DETAILED ACTION
The following Office Action is in response to the Non-Provisional Patent Application filed on December 26, 2023. Claims 1-20 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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-7 and 10-11 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.
Concerning claim 1, line 20 of claim 1 recites the limitation of “the first blade part side” and line 23 of claim 1 recites the limitation of “the second blade part side”, wherein there is a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purposes of compact purposes of compact prosecution, “a first blade part side” will be the portion of the first blade the first opening pulley is connected to, and “a second blade part side” will be the portion of the second blade the second opening pulley is connected to.
Concerning claims 10 and 11, lines 5-6 of both claims recite the limitations of “the first blade part side” and “the second blade part side”, wherein there is a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 2-7 are further rejected for being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prestel (US 2015/0127045).
Concerning claim 1, the Prestel prior art reference teaches a surgical instrument (Figure 1-12; 1) comprising: a base body detachable form a surgical robot arm ([¶ 0039], base body = shank 2, which is connected to a detachable robotic connection as disclosed in US 6,312,435); a support body connected to the base body (Figure 11; support body = intermediate piece 11 which is connected to shank 2); a first jaw that is rotatably supported on the support body (Figure 1; 11) with a rotating shaft as a fulcrum (Figure 1; 13) and that includes a first opening pulley (Figure 5; 37) to which a first opening wire is connected (Figure 5; 6), a first closing pulley (Figure 5; 36) to which a first closing wire is connected (Figure 5; 7), and a first blade part operated in an opening and closing direction (Figure 5; jaw part 11 may be interpreted as a blade given a ‘blade’ may be defined as ‘an arm of a rotating mechanism’ <thefreedictionary.com/blade>); and a second jaw that is rotatably supported by the support body (Figure 1; 12) with a rotating shaft as a fulcrum (Figure 1; 13) and that includes a second opening pulley (Figure 6; 37) to which a second opening wire is connected (Figure 6; 8), a second closing pulley (Figure 6; 36) to which a second closing wire is connected (Figure 6; 5), and a second blade part operated in the opening and closing direction (Figure 6; 12), wherein the first opening pulley and the first closing pulley are supported by the rotating shaft in a state of being separated from each other in an axial direction of the rotating shaft (Figure 5; 13), the second opening pulley and the second closing pulley are supported by the rotating shaft in a state of being separated from each other in the axial direction of the rotating shaft (Figure 6; 13), the first blade part and the second blade part are operated in opening directions to separate from each other by the first opening wire and the second opening wire, respectively, and are operated in closing directions to approach each other by the first closing wire and the second closing wire, respectively ([¶ 0048]), the first opening pulley is positioned closer to a first blade part side than the second blade part with respect to the first pulley in a direction orthogonal to the opening and closing direction (Figure 5; first blade part side = portion connecting 11 to 37), and the second opening pulley is positioned closer to a second blade part side than the first blade part with respect to the second closing pulley in the direction orthogonal to the opening and closing direction (Figure 6; second blade part side = portion connecting 12 to 37).
Concerning claim 2, the Prestel reference teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 1, wherein the second opening pulley (Figure 3; 36 right side) is positioned between the first opening pulley (Figure 3; 36 left side) and the first closing pulley (Figure 3; 37 right side), and the first opening pulley (Figure 3; 36 left side) is positioned between the second opening pulley (Figure 3; 36 right side) and the second closing pulley (Figure 3; 37 left side).
Concerning claims 3 and 4, the Prestel reference teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 2, wherein the first opening pulley (Figure 3; 37 right side), the second closing pulley (Figure 3; 36 right side), the first closing pulley (Figure 3; 36 left side), and the second opening pulley (Figure 3; 36 left side) are positioned in order in the axial direction of the rotating shaft; and in a direction in which the first blade part and the second blade part are arranged, the second closing pulley is positioned on the first blade part side, and the first closing pulley is positioned on the second blade part side.
Although the Prestel reference does not specifically teach the second closing pulley, the first opening pulley, the second opening pulley, and the first closing pulley being positioned in order in the axial direction of the rotating shaft; and in the direction orthogonal to the opening and closing direction, the first opening pulley is positioned on the first blade part side, and the second opening pulley is positioned on the second blade part side, the Specification of the Instant Application is completely silent as to any criticality of the particular ordering of the opening and closing pulley and presents them as obvious alternatives to one another.
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 first opening pulley, the second closing pulley, the first closing pulley, and the second opening pulley be positioned in order in the axial direction of the rotating shaft, and in the direction orthogonal to the opening and closing direction, the first opening pulley is positioned on the first blade part side, and the second opening pulley is positioned on the second blade part side as a matter of obvious design choice which would yield the predictable result of performing in effectively the same exact manner.
Concerning claim 5, the Prestel reference teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 2, wherein the first jaw includes a first base portion (Figure 5; base portion = portion connecting the jaw 11 to both pulleys 36 and 37), and the first opening pulley and the first closing pulley protrude in a same direction from the first base portion (Figure 5; 36, 37), and the second jaw includes a second base portion (Figure 6; base portion = portion connecting the jaw 12 to both pulleys 36 and 37), and the second opening pulley and the second closing pulley protrude in a same direction from the first base portion (Figure 6; 36, 37).
Concerning claim 6, the Prestel reference teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 5, wherein the first base portion, the first blade part, the first opening pulley, and the first closing pulley are integrally formed (Figure 5; 11, 36, 37), and the second base portion, the second blade part, the second opening pulley, and the second closing pulley are integrally formed (Figure 6; 12, 36, 37).
Concerning claim 7, the Prestel reference teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 1, wherein the support body is rotatably connected to the base body on a fulcrum shaft (Figure 1; 21), and the axial direction of the rotating shaft and the axial direction of the fulcrum shaft are orthogonal to each other.
Concerning claim 8, the Prestel prior art reference teaches a surgical instrument (Figure 1-12; 1) comprising: a base body detachable form a surgical robot arm ([¶ 0039], base body = shank 2, which is connected to a detachable robotic connection as disclosed in US 6,312,435); a support body connected to the base body (Figure 11; support body = intermediate piece 11 which is connected to shank 2); a first jaw that is rotatably supported on a first shaft supported by the support part (Figure 1; 13) and including a first opening pulley (Figure 5; 37) to which a first opening wire is connected (Figure 5; 6), a first closing pulley (Figure 5; 36) to which a first closing wire is connected (Figure 5; 7), and a first blade part (Figure 5; jaw part 11 may be interpreted as a blade given a ‘blade’ may be defined as ‘an arm of a rotating mechanism’ <thefreedictionary.com/blade>); and a second jaw that is rotatably supported on a second shaft supported by the support part (Figure 1; 13) and including a second opening pulley (Figure 6; 37) to which a second opening wire is connected (Figure 6; 8), a second closing pulley (Figure 6; 36) to which a second closing wire is connected (Figure 6; 5), and a second blade part (Figure 6; 12), wherein the first opening pulley is axially separated from the first closing pulley on the first shaft (Figure 5; 36, 37), the second opening pulley is axially separated from the second closing pulley on the first shaft (Figure 6; 36, 37), and wherein an axial direction of the first shaft is orthogonal to an opening and closing direction of the first blade part and the second blade part (Figure 1; 13).
Concerning claim 9, the Prestel reference teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 8, wherein the second opening pulley (Figure 3; 36 right side) is positioned between the first opening pulley (Figure 3; 36 left side) and the first closing pulley (Figure 3; 37 right side), and the first opening pulley (Figure 3; 36 left side) is positioned between the second opening pulley (Figure 3; 36 right side) and the second closing pulley (Figure 3; 37 left side).
Concerning claims 10 and 11, the Prestel reference teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 8, wherein the first opening pulley (Figure 3; 37 right side), the second closing pulley (Figure 3; 36 right side), the first closing pulley (Figure 3; 36 left side), and the second opening pulley (Figure 3; 36 left side) are positioned in order in the axial direction of the rotating shaft; and in a direction in which the first blade part and the second blade part are arranged, the second closing pulley is positioned on the first blade part side, and the first closing pulley is positioned on the second blade part side.
Although the Prestel reference does not specifically teach the second closing pulley, the first opening pulley, the second opening pulley, and the first closing pulley being positioned in order in the axial direction of the rotating shaft; and in the direction orthogonal to the opening and closing direction, the first opening pulley is positioned on the first blade part side, and the second opening pulley is positioned on the second blade part side, the Specification of the Instant Application is completely silent as to any criticality of the particular ordering of the opening and closing pulley and presents them as obvious alternatives to one another.
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 first opening pulley, the second closing pulley, the first closing pulley, and the second opening pulley be positioned in order in the axial direction of the rotating shaft, and in the direction orthogonal to the opening and closing direction, the first opening pulley is positioned on the first blade part side, and the second opening pulley is positioned on the second blade part side as a matter of obvious design choice which would yield the predictable result of performing in effectively the same exact manner.
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 first opening pulley, the second closing pulley, the first closing pulley, and the second opening pulley be positioned in order in the axial direction of the rotating shaft, and in the direction orthogonal to the opening and closing direction, the first opening pulley is positioned on the first blade part side, and the second opening pulley is positioned on the second blade part side as a matter of obvious design choice which would yield the predictable result of performing in effectively the same exact manner.
Concerning claims 12-14, the Prestel reference teaches the surgical instrument according to claims 9-11, wherein the first jaw includes a first base portion (Figure 5; base portion = portion connecting the jaw 11 to both pulleys 36 and 37), and the first opening pulley and the first closing pulley protrude in a same direction from the first base portion (Figure 5; 36, 37), and the second jaw includes a second base portion (Figure 6; base portion = portion connecting the jaw 12 to both pulleys 36 and 37), and the second opening pulley and the second closing pulley protrude in a same direction from the first base portion (Figure 6; 36, 37).
Concerning claim 15, the Prestel reference teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 14, wherein the first base portion, the first blade part, the first opening pulley, and the first closing pulley are integrally formed (Figure 5; 11, 36, 37), and the second base portion, the second blade part, the second opening pulley, and the second closing pulley are integrally formed (Figure 6; 12, 36, 37).
Concerning claim 16, the Prestel reference teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 8, wherein the support body is rotatably connected to the base body on a second shaft (Figure 1; 21), and the first shaft is orthogonal to the second shaft.
Concerning claim 17, the Prestel prior art reference teaches a surgical instrument (Figure 1-12; 1) comprising: a base body detachable form a surgical robot arm ([¶ 0039], base body = shank 2, which is connected to a detachable robotic connection as disclosed in US 6,312,435); a support body connected to the base body (Figure 11; support body = intermediate piece 11 which is connected to shank 2) and comprising a first shaft (Figure 1; 13); a first jaw that rotates on the first shaft (Figure 1; 11) and includes two first pulleys for moving the first jaw in an opening direction and a closing direction, respectively (Figure 5; 37, 36) and a second jaw that rotates on the first shaft (Figure 1; 12) and includes two second pulleys for moving the second jaw in an opening direction and a closing direction, respectively (Figure 6; 37, 36), wherein the two first pulleys are axially separated on the first shaft (Figure 5; 36, 37), the two second pulleys are axially separated on the first shaft (Figure; 36, 37), the two first pulley are interleaved with the two second pulleys (Figure 3; 36, 37), and the first shaft is orthogonal to the opening direction and the closing direction (Figure 1; 13).
Concerning claims 18 and 19, the Prestel reference teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 17, wherein the two first pulleys comprise a first opening pulley (Figure 5; 37) and a first closing pulley (Figure 5; 36), and the two second pulleys comprise a second opening pulley (Figure 6; 37) and a second closing pulley (Figure 6; 36), wherein the first opening pulley (Figure 3; 37 right side), the second closing pulley (Figure 3; 36 right side), the first closing pulley (Figure 3; 36 left side), and the second opening pulley (Figure 3; 36 left side) are positioned in order on the first shaft.
Although the Prestel reference does not specifically teach the second closing pulley, the first opening pulley, the second opening pulley, and the first closing pulley being positioned in order on the first shaft, the Specification of the Instant Application is completely silent as to any criticality of the particular ordering of the opening and closing pulley and presents them as obvious alternatives to one another.
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 first opening pulley, the second closing pulley, the first closing pulley, and the second opening pulley be positioned in order on the first shaft, as a matter of obvious design choice which would yield the predictable result of performing in effectively the same exact manner.
Concerning claim 20, the Prestel reference teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 17, wherein the support body is rotatably connected to the base body on a second shaft (Figure 1; 21), and the first shaft is orthogonal to the second shaft.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Song et al. reference (US 2024/0350160) teaches a surgical instrument including a first jaw and second jaw each having two associated pulleys, and the Prestel reference (US 2017/01252054) and Kilroy et al. reference (US 2015/0150635) both teach surgical instruments including pulleys arranged in series along a rotation shaft.
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 3/2/2026