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
The cancellation of claims 13-20, and the amendments to claims 1-2 and 5-9 in the response filed on 17 November, 2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application.
Claims 13-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-12 are examined.
Drawings
The formal drawings submitted have been reviewed by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) and/or the USPTO Office of Draftspersons’ Patent Drawings Review. The drawings have not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The applicant's amendments to claims 1 and 6-8 to overcome the 35 USC § 112 rejections of the previous action are acknowledged, and the rejections are withdrawn.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Landey et al. (US 2018/0280660) in view of Choi et al. (US 2019/0351187).
In regards to claim 1, Landey discloses an attachment mechanism for using an endoscope with a surgical robot, the attachment mechanism comprising:
a fixture [projection from arm 610 comprising 615, 620, 625, Fig.6, para.106] configured to receive a handle [605, Fig.6, para.106] of the endoscope such that a longitudinal axis of the handle is oriented parallel with a longitudinal axis of the fixture and an elongate shaft of the endoscope extends distally away from the fixture [Fig.6]; and
a mount [interface where the projection meets arm 610, Fig.6, para.107] secured to the fixture;
wherein the mount is configured to attach the fixture to the surgical robot [Fig.6, para.107];
wherein the fixture includes a retainer [615, Fig.6, para.107] configured to releasably secure the handle within the fixture;
wherein a first motor [para.108: “one or more motors”] is operably coupled to a first drive mechanism [620], the first drive mechanism being configured to engage the handle of the endoscope to operate a deflection mechanism of the endoscope [para.108: given an appropriate deflection mechanism operated by “rotating a wheel or grip of the handle”, noting the endoscope is not positively claimed herein.].
However, Landey does not positively teach that the fixture includes the first motor, or particularly teach where the first motor is located.
Landey further discloses wherein the first drive mechanism is configured to rotate a held portion of the endoscope about its longitudinal axis [Fig.6, para.51, 106, 108]
Choi teaches a fixture for holding and manipulating a cylindrical medical device comprising a first drive mechanism [61, 63, 81, 83, Figs.1-4, para.60-61, 67] configured to rotate a held portion of the medical device about its longitudinal axis, the fixture including a first motor [85, Fig.4, para.66-67] operably coupled to the first drive mechanism.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the fixture disclosed by Landey to have a first motor in accordance with the teachings of Choi. This would be done as Choi teaches it is known in the art to drive such a rotary first mechanism with a motor included in the same fixture.
In regards to claim 5, Landey in view of Choi teaches the attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein the retainer includes a clamping portion [Landey: portion of 620 encircling 605, Fig.6] and a latching portion [Landey: portion extending down to the portion of 620 encircling 605, Fig.6].
In regards to claim 6, Landey in view of Choi teaches the attachment mechanism of claim 5, wherein the clamping portion is movably attached to a body of the fixture and configured to rotate about a pivot axis oriented generally parallel to the longitudinal axis of the fixture [Landey: para.51, 106, 108].
In regards to claim 7, Landey in view of Choi teaches the attachment mechanism of claim 5, wherein the clamping portion is configured to cooperate with a body of the fixture to surround at least a portion of the handle in a closed configuration [Landey: Fig.6: Note that this claim limitation is extremely broad.].
In regards to claim 8, Landey in view of Choi teaches the attachment mechanism of claim 7, wherein the latching portion is configured to secure the clamping portion relative to a body of the fixture in the closed configuration [Landey: Fig.6: Note that this claim limitation is extremely broad].
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Landey et al. (US 2018/0280660) in view of Choi et al. (US 2019/0351187) and Goodrich (US 120,156).
In regards to claim 2, Landey in view of Choi teaches the attachment mechanism of claim 1, however does not positively teach wherein the mount includes a plurality of apertures formed in a mounting plate, the plurality of apertures being configured to align with a plurality of mounting holes formed in a distal flange of the surgical robot.
Goodrich teaches where a projecting member [d or k, Fig.2] may be attached to another object via a mount comprising a plurality of apertures [holes e for f, Fig.1] formed in a mounting plate [a, Figs.1, 3, col.2 ll.7-10, 16-23], the plurality of apertures being configured to align with a plurality of mounting holes formed in another object [Fig.2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the mount of Landey in view of Choi to have a plurality of apertures formed in a mounting plate in accordance with the teaching of Goodrich. This is as Goodrich teaches that it is known to attach a projecting object to another object via such a mounting plate.
This would create a device where, additionally, the plurality of apertures would be configured to align with a plurality of mounting holes formed in a distal flange of the surgical robot [Landey: Fig.6, Goodrich: Fig.1, as this would be attaching to a distal flange of arm 610 of Landey].
Examiner strenuously suggests the cancellation or extensive amendment of claims 2-4, as these are presently directed towards fundamental mechanisms of attaching one object to another, so fundamental that they are usually never discussed, and as they appear to be arbitrary design considerations for the applicant.
In regards to claim 3, Landey in view of Choi and Goodrich teaches the attachment mechanism of claim 2, wherein the longitudinal axis of the fixture extends generally perpendicular to the mounting plate [Landey: Fig.6, Goodrich: Fig.1].
In regards to claim 4, Landey in view of Choi and Goodrich teaches the attachment mechanism of claim 2, however does not positively teach wherein the longitudinal axis of the fixture extends generally parallel to the mounting plate,
instead teaching the longitudinal axis of the fixture extending generally perpendicular to the mounting plate [Landey: Fig.6, Goodrich: Fig.1]
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the longitudinal axis of the fixture extending generally perpendicular to the mounting plate of Landey in view of Choi and Goodrich to the longitudinal axis extending generally perpendicular to the mounting plate, because Applicant has not disclosed that this feature provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the longitudinal axis of the fixture extending generally perpendicular to the mounting plate as taught by Landey in view of Choi and Goodrich, because it provides attachment of one object to another and since it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Landey in view of Choi and Goodrich.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the mount of Landey in view of Choi and Goodrich to obtain the invention as specified in the claim(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to teach, among other features, an attachment mechanism for using an endoscope with a surgical robot, the attachment mechanism comprising:
a manipulator configured to hold an endoscope handle such that a longitudinal axis of the handle is parallel with a longitudinal axis of the manipulator and an elongate shaft of the endoscope extends distally away from the manipulator,
a mount secured to the manipulator, the mount configured to attach the manipulator to the surgical robot,
wherein the manipulator comprises a retainer and a first motor,
the retainer configured to releasably secure the handle within the manipulator;
the first motor operably coupled to a first driving mechanism, the first driving mechanism configured to engage the endoscope handle to operate an endoscope deflection mechanism, wherein
(claim 9) the mount comprises a second motor operably coupled to a second drive mechanism, the second drive mechanism configured to rotate the manipulator relative to the mount,
OR
(claim 12) the first drive mechanism includes plural gears operably connecting the first motor to a drive shaft configured to engage the deflection mechanism.
Mizuno et al. (US 5,876,325) discloses the above except for the retainer being configured to releasably secure the endoscope handle in the manipulator, or the particulars of claims 9 and 12.
Cooper et al. (US 6,451,027) discloses the above except for the first drive mechanism, or the particulars of claims 9 and 12.
Olds (US 2012/0065470) discloses the above except for the manipulator comprising the motor, or the particulars of claims 9 and 12.
Landey et al. (US 2018/0280660) teaches the above except for the manipulator comprising the motor, or the particulars of claims 9 and 12.
Choi et al. (US 2019/0351187) teaches a fixture for holding and manipulating a cylindrical medical device comprising a first drive mechanism configured to rotate a held portion of the medical device about its longitudinal axis, the fixture including a first motor operably coupled to the first drive mechanism.
In obvious combination, the cited art teaches the above device except for the particulars of claims 9 and 12.
There is no reason or suggestion provided in the prior art to modify the above prior art to have the additional features as claimed above, and the only reason to modify the references would be based on Applicant's disclosure, which is impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection (eg. new art) 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 AARON B FAIRCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-5276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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.
/AARON B FAIRCHILD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795