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 .
Notice of Amendment
The Amendment filed 8/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 are pending in the application with claims 1, 4, 7 and 8 amended, claims 10-20 withdrawn.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a front base configured to support a first end of the surgical scope and a rear base configured to support a second end of the surgical scope” in Lines 7-9, wherein recited first and second ends of the surgical scope is misleading since it appears the front base appears to only support a “portion” of the surgical scope and not an “end” of the surgical scope and therefore raises indefiniteness regarding the scope of the claim language. The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite first and second portions instead of first and second ends. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oginski et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0112141, hereinafter Oginski).
In regard to claim 1, Oginski discloses a scope adapter (6) for adapting a surgical scope to a robotic manipulator system (Fig. 1), the scope adapter comprising:
a rotational motor (63) mounted in a fixed position relative to an outer cylinder (61);
an inner cylinder (60) rotatably coupled to the outer cylinder; and
a support plate assembly (62) that is removably coupled to the surgical scope and the inner cylinder (Fig. 1),
wherein the support plate assembly (62) comprises a front base (621) configured to support a first end of the surgical scope and a rear base (622) configured to support a second end of the surgical scope (Fig. 3, Par. 80) such that the first and second ends rotate together with the inner cylinder (the support plate assembly (62) would rotate with the inner cylinder (60) when the inner cylinder is rotated via motor (63) thereby also rotating the surgical scope rotationally secured within the support plate assembly (62), Par. 79-80).
In regard to claim 2, Oginski teaches wherein the inner cylinder is
rotatable concentrically inside the outer cylinder (Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 4, Oginski teaches further comprising a shelf extending from an inner diameter of the inner cylinder, where the shelf comprises a groove that is slidably couplable with a ridge extending from the support plate (see annotated Fig. 14 below), wherein the support plate assembly remains coupled to the surgical scope while being slidably inserted into and removed from the inner cylinder along a central axis of the inner cylinder (Fig. 14 illustrates insertion of the support plate assembly (62) and scope (1) into the inner cylinder along a central axis of the inner cylinder).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 5, Oginski teaches further comprising a plurality of spherical bearings (610,611) located between the inner cylinder and the outer cylinder (Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 6, Oginski teaches further comprising:
a scope gear (13) fixably coupled to the surgical scope (Fig. 1); and
an articulation motor (64) rotatably coupled to an articulation gear (650), wherein the articulation gear is operably coupled to the scope gear and is configured to transfer rotations of the articulation motor to the scope gear, and thereby change an adjustable direction of a field of view for the surgical scope (Par. 83).
In regard to claim 7, Oginski teaches wherein the support plate assembly further comprises:
a front aperture (opening within front base (621)) passing therethrough the front base along a central axis of the inner cylinder (Fig. 3), wherein the front aperture is configured to fixably couple to the first end of the surgical scope (Par. 79-80, Fig. 3); and
a rear aperture (opening within front base (622)) passing therethrough the rear base (Fig. 3), wherein the rear aperture is configured to fixably couple to the second end of the surgical scope (Par. 79-80, Fig. 3),
wherein the front aperture and the rear aperture are configured maintain the first and second ends of the surgical scope in a fixed rotational relationship during rotation of the inner cylinder (the front and rear base (621, 622) rotationally secure the scope to the support plate assembly (62) which is rotationally secured to the inner cylinder (60), Par. 80).
In regard to claim 8, Oginski teaches wherein the front aperture is at least partially cylindrical and extends along the central axis of the inner cylinder, and wherein the rear aperture is positioned along an axis that forms a non-zero angle with respect to the central axis of the inner cylinder (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
704
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 9, Oginski teaches wherein:
the front base (625) rotatably couples to a front cap (626) with a front hinge (Fig. 9A shows the adaptor parts (625,626) coupled via hinge);
the rear base (625) rotatably couples to a rear cap (626) with a rear hinge (Fig. 9A shows the adaptor parts (625,626) coupled via hinge); and
wherein the front aperture opens by operation of the front hinge, and the rear aperture opens by operation of the rear hinge (Fig. 9A).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oginski et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0112141, hereinafter Oginski) in view of Rockrohr et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0315715, hereinafter Rockrohr).
In regard to claim 3, Oginski is silent with respect to further comprising a belt operatively coupled to the rotational motor, wherein the belt circumferentially wraps around a portion of an outer diameter of the inner cylinder, and wherein the belt is configured to transfer rotation from the rotational motor to the inner cylinder.
Rockrohr teaches an analogous surgical assembly (Figs. 24-26) for rotating an instrument (200) or surgical scope (250). The surgical assembly comprises a carriage (42) configured to rotate a drive belt (122) via motor (118) which engages a pulley (48, i.e. inner cylinder) for rotating the instrument (200) or surgical scope (250) about it’s longitudinal axis (Par. 176).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the motor/gear arrangement (63,631) of Oginski for the motor/drive belt arrangement (118,122) of Rockrohr as a matter of design choice to use a drive belt as an alternative means for transmitting rotational force to the inner cylinder. There being no unexpected results in using a drive belt of Rockrohr to transfer rotational motion as opposed to the gear of Oginski.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Oginski does not disclose, teach, or suggest at least the above-mentioned features of amended Claim 1. In contrast, Oginski discloses a fundamentally different arrangement. Oginski's camera device 2 is supported by a support section 612 of a stationary assembly 61, while the endoscope 1 is coupled to a rotatable assembly 60 and rotates relative to the camera device. See Oginski, paras.[0078]-[0082]. Because the camera device remains fixed with respect to the stationary assembly, the rotating assembly of Oginski does not include a front base and rear base configured to support opposite ends of the surgical scope such that those ends rotate together with the inner cylinder as claimed. Rather, Oginski intentionally permits relative rotational movement between the endoscope and the camera device. See Oginski,7 paras.[0089] and [0107]. As such, Oginski fails to disclose every feature of the present claims and, therefore, fails to anticipate the present claims”
The examiner disagrees since Oginski teaches the scope being fixed to the support plate assembly (i.e. adaptor (62)) via support sections (621,622) and whereby rotation of the inner cylinder (60) causes corresponding rotation of the adaptor and scope (Par. 79-80). Additionally, the camera device (2) is not being relied upon in any aspect of the rejection, so the argument that the scope is rotatable with respect to the camera device is moot. The adaptor (62) is mounted to first and second sections of the scope (2), whereby the first and second sections of the scope rotate together.
Applicant argues:
“Applicant respectfully submits that Oginski does not disclose, teach, or suggest at least the above-mentioned features of amended Claim 4. As shown in Figures 3, 10, 13A, 13B, and 14 of Oginski, the adapter 62 and endoscope are separately engaged with the rotational device and interact with the camera device after installation. Oginski further explains that the adapter 62 can be removed from the rotatable assembly only after disengagement of the friction-wheel mechanism and axial retention features. See Oginski, paras. [0085] and [0117]-[0123]. Thus, Oginski does not disclose a support plate assembly that remains coupled to the surgical scope while being slidably inserted into and removed from an inner cylinder along a central axis thereof, as recited by amended claim 4. Rather, Oginski relies on a distinct multi-component assembly process involving separate coupling of the camera device, endoscope, and adapter. As such, Oginski fails to disclose every feature of the present claims and, therefore, fails to anticipate the present claims.”
The examiner disagrees since Fig. 14 illustrates the adaptor (62) is mounted to the scope (1) prior to insertion within the rotational device (6) and then the adapter and scope are inserted within the rotational device together enabling the inner cylinder to rotate the adaptor and scope. The examiner acknowledges differences in the attachment structure between the prior art of Oginski and Applicant’s invention, however Claim 4 has not been amended with enough structure / function of the ridge / groove to overcome the prior art of Oginski.
Applicant argues:
“Applicant respectfully submits that Oginski does not disclose, teach, or suggest at least the above-mentioned features of amended Claim 7. Oginski expressly discloses a camera device 2 that is supported by support section 612 of stationary assembly 61 while the endoscope 1 is coupled to rotatable assembly 60 and rotates relative to the camera device. As explained in Oginski, the camera device remains stationary with respect to the stationary assembly while the endoscope is rotated by the rotatable assembly. See Oginski, paras. [0079]-[0082], [0089], and [0107]. Accordingly, Oginski does not disclose a front aperture and a rear aperture that maintain first and second ends of the surgical scope in a fixed rotational relationship during rotation of the inner cylinder, as now recited in claim 7. Rather, Oginski intentionally permits relative rotational movement between the endoscope and the camera device and therefore fails to disclose the claimed”
The examiner disagrees since the camera device (2) is not being relied upon any aspect of the rejection, so the argument that the scope is rotatable with respect to the camera device is moot. The adaptor (62) is mounted to first and second sections of the scope, whereby the first and second sections of the scope rotate together.
Applicant argues:
“Applicant respectfully submits that Oginski does not disclose, teach, or suggest at least the above-mentioned features of amended Claim 8. In contrast, Oginski discloses support structures configured to receive and support the endoscope along a common longitudinal axis and does not describe a rear aperture extending along a second axis that forms a non-zero angle with respect to the central rotational axis. The Examiner's reliance on annotated Figure 3 of Oginski does not remedy this deficiency, as neither the cited figure nor the accompanying disclosure identifies a front aperture axis coincident with the central axis and a rear aperture axis oriented at a non-zero angle thereto”
The examiner disagrees since annotated Fig. 3 above illustrates two different axis that are orthogonal with respect to each other. The claim language of “the rear aperture is positioned along an axis” leaves a lot of room for interpretation for how the axis can be construed and therefore Fig. 3 illustrates the axis can be an orthogonal axis to the central axis. The examiner suggests defining a central axis of the front aperture and a central axis of the rear aperture are non-parallel to each other.
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 RYAN N HENDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-5pm (PST).
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795 September 12, 2026
