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 .
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.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “wherein the first axis and the second axis are collinear” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the first and second axes can be both collinear and transverse relative to one another when read in combination with the requirements of amended claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crews in view of Worrell et al. (US 2019/0282291).
Regarding claim 1, Crews discloses a robotic surgical instrument configured to perform a surgical procedure (see Fig. 1), the instrument comprising: a shaft (see shaft 122, Fig. 1); an end effector (see 120/500, Figs. 1and 18-22) comprising an electrical component see jaws 502 and 504); an articulation connecting the shaft to the end effector (see clevis 506), the articulation comprising a supporting body (see body of 506, Fig. 18) connected to the end effector by a first joint (see joint formed at 505, Fig. 18) and to the shaft by a second joint (see joint at the distal end of push-pull element 510, connecting the clevis 506 to the shaft, Fig. 18), the first joint permitting the end effector to rotate about a first axis that is transverse to the longitudinal axis of the shaft (see [0067]); an electrical cable extending along the shaft and being configured to provide electrical current to the electrical component of the end effector (see conduits 520 and 522; [0066], Figs. 18-21); an electrical connector extending at least partially around a circumference surrounding the first axis (see contact portions 554 on either side, [0072], Figs. 18-21), the electrical connector providing a sliding electrical connection between the electrical cable and the end effector (see [0072]), such that the end effector is permitted to rotate about the first axis independently of the electrical cable whilst the electrical connection between the electrical cable and the end effector is maintained (see [0073]); and an insulating component configured to house the electrical connector within the surgical instrument, the insulating component comprising an outer surface that faces an end effector element of the end effector (see body 531 having an outer surface facing the jaws, [0068], Figs. 18-21). However, Crews fails to further disclose the second joint permitting the end effector to rotate about a second axis, the second axis being transverse to the longitudinal axis of the shaft, the first axis being transverse to the second axis.
Worrell teaches a robotic surgical instrument (see Figs. 1-4) comprising an articulation (see wrist 206, Fig. 4) that includes a supporting body (see distal clevis 402a, Fig. 4) connected to the end effector by a first joint (see joint formed at 404a, Fig. 4) and to a shaft by a second joint (see joint at 404b, connecting the distal clevis to the shaft, Fig. 4), the first joint permitting the end effector to rotate about a first axis (see axis P1, Fig. 4), the second joint permitting the end effector to rotate about a second axis (see axis P2, Fig. 4), the second axis being transverse to the longitudinal axis of the shaft, the first axis being transverse to the second axis (as shown in Fig. 4). 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 articulation as disclosed by Crews such that it was comprised of a supporting body connected to the end effector by a first joint and to a shaft by a second joint, the first joint permitting the end effector to rotate about a first axis, the second joint permitting the end effector to rotate about a second axis, the second axis being transverse to the longitudinal axis of the shaft, the first axis being transverse to the second axis in light of Worrell, the motivation being to provide the additional advantage of pivots that can provide both pitch and yaw movements for the end effector (see Worrell [0039]).
Regarding claim 2, Crews further discloses wherein the electrical connector extends around the entirety of the circumference surrounding the first axis (the contact portions 554 cover the entire circumference of the axis extending through them when considered together in Fig. 21, additionally the gap shown in the exploded view of Fig. 21 is shown as closed in Figs. 18-20 such that both portions 554 extend fully around the axis when assembled).
Regarding claim 3, Crews further discloses wherein the electrical connector is in the shape of a ring (as shown in Figs. 18-21).
Regarding claim 4, Crews further discloses wherein the electrical cable is connected to the electrical connector at a section of the electrical connector that is closest to the shaft (as shown in Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 5, Crews further discloses wherein the electrical connector is integral with the electrical cable (see soldered attachment, [0071]).
Regarding claim 7, Crews further discloses wherein the insulating component is secured at a proximal end to the supporting body (the body 531 is secured to 506 at a proximal section of 531 at elements 508 and 510, Figs. 18-19).
Regarding claim 8, Crews further discloses wherein the electrical connector is electrically connected to the end effector by a connection (see protuberances 537 holding the contact portions 554 to the end effector for electrical connection, Fig. 21) which is configured to apply a compressive force to the electrical connector to constrain the electrical connector against the insulating component (the protuberances 537 provide a compressive force to the contact portions 554 and constrain the portions 554 against body 531 and the jaws, Figs. 18-19 and 21).
Regarding claim 11, Crews further discloses wherein the electrical connector is electrically connected to the end effector by a securing mechanism configured to secure the securing mechanism to the end effector (see lumen 538 and pin 508, Figs. 18-20).
Regarding claim 12, Crews further discloses wherein the securing mechanism is a keyed joint (pin 508 is shaped to fit within the lumen 538 to form a joint, Figs. 18-19).
Regarding claim 13, Crews further discloses wherein the insulating component comprises a groove that is recessed from the outer surface and configured to house at least part of the electrical connector (see groove recessed from the outer surface that contains 552 and 553 of the contact portions 554, Figs. 20-21).
Regarding claim 14, Crews further discloses wherein the insulating component is a locking ring configured to be secured to the end effector, and the electrical connector is configured to extend at least partially around the circumference of the locking ring (protuberances 537 providing a locking force to the contact portions 554 and contact portions extending around the circumference of the protuberances 537, Figs. 18-19 and 21).
Regarding claim 15, Crews further discloses wherein the insulating component comprises a cylindrical outer surface (see cylindrical outer surface of protuberances 537, Fig. 21) and a groove that is recessed from the outer surface and configured to house at least part of the electrical connector (see groove recessed from the cylindrical outer surface that contains 552 and 553 of the contact portions 554, Figs. 20-21).
Regarding claim 17, Crews further discloses wherein the instrument is a monopolar surgical instrument (see “at least one conduit”, [0072]) or a bipolar surgical instrument (as shown the instrument is configured as a bipolar instrument since each jaw is connected to its own energy conduit).
Regarding claim 18, Crews further discloses wherein: the electrical cable is a first electrical cable, and the electrical connector is a first electrical connector; the end effector comprises a first end effector element configured to rotate about the first axis and a second end effector element configured to rotate about a second axis; the first electrical connector provides a sliding electrical connection between the first electrical cable and the first end effector element of the end effector; and the robotic surgical instrument further comprises a second electrical cable and a second electrical connector, the second electrical connector providing a sliding electrical connection between the second electrical cable and the second end effector element of the end effector, such that the second end effector element is permitted to rotate about the second axis independently of the second electrical cable whilst the electrical connection between the second electrical cable and the second end effector element is maintained (see the first and second contact portions and first and second conduits that allow the first and second jaws to rotate about their individual axes while maintaining electrical connection; [0072]-[0073], Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 19, Crews in view of Worrell further teaches wherein the second electrical connector extends at least partially around a circumference surrounding the second axis (as shown in Fig. 21 in light of the above modification).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crews in view of Worrell, and in further view of Nguyen et al. (US 2005/0137592).
Regarding claim 10, Crews in view of Worrell teaches the limitations of claim 1, however Crews in view of Worrell fails to further teach wherein the electrical connector is electrically connected to the electrical connector by a disc spring.
Nguyen teaches an electrosurgical device having a pivoting end effector (see Fig. 4A-4B) comprising a connecting means for the sliding electrical contact portion that includes a disc spring (see spring washer 155; [0077], Fig. 4B). 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 electrically connector as taught by Crews in view of Worrell to include a disc spring to make the electrical connection in light of Nguyen, the motivation being to improve contact between the electrical contacts and the end effectors through the use of a spring force to urge the elements together for an improved electrical connection (see Nguyen [0077]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crews in view of Worrell, and in further view of Adams et al. (US 2019/0000468).
Regarding claim 16, Crews in view of Worrell teaches the preceding claims with exception to claim 10 and further discloses wherein the electrical connector comprises an outer surface that is arranged to provide the sliding electrical connection (see outer bearing surface of contacts 554, Figs. 18-21), however Crews in view of Worrell fails to further teach wherein the outer surface is provided with an anti-friction coating.
Adams teaches an electrosurgical device (see Fig. 1) that utilizes a sliding electrical connection (see Figs. 30-31), wherein the electrical connector has an outer surface that is arranged to provide the sliding electrical connection and provided with an anti-friction coating (see water-proof coating 2030; [0225]-[0228], Fig. 31). 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 outer surface of the electrical connector as taught by Crews in view of Worrell to be provided with an anti-friction coating in light of Adams, the motivation being to provide the additional advantage of preventing signal noise and loss of power and signals by providing an insulative barrier to prevent water or fluids from reaching the electrodes (see Adams [0226]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejected claims 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. In the instant case, the new grounds of rejection rely on the newly cited Worrell reference in combination with the previously cited Crews reference which the current arguments do not address.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 21 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: The closest prior art of record, Crews et al. (US 2014/0277106), Worrell et al. (US 2019/0282291), and Robert et al. (US 2018/0193086), fails to reasonably teach or suggest wherein the insulating component is configured to interfere with the supporting body such that rotation of the insulating component about the first axis is limited when the end effector rotates about the first axis when considered in combination with the additional requirements of the claim. The prior art teaches insulating components that provide an axis about which the end effectors pivot around as well as pivot pins passing through them, however the prior art fails to reasonably teach interference occurring with the clevis/supporting body or insulating components that otherwise meet the additional claim requirements that are reasonably capable of interference with the clevis/supporting body that would prevent rotation of the insulating component.
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 SEAN W COLLINS whose telephone number is (408)918-7607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
/SEAN W COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights