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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Worrell fails to disclose a hollow tube rigidly connected to the first end of the supporting body, wherein the hollow tube extends between the first and second tines such that if the surgical instrument is subjected to a force in a first direction, a first end of the hollow tube will come into contact with the first tine of the shaft and thus limit motion of the supporting body in the first direction. Applicant specifically argues that Worrell fails to disclose that the bushing 502 is rigidly connected to the distal clevis 402a.
Examiner agrees that Worrell fails to explicitly disclose that the bushing 502 is rigidly connected to the distal clevis 402a, but notes that Worrell does teach the bushing 502 may be configured to receive the second axle 404b such that the second axle 404b is able to rotate relative to the bushing 502 during articulation of the end effector 204 [0059]. In order for the axle 404b to rotate relative to the bushing 502 during articulation of the end effector 204, Examiner notes the bushing would have to be rigidly connected to the distal clevis. At the very least, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the bushing 502 as taught by Worrell to be rigidly connected to the distal clevis 402a in order for the axle 404b to be able to rotate relative to the bushing during articulation of the end effector 204 and to prevent friction/wear on the distal clevis caused by rotation of the bushing with a reasonable expectation of success.
Moreover, Ryan (US 2005/0222571) discloses a bushing 208 being press-fit into a housing 200 so the bushing may remain stationary when the drill bit 100 turns [0052]. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the hollow tube as taught by Worrell to be rigidly connected to the supporting body as taught by Ryan. Such a modification would provide the predictable result of preventing the hollow tube (bushing 502) from rotating and causing friction/wear on the supporting body (distal clevis 402a) to which it is rigidly connected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10, 16, 23, 28-31, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worrell et al (US 2019/0282291) hereinafter Worrell in view of Ryan (US 2005/0222571).
Regarding claim 1, Worrell discloses a robotic surgical instrument (Fig. 2: surgical tool 200) comprising:
an end effector ([0025] end effector 204);
a shaft component ([0025] shaft 202) comprising, at its distal end, opposing first and second tines which extend towards the end effector (see annotated Fig. 4);
PNG
media_image1.png
448
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 shows tines extending from proximal clevis 402b
a supporting body (distal clevis 402a) connected to a distal end of the shaft component at a first end and to the end effector at a second end [0038]; and
a hollow tube (bushing 502) connected to the first end of the supporting body [0059],
wherein the hollow tube extends between the first and second tines ([0059-0060] bushing 502 may be configured to receive the second axle 404b and a plurality of pulleys 412a; Referring to Fig. 4, Examiner notes this would require the bushing to be between the first and second tines) such that if the surgical instrument is subjected to a force in a first direction, a first end of the hollow tube will come into contact with the first tine of the shaft and thus limit motion of the supporting body in the first direction (Examiner notes that if the instrument was subjected to force in a first direction, the bushing would come into contact with the first tine which would necessarily limit motion of the distal clevis in the first direction).
Worrell fails to explicitly disclose that the bushing 502 is rigidly connected to the distal clevis 402a, but further teaches the bushing 502 may be configured to receive the second axle 404b such that the second axle 404b is able to rotate relative to the bushing 502 during articulation of the end effector 204 [0059]. In order for the axle 404b to rotate relative to the bushing 502 during articulation of the end effector 204, Examiner notes the bushing would have to be rigidly connected to the distal clevis. At the very least, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the bushing 502 as taught by Worrell to be rigidly connected to the distal clevis 402a in order for the axle 404b to be able to rotate relative to the bushing during articulation of the end effector 204 and to prevent friction/wear on the distal clevis caused by rotation of the bushing with a reasonable expectation of success.
Moreover, Ryan (US 2005/0222571) discloses a bushing 208 being press-fit into a housing 200 so the bushing may remain stationary when the drill bit 100 turns [0052]. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the hollow tube as taught by Worrell to be rigidly connected to the supporting body as taught by Ryan. Such a modification would provide the predictable result of preventing the hollow tube (bushing 502) from rotating and causing friction/wear on the supporting body (distal clevis 402a) to which it is rigidly connected.
Regarding claim 2, Worrell discloses a first pulley ([0055] pulleys 412a) located between the supporting body and the first tine of the shaft component (Examiner notes Fig. 4 shows pulleys 412a being located between distal clevis 402a and the first tine of the shaft),
the first pulley being rotatable around a first axis (Fig. 4: axis P2) which is transverse to a longitudinal axis (Fig. 4: axis A2 ) of the shaft component ([0062] first plurality of pulleys 412a is mounted to the second axle 404b for relative rotation), the first pulley comprising:
a first section having a first diameter and a first length that extends along the first axis (See annotated Fig. 5); and
a second section having a second diameter that is smaller than the first diameter and a second length that extends along the first axis (See annotated Fig. 5);
PNG
media_image2.png
400
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5: Solid arrow points to a first section with a first diameter and a first length and the dashed arrow points to a second section with a second length and a smaller diameter
such that the length of the first pulley along the first axis between the supporting body and the first tine of the shaft component limits the degree of tilting or linear movement of the supporting body when it is subjected to external forces ([0044] first plurality of pulleys 412a is mounted to the proximal clevis 402b at the second axle 404b; Examiner notes that pulleys 112a would prevent linear translation of the distal clevis 402a along the axle 404b).
Regarding claim 3, Worrell discloses wherein the second section of the pulley faces the outer surface of the first end of the supporting body (annotated Fig. 5 shows the second diameter facing the outer surface of distal clevis 402a) and
is configured to interfere with the supporting body so as to restrict movement of the supporting body towards the pulley ([0044] first plurality of pulleys 412a is mounted to the proximal clevis 402b; Examiner notes this would prevent linear translation of the distal clevis 402a along the axle 404b).
Regarding claim 5, Worrell discloses wherein the first section comprises a groove that extends around the circumference of the first section (See annotated Fig. 6; [0044] a first plurality of pulleys 412a configured to interact with and redirect the drive cables 408a-d for engagement with the end effector 204).
PNG
media_image3.png
390
734
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 shows a groove around the first section of the pulleys 412a
Regarding claim 10, Worrell discloses wherein the supporting body is configured to rotate at a first joint ([0038] distal clevis 402a is rotatably mounted to the proximal clevis 402b at a second axle 404b) about a first axis (Fig. 4: pivot axis P2) which is transverse to a longitudinal axis of the shaft component ([0039] second pivot axis P2 is substantially perpendicular (orthogonal) to both the longitudinal axis A2 and the first pivot axis P1),
the first joint comprising a pin (axle 404b) connected to the supporting body and configured to rotate relative to the shaft component [0038],
wherein the robotic surgical instrument further comprises a first pair of driving elements (cables 408a-d) configured to drive the first joint of the instrument [0040],
wherein at least one driving element of the first set of driving elements is routed around the pulley ([0044] a first plurality of pulleys 412a configured to interact with and redirect the drive cables 408a-d for engagement with the end effector 204).
Regarding claim 16, Worrell discloses wherein the pulley is a first pulley (Fig. 8A: plurality of pulleys 412a) and the outer surface is a first outer surface (see annotated Fig. 5 above),
further comprising a second pulley facing a second outer surface of the first end of the supporting body (annotated Fig 8A shows a plurality of pulleys 412a; Two pulleys facing each side of the outer surface of the distal clevis 402a; Fig. 4),
PNG
media_image4.png
224
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8A: Solid arrow points to 1st pulley, dashed arrow points to 2nd pulley, the square contains a 3rd pulley, and the circle contains a 4th pulley
the second pulley comprising a first section with a first diameter and a second section with a second diameter that is smaller than the first diameter (see annotated Fig. 5 above which shows the configuration of pulleys 412a),
the first or second section of the second pulley being configured to restrict movement of the supporting body ([0044] first plurality of pulleys 412a is mounted to the proximal clevis 402b; Examiner notes this would prevent linear translation of the distal clevis 402a along the axle 404b).
Regarding claim 23, Worrell discloses wherein each of the first and second tines comprises an appendage extending distally of its respective tine (see annotated Fig. 4 above), each appendage being configured to interface with the supporting body when the supporting body is subjected to a force that moves it towards the respective tine of that appendage ([0038] the distal clevis 402a is rotatably mounted to the proximal clevis 402b at a second axle 404b; Referring to Fig. 4, Examiner notes that the distal clevis 402a is mounted at a second axle 404b which runs from each respective tine through the supporting body).
Regarding claim 28, Worrell discloses wherein the supporting body comprises a first channel (aperture 504) which extends through the first end of the supporting body [0059], the first tine comprises a second channel ([0039] distal clevis 402a is rotatably mounted to the proximal clevis 402b at a second axle 404b; Examine notes that Fig. 4 shows axle 404b extending the length of the second pivot axis P2, where it is received by proximal clevis 402b which would require each tine to have a channel for receiving the axle), the second tine comprises a third channel (Fig. 4 shows proximal clevis receiving axle 404b on each side, which would require each tine to have a channel for receiving axle 404b), and each pulley of the first set of pulleys comprises a respective channel ([0062] pulleys 412a is mounted to the second axle 404b for relative rotation; Examiner notes that Fig. 5 shows pulleys 412a having a channel).
Regarding claim 29, Worrell discloses wherein when the surgical instrument is assembled, the pin (axle 404b) of the first joint passes through the channels of the first tine of the shaft ([0039] distal clevis 402a is rotatably mounted to the proximal clevis 402b at a second axle 404b; Examine notes that Fig. 4 shows axle 404b extending the length of the second pivot axis P2, where it is received by proximal clevis 402b which would require each tine to have a channel for receiving the axle),
the second tine of the shaft (Fig. 4 shows proximal clevis receiving axle 404b on each side, which would require each tine to have a channel for receiving axle 404b),
the respective channels through the pulleys of the first set of pulleys and the first end of the supporting body ([0062] pulleys 412a is mounted to the second axle 404b for relative rotation).
Regarding claim 30, Worrell discloses wherein the hollow tube passes through one or more of the channels through the pulleys of the first set of pulleys ([0060] bushing 502 provides and otherwise defines varying diameters configured to receive and seat the first plurality of pulleys 412a; Fig. 5) and the first end of the supporting body ([0059] a bushing 502 that may be seated and otherwise received within an aperture 504 defined in the proximal end of the distal clevis 402a).
Regarding claim 31, wherein the pin (axle 404b) of the first joint is configured, when the surgical instrument is assembled, to pass through the hollow tube (bushing 502) such that rotation of the pin about the first axis results in rotation of the supporting body about the first axis ([0039] movement about the second pivot axis P.sub.2 provides “pitch” articulation of the end effector 204; [0059] bushing 502 may be configured to receive the second axle 404b such that the second axle 404b is able to rotate relative to the bushing 502 during articulation of the end effector 204).
Regarding claim 33, the modified Worrell discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the hollow tube is an integral part of the supporting body. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the hollow tube (bushing 502) as taught by Worrell to make the hollow tube an integral part of the supporting body, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of ensuring the conduction of electrical energy to the jaws via at least a portion of the bushing [0059] and by preventing wear/friction on the distal clevis 402a during articulation of the end effector 204 by making integral what had been made in separate in channels, as the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in Worrell would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP §2144.04(V)(B)).
Regarding claim 34, Worrell discloses wherein the hollow tube (bushing 502) and the supporting body (distal clevis 402a) are separate components ([0059] distal clevis 402a may include a bushing 502 that may be seated and otherwise received within an aperture 504 defined in the proximal end of the distal clevis 402a).
Claim(s) 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worrell (US 2019/0282291) in view of Ryan (US 2005/0222571) and further in view of Betsugi et al (US 2021/0196416) hereinafter Betsugi.
Regarding claim 4, Worrell discloses wherein the first diameter is an outer diameter of the first section (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
400
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5: Solid arrow points to a first section with a first diameter and the dashed arrow points to a second section with a second diameter
Worrell fails to disclose wherein the second diameter is an outer diameter of the second section. However, Betsugi discloses wherein the first diameter is an outer diameter of the first section (Fig. 25A: outer diameter of disk portion 351a) and the second diameter is an outer diameter of the second section (Fig 27: 351d; [0164] end portion 351d of the first inner pulley portion 351 on the side opposite to the center). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Worrell with the second diameter being an outer diameter of the second section as taught by Betsugi. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of adjusting the width of the first set of pulleys to match the width of the second set of pulleys in order to keep the pulleys and cables aligned.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Worrell discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein the pulley further comprises a third section with a third diameter that is smaller than the first diameter, wherein the third section is located on an opposing side of the first section of the pulley to the second section, the third section being configured to restrict movement of the supporting body towards the first tine.
However, Betsugi discloses wherein the pulley further comprises a third section (Fig. 27: end portion 351d) with a third diameter that is smaller than the first diameter (Examiner notes that end portion 351 tapers and would necessarily be smaller than the outer diameter of disk 351a shown in Fig. 25A),
wherein the third section is located on an opposing side of the first section of the pulley to the second section ([0164] end portion 351d of the first inner pulley portion 351 on the side opposite to the center),
the third section being configured to restrict movement of the supporting body towards the first tine (Fig. 28 shows pulley 351 on the side of support body 346 which would restrict movement of the supporting body 346 towards the third protrusion 46a (tine)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system as taught by Worrell with wherein the pulley further comprises a third section with a third diameter that is smaller than the first diameter, wherein the third section is located on an opposing side of the first section of the pulley to the second section, the third section being configured to restrict movement of the supporting body towards the first tine as taught by Betsugi. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of adjusting the width of the first set of pulleys to match the width of the second set of pulleys in order to keep the pulleys and cables aligned.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worrell (US 2019/0282291) in view of Ryan (US 2005/0222571) and further in view of Jensen et al (US 5,807,328) hereinafter Jensen.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Worrell discloses the system of claim 1 a discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein the ratio of the width of the second section relative to the first section is at least 2:5 and/or the overall width of the pulley is at least 0.4mm and/or the shaft component has a minimum diameter of 5mm. However, Jensen discloses wherein the ratio of the width of the second section relative to the first section is at least 2:5 and/or the overall width of the pulley is at least 0.4mm and/or the shaft component has a minimum diameter of 5mm (Col. 7, ln 23-324: Shaft 100 is preferably a stainless steel tube having an outer diameter in the range of 2-10 mm). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system as taught by Worrell with the shaft component has a minimum diameter of 5mm as taught by Jensen. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of ensuring the shaft can fit within a cannula (Jensen, Col. 7, ln 24-25).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worrell (US 2019/0282291) in view of Ryan (US 2005/0222571) and Betsugi (US 2021/0196416) and further in view of Kapadia (US 2016/0310156).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Worrell discloses the system of claim 4 as discussed above, but fails to disclose where the outer diameter of the second section is less than or equal to 3mm. However, Kapadia discloses where the outer diameter of the second section is less than or equal to 3mm ([0061] it is envisioned that the diameter of second pulleys 440 and 540 is between about 3 mm and about 4 mm). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system as taught by Worrell with the outer diameter of the second section is less than or equal to 3mm as taught by Kapadia. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of a small pulley system that would allow for a small surgical tool which would require a small incision for entry.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the system as taught by Worrell with the outer diameter of the second section is less than or equal to 3mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233] and/or since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ (Please see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worrell (US 2019/0282291) in view of Ryan (US 2005/0222571) and further in view of Moreya (US 2003/0208186).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Worrell discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein:
the supporting body comprises first and second flanges extending from the first end of the supporting body into the shaft component;
the shaft component comprises a protrusion coupled to the distal end of the shaft component and extending towards the end effector, the protrusion being configured to interface with an interfacing surface of one of the first or second flanges when the supporting body is moved towards the pulley; and
the separation between the outer surface of the first flange and the pulley is greater than the separation between said interfacing surface of one of the first or second flanges and the protrusion.
However, Moreya discloses wherein:
the supporting body comprises first and second flanges extending from the first end of the supporting body into the shaft component (See annotated Fig. 4);
the shaft component comprises a protrusion (lateral slots) coupled to the distal end of the shaft component and extending towards the end effector ([0036] the two lateral slots of the wrist base 20; Fig. 4),
the protrusion being configured to interface with an interfacing surface (center slot of wrist base) of one of the first or second flanges when the supporting body is moved towards the pulley ([0035] jaw base subassembly is then mounted on the center slot of the wrist base 20); and
the separation between the outer surface of the first flange and the pulley is greater than the separation between said interfacing surface of one of the first or second flanges and the protrusion ([0035] jaw base 30 is mounted on the center slot of the wrist base 20 with pin 31; Examiner notes that this requires the outer surface of the flanges to be mounted to the protrusion, so the outer surface of the flanges would be closer to the protrusion than the pulley).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system as taught by Worrell with the supporting body comprises first and second flanges extending from the first end of the supporting body into the shaft component; the shaft component comprises a protrusion coupled to the distal end of the shaft component and extending towards the end effector, the protrusion being configured to interface with an interfacing surface of one of the first or second flanges when the supporting body is moved towards the pulley; and the separation between the outer surface of the first flange and the pulley is greater than the separation between said interfacing surface of one of the first or second flanges and the protrusion as taught by Moreya. Such a modification would allow for coupling a jaw base subassembly to a wrist base without interfering with the jaw base pulley (Moreya,[0036]).
Claim(s) 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worrell (US 2019/0282291) in view of Ryan (US 2005/0222571) and further in view of Schuh et al (US 2020/0054408) hereinafter Schuh.
Regarding claim 32, the modified Worrell discloses the system of claim 28 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein there is an interference fit between the pin and the channel of the supporting body, the interference fit minimizing movement of the supporting body with respect to the pin during rotation of the supporting body about the first axis. However, Schuh discloses an interference fit between a pin (pin boss 515) and a channel of a supporting body (channel 510), the interference fit minimizing movement of the supporting body with respect to the pin during rotation of the supporting body about a first axis ([0143] rotation and/or articulation forces applied to the distal pulley 325 that may result in the end effector 315 and distal pulley 325 being pulled out of the distal clevis 305 are transferred to the distal clevis 305 through interference between the pin boss 515 and an edge of the channel 510).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system as taught by Worrell with an interference fit between a pin and a channel of a supporting body, the interference fit minimizing movement of the supporting body with respect to the pin during rotation of the supporting body about a first axis as taught by Schuh. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of preventing the end effector from being removed from the distal clevis (Schuh, [0143]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 WILLOW GRACE WELCH whose telephone number is (703)756-1596. The examiner can normally be reached Usually M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/WILLOW GRACE WELCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights