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 .
Formal Matters
Applicant’s response filed 1 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, 7-11, 19, and 20 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and under examination.
Claim Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the examiner equates insulated conductive wire 448 of Scott as an insulator that covers an end portion of the at least one wire (Remarks, numbered p. 8). Applicant argues that the insulation of the insulated conductive wire 448 of Scott does not comprise “a first portion covering the end portion of the at least one wire, and a second portion extending from an end of the end portion of the at least one wire and not covering the at least one wire.” Applicant also argues that Scott described insulated conductive wire 448 as energizing end effectors 501-502 by a current that flows through and supplies electrical power from an electrical generator to the end effectors (Remarks, numbered p. 8). Applicant argues that Scott suggests insulating the electrical cable of Robert that connects an electrical signal between the input and the tool, but that Scott does not teach or suggest an insulator that covers an end portion of any of the cable loops 436A-436C and thus one skilled in the art would not be motivated to modify the linkages 160, 162 associated with the actuators 152/154 of Robert (Remarks, numbered p. 8-9). Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Contrary to Applicant’s argument, both references address the same engineering problem: covering wires to reduce unwanted interactions with other components. Scott teaches insulated conductive wire 448 which comprises a first portion covering the end portion of the at least one wire and a second portion extending from an end of the end portion of the at least one wire and not covering the at least one wire (Scott, ¶69). Scott teaches that 448 is an insulated conductive wire that is routed from the tool base through the shaft and the wrist to the wristed receptacle 404, where it is crimped and electrically coupled to the inner connector liner 610 by a crimp tab 611 (¶69). Scott also teaches that the wire may also be welded or soldered to the inner connector liner 610. Because the inner connection liner 610 can be energized (¶69), it is innate that this second portion extending from an end of the end portion of the at least one wire is not covered, which is broadly interpreted as the end portion that is not insulated. Scott explains that a number of components can be non-conductive or insulative in order to avoid shorting the current in the insulated conductive wire (¶70).
Roberts expressly teaches that the apparatus may include a sheath covering the flexible length of the control link disposed within the channel, the sheath being operable to reduce friction between the control link and the channel (¶6). More specifically, Roberts teaches that “linkage 160 further includes a sheath 180 covering at least a portion of the length 178 that is disposed within the channel 164 (shown in FIG. 2). The sheath 180 may be a material such as Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) that is operable to reduce friction between the linkage 160 and the channel 164” (¶62).
Claim Rejections Maintained or Modified – Necessitated by Amendment
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert et al., US 20180228562 (16 August 2018) in view of Scott, US 20060079889 (13 April 2006).
Regarding independent claim 1, Robert teaches a surgical instrument (FIG 2, tool apparatus 100) comprising:
a casing (FIG 1; ¶56, housing 102) comprising a first end and a second end, the second end being opposite from the first end (FIGs 1, 2)
a moveable part (FIG 2, tool manipulator 104) attached to a shaft (FIG 2, shaft 112) extending from the first end of the casing (FIG 1; ¶56, housing 102);
at least one slider (FIG 2, ¶56, parallel rails 150) movable with respect to the casing (FIG 2; ¶56);
at least one wire (FIG 2; ¶60, linkages 160, 162) being held by the at least one slider (FIG 2, ¶60, associated with actuator 138),
the at least one wire being configured to transmit movement from the at least one slider to the movable part (¶58, FIG 2, and ¶68”);
a conductor arranged in the casing and configured to conduct an electric power to the movable part (¶59).
Robert does not expressly teach an insulator that covers an end portion of the at least one wire that extends from the at least one slider toward the second end of the casing, wherein the insulator comprises: a first portion covering the end portion of the at least one wire; and a second portion extending from an end of the end portion of the at least one wire and not covering the at least one wire.
However, Roberts teaches that “linkage 160 further includes a sheath 180 covering at least a portion of the length 178 that is disposed within the channel 164 (shown in FIG. 2). The sheath 180 may be a material such as Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) that is operable to reduce friction between the linkage 160 and the channel 164” (¶62).
Scott teaches a wristed robotic tool with an electrosurgical end effector (Abstract).
Scott teaches conductors (FIGs 4A-D; ¶¶41-42, electrical conductor 474, which permits connection to an electrosurgical generator G 150 illustrated in FIG 1”) arranged in the casing a (FIG 4B, ¶¶41, 44, tool base 412, cover 472) and configured to conduct an electric power to the movable part (¶40 “a conductor electrically communicating with at least one blade delivers electrical energy to tissue engaged by the blades”; ¶41 electrical connector 474); and
an insulator that covers an end portion of the at least one wire (FIGs 4D-E; ¶69, insulated conductive wire 448) that extends from the at least one slider (¶69, tool base 412) toward the second end of the casing (FIG 4C, dashed line showing path of insulated conductive wire 448),
wherein the insulator comprises: a first portion covering the end portion of the at least one wire (¶69); and a second portion extending from an end of the end portion of the at least one wire and not covering the at least one wire (¶70).
Robert and Scott teach in the same field, robotic surgical instruments comprising end effectors. Although, Roberts discloses the claimed surgical instrument (casing, moveable part, at least one slider, at least one wire, a conductor, an insulator), and Roberts discloses sheath covering at least a portion of the length of wires disposed within the channels, Roberts does not expressly disclose a that the second portion extending from an end of the end portion of the at least one wire and covering the at least one wire. Instead, Roberts discloses the sheath coverings as encompassing a portion, but without further specificity. Additionally, Roberts teaches the rationale for the insulation as being operable to reduce friction between the linkage and the channel.
Scott specifically addresses insulation of a wire carrying current. At ¶69, Scott teaches that 448 is an insulated conductive wire that is routed from the tool base 412 through the shaft and the wrist to the wristed receptacle 404, where it is crimped and electrically coupled to the inner connector liner 610 by a crimp tab 611. Scott also teaches that the wire may also be welded or soldered to the inner connector liner 610. Because the inner connection liner 610 can be energized (¶69), it is inherent that this second portion extending from an end of the end portion of the at least one wire is not covered and not insulated. Scott explains that a number of components can be non-conductive or insulative in order to avoid shorting the current in the insulated conductive wire (¶70).
Robert’s teaches partially insulated wires in channels for the purpose of reducing friction. Scott teaches partially insulated wires in channels for the purpose of preventing shorts from occurring when wires are carrying current. Both references teaches covering, sheathing, or insulating wires to reduce unwanted or deleterious interactions with other components. Scott teaches that the ends of the wires are not covered where they make contact with connectors. A person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to control wires in a limited area would be reasonably apprised of common electrical power and actuation architecture in small enclosed areas, such as the surgical instruments taught by Robert and Scott. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to (a) reduce friction between linkages or (b) reduce shorts from wires carrying current would look to the solutions provided by Robert and Scott. Additionally, Scott teaches the use of crimp tabs as electrical couplers for current-carrying wires, which may also act as insulators insofar as permitting wires to be insulated up to the point of the connection to the coupler, where the wires would then not be covered by insulation. Scott’s insulator and crimp tab solution can readily be incorporated alongside Robert’s device using known assembly methods without redesigning Robert’s core delivery path.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (covering wires to reduce unwanted interactions with other components) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding insulation of a wire to a point of connector where the otherwise unwanted interactions would be reduced), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 2, Robert modified by Scott teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Robert teaches wherein the at least one slider is linearly movable with respect to the casing (¶18).
Regarding claim 3, Robert modified by Scott teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Scott teaches wherein the second portion of the insulator (¶49, scissors blades 501 and 502) has a length greater than or equal to a spatial distance (¶49, “connections described above provide an insulated continuous electrical path from the base connector 474 to the scissors blades 501 and 502, protected from tissue contact except at the blades 501, 502”), and wherein the spatial distance is based on the electric power to be supplied to the conductor (¶49, electrosurgical generator G 150, “[e]nergization of the blades is controllable by the surgeon”).
The specification broadly defines “spatial distance” as a distance needs set to ensure proper insulation between the wires used to transmit the driving force and the conductor of the high-frequency current (FIG 6, ¶18).
See also, MPEP 2144.04. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 4, Robert modified by Scott teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Robert teaches wherein the at least one wire comprises a plurality of wires (FIG 2; ¶60, linkages 160, 162), and wherein the insulator covers the end portions of the plurality of wires (FIG 2; ¶62).
Regarding claim 6, Robert modified by Scott teaches the surgical instrument of claim 1, as set forth above.
Robert teaches wherein the insulator is tubular (FIG 2; ¶62).
Regarding claim 7, Robert modified by Scott teaches the surgical instrument of claim 1, as set forth above.
Robert teaches wherein the first portion and the second portion are continuously arranged in a longitudinal direction of the insulator (FIG 2; ¶62).
Regarding claim 8, Robert modified by Scott teaches the surgical instrument of claim 1, as set forth above.
Scott teaches wherein the first portion (FIGs 4D-E; ¶69, insulated conductive wire 448); is a portion of the insulator in which the at least one wire is arranged inside in an inner part of a coaxial-section intersecting a longitudinal direction of the insulator (Scott; ¶69).
Regarding claim 9, Robert modified by Scott the surgical instrument of claim 1, as set forth above.
Robert teaches wherein the second portion is an a apportion of the insulator in which the at least one wire is not arranged inside (FIG 2; ¶62). See also, Scott at ¶42.
Regarding claim 10, Robert modified by Scott the surgical instrument of claim 3, as set forth above.
Scott teaches wherein the length of the second portion of the insulator is 3 mm to 80 mm
(¶49).
See MPEP 2144.04. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 11, Robert modified by Scott the surgical instrument of claim 3, as set forth above.
Scott teaches wherein the length of the second portion of the insulator is 3 mm to 40 mm (¶49).
See MPEP 2144.04. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 12, Robert modified by Scott the surgical instrument of claim 1, as set forth above.
Robert teaches wherein the movable part is a joint and a forceps (¶58).
Regarding claim 13, Robert modified by Scott teaches the surgical instrument of claim 12, as set forth above.
Robert teaches wherein the at least one wire is configured to move the joint to change an orientation of the forceps based on a movement of the at least one slider (¶58).
Regarding claim 14, Robert modified by Scott teaches the surgical instrument of claim 1, as set forth above.
Robert teaches wherein the casing comprises a first casing (FIG 2, ¶62) and a second casing (¶59), and the first casing comprising the conductor (FIG 2; ¶60, linkages 160, 162).
Regarding claim 15, Robert modified by Scott teaches the surgical instrument of claim 14, as set forth above.
Scott teaches wherein the first casing (FIG 4B, cover 472) forms a plurality of side faces (FIG 4B, sides of cover 472) and a top face of the casing (FIG 4B, top portion cover 472), and wherein the conductor is arranged on the top face of the casing (FIG 4B, tool base 412, cover 472, electrical connector 474; ¶41).
The specification defines faces as: “shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, the first casing 20A of the casing 20 is a member forming side faces and a top face of the casing 20, the faces being portions of the casing 20 on a positive side in the Y-axis direction. The first casing 20A may include a conductor 21A” (¶57).
Regarding claim 16, Robert modified by Scott teaches the surgical instrument of claim 14, as set forth above.
Scott teaches wherein the second casing forms a bottom face of the casing (FIG 4B, tool base 412, cover 472, electrical connector 474; ¶41).
Robert teaches wherein the second casing comprises the at least one slider and the at least one wire, the at least one slider being arranged in at least one groove on the second casing (FIG 6; ¶70).
Regarding claim 18, Robert modified by Scott teaches the surgical instrument of claim 1, as set forth above.
Robert teaches wherein the at least one slider (FIG 2, ¶56, parallel rails 150) comprises a plurality of sliders (FIG 2; ¶56), the at least one wire comprises a plurality of wires (FIG 2; ¶60, linkages 160, 162), and each slider is provided with one or two wires of the plurality of wires (FIG 2, ¶60, associated with actuator 138).
Regarding independent claim 19, Robert teaches a surgical instrument (FIG 2, tool apparatus 100) comprising:
a casing (FIG 1; ¶56, housing 102) comprising a first end and a second end, the second end being opposite from the first end (FIGs 1, 2);
a joint and a forceps attached to a shaft extending from the first end of the casing (FIG 1; ¶58);
a plurality of sliders being linearly movable with respect to the casing (FIG 2, ¶56, parallel rails 150);
a plurality of wires held by the plurality of sliders (FIG 2; ¶60, linkages 160, 162), an end portion of each of the plurality of wires extending from the plurality of sliders toward the second end of the casing (FIG 2 and ¶68);
the plurality of wires being configured to transmit a driving force from the plurality of sliders to the joint and the forceps (¶58);
a conductor arranged in the casing and configured to conduct high-frequency current to the joint and the forceps (¶59); and
Robert does not expressly teach an insulator covering an end portion of the plurality of wires that extends from the plurality of sliders toward the second end of the casing, wherein the insulator comprises: a covering area covering the end portion of the plurality of wires; and a non-covering area having a length based on the high frequency current.
However, Roberts teaches that “linkage 160 further includes a sheath 180 covering at least a portion of the length 178 that is disposed within the channel 164 (shown in FIG. 2). The sheath 180 may be a material such as Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) that is operable to reduce friction between the linkage 160 and the channel 164” (¶62).
Scott teaches a wristed robotic tool with an electrosurgical end effector (Abstract).
Scott teaches conductors (FIGs 4A-D; ¶¶41-42, electrical conductor 474) arranged in the casing a (FIG 4B, ¶¶41, 44, tool base 412, cover 472) and configured to conduct an electric power to the movable part (¶¶40-41, electrical connector 474); and
an insulator that covers an end portion of the at least one wire (FIGs 4D-E; ¶69, insulated conductive wire 448) that extends from the at least one slider (¶69, tool base 412) toward the second end of the casing (FIG 4C, dashed line showing path of insulated conductive wire 448),
wherein the insulator comprises: a first portion covering the end portion of the at least one wire (¶69) and a second portion extending from an end of the end portions of the plurality of wires and not covering the plurality of wires (¶70), the second portion having a length based on the high frequency current (FIGs 4D-E; ¶49).
Robert and Scott teach in the same field, robotic surgical instruments comprising end effectors. Although, Roberts discloses the claimed surgical instrument (casing, moveable part, at least one slider, at least one wire, a conductor, an insulator), and Roberts discloses sheath covering at least a portion of the length of wires disposed within the channels, Roberts does not expressly disclose a that the second portion extending from an end of the end portion of the at least one wire and covering the at least one wire. Instead, Roberts discloses the sheath coverings as encompassing a portion, but without further specificity. Additionally, Roberts teaches the rationale for the insulation as being operable to reduce friction between the linkage and the channel.
Scott specifically addresses insulation of a wire carrying current. At ¶69, Scott teaches that 448 is an insulated conductive wire that is routed from the tool base 412 through the shaft and the wrist to the wristed receptacle 404, where it is crimped and electrically coupled to the inner connector liner 610 by a crimp tab 611. Scott also teaches that the wire may also be welded or soldered to the inner connector liner 610. Because the inner connection liner 610 can be energized (¶69), it is inherent that this second portion extending from an end of the end portion of the at least one wire is not covered and not insulated. Scott explains that a number of components can be non-conductive or insulative in order to avoid shorting the current in the insulated conductive wire (¶70).
Robert’s teaches partially insulated wires in channels for the purpose of reducing friction. Scott teaches partially insulated wires in channels for the purpose of preventing shorts from occurring when wires are carrying current. Both references teaches covering, sheathing, or insulating wires to reduce unwanted or deleterious interactions with other components. Scott teaches that the ends of the wires are not covered where they make contact with connectors. A person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to control wires in a limited area would be reasonably apprised of common electrical power and actuation architecture in small enclosed areas, such as the surgical instruments taught by Robert and Scott. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to (a) reduce friction between linkages or (b) reduce shorts from wires carrying current would look to the solutions provided by Robert and Scott. Additionally, Scott teaches the use of crimp tabs as electrical couplers for current-carrying wires, which may also act as insulators insofar as permitting wires to be insulated up to the point of the connection to the coupler, where the wires would then not be covered by insulation. Scott’s insulator and crimp tab solution can readily be incorporated alongside Robert’s device using known assembly methods without redesigning Robert’s core delivery path.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (covering wires to reduce unwanted interactions with other components) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding insulation of a wire to a point of connector where the otherwise unwanted interactions would be reduced), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
See also, MPEP 2144.04. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 20, Robert teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 19, as set forth above.
Scott teaches wherein the length of the second portion of the insulator (¶49, scissors blades 501 and 502) is greater than or equal to a spatial distance (¶49), based on the electric power to be supplied to the conductor (¶49, electrosurgical generator G 150). Robert teaches wherein the end portion of the plurality of wires comprises a plurality of end portions (FIG 2; ¶60, linkages 160, 162), and the insulator covers the plurality of end portions of the plurality of wires (FIG 2; ¶62).
The specification broadly defines “spatial distance” as a distance needs set to ensure proper insulation between the wires used to transmit the driving force and the conductor of the high-frequency current (FIG 6, ¶18).
See also, MPEP 2144.04. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert et al., US 20180228562 (16 August 2018) in view of Scott, US 20060079889 (13 April 2006), and further in view of Morley et al., US 20050240178 (27 October 2005) (all previously cited of record)
Regarding claim 5, Robert modified by Scott teaches the surgical instrument of claim 1, as set forth above.
Neither Robert nor Scott teach wherein the at least one wire is made of at least one of stainless steel, tungsten, an alloy containing tungsten, or a piano wire.
Morley teaches robotic surgical systems comprising bipolar cauterizing instruments (Abstract) where the conductive wires comprise copper or tungsten (¶12).
Robert, Scott, and Morley teach in the same field, robotic surgical instruments comprising end effectors. Although, Roberts discloses the claimed surgical instrument (casing, moveable part, at least one slider, at least one wire, a conductor, an insulator), and Roberts discloses sheath covering at least a portion of the length of wires disposed within the channels, Roberts does not expressly disclose a that the second portion extending from an end of the end portion of the at least one wire and covering the at least one wire. Instead, Roberts discloses the sheath coverings as encompassing a portion, but without further specificity. Additionally, Roberts teaches the rationale for the insulation as being operable to reduce friction between the linkage and the channel.
Scott specifically addresses insulation of a wire carrying current. At ¶69, Scott teaches that 448 is an insulated conductive wire that is routed from the tool base 412 through the shaft and the wrist to the wristed receptacle 404, where it is crimped and electrically coupled to the inner connector liner 610 by a crimp tab 611. Scott also teaches that the wire may also be welded or soldered to the inner connector liner 610. Because the inner connection liner 610 can be energized (¶69), it is inherent that this second portion extending from an end of the end portion of the at least one wire is not covered and not insulated. Scott explains that a number of components can be non-conductive or insulative in order to avoid shorting the current in the insulated conductive wire (¶70).
Morley teaches surgical instruments comprising high frequency electrical energy to engage tissue including electrified end effectors and the material composition of the conductive wires. Morley also teaches that the electrodes can be disposed directly in the end effectors or on non-conductive sleeves that are attached to the end effectors (¶12). Morley teaches ways to prevent shorts at ¶¶11, 92.
Robert’s teaches partially insulated wires in channels for the purpose of reducing friction. Scott teaches partially insulated wires in channels for the purpose of preventing shorts from occurring when wires are carrying current. Morley also teaches that the electrodes can be disposed directly in the end effectors or on non-conductive sleeves that are attached to the end effectors (¶12) and other configurations to prevent shorts (¶11, 92). All three references teach coverings, sheathings, or insulating wires to reduce unwanted or deleterious interactions with other components. Scott teaches that the ends of the wires are not covered where they make contact with connectors. A person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to control wires in a limited area would be reasonably apprised of common electrical power and actuation architecture in small enclosed areas, such as the surgical instruments taught by Robert, Scott, and Morley. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to (a) reduce friction between linkages or (b) reduce shorts from wires carrying current would look to the solutions provided by Robert and Scott. Additionally, Scott teaches the use of crimp tabs as electrical couplers for current-carrying wires, which may also act as insulators insofar as permitting wires to be insulated up to the point of the connection to the coupler, where the wires would then not be covered by insulation. Scott’s insulator and crimp tab solution can readily be incorporated alongside Robert’s device using known assembly methods without redesigning Robert’s core delivery path.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (covering wires to reduce unwanted interactions with other components) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding insulation of a wire to a point of connector where the otherwise unwanted interactions would be reduced), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 17, Robert modified by Scott teaches the surgical instrument of claim 1, as set forth above.
Neither Robert nor Scott teach wherein the conductor is made of copper or an alloy containing copper.
Morley teaches robotic surgical systems comprising bipolar cauterizing instruments (Abstract) where the conductive wires comprise copper or tungsten (¶12).
Robert, Scott, and Morley teach in the same field, robotic surgical instruments comprising end effectors. Although, Roberts discloses the claimed surgical instrument (casing, moveable part, at least one slider, at least one wire, a conductor, an insulator), and Roberts discloses sheath covering at least a portion of the length of wires disposed within the channels, Roberts does not expressly disclose a that the second portion extending from an end of the end portion of the at least one wire and covering the at least one wire. Instead, Roberts discloses the sheath coverings as encompassing a portion, but without further specificity. Additionally, Roberts teaches the rationale for the insulation as being operable to reduce friction between the linkage and the channel.
Scott specifically addresses insulation of a wire carrying current. At ¶69, Scott teaches that 448 is an insulated conductive wire that is routed from the tool base 412 through the shaft and the wrist to the wristed receptacle 404, where it is crimped and electrically coupled to the inner connector liner 610 by a crimp tab 611. Scott also teaches that the wire may also be welded or soldered to the inner connector liner 610. Because the inner connection liner 610 can be energized (¶69), it is inherent that this second portion extending from an end of the end portion of the at least one wire is not covered and not insulated. Scott explains that a number of components can be non-conductive or insulative in order to avoid shorting the current in the insulated conductive wire (¶70).
Morley teaches surgical instruments comprising high frequency electrical energy to engage tissue including electrified end effectors and the material composition of the conductive wires. Morley also teaches that the electrodes can be disposed directly in the end effectors or on non-conductive sleeves that are attached to the end effectors (¶12). Morley teaches ways to prevent shorts at ¶¶11, 92.
Robert’s teaches partially insulated wires in channels for the purpose of reducing friction. Scott teaches partially insulated wires in channels for the purpose of preventing shorts from occurring when wires are carrying current. Morley also teaches that the electrodes can be disposed directly in the end effectors or on non-conductive sleeves that are attached to the end effectors (¶12) and other configurations to prevent shorts (¶11, 92). All three references teach coverings, sheathings, or insulating wires to reduce unwanted or deleterious interactions with other components. Scott teaches that the ends of the wires are not covered where they make contact with connectors. A person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to control wires in a limited area would be reasonably apprised of common electrical power and actuation architecture in small enclosed areas, such as the surgical instruments taught by Robert, Scott, and Morley. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to (a) reduce friction between linkages or (b) reduce shorts from wires carrying current would look to the solutions provided by Robert and Scott. Additionally, Scott teaches the use of crimp tabs as electrical couplers for current-carrying wires, which may also act as insulators insofar as permitting wires to be insulated up to the point of the connection to the coupler, where the wires would then not be covered by insulation. Scott’s insulator and crimp tab solution can readily be incorporated alongside Robert’s device using known assembly methods without redesigning Robert’s core delivery path.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (covering wires to reduce unwanted interactions with other components) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding insulation of a wire to a point of connector where the otherwise unwanted interactions would be reduced), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 CHERIE M POLAND whose telephone number is (703)756-1341. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (9am-9pm CST) and R-F (9am-3pm CST).
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.
/CHERIE M POLAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/SHAUN L DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771