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 .
Detailed Action
This is in response to the amendment field 09/26/2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/26/2025 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-17, 19-21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 8 recites providing a second robotic drive input; and a robotic instrument drive adapter providing: a first robotic drive output to drive the first robotic drive input; and a second robotic drive output to drive the second robotic drive input.
The Office agrees the art of record fails to teach or suggest these features.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/0257333 (Blumenkranz) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0218521 (Gerbec et al.)
Regarding claim 1, Blumenkranz discloses as shown in Figures 3, 4, a medical instrument (210), a proximal end (proximal end of optical fiber hand piece 212, see paragraph [0057]) and a distal end of hand piece 212, see paragraph [0057]), an instrument base (handpiece 212, see paragraph [0057]) extending between the proximal and distal ends providing a first robotic drive input (one of drive inputs, see paragraph [0059]) capable of coupling to a corresponding robotic drive output of a robotic instrument deriver, and an actuator (actuator 220, see paragraph [0057]) coupled to the first robotic drive input, the first robotic drive input configured to couple to a corresponding robotic drive output of a robotic instrument driver; and an elongate shaft (optical fiber 216, see paragraph [0057]) extending from a proximal and distal end of the medical instrument, wherein the actuator couples to a portion of the elongate shaft at a point distal to the proximal portion of the medical instrument.
Blumenkranz fails to disclose the actuator is a linear actuator.
Gerbec et al., from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar instrument base, as shown in Figure 1, where an actuator pivotable or rotary actuator (dial) is a known alternative to a linear actuator (slider). See paragraph [0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical instrument disclosed by Blumenkranz by substituting the pivotable or rotary actuator for the linear actuator (slider) taught by Gerbec because it would only require the simple substitution of one known alternative for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Blumenkranz discloses a second robotic drive input (one of the other drive inputs, see paragraph [0059]), the second robotic drive input configured to actuate a distal end of the medical instrument.
Regarding claim 4, Blumenkranz fails to disclose a manual actuator, the manual actuator further controlling actuation of the distal end of the medical instrument.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the actuator 414 taught by Blumenkranz such that the medical instrument included a manual actuator, the manual actuator further controlling actuation of the distal end of the medical instrument because it would only require the duplication of parts without changing how the device operates. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Regarding claim 5, Blumenkranz discloses wherein the second robotic drive input is configured to expand or retract the distal end of the medical instrument. See paragraph [0059].
Regarding claim 6, Blumenkranz discloses wherein the medical instrument comprises a laser tool or a basketing tool. See paragraph [0033].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/025733 (Blumenkranz) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0218521 (Gerbec et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2006/0142695 (Knudson)
Regarding claim 2, Blumenkranz in view of Gerbec et al. fail to disclose wherein the linear actuator comprises a linear gear configured to manipulate a longitudinal position of the elongate shaft.
Knudson, from a related field of endeavor teaches a similar linear actuator, where the linear actuator includes a linear gear configured to manipulate a longitudinal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Blumenkranz in view of Gerbec et al. to include the linear gears because it would only require the simple substitution of one known alternative for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/025733 (Blumenkranz) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0218521 (Gerbec et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0071895 (Stahler et al.)
Regarding claim 7, Blumenkranz fails to disclose wherein the elongate shaft forms a service loop extending from the proximal portion of the instrument base to the point distal to the proximal portion.
Stahler et al., from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar medical instrument as shown in Figure 36D, wherein the elongate shaft forms a service loop extending from the proximal portion of the instrument base to the point distal to the proximal portion, for the purpose of providing a support structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical instrument disclosed by Blumenkranz to include the service loops taught by Stahler in order to provide a support structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/26/2025, see pages 6-9, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. In particular, optical fiber 216 is interpreted as the claimed elongate shaft and not the surgical instrument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G LOUIS whose telephone number is 571-270-1965. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 – 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho at 571-272-4696. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD G LOUIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771