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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-011643, filed on 1/28/2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 7/26/2024, no claims have been cancelled, no claims have been newly added and Claims 1-16 are pending.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. In this case, claims 1-2, 4-15 invoke a 112(f) interpretation with the recitation of: claim 1 “fixation detection means”, claim 2 “attachment detection means”, claims 4 “acquisition means” “fixation detection means” “notification means”, claims 5 “notification means” “fixation detection means”, claims 6, 12 “control prohibition means”, claims 7-8 “acquisition means” “attachment detection means” “fixation detection means” “notification means”, claims 9-11 “notification means” “attachment detection means” “fixation detection means”, claim 13 “fixation detection means”, claims 14-15 “attachment detection means” “fixation detection means”.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2021145413A1 Yanagawa et al. (hereinafter Yanagawa).
Regarding claim 1, Yanagawa discloses a continuum robot comprising:
a base unit (200, Fig. 12-13, paragraph 71 of machine translated document) including a driving source (256b, Fig. 13, paragraph 100, 102) and a coupling portion (256d, Fig. 13-14, paragraph 101-102) connected to the driving source;
a bendable unit (100, Fig. 1, 12-13, paragraph 12) detachably attached to the base unit (200) (paragraph 69-71, Fig. 12, first attachment/detachment portion 1501) the bendable unit including a bend portion (113, 114, Fig. 4) configured to bend and a held portion (156d, Fig. 13-14, paragraph 84, 102) coupled to the coupling portion (256d) (paragraph 102) and configured to move so as to bend the bend portion (paragraph 92-93, 123-124), the bendable unit (100) being detachably attachable to the base unit (200) (paragraph 69-71, Fig. 12, first attachment/detachment portion 1501);
an operating portion (256c, paragraph 108) movable between a fixed position (paragraph 102, 104, 108, Fig. 14) where the coupling portion and the held portion are fixed to each other and a position (paragraph 108, Fig. 16) where the coupling portion (256d) and the held portion (156d) are not fixed to each other, in a state where the bendable unit and the base unit are attached (as seen in Fig. 16);
and fixation detection means (256f, Fig. 14, 16) configured to detect whether the operating portion (256c) is at the fixed position (paragraph 108).
Regarding claim 2, Yanagawa discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising attachment detection means (259, Fig. 13-14) configured to detect whether the bendable unit and the base unit are attached to each other (paragraph 106).
Regarding claim 3, Yanagawa discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses comprising:
a plurality of the driving sources (Fig. 12-13, paragraph 96, drive units 252, 253 and 254 have the same structure as drive unit 251 as seen in Fig. 12-13, and therefore there are multiple driving sources 256b);
a plurality of the coupling portions (256d, as seen in Fig. 13-14, paragraph 101) respectively coupled to the plurality of driving sources (Fig. 12-13, paragraph 96, drive units 252, 253 and 254 have the same structure as drive unit 251 as seen in Fig. 12-13, and therefore the plurality of coupling portions couple to the plurality of driving sources);
and a plurality of the held portions (156d, as seen in Fig. 13-14, paragraph 84) respectively coupled to the plurality of coupling portions (paragraph 102, Fig. 14), wherein
when the operating portion is moved to the fixed position, the plurality of coupling portions and the plurality of held portions are respectively fixed to each other (Fig. 14, paragraph 102, 104, 108).
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.
Claims 4-5, 7-11, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagawa in view of WO2010126129A1 Jinno et al. (hereinafter Jinno).
Regarding claim 4, Yanagawa discloses an information processing apparatus (260, Fig. 15) comprising:
acquisition means configured to acquire a detection result of the fixation detection means (paragraph 104, the detection result of the fitting detection sensor 256f is acquired by the drive controller 260) from the continuum robot according to Claim 1.
Yanagawa is silent on a notification means configured to notify that attachment of the bendable unit with the base unit is complete or attachment of the bendable unit with the base unit is not complete, in accordance with the detection result of the fixation detection means.
However, Jinno teaches a medical manipulator (paragraph 1, 8 of machine translated document) comprising a base unit (14a, Fig. 66, paragraph 322), a working portion (16, Fig. 66, paragraph 322) that is detachably attached to the base unit (14a) (paragraph 322), an operation portion (paragraph 154-155) moveable between a fixed position (paragraph 152, 199-201) where coupled portions (137, 138, Fig. 10) and held portions (176a, 176b, Fig. 11-12) are fixed together and a position (paragraph 151-152, 209) where the coupled portions and held portions are not fixed together, a fixation detection means (306, Fig. 25a, paragraph 152-155), and a notification means (LED lights 29, error messages on display 517, Fig. 1) configured to notify that attachment of the working portion with the base unit is complete or attachment of the working portion with the base unit is not complete, in accordance with the detection result of the fixation detection means (paragraph 199-201, 209, 212-213).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yanagawa with the teachings of Jinno in order to alert an operator of the status of attachment/detachment of the working device as disclosed by Jinno (paragraph 209, 212-213).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yanagawa and Jinno teaches the limitations of claim 4, wherein, in use of the continuum robot, Jinno teaches the notification means is configured to, in a case where the fixation detection means detects that the operating portion is not at the fixed position, notify an attachment error (paragraph 209).
Regarding claim 7, Yanagawa discloses an information processing apparatus (260, Fig. 15) comprising:
acquisition means configured to acquire a detection result of the attachment detection means (paragraph 106, the detection result of the attachment/detachment sensor 259 is acquired by the drive controller 260) and a detection result of the fixation detection means (paragraph 104, the detection result of the fitting detection sensor 256f is acquired by the drive controller 260) from the continuum robot according to Claim 2.
Yanagawa is silent on a notification means configured to notify an attachment completed state, a temporarily attached state, an unattached state, or an attachment error state regarding attachment of the bendable unit with the base unit based on the detection result of the attachment detection means and the detection result of the fixation detection means.
However, Jinno teaches a medical manipulator (paragraph 1, 8 of machine translated document) comprising a base unit (14a, Fig. 66, paragraph 322), a working portion (16, Fig. 66, paragraph 322) that is detachably attached to the base unit (14a) (paragraph 322), an operation portion (paragraph 154-155) moveable between a fixed position (paragraph 152, 199-201) where coupled portions (137, 138, Fig. 10) and held portions (176a, 176b, Fig. 11-12) are fixed together and a position (paragraph 151-152, 209) where the coupled portions and held portions are not fixed together, a fixation detection means (306, Fig. 25a, paragraph 152-155), an attachment detection means (314, Fig. 8-9, paragraph 151, 213), and a notification means (LED lights 29, error messages on display 517, Fig. 1) configured to notify that attachment of the working portion with the base unit is an attachment completed state, a temporarily attached state, an unattached state, or an attachment error state, based on the detection result of the attachment detection means and detection result of the fixation detection means (paragraph 199-201, 209, 212-213).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yanagawa with the teachings of Jinno in order to alert an operator of the status of attachment/detachment of the working device as disclosed by Jinno (paragraph 209, 212-213).
Regarding claim 8, Yanagawa discloses an information processing apparatus (260, Fig. 15) comprising:
acquisition means configured to acquire a detection result of the attachment detection means (paragraph 106, the detection result of the attachment/detachment sensor 259 is acquired by the drive controller 260) and a detection result of the fixation detection means (paragraph 104, the detection result of the fitting detection sensor 256f is acquired by the drive controller 260) from the continuum robot according to Claim 2.
Yanagawa is silent on a notification means configured to, in a case where the attachment detection means detects that the bendable unit and the base unit are attached to each other and the fixation detection means detects that the operating portion is at the fixed position, notify that the bendable unit and the base unit are in an attachment completed state.
However, Jinno teaches a medical manipulator (paragraph 1, 8 of machine translated document) comprising a base unit (14a, Fig. 66, paragraph 322), a working portion (16, Fig. 66, paragraph 322) that is detachably attached to the base unit (14a) (paragraph 322), an operation portion (paragraph 154-155) moveable between a fixed position (paragraph 152, 199-201) where coupled portions (137, 138, Fig. 10) and held portions (176a, 176b, Fig. 11-12) are fixed together and a position (paragraph 151-152, 209) where the coupled portions and held portions are not fixed together, a fixation detection means (306, Fig. 25a, paragraph 152-155), an attachment detection means (314, Fig. 8-9, paragraph 151, 213), and a notification means (LED lights 29, error messages on display 517, Fig. 1) configured to notify that attachment of the working portion with the base unit is an attachment completed state based on the detection result of the attachment detection means and detection result of the fixation detection means (paragraph 199-201, 209, 212-213).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yanagawa with the teachings of Jinno in order to alert an operator of the status of attachment/detachment of the working device as disclosed by Jinno (paragraph 209, 212-213).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yanagawa and Jinno teaches the limitations of claim 8, and Jinno teaches wherein the notification means is configured to, in a case where the attachment detection means detects that the bendable unit and the base unit are attached to each other and the fixation detection means detects that the operating portion is not at the fixed position, notify that the bendable unit and the base unit are in a temporarily attached state (being configured to in a case where the attachment detection means detects that the bendable unit and the base unit are attached to each other and the fixation detection means detects that the operating portion is not at the fixed position, notify that the bendable unit and the base unit are in a temporarily attached state, is considered an intended use and as such the notification means of Jinno is capable of performing this intended use).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yanagawa and Jinno teaches the limitations of claim 8, and Jinno teaches wherein the notification means is configured to, in a case where the attachment detection means detects that the bendable unit and the base unit are not attached to each other and the fixation detection means detects that the operating portion is not at the fixed position, notify that the bendable unit and the base unit are in an unattached state (paragraph 199-201, 209, 212-213).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yanagawa and Jinno teaches the limitations of claim 8, and Jinno teaches wherein the notification means is configured to, in a case where the attachment detection means detects that the bendable unit and the base unit are not attached to each other and the fixation detection means detects that the operating portion is at the fixed position, notify an attachment error state (being configured to in a case where the attachment detection means detects that the bendable unit and the base unit are not attached to each other and the fixation detection means detects that the operating portion is at the fixed position, notify an attachment error state, is considered an intended use and as such the notification means of Jinno is capable of performing this intended use).
Regarding claim 13, Yanagawa discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Yanagawa is silent on an information processing method comprising:
acquiring a detection result of the fixation detection means from the continuum robot according to Claim 1; and
notifying that attachment of the bendable unit with the base unit is complete or attachment of the bendable unit with the base unit is not complete, in accordance with the detection result of the fixation detection means.
However, Jinno teaches a medical manipulator (paragraph 1, 8 of machine translated document) comprising a base unit (14a, Fig. 66, paragraph 322), a working portion (16, Fig. 66, paragraph 322) that is detachably attached to the base unit (14a) (paragraph 322), an operation portion (paragraph 154-155) moveable between a fixed position (paragraph 152, 199-201) where coupled portions (137, 138, Fig. 10) and held portions (176a, 176b, Fig. 11-12) are fixed together and a position (paragraph 151-152, 209) where the coupled portions and held portions are not fixed together, a fixation detection means (306, Fig. 25a, paragraph 152-155), and an information processing method (Fig. 37, paragraph 194-213) that acquires the detection result of the fixation detection means and notifying that attachment of the working portion with the base unit is complete or attachment of the working portion with the base unit is not complete, in accordance with the detection result of the fixation detection means (paragraph 199-201, 209, 212-213).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yanagawa with the teachings of Jinno in order to provide a method sequence that alerts an operator of the status of attachment/detachment of the working device as disclosed by Jinno (paragraph 209, 212-213).
Regarding claim 14, Yanagawa discloses the limitations of claim 2.
Yanagawa is silent on an information processing method comprising:
acquiring a detection result of the attachment detection means and a detection result of the fixation detection means from the continuum robot according to Claim 2; and
notifying an attachment completed state, a temporarily attached state, an unattached state, or an attachment error state regarding attachment of the bendable unit to the base unit based on the detection result of the attachment detection means and the detection result of the fixation detection means.
However, Jinno teaches a medical manipulator (paragraph 1, 8 of machine translated document) comprising a base unit (14a, Fig. 66, paragraph 322), a working portion (16, Fig. 66, paragraph 322) that is detachably attached to the base unit (14a) (paragraph 322), an operation portion (paragraph 154-155) moveable between a fixed position (paragraph 152, 199-201) where coupled portions (137, 138, Fig. 10) and held portions (176a, 176b, Fig. 11-12) are fixed together and a position (paragraph 151-152, 209) where the coupled portions and held portions are not fixed together, a fixation detection means (306, Fig. 25a, paragraph 152-155), an attachment detection means (314, Fig. 8-9, paragraph 151, 213), and an information processing method (Fig. 37, paragraph 194-213) that acquires the detection result of the attachment detection means and the detection result of the fixation detection means and notifying that attachment of the working portion with the base unit is an attachment completed state, a temporarily attached state, an unattached state, or an attachment error state, based on the detection result of the attachment detection means and detection result of the fixation detection means (paragraph 199-201, 209, 212-213).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yanagawa with the teachings of Jinno in order to provide a method sequence that alerts an operator of the status of attachment/detachment of the working device as disclosed by Jinno (paragraph 209, 212-213).
Regarding claim 15, Yanagawa discloses the limitations of claim 2.
Yanagawa is silent on an information processing method comprising:
acquiring a detection result of the attachment detection means and a detection result of the fixation detection means from the continuum robot according to Claim 2; and
in a case where the attachment detection means detects that the bendable unit and the base unit are attached to each other and the fixation detection means detects that the operating portion is at the fixed position, notifying that the bendable unit and the base unit are in an attachment completed state.
However, Jinno teaches a medical manipulator (paragraph 1, 8 of machine translated document) comprising a base unit (14a, Fig. 66, paragraph 322), a working portion (16, Fig. 66, paragraph 322) that is detachably attached to the base unit (14a) (paragraph 322), an operation portion (paragraph 154-155) moveable between a fixed position (paragraph 152, 199-201) where coupled portions (137, 138, Fig. 10) and held portions (176a, 176b, Fig. 11-12) are fixed together and a position (paragraph 151-152, 209) where the coupled portions and held portions are not fixed together, a fixation detection means (306, Fig. 25a, paragraph 152-155), an attachment detection means (314, Fig. 8-9, paragraph 151, 213), and an information processing method (Fig. 37, paragraph 194-213) that acquires the detection result of the attachment detection means and the detection result of the fixation detection means and notifying that attachment of the working portion with the base unit is an attachment completed state based on the detection result of the attachment detection means and detection result of the fixation detection means (paragraph 199-201, 209, 212-213).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yanagawa with the teachings of Jinno in order to provide a method sequence that alerts an operator of the status of attachment/detachment of the working device as disclosed by Jinno (paragraph 209, 212-213).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Yanagawa and Jinno teaches the limitations of claim 4, and Yanagawa further discloses a non-transitory storage medium recording a program for causing a computer to function (paragraph 110, 136-138) as the means of the information processing apparatus according to Claim 4.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagawa in view of Jinno as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 20170281163 Shelton et al. (hereinafter Shelton).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yanagawa and Jinno teaches the limitations of claim 4. Yanagawa discloses the driving source (256b) is controlled by the drive controller (260) (paragraph 100). However, the combination is silent on further comprising control prohibition means configured to prohibit control over the driving source.
However, Shelton teaches a surgical stapling and cutting system (abstract, paragraph 1) comprising a driving source (electric motor, paragraph 342) and a control prohibition means (lockout circuit, paragraph 342) wherein the control prohibition means is configured to prohibit control over the driving source (paragraph 342, The lockout circuit of the tool assembly 3000 is in communication with the controller. When the controller detects that the contact bridge 3094 is not engaged with the contacts 3092, or that the lockout circuit is in an open condition, the controller prevents the electric motor from operating the staple firing system. In various instances, the controller is configured such that it does not supply power to the electric motor when the lockout circuit is in an open condition.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modification of Yanagawa with Jinno with the teachings of Shelton in order to prevent the driving source and device from operating unless the device is properly attached as taught by Shelton (paragraph 339).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagawa in view of Jinno as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 20170281163 Shelton et al. (hereinafter Shelton).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yanagawa and Jinno teaches the limitations of claim 7. Yanagawa discloses the driving source (256b) is controlled by the drive controller (260) (paragraph 100). However, the combination is silent on further comprising control prohibition means configured to prohibit control over the driving source.
However, Shelton teaches a surgical stapling and cutting system (abstract, paragraph 1) comprising a driving source (electric motor, paragraph 342) and a control prohibition means (lockout circuit, paragraph 342) wherein the control prohibition means is configured to prohibit control over the driving source (paragraph 342, The lockout circuit of the tool assembly 3000 is in communication with the controller. When the controller detects that the contact bridge 3094 is not engaged with the contacts 3092, or that the lockout circuit is in an open condition, the controller prevents the electric motor from operating the staple firing system. In various instances, the controller is configured such that it does not supply power to the electric motor when the lockout circuit is in an open condition.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modification of Yanagawa with Jinno with the teachings of Shelton in order to prevent the driving source and device from operating unless the device is properly attached as taught by Shelton (paragraph 339).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOA TAN LE whose telephone number is (703)756-1252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:30pm.
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.
/KHOA TAN LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /MOHAMED G GABR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights