DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action in response to the above identified patent
application filed on June 6, 2024.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schoolman (USP 4,483,562).
Referring to Figures 6-8, Schoolman teaches an insertion tool comprising: a flexible section comprising a plurality of rigidizable (via tensioning cable 142) links (138,140); an end effector actuator (174); an end effector (180) coupled to a distal end of the flexible section; a flexible shaft (166) extending through the flexible section, wherein torque is transferred from the end effector actuator to the distal end via the flexible shaft to cause a rotation of the end effector; a tool-less disconnect interface (158) between the end effector and the flexible shaft, and a rigidization actuator (152) configured to actuate the plurality of rigidizable links in the flexible section from a relaxed state to a rigidized state having a predefined shape.
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) 2, 6, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoolman (USP 4,483,562), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiang (USP 11,065,743).
Schoolman does not teach the flexible shaft having a strand formed of a plurality of layers of wires around a center axis. Chiang illustrates, Figure 8, a flexible shaft formed with a strand formed of a plurality of layers of wires around a center axis (502) of the strand, including a first coiled layer (501) closest to the center axis, layers of the plurality of layers have alternating coil directions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to configure the flexible shaft of Schoolman with a plurality of layers having alternating coil directions, as taught by Chiang, motivation being to configure the flexible shaft for a predetermined operating torque to perform a particular operation.
With respect to claim 7, it is understood the flexible cable can operate in either a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction. Note, the limitations “clockwise” “counter-clockwise” “left hand lay” and the “right hand lay” are relative directions depending on how the flexible shaft is viewed.
Claim(s) 2 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoolman (USP 4,483,562), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Milo et al. (USP 5,826,923).
Schoolman does not teach the flexible shaft having a strand formed of a plurality of layers of wires around a center axis. Milo teaches a flexible shaft formed with a strand formed of a plurality of layers of wires around a center axis (22) of the strand, including a first coiled layer closest to the center axis, and the flexible shaft comprises a hollow core (lumen 26) radially inward of the first coiled layer, innermost layer of the plurality of layers is formed of a different material than other layers (22 is nickel-titanium, 40 is stainless, 34 is a polymeric material), the layers of the plurality of layers have alternating coil directions (Figs 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to configure the flexible shaft of Schoolman with a plurality if layers, a hollow core, and different materials, as taught by Milo, motivation being to configure the flexible shaft for a predetermined operating torque, and/or to provide a passageway for introducing other instruments as needed.
With respect to claim 7, the flexible shaft of Milo is configured (Figs. 2-4) with an outmost layer of the plurality of layers has a lay direction corresponding to a direction of the rotation of the end effector, wherein if the rotation is clockwise, the outmost layer has a left hand lay, and wherein, if the rotation is counter-clockwise, the outmost layer has a right hand lay. Note, the limitations “clockwise” “counter-clockwise” “left hand lay” and the “right hand lay” are relative directions depending on how the flexible shaft is viewed.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoolman (USP 4,483,562) as applied to claim 1 above.
Schoolman does not teach the outer diameter of the flexible shaft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to configure the flexible shaft of Schoolman with a diameter of between 0.01 inch to 0.1 inch, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable size of an element involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoolman (USP 4,483,562), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishio et al. (USPub 2012/0160050).
Schoolman does not teach a shaft bearing positioned within the flexible section and around the flexible shaft. Nishio teaches bearings (26) within a flexible section (3) and around a flexible shaft (22), the shaft bearing comprises an extension spring (27) around the flexible shaft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to configure the flexible shaft of Schoolman with bearings and springs, as taught by Nishio motivation being to support the flexible shaft with reduced friction.
With respect to claim 14, it was notoriously known to provide a lubricant to an inside surface (such as a raceway) of a bearing to provide a long lasting bearing having reduced friction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to provide the device of Schoolman modified with Nishio, with a lubricant, such as graphite, on an inside surface of the bearing, as was well known in the art, motivation being to provide a long lasting device having reduced friction.
Claim(s) 11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoolman (USP 4,483,562), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 212360466).
Schoolman does not teach a shaft bearing positioned within the flexible section and around the flexible shaft. Li teaches teaches a bearing (pipe 7) within a flexible section (3) and around a flexible shaft (1), the bearing forming a flexible hollow Polytetrafluoroethylene tube, an outer surface of the flexible shaft (1) is coated (covered with pipe 7) made of Polytetrafluoroethylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to configure the flexible shaft of Schoolman with a bearing in the form of a Polytetrafluoroethylene tube, as taught by Li, motivation being to support the flexible shaft with reduced friction.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoolman (USP 4,483,562), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Landolt (WO 2024/088782).
Schoolman does not teach the tool-less disconnect interface comprises a ferromagnetic spline fitting on the flexible shaft and a magnetic female adaptor coupled to the end effector. Landolt teaches a shaft coupling (Fig. 1.2-1.3) having ferromagnetic spline connection using a magnet (1131). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to configure the tool-less disconnect interface of Schoolman with a magnetic coupling, as taught by Landolt motivation being to provide a simple and quick connection between the flexible shaft and the tool.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoolman (USP 4,483,562), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wendling (USP 5,304,012).
Schoolman does not teach the tool-less disconnect interface comprises a swaged spline fitting on the flexible shaft and a micro chuck coupled to the end effector actuator. Wendling teaches a shaft coupling having swaged spline fitting and a micro chuck. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to configure the tool-less disconnect interface of Schoolman with swaged spline fitting a micro chuck, as taught by Wendling, motivation being to provide a simple and quick connection between the flexible shaft and the tool.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoolman (USP 4,483,562), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kroll (USP 2,783,794).
Schoolman does not teach the tool-less disconnect interface comprises a threaded fitting, wherein a thread direction of the threaded fitting is such that the threaded fitting tightens in a direction of rotation of the flexible shaft. Kroll teaches a shaft connection having a threaded joint (15) configured to tighten in a drive direction of rotation of the shaft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to configure the tool-less disconnect interface of Schoolman with a threaded coupling, as taught by Kroll motivation being to provide a simple and quick connection between the flexible shaft and the tool.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4,13, and 16 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 prior art does not teach the insertion tool of claim 1, including the wires of the plurality of layers being determined by the equations of claims 3 and 4, the extension spring having the same coil direction as an outermost layer of the flexible shaft, or a shaft tension assembly configured to maintain a tension of the flexible shaft at between 1-10% of a tensile strength of the flexible shaft.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C JOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. 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.
/WILLIAM C JOYCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights