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 .
Priority
Claims 1, 3-16, and 18-33 are deemed to have an effective filing date of August 28, 2015.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “8” has been used to designate a main shaft axis (Figs. 2-6), an end-effector link (Figs. 7-8), and a spiral profile (Fig. 14).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 5 (Fig. 2-3).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 6, line 1 of the originally-filed specification (OFS) recites: “Fig. 10 shows actuation topology for a distal end-effector link”. But, page 8, last three lines, of the OFS describes Fig. 10 as showing flexible element 13a,13b forming a loop between the proximal link 6 and an input element the proximal extremity of the instrument shaft. The Examiner believes that the latter description is consistent with Fig. 10.
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 1, 3-14, 16, 18, 23-30, and 31-33 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.
In claims 1 and 23, “flexible mechanical transmissions” (claim 1, line 8; claim 23, line 7) are inferentially included and it is unclear if the applicant is positively reciting or functionally reciting the element. If the element is being functionally recited, it is suggested to use functional terms such as “adapted to be” or “for”. If the element is being positively recited, it is suggested to first state the system includes the element before it is used in a connection in the claim. Hence, the scope of the claims is indefinite.
Claims 7-10, line 1, refer to “the increased actuation force at the end-effector”, but claim 1, from which the claims depend, was amended to delete such a force. Thus, there is indefinite antecedent basis for “the increase actuation force”. What is it? Where does it come from?
Similarly, claim 13, line 3, recites “the increase actuation force”. However, it is unclear to what is being referred as claim 1 no longer mentions such a force.
Claims 16 and 18, lines 1-2, recite: “the increased actuation force at the end-effector”, but claim 1, from which the claims depend, was amended to delete such a force. Thus, there is indefinite antecedent basis for “the increase actuation force”. What is it? Where does it come from?
Claim 28, line 3, refers to the spiral profile. However, claim 23 from which this claim depends, refers to “a first spiral profile” and “a second spiral profile”. Which spiral profile is being referred back to? Thus, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim 31, line 6, recites: “a second spiral profile rotatably of a second end-effector link”. There appears to be a word or words missing as the adverb “rotatably” is not modifying a verb, adjective, clause, or another adverb. The claim, as written, does not make sense as the spiral profile is of the cam and the cam is separate from the end-effector link. Thus, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claims 3-6, 11-12, 14, 23-30, and 32-33 are rejected because the depend from an indefinite 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, 3-5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0224367 to Kapadia (EFD: at least 07/22/2115) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0277017 to Leimbach et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Leimbach”).
Referring to claim 1, Kapadia disclose an articulated surgical instrument (e.g., title and Abstract) comprising: an end-effector comprising one or more end-effector links (e.g., paragraphs [0046]: a jaw assembly 120 includes a jaw housing 130, an articulating member 140, a pair of jaw members 150, a pair of cam pulleys; and [0051]: the pair of jaw members include a first jaw member 150a, and a second jaw member 150b; Fig. 3, 150a, 150b), the one or more end-effector links comprising first and second follower geometries (e.g., paragraph [0051]: each line 150a, 150b has an arcuate slot 156 that allows the first and second jaw/link to rotatably pivot); a first cam having a first profile rotatably coupled to the first follower geometry; a second cam having a second profile rotatably coupled to the second follower geometry (e.g., paragraphs [0046]: a jaw assembly 120 includes a jaw housing 130, an articulating member 140, a pair of jaw members 150, a pair of cam pulleys; and [0052]: the pair of pulleys includes a first cam 160a and a second cam 160b which are rotatably coupled to the follower geometry/arcuate slot 156 via a cam pin 154); and first and second grooved surfaces coupled to the first and second cams (e.g., paragraph [0052]: each of the pair of cam pulleys 160 defines one or more channels/grooves 166 in an outer surface thereof), the first and second grooved surfaces configured to receive first and second flexible mechanical transmissions coupled to the first and second cams (e.g., paragraph [0052]: the channels/grooved surfaces 166 are adapted and dimensioned to secure one or more cables C3 and C4 to facilitate movement of the jaw members 150), the first and second flexible mechanical transmissions configured to independently rotate the first and second cams in both directions about an axis of the first and second cams to thereby actuate the end-effector (e.g., paragraph [0055]-[0056]: beginning with: in order to pivot one or both of the jaw members 150 of end effector 100 between a closed condition and an open condition, cables first jaw member 150a can be pivoted separate and independent of second jaw member 150b, and vice versa … cables are drawn to determine the direction of pivot transmitting support cam pulleys through cam pins to pivot first and second jaw members and ending with “first jaw member 150a can be pivoted separate and independent of second jaw member 150b, and vice versa … one or more components of end effector 100 can be simultaneously (and/or separately/independently) rotated, articulated, and/or pivoted). Kapadia differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specify the shape of the cam profile as “spiral”.
Regarding claim 15, Kapadia discloses a method of actuating an end-effector of an articulated surgical instrument (e.g., title and abstract), the method comprising: actuating first and second flexible mechanical transmissions to independently rotate a first cam comprising a first profile rotatably coupled to a first follower geometry of one or more end-effector links of the end-effector and a second cam comprising a second profile rotatably coupled to a second follower geometry of one or more end-effector links of the end-effector to thereby drive movement of the first and second follower geometries along the first and second spiral profiles of the first and second cams and actuate the end-effector (e.g., paragraphs [0046], [0052], and [0055]-[0056]: see above), wherein first and second grooved surfaces are coupled to the first and second cams, and the first and second grooved surfaces receive the first and second flexible mechanical transmissions (e.g., paragraph [0052]: each of the pair of cam pulleys 160 defines one or more channels/grooves 166 in an outer surface thereof; the channels/grooved surfaces 166 are adapted and dimensioned to secure one or more cables C3 and C4 to facilitate movement of the jaw members 150).
With respect to the spiral profile of the first and second cams, Leimbach, in a related art: method and system for operating a surgical instrument, teaches a surgical instrument with an articulation driver system where two cams, both with a spiral profile (see Figs. 117-122 of Leimbach) to articulate the end-effector (see paragraphs [0361]-[0362]: the first lock cam 10454 may rotate about its projection 10447 in order to accommodate movement so that the distal movement of the distal articulation driver can articulate the end effector). That is, Leimbach teaches that a cam with a spiral profile was known in the surgical instrument art to articulate an end-effector. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the cam 166 to have a spiral profile in view of the teachings of Leimbach that such as shape was a well-known engineering expedient in the articulation of surgical instrument arts, and since it has been held by the courts that a change in the shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 3, Kapadia in view of Leimbach teaches the articulated surgical instrument of claim 1, further comprising a longitudinal instrument shaft having a lumen configured to receive the flexible mechanical transmissions (e.g., paragraph [0052]: Similar to cables “C1” and “C2”, cables “C3” and “C4” have proximal ends that can extend through a robot arm 2 or 3 and which can be operatively associated with a respective mote of control device 4 where cam pulleys 116 can function as cable guides for any of the described cables; see Figs. 1A-B and 2).
As to claim 4, Kapadia in view of Leimbach teaches the articulated surgical instrument of claim 3, further comprising a proximal extremity (e.g., Fig. 1A, arms 2 or 3), and wherein the flexible mechanical transmissions are configured to transmit motion from the proximal extremity to the end-effector through the lumen of the longitudinal instrument shaft (e.g., paragraph [0020]: first and second cables may be coupled to a pair of cam pulleys where the pulleys may be coupled to at least one motor so that actuation of the motor effectuates at least one of: articulating movement or a pivoting movement of the pair of jaw members).
With respect to claim 5, Kapadia in view of Leimbach teaches the articulated surgical instrument of claim 1, wherein a first end-effector link of the one or more end-effector links is rotatably coupled to a second end-effector link of the one or more end-effector links (e.g., paragraph [0051]: the pair of jaw members include a first jaw member 150a, and a second jaw member 150b; Fig. 3, 150a, 150b) via an end-effector joint (e.g., Abstract: the articulation member may have a slot and include articulation pins extending from it that are coupled to the jaw members; Fig. 3, articulation member 140).
As to claim 7-10, 16 and 18 Kapadia in view of Leimbach teaches the articulated surgical instrument of claim 1 and the method of claim 15, wherein the increased actuation force at the end-effector is higher than the reduced tension on the flexible mechanical transmissions (e.g., paragraph [0068]: multiplication of the pulley angle of the jaw angle amplifies/increases force at the distal ends of the jaw members for tension applied at a proximal end of the one or more cables – that is, the actuation force on the distal end of the jaw/end effector is higher than the tension on the cable at the proximal end, which would increase fatigue performance, increase the life span of the instrument, and decrease friction of the overall surgical instrument).
With respect to claim 12, Kapadia in view of Leimbach teaches the articulated surgical instrument of claim 1, wherein the flexible mechanical transmissions comprise at least one of cables and metal ropes (e.g., paragraphs [0014]-[0015]: cables are coupled to at least one motor so that actuation of the motor articulates and/or pivots the pair of jaw members/end-effector).
As to claims 14 and 19, Kapadia in view of Leimbach teaches the articulated surgical instrument of claim 1 and the method of claim 15, wherein the one or more end- effector links provide at least one orientational degrees of freedom and at least one actuation degree of freedom (e.g., paragraphs [0031] and [0032]: Figs. 5 (articulated) and 6 (unarticulated)).
With respect to claim 21, Kapadia in view of Leimbach teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the first and second cams rotate in both directions about an axis of the first and second cams to actuate the end-effector (e.g., Abstract: the cam pulleys may be rotatable about the pivot axis to pivot/actuate the pair of jaw members/end-effector between open and closed conditions).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-16, 18-22, 23-30, and 31-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,944,337 (hereinafter “the ‘337 patent”) in view of the teachings of Kapadia.
Instant claims 1 and 5-6 are encompassed by and conflict with claim 1 of the ‘337 patent, except for the recitation of “first and second grooved surfaces coupled to the first and second cams” and the location where the flexible mechanical transmission are received. However, Kapadia, in a related art: robotic controlling of a surgical tool end-effector, teaches that cam pulleys or cams with grooved surfaces were well known engineering expedients to receive flexible mechanical transmission to actuate a surgical end-effector (e.g., Abstract, paragraph [0052] and Fig. 3: outer surfaces of cam pulleys 160 define channels or grooves). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the articulated surgical instrument of the ‘337 patent so that its cams have grooved surfaces in order to receive the flexible mechanical transmissions of the ‘337 patent as taught by Kapadia, and because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Instant claims 3-4 are encompassed by and conflict with claims 3-4 respectively of the ‘337 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Instant claims 7-14 are encompassed by and conflict with claims 5-12 respectively of the ‘337 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Instant claim 15 is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 13 of the ‘337 patent, except for the recitation of “first and second grooved surfaces coupled to the first and second cams” and the location where the flexible mechanical transmission are received. However, Kapadia, in a related art: robotic controlling of a surgical tool end-effector, teaches that cam pulleys or cams with grooved surfaces were well-known engineering expedients to receive flexible mechanical transmission to actuate a surgical end-effector (e.g., Abstract, paragraph [0052] and Fig. 3: outer surfaces of cam pulleys 160 define channels or grooves). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of actuating an end-effector of an articulated surgical instrument of the ‘337 patent so that its cams have grooved surfaces in order to receive the flexible mechanical transmissions of the ‘337 patent as taught by Kapadia, and because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Instant claim 16 is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 14 of the ‘337 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Instant claims 18-20 are encompassed by and conflict with claims 16-18 respectively of the ‘377 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Instant claim 21 is encompassed by and conflicts with claims 1-2, 15, or 19 of the ‘337 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Instant claim 22 is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 13 of the ‘337 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Instant claims 23 and 26-27 are encompassed by and conflict with claim 1 of the ‘337 patent, except for the recitation of “first and second grooved surfaces coupled to the first and second cams” and the location where the flexible mechanical transmission are received. However, Kapadia, in a related art: robotic controlling of a surgical tool end-effector, teaches that cam pulleys or cams with grooved surfaces were well-known engineering expedients to receive flexible mechanical transmission to actuate a surgical end-effector (e.g., Abstract, paragraph [0052] and Fig. 3: outer surfaces of cam pulleys 160 define channels or grooves). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the articulated surgical instrument of the ‘337 patent so that its cams have grooved surfaces in order to receive the flexible mechanical transmissions of the ‘337 patent as taught by Kapadia, and because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Instant claims 24-25 are encompassed by and conflict with claims 3-4 respectively of the ‘337 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Instant claims 28-29 are encompassed by and conflict with claims 9-10 respectively of the ‘337 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Instant claim 30 is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 12 of the ‘337 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Instant claims 31 and 33 are encompassed by and conflict with claim 13 of the ‘337 patent, except for the recitation of “first and second grooved surfaces coupled to the first and second cams”, the location where the flexible mechanical transmission are received, and positively reciting that one direction of rotation of a cam closes the end-effector links . However, Kapadia, in a related art: robotic controlling of a surgical tool end-effector, teaches that cam pulleys or cams with grooved surfaces were well-known engineering expedients to receive flexible mechanical transmission to actuate a surgical end-effector (e.g., Abstract, paragraph [0052] and Fig. 3: outer surfaces of cam pulleys 160 define channels or grooves), and that the cam pulleys may be rotatable about the pivot axis to pivot the pair of jaw members between open and closed conditions (e.g., Abstract and paragraphs [0013] and [0052]). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of actuating an end-effector of an articulated surgical instrument of the ‘337 patent so that its cams have grooved surfaces in order to receive the flexible mechanical transmissions of the ‘337 patent in order to actuate the end-effector links between open and closed conditions as taught by Kapadia, and because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Instant claim 32 is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 17 of the ‘337 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Claims 1, 3-16, 18-30, and 31-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,337,716 (hereinafter “the ‘716 patent) in view of Kapadia.
Instant claim 1 is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 1 of the ‘716 patent, except for the recitation of “first and second grooved surfaces coupled to the first and second cams”, the location where the flexible mechanical transmission are received, and that the actuation of the end-effector is achieved by rotation of the first and second cams in both directions. However, Kapadia, in a related art: robotic controlling of a surgical tool end-effector, teaches that cam pulleys or cams with grooved surfaces were well known engineering expedients to receive flexible mechanical transmission to actuate a surgical end-effector (e.g., Abstract, paragraph [0052] and Fig. 3: outer surfaces of cam pulleys 160 define channels or grooves), and that the flexible mechanical transmissions can independently rotate cams in both directions to actuate an end effector (e.g., paragraph [0055]-[0056]: beginning with: in order to pivot one or both of the jaw members 150 of end effector 100 between a closed condition and an open condition, cables first jaw member 150a can be pivoted separate and independent of second jaw member 150b, and vice versa … cables are drawn to determine the direction of pivot transmitting support cam pulleys through cam pins to pivot first and second jaw members and ending with “first jaw member 150a can be pivoted separate and independent of second jaw member 150b, and vice versa … one or more components of end effector 100 can be simultaneously (and/or separately/independently) rotated, articulated, and/or pivoted). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the articulated surgical instrument of the ‘716 patent so that its cams have grooved surfaces in order to receive the flexible mechanical transmissions, which cause the cams to independently rotate to actuate the end-effect as taught by Kapadia, and because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Instant claims 3-14 are encompassed by and conflict with claims 2-13 respectively of the ‘716 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Instant claims 15 and 22 are encompassed by and conflicts with claim 14 of the ‘716 patent, except for the recitation of “first and second grooved surfaces coupled to the first and second cams”, the location where the flexible mechanical transmission are received, and that the actuation of the flexible mechanical transmissions independently rotate of cam. However, Kapadia, in a related art: robotic controlling of a surgical tool end-effector, teaches that cam pulleys or cams with grooved surfaces were well-known engineering expedients to receive flexible mechanical transmission to actuate a surgical end-effector (e.g., Abstract, paragraph [0052] and Fig. 3: outer surfaces of cam pulleys 160 define channels or grooves) and that the flexible mechanical transmissions can independently rotate cams in both directions to actuate an end effector (e.g., paragraph [0055]-[0056]: beginning with: in order to pivot one or both of the jaw members 150 of end effector 100 between a closed condition and an open condition, cables first jaw member 150a can be pivoted separate and independent of second jaw member 150b, and vice versa … cables are drawn to determine the direction of pivot transmitting support cam pulleys through cam pins to pivot first and second jaw members and ending with “first jaw member 150a can be pivoted separate and independent of second jaw member 150b, and vice versa … one or more components of end effector 100 can be simultaneously (and/or separately/independently) rotated, articulated, and/or pivoted). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of actuating an end-effector of an articulated surgical instrument of the ‘716 patent so that its cams have grooved surfaces in order to receive the flexible mechanical transmissions of the ‘716 patent in order to rotate the cams to actuate the end-effector as taught by Kapadia, and because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Instant claim 21 is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 14 of the ‘716 patent, as modified by Kapadia above and so that the rotations can be in both directions to actuate the end-effector as further discussed in paragraphs [0043] and [0053] of Kapadia).
Instant claim 23 is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 10 of the ‘716 patent, except for the recitation of “first and second grooved surfaces coupled to the first and second cams” and the location where the flexible mechanical transmission are received. However, Kapadia, in a related art: robotic controlling of a surgical tool end-effector, teaches that cam pulleys or cams with grooved surfaces were well-known engineering expedients to receive flexible mechanical transmission to actuate a surgical end-effector (e.g., Abstract, paragraph [0052] and Fig. 3: outer surfaces of cam pulleys 160 define channels or grooves). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the articulated surgical instrument of the ‘716 patent so that its cams have grooved surfaces in order to receive the flexible mechanical transmissions of the ‘716 patent as taught by Kapadia, and because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Instant claims 24-27 and 29-30 are encompassed by and conflict with claim 1 of the ‘716 patent, as modified by Kapadia above, but differ from claim 1 of the ‘716 patent in the features of each identified claim. However, as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claims 3-6 (corresponding to instant claims 24-27), 12 (corresponding to claim 29) and 14 (corresponding to claim 30), Kapadia teaches that such features were well-known engineering expedients in the articulated surgical instrument art. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the articulated surgical instrument to have the features of claims 24-27 and 29-30 since such were well-known engineering expedients to actuate an articulated surgical instrument as taught by Kapadia, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Instant claim 28 is encompassed by and conflict with claim 10 of the ‘716 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Instant claims 31 and 33 are encompassed by and conflict with claim 14 of the ‘716 patent, except for the recitation of “first and second grooved surfaces coupled to the first and second cams”, the location where the flexible mechanical transmission are received, and reciting that one direction of rotation of a cam closes the end-effector links. However, Kapadia, in a related art: robotic controlling of a surgical tool end-effector, teaches that cam pulleys or cams with grooved surfaces were well-known engineering expedients to receive flexible mechanical transmission to actuate a surgical end-effector (e.g., Abstract, paragraph [0052] and Fig. 3: outer surfaces of cam pulleys 160 define channels or grooves), and that the cam pulleys may be rotatable about the pivot axis to pivot the pair of jaw members between open and closed conditions (e.g., Abstract and paragraphs [0013] and [0052]). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of actuating an end-effector of an articulated surgical instrument of the ‘337 patent so that its cams have grooved surfaces in order to receive the flexible mechanical transmissions of the ‘337 patent in order to actuate the end-effector links between open and closed conditions as taught by Kapadia, and because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Instant claim 32 is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 17 of the ‘716 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12-16, and 18-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,786,272 (the ‘272 patent) in view of Kapadia.
Instant claims 1 and 3-4 are encompassed by and conflicts with claim 1 of the ‘272 patent, except for the recitation of “first and second grooved surfaces coupled to the first and second cams”, the location where the flexible mechanical transmission are received, and that the actuation of the end-effector is achieved by rotation of the first and second cams in both directions. With respect to the recitation of first and second cams, claim 1 of the ‘272 patent recites a cam and follower geometry, and the courts have held that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced by this duplication (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). With respect to the grooved surfaces and independent rotation in both directions, Kapadia, in a related art: robotic controlling of a surgical tool end-effector, teaches that cam pulleys or cams with grooved surfaces were well known engineering expedients to receive flexible mechanical transmission to actuate a surgical end-effector (e.g., Abstract, paragraph [0052] and Fig. 3: outer surfaces of cam pulleys 160 define channels or grooves), and that the flexible mechanical transmissions can independently rotate cams in both directions to actuate an end effector (e.g., paragraph [0055]-[0056]: beginning with: in order to pivot one or both of the jaw members 150 of end effector 100 between a closed condition and an open condition, cables first jaw member 150a can be pivoted separate and independent of second jaw member 150b, and vice versa … cables are drawn to determine the direction of pivot transmitting support cam pulleys through cam pins to pivot first and second jaw members and ending with “first jaw member 150a can be pivoted separate and independent of second jaw member 150b, and vice versa … one or more components of end effector 100 can be simultaneously (and/or separately/independently) rotated, articulated, and/or pivoted). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the articulated surgical instrument of the ‘272 patent so that its cams have grooved surfaces in order to receive the flexible mechanical transmissions, which cause the cams to independently rotate to actuate the end-effect as taught by Kapadia, and because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Instant claim 5 is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 1 of the ‘272 patent, as modified by Kapadia. Kapadia further teaches the features of claim 5 as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 103. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the articulated surgical instrument of claim 1 of the ‘272 patent since such was a known engineering expedient in this art as taught by Kapadia, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Instant claims 7-10 are encompassed by and conflict with claims 10-13 respectively of the ‘272 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Instant claim 12 is encompassed by and conflicts with claims 3-4 of the ‘272 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Instant claims 13-14 are encompassed by and conflict with claims 6-7 respectively of the ‘272 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Instant claims 15 and 21 are encompassed by and conflicts with claim 1 or 14 of the ‘272 patent, as modified by Kapadia as discussed above w/r/t DP of claim 1.
Instant claim 16 is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 10 of the ‘272 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Instant claim 18 is encompassed by and conflict withs claims 11 of the ‘272 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Instant claim 19 is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 7 of the ‘272 patent, as modified by Kapadia.
Instant claim 20 is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 18 of the ‘272 patent, by way of modified by Kapadia.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0303743 to Rockrohr is directed to an end-effector for use and connection to a robot arm of a robotic surgical system that employs cam pulleys 152, 154 with grooved surfaces to receive cables where the jaws 172, 174 are separately and independently pivotally connected to support plates and are moved by the cables rotating around the cam pulleys.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE M VOORHEES whose telephone number is (571)270-3846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM to 4:30 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571 272-8506. 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.
/CATHERINE M VOORHEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights