DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Effective Filing Date
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No.DE102022134205.0, filed on December 20th, 2022. As such, the effective filing date of the instant application’s current claim will be December 20th, 2022.
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 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “at least in some sections” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “at least in some sections” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “in particular” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in particular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This is not definite language and therefore, does not need to be considered in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 6 and 14 - 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chassot et al. (US Pub No: 2018/0353252 A1, hereinafter Chassot) in view of Sun et al. (US Pub No: 2025/0152286 A1, hereinafter Sun) and Thissen et al. (US Pub No: 2022/0061634 A1, hereinafter Thissen).
Regarding Claim 1:
Chassot discloses:
A surgical instrument, comprising: a housing arranged at the proximal end of the surgical instrument. Figure 1B shows a housing a proximal end of a tool.
an interface arranged on the housing for coupling to a drive unit. Paragraph [0047] and figure 3 describes a drive unit 304 for actuating movement of end-effector 506 of instrument 500 in one or more degrees of freedom.
Chassot does not disclose a steering gear arranged in the housing and a spindle drive for driving the steering gear.
Sun, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
a steering gear arranged in the housing. Paragraph [0055] describes a steering gear to drive the sleeve 110.
and at least one spindle drive for driving the steering gear. Figure 1 and paragraph [0023] describes a drive unit that has drive shafts. This is equivalent to the claim because it is similar to the spindle shown in figure 6 of the applicant’s specification.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Chassot to incorporate the teachings of Sun to show a steering gear arranged in the housing and a spindle drive for driving the steering gear. One would have been motivated to do so in order to regulate the degree of freedom of the tool (Abstract of Sun).
Chassot does not disclose a steering gear that has a spatially orientable swash plate.
Thissen, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the steering gear has a spatially orientable swash plate. Paragraph [0056] and figure 3B describe a steering plate that is able to rotate around a hinge axis 126, similar to the plate in figure 1.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Chassot to incorporate the teachings of Thissen to show a steering gear that has a spatially orientable swash plate. One would have been motivated to do so in order to align the instrument along the longitudinal axis ([0065] of Thissen).
Regarding Claim 2:
Sun teaches:
The surgical instrument as set forth claim 1, wherein the interface is arranged on a coupling surface of the housing extending perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of a shaft, the shaft passing through the coupling surface. Figure 1 shows a surface perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the shaft. The surface couples the gears, etc… and can therefore be considered a coupling surface.
The reason to combine Sun with Chassot is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3:
Sun teaches:
The surgical instrument set forth in claim 1, wherein the surgical instrument has at least a first spindle drive and a second spindle drive, of which the axes of rotation are parallel to each other and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the surgical instrument. Figure 1 shows a first and second spindle drive which are parallel to each other and parallel to the longitudinal axis.
The reason to combine Sun with Chassot is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4:
Sun teaches:
The surgical instrument as set forth in claim 3, wherein the first spindle drive and the second spindle drive each have a drive plate arranged on the coupling surface. Figure 1 shows a first and second spindle drive which are parallel to each other and parallel to the longitudinal axis.
The reason to combine Sun with Chassot is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5:
Thissen teaches:
The surgical instrument as set forth in one of claims 1 to 4, wherein the steering gear has a first slide and a second slide, and wherein the first slide is assigned to the first spindle drive and the second slide to the second spindle drive. Paragraph [0062] and figure 3B describe actuators 124 that controls the roation of the outer frame 131 which is connected to a steering device 102.
The reason to combine Thissen with Chassot is for the same reasons as in claim 4
Regarding Claim 6:
Thissen teaches:
The surgical instrument as set forth in one in claim 5, wherein the steering gear has a clamp which is arranged on the swash plate and which is coupled to the first slide and the second slide. Paragraph [0062] and figure 3B describe actuators 124 that controls the roation of the outer frame 131 which is connected to a steering device 102.
The reason to combine Thissen with Chassot is for the same reasons as in claim 4
Regarding Claim 14:
Sun teaches:
The surgical instrument as set forth in claim 1, wherein the steering gear has a steering ring coupled to the swash plate. Paragraph [0054] describes a limit stop ring 423 on each axial end of the drive shaft 420.
The reason to combine Sun with Chassot is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15:
Sun teaches:
The surgical instrument as set forth in claim 14, wherein the first spindle drive and the second spindle drive interact with gearwheels for driving at least two bevel gears which are coupled to the steering ring. Paragraph [0029] and figure 1 describe two drive gears connected to their respective spindles.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chassot in view of Sun and Thissen and further in view of McBrien et al. (US Pub No: 2019/0231448 A1, hereinafter McBrien).
Regarding Claim 16:
Chassot, Sun and Thisson teach the above invention in claim 1. Chassot, Sun and Thisson do not teach where the drive system is attached to a robot arm which is attached to the drive unit and partially covers an interface on the drive unit.
McBrien, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
A drive system for a surgical instrument, wherein the drive system comprises a drive unit, which can be attached to a robot arm, a sterile adapter plate, which is attached to the drive unit and at least partially covers an interface on the drive unit, and the surgical instrument as set forth in claim 1, wherein the surgical instrument is coupled to the drive unit from the proximal direction via the interface. Paragraph [0071] and figures 4 – 6 describes a mechanical interconnection of the drive assembly interface and the instrument interface to transfer drive from the robot arm to the instrument. Paragraph [0088] describes a base portion 806 supports movable covers.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Chassot to incorporate the teachings of McBrien to show a drive system is attached to a robot arm which is attached to the drive unit and partially covers an interface on the drive unit. One would have been motivated to do so to prevent puncture and tearing of vital components ([0087] of McBrien).
Regarding Claim 17:
Chassot, Sun and Thisson teach the above invention in claim 1. Chassot, Sun and Thisson do not teach attaching a sterile adapter place to the drive unit which covers an interface of the drive unit and attaching the surgical instrument to the interface of the drive unit.
McBrien teaches:
A method for sterile mounting of a drive system for a surgical instrument, wherein the drive system comprises a drive unit, which can be attached to a robot arm, and the surgical instrument as set forth in claim 1, wherein the method comprises the following steps: attaching a sterile adapter plate to the drive unit, which at least partially covers an interface on the drive unit, and attaching the surgical instrument to the interface of the drive unit from the proximal direction. Paragraph [0071] and figures 4 – 6 describes a mechanical interconnection of the drive assembly interface and the instrument interface to transfer drive from the robot arm to the instrument. Paragraph [0088] describes a base portion 806 supports movable covers. Paragraph [0082] and figure 8 describes an interface assembly 700 that is sterile and an interface structure 802 that prevents the non-sterile drive assembly from directly touching the sterile instrument.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Chassot to incorporate the teachings of McBrien to show attaching a sterile adapter place to the drive unit which covers an interface of the drive unit and attaching the surgical instrument to the interface of the drive unit. One would have been motivated to do so to prevent puncture and tearing of vital components ([0087] of McBrien).
Claim(s) 7 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chassot in view of Sun and Thissen and further in view of Roessler et al. (US Patent No: 6,908,350 B1, hereinafter Roessler).
Regarding Claim 7:
Chassot, Sun and Thisson teach the above invention in claim 1. Chassot, Sun and Thisson do not teach a first and second slide that each have a ball head and engage in ball sockets on the clamp.
Roessler, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The surgical instrument as set forth in in claim 6, wherein the first slide and the second slide each have a ball head, which engage in ball sockets on the clamp. Column 6, lines 1 – 26 describes a first and second actuator arm that sandwiches a ball component between a pair of mating clamps.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Chassot to incorporate the teachings of Roessler to show a first and second slide that each have a ball head and engage in ball sockets on the clamp. One would have been motivated to do so to allow pivoting movement of the first actuator arm relative to the steering yoke (Column 6, lines 1 – 26 of Roessler).
Regarding Claim 8:
Roessler teaches:
The surgical instrument as set forth in in claim 6, wherein the clamp has a clamp base and two clamp arms, wherein the ball sockets are arranged on end portions of the clamp arms. Column 6, lines 1 – 26 describes a first and second actuator arm that sandwiches a ball component between a pair of mating clamps.
The reason to combine Roessler with Chassot is for the same reasons as in claim 7.
Regarding Claim 9:
Roessler teaches:
The surgical instrument as set forth in claim 8, wherein the clamp arms define, between their end portions, an opening of the clamp, wherein the opening lies opposite the clamp base. Column 6, lines 1 – 26 describes a first and second actuator arm that sandwiches a ball component between a pair of mating clamps.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chassot in view of Sun and Thissen and further in view of Comber et al. (US Pub No: 2013/0123802 A1, hereinafter Comber).
Regarding Claim 10:
Chassot, Sun and Thisson teach the above invention in claim 1. Chassot, Sun and Thisson do not teach an elastic clamp.
Comber, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The surgical instrument as set forth in in claim 6, wherein the clamp is elastic at least in some sections. Paragraph [0057] describes timing belt clamp that has flexible barbed end snaps, making it flexible.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Chassot to incorporate the teachings of Comber to show an elastic clamp. One would have been motivated to do so to create even pressure on the item and because it can conform to irregular shapes.
Claim(s) 11 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chassot in view of Sun and Thissen and further in view of Cannon, Jr. (US Pub No: 2020/0367877 A1, hereinafter Cannon).
Regarding Claim 11:
Cannon, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The surgical instrument as set forth in in claim 8, wherein the elasticity of the clamp is adjustable at least via the geometric thickness and/or the material selection of the clamp base. Paragraph [0163] describes a spring clamp 164 that is made from spring steel or other memory material.
Regarding Claim 12:
Roessler teaches:
The surgical instrument as set forth in in claim 6, wherein the swash plate has a groove which has mutually opposite and mutually parallel axial contact surfaces for the clamp, wherein the clamp is received in the groove. Column 6, lines 1 – 26 describes a first and second actuator arm that sandwiches a ball component between a pair of mating clamps.
The reason to combine Roessler with Chassot is for the same reasons as in claim 7.
Regarding Claim 13:
Roessler teaches:
The surgical instrument as set forth in claim 6, wherein the clamp surrounds more than 180° in particular an angular range of between 270° and 350° of the circumference of the swash plate. Figure 7 shows a clamp covering the clamp 360 degrees.
The reason to combine Roessler with Chassot is for the same reasons as in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grant (US Pub No: 20200360095 A1): A drive interface structure for interfacing one or more drive assembly interface elements of a surgical robot arm and one or more instrument interface elements of a surgical instrument. The drive interface structure includes a sheet of flexible material for providing a barrier between the one or more instrument interface elements and the one or more drive assembly interface elements; and a rigid rim attached to an outer edge of the sheet of flexible material, the rigid rim configured to engage an interface structure for detachably interfacing the surgical robot arm to the surgical instrument so that when the drive interface structure is engaged with the interface structure the sheet of flexible material covers an aperture of the interface structure through which the one more drive assembly interface elements transfer drive to the one or more instrument interface elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY KHANDPUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5090. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 6:30.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/JAY KHANDPUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3658