DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed on 3/19/2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed on 3/19/2026, with respect to the specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous specification objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed on 3/19/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been fully considered. The previous 112(b) rejection of claim 14 is rendered moot, as Applicant cancelled claims 14-16.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-21, filed on 3/19/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-7 under Dachs ’821 in view of Ho and Holop have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 17-25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dachs, II et al. (EP 3610821, herein referred to as Dachs ’821) in view of Ho et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0367981).
Regarding claim 1, Dachs ’821 teaches an instrument driving and transmission mechanism (Fig. 1-2) for a surgical robot (Fig. 1, Col. 7, line 16), comprising: an instrument drive (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, lines 54-55) including a drive transmission member (Fig. 3B, Col. 10, line 2) exposed at an upper surface (Fig. 3B) of the instrument drive; a sterile adapter (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, line 56), wherein the sterile adapter has a lower surface matching the upper surface of the instrument drive (Fig. 3A-3B), the sterile adapter includes an adapter body (Fig. 4, Col. 10, lines 22-24) and an adapter transmission member (Fig. 3B-4, Col. 10, lines 5-7), the adapter body defines a mounting hole (Fig. 8-9, Col. 11, lines 10-11) in which the adapter transmission member is rotatably accommodated (Col. 10, lines 5-6), wherein the adapter body is provided with a limiting part (Fig. 13B, Col. 14, line 11) in the mounting hole, the adapter transmission member is provided with a positioning part (Fig. 13B, Col. 14, line 21), the positioning part is configured to, when abutted against the limiting part (Fig. 13B), prevent the adapter transmission member from rotation (Col. 14, lines 20-24), and the adapter transmission member has a lower end configured to cooperate with the drive transmission member (Fig. 14, Col. 16, lines 55-56); and a surgical instrument (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, lines 53-54), wherein the surgical instrument has a back end matching an upper surface of the sterile adapter (Fig. 15), the surgical instrument includes an instrument transmission member (Fig. 15, Col. 17, lines 12-13) exposed at the back end of the surgical instrument (Fig. 15), and the instrument transmission member is configured to cooperate with an upper end of the adapter transmission member (Fig. 15, Col. 17, lines 2-7); and the adapter transmission member and the instrument transmission member are configured to cooperate with (Fig. 15, Col. 17, lines 2-7) each other by means of transmission bosses (Fig. 15, Col. 17, lines 17-19).
Dachs ’821 does not teach that an adapter transmission member has a surface on which a plurality of teeth are provided and evenly spaced, or that a drive transmission member has a surface on which a plurality of teeth are provided and evenly spaced.
Dachs ’821 also does not teach that the plurality of teeth of the adapter transmission member and the plurality of teeth of the drive transmission member are configured to be meshed together.
Ho, however, teaches an instrument drive output and an instrument drive input that have surfaces with a plurality of teeth (Fig. 23, paragraph 0144, lines 5-6) that are evenly spaced (Fig. 23), and where the pluralities of teeth are meshed together (Fig.23, paragraph 0144, lines 5-8). Ho also teaches that the plurality of teeth of the instrument drive output is configured to engage the plurality of teeth of the instrument drive input independently of an orientation of the instrument drive output relative to the instrument drive input (Fig. 21-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of
Ho to include an adapter transmission member that has a surface on which a plurality of
teeth are provided and evenly spaced, and a drive transmission member that has a surface
on which a plurality of teeth are provided and evenly spaced, where the plurality of teeth
of the adapter transmission member and the plurality of teeth of the drive transmission
member are configured to be meshed together. Doing so would ensure a tight and proper
fit between the adapter and drive transmission members (Fig. 23) in order to transfer rotational motion between the parts (Paragraph 0144, lines 7-9), as recognized by Ho.
Dachs ’821 also does not teach that the adapter transmission member is configured to, prior to abutment of the positioning part against the limiting part, engage the drive transmission member independently of an orientation of the adapter transmission member relative to the drive transmission member. Dachs ’821 teaches the adapter transmission member, the positioning part, the limiting part, and the drive transmission member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the order in which the parts engage with one another, as the structure recited in the instant claim is the same as what is recited in Dachs ’821.
Furthermore, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Regarding claim 2, Dachs ’821 teaches an instrument driving and transmission
mechanism (Fig. 1-2) of claim 1 that includes the adapter transmission member (Fig. 3B-4, Col. 10, lines 5-7) and the drive transmission member (Fig. 3B, Col. 10, line 2). Dachs ’821 does not teach an adaptive transmission member that includes a first tooth-like portion at the lower end of the adapter transmission member, where the first
tooth-like portion includes the plurality of teeth evenly spaced and are arranged in a
radial pattern. Dachs ’821 also does not teach a drive transmission member that includes
a second tooth-like portion at an upper end of the drive transmission member, the second
tooth-like portion includes a plurality of teeth evenly spaced and are arranged in a radial
pattern.
Ho, however, teaches an instrument drive input that includes a first tooth-
like portion (Fig. 22A-B, paragraph 0141, lines 3-4) at the lower end (Fig. 22A-B,
paragraph 0142, lines 6-7) of the instrument drive input, where the first tooth-like portion includes the plurality of teeth (Fig. 23, paragraph 0144, lines 5-6) evenly spaced (Fig. 23) and are arranged in a radial pattern (Fig. 22A-B). Ho also teaches an instrument drive output that includes a second tooth-like portion (Fig. 21A-B, paragraph 0139, line 2) at an upper end (Fig. 21A-B, paragraph 0139, lines 10-11) of the instrument drive output, the second tooth-like portion includes a plurality of teeth (Fig. 23, paragraph 0144, lines 5-6) evenly spaced (Fig. 23) and are arranged in a radial pattern (Fig. 21A-B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of
Ho to include an adaptive transmission member that includes a first tooth-like portion at
the lower end of the adapter transmission member, where the first tooth-like portion
includes the plurality of teeth evenly spaced and are arranged in a radial pattern. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of Ho to
include a drive transmission member that includes a second tooth-like portion at an upper
end of the drive transmission member, the second tooth-like portion includes a plurality
of teeth evenly spaced and are arranged in a radial pattern. Doing so would ensure a tight and proper fit between the adapter and drive transmission members (Fig. 23) in order to transfer rotational motion between the parts (Paragraph 0144, lines 7-9), as recognized by Ho.
Regarding claim 3, Dachs ’821 teaches the instrument driving and transmission mechanism (Fig. 1-2) of claim 2. Dachs ’821 does not teach an adapter transmission member that includes a first tooth-like portion, wherein each tooth of the plurality of teeth of the first tooth-like portion has two guiding surfaces intersecting to form a sharp or rounded tooth peak. Dachs ’821 also does not teach a drive transmission member that includes a second tooth-like portion, wherein each tooth of the plurality of teeth of the second tooth-like portion has two guiding surfaces intersecting to form a sharp or rounded tooth peak.
Ho, however, teaches an instrument drive input that includes a first tooth-like portion (Fig. 22A-B, paragraph 0141, lines 3-4), wherein each tooth (Fig. 22A-B) of the plurality of teeth (Fig. 23, paragraph 0144, lines 5-6) has a sharp or rounded tooth peak (Paragraph 0144, lines 5-6) that is formed by two intersecting guiding surfaces (Fig. 23). Ho also teaches an instrument drive output that includes a second tooth-like portion (Fig. 21A-B, paragraph 0139, line 2), wherein each tooth (Fig. 21A-B) of the plurality of teeth (Fig. 23, paragraph 0144, lines 5-6) has a sharp or rounded tooth peak (Paragraph 0144, lines 5-6) that is formed by two intersecting guiding surfaces (Fig. 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of
Ho to include an adapter transmission member that includes a first tooth-like portion,
wherein each tooth of the plurality of teeth has a sharp or rounded tooth peak that is formed by two intersecting guiding surfaces, and a drive transmission member that includes a second tooth-like portion, wherein each tooth of the plurality of teeth has a sharp or rounded tooth peak that is formed by two intersecting guiding surfaces. Doing so would ensure a tight and proper fit between the adapter and drive transmission members (Fig. 23) in order to transfer rotational motion between the parts (Paragraph 0144, lines 7-9), as recognized by Ho.
Regarding claim 4, Dachs ’821 teaches the instrument driving and transmission mechanism (Fig. 1-2) of claim 2. Dachs ’821 does not teach an instrument driving mechanism, wherein a respective tooth of the plurality of teeth of the first tooth-like portion has meshing surfaces on two opposite sides of the respective tooth, a respective tooth of the plurality of teeth of the second tooth-like portion has meshing surfaces on two opposite sides of the respective tooth, and the meshing surfaces of the respective tooth of the first tooth-like portion are in clearance fit with the meshing surfaces of the respective tooth.
Ho, however, teaches an instrument driving mechanism, wherein a respective
tooth (Fig. 22A-B) of the plurality of teeth (Fig. 23, paragraph 0144, lines 5-6) of the first
tooth-like portion (Fig. 22A-B, paragraph 0141, lines 3-4) has meshing surfaces on two
opposite sides (Fig. 21A-23) of the respective tooth, a respective tooth (Fig. 21A-B) of
the plurality of teeth (Fig. 23, paragraph 0144, lines 5-6) of the second tooth-like portion
(Fig. 21A-B, paragraph 0139, line 2) has meshing surfaces on two opposite sides (Fig.
21A-23) of the respective tooth, and the meshing surfaces of the respective tooth of the
first tooth-like portion are in clearance fit (Fig. 28A, paragraph 0176, lines 4-8) with the
meshing surfaces of the respective tooth of the second tooth-like portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of
Ho to include an instrument driving mechanism, wherein a respective tooth of the plurality of teeth of the first tooth-like portion has meshing surfaces on two opposite sides
of the respective tooth, a respective tooth of the plurality of teeth of the second tooth-like
portion has meshing surfaces on two opposite sides of the respective tooth, and the
meshing surfaces of the respective tooth of the first tooth-like portion are in clearance fit
with the meshing surfaces of the respective tooth of the second tooth-like portion. Doing so would ensure a tight and proper fit between the adapter and drive transmission members (Fig. 23) in order to transfer rotational motion between the parts (Paragraph 0144, lines 7-9), as recognized by Ho.
Regarding claim 17, Dachs ’821 teaches the instrument driving and transmission member (Fig. 1-2) of claim 1, wherein the adapter transmission member (Fig. 3B-4, Col. 10, lines 5-7) and the drive transmission member (Fig. 3B, Col. 10, line 2) are synchronously rotatable (Fig. 13B, Col. 13, lines 11-18) prior to abutment of the positioning part against the limiting part (Fig. 13B).
Dachs ’821 does not teach that the adapter transmission member and drive transmission member are synchronously rotatable prior to abutment of the positioning part against the limiting part. Dachs ’821 teaches the adapter transmission member, the positioning part, the limiting part, and the drive transmission member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the order in which the parts engage with one another, as the structure recited in the instant claim is the same as what is recited in Dachs ’821.
Furthermore, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Regarding claim 18, Dachs ’821 teaches the instrument driving and transmission mechanism (Fig. 1-2) of claim 1, wherein the adapter transmission member (Fig. 3B-4, Col. 10, lines 5-7) is driven to rotate (Fig. 13B, Col. 13, lines 13-14) by the drive transmission member (Fig. 3B, Col. 10, line 2) prior to abutment of the positioning part against the limiting part (Fig. 13B).
Dachs ’821 does not teach that the adapter transmission member is driven to rotate by the drive transmission member prior to abutment of the positioning part against the limiting part. Dachs ’821 teaches the adapter transmission member, the positioning part, the limiting part, and the drive transmission member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the order in which the parts engage with one another, as the structure recited in the instant claim is the same as what is recited in Dachs ’821.
Furthermore, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Regarding claim 19, Dachs ’821 teaches a sterile adapter (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, line 56) for connecting (Fig. 3A) a surgical instrument (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, lines 53-54) to an instrument drive (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, lines 54-55) having a drive transmission member (Fig. 3B, Col. 10, line 2), the sterile adapter comprising: an adapter body (Fig. 4, Col. 10, lines 22-24) defining a mounting hole (Fig. 8-9, Col. 11, lines 10-11), the adapter body being provided with a limiting part (Fig. 13B, Col. 14, line 11) in the mounting hole; and an adapter transmission member rotatably accommodated in the mounting hole (Col. 10, lines 5-6), the adapter transmission member being provided with a positioning part (Fig. 13B, Col. 14, line 21); wherein the positioning part is configured to, when abutted against the limiting part (Fig. 13B), prevent the adapter transmission member from rotation (Col. 14, lines 20-24).
Dachs ’821 does not teach that an adapter transmission member has a plurality of teeth that are evenly spaced and configured to mesh with a plurality of second teeth of the drive transmission member for torque transmission.
Ho, however, teaches an instrument drive output and an instrument drive input that have surfaces with a plurality of teeth (Fig. 23, paragraph 0144, lines 5-6) that are evenly spaced (Fig. 23), and where the pluralities of teeth are meshed together (Fig. 23, paragraph 0144, lines 5-8) for torque transmission (Paragraph 0144, lines 7-9). Ho also teaches that the plurality of first teeth is configured to engage the plurality of second teeth independently of an orientation of the instrument drive output relative to the instrument drive input (Fig. 21-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of
Ho to include an adapter transmission member that has a plurality of teeth that are evenly spaced and configured to mesh with a plurality of second teeth of the drive transmission member for torque transmission. Doing so would ensure a tight and proper fit between the adapter and drive transmission members (Fig. 23) in order to transfer torque between the parts (Paragraph 0144, lines 7-9), as recognized by Ho.
Dachs ’821 also does not teach that the adapter transmission member is configured to, prior to abutment of the positioning part against the limiting part, engage the drive transmission member independently of an orientation of the adapter transmission member relative to the drive transmission member. Dachs ’821 teaches the adapter transmission member, the positioning part, the limiting part, and the drive transmission member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the order in which the parts engage with one another, as the structure recited in the instant claim is the same as what is recited in Dachs ’821.
Furthermore, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Regarding claim 20, Dachs ’821 teaches the sterile adapter (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, line 56) of claim 19. Dachs ’821 does not teach that the plurality of first teeth are arranged in a radial pattern, and each of the plurality of first teeth has two guiding surfaces intersecting to form a sharp or rounded tooth peak for self-alignment of the plurality of first teeth with the plurality of second teeth.
Ho, however, teaches an instrument drive input that includes the plurality of first teeth (Fig. 22A-B, paragraph 0141, lines 3-4) are arranged in a radial pattern (Fig. 22A-22B), and each of the plurality of first teeth (Fig. 22A-B) has two guiding surfaces (Fig. 23) intersecting to form a sharp or rounded tooth peak (Paragraph 0144, lines 5-6) for self-alignment (Fig. 21-23) of the plurality of first teeth with plurality of second teeth (Fig. 21A-B, paragraph 0139, line 2) on an instrument drive output.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of
Ho to include an adapter transmission member that includes the plurality of first teeth that are arranged in a radial pattern, and each of the plurality of first teeth has two guiding surfaces intersecting to form a sharp or rounded tooth peak for self-alignment of the plurality of first teeth with the plurality of second teeth on the drive transmission member. Doing so would ensure a tight and proper fit between the adapter and drive transmission members (Fig. 23) in order to transfer torque between the parts (Paragraph 0144, lines 7-9), as recognized by Ho.
Regarding claim 21, Dachs ’821 teaches the sterile adapter (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, line 56) of claim 19. Dachs ’821 does not teach that each of the plurality of first teeth has two meshing surfaces facing away from each other, and each of the two meshing surfaces is configured to abut against a respective one of the plurality of second teeth for transmission of torque.
Ho, however, teaches an instrument drive input that includes the plurality of first teeth (Fig. 22A-B, paragraph 0141, lines 3-4), wherein each of the plurality of first teeth has two meshing surfaces facing away from each other (See Annotated Fig. 23). Furthermore, Ho teaches that each of the two meshing surfaces is configured to abut against a respective one (Fig. 21-24) of the plurality of second teeth (Fig. 21A-B, paragraph 0139, line 2) for transmission of torque (Paragraph 0144, lines 7-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
501
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 23
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of Ho to include that each of the plurality of first teeth has two meshing surfaces facing away from each other, and each of the two meshing surfaces is configured to abut against a respective one of the plurality of second teeth for transmission of torque. Doing so would ensure a tight and proper fit between the adapter and drive transmission members (Fig. 23) in order to transfer torque between the parts (Paragraph 0144, lines 7-9), as recognized by Ho.
Regarding claim 22, Dachs ’821 teaches the sterile adapter (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, line 56) of claim 21. Dachs ’821 does not teach wherein each of the two meshing surfaces transitions from a respective one of the two guiding surfaces. Ho, however, teaches an instrument drive input that includes the plurality of first teeth (Fig. 22A-B, paragraph 0141, lines 3-4), wherein each of the two meshing surfaces (See Annotated Fig. 23) transitions from a respective one of the two guiding surfaces (Fig. 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of Ho to include that each of the two meshing surfaces transitions from a respective one of the two guiding surfaces. Doing so would ensure a tight and proper fit between the adapter and drive transmission members (Fig. 23) in order to transfer torque between the parts (Paragraph 0144, lines 7-9), as recognized by Ho.
Regarding claim 23, Dachs ’821 teaches a sterile adapter (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, line
56) for connecting (Fig. 3A) a surgical instrument (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, lines 53-54) to an instrument drive (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, lines 54-55) having a drive transmission member (Fig. 3B, Col. 10, line 2), the sterile adapter comprising: an adapter transmission member (Fig. 3B-4, Col. 10, lines 5-7) having an upper end configured to engage the surgical instrument (Fig. 15, Col. 17, lines 8-11) and a lower end configured to engage the instrument drive (Fig. 14, Col. 16, lines 55-56).
Dachs ’821 does not teach that the lower end is provided a plurality of first teeth evenly spaced and configured to mesh with a plurality of second teeth of the drive transmission member, each of the plurality of first teeth has at least one guiding surface for self-alignment of the plurality of first teeth with the plurality of second teeth, and the plurality of first teeth is configured to engage the plurality of second teeth independently of an orientation of the adapter transmission member relative to the drive transmission member.
Ho, however, teaches an instrument drive output and an instrument drive input that have surfaces with a plurality of teeth (Fig. 23, paragraph 0144, lines 5-6) that are evenly spaced (Fig. 23), and where the pluralities of teeth are meshed together (Fig. 23, paragraph 0144, lines 5-8). Furthermore, Ho teaches that each of the plurality of first teeth has at least one guiding surface (Fig. 23) for self-alignment of the plurality of first teeth with the plurality of second teeth (Fig. 21-23). Ho also teaches that the plurality of first teeth is configured to engage the plurality of second teeth independently of an orientation of the instrument drive output and instrument drive input (Fig. 21-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of
Ho to include an adapter transmission member that has a plurality of teeth that are evenly spaced and configured to mesh with a plurality of second teeth of the drive transmission member, wherein each of the plurality of first teeth has at least one guiding surface for self-alignment of the plurality of first teeth with the plurality of second teeth, and the plurality of first teeth is configured to engage the plurality of second teeth independently of an orientation of the adapter transmission member relative to the drive transmission member. Doing so would ensure a tight and proper fit between the adapter and drive transmission members (Fig. 23) in order to transfer torque between the parts (Paragraph 0144, lines 7-9), as recognized by Ho.
Regarding claim 24, Dachs ’821 teaches the sterile adapter (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, line
56) of claim 23. Dachs ’821 does not teach that the plurality of first teeth are arranged in a radial pattern, and each of the plurality of first teeth has two guiding surfaces
intersecting to form a sharp or rounded tooth peak.
Ho, however, teaches an instrument drive input that includes the plurality of first teeth (Fig. 22A-B, paragraph 0141, lines 3-4) are arranged in a radial pattern (Fig. 22A-22B), and each of the plurality of first teeth (Fig. 22A-B) has two guiding surfaces (Fig. 23) intersecting to form a sharp or rounded tooth peak (Paragraph 0144, lines 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of
Ho to include an adapter transmission member that includes the plurality of first teeth that are arranged in a radial pattern, and each of the plurality of first teeth has two guiding surfaces intersecting to form a sharp or rounded tooth peak. Doing so would ensure a tight and proper fit between the adapter and drive transmission members (Fig. 23) in order to transfer torque between the parts (Paragraph 0144, lines 7-9), as recognized by Ho.
Regarding claim 25, Dachs ’821 teaches the sterile adapter (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, line
56) of claim 24. Dachs ’821 does not teach that each of the plurality of first teeth has two meshing surfaces facing away from each other, each of the two meshing surfaces is configured to abut against a respective one of the plurality of second teeth for transmission of torque, and each of the two meshing surfaces transitions from a respective one of the two guiding surfaces.
Ho, however, teaches an instrument drive input that includes the plurality of first teeth (Fig. 22A-B, paragraph 0141, lines 3-4), wherein each of the plurality of first teeth has two meshing surfaces facing away from each other (See Annotated Fig. 23 above). Furthermore, Ho teaches that each of the two meshing surfaces is configured to abut against a respective one (Fig. 21-24) of the plurality of second teeth (Fig. 21A-B, paragraph 0139, line 2) for transmission of torque (Paragraph 0144, lines 7-9). Ho also teaches that each of the two meshing surfaces (See Annotated Fig. 23 above) transitions from a respective one of the two guiding surfaces (Fig. 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of Ho to include that each of the plurality of first teeth has two meshing surfaces facing away from each other, each of the two meshing surfaces is configured to abut against a respective one of the plurality of second teeth for transmission of torque, and each of the two meshing surfaces transitions from a respective one of the two guiding surfaces. Doing so would ensure a tight and proper fit between the adapter and drive transmission members (Fig. 23) in order to transfer torque between the parts (Paragraph 0144, lines 7-9), as recognized by Ho.
Regarding claim 29, Dachs ’821 in view of Ho discloses the claimed
invention of claim 23. Dachs ’821 further discloses the sterile adapter (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, line 56) of claim 23, further comprising an adapter body (Fig. 4, Col. 10, lines 22-24) defining a mounting hole (Fig. 8-9, Col. 11, lines 10-11), the adapter body being provided with a limiting part in the mounting hole (Fig. 13B, Col. 14, line 11), wherein the adapter transmission member (Fig. 3B-4, Col. 10, lines 5-7) is rotatably received in the mounting hole (Col. 10, lines 5-6) and provided with a positioning part (Fig. 13B, Col. 14, line 21) configured to abut against the limiting part to prevent rotation of the adapter transmission member (Col. 14, lines 20-24).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dachs, II et al. (EP 3610821, herein referred to as Dachs ’821) in view of Ho et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0367981) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holop et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2016/0184034).
Regarding claim 5, Dachs ’821 teaches an instrument driving and transmission
mechanism (Fig. 1-2) of claim 1, wherein the adapter transmission member (Fig. 3B-4, Col. 10, lines 5-7) includes at least one transmission boss (Fig. 15, Col. 17, lines 17-19) protruding from an upper surface (Fig. 15, Col. 17, lines 18-19) of the adapter transmission member; wherein the instrument transmission member (Fig. 15, Col. 17, lines 12-13) includes at least one transmission sinking table (Fig. 15, Col. 17, lines 19-23) on a surface of the instrument transmission member (Fig. 15, Col. 17, lines 15-17), wherein a respective transmission boss (Fig. 15) of the at least one transmission boss is in clearance fit (Fig. 15) with a respective transmission sinking table (Fig. 15) of the at least one transmission sinking table.
Dachs ’821 does not teach that the at least one transmission boss is an eccentric
distribution with respect to a rotation axle center of the adaptive transmission member, or
that the at least one transmission sinking table is an eccentric distribution with respect to
a rotation axle center of the instrument transmission member. Holop, however, teaches
an instrument sterile adapter drive interface that includes at least one transmission boss is
in an eccentric distribution (Fig. 16C) with respect to a rotation axle center (Fig. 16C,
paragraph 0236, lines 8-9) of the adaptive transmission member, or that the at least one
transmission sinking table is in an eccentric distribution (Fig. 18A) with respect to a rotation axle center (Fig. 18A, paragraph 0256, lines 1-3) of the instrument transmission member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of
Holop to have an instrument driving and transmission mechanism that includes at least
one transmission boss is an eccentric distribution with respect to a rotation axle center of
the adaptive transmission member, or that the at least one transmission sinking table is in an eccentric distribution with respect to a rotation axle center of the instrument transmission member. Doing so would ensure proper alignment and Increase stability between the adapter transmission member and instrument transmission member (Paragraph 0236, lines 11-14), as recognized by Holop.
Regarding claim 6, Dachs ’821 teaches an instrument driving and transmission
mechanism (Fig. 1-2) of claim 5 that includes the adapter transmission member (Fig. 3B-4, Col. 10, lines 5-7) and the instrument transmission member (Fig. 15, Col. 17, lines 12-13). Dachs ’821 does not teach an adapter transmission member that further includes a
cylindrical boss protruding from the upper surface of the adapter transmission member,
where the cylindrical boss has a height larger than a height of the respective transmission
boss, and the cylindrical boss is coaxial with the adapter transmission member. Dachs
’821 also does not teach an instrument transmission member that further includes a
cylindrical sinking table on the surface of the instrument transmission member, where the
cylindrical sinking table is coaxial with the instrument transmission member, and the
cylindrical boss is in clearance fit with the cylindrical sinking table.
Holop, however, teaches an instrument sterile adapter drive interface that includes
an adapter transmission member that further includes a cylindrical boss (Fig. 16C,
paragraph 0236, line 2) protruding from the upper surface (Fig. 16C) of the adapter
transmission member, where the cylindrical boss has a height larger than a height of the
respective transmission boss (Fig. 16C, paragraph 0236, lines 4-5), and the cylindrical
boss is coaxial (Fig. 16C, paragraph 0236, line 2) with the adapter transmission member.
Holop also teaches an instrument transmission member that further includes
a cylindrical sinking table (Fig. 18A, paragraph 0255, line 8) on the surface (Fig. 18A) of
the instrument transmission member, where the cylindrical sinking table is coaxial (Fig. 18A, paragraph 0255, line 8) with the instrument transmission member, and the cylindrical boss is in clearance fit (Paragraph 0256, lines 1-5) with the cylindrical sinking
table.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of
Holop to have an instrument driving and transmission mechanism that includes an
adapter transmission member that further includes a cylindrical boss protruding from the
upper surface of the adapter transmission member, the cylindrical boss has a height larger
than a height of the respective transmission boss, and the cylindrical boss is coaxial with
the adapter transmission member. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of Holop to have an instrument transmission member
that further includes a cylindrical sinking table on the surface of the instrument
transmission member, where the cylindrical sinking table is coaxial with the instrument
transmission member, and the cylindrical boss is in clearance fit with the cylindrical
sinking table. Doing so would ensure proper alignment and Increase stability between the adapter transmission member and instrument transmission member (Paragraph 0236, lines 11-14), as recognized by Holop.
Regarding claim 7, Dachs ’821 teaches an instrument driving and transmission
mechanism (Fig. 1-2) of claim 6 that includes the at least one transmission boss (Fig. 15, Col. 17, lines 17-19). Dachs ’821 does not teach an instrument driving and transmission mechanism that includes at least one transmission boss that is configured as two transmission bosses, where the two transmission bosses and the cylindrical boss are formed in an integral structure, a diameter of the cylindrical boss is larger than a width of the respective transmission boss, and a cylindrical structure between two transmission sinking tables on the instrument transmission member is configured to be fitted to the cylindrical boss.
Holop, however, teaches an instrument sterile adapter drive interface that includes
at least one transmission boss that is configured as two transmission bosses, where the
two transmission bosses and the cylindrical boss (Fig. 16C, paragraph 0236, line 2) are
formed in an integral structure (Fig. 16C), a diameter of the cylindrical boss is larger than
a width (Fig. 16C) of the respective transmission boss, and a cylindrical structure (Fig.
18A, paragraph 0255, line 8) between two transmission sinking tables (Fig. 18A,
paragraph 0255, line 8) on the instrument transmission member is configured to be fitted
to the cylindrical boss (Paragraph 0256, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of
Holop to have an instrument driving and transmission mechanism that includes at least
one transmission boss that is configured as two transmission bosses, where the two
transmission bosses and the cylindrical boss are formed in an integral structure, a
diameter of the cylindrical boss is larger than a width of the respective transmission boss,
and a cylindrical structure between two transmission sinking tables on the instrument
transmission member is configured to be fitted to the cylindrical boss. Doing so would ensure proper alignment and Increase stability between the adapter transmission member and instrument transmission member (Paragraph 0236, lines 11-14), as recognized by Holop. Although Holop only discloses one transmission boss that is next to the cylindrical boss, Dachs ’821 discloses two transmission bosses. Therefore, it would be obvious to try adding another transmission boss on the other side of the cylindrical boss, as recognized by Holop.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dachs, II et al. (EP 3610821, herein referred to as Dachs ’821) in view of Ho et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0367981) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Holop et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2016/0184034).
Regarding claim 26, Dachs ’821 teaches the sterile adapter (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, line
56) of claim 23, wherein the adapter transmission member (Fig. 3B-4, Col. 10, lines 5-7)
includes at least one transmission boss (Fig. 15, Col. 17, lines 17-19) protruding from the upper end (Fig. 15, Col. 17, lines 18-19), and the at least one transmission boss is configured to engage (Fig. 15) at least one transmission sinking table (Fig. 15, Col. 17, lines 19-23) of the instrument drive (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, lines 54-55).
Dachs ’821 does not teach that the at least one transmission boss is in an eccentric
distribution with respect to a rotation axle center of the adapter transmission member. Holop, however, teaches an instrument sterile adapter drive interface that includes at least one transmission boss that is an eccentric distribution (Fig. 16C) with respect to a rotation axle center (Fig. 16C, paragraph 0236, lines 8-9) of the adaptive transmission member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of Holop to have an instrument driving and transmission mechanism that includes at least one transmission boss that is an eccentric distribution with respect to a rotation axle center of the adaptive transmission member. Doing so would ensure proper alignment and Increase stability between the adapter transmission member and instrument transmission member (Paragraph 0236, lines 11-14), as recognized by Holop.
Regarding claim 27, Dachs '821 teaches the sterile adapter (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, line
56) of claim 26 that includes the adapter transmission member (Fig. 3B-4, Col. 10, lines 5-7). Dachs '821 does not teach an adapter transmission member that further includes a
cylindrical boss protruding from the upper end, the cylindrical boss is larger in height than the at least one transmission boss, and the cylindrical boss is coaxial with the adapter transmission member.
Holop, however, teaches an instrument sterile adapter drive interface that includes
an adapter transmission member that further includes a cylindrical boss (Fig. 16C,
paragraph 0236, line 2) protruding from the upper end (Fig. 16C) of the adapter
transmission member, where the cylindrical boss has a height larger than a height of the
at least one transmission boss (Fig. 16C, paragraph 0236, lines 4-5), and the cylindrical
boss is coaxial (Fig. 16C, paragraph 0236, line 2) with the adapter transmission member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of Holop to have an adapter transmission member that further includes a cylindrical boss protruding from the upper end, the cylindrical boss has a height larger than a height of the at least one transmission boss, and the cylindrical boss is coaxial with the adapter transmission member. Doing so would ensure proper alignment and Increase stability between the adapter transmission member and instrument transmission member (Paragraph 0236, lines 11-14), as recognized by Holop.
Regarding claim 28, Dachs '821 teaches the sterile adapter (Fig. 3A, Col. 9, line
56) of claim 27 that includes the at least one transmission boss (Fig. 15, Col. 17, lines 17-
19). Dachs '821 does not teach that the at least one transmission boss comprises two transmission bosses, the two transmission bosses and the cylindrical boss are formed in an integral structure, and a diameter of the cylindrical boss is larger than a width of the two transmission bosses.
Holop, however, teaches an instrument sterile adapter drive interface that includes
at least one transmission boss that is configured as two transmission bosses, where the
two transmission bosses and the cylindrical boss (Fig. 16C, paragraph 0236, line 2) are formed in an integral structure (Fig. 16C), a diameter of the cylindrical boss is larger than a width (Fig. 16C) of the two transmission bosses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dachs ’821 to incorporate the teachings of Holop to have an instrument driving and transmission mechanism that includes at least one transmission boss that is configured as two transmission bosses, where the two transmission bosses and the cylindrical boss are formed in an integral structure, and a diameter of the cylindrical boss is larger than a width of the two transmission bosses. Doing so would ensure proper alignment and Increase stability between the adapter transmission member and instrument transmission member (Paragraph 0236, lines 11-14), as recognized by Holop. Although Holop only discloses one transmission boss that is next to a cylindrical boss, Dachs ’821 discloses two transmission bosses. Therefore, it would be obvious to try adding another transmission boss on the other side of the cylindrical boss, as recognized by Holop.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 Heidi Hilsmier whose telephone number is (571)272-2984. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Fridays from 7:30 AM - 3:30 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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/H.A.H./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights