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 .
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 9-10 and 18-20 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.
The limitation of claim 9, line 2 of “said driving wheel” is indefinite because it is unclear if this limitation refers to all of the previously recited pairs of driving wheels or said at least one driving wheel. Examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “said at least one driving wheel”.
The limitation of claim 10, line 1 of “said elastic element” is indefinite because it is unclear if this limitation refers to all of the previously recited plurality of elastic elements or a particular elastic element. Examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “each elastic element”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "said first and second driving assemblies" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Particularly, “said first driving assembly” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "said first driving assembly" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "said first driving" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,726,675 (Beyar).
1. An assembly (system 20) for driving movement of an elongate surgical tool (catheter 26), comprising:
a plurality of adjacent pairs of driving wheels (e.g., propelling mechanism 50 which includes wheels 62, 66 and rollers 63, 67), each pair of driving wheels having a space therebetween such that spaces of said plurality of pairs of driving wheels are axially aligned to form a channel for the elongate surgical tool to extend through (FIG. 3; col. 6, lns. 47-58);
wherein at least one pair of driving wheels (wheels 62, 66) out of said plurality of pairs is arranged to lie on a plane different than a plane on which at least one other pair of driving wheels (rollers 63, 67) lies (FIG. 3; col. 6, lns. 47-58).
2. The plurality of pairs of driving wheels are arranged to lie on a first plane and on a second plane, said second plane crossing said first plane (FIG. 3; col. 6, lns. 47-58).
3. The plurality of pairs of driving wheels are interveningly disposed on said first and second planes (FIG. 3).
4. The second plane is perpendicular to said first plane (FIG. 3; col. 6, lns. 47-58).
5. At least one driving wheel of each of said pairs is moveable between a first position in which said driving wheel is distanced from its opposing driving wheel, and a second position in which said driving wheel is within a distance from its opposing driving wheel which is equal to or shorter than a diameter of an elongate surgical tool received between the wheels (see FIG. 3 and col. 6, lns. 47-58 which discloses the distance between the wheels/rollers being adjustable).
7. The assembly comprising:
a. at least one motor (motor 60, 61) configured to drive rotation of said driving wheels (FIG. 3; col. 6, lns. 59-67); and
b. a plurality of transmission gears which transfer torque from said at least one motor to said plurality of driving wheels (col. 7, lns. 22-26).
8. The driving wheels and said transmission gears are arranged as an elongate construct, wherein said elongate construct is rotatable, as a whole, by at least one gear wheel; and wherein said transmission gears and said at least one motor drive all of said plurality of pairs of driving wheels at a similar speed of rotation (FIG. 3; col. 7, lns. 22-26).
11. The assembly comprising between 2-16 pairs of driving wheels (FIG. 3).
12. The assembly is within a compact robotic device (device 28) configured for manipulation of at least two of said elongate surgical tools (FIG. 2; col. 2, lns. 35-37).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,726,675 (Beyar), as applied above, and further in view of US 2020/0222668 (Wenderow).
Beyar discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above but does not disclose a single knob. Wenderow teaches an assembly in the same field of endeavor having a single knob (handle 358) configured to move wheels of all of said wheel pairs between said first position and said second position (FIG. 21-22; P0128) for the purpose of controlling the spacing between the wheels (FIG. 21-22; P0128). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Beyar to include a single knob as taught by Wenderow in order to control the spacing between the wheels.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,726,675 (Beyar), as applied above, and further in view of US 2015/0001968 (Zirps).
Beyar discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above but does not disclose the assembly having a plurality of elastic elements. Zirps teaches an assembly in the same field of endeavor having a plurality of elastic elements (springs 94, 96)(FIG. 5A; P0022) for the purpose of providing the desired force between the wheels and the elongate element (FIG. 5A; P0022). The elastic elements are coupled to each of said at least one driving wheel of each pair, wherein a change in tension of each of said elastic elements moves said driving wheel between said first position and said second position, wherein said change in tension of said plurality of elastic elements is made simultaneously by movement of a rod (wire 30) which interconnects said plurality of elastic elements (FIG. 5A; P0022). The elastic element comprises a spring (FIG. 5A; P0022). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Beyar to include elastic/spring elements as taught by Zirps in order to provide the desired force between the wheels and the elongate element.
Claim(s) 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,726,675 (Beyar), as applied above, and further in view of US 2021/0052339 (Choi).
Beyar discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses the compact robotic device having a unitary housing (FIG. 2) but does not disclose the tapering cross section profile. Choi teaches an assembly in the same field of endeavor having a robotic device housing having a tapering cross section profile which narrows in width (FIG. 4B; P0072-P0074) for the purpose of receiving multiple elongate tools in a low-profile housing (FIG. 4B; P0072-P0074). The housing defining a first upper portion including a first channel for a first elongate surgical tool and a second lower portion including a second channel for a second elongate surgical tool (FIG. 4B; P0072-P0074). A width of said second portion at a position of said second channel is at least 30% smaller than a width of said first portion at a position of said first channel (FIG. 4B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Beyar to be tapered as taught by Choi in order to receive multiple elongate tools in a low-profile housing.
14. The tapering cross section profile of said housing is defined between an upper end face of said housing and a lower end face of said housing, said first portion including said first channel extending along a length of said upper end face and said second portion including said second channel extending along a length of said lower end face (FIG. 4B).
15. Beyar discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses the position of the first channel is away from the upper end face (FIG. 4B) and the position f the second channel is away from the lower end face (FIG. 4B) but is silent regarding the specific distances. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distances to be 0.1-3cm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Beyar would not operate differently with the claimed distances thereby functioning appropriately having the claimed value. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating the value “may” be or that the range forms one of many potential ranges (see P0033).
16. A long axis of said first channel is parallel to said upper end face and a long axis of said second channel is parallel to said lower end face (FIG. 4B of Choi).
17. The assembly is located in said first upper portion of said housing defining said first channel and configured to operably contact said first elongate surgical tool to advance, retract and roll said first elongate surgical tool; and wherein a second driving assembly is located in said second lower portion defining said second channel and configured to operably contact said second elongate surgical tool to advance and retract said second elongate surgical tool (FIG. 4B and 10; P0072-P0074).
18. Each of said first and second driving assemblies comprises: at least one motor; a plurality of movement driving wheels positioned and configured to operably contact the elongate surgical tool; a plurality of transmission gears for transferring torque from said at least one motor to said plurality of movement driving wheels (FIG. 4B and 9; P0025-P0026, P0072-P0074, P0091).
19. The first driving assembly further comprises a gear positioned along a long axis of said first driving assembly, said long axis of said first driving assembly being parallel to said upper end face; wherein said gear rotates said first driving assembly as a whole to thereby roll said first elongate surgical tool, wherein rotation of said first driving assembly takes place within said first upper portion (FIG. 4B and 9; P0025-P0026, P0072-P0074, P0091).
20. Beyar discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses the radius of rotation of the first driving assembly is smaller than the width of the first upper portion (FIG. 2-3) but does not disclose the specific size being no more than 60% smaller. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radius of rotation to be no more than 60% smaller since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Beyar would not operate differently with the claimed size thereby functioning appropriately having the claimed value. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating the value “may” be or that the range forms one of many potential ranges (see P0041).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD J SCHERBEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
TJ SCHERBEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3771
/TODD J SCHERBEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights