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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant further argues that claims 5 (understood to mean 7) and 15 are patentable over the applied references for the same reasons. While examiner agreed that the limitations of claim 1 overcome the prior art, it is not agreed that claims 7 and 15 comprise the same allowable features. Namely, claim 1 required that the proximal end portion of the shaft is threadedly coupled to the outer housing and comprises the driven gear, thus requiring two distinct and simultaneously present features – a threaded segment and a driven gear. However, claims 7 and 15 require that the proximal end portion of the shaft is rotationally coupled to the outer housing and comprises the driven gear, which can be achieved by having only the driven gear. Therefore, it is the examiners position that the device of Lia/Parihar still meets the requirements of claims 7 and 15 because the proximal end portion of the shaft comprises the driven gear, as taught by Parihar, and is also rotatable relative to the outer housing, as a result of driving the driven gear. Therefore, applicants’ arguments regarding claim 7 and 15 are not found to be persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-6 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious the proximal end portion of the shaft is threadedly coupled to the outer housing and a driven gear coupled to the proximal end portion such that rotation of the driven gear rotates the shaft, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 8-10 and 16-17 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious the proximal end portion of the shaft being threadedly coupled to the outer housing, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
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) 7, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lia et al. (US 2005/0168571) in view of Parihar et al. (US 2016/0067001).
Regarding claim 7, Lia et al. discloses a surgical instrument (10, FIG 1A, [0026]) for use with a surgical robotic system (The instrument is at least capable of being used as a component of a robotic system), the surgical instrument comprising: an outer housing (160, FIG 2C, [0031]) configured to be engaged with an instrument drive unit (34, FIG 2C, [0027-0028, 0031]); a shaft (18, FIG 1A, 1B, 2C) extending distally from the outer housing (FIG 2C) and having a proximal end portion (152’) rotationally coupled to a distal end portion of the outer housing ([0031] discloses threaded flexible tube termination block 152' is placed in a corresponding threaded housing 160), an end effector (22) coupled to a distal end portion of the shaft (FIG 1B wherein camera head 22 is the end effector, [0027]), and at least one cable (108) extending between the outer housing and the end effector (FIG 2C, [0028]), the at least one cable configured to perform at least one function of the end effector ([0028], the cable articulates the end effector), wherein the shaft is configured to move axially relative to the outer housing in response to a rotation of the shaft relative to the outer housing ([0031]; the shaft is fixed to 152’ which is threadably engaged with an opening in the outer housing, therefore rotation results in axial transaction of the shaft relative to the housing) to adjust a tension in the at least one cable (As 18 moves relative to 160, the tension in cable 108 changes because they are attached to 34).
Lia teaches manual rotation of 152’ to translate the shaft and apply tension to the cables, and therefore is silent regarding a rotatable drive rod including a drive gear engaged with a driven gear coupled to the proximal end portion such that rotation of the driven gear rotates the shaft, wherein the shaft is configured to rotate in response to a rotation of the rotatable drive rod.
However, Parihar et al. discloses in the same field of endeavor a surgical instrument (200, FIG 14) having an end effector (206, [0158]), a shaft (208, FIG 15-16, [0160]), and an instrument drive unit (210, FIG 15 and 17), wherein a proximal end portion of the shaft is rotationally coupled to an outer housing (full housing shown in FIG 4) comprises a driven gear (220, FIG 16, [0160]) such that rotation of the driven gear rotates the shaft ([0160]), and further comprising a rotatable drive rod (246, FIG 17, [0162]) including a drive gear (248) engaged with the driven gear ([0162], 246 is operably connected through 248, which engages with 220 of the shaft 208), and the shaft is configured to rotate in response to a rotation of the rotatable drive rod ([0162] “Rotation of disc (244) thereby rotates outer shaft (208) of shaft assembly (202) through the rotation of drive shaft (246), helical gear (248), and helical gear (220)”). Further, this mechanism is used to articulate the end effector ([0172]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the manual rotation mechanism of Lia et al. with the arrangement taught by Parihar et al., including a rotatable drive rod having a drive gear engaged with a driven gear at the proximal end portion of the shaft wherein the shaft is configured to rotate in response to a rotation of the rotatable drive rod, for the purpose of utilizing a commonly known means in the art for applying a rotation of the shaft, with the additional benefit of configuring the device to be completely control by a robotic surgical system, thereby improving precision or operation.
Regarding claim 11, Lia et al./Parihar et la. disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 7. Lia et al. further discloses the at least one cable (108) has a proximal end portion disposed within the outer housing (FIG 2C, proximal end of 108 is attached to pulley 104 within the housing), and a distal end portion coupled to the end effector ([0028], distal end is connected to 22).
Regarding claim 15, Lia et al. discloses a surgical instrument (10, FIG 1A, [0026]) for use with a surgical robotic system (The instrument is at least capable of being used as a component of a robotic system), the surgical instrument comprising: an outer housing (160, FIG 2C, [0031]) configured to be engaged with an instrument drive unit (34, FIG 2C, [0027-0028, 0031]); a shaft (18, FIG 1A, 1B, 2C) extending distally from the outer housing (FIG 2C) and having a proximal end portion (152’) rotationally coupled to a distal end portion of the outer housing ([0031] discloses threaded flexible tube termination block 152' is placed in a corresponding threaded housing 160), an end effector (22) coupled to a distal end portion of the shaft (FIG 1B wherein camera head 22 is the end effector, [0027]), and at least one cable (108) extending between the outer housing and the end effector (FIG 2C, [0028]), the at least one cable configured to perform at least one function of the end effector ([0028], the cable articulates the end effector), wherein the shaft is configured to move axially relative to the outer housing in response to a rotation of the shaft relative to the outer housing ([0031]; the shaft is fixed to 152’ which is threadably engaged with an opening in the outer housing, therefore rotation results in axial transaction of the shaft relative to the housing) to adjust a tension in the at least one cable (As 18 moves relative to 160, the tension in cable 108 changes because they are attached to 34).
Lia et al. is silent regarding a surgical robotic system, comprising: a surgical robotic arm; an instrument drive unit configured to be supported on the surgical robotic arm, wherein the outer housing is configured to be operably engaged with the instrument drive unit.
However, Parihar et al. discloses in the same field of endeavor a surgical instrument (200, FIG 14) having an end effector (206, [0158]), a shaft (208, FIG 15-16, [0160]), and a surgical robotic system (10, FIG 1) comprising a surgical robotic arm (40, FIG 3, [0123]); an instrument drive unit (210, FIGs 15 and 17) configured to be supported on the surgical robotic arm (Via dock 72, [0158]), and an outer housing configured to be operably engaged with the instrument drive unit (FIG 4 shows housing 112. It is understood that base 214 of 210 also comprises a housing which is omitted for clarity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the surgical instrument of Lia to be operable connected to a surgical robotic arm and instrument drive unit, thereby forming a surgical robotic system, as taught by Parihar et al., for the purpose of operating the surgical instrument using a robotic system which is reliable predictable in its control and repeatability.
Lia teaches manual rotation of 152’ to translate the shaft and apply tension to the cables, and therefore is silent regarding a rotatable drive rod including a drive gear engaged with a driven gear coupled to the proximal end portion such that rotation of the driven gear rotates the shaft, wherein the shaft is configured to rotate in response to a rotation of the rotatable drive rod.
However, Parihar et al. discloses in the same field of endeavor a surgical instrument (200, FIG 14) having an end effector (206, [0158]), a shaft (208, FIG 15-16, [0160]), and an instrument drive unit (210, FIG 15 and 17), wherein a proximal end portion of the shaft is rotationally coupled to an outer housing (full housing shown in FIG 4) comprises a driven gear (220, FIG 16, [0160]) such that rotation of the driven gear rotates the shaft ([0160]), and further comprising a rotatable drive rod (246, FIG 17, [0162]) including a drive gear (248) engaged with the driven gear ([0162], 246 is operably connected through 248, which engages with 220 of the shaft 208), and the shaft is configured to rotate in response to a rotation of the rotatable drive rod ([0162] “Rotation of disc (244) thereby rotates outer shaft (208) of shaft assembly (202) through the rotation of drive shaft (246), helical gear (248), and helical gear (220)”). Further, this mechanism is used to articulate the end effector ([0172]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the manual rotation mechanism of Lia et al. with the arrangement taught by Parihar et al., including a rotatable drive rod having a drive gear engaged with a driven gear at the proximal end portion of the shaft wherein the shaft is configured to rotate in response to a rotation of the rotatable drive rod, for the purpose of utilizing a commonly known means in the art for applying a rotation of the shaft, with the additional benefit of configuring the device to be completely control by a robotic surgical system, thereby improving precision or operation.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lia et al. (US 2005/0168571) in view of Parihar et al. (US 2016/0067001), further in view of Anglese (US 2020/0261167).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, Lia/Parihar discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 7 and 15.
Lia is silent regarding a drive screw rotatably supported in the outer housing and configured to be drivingly coupled to an instrument drive unit; and a drive nut supported on the drive screw and having a proximal end portion of the at least one cable fixed thereto, wherein the drive nut is configured to translate relative to the drive screw in response to a rotation of the drive screw to translate the at least one cable.
However, Anglese teaches a surgical instrument (10, FIG 1A and 3) having a shaft (30) a plurality of cables (38, FIG 3, [0050-0051]), and end effector (40), an outer housing (formed collectively by 212, 222, 232, FIG 1A and 3) and a drive screw (350, 370) rotatable supported in the outer housing (FIG 3) and configured to be drivingly coupled to an instrument drive unit (240,250, 260, 270) and a drive nut (346, [0070]) supported on the drive screw (FIG 2) and having a proximal end portion of the at least one cable fixed thereto ([0072-0074]), wherein the drive nut is configured to translate relative to the drive screw in response to a rotation of the drive screw to translate the at least one cable ([0072-0074 and 0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the substitute the pulley of Lia to comprise the drive screw and drive nut attached to the cables and arranged within the outer housing, as taught by Anglese, for the purpose of providing an alternative mechanism for affecting the translation of the cable to thereby control articulation and steering of the end effector.
Regarding claim 13, Lia/Parihar/Anglese disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 12. Lia further discloses the at least one cable extends longitudinally through the shaft (FIG 2C) and has a proximal end portion fixed within the outer housing (Within the housing 160 and fixed at pulley 104, FIG 2C, [0028]), the distal end portion of the at least one cable being fixed to the end effector ([0028]).
Regarding claim 19, Lia/Parihar/Anglese disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 18. Lia further discloses the at least one cable extends longitudinally through the shaft (FIG 2C) and has a proximal end portion fixed within the outer housing (Within the housing 160 and fixed at pulley 104, FIG 2C, [0028]), the distal end portion of the at least one cable being fixed to the end effector ([0028]).
Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE N LABRANCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 5712727134. 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.
/BROOKE LABRANCHE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights