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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 6/12/2026. Currently claims 21-40 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, filed 6/12/2026, with respect to the previous rejection of claims 21, 27-29, 31 and 37 under non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over US pat 12030195 in view of Swayze have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous double patenting rejection of claims 21, 27-29, 31 and 37 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 6-9, filed 6/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-40 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Swayze in view of Gomez have been fully considered and are persuasive based on the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cryder et al (US 20170143323) and/or Kopp et al (WO 2016133631) as outlined below.
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.
Claim(s) 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swayze et al (US 20180049817) hereafter known as Swayze in view of Gomez et al (WO 2019191413) hereafter Gomez in view of Cryder et al (US 20170143323) hereafter known as Cryder.
Independent claim:
Regarding claim 21:
Swayze discloses:
An articulation assembly for a robotic surgical instrument [see abstract… “A robotic surgical system” and “The end effector is configured to measure force exerted by the tissue on the end effector, which corresponds to tension at the tissue engaged by the end effector.”], comprising:
first and second base plates [see labelled figure(s) directly below rejection to this claim];
a plurality of lead screws extending between the first and second base plates [see Fig. 9 elements L1-L3 and para 73… “one or more lead screws (e.g., three lead screws L1, L2, and L3 are shown)”],
a first end portion of each lead screw [see labelled figure(s) directly below rejection to this claim] rotatably coupled and longitudinally fixed relative to the first base plate, and a second end portion of each lead screw rotatably coupled and longitudinally fixed relative to the second base plate [see para 73… “one or more lead screws (e.g., three lead screws L1, L2, and L3 are shown) that can be individually rotated by a motor and, as a result of the rotation of the lead screw, cause linear and/or rotational movement of at least one actuator (e.g., see, for example, actuators A1 and A2 shown in FIG. 9).”];
a plurality of collars, each collar disposed in threaded engagement about one of the lead screws between the first and second end portions thereof and configured to translate longitudinally along the lead screw in response to rotation of the lead screw [see Fig. 9 elements A1-A2 and para 73… “as a result of the rotation of the lead screw, cause linear and/or rotational movement of at least one actuator (e.g., see, for example, actuators A1 and A2 shown in FIG. 9).”]
a plurality of articulation cables, each articulation cable coupled to one of the collars such that translation of the collar tensions or de-tensions the articulation cable [see para 73… “as a result of the rotation of the lead screw, cause linear and/or rotational movement of at least one actuator (e.g., see, for example, actuators A1 and A2 shown in FIG. 9). Movement of each actuator controls the movement of driving members (e.g., gears, cables) located in the tool assembly 1130 for controlling one or more actions and movements that can be performed by the tooling assembly 1130, such as for assisting with performing a surgical operation.” Movement of cables is understood to recite tensioning and de-tensioning]; and
a plurality of gears [see Fig. 9 elements 1161 and para 79… “shaft gears 1161 to rotate”]
wherein each lead screw includes an engageable pattern disposed at the second end portion thereof, each engageable pattern configured to receive a driver configured to drive rotation of the lead screw, thereby tensioning or de-tensioning a corresponding one of the articulation cables [see labelled engageable pattern in labelled figures. Please note driver is not positively recited in this claim. Broadest reasonable interpretation is that is the simply the capability for a driver to drive rotation via the pattern. The flat surfaces (i.e. engagement pattern) shown in those figure(s) is capable of attaching to a driver and as rotation of the screw(s) moves the collars (i.e. elements A) which tensions and de-tensions the cables, Swayze demonstrates a configuration as claimed]
a motor-driven input to rotate the lead screw, thereby longitudinally translating a corresponding one of the collars to one of tension or de-tension a corresponding one of the articulation cables [see Fig. 9 and para 73… “seven motors M1-M7 are shown that control a variety of movements and actions associated with the tool assembly 1130”]
However, while Swayze discloses a plurality of gears. Swayze fails to disclose the gears as being configured with the other elements as claimed. Thus, Swayze fails to disclose “each gear disposed at the first end portion of one of the lead screws and configured to receive a motor-driven input to rotate the lead screw, thereby longitudinally translating a corresponding one of the collars to one of tension or de-tension a corresponding one of the articulation cables”. Also, while Swayze discloses an engagable pattern as discussed above, Swayze fails to disclose each pattern as “each engagable pattern defining a polygonal or multi-pin arrangement configured to receive a driver in fixed rotatable engagement therewith to enable the driver to drive rotation of the lead screw, thereby tensioning or de-tensioning a corresponding one of the articulation cables.”
Gomez discloses in the analogous art of robotic surgery [see para 3… “This disclosure relates to systems and methods that can be used in various contexts such as, but not limited to, minimally invasive computer-assisted tele-operated surgery using robotic technology.”] that a known way to connect a motor to rotate lead screws is via gears (i.e. a plurality of gears) [see Fig. 21 and para 120… “As shown, the couplings between the drive motors and the driven members can include, in some cases, a one or more transmission components such as gears or other power transmission components.”]
Cryder discloses in the analogous art of surgical systems that use screws [see abstract… “Retractor blade assemblies, retractors, kits, and methods of using the same. The retractor blade assembly may include a retractor blade, a pedicle screw, and a screw mount that connects the pedicle screw to the retractor blade.” and para 2… “The present disclosure generally relates to devices and systems for performing pedicle-based surgical retraction and/or distraction and methods of use thereof.”] placing polygonal recesses on the engagable end of a screw for the purpose of creating a mount on which other tools may be mounted [Para 41… “The distal tip 64 may have a hexalobular portion, for example, which engages with a portion of the screw mount 40. The distal tip 64 may be of any suitable shape and configuration including, but not limited to, round, triangular, squared, polygonal, star, torx, irregular, uniform, non-uniform, offset, staggered and/or tapered. The outer shaft 66 may also include a track portion 62 extending longitudinally along a length of the driver 60. The track portion 62 may be in the form of one or more extensions or recesses configured to mate with a corresponding track 46 on the screw mount 40.”]
Since Gomez discloses using a plurality of gears is a known way to connect the motor input with a lead screw, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Swayze to place an additional plurality of gears between the motors and each of the lead screws (both of which are at first plate) similarly to that disclose by Gomez (i.e. thereby reciting the missing limitation(s) of: “each gear disposed at the first end portion of one of the lead screws and configured to receive a motor-driven input to rotate the lead screw, thereby longitudinally translating a corresponding one of the collars to one of tension or de-tension a corresponding one of the articulation cables”) because this is a known way to connect a motor input with a lead screw.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Swayze in view of Gomez by making the engagable pattern include a recessed polygon similar to that disclosed by Cryder (i.e. thereby reciting the claimed limitation of: “each engagable pattern defining a polygonal or multi-pin arrangement configured to receive a driver in fixed rotatable engagement therewith to enable the driver to drive rotation of the lead screw, thereby tensioning or de-tensioning a corresponding one of the articulation cables.”) because this will provide the advantage of allowing different elements to be mounted to the rest of the screw(s).
PNG
media_image1.png
764
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dependent claims:
Regarding claim 22, see Fig. 9 and para 79 of Swayze [see “In some implementations, for example, four motors (e.g., M1-M4) can each individually control movement of a respective lead screw (e.g., L1-L4) thereby individually linearly translating a respective actuator (e.g., A1-A4) coupled thereto.”]
Regarding claims 23-25:
Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Cryder discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 21-22 as outlined above which also includes controlling the tensioning and de-tensioning of cables. Additionally, Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Cryder further discloses controlling the cables includes coordinating the cables to operate a function of an end effector through actuations such as opening/closing jaws [see para 78 of Swayze …. “Actuator A1 can include an extension threadably coupled to the lead screw L1. The extension can be coupled to or integrated with a partial cylindrical shaft that extends along the longitudinal axis of the puck 1135 and the driver 1140. The partial cylindrical shaft of the actuator A1 can engage with driving member D1 such that when the actuator A1 is linearly advanced, the driving member D1 is caused to linearly advance in the same direction. Driving member D1 can be coupled to cable C1 such that when driving member D1 is advanced in the proximal direction, cable C1 is pulled in the proximal direction. Cable C1 extends along the shaft of the tool assembly 1130 and is operatively coupled to a part of the end effector 1138 thereby controlling a function of the end effector 1138 (e.g., opening and closing of jaws, deployment of a staple, etc.) when the cable is C1 translated in either the proximal or distal direction.”] and Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Cryder mention using gears to help said control of movements of said end effector [see para 73 of Swayze… “Movement of each actuator controls the movement of driving members (e.g., gears, cables) located in the tool assembly 1130 for controlling one or more actions and movements that can be performed by the tooling assembly 1130, such as for assisting with performing a surgical operation.”].
However, Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Cryder fails to disclose “wherein the gears disposed on the first and second lead screws are coupled to one another such that a first motor-driven input to the gears disposed on the first and second lead screws rotates the first and second lead screw with equal magnitude, wherein the gears disposed on the third and fourth lead screws are coupled to one another such that a second motor-driven input to the gears disposed on the third and fourth lead screws rotates the third and fourth screw with equal magnitude, and wherein the first and second motor-driven inputs are independent of one another” as recited by claim 23, “wherein the first and second lead screws define opposite pitch such that rotation of the gears disposed on the first and second lead screws in the same direction translates the collars disposed about the first and second lead screws with equal magnitude and in opposite directions” as recited by claim 24 and “wherein the gears disposed on the first and second lead screws are coupled to one another by a coupling gear” as recited by claim 25.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Cryder to achieve said claimed combinations of gears, motors and lead screws as recited by claims 23-25 because as explained previously Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Cryder, discloses a need to coordinate movement of the cables to precisely control an end effector and focuses on configuring the gears to help achieve this control; therefore, absent unpredictable results, one of ordinary skill would expect to achieve the claimed combinations through routine experimentation using known configurations of different gears to achieve a known result of precise control when optimizing the configuration of the system.
Regarding claim 26, see para 73 of Swayze [see “The driver 1140 can also include one or more lead screws (e.g., three lead screws L1, L2, and L3 are shown) that can be individually rotated by a motor and, as a result of the rotation of the lead screw, cause linear and/or rotational movement of at least one actuator (e.g., see, for example, actuators A1 and A2 shown in FIG. 9).”] discloses the lead screws as being independently engageable and thereby enabling independent tensioning as claimed.
Regarding claim 27:
Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Cryder discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 21 including engageable patterns in the form of flat surfaces of the lead screws [see labelled figure(s) directly below rejection to claim 21].
However, Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Cryder is silent as to the exact details of the engageable patterns. Therefore, Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Cryder fails to disclose “wherein at least one of the engagable patterns is different from at least one other of the engagable patterns” as recited by claim 27.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Cryder by have at least one of engageable patterns is different from at least one other of the engageable patterns because there are limited number of possible choices for the form of the flat surfaces (they are all the same, some are different, or all are different from each other) and some surfaces are different (i.e. thereby reciting claim 27) is one of those limited number of choices.
Regarding claim 28:
Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Cryder discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 21 including engageable patterns in the form of flat surfaces of the lead screws [see labelled figure(s) directly below rejection to claim 21].
However, Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Cryder is silent as to the exact details of the engageable patterns. Therefore, Swayze in view of Gomez fails to disclose “wherein at least one of the engageable patterns is the same as at least one other of the engageable patterns” as recited by claim 28.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Cryder by have all the engageable patterns be the same because there are limited number of possible choices for the form of the flat surfaces (they are all the same, some are different from each other or all are different from each other) and all are the same (i.e. thereby reciting claim 28) is one of those limited number of choices.
Regarding claim 29, see labelled figure(s) under rejection to claim 21 which identifies a flat surface (i.e. edge face) for each the engageable pattern.
Regarding claim 30:
Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Cryder discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 21 as outlined above. However, Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Cryder fails to disclose “wherein a bushing or a bearing rotatably couples the second end portion of each lead screw to the second base plate” as recited by claim 30.
Gomez further discloses placing a collar with bearing or bushings (i.e. bushing or a bearing) over a carriage (i.e. over a second plate) that are independently rotatable [see para 128-129… “The three spline shafts 500a-c are each rotatably driven by a corresponding drive motor 560a-c. The collars 510a-c are individually rotatably coupled to a carriage 540.” And “In some embodiments, the collars 510a-c comprise ball spline bearings or bushings that slide along the spline shafts 500a-c.”] for the purpose of providing a force to move the carriage (i.e. the second plate) [see para 8-9… “In one aspect, this disclosure describes surgical instrument actuation mechanism. Such a surgical instrument actuation mechanism includes a spline shaft and a collar slidably mated with the spline shaft. The collar is configured to transmit driving force from the spline shaft to a surgical instrument drive input in response to rotation of the spline shaft.” And “The surgical instrument actuation mechanism may also include a carriage that translates in relation to the spline shaft. The collar may be coupled to the carriage. At least a portion of the collar may rotate relative to the carriage in response to rotation of the spline shaft. The carriage may be configured to releasably couple with a surgical instrument.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in that art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Cryder by placing a collar with a bushing or bearing over the second plate on the second end of lead screw shafts similarly to that disclosed by Gomez to help further move the second plate.
Claim(s) 31-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Kopp et al (WO 2016133631) hereafter known as Kopp.
Independent claim:
Regarding claim 31:
Swayze discloses:
An articulation assembly for a robotic surgical instrument [see abstract… “A robotic surgical system” and “The end effector is configured to measure force exerted by the tissue on the end effector, which corresponds to tension at the tissue engaged by the end effector.”], comprising:
a base housing [see labelled figure(s) directly below rejection to this claim] defining at least one cutout [see labelled figure(s) directly below rejection to this claim];
a plurality of gears disposed within the base housing [see Fig. 9 elements 1161 and para 79… “shaft gears 1161 to rotate”]
a plurality of articulation cables, each articulation cable coupled to a lead screw such that each rotation tensions or de-tensions the articulation cable, wherein each lead screw is configured to receive a motor-driven input, thereby tensioning or de-tensioning a corresponding one of the articulation cables [see para 73… The driver 1140 can also include one or more lead screws (e.g., three lead screws L1, L2, and L3 are shown) that can be individually rotated by a motor and, as a result of the rotation of the lead screw, cause linear and/or rotational movement of at least one actuator (e.g., see, for example, actuators A1 and A2 shown in FIG. 9). Movement of each actuator controls the movement of driving members (e.g., gears, cables) located in the tool assembly 1130 for controlling one or more actions and movements that can be performed by the tooling assembly 1130, such as for assisting with performing a surgical operation.]
However, while Swayze discloses a plurality of gears disposed within the base housing as claimed. Swayze fails to disclose the gears as being configured with the other elements as claimed. Thus, Swayze fully disclose “each articulation cable coupled to one of the gears such that rotation of the gear tensions or de-tensions the articulation cable, wherein each gear is configured to receive a motor-driven input to rotate the gear, thereby tensioning or de-tensioning a corresponding one of the articulation cables, and “wherein at least one of the gears includes a first portion hidden within the base housing and a second portion protruding into the cutout such that the second portion is exposed to an exterior of the base housing to enable engagement of a driver, separate from the motor-driven input, to drive rotation of the gear, thereby tensioning or de-tensioning the corresponding one of the articulation cables”
Gomez discloses in the analogous art of robotic surgery [see para 3… “This disclosure relates to systems and methods that can be used in various contexts such as, but not limited to, minimally invasive computer-assisted tele-operated surgery using robotic technology.”] that a known way to connect a motor to rotate lead screws is via gears (i.e. a plurality of gears) [see Fig. 21 and para 120… “As shown, the couplings between the drive motors and the driven members can include, in some cases, a one or more transmission components such as gears or other power transmission components.”]
Koop discloses in the analogous art of robotic surgery [see abstract… “An actuation mechanism for actuating an electrosurgical end effector includes a housing and a shaft assembly extending distally from the housing.”] that a known way to connect a motor to a housing is to place a coupling element inside a cutoff in a way that extends from outside and into the cutout [see Figs. 3A-4 element 110 (i.e. coupling feature) and paras 41-44].
Since Gomez discloses using a plurality of gears is a known way to connect the motor input with a lead screw, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Swayze to place an additional plurality of gears between the motors and each of the lead screws including at least partly inside the base housing similarly to that disclose by Gomez because this is a known way to connect a motor input with a lead screw.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Swayze in view of Gomez by placing the gears that couple the lead screw and motors in the cutout(s) extending from the outside of the housing and into the cutout similarly to that disclosed by Koop because this is a known way to connect the motor to the housing in the field of robotic surgery (i.e. thereby fully reciting the limitation “wherein at least one of the gears includes a first portion hidden within the base housing and a second portion protruding into the cutout such that the second portion is exposed to an exterior of the base housing to enable engagement of a driver, separate from the motor-driven input, to drive rotation of the gear, thereby tensioning or de-tensioning the corresponding one of the articulation cables”)
PNG
media_image2.png
781
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
770
646
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Dependent claims:
Regarding claim 32, see rejection to claim 31 which describes how each of the gears is has a first and second portion placed as claimed and can be tensioned or de-tensioned by a driver exterior to the base.
Regarding claims 33-35:
Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Koop discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 31 as outlined above which also includes controlling the tensioning and de-tensioning of cables. Additionally, Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Koop further discloses controlling the cables includes coordinating the cables to operate a function of an end effector through actuations such as opening/closing jaws [see para 78 of Swayze…. “Actuator A1 can include an extension threadably coupled to the lead screw L1. The extension can be coupled to or integrated with a partial cylindrical shaft that extends along the longitudinal axis of the puck 1135 and the driver 1140. The partial cylindrical shaft of the actuator A1 can engage with driving member D1 such that when the actuator A1 is linearly advanced, the driving member D1 is caused to linearly advance in the same direction. Driving member D1 can be coupled to cable C1 such that when driving member D1 is advanced in the proximal direction, cable C1 is pulled in the proximal direction. Cable C1 extends along the shaft of the tool assembly 1130 and is operatively coupled to a part of the end effector 1138 thereby controlling a function of the end effector 1138 (e.g., opening and closing of jaws, deployment of a staple, etc.) when the cable is C1 translated in either the proximal or distal direction.”] and Swayze in view of Gomez mention using gears to help said control of movements of said end effector [see para 73 of Swayze… “Movement of each actuator controls the movement of driving members (e.g., gears, cables) located in the tool assembly 1130 for controlling one or more actions and movements that can be performed by the tooling assembly 1130, such as for assisting with performing a surgical operation.”].
However, Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Koop fails to disclose “wherein the plurality of gears includes first and second gears coupled to one another such that a motor-driven input to the first and second gears tensions or de-tensions the corresponding one of the articulation cables coupled to the first gear and the corresponding one of the articulation cables coupled to the second gear with equal magnitude” as recited by claim 33, “wherein the first and second gears are oppositely coupled to one another such that rotation of the first and second gears in the same direction tensions the corresponding one of the articulation cables coupled to the first gear and de-tensions the corresponding one of the articulation cables coupled to the second gear with equal magnitude” as recited by claim 34, and “wherein the first and second gears are coupled to one another by a coupling gear” as recited by claim 35
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Koop to achieve said claimed combinations of gears, motors and lead screws recited by claims 33-35 because as explained previously Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Koop, discloses a need to coordinate movement of the cables to precisely control an end effector and focuses on configuring the gears to help achieve this control; therefore, absent unpredictable results, one of ordinary skill would expect to achieve the claimed combinations through routine experimentation using known configurations of different gears to achieve a known result of precise control when optimizing the configuration of the system.
Regarding claim 36
Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Koop discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 31 and 33 as outlined above.
However, Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Koop fails to disclose a driver. Thus, Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Koop fails to disclose “wherein the drive is an external gear” as recited by claim 36.
Gomez further discloses placing a bevel gear (i.e. a drive) opposite end of a carriage (i.e. housing) that are independently rotatable [see para 128-129… “The three spline shafts 500a-c are each rotatably driven by a corresponding drive motor 560a-c. The collars 510a-c are individually rotatably coupled to a carriage 540. In the depicted example embodiment, the collars 510a-c each comprise a bevel gear.”] for the purpose of providing a force to move the carriage (i.e. housing) [see para 8-9… “In one aspect, this disclosure describes surgical instrument actuation mechanism. Such a surgical instrument actuation mechanism includes a spline shaft and a collar slidably mated with the spline shaft. The collar is configured to transmit driving force from the spline shaft to a surgical instrument drive input in response to rotation of the spline shaft.” And “The surgical instrument actuation mechanism may also include a carriage that translates in relation to the spline shaft. The collar may be coupled to the carriage. At least a portion of the collar may rotate relative to the carriage in response to rotation of the spline shaft. The carriage may be configured to releasably couple with a surgical instrument.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in that art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Swayze in view of Gomez in view of Koop by placing a driver in the form of an external gear external the housing on the lead screw shafts similarly to that disclosed by Gomez to help further move the housing.
Regarding claim 37, see labelled first plate and second plate in labelled figure(s) directly below rejection to claim 31.
Regarding claims 38-39, see rejection to claim 31 above which discloses the screws connected to the gears as claimed. Also see Fig. 9 elements L1-L3 (i.e. screws) and elements A1-A2 (i.e. collars) and para 73 of Swayze [see “one or more lead screws (e.g., three lead screws L1, L2, and L3 are shown) that can be individually rotated by a motor and, as a result of the rotation of the lead screw, cause linear and/or rotational movement of at least one actuator (e.g., see, for example, actuators A1 and A2 shown in FIG. 9). Movement of each actuator controls the movement of driving members (e.g., gears, cables) located in the tool assembly 1130 for controlling one or more actions and movements that can be performed by the tooling assembly 1130, such as for assisting with performing a surgical operation.”] which discloses lead screws, collars and cables configured as claimed.
Regarding claim 40, see rejection to claim 31 above including labelled figure(s) directly below rejection of claim 31 which discloses a first end portion and gears engaged as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN
/SXL/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights