comprising a drive device (Figure 3A: housing 301, transmission mechanism 303), a plurality of cables(Figure 3B: drive cables 380,382), an elongate shaft(Figure 3A: a body tube or shaft 106) and an end instrument(Figure 3A: an end effector 348) located at a distal end of the elongate shaft (view Figure 3A), the plurality of cables being connected between the drive device and the end instrument (Figure 3A-3C), wherein the drive device comprises:
a plurality of drive units (Figure 3B: rotatable drivers 310), the plurality of cables being connected, at an end, to the plurality of drive units (Figure 3B: shows the drivers connected to the cables 382, Column 8, lines 22-23: “The end effector 348 is a steerable head and may be steered by control cables actuated by rotatable drivers 310.”); and
a first guide mechanism(Figure 3B: spool or capstan 352), a second guide mechanism(Figure 3B: pulleys 366B) and a third guide mechanism (Figure 3B: pulley 366A), wherein the plurality of cables are adjacent cables after being guided by the first guide mechanism (Figure 3B: view the cables 380,382 passed from the capstan, Column 9, lines 52-53: ” the rotational motion to the capstan 352 to take in or pay out the control or drive cables 380, 382” ), the adjacent cables comprise a first segment cable (view Examiner modified Figure 3B) arranged between the first guide mechanism and the second guide mechanism(view Figure 3B: cables 380 and 382 present between capstan 352 and pulley 366B), a second segment cable (view Examiner modified Figure 3B) arranged between the second guide mechanism and the third guide mechanism (view Figure 3B: cables 380 and 382 between pulleys 366b and 366a, Figure 3C, Column 9, lines 45-46: “The one or more pulleys 366 are pivotally coupled to one end of a shaft”), and a third segment cable arranged between the third guide mechanism and the proximal end of the elongate shaft (view Examiner modified Figure 3B, view Figures 3A-3C: it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the cables 380,382 appear to extend down), the first segment cable extends to the second guide mechanism in a first direction (view Examiner modified Figure 3B: D1), the second segment cable extends toward the proximal end of the elongate shaft in a second direction (view Examiner modified Figure 3B: D2) different from the first direction (From Examiner modified Figure 3B and original Figure 3B: one can see that the directions are nearly perpendicular ), and the third segment cable extends in the elongate shaft in a third direction (view Examiner modified Figure 3B: D3);
the third guide mechanism comprises a plurality of pulley groups (Figure 3B: pulley 366A on the right and left) for guiding the plurality of cables (view Figure 3B, Column 9, lines 36-37: “each control cable 380, 382 the transmission mechanism may include one or more pulleys 366 to direct the cable”), the plurality of pulley groups are located on a plurality of first planes which are substantially parallel to each other (view Figure 3B, view Examiner Modified Figure 3B: pulleys 366A are both rotating on the yz-plane).
Rogers fails to explicitly disclose the proximal end of the elongate shaft is located at an edge of the housing of the drive device, and the third guide mechanism is located at an edge of the housing of the drive device. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the proximal end of the elongate shaft to be located at an edge of the drive device since it has been held, the arrangement of the elongate shaft would be an obvious matter of design choice whether the proximal end of the elongate shaft is located at the middle as shown by Rogers or the edge of the drive device as both are obvious arrangements of the device and would not have modified the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04 V1-C. Additionally, Rogers discloses the third guide mechanism (Figure 3B: pulley 366A ) is located at the proximal end of the elongate shaft (view Figure 3B) thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to position the proximal end of the elongate shaft to be located at an edge of the drive device and the third guide mechanism is located at an edge of the housing of the drive device since it has been held that the arrangement of the elongate shaft and the third guide mechanism would be an obvious matter of design choice as it is an obvious arrangement of the device and would not have modified the operation of the device.
Alternatively, Waterbury teaches mechanisms for conserving cable length, more specifically to medical devices, and still more specifically to endoscopic tools a first guide mechanism(idler pulleys 432), a second guide mechanism(movable pulleys 442) and a third guide mechanism (idler pulleys 436), wherein the plurality of cables are adjacent cables after being guided by the first guide mechanism (cables 222a and 222b, view Figure 4A: the cables 222a and 222b are combined after passing through 432, Column 13, lines 62-67: “Cables 222a and 222b wrap in opposite directions about one or more capstans mounted on the axle of spindle 412, and from there are routed by fixed idler pulleys 432, movable pulleys 442 on a pivot arm 440, and then fixed idler pulleys 436 that redirect cables 222a and 222b into main shaft 420.”), wherein the proximal end of the elongate shaft is located at an edge of the housing of the drive device (view Figures 4 and 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rogers to incorporate the teachings of Waterbury to have the proximal end of the elongate shaft to be located at an edge of the drive device, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to the surgical instruments. One would be motivated to do this to ensure there is no collision with the driver device base and the patient.
Regarding claim 17, Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) discloses the surgical instrument of claim 1 (as shown above).
Rogers fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first guide mechanism is located in a center of the plurality of drive units. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the first guide mechanism in a middle area of the plurality of drive units since it has been held, the arrangement of the first guide mechanism would be an obvious matter of design choice whether the first guide mechanism is located at the side as shown by Rogers or the middle area of the drive units both obvious arrangements of the device and would not have modified the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04 V1-C.
Alternatively, Waterbury teaches mechanisms for conserving cable length, more specifically to medical devices, and still more specifically to endoscopic tools wherein the first guide mechanism (pivot arm 440 with pulleys) is located in a middle area of the plurality of drive units (four input spindles 412, 414, 416, and 418).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rogers to incorporate the teachings of Waterbury to have the first guide mechanism located in the middle area of the plurality of drive units, as these prior art references are directed to surgical instruments using cables. One would be motivated to do this to conserve overall cable lengths (Column 15, lines 15-24).
Regarding claim 19, Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) discloses a slave operating equipment (Figure 1A: patient side cart 152), comprising a mechanical arm (Figure 1A: robotic arm 158) and the surgical instrument (Figure 1A: a plurality of robotic surgical tools 101A-101E, Column 4, lines 43-47) according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the surgical instrument is mounted on the mechanical arm (view Figure 1A, Column 5, lines 51-55: “The robotic surgical arm 158 includes an actuating end 116 with a moveable platform 112 to which the plurality of robotic instruments 101A-101C and the entry guide 108 may couple”), and the mechanical arm is configured to control the movement of the surgical instrument (Column 5, lines 49-51: “The robotic surgical arm 158 is used to control the actuation of the robotic instruments 101A-101C and the entry guide 108”).
Regarding claim 20, Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) discloses a surgical robot (Figure 1A: robotic surgery system 100), comprising a master operating equipment (Figure 1A: master control console 150) and the slave operating equipment (Figure 1A: patient side cart 152) according to claim 19 (as shown above), wherein the slave operating equipment performs corresponding operations according to the instructions of the master operating equipment (Column 4, lines 35-42: “A user or operator O (generally a surgeon) performs a minimally invasive surgical procedure on patient P by manipulating control input devices 160 at a master control console 150. A computer 151 of the console 150 directs movement of robotically controlled endoscopic surgical instruments 101A-101E via control lines 159, effecting movement of the instruments using the robotic patient-side system 152 (also referred to as a patient-side cart).”).
Claim(s) 4-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (or Rogers and Waterbury) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rogers (or Rogers and Waterbury) in view of He et al. (EP 3 508 158 A1, previously cited), hereinafter He.
PNG
media_image1.png
615
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Modified Figure 2
Regarding claim 4, Rogers (alternatively in view of Waterbury) discloses the surgical instrument of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the first guide mechanism comprises a plurality of first pulleys (Figure 3B: spool or capstan 352 located on the right and left of the figure), rotation axles of the plurality of first pulleys are substantially perpendicular to rotation axles of the plurality of drive units (view Figure 3B where the rotatable drivers 310 rotate in the horizontal plane and have a vertical rotation axle whereas the capstan 352 rotates in the vertical plane and has a horizonal rotation axle).
Alternatively regarding claim 4, Rogers (alternatively in view of Waterbury) discloses the surgical instrument of claim 1 (as shown above). Rogers fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first guide mechanism comprises a plurality of first pulleys, rotation axles of the plurality of first pulleys are substantially perpendicular to rotation axles of the plurality of drive units.
However, He teaches wherein the first guide mechanism comprises a plurality of first pulleys (guide wheels 14, 16, 111, and 112), rotation axles of the plurality of first pulleys are substantially perpendicular (view Figure 2 which shows the plane or rotation of the pulleys is different to the one from the rotating bodies) to rotation axles of the plurality of drive units (view the arrow above the wire rotating body 12 and 18 in Figure 2).
It would have been prima facia for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rogers to incorporate the teachings of He to have the first guide mechanism comprise a plurality of first pulleys, rotation axles of first pulleys are substantially perpendicular to rotation axles of the plurality of drive units, as these prior art references are directed to surgical instruments. One would be motivated to do this to create a compact configuration and to keep the cable free from entanglement.
Regarding claim 5, Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) in view of He teaches the surgical instrument of claim 4 (as shown above). Roger further discloses wherein the second guide mechanism comprises a plurality of second pulleys (Figure 3B: pulley 366B on the right and left), rotation axels of the plurality of second pulley are substantially perpendicular to rotation axles of the plurality of drive units (view Figure 3B where the rotatable drivers 310 rotate in the horizontal plane whereas the pulley 366B rotates in the vertical plane).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at having a plurality of second pulleys to accommodate a plurality of cables, recognizing that having a plurality of pulleys for a plurality of cables can prevent tangling and interference between the cables, which are desirable characteristics, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 V1-B. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) in view of He teaches the surgical instrument of claim 5 (as shown above). Roger further discloses wherein the third guide mechanism comprises a plurality of third pulleys (Figure 3B: pulley 366A on the right and left), rotation axels of the plurality of third pulleys are substantially perpendicular to rotation axles of the plurality of drive units (view Figure 3B where the rotatable drivers 310 rotate in the horizontal plane whereas the pulley 366A rotates in the vertical plane).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at having a plurality of third pulleys to accommodate a plurality of cables, recognizing that having a plurality of pulleys for a plurality of cables can prevent tangling and interference between the cables, which are desirable characteristics, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 V1-B. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not discloses any criticality for the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) in view of He teaches the surgical instrument of claim 5 (as shown above).
Roger fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of cables comprises a first cable, an acute angle is formed between the first rotation axle of the pulley that guides the first cable among the plurality of first pulleys and a second rotation axle of the pulley that guides the first cable among the plurality for second pulleys.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an acute angle formed between the first rotation axle of the pulley that guides the first cable among the plurality of first pulleys and a second rotation axle of the pulley that guides the first cable among the plurality for second pulleys since it has been held, the arrangement of the rotation axles to form an acute angle would be an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04 V1-C.
Regarding claim 8, Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) in view of He teaches the surgical instrument of claim 7 (as shown above). Rogers further discloses wherein the plurality of cables further comprises a second cable (cable 382), the first rotation axle of the pulley that guides the second cable among the plurality of first pulleys (capstan 352, view Figure 3B: the first rotation axle goes from left to right, i.e. yz plane) is substantially perpendicular to the second rotation axle of the pulley (pulley 366B, view Figure 3B: the second rotation axle of the pulley goes from in and out of the page, i.e. xz plane) that guides the second cable among the plurality of second pulleys (view Figure 3B: the axles of the first pulley (i.e. capstan) and the second pulley appear to be perpendicular).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate having the first axle of the pulley that guides the second cable among the plurality of first pulleys to be substantially perpendicular to the second axle of the pulley that guides the second cable among the plurality of second pulleys, since it has been held, the arrangement of the pulley’s axles would be an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04 V1-C.
Regarding claim 9, Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) in view of He teaches the surgical instrument of claim 8(as shown above).
Roger fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of cables comprises a third cable, and the first rotation axle of the pulley that guides the third cable among the plurality of first pulleys is substantially parallel to the second rotation axle of the pulley that guides the third cable among the plurality for second pulleys.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate having wherein the plurality of cables comprises a third cable, and the first axle of the pulley that guides the third cable among the plurality of first pulleys is substantially parallel to the second rotation axle of the pulley that guides the third cable among the plurality for second pulleys, since it has been held, the arrangement of the rotation axles to be parallel would be an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04 V1-C.
Regarding claim 15, Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) in view of He teaches the surgical instrument of claim 4 (as shown above).
Roger fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of first pulleys of the first guide mechanism is adjustable to lie on different heights within the drive device.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to make at least one of the plurality of first pulleys of the first guide mechanism is adjustable since it has been held, that the adjustability, where needed, is not patentable advance. See MPEP 2144.04 V-D.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to position at least one of the plurality of first pulleys of the first guide mechanism to lie on different heights within the drive device since it has been held, the arrangement of the first guide mechanism would be an obvious matter of design choice would not have modified the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04 V1-C.
Regarding claim 16, Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) in view of He teaches the surgical instrument of claim 5 (as shown above).
Roger fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of second pulleys of the second guide mechanism is adjustable to lie on different heights within the drive device.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to make at least one of the plurality of second pulleys of the second guide mechanism is adjustable since it has been held, that the adjustability, where needed, is not patentable advance. See MPEP 2144.04 V-D.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to position at least one of the plurality of second pulleys of the second guide mechanism to lie on different levels within the drive device since it has been held, the arrangement of the second guide mechanism would be an obvious matter of design choice would not have modified the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04 V1-C.
Regarding claim 10, Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) discloses the surgical instrument of claim 1 (as shown above), Roger further teaches a plurality of drive units (Figure 3B: rotatable drivers 310), however, Rogers fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of cables comprise a plurality of first cable segments formed between the plurality of drive units and the first guide mechanism, and a lengthwise direction of any cable segment of the plurality of first cable segments is substantially perpendicular to the lengthwise direction of the first segment cable .
He teaches wherein the plurality of cables comprise a plurality of first cable segments (view Examiner modified Figure 2A) formed between the plurality of drive units (Figure 2: first wire rotating body 12, second wire rotating body 18) and the first guide mechanism (guide wheel 14,16, 111, 112), and a lengthwise direction of any cable segment of the plurality of first cable segments is substantially perpendicular to the lengthwise direction of the first segment cable (view Examiner modified Figure 2A).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rogers to incorporate the teachings of He to have the plurality of cables comprise a plurality of first cable segments formed between the plurality of drive units and the first guide mechanism and a lengthwise direction of any cable segment of the plurality of first cable segments is substantially perpendicular to the lengthwise direction of the first segment cable, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to surgical instruments. One would be motivated to do this to maintain a compact configuration and to keep the cables free from entanglement while conserving cable length and functionality.
Regarding claim 11, Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) in view of He teaches the surgical instrument of claim 10 (as shown above).
Rogers discloses wherein the cable segments of the plurality of cables in the first segment cable are substantially parallel to each other (view Examiner modified Figure 3B: the first segment cable on the right and left of the figure are shown to be parallel to each other).
Additionally, He teaches wherein the cable segments of the plurality of cables in the first segment cable are substantially parallel to each other (view Examiner modified Figure 2A: the marked cables appear parallel to each other).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rogers to incorporate the teachings of He to have the cable segments of the plurality of cables in the first segment cable are substantially parallel to each other, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to surgical instruments. One would be motivated to do this to maintain a compact configuration and to keep the cables free from entanglement while conserving cable length and functionality.
Regarding claim 12, Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) in view of He teaches the surgical instrument of claim 11 (as shown above). Rogers fails to explicitly disclose wherein cable segments of at least two of the plurality of cables in the second cable are substantially parallel to each other.
However, He teaches wherein cable segments of at least two of the plurality of cables in the second cable are substantially parallel to each other (view Examiner modified Figure 2A: the two marked second segment cable s seem close to parallel to each other).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rogers to incorporate the teachings of He to have cable segments of at least two of the plurality of cables in the second cable are substantially parallel to each other, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to surgical instruments. One would be motivated to do this to maintain a compact configuration and to keep the cables free from entanglement while conserving cable length and functionality.
Regarding claim 13, Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) in view of He teaches the surgical instrument of claim 12 (as shown above).
Rogers further teaches wherein the lengthwise direction of the third segment cable is substantially perpendicular to a lengthwise direction of the second segment cable (view Examiner modified Figure 3B: the Examiner drawn in third segment appears nearly perpendicular to the second segment cable).
Additionally, He teaches wherein the lengthwise direction of the third segment cable is substantially perpendicular to a lengthwise direction of the second segment cable (view Examiner modified Figure 2A: the labeled third segment cable s appear to be perpendicular to the labeled second segment cable).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rogers to incorporate the teachings of He to have the lengthwise direction of the third segment cable is substantially perpendicular to a lengthwise direction of the second segment cable , as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to surgical instruments. One would be motivated to do this to maintain a compact configuration and to keep the cables free from entanglement while conserving cable length and functionality.
Regarding claim 14, Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) in view of He teaches the surgical instrument of claim 13 (as shown above).
Roger fails to disclose wherein the cable segments of the plurality of cables in the third segment cable are substantially parallel to each other.
However, He teaches wherein the cable segments of the plurality of cables in the third segment cable are substantially parallel to each other (view Examiner modified Figure 2A: the labeled third segment cable s appear to be parallel).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rogers to incorporate the teachings of He to have the cable segments of the plurality of cables in the third segment cable are substantially parallel to each other, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to surgical instruments. One would be motivated to do this to maintain a compact configuration and to keep the cables free from entanglement while conserving cable length and functionality.
PNG
media_image2.png
615
713
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Modified Figure 2A
[AltContent: textbox (z)][AltContent: textbox (x)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (y)]
PNG
media_image3.png
545
609
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner Modified Figure 3B
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schuh (US Patent 10,682,189 B2), hereinafter Schuh.
Regarding claim 17, Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) discloses the surgical instrument of claim 1 (as shown above).
Rogers fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first guide mechanism is located in a center of the plurality of drive units.
However, Schuh teaches a surgical instrument controlled by cables wherein the first guide mechanism (guidance pulleys 530) is located in a center (Figure 5, Column 6, lines 54-65: “In the center of the support base is an operative through-hole 518 through the support base 510… Along the outer edge of the operative through-hole are a set of four guidance pulleys 530, two outer 530a, 530d and two inner 530b, 530”) of the plurality of drive units (rotary joints 570).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rogers to incorporate the teachings of Schuh to have the first guide mechanism located in the center of the plurality of drive units, as these prior art references are directed to surgical instruments using cables. One would be motivated to do this to conserve overall cable lengths.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (or alternatively in view of Waterbury) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prisco et al. (US Patent 10,779,803 B2, previously cited), hereinafter Prisco.
Regarding claim 18, Rogers discloses the surgical instrument of claim 1 (as shown above). Roger fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first guide mechanism and/or the second guide mechanism comprise conduits for guiding the plurality of cables.
However, Prisco teaches an elongate instrument wherein “the body 266 comprises multiple actuation conditions 355 d together to guide actuation cables 360 into the steerable portion 268” (Column 13, lines 17-22).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rogers to incorporate the teachings of Prisco to have the first guide mechanism and/or the second guide mechanism comprise conduits for guiding the plurality of cables, as these prior art references are directed to surgical instruments. One would be motivated to do this to guide the actuation cables and improves the controllability of the device (Column 14, lines 32-36).
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 ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 5712724156. 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.
/ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/MICHAEL W KAHELIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights