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
In response to the amendment filed on 12/18/2025, no claims have been cancelled, and Claims 1-20 are pending.
Amendments to claim 20 to remedy 112(b) issues has been acknowledged and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15, and 18-20 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.
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 1-11, 15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6747745B1 Shindo in view of US 20190376554 A1 Knight et al. (hereinafter Knight).
Regarding claim 1, Shindo discloses a slider comprising:
a slider body (31, Fig. 3-6) movable in a linear direction with respect to a casing of a surgical instrument (20, Fig. 1-2) (paragraph 8 of machine translated document).
Shindo is silent on a plurality of rollers, each of the plurality of rollers being disposed along the slider body in the linear direction between the casing and the slider body and supporting the slider body with respect to a surface of the slider body that faces the casing, the plurality of rollers being rotatable with respect to the casing and the slider body.
However, Knight teaches a linear guide carriage system (10, Fig. 1) having a slider (20), the slider comprising a plurality of rollers (30/62, Fig. 1-4c), each of the plurality of rollers being disposed along the slider body in the linear direction between a casing (24, Fig. 1, 4c) and the slider body (as seen in Fig. 1-4c) and supporting the slider body with respect to a surface of the slider body that faces the casing (as seen in Fig. 1, 4c, paragraph 56), the plurality of rollers being rotatable with respect to the casing and the slider body (paragraph 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shindo with the teachings of Knight to have a plurality of rollers, each of the plurality of rollers being disposed along the slider body in the linear direction between the casing and the slider body and supporting the slider body with respect to a surface of the slider body that faces the casing, the plurality of rollers being rotatable with respect to the casing and the slider body, in order to provide low friction linear movement for the slider.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Shindo and Knight teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Knight further discloses wherein each of the plurality of rollers has a cylindrical or columnar shape (as seen in Fig. 3b, paragraph 65) and is supported on the slider body to be rotatable about a rotation axis (27/61, Fig. 4b) orthogonal to the linear direction (seen in Fig. 1-2, 4b-c), and
wherein in a state in which the slider body moves in the linear direction, the plurality of rollers are configured to roll while being in contact with the casing (paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shindo and Knight teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Knight further discloses wherein each of the plurality of rollers has a spherical shape (paragraph 65, rollers (30/62) can be of other geometries) and is supported on the slider body to be rotatable about a rotation axis (27/61, Fig. 4b) orthogonal to the linear direction (seen in Fig. 1-2, 4b-c), and
wherein in a state in which the slider body moves in the linear direction, the plurality of rollers are configured to roll while being in contact with the casing (paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 4, Shindo discloses a surgical instrument (1, Fig. 1) comprising:
a casing (20, Fig. 1-2);
a slider body (31, Fig. 3-6) movable in a linear direction with respect to the casing (paragraph 8 of machine translated document).
Shindo is silent on a plurality of rollers, each roller being disposed along the slider body in the linear direction between the casing and the slider body and supporting the slider body with respect to a surface of the slider body that faces the casing, the plurality of rollers being rotatable with respect to the casing and the slider body.
However, Knight teaches a linear guide carriage system (10, Fig. 1) having a slider (20), the slider comprising a plurality of rollers (30/62, Fig. 1-4c), each of the rollers being disposed along the slider body in the linear direction between a casing (24, Fig. 1, 4c) and the slider body (as seen in Fig. 1-4c) and supporting the slider body with respect to a surface of the slider body that faces the casing (as seen in Fig. 1, 4c, paragraph 56), the plurality of rollers being rotatable with respect to the casing and the slider body (paragraph 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shindo with the teachings of Knight to have a plurality of rollers, each of the plurality of rollers being disposed along the slider body in the linear direction between the casing and the slider body and supporting the slider body with respect to a surface of the slider body that faces the casing, the plurality of rollers being rotatable with respect to the casing and the slider body, in order to provide low friction linear movement for the slider.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Shindo and Knight teaches the limitations of claim 4, and Knight further discloses wherein each of the plurality of rollers has a cylindrical or columnar shape (as seen in Fig. 3b, paragraph 65) and is supported on the slider body to be rotatable about a rotation axis (27/61, Fig. 4b) orthogonal to the linear direction (seen in Fig. 1-2, 4b-c), and
wherein in a state in which the slider body moves in the linear direction, the plurality of rollers are configured to roll while being in contact with the casing (paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Shindo and Knight teaches the limitations of claim 4, and Knight further discloses wherein each of the plurality of rollers has a spherical shape (paragraph 65, rollers (30/62) can be of other geometries) and is supported on the slider body to be rotatable about a rotation axis (27/61, Fig. 4b) orthogonal to the linear direction (seen in Fig. 1-2, 4b-c), and
wherein in a state in which the slider body moves in the linear direction, the plurality of rollers are configured to roll while being in contact with the casing (paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Shindo and Knight teaches the limitations of claim 4, and Shindo further discloses wherein the casing comprises:
a plurality of grooves (21, Fig. 1-2);
a plurality of wires (51, Fig. 1-2).
Knight further discloses a holder (24c, Fig. 1, 4a-b) corresponding to a portion of the casing (paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Shindo and Knight teaches the limitations of claim 7, and Shindo further discloses wherein the plurality of grooves are elongated holes on an end face of the casing (as seen in Fig. 1-2, paragraph 28), and
wherein the plurality of grooves are arranged side by side at equal intervals (as seen in Fig. 1-2, paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Shindo and Knight teaches the limitations of claim 8, and Shindo further discloses further comprising:
a plurality of sliders (multiple sliders (30) as seen in Fig. 1-2), each comprising the slider body and the plurality of rollers (the modification of Shindo with the teachings of Knight produces the slider body with the rollers as described in claim 4);
a multi-degree of freedom manipulator (paragraph 20);
a joint (11, Fig. 1); and
a forceps (12, Fig. 1),
wherein the plurality of sliders are detachably attached to the multi-degree of freedom manipulator (paragraph 30),
wherein the joint and the forceps are connected to the casing (as seen in Fig. 1, paragraph 23-24), and
wherein the plurality of sliders are configured to receive a driving force from the multi-degree of freedom manipulator and transmit the driving force to the joint, the forceps, or the joint and the forceps (paragraph 30, 32).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Shindo and Knight teaches the limitations of claim 9, and Shindo further discloses wherein a number of grooves of the plurality of grooves corresponds to a number of motions of the multi-degree of freedom manipulator (paragraph 27, 29), and
wherein a number sliders of the plurality of sliders corresponds to the number of grooves of the plurality of grooves (paragraph 27, 31).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Shindo and Knight teaches the limitations of claim 10, and Shindo further discloses wherein the plurality of sliders are arranged on the plurality of grooves or a portion of the plurality of grooves and moveable in the linear direction with respect to the casing (paragraph 8, 31), and
wherein the plurality of wires are configured to transmit the driving force received by the plurality of sliders to the joint, the forceps, or the joint and the forceps (paragraph 8, 32).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Shindo and Knight teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Shindo further discloses further comprising:
a first clamp (41, Fig. 3-4);
a second clamp (41, Fig. 3-4); and
a plurality of fixing members having male screws (45, Fig. 3-4), wherein the slider body has a square column shape (as seen in Fig. 3-6) and comprises:
a plurality of female screw holes (33, Fig. 3-4) corresponding to the male screws of the plurality of fixing members and configured to hold the first clamp and the second clamp together (paragraph 44, 52);
a plurality of positioning protrusions (47, Fig. 3, paragraph 42) having a cylindrical shape (as seen in Fig. 3), protruding from the slider body, and configured to determine relative positions between the first clamp and the second clamp with respect to the slider body (paragraph 53).
Knight further discloses a plurality of rolling shafts (26/60, Fig. 2-3b, 4b-c, paragraph 58) on each side face of the slider body (as seen in Fig. 4b, paragraph 58).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Shindo and Knight teaches the limitations of claim 15, and Knight further discloses wherein the plurality of rollers are supported by the plurality of rolling shafts (Fig. 2-3b, 4b-c, paragraph 58).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Shindo and Knight teaches the limitations of claim 18, and Knight further discloses wherein each of the plurality of rollers have a cylindrical or columnar shape (as seen in Fig. 3b, paragraph 65) and is supported on the slider body to be rotatable about a rotation axis (27/61, Fig. 4b) orthogonal to the linear direction (seen in Fig. 1-2, 4b-c), and
wherein in a state in which the slider body moves in the linear direction, at least one of the plurality of rollers is configured to roll while being in contact with the casing (paragraph 56) and at least one of the plurality of rollers (30), other than the least one of the plurality of rollers being in contact with the casing, is configured to roll while being in contact with a holder of the casing (Fig. 4b, paragraph 57, 62-63, rollers 30 are biased upwards in the direction of arrow 14 to contact a holder 24c).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Shindo and Knight teaches the limitations of claim 18, and Knight further discloses wherein each of the plurality of rollers have a spherical shape (paragraph 65, rollers (30/62) can be of other geometries) and is supported on the slider body to be rotatable about a rotation axis (27/61, Fig. 4b) orthogonal to the linear direction (seen in Fig. 1-2, 4b-c), and
wherein in a state in which the slider body moves in the linear direction, at least one of the plurality of rollers is configured to roll while being in contact with the casing (paragraph 56) and at least one of the plurality of rollers (30), other than the least one of the plurality of rollers being in contact with the casing, is configured to roll while being in contact with a holder of the casing (Fig. 4b, paragraph 57, 62-63, rollers 30 are biased upwards in the direction of arrow 14 to contact a holder 24c).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo in view of Knight as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 20020111621 A1 Wallace et al (hereinafter Wallace).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Shindo and Knight teaches the limitations of claim 7.
The combination is silent on wherein the plurality of wires comprise stainless steel, pure tungsten, an alloy containing tungsten, or a piano wire.
However, Wallace teaches a surgical instrument that is driven by cables C1-C6 (Fig. 24) that are made of tungsten or stainless steel (paragraph 70, 76, 78, 85).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modification of Shindo with Knight with the teachings of Wallace to achieve wherein the plurality of wires comprise stainless steel or pure tungsten in order to provide sufficient strength, bendability and durability as disclosed by Wallace (paragraph 70).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo in view of Knight as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 6149308 A Schroeder et al. (hereinafter Schroeder).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Shindo and Knight teaches the limitations of claim 11.
The combination is silent on wherein the plurality of sliders are arranged between the holder and the casing,
wherein the holder comprises a plurality of slits corresponding to the plurality of grooves, and wherein the plurality of sliders are arranged within the plurality of slits and configured to be moveable in the linear direction.
However, Schroeder teaches a linear rail system (20, Fig. 1) having a slider (24) arranged between a holder (22) and a casing (26), the holder comprising a slit (the channel in which the slider 24 is arranged within it corresponds to the slit, as seen in Fig. 6) and wherein the slider is arranged within the slit (as seen in Fig. 6, the body of slider 24 extends within the slit of the holder) and configured to be moveable in the linear direction (col. 3 line 25-28).
Schroeder does not disclose a plurality of slits corresponding to the plurality of grooves. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a plurality of slits that correspond to the plurality of grooves which correspond to the plurality of sliders as taught by modified Shindo with Knight, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modification of Shindo with Knight with the teachings of Schroeder to have the plurality of sliders are arranged between the holder and the casing, wherein the holder comprises a plurality of slits corresponding to the plurality of grooves, and wherein the plurality of sliders are arranged within the plurality of slits and configured to be moveable in the linear direction, in order to further secure and align the slider straight between the holder and casing for linear translation.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Shindo, Knight and Schroeder teaches the limitations of claim 13, and Shindo further discloses further comprising:
a plurality of first guide pulleys (middle set of guide pulleys 25, 25, as shown in annotated Fig. 2 below) configured to guide the plurality of wires to the joint and the forceps (paragraph 34-35), the plurality of first guide pulleys being arranged closer to the joint and the forceps than the plurality of sliders (as seen in annotated Fig. 2, paragraph 35);
a plurality of second guide pulleys (leftmost set of guide pulleys 25, 26, as shown in annotated Fig. 2 below) arranged closer to the joint and the forceps than the plurality of sliders (as seen in annotated Fig. 2, paragraph 35-36);
and a plurality of third guide pulleys (rightmost set of guide pulleys 27, 27, 27 as seen in annotated Fig. 2 below), having a cylindrical shape, arranged more away from the joint and the forceps than the plurality of sliders and comprising two or more grooves on its cylindrical surface configured to guide the plurality of wires (paragraph 38),
wherein the plurality of first guide pulleys are further configured to guide the plurality of wires to the plurality of second guide pulleys, the plurality of wires extending from the plurality of sliders (paragraph 34-37),
wherein the plurality of second guide pulleys are configured to guide the plurality of wires to an inside of the joint and the forceps from the plurality of first guide pulleys (paragraph 34-37), and
wherein the plurality of third guide pulleys are configured to allow a wire of the plurality of wires to move between the two or more grooves (paragraph 38-39).
PNG
media_image1.png
554
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
1. Claims 16-17 are allowed.2. The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance: 3. The closest prior art of record, Shindo, does not disclose or fairly suggest, either singly or in combination of any of the prior art of record, the claimed invention of Independent Claims 16, which recite, inter alia “a plurality of positioning holes having a larger diameter than a diameter of the insertion hole and wherein the plurality of positioning protrusions are configured to be inserted into the plurality of positioning holes”. 4. The closest prior art of record Shindo teaches a slider similar to that of Claims 16, however Shindo does not disclose a plurality of positioning holes having a larger diameter than a diameter of the insertion hole and wherein the plurality of positioning protrusions are configured to be inserted into the plurality of positioning holes.5. Because none of the prior art documents of record teach a slider as recited in Claim 16 it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrive at the technical solutions of Claim 16 according to the prior art documents or a combination thereof. Therefore, in view of the prior art at its deficiencies, Applicant' s invention is rendered novel and non-obvious and thus is allowable as claimed.6. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 KHOA TAN LE whose telephone number is (703)756-1252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:30pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/KHOA TAN LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /MOHAMED G GABR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771