DETAILED ACTION
The following Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on May 22, 2026. Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
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
Concerning the “Remarks” on pages 4-10 of the Applicant’s Response filed on May 22, 2026, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The applicant first argues that the Shelton ‘365, Shelton ‘018, and Roberson combination does not teach the limitation of “the force sensor comprises a bending element configured to measure a deformation of the actuating unit”, arguing that the force sensors disclosed in Shelton ‘018 measure force on the closure member, not deformation. However, the examiner asserts that the Shelton ‘365 reference discloses a force sensor that may detect the output torque on the shaft of the motor (Shelton ‘365; [¶ 0095]), therein teaching a force sensor measuring a force associated with the actuating unit. Although the reference does not specifically teach a bending element configured to measure deformation, the examiner has relied on the Shelton ‘018 reference to teach the specific structure of a particular force sensor. Said force sensor disclosed in the Shelton ‘018 reference includes a piezoelectric electric element, which is a bi-directional transducer which converts stress into an electric potential (Shelton ‘018; [¶ 0386]). It is this piezoelectric element that defines a bending element configured to measure deformation. The piezoelectric element converts stress, or the bending of the element, into an electric potential which signifies the amount of deformation of the piezoelectric element, which in turn is used to determine the force or torque of the shaft of the motor, defined as being part of the actuating unit.
The applicant then argues that the Shelton ‘365, Shelton ‘018, and Roberson combination does not teach the limitation of “both the position sensor and the force sensor being configured to measure a force on the actuation unit” as claimed. However, the examiner asserts that throughout the Shelton ‘018 reference, the reference states that the control unit may take into account one or more sensors ([¶ 0288], one or more sensors provide real-time feedback to processor | [¶ 0324], one or more sensors alert the processor to sense the position of the end effector | [¶ 0326], other sensors may be configured to provide feedback to the control circuit | [¶ 0339, 0348], the control circuit may be in communication with one or more sensors | [¶ 0500], the processor may evaluate inputs form a plurality of redundant sensors to choose the most reliable output | [¶ 0576], control circuit may be configured to receive detected parameters from plurality of sensors). Thus, it is clear that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in viewing the teachings of the Shelton ‘018 reference, to configure the control unit to measure force with both a position sensor and a force sensor.
The applicant then argues that the Shelton ‘365, Shelton ‘018, and Roberson combination does not teach the limitation of the control unit being configured to drive the actuator motor beyond the limit value by the manually operable actuating unit depending on an operating force exerted on the actuating unit when the actuating unit is actuated in the end position, wherein both the position sensor and the force sensor are configured to measure a force on the actuating unit, arguing that the override is an electronic system lockout. However, the examiner asserts that the claims do not claim that the override must be a manually operated system. Rather, the claims merely state that the actuating unit is manually operated. Thus, given the override system may override the threshold value to proceed with surgical function (Shelton ‘365; [¶ 0183]), and given the actuating unit may be manually operated after override (Shelton ‘365; actuating unit includes trigger, which is manually operated), the combination does teach said limitation.
Lastly, the applicant argues that the Shelton ‘365, Shelton ‘018, and Roberson combination does not teach the limitation of a limit value governed by a slip coupling, arguing that the Roberson reference does not provide any explanation of how the slip relationship between a waveguide and transducer assembly in Roberson may be used in Shelton ‘365. However, the examiner asserts that the Roberson reference teaches a rotatable shaft that may be limited in torque by a slip coupling (Roberson; [¶ 0075]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this same slip coupling structure may be applied to the drive shaft or shaft of the motor of the Shelton ‘365 reference to limit torque in the same way Roberson limits the torque of its rotatable shaft. The specific incorporation of such a structure is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 stand.
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 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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, IV et al. (US 2021/0196365, hereinafter Shelton ‘365) in view of Shelton, IV et al. (US 2019/0201018, hereinafter Shelton ‘018) and Roberson et al. (US 2018/0161060, hereinafter Roberson).
Concerning claim 1, the Shelton ‘365 prior art reference teaches an endoscopic system (Figure 2; 1000), comprising: an actuator at a distal end of the system (Figure 2; 1125), a manually operated actuating unit at a proximal end of the system (Figure 2; 1147), the manually operable actuating unit configured to actuate the actuator ([¶ 0090]) and select an actuator force configured to allow the actuator to act on an object ([¶ 0193-0194]), the actuating unit being displaceable between a start position and an end position ([¶ 0193]), an actuator motor configured to drive the actuator to reach a desired position ([¶ 0092]), and a control unit (Figure 3; 640) configured to: a) actuate the actuator motor depending on a current position of the actuating unit when the actuating unit is actuated between the start position and the end position and if an actuator force, detected by a position sensor ([¶ 0102]), exerted by the actuator does not exceed a limit value ([¶ 0172], control unit sets a motor current threshold but allows for the end effector to reach a fully-clamped state), b) not actuate the actuator motor any further when the actuating unit is actuated between the start position and the end position and if an actuator force, detected by the position sensor ([¶ 0102]), exerted by the actuator reaches or exceeds the limit value ([¶ 0192], once the threshold is reached, the control unit stops the jaws from closing, wherein the movement of the jaws and the trigger are corresponded), and c) drive the actuator motor beyond the limit valve by the manually operable actuating unit, depending on an operating force exerted on the actuating unit, when the actuating unit is actuated in the end position ([¶ 0183], the control unit provides for a manual override in pre-defined conditions), but it does not specifically teach the actuating unit including a force sensor, and wherein the force sensor comprises a bending element configured to measure a deformation of the actuating unit, wherein both the position sensor and the force sensor are configured to measure a force on the actuation unit nor does it teach the limit value being realized by way of a slip coupling.
However, the Shelton ‘365 reference teaches that the system may include a force sensor ([¶ 0095]), and further states that multiple sensors can employed to alert the control unit to the program instructions that should be used in a particular setting ([¶ 0102]), while the Shelton ‘018 reference teaches an endoscopic system similar to that of the Shelton ‘365 reference, wherein the Shelton ‘018 reference teaches that the control unit may be in communication with one or more sensors to measure various derived parameters, wherein said sensors may include both a force sensor and a position sensor ([¶ 0547, 0765]), wherein both the position sensor and the force sensor are configured to measure a force on the actuation unit ([¶ 0547]), and wherein the Shelton ‘018 reference further teaches that the force sensor may comprise piezoelectric elements which detect a change in pressure occurring on the jaw members and convert stress into an electric potential ([¶ 0386]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the endoscopic system of the Shelton ‘365 reference include both a force sensor, wherein the force sensor comprises a bending element configured to measure a deformation of the actuating unit, and a position sensor, wherein both the position sensor and the force sensor are configured to measure a force on the actuating unit as in the Shelton ‘018 reference to provide multiple sensor signals therein providing multiple parameters of the actuating unit to better analyze the information necessary to determine an actuating algorithm (Shelton ‘018; [¶ 0765]).
Furthermore, the Roberson reference teaches an endoscopic system similar to that of the Shelton ‘365 reference, wherein the Roberson reference teaches a slip coupling utilized to realize a limit value ([¶ 0122]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the limit value of the Shelton ‘365 reference be realized by a slip coupling as in the Roberson reference, given the Roberson reference teaches a slip coupling as a known structure for realizing a limit value (Roberson; [¶ 0122]).
Concerning claim 2, the combination of the Shelton ‘365, Shelton ‘018, and Roberson references as discussed above teaches the endoscopic system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the Shelton ‘365 reference further teaches the system being configured for a forceps function, the actuator comprises two jaw parts (Figure 2; 146, 149) and actuation of the actuator is an opening and closing of the jaw parts ([¶ 0092]).
Concerning claim 3, the combination of the Shelton ‘365, Shelton ‘018, and Roberson references as discussed above teaches the endoscopic system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the Shelton ‘365 reference further teaches the actuating unit comprising the force sensor configured to measure the operating force exerted on the actuating unit, at least in the end position ([¶ 0102]).
Concerning claim 4, the combination of the Shelton ‘365, Shelton ‘018, and Roberson references as discussed above teaches the endoscopic system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the Shelton ‘365 reference further teaches movable jaw parts (Figure 2; 1146) and an end stop configured to provide haptic feedback (Figure 2; 1149), and further teaches such jaw parts may be controlled with a push rod ([¶ 0288]; closure tube may be interpreted as a push rod).
Concerning claim 5, the combination of the Shelton ‘365, Shelton ‘018, and Roberson references as discussed above teaches the endoscopic system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the Shelton ‘365 reference further teaches the actuating unit comprising the position sensor configured to determine the current position of the actuating unit between the start position and the end position ([¶ 0102]).
Concerning claim 6, the combination of the Shelton ‘365, Shelton ‘018, and Roberson references as discussed above teaches the endoscopic system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the Shelton ‘018 reference further teaches that limit values for a control unit may be fixed or predetermined, defined with respect to one or more other variables, or alternatively may be programmed or set by a user of the surgical instrument ([¶ 0696]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the limit value of the Shelton ‘365 reference be capable of being set by a user as in the Shelton ‘018 reference given the Shelton ‘018 references teaches manual programming as an obvious alternative to fixed or predetermined values (Shelton ‘018; [¶ 0696]).
Concerning claim 7, the combination of the Shelton ‘365, Shelton ‘018, and Roberson references as discussed above teaches the endoscopic system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the Shelton ‘365 reference further teaches the limit value being realized by restricting the current conducted to the actuator motor ([¶ 0172]).
Concerning claim 8, the combination of the Shelton ‘365, Shelton ‘018, and Roberson references as discussed above teaches the endoscopic system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the Shelton ‘365 reference further teaches the actuating unit comprising a first rigid grip (Figure 2; 1109) and a second movable grip (Figure 2; 1147)
Concerning claim 9, the combination of the Shelton ‘365, Shelton ‘018, and Roberson references as discussed above teaches the endoscopic system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the Shelton ‘365 reference further teaches the actuating unit comprising a movable grip member (Figure 2; 1147).
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 MARTIN TRUYEN TON whose telephone number is (571)270-5122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; EST 10:00 AM - 6:30 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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/MARTIN T TON/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 7/15/2026
Prosecution Insights