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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the end of claim 4 recites “wherein said counter blade portion” but fails to provide any limitations thereafter. This appears to have been mistakenly left in the claim during an amendment. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 6, 9-12, 15, 16, and 18-20 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the body of the counter blade portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the body of the second tip" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the body of the first tip" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 is a system claim however only recites the device of claim 1 and no corresponding structures of the system rendering the scope of claim unclear.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the movement" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the degree of freedom" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the body of the counter blade portion" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the body of the second tip" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crews et al. (US 20190105032 A1) in view of Measamer et al. (US 6,168,605 B1).
Regarding claim 1 Crews discloses (fig. 7-17B) a surgical instrument for a robotic surgery system comprising an articulated end-effector 704 comprising:
a support structure 707;
a first tip 710 comprising a first proximal attachment root (see annotated fig. 13 below) and a first distal free end (end of 710, see fig. 10 and [0050]);
a second tip 712 comprising a second proximal attachment root (see annotated fig. 13 below) and a second distal free end (end of 712, see fig. 9); wherein:
the support structure, the first tip and the second tip are mutually articulated in a common rotation axis (axis of 705) defining an axial direction coincident with the common rotation axis (see fig. 8-9 and [0042]), defining a relative degree of freedom (alpha) of opening/closing between the first tip and the second tip (see fig. 8-9 and [0045]));
the first root of the first tip 710 and the second root of the second tip 712 are axially proximate the support structure (see fig. 8-9); and wherein:
said first tip 710 comprises a blade portion 730 with a cutting edge 734 integral in rotation with the first free end (see fig. 8-9, [0044], and [0061]);
said second tip 712 comprises a counter-blade portion 732 integral in rotation with the second free end (see fig. 8-9, [0044], and [0061]);
said counter-blade portion 732 is adapted to abut against said cutting edge 734, so that said cutting edge 734 of the first tip 710 and said counter-blade portion 732 of the second tip 712 reach a mechanical interference contact condition to exert a cutting action (see fig. 15B-17B and [0065]-[0067]);
the first root of the first tip 710 is in direct and intimate contact with the support structure 707 and the second root of the second tip 712 is in direct and intimate contact with the support structure 707 (see fig. 13-14).
PNG
media_image1.png
707
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Crews is silent regarding said blade portion of the first tip is elastically bendable in the axial direction; said counter-blade portion is adapted to abut against said cutting edge by axially elastically bending said blade portion of the first tip.
However Measamer, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 6-11) a blade portion 80 of a first tip having a cutting edge 81 (see fig. 6 and col. 9 ln. 4-15), the blade portion 80 of the first tip is elastically bendable in an axial direction (see fig. 7-11 and col. 9 ln. 16-44); a counter-blade portion 90 is adapted to abut against said cutting edge 81 by axially elastically bending said blade portion 80 of the first tip (see fig. 7-11 and col. 9 ln. 16-44).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Crews to have said blade portion of the first tip is elastically bendable in the axial direction; said counter-blade portion is adapted to abut against said cutting edge by axially elastically bending said blade portion of the first tip as taught by Measamer, for the purpose of improving cutting by reducing splaying and ensuring the blades remain in contact as they close (see Measamer col. 9 ln. 16-22).
Regarding claim 2, Crews as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Crews further discloses (fig. 7-17B) the first root of the first tip 710 and the second root of the second tip 712 are articulated to the support structure about said common rotation axis (axis of 705) defining a degree of freedom of orientation (rotation about axis of 705) between the support structure and the assembly formed by said first tip 710 and said second tip 712 (see fig. 8-9)
Regarding claim 3, Crews as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Crews further discloses (fig. 7-17B) said first root and said second root are jointly interposed between the support structure 707 (see annotated fig. 13 below claim 1); and/or wherein: … (the broadest reasonable interpretation of “and/or” is “or” and under that interpretation the portion of claim following “and/or” is an alternative not required if the first clause is met).
Regarding claim 4, Crews as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Crews further discloses (fig. 7-17B) said counter-blade portion 732 of the second tip 712 protrudes axially (see fig. 15B) for bending the first tip (the counter-blade portion is modified above in claim 1 to bend the first tip).
Regarding claim 7, Crews as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Crews further discloses (fig. 7-17B) at least one of the first tip 710 and the second tip 712 comprises an axial deformation seat forming an axial recess for housing the elastic deformation of the blade portion or the counter-blade portion during the cutting action (see annotated fig. 15B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
318
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Crews as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Crews further discloses (fig. 7-17B) said first root of the first tip 710 comprises a first through hole (hole 705 extends through, see fig. 10-11 and [0051]), and said second root of the second tip 712 comprises a second through hole (hole 705 extends through, see [0051]), said first through hole of the first root and said second through hole of the second root are all circular through holes coaxial to said common rotation axis (axis of 705) and receive a single articulation pin 705 extending in the direction of the common rotation axis (see [0051]).
Regarding claim 9, Crews as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Crews further discloses (fig. 7-17B) the body of the first tip 710 is formed by two separate pieces, or links, comprising: a blade link 730 having a body comprising in a single piece said blade portion 730 with said cutting edge 734 and a blade link root 740 (see fig. 10 and [0051]), and, a blade holder link 750 having a blade holder link root (portion forming 752, see fig. 11 and [0051]), and wherein the blade link root 740 and the blade holder link root are next to and indirect and intimate contact with each other, jointly forming said first root of the first tip (see fig. 10-11 and [0051])
Regarding claim 10, Crews as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 9. Crews further discloses (fig. 7-17B) further comprising a rotational drag engagement 760 between said blade link 730 and said blade holder link 750 of the first tip 710 which is placed distally with respect to the first root of the first tip (see fig. 11).
Regarding claim 11, Crews as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 9. Crews further discloses (fig. 7-17B) further comprising a closing stroke end (end of 744, see fig. 15B) for said blade link 730 which is placed distally with respect to the first root of the first tip 710 (see fig. 10).
Regarding claim 12, Crews as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 9. Crews further discloses (fig. 7-17B) aid blade link root 740 is axially interposed between said blade holder link root (portion forming 752) and the second root of the second tip 712 and in direct and intimate contact therewith with said blade holder link root and the second root of the second tip 712 (see fig. 13-14)
Regarding claim 13, Crews as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Crews further discloses (fig. 7-17B) the first root of the first tip 710 comprises, integral in rotation with said blade portion, a first termination seat (groove 703c engages) for at least one actuation tendon 703c of the first tip 710 about said common rotation axis (axis of 705, [0041] discloses that elements are configured as shown in fig. 1 and 3-5, see fig. 5), the second root of the second tip 712 comprises, integral in rotation with said counter-blade portion, at least a second termination seat (groove 703a engages) for at least one actuation tendon 703a of the second tip 712 about said common rotation axis (axis of 705, [0041] discloses that elements are configured as shown in fig. 1 and 3-5, see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Crews as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Crews is silent regarding the blade portion is sharpened by wire electro-erosion.
Crews teaches that a sharp blade, but is silent as to the method of sharpening. The claimed phrase “the blade portion is sharpened by wire electro-erosion” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the blade is sharpened by electro-erosion. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Thus, even though Crews as modified is silent as to the process used to sharpen the blade, it appears that the product in Crews as modified would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is a cutting blade.
Regarding claim 15, Crews as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Crews further discloses (fig. 7-17B) a robotic surgery system 600 (see [0037] and [0041]) comprising at least one surgical instrument according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16 Crews discloses (fig. 7-17B) a rotational joint actuated by actuations tendons (703a-c, see [0044]) having a rotation axis (axis of 705, see [0042]) comprising:
a support structure 707;
a first attachment root (see annotated fig. 13 below) integral in rotation with a first free end (end of 710, see fig. 10 and [0050]) with a blade portion 730 with a cutting edge 734 (see fig. 8-9, [0044], and [0061]);
a second attachment root (see annotated fig. 13 below) integral in rotation with a second free end (end of 712, see fig. 9) and with a counter-blade portion 732 (see fig. 8-9, [0044], and [0061]); wherein
the cutting edge 734 of the blade potion 730 is adapted to abut against said counter-blade portion 732 during the movement of the degree of freedom of opening/closing (alpha, see fig. 8-9 and [0045]) of the cutting joint, in a mechanical interference contact condition to exert a cutting action (see fig. 15B-17B and [0065]-[0067]);
the first root of the first tip 710 is in direct and intimate contact with the support structure 707 and the second root of the second tip 712 is in direct and intimate contact with the support structure 707 (see fig. 13-14).
PNG
media_image3.png
644
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Crews is silent regarding said blade portion of the first tip is elastically bendable in the axial direction.
However Measamer, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 6-11) a blade portion 80 of a first tip having a cutting edge 81 (see fig. 6 and col. 9 ln. 4-15), the blade portion 80 of the first tip is elastically bendable in an axial direction (see fig. 7-11 and col. 9 ln. 16-44).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Crews to have said blade portion of the first tip is elastically bendable in the axial direction as taught by Measamer, for the purpose of improving cutting by reducing splaying and ensuring the blades remain in contact as they close (see Measamer col. 9 ln. 16-22).
Regarding claim 17, Crews as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Crews as modified further teaches said counter-blade portion 732 of the second tip protrudes axially (see fig. 15B) for bending the first tip (see modification to claim 1 above); and wherein said counter- blade portion 732 is a curved protruding surface having a concavity (formed by wing 746) facing axially inwards (see fig. 15B).
Regarding claim 18, Crews as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Crews is further silent regarding the body of the counter- blade portion of the second tip is elastically bendable axially outwards.
However Measamer further teaches (fig. 6-11) the body of the counter- blade portion 90 is elastically bendable axially outwards (see fig. 7-11 and col. 9 ln. 16-44).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Crews to have the body of the counter- blade portion of the second tip is elastically bendable axially outwards as taught by Measamer, for the purpose of improving cutting by reducing splaying and ensuring the blades remain in contact as they close (see Measamer col. 9 ln. 16-22).
Regarding claim 20, Crews as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 9. Crews further discloses (fig. 7-17B) further comprising a rotational drag engagement 760 between said blade link 730 and said blade holder link 750 of the first tip 710 which is placed distally with respect to the first root of the first tip (see fig. 11), and is placed along the longitudinal extension of the blade portion (see fig. 10-11).
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worrell et al. (US 20190282291 A1) in view of Measamer.
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 6 Worrell discloses (fig. 2-7) a surgical instrument for a robotic surgery system comprising an articulated end-effector 204 comprising:
a support structure (402a and 402b, see fig. 4 and [0038]);
a first tip 210 comprising a first proximal attachment root 414a and a first distal free end (end of 210, see fig. 6 and [0047]);
a second tip 212 comprising a second proximal attachment root 414b and a second distal free end (end of 212, see fig. 6 and [0047]); wherein:
the support structure, the first tip 210 and the second tip 212 are mutually articulated in a common rotation axis (P1) defining an axial direction coincident with the common rotation axis (see fig. 4 and [0039]), defining a relative degree of freedom of opening/closing between the first tip and the second tip (see fig. 4 and [0045]);
the first root 414a of the first tip 210 and the second root 414b of the second tip 212 are axially proximate the support structure (402a, 402b, see fig. 4 and 6); and wherein:
said first tip 210 comprises a blade portion 210 (see [0030]) integral in rotation with the first free end (see [0045]);
said second tip 212 comprises a counter-blade portion 212 (see [0030]) integral in rotation with the second free end (see [0045]);
the first root 414a of the first tip 210 is in direct and intimate contact with the support structure (402a and 402b) and the second root 414b of the second tip 212 is in direct and intimate contact with the support structure (402a and 402b, see fig. 4 and 6);
the body 212 of the second tip comprises a proximal cantilevered arm (see fig. 6) and having a proximal free end (see fig. 6), and a proximal portion of the counter-blade portion belongs to said proximal cantilevered arm (see fig. 6).
Worrell is silent regarding the blade portion of the first tip has a cutting edge; said blade portion of the first tip is elastically bendable in the axial direction; said counter-blade portion is adapted to abut against said cutting edge by axially elastically bending said blade portion of the first tip, so that said cutting edge of the first tip and said counter-blade portion of the second tip reach a mechanical interference contact condition to exert a cutting action; the body of the counter-blade portion of the second tip is elastically bendable in the axial direction; the proximal cantilevered arm being elastically deformable axially outwards.
However Measamer, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 6-11) a blade portion 80 of a first tip having a cutting edge 81 (see fig. 6 and col. 9 ln. 4-15), the blade portion 80 of the first tip is elastically bendable in an axial direction (see fig. 7-11 and col. 9 ln. 16-44); a counter-blade portion 90 is adapted to abut against said cutting edge 81 by axially elastically bending said blade portion 80 of the first tip (see fig. 7-11 and col. 9 ln. 16-44), so that said cutting edge of the first tip and said counter-blade portion of the second tip reach a mechanical interference contact condition to exert a cutting action (see fig. 7-11 and col. 9 ln. 16-44); the body 90 of the counter-blade portion 91 of the second tip is elastically bendable in the axial direction (see fig. 7-11 and col. 9 ln. 16-44); the proximal cantilevered arm 90 being elastically deformable axially outwards (see fig. 7-11 and col. 9 ln. 16-44).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Worrell to have the blade portion of the first tip has a cutting edge; said blade portion of the first tip is elastically bendable in the axial direction; said counter-blade portion is adapted to abut against said cutting edge by axially elastically bending said blade portion of the first tip, so that said cutting edge of the first tip and said counter-blade portion of the second tip reach a mechanical interference contact condition to exert a cutting action; the body of the counter-blade portion of the second tip is elastically bendable in the axial direction; the proximal cantilevered arm being elastically deformable axially outwards as taught by Measamer, for the purpose of improving cutting by reducing splaying and ensuring the blades remain in contact as they close (see Measamer col. 9 ln. 16-22).
Regarding claim 19, Worrell as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 5. Worrell as modified the surgical instrument is capable of performing a cutting action for opening angles of the degree of freedom of opening/closing up to 60° (the range of up to 60° includes 0-60 and the device of Worrell as modified opens to an angle of greater than 0 to perform a cutting action).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crews in view of Measamer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harrop et al. (PT 99275 B).
Regarding claim 14, Crews as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Crews is silent regarding the blade portion is sharpened by wire electro-erosion.
Crews teaches that a sharp blade, but is silent as to the method of sharpening. The claimed phrase “the blade portion is sharpened by wire electro-erosion” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the blade is sharpened by electro-erosion.
Harrop teaches that wire electro-erosion is a known blade sharpening technique (pg. 2 7th paragraph).
Therefore, even if “wire electro-erosion” results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other sharpening methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a “wire electro-erosion” in Crews as claimed since Harrop teaches that wire electro-erosion is recognized as a useful technique for sharpening blades.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE H SCHWIKER whose telephone number is (571)272-9503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-4:00 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.
/KATHERINE H SCHWIKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771