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 Amendment
The amendment to claims 1, 14, and the addition of new claims 22-24 in the response filed on 2/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-24 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Takahashi and Ago references remain relevant since Takahashi and Ago, in combination still meet structural limitations of claims 1 and 14 as laid out below in the new grounds of rejection.
Also, the amendment to claim 14 has changed the scope of the claimed subject matter which has also resulted in identification of a reference that anticipates at least claim 14 which also laid out below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brechbiel US 2022/0354343.
Brechbiel discloses a method for of holding a videoscope 20,120 (20,120 and 10,110 may both be endoscopes, [0026]) on a robotic surgical device 10,110 (10,110 is a mother endoscope that is construed to be a robotic surgical device because an endoscope can be mounted on a holder of a manipulating arm of a robotic surgical system), wherein the robotic surgical device 10,110 includes at least one working channel (via port 116) adapted for receiving a working end 128 of the videoscope 20,120, the method comprising the steps of: providing a holder body 210’ having a proximal end portion 216’ and a distal end portion 212’, temporarily securing the distal end portion 212’ of the holder body 210’ to the robotic surgical device 10,110 (e.g. friction fit, clamping, locking, etc. [0033]), temporarily securing the videoscope 20,120 on the proximal end portion 216’ of the holder body 210’ (e.g. friction fit, clamping, locking, etc. [0033]).
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi US 2021/0298574 in view of Ago US 2020/0069385 further in view of Seeber US 2016/0361122.
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a support assembly (assembly shown in figs. 3-4) for holding a videoscope 2d on a robotic surgical device 2a (robot arm 2a, figs. 3-7, [0064]), comprising: a) a holder body 62 having a proximal end portion A and a distal end portion B (see annotated fig. 3 below); b) a cradle 67,67c (figs. 3-7) provided on the proximal end portion A of the holder body 62 for supporting a videoscope 2d (the inner surface defined by the bore in 67 as well as the opening 67c supports/cradles the videoscope); c) a first locking mechanism 68 [0077] operatively associated with the cradle 67 for temporarily securing the videoscope 2d in the cradle 67 (fig. 6); d) a connector 6,7 [0065-0067] provided on the distal end portion B of the holder body 62 for attaching the holder body 62 to the robotic surgical device 2a via 7, 12 [0072-0074].
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose a second locking mechanism operatively associated with the connector for temporarily securing the holder body to the robotic surgical device. Takahashi also does not expressly disclose the robotic surgical device includes at least one working channel adapted for receiving a working end of the videoscope.
However, Ago, teaches a second locking mechanism 633 (fig. 8, [0092]) operatively associated with an analogous connector 60 (figs. 4-5) for temporarily securing the analogous holder body 43 supporting a surgical instrument to an analogous robotic surgical device 21,21a (figs. 1-9, [0039-0043, 0065, 0077, 0082-0084, 0088-0092, 0100-0102]), providing a second locking mechanism that prevents detachment of the surgical instrument from the robotic arm in a specific direction [0092].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have operatively associated the connector 6 of Takahashi with the second locking mechanism for temporarily securing the holder body to the robotic surgical device as taught by Ago in order to have provided an improved support assembly that has a second locking mechanism that prevents detachment of the holder body from the robotic surgical device in a specific direction (Ago, [0092]).
Takahashi in view of Ago discloses the invention as discussed above. Takahashi in view of Ago does not expressly disclose the robotic surgical device includes at least one working channel adapted for receiving a working end of the videoscope.
Seeber teaches an analogous robotic surgical device 16 (robotic manipulator arm 16 [0064]) that holds an analogous surgical instrument 300,500 which could be a videoscope 900 (e.g. surgical instrument that also comprises endoscopes, [0003,0008,0013,0035,0093,0096-0099]), wherein the analogous robotic surgical device 16 includes at least one working channel via 17,800 (distal end of trocar holder 17 which is cylindrical and has a channel that receives the trocar 800 which also has a channel, thus both distal end of 17 and the trocar 800 form an integral assembly that has a channel therethrough for receiving an working end 500 of an elongated surgical instrument 300 or videoscope/endoscope 900 [0093-0097,0099], figs. 10-15), for the purpose of allowing the robotic surgical instrument to facilitate centered insertion and orientation of the working end of the surgical instrument or endoscope/videoscope into the body of the patient toward a target point [0083 et. Seq. 0093-0099].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the robotic surgical device 2a of Takahashi in view of Ago with the holder 17 that includes at least one working channel (distal end of 17 and the trocar 800 that also has a channel) as taught by Seeber in order to have provided an improved manipulating robotic surgical device that facilitates accurate and controlled insertion of the working end of the surgical instrument or endoscope/videoscope into the body of the patient in a centered orientation toward a target point [0083 et. Seq. 0093-0099].
PNG
media_image1.png
736
935
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi in view of Ago in view of Seeber discloses the invention as discussed above. Takahashi further discloses the cradle 67 on the proximal end portion A of the holder body 62 includes a first engagement feature 67 a-c adapted to receive a complementary engagement feature 21a,210,211,212 on the videoscope 2d (figs. 6-7, [0076-0087]).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi in view of Ago in view of Seeber discloses the invention as discussed above. Takahashi in view of Ago does not explicitly disclose the connector on the distal end portion of the holder body includes a second engagement feature adapted for reception in a complementary engagement feature on the robotic surgical device.
Ago further teaches the analogous connector 60 includes a second engagement feature 45,49 (figs. 5-16, annotated figs. 15-16 below) adapted for reception in a complimentary engagement feature 63,69 on the robotic device 21,21a [0071-0084, 0103-0109], for the purpose of allowing easy guidance of the surgical instrument to an attachment position on the connector for precise attachment to the robotic arm [0105] et seq. [0101].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the connector 6,7 of Takahashi in view of Ago to have a second engagement feature adapted for reception in a complimentary engagement feature on the robotic surgical device as taught by Ago in order to have provided a support assembly having an improved connector that allows easy guidance of the videoscope via the holder body to an attachment position on the connector for precise attachment to the robotic arm (Ago, [0105 et seq. 0101]).
PNG
media_image2.png
775
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi in view of Ago in view of Seeber discloses the invention as discussed above. Takahashi further discloses 67 a-c the first engagement feature is an engagement channel 67c formed in the cradle 67 of the holder body 62 and the complementary engagement feature 210,211,212 on the videoscope 2d is an elongated engagement flange 210,211,212 (210,211 projects out from the surface of the videoscope and 212 is a scope-side protrusion that has a length and is construed to be elongate [0088-0093]) for engaging the engagement channel 67c in the cradle 67 (figs. 6-12, [0081-0084], also 212 is inserted into 61,67 such that 212 is in engagement with 67c via 67,68).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi in view of Ago in view of Seeber discloses the invention as discussed above. Takahashi in view of Ago further teaches the second engagement feature 49 is an elongated engagement flange 49 on the distal end portion of the analogous holder body 43 and the complementary engagement feature 69 on the robotic surgical device 21,21a is an engagement channel (opening C in 69, see annotated figs. 15-16 above) formed in a connective bracket via 691 for receiving the engagement flange 49 of the analogous holder body 43 as taught by Ago [0103-0106].
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi in view of Ago in view of Seeber discloses the invention as discussed above. Takahashi further discloses the first locking mechanism 68 includes a cantilevered locking lever via 68c [0088-0092] (cantilever is defined as: any rigid structural member projecting from a vertical support, especially one in which the projection is great in relation to the depth, CANTILEVER Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi in view of Ago in view of Seeber discloses the invention as discussed above. Takahashi further discloses the first locking mechanism 68 further includes a retention clasp (the tips of 68c that are elastic) on the cantilevered locking lever for releasably engaging a capture slot 212 in the engagement flange on the videoscope 2d [0087-0093].
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi in view of Ago in view of Seeber discloses the invention as discussed above. Takahashi further discloses a hand rest (67,68, as much as 67 and 68 have an outer surface to be touched and/or grasped by a user’s fingers and hands, the surface allows for a user’s hand or fingers to rest thereupon) operatively associated with the distal end portion B of the holder body 62 for supporting a user’s hand.
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi in view of Ago in view of Seeber discloses the invention as discussed above. Takahashi further discloses the holder body 62 defines a longitudinal axis and the hand rest 67,68 extends in an axial direction relative to the distal end portion B of the holder body 62 and is mounted for pivotal movement (circumferential sliding) between a first position retracted within an internal cavity of the holder body 62 (the holder body as seen, has an internal cavity in which 67 is slidingly positioned, figs. 4-12) and a second position extending outwardly from the internal cavity of the holder body (when disengaged from 210,211, 67 is capable of circumferentially sliding/turning such that 67c is not exposed or partially exposed, figs. 3-16, [0076-0096]).
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi in view of Ago in view of Seeber discloses the invention as discussed above. Takahashi further discloses a retention clasp 212 provided on the hand rest 67 via 68 for engaging a retention slot 68c in a side wall of the holder body 62 to retain the hand rest 67 in the second position (figs. 8-9, [0080-0096]).
Claims 14 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi US 2021/0298574 in view of Seeber US 2016/0361122.
Regarding claim 14, Takahashi discloses a method for holding a videoscope 2d,21 on a robotic surgical device 2a (robot arm 2a, figs. 3-7, [0064]), comprising the steps of: a) providing a holder body 61,62 having a proximal end A portion and a distal end portion B (see annotated fig. 3 below); b) temporarily securing the distal end portion B of the holder body 61,62 to the robotic surgical device 2a via 6,7; and c) temporarily securing the videoscope 2d,21 on the proximal end portion A of the holder body 61,62 via 67,68 (figs. 1, 3-12, [0064-0067, 0072-0077]).
Takahashi does not expressly disclose the robotic surgical device includes at least one working channel adapted for receiving a working end of the videoscope.
Seeber teaches an analogous method of holding an analogous surgical instrument 300,500 which could be a videoscope 900 (e.g. surgical instrument that also comprises endoscopes, [0003,0008,0013,0035,0093,0096-0099]) on an analogous robotic surgical device 16 (robotic manipulator arm 16 [0064]), wherein the analogous robotic surgical device 16 includes at least one working channel via 17,800 (distal end of trocar holder 17 which is cylindrical and has a channel that receives the trocar 800 which also has a channel, thus both distal end of 17 and the trocar 800 form an integral assembly that has a channel therethrough for receiving an working end 500 of an elongated surgical instrument 300 or videoscope/endoscope 900 [0093-0097,0099], figs. 10-15), for the purpose of allowing the robotic surgical instrument to facilitate centered insertion and orientation of the working end of the surgical instrument or endoscope/videoscope into the body of the patient toward a target point [0083 et. Seq. 0093-0099].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the robotic surgical device 2a in the method of holding a videoscope on a robotic surgical device of Takahashi with the holder 17 that includes at least one working channel (distal end of 17 and the trocar 800 that also has a channel) as taught by Seeber in order to have provided an optimized method of holding a videoscope on an improved manipulating robotic surgical device that facilitates accurate and controlled insertion of the working end of the surgical instrument or endoscope/videoscope into the body of the patient in a centered orientation toward a target point [0083 et. Seq. 0093-0099].
Regarding claim 17, Takahashi in view of Seeber discloses the invention as discussed above. Takahashi further discloses the step of temporarily securing the videoscope 2d,21 on the proximal end portion A of the holder body 61,62 includes mating an engagement flange 210,211 (projection 210,211) on the videoscope 2d,21 with a complementary engagement channel 67c (via 67) on the proximal end portion A of the holder body 61,62 [0081-0084].
Regarding claim 18, Takahashi in view of Seeber discloses the invention as discussed above. Takahashi further discloses the step of temporarily securing the videoscope2d,21 on the proximal end portion A of the holder body 61,62 further includes activating a second locking mechanism 68 that prevents inadvertent disengagement of the engagement flange 210,211 on the videoscope 2d,21 and the complementary engagement channel 67c on the proximal end portion A of the holder body 61,62 (figs. 6-12).
Regarding claim 19, Takahashi in view of Seeber discloses the invention as discussed above. Takahashi further discloses the step of moving a hand rest 67 (see figs. 6-7, 67 slides forward/backward as well as circumferential inside of the opening of 61,62 to position the opening 67c against 210,211 on the videoscope for positioning the projection 210,211 of the videoscope within 67c) from a first position retracted within an internal cavity of the holder body 61,62 to a second position extending outwardly (67c is extending outwardly exposed for viewing by user, figs. 6-7) from the internal cavity of the holder body 61,62.
Regarding claim 20, Takahashi in view of Seeber discloses the invention as discussed above. Takahashi further discloses the step of securing the hand rest 67 in the second position by engaging a retention clasp X on the hand rest 67 (the openings receiving 65e,65f on the 61 of hand rest 67, see fig. 8) in a retention slot (the bore within 6, fig. 7,8 and see annotated fig. 8) formed in the holder body 62 (figs. 6-12).
Regarding claim 21, Takahashi in view of Seeber discloses the invention as discussed above. Takahashi in view of Seeber further discloses the method facilitates handheld manipulation of the robotic surgical device 16 and the surgical instrument 300,500 (which could also be a videoscope/endoscope, see rejection of claim 14 supra), by a surgeon (the manipulator arm is preferably manually oriented by a user, [0025-0027, 0044]) as taught by Seeber.
PNG
media_image3.png
486
809
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi US 2021/0298574 in view of Seeber US 2016/0361122 further in view of Ago US 2020/0069385.
Regarding claim 15, Takahashi in view of Seeber discloses the invention as discussed above.
Takahashi in view of Seeber does not disclose the step of temporarily securing the distal end portion to the robotic device includes mating an engagement flange on the distal end portion of the holder body with a complimentary engagement channel on the robotic device.
However, Ago teaches an analogous step of temporarily securing an analogous distal end portion (bottom surface of 43) of an analogous holder body 43 of a medical instrument 40 to an analogous robotic device 21,21a via 60 includes mating an engagement flange 49 on the distal end portion of the holder 43 with a complementary engagement channel C (C defined by 68 in 60 wherein 60 is attached to the robotic arm) on the robotic surgical device 21,21a (figs. 15-16, [0103-0106]), for the purpose of allowing easy guidance of the surgical instrument to an attachment position on the connector for precise attachment to the robotic arm [0105] et seq. [0101].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provided the method of holding a videoscope on a robotic surgical device as well as the distal end portion B,6 of the holder body of Takahashi in view of Seeber with the step of temporarily securing the distal end portion to the robotic device includes mating an engagement flange on the distal end portion of the holder body with a complimentary engagement channel on the robotic device as taught by Ago in order to have provided an improved method for holding a videoscope on a robotic surgical device that allows easy guidance of the surgical instrument to an attachment position on the connector for precise attachment to the robotic arm (Ago, [0105] et seq. [0101]).
Regarding claim 16, Takahashi in view of Seeber in view of Ago discloses the invention as discussed above. Takahashi in view of Seeber in view of Ago is silent on the step of temporarily securing the distal end portion of the holder body to the robotic device further includes activating a first locking mechanism that prevents inadvertent disengagement of the engagement flange on the distal end portion of the holder body and the complementary engagement channel on the robotic surgical device.
However, Ago further teaches the step of temporarily securing the distal end portion of the holder body to the robotic device further includes activating a first locking mechanism 633 [0092] that prevents inadvertent disengagement of the engagement flange on the distal end portion of the holder body and the complementary engagement channel on the robotic surgical device via 462 [0092], first locking mechanism that prevents detachment of the surgical instrument from the robotic arm in a specific direction [0092].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provided the step of temporarily securing the distal end portion of the holder body to the robotic device of Takahashi in view of Seeber in view of Ago with the first locking mechanism that prevents inadvertent disengagement of the engagement flange on the distal end portion of the holder body and the complementary engagement channel on the robotic surgical device as further taught by Ago in order to have provided an improved support assembly that has a second locking mechanism that prevents detachment of the holder body from the robotic surgical device in a specific direction (Ago, [0092]).
Claim 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brechbiel US 2022/0354343 in view of CN 219397175 U (Unnamed-reliance on machine English translation).
Regarding claim 22, Brechbiel discloses the invention as discussed above. Brechbiel further discloses the steps of manually navigating the videoscope 20,120 (it is obvious that the insertion portion 128 of the video scope is slidably inserted into the port 116 of the robotic surgical device, fig. 2C) to a surgical site within a body lumen of a patient (it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the insertion portion 118 of the robotic surgical device 10,110 is for insertion into a body lumen, under visualization (since both the robotic surgical device 10,110 and videoscope 20,120 are endoscopes [0026] therefore they are both used for visualization and thus, the step of insertion via visualization is an obvious one to one skilled in the art), using a manual steering knob 114 of the robotic surgical device 10,110 (knob 114 functions to manipulate the distal bending portion of an endoscope) [0033], disengaging the videoscope 20,120 (via pulling from the friction fit, unclamping, or unlocking) from the support assembly 210’ in order to remove and sterilize the videoscope for next use.
Brechbiel does not expressly disclose engaging the videoscope with a robotic surgical system.
CN 219397175 teaches engaging via 200 an analogous videoscope 300 (shown in phantom in fig. 3) with a robotic surgical system 400,401 (see fig. 5), for the purpose of detachably connecting the endoscope to the robotic arm of the robotic surgical system in a secure and safe manner (pages 10-12, figs. 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the method of Brechbiel with the step of engaging the videoscope with a robotic surgical system as taught by CN 219397175 in order to have provided an improved method of securely and safely attach and remove the videoscope from the manipulative arm of a robotic surgical system (pages 10-12).
Regarding claim 23, Brechbiel in view of CN 219397175 discloses the invention as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have recognized that Brechbiel’s robotic surgical device 10,110 could be performed by a surgeon to manually perform the navigation step without intervention by an assistant to reduce labor costs.
Claim 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brechbiel US 2022/0354343 in view of CN 219397175 U (Unnamed-reliance on machine English translation) further in view of Cooper US 6132368.
Regarding claim 24, Brechbiel in view of CN 219397175 discloses the invention as discussed above. Brechbiel in view of CN 219397175 does not expressly disclose the step of robotically controlling the robotic surgical device.
Cooper teaches the step of robotically controlling an analogous robotic surgical device 100 wherein (fig. 4) wherein the tip of the viewing robotic surgical device 100 is guided, deflected, and rotated by manipulating an actuator on a proximal end of a working end 102 thereof (col. 4, lines 44-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the method of Brechbiel in view of CN 219397175 with the step of robotically controlling the robotic surgical device as taught by Cooper in order to have provided an improved method of robotically controlling the tip of the viewing robotic surgical device 100 is guided, deflected, and rotated by manipulating an actuator on a proximal end of a working end 102 thereof (col. 7, lines 44-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to dependent claim 8, neither Takahashi nor Ago either taken alone or in combination disclose or render obvious the limitation “the second locking mechanism includes a spring-loaded locking slider.” Ago is relied upon on tab section 633 of Ago to teach the second locking mechanism which is a rigid structure that juts in an x direction. It is part of a guide rail which validates the rigidity. But, in conclusion, Ago does not teach a second locking mechanism includes a spring-loaded locking slider since 633 is not spring loaded and it cannot be reasonably interpreted to be a slider.
By the virtue of their dependencies on claim 8, claims 9-10 are also objected to.
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 ALIREZA NIA whose telephone number is (571)270-3076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM - 4 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, Alford W Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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.
/ALIREZA NIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights