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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the amendments/remarks filed on 12/31/2025. Claims 1-13 are pending; claim 13 is added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/04/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment/Argument
The previous objection to the drawings regarding “positioning hole” has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the drawings and specification.
The previous objection to the drawings regarding “pin” has been considered but are not persuasive because the “pin” is a structural element recited in the specification (¶[0062] of USPGPUB version) as part of the locking mechanism. The fact that “positioning hole” is shown does not automatically inform a skilled in the art the shape, position or mechanical relationship corresponding “pin” that is not depicted. Applicant’s argument that a skill person could conclude the shape and position of the pin relies on speculation, which is precisely what the drawing requirement are designed to avoid. See MPEP 608.02(d) (“Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing”).
The previous objection to the drawings regarding “locking mechanism” has been considered but are not persuasive because there is no drawing showing a planetary gear train interacting with a rotatable axle via locking mechanism. The specification describes this embodiment (see ¶[0058]-[0062]) but the drawings fail to depict that. Secondly, the claim and specification refer to the “locking mechanism” as a functional component that restrict relative rotation and switches between the locked and released states. While the positioning structures shown in Figs.6, 9 and 10 provide a locking function (snap-fit engagement), they do not show any feature that makes them switchable. There is no actuator, no control, no means for disengagement shown. Thereof, the objection is maintained.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 (a) and (b) have been considered but are not persuasive as follows:
1-Applicant’s argument by providing an extensive explanation of kinematic theory and explaining how independent rotation yield N DOF and synchronized rotation yield N-1 DOF, and distinguish between the DOF of regulating mechanism from that of the end effector (see pages 11-13) have been considered but not persuasive because while the arguments addresses the mathematical and functional result of the claimed state, it does not provide sufficient enabling disclosure describing how switching is implemented mechanically. As discussed in office action, the specification only broadly states a locking mechanism is provided between the driven wheel of planetary gear train and rotatable axle (see ¶[0059] of USPGPUB version) and positioning structure may achieve fixation through snap fit (¶[0060] of USPGPUB version). The disclosure does not describe mechanical structure or operation required to switch between the locked and released state such that the claimed DOF states to achieve.
2-Applicant relies on structure (e.g. position hole and pin structure; key-keyway structure; claw shaped engagement structures; spring load button; axially movable planetary gear trains, split shafts) as discussed on page 13-15 of the remarks. These detailed description of how to make switchable mechanism are not contained in the original specification or drawing (e.g. compressible button and spring). The introduction of these specific actuation methods (springs, buttons, and split shafts) constitutes a new matter and cannot be used to satisfy the enablement requirement. Furthermore, the amendment to the drawings and specification by adding “position hole 460” does not describe how such a hole would be used in a switchable manner (e.g. whether pin is manually inserted or whether pin is actuated by a solenoid or motor, etc.). Thereof, the rejection under 35 USC 112 are maintained.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons:
1-Applicant argued “Kapadia does not disclose “degree of freedom regulating mechanism comprising a handle” because Kapadia’s device is an instrument drive unit for a robotic system, wherein applicant’s device is for surgical tool. This argument is not persuasive because Kapadia discloses manually manipulated surgical instrument assembly includes structural portion that serve as handle for operating instrument (e.g. 28). Under BRI, a handle is simply a structural portion used to support and manipulate a mechanism. The structural member identified in the rejection (e.g. element 28) provide support for the drive elements and thus reasonably reads on the limitation “handle”. The claim does not impose any structural limitation distinguishing the claimed “handle” from the support structure disclosed in Kapadia.
2-Applicant argued “According to claim 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], [0026]-[0028] in the present application, it can be known that each drive unit can be rotatably provided on the handle 410, the differential mechanism 430 is provided on the handle 410. Moreover, in the present application, the degree- of-freedom regulating mechanism 400 of the present disclosure is configured to adjust the free end of a medical instrument, such as a wrist rotating mechanism, the wrist rotating mechanism may comprise a bracket 100 and an end tool 200. The end tool 200 may comprise two subparts 210, each of which is rotatably connected to the distal end of the bracket 100. The bracket 100 and the two subparts 210 are respectively provided with a guide groove. Two cables pass through the guide grooves of the two subparts 210 and the guide groove of the bracket 100, and extend from the proximal end of the bracket 100. The two cables are identified as a first cable 310 and a second cable 320, each having two ends that extend from the proximal end of the bracket 100, resulting in a total of four cable ends, which are respectively connected to the four drive units Moreover, in the present application, the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism comprising a handle, and the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is used to connect the instrument drive unit (i.e., the structure involved in Kapadia), and the drive unit of the present application moves under the power transmitted by the motor in the instrument drive unit to drive the movement of the cable on the drive unit (specifically, in the present application, it is a drive shaft). Further, Kapadia discloses a drive unit for a surgical robotic system, including a motor and multiple drive shafts. The output of the motor is transmitted to the drive shafts through components such as a ring gear (teeth ring), causing the drive shaft to rotate. However, in the present application, the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is for end tool (i.e., a surgical tool), refer to paragraph [0029] for understanding, the drive unit is the drive shaft, and each drive shaft can be driven by a separate motor, converting the rotational motion at the motor drive end into linear motion on the cable, but does not involve the power transmission structure between the motor and the drive shaft, only involving the power transmission between the drive shaft and the cable. This further indicates that the drive unit (drive shaft) of the present application and the drive shaft of Kapadia define different structures, and the present application and Kapadia belong to different structures. Therefore, Kapadia does not disclose above difference B..”
--In response to this argument above, examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim itself does not require end tools, brackets or other specific surgical instrument components. Limitations from the specification cannot be imported into the claims. Secondly, applicant argues that the drive shafts in Kapadia differ from the claimed drive units because Kapadia transmits power from motor to drive shafts through gears. This argument is not persuasive because the claim only recites drive unit are rotatable or linearly movable with the handle, without restricting how the drive units are powered or how torque is transmitted.
2-Applicant argued “Himmelmann disclose a continuously variable constant mesh epicyclic transmission, it discloses a transmission that provides an uninterrupted transition from high torque to high-speed operation. However, it is not the same as the present application. Firstly, as an industry common knowledge, the planetary gear train includes a sun gear, a ring gear, a planetary gear, and a planetary frame. The sun gear and the ring gear are meshed with the planetary gear, and the planetary gear is connected to the planetary frame. Therefore, the rotation of the sun gear and the ring gear will drive the planetary gear to move and thereby drive the planetary frame to move. The planetary frame is the driven wheel of the planetary gear train.
The technical solution of the present application is that: when the differential mechanism is in the locked state, a driven wheel of the first planetary gear train and the corresponding rotating mechanism (a rotatable axle or another planetary gear train) are fixed to each other in the rotation direction, such that the degree of freedom of the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is N-1; when the differential mechanism is in the released state, the driven wheel of the first planetary gear train and the corresponding rotating mechanism (a rotatable axle or another planetary gear train) are able to rotate independently, such that the degree of freedom of the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is N. However, in Himmelmann, the technical solution is that: according to paragraphs [0026]- [0027], when the lock clutch 46 is disengaged (FIG. 5a) the first engaging portion 46a meshes with the carrier 28 to provide drive and the second engaging portion 46b is rotating freely while not contacting other components; when a control 47 within the lock clutch 46 commands the lock clutch 46 to engage, an actuator 49 moves the second engaging portion 46b toward the first engaging portion 46a; movement of the second engaging portion 46b forces the second engaging portion 46b against the ring gear 26 (FIG. 5b); engagement of the ring gear 26 results in the ring gear 26 rotating at the same speed as the second engaging portion 46b; thus, the carrier 28 and the ring gear 26 are required rotate at the same speed as one another. Additionally, it should be pointed out that, in the present application, it aims at achieving the locking and releasing of the driven wheel of the first planetary gear train and the corresponding rotating mechanism by means of the differential mechanism. However, in Himmelmann, it aims at achieving the locking and releasing of the ring gear and the planet carrier of the planetary gear train by means of the lock clutch, thus achieving stepless speed change. Therefore, the object and the principle of the locking and releasing in the present application and in Himmelmann are significantly different.”
--In response to the applicant’s argument above, examiner respectfully disagrees because Himmelmann discloses a planetary gear transmission includes sun, ring, carrier and planet gears which constitutes a planetary gear train as claimed. Himmelman further discloses a lock clutch (46) configured to selectively couple component of planetary gear train (ring gear and carrier). When the clutch is disengaged, the component rotate independently, and when the clutch is engaged, the component rotate synchronously. This operation corresponds directly to the claimed limitation “the differential mechanism is switchable between a locked state and a released state; wherein when the differential mechanism is in the locked state, a driven wheel of the first planetary gear train and the corresponding rotating mechanism are fixed to each other in the rotation direction, such that the degree of freedom of the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is N-1; when the differential mechanism is in the released state, the driven wheel of the first planetary gear train and the corresponding rotating mechanism are able to rotate independently, such that the degree of freedom of the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is N.”. In other words, Himmelman teaches a mechanism that is switchable between a state where planetary component rotate independently and a state where the planetary component rotate synchronously, which corresponds to the claimed switching between the N degrees of freedom to N-1degree of freedom.
Secondly, applicant argument that Himmelmann is directed to transmission for speed variation rather than DOF regulating mechanism is not persuasive because the intended purpose or filed of use does not limit the structural teaching of reference. The planetary gear train and clutch are structures disclosed by Himmelmann that capable of performing the claimed locking and releasing function regardless of the specific application.
Furthermore, a reference is not limited to the specific problem it addresses. Under obviousness principles, the prior art reference may be relied upon for any teaching that would have suggested the claimed structure to a person of ordinary in the art, regardless the reference’s original purpose. The structural teachings of Himmelmann regarding selectively lock and release of planetary components which is directly applicable to the claimed mechanism. Thereof, the difference in application environment does not distinguish the claimed subject matter from the cited prior art. For the reasons above, the applicant’s argument do not overcome the rejections under 35 USC §103 because Kapadia teaches a mechanism including support structure (handle-28) with multiple drive units for actuating instrument function, and Himmelmann teaches a planetary gear train with selectively engageable locking mechanism that allow the components to rotate either independently or synchronously. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivate to incorporate the known selectively lockable planetary gear train of Himmelmann into the drive mechanism of Kapadia in order to provide higher torque capacity, reduce gear stress and switchable gear ratios. Thus, the rejections under 35 USC§ 103 are maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “locking mechanism”’; “pin” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “positioning structure is configured to achieve relative fixation of the first planetary gear train and the rotatable axle in the rotation direction through snap-fit.” in claim 3; and “positioning structure is configured to achieve relative fixation of the two planetary gear trains in the rotation direction through snap-fit.” in claim 7. These claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Prong A: claim use nonce term “structure” for performing the claimed function. Prong B: “structure” is modified by functional language which is “ to achieve relative fixation of the first planetary gear train and the rotatable axle in the rotation direction through snap-fit” in claim 3 and “achieve relative fixation of the two planetary gear trains in the rotation direction through snap-fit” in claim 7. Prong C: while “snap-fit” suggest fastening concept, it does not identify any specific structural component; thereof, the limitation from both claims do not include any structural recitation for performing the claimed function. Thereof, these claims are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (see ¶[0049]-[0050] of PGPUB version).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the differential mechanism is switchable between a locked state and a released state; wherein when the differential mechanism is in the locked state, a driven wheel of the first planetary gear train and the corresponding rotating mechanism are fixed to each other in the rotation direction, such that the degree of freedom of the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is N−1; when the differential mechanism is in the released state, the driven wheel of the first planetary gear train and the corresponding rotating mechanism are able to rotate independently, such that the degree of freedom of the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is N.” The recitation lacks corresponding enabling disclosure in view of Wands factors: 1-Predictability of the art: From the specification the specification ¶[0059] of PGPUB version expressly teaches “a locking mechanism is provided between the driven wheel of the planetary gear train and the rotatable axle, and the locking mechanism is configured to restrict the relative rotation between the driven wheel of the planetary gear train and the rotatable axle.” and ¶[0060] of PGPUB version discloses “The positioning structure can achieve relative fixation of the planetary gear train and the rotatable axle in the rotation direction through snap-fit” but does not have any disclosure of how such functions are implemented mechanically (e.g. how the driven wheel and rotating mechanism are locked and unlocked state to yield the claimed degree of freedom states.) 2-Amount of direction provided by the inventor: the specification provides no operative guidance beyond the result to be achieved; 3- Existence of Working examples: no working example or embodiment is provided to demonstrate how DOF as claimed from locked to release state can be achieved.
The dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “positioning structure provided on opposing sides of the planet carriers of the two planetary gear trains”, does not reasonably provide enablement for “positioning structure provided on the driven wheel and rotatable axle”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claim 3 recites “wherein a positioning structure is provided between the driven wheel of the first planetary gear train and the rotatable axle.” The specification is not enabling the recitation limitation in view of Wands factors: 1- The amount of direction provided by the inventor: the specification does not provide any guidance as how to construct a positioning structure on driven wheel and rotatable axle as recited in the claimed. 2-The level of one of ordinary skill: a person of ordinary skill in the art would require to perform in undue experimentation to determine how to implement the claimed position structure in view of the disclosure.
Claim 4 is also rejected due to their dependency from claim 3.
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 1-12 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 differential mechanism is switchable between a locked state and a released state; wherein when the differential mechanism is in the locked state, a driven wheel of the first planetary gear train and the corresponding rotating mechanism are fixed to each other in the rotation direction, such that the degree of freedom of the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is N−1; when the differential mechanism is in the released state, the driven wheel of the first planetary gear train and the corresponding rotating mechanism are able to rotate independently, such that the degree of freedom of the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is N.” From the specification ¶[0059] of PGPUB version expressly teaches “a locking mechanism is provided between the driven wheel of the planetary gear train and the rotatable axle, and the locking mechanism is configured to restrict the relative rotation between the driven wheel of the planetary gear train and the rotatable axle.” and ¶[0060] of PGPUB version discloses “The positioning structure can achieve relative fixation of the planetary gear train and the rotatable axle in the rotation direction through snap-fit”. The recited limitation is unclear which corresponding structural (e.g. locking mechanism or positioning structure or both) to perform the functional recitation. Secondly, the limitation of “degree of freedom… is N” is recited as degree of freedom of the mechanism yet the specification does not define a method of calculation to determine its value.
Claim 3 recites “wherein a positioning structure is provided between the driven wheel of the first planetary gear train and the rotatable axle.” It is unclear because the specification ¶[0048]-[0050] discusses positioning structure provided on opposing sides of the planet carriers of the two planetary gear trains, which is inconsistent with the claim recitation that positioning structure is on driven wheel and rotatable axle.
The dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapadia (US 20220125529 A1 cited from IDS) in view of Himmelmann (US 20080076614)
Claim 1: Kapadia discloses a degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism (20; Fig.2), comprising a handle (28), a drive unit group (22a-22d),
the drive unit group (22a-22d) comprises N drive units, wherein N is 3 or 4 (there are 4 drive motors; 22a-22d, see ¶[0032]), and each drive unit is rotatably four drive motors 22a, 22b, 22c, 22d each have a rotatable motor shaft 40a, 40b, 40c, 40d, 40e) provided on the handle; differential mechanism (62a, 66a, 64a) is provided on the handle (28).
Kapadia does not disclose a differential mechanism comprises a first planetary gear train and a corresponding rotating mechanism; any two gears of the first planetary gear train are configured to independently rotate and are respectively coupled to one of the drive units; the differential mechanism is switchable between a locked state and a released state; wherein when the differential mechanism is in the locked state, a driven wheel of the first planetary gear train and the corresponding rotating mechanism are fixed to each other in the rotation direction, such that the degree of freedom of the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is N−1; when the differential mechanism is in the released state, the driven wheel of the first planetary gear train and the corresponding rotating mechanism are able to rotate independently, such that the degree of freedom of the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is N.
Himmelmann teaches a drive unit (12; Fig.2) having a drive unit group (42, 36, 50) and a differential mechanism (20); the differential mechanism (20, 14) comprises a first planetary gear train (20) and a corresponding rotating mechanism (14); any two gears (32/30 or 32/26 or 26/30) of the first planetary gear train are configured to independently rotate and are respectively coupled to one (36 or 50) of the drive units (36,50, 42); the differential mechanism (20,14) is switchable between a locked state (46 is engaged) and a released state (e.g. 46 is disengaged); wherein when the differential mechanism (20,14) is in the locked state, a driven wheel (32) of the first planetary gear train and the corresponding rotating mechanism (14) are fixed to each other in the rotation direction (as they all rotate relative to center of rotation, see¶[0031]), such that the degree of freedom of the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is N−1 (e.g. since there are 3/4 drive units as inputs into differential. when the clutch is engaged; two members are locked together. Thereof, the degree of freedom is N-1=3 or 2.); when the differential mechanism is in the released state (46 is disengaged and 54 is engaged), the driven wheel (32) of the first planetary gear train and the corresponding rotating mechanism (14) are able to rotate independently (as shown in Fig.7, 14 rotates freely relative to 32), such that the degree of freedom of the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is N (e.g. since there are 3/4 drive units as inputs into differential. Thereof, the degree of freedom is 3 or 4.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace differential mechanism of Kapadia (62a, 66a, 64a) with differential mechanism (20; 14) comprises planetary gearset (20) and a corresponding rotating mechanism (14) and include locking mechanism (46 and 54) as taught by Himmelmann for the purpose higher torque capacity, reduced gear stress and switchable gear ratios.
Claim 2: Kapadia as modified by Himmelmann discloses the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism according to claim 1, wherein N is 3 (e.g. since there are 3/4 drive units as inputs into differential. Thereof, the degree of freedom is 3 or 4.);
the rotating mechanism (14-Himmelmann) is a rotatable axle, and the rotatable axle (14) and the first planetary gear train (20-Himmelmann) are coaxially and rotatably provided on the handle; the gear of the first planetary gear train (20-Himmelmann) is bidirectionally(ccw/cw) driven by the drive unit (22a-Kapadia) coupled with the planetary gear (20); the rotatable axle (14) is coupled (via 20) with one drive unit (42a); the rotatable axle (14) is bidirectionally (ccw/cw) driven by the drive unit (22a-Kapadia) coupled (via 20- Himmelmann) with the rotatable axle (14-Himmelmann); a locking mechanism (46;54- Himmelmann) is provided between the driven wheel of the first planetary gear train (20- Himmelmann) and the rotatable axle (14- Himmelmann) (e.g. as 46 is engaged the torque is provided between planetary gear set 20 and shaft 14), and the locking mechanism (46,54 is engaged) is configured to restrict the relative rotation between the driven wheel (32- Himmelmann) of the first planetary gear train and the rotatable axle (14) (¶[0031]).
Claim 10: Kapadia as modified by Himmelmann discloses the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism according to claim 1, wherein a transmission mechanism (65-Kapadia) is connected between the differential mechanism (20,14- Himmelmann) and the drive unit group (22a-22d-Kapadia), and the transmission mechanism (65-Kapadia) comprises a flexible pulley-cable transmission mechanism or a rigid transmission mechanism (e.g. The drive belt 65 may be flexible or rigid-see ¶0035] of Kapadia).
Claim 11: Kapadia as modified by Himmelmann discloses the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the handle (28-Kapadia; see Fig.2) is detachably provided with a protective cover (26-Kapadia), and the protective cover (26-Kapadia) and the handle (28-Kapadia) together form a cavity for accommodating the drive unit (22a-22d) and the differential mechanism (20,14-Himmelman).
Claim 12: Kapadia as modified by Himmelmann discloses a surgical instrument (1; Fig.1), comprising an end tool (10), a cable (65-Kapadia), and the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism (12; Fig.2) according to claim 1; the drive unit (22a-22d) is connected to the end tool (10) via the cable (65) to drive the end tool (¶[0042]: a rotation of the first drive gear 64a causes the first drive shaft 66a to rotate, thereby rotating the first driven member of the electromechanical instrument 10 to actuate an associated function of the surgical instrument 10.); wherein the surgical instrument (1; Fig.1) is configured to adjust the degree of freedom of the end tool (10) through the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism (12).
Claim 13: Kapadia discloses a degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism, comprising a handle (28), a drive unit group (22a-22d), and a differential mechanism (62a, 66a, 64a);
the drive unit group (22a-22d) comprises N drive units, wherein N is 3 or 4 (there are 4 drive motors; 22a-22d, see ¶[0032]), and each drive unit (22a-22d) is rotatably
the differential mechanism (62a, 66a, 64a) is provided on the handle (28).
Kapadia does not disclose differential mechanism comprises a first planetary gear train and a corresponding rotating mechanism; any two gears of the first planetary gear train are configured to independently rotate and are respectively coupled to one of the drive units; the differential mechanism is switchable between a locked state and a released state; wherein when the differential mechanism is in the locked state, a driven wheel of the first planetary gear train and the corresponding rotating mechanism are fixed to each other in the rotation direction, such that the degree of freedom of the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is N-1; when the differential mechanism is in the released state, the driven wheel of the first planetary gear train and the corresponding rotating mechanism are able to rotate independently, such that the degree of freedom of the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is N, to ensure that cables configured for connecting with and being driven by the drive units remain tensioned under any operating conditions.
Himmelmann teaches a drive unit (12; Fig.2) having a drive unit group (42, 36, 50) and a differential mechanism (20); the differential mechanism (20, 14) comprises a first planetary gear train (20) and a corresponding rotating mechanism (14); any two gears (32/30 or 32/26 or 26/30) of the first planetary gear train are configured to independently rotate and are respectively coupled to one (36 or 50) of the drive units (36,50, 42); the differential mechanism (20,14) is switchable between a locked state (46 is engaged) and a released state (e.g. 46 is disengaged); wherein when the differential mechanism (20,14) is in the locked state, a driven wheel (32) of the first planetary gear train and the corresponding rotating mechanism (14) are fixed to each other in the rotation direction (as they all rotate relative to center of rotation, see¶[0031]), such that the degree of freedom of the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is N−1 (e.g. since there are 3/4 drive units as inputs into differential. when the clutch is engaged; two members are locked together. Thereof, the degree of freedom is N-1=3 or 2.); when the differential mechanism is in the released state (46 is disengaged and 54 is engaged), the driven wheel (32) of the first planetary gear train and the corresponding rotating mechanism (14) are able to rotate independently (as shown in Fig.7, 14 rotates freely relative to 32), such that the degree of freedom of the degree-of-freedom regulating mechanism is N (e.g. since there are 3/4 drive units as inputs into differential. Thereof, the degree of freedom is 3 or 4.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace differential mechanism of Kapadia (62a, 66a, 64a) with differential mechanism (20; 14) comprises planetary gearset (20) and a corresponding rotating mechanism (14) and include locking mechanism (46 and 54) as taught by Himmelmann for the purpose higher torque capacity, reduced gear stress and switchable gear ratios.
Kapadia discloses cable (65) but does not disclose cables.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add more cables in order increase controllable degrees of freedom of the instrument, improve precision of motion, reduce risk of cable fatigue or failure. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
As the combined Kapadia in view of Himmelmann would create a drive system to “ensure that cables (65) configured for connecting with and being driven by the drive units (22a-22d) remain tensioned under any operating conditions” as claimed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapadia (US 20220125529 A1 cited from IDS) in view of Himmelmann (US 20080076614) as further in view of Lindemann (US 20080240849 A1)
Claim 5: Kapadia as modified by Himmelmann does not disclose wherein a coaxially arranged positioning hole is provided between the driven wheel of the first planetary gear train and the rotatable axle, and the positioning hole is configured to be locked by a pin that moves axially, thereby achieving relative fixation of the first planetary gear train and the rotatable axle in the rotation direction.
Lindemann teaches a gear (72; Fig.5a), a shaft (74) and coaxially arranged positioning hole (76) is provided between the gear (72) and the shaft (74) and the positioning hole (76) is configured to be locked by a pin (78) that moves axially, thereby achieving relative fixation of the gear (72) and the shaft (76) in the rotation direction (as both shaft 76 and gear 72 rotate together).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a positioning hole (76-Lindemann) passes through gears (32 and 30- Himmelmann) and pin (78-Lindemann) between the driven wheel (32- Himmelmann) and rotatable axle (14- Himmelmann) as taught by Lindemann for the purpose no slippage, preventing relative rotation, torque from the gear can directly transmits to shaft.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Lillian T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5404. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571)270-5565. 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.
/LILLIAN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3655A
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655