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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims filed on March 16th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1- 14 and 16- 21 are pending in the application. Claims 6-8, 10, and 12-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration for being drawn to an unelected invention. The amendment to claim 1 overcomes the previous claim objection.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21, Lines 1-2 states “a processor with robotic system software”, it is suggested to change this to “a processor comprising robotic system software”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “flexible transmission member” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“Flexible transmission member” is being interpreted as “a cable” (Paragraph 0088) or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over West et al. (US 2012/0271327) has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments; specifically West does not teach a robotic system, wherein the robotic system further includes a mechanized system to control movement of the robotic instrument and to operate the tissue fastening tool.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over West et al. (US 2012/0271327) in view of Seibold et al. (CA 2837372) has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments; specifically West does not teach a robotic system, wherein the robotic system further includes a mechanized system to control movement of the robotic instrument and to operate the tissue fastening tool.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al. (US 20120271327) in view of Brock et al. (US 2007/0088340).
Regarding claim 1, West (West et al.) teaches a surgical system (10) for use on a patient (abstract, Paragraphs 0003 and 0006), comprising: a flexible robotic instrument (endoscope 12)(abstract and Paragraph ) having a proximal end and a distal end (see annotated Fig. 1 below), the distal end configured for insertion through a natural orifice of the patient to access a gastrointestinal tract of the patient (Paragraphs 0003 and 0006 teach that the endoscope is small enough to be inserted into the body, therefore it can be inserted through a natural orifice of the patient.); and a fastening tool (endoscopic suturing device 20) at the distal end (Paragraph 0195), the fastening tool having a first fastener holder arm (Needle holder arm 48) adapted to move a releasable tissue fastener (needle body 74, needle tip 76, suture 46)(Paragraph 0195) through a path (see annotated Figs. 27 and 28 below); wherein the robotic instrument includes an actuator (transmission assembly 32, connecting member 54, mounting brackets 58, inner mounting brackets 62, and link member 64) operably coupled to the fastener holder arm to move the first fastener holder arm, and the robotic instrument is adapted to drive the actuator to move the releasable tissue fastener from a first position at a first end of the path to a second position at a second end of the path (Paragraphs 0195, 0196, and 0203)(see Figs. 25- 37).
PNG
media_image1.png
399
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
754
615
media_image2.png
Greyscale
West does not teach wherein the surgical system is robotic, wherein the robotic surgical system comprises a robotic system, wherein the robotic system further includes a mechanized system to control movement of the robotic instrument and to operate the tissue fastening tool.
Brock (Brock et al.) teaches a robotic surgical system (10)(Figs. 1- )(abstract) comprising: a robotic system (drive unit 8, insert 16, 18) including a flexible robotic instrument (insert 16) having a proximal end and a distal end (see annotated Fig. 1 below), the distal end configured for insertion into a patient (Paragraphs 0049, 0141, 0142, and 0144), wherein the robotic system further includes a mechanized system (drive unit 8) to control movement of the robotic instrument and to operate a tool (18)(Paragraphs 0139- 0140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the surgical system as taught by West to be robotic and include a robotic system with a mechanized system as taught by Brock, since Brock teaches that this system increases “portability of the instrument assembly for ease of positioning with respect to the patient and ease of access to the patient during the procedure, e.g., avoiding bulky and unnecessary electromechanical equipment” and “increase ease of access to the patient, enabling detachment, sterilization and reusability of certain components” (Paragraph 0018 and 0019). Furthermore, Brock teaches that this system is capable of being used with any type of surgical instrument (Paragraphs 0143 and 0144).
Regarding claim 2, West and Brock make obvious the robotic surgical system as discussed above.
West further teaches wherein the releasable tissue fastener (needle body 74, needle tip 76, suture 46) is a suture needle (needle body 74 and needle tip 76) coupled with a length of suture (suture 46)(Paragraph 0198).
Regarding claim 3, West and Brock make obvious the robotic surgical system as discussed above.
West further teaches wherein the actuator (transmission assembly 32, connecting member 54, mounting brackets 58, inner mounting brackets 62, and link member 64) rotates the first tissue fastener holder arm (needle holder arm 48) about an axis (see annotated Figs. 27 and 28 below)(Paragraphs 0195, 0196, and 0203).
PNG
media_image3.png
762
615
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, West and Brock make obvious the robotic surgical system as discussed above.
The combination does not teach the system further comprising human interface controls which convert human manual input to movement of a component of the robotic system via the mechanized system.
Brock (Brock et al.) teaches a robotic surgical system (10)(Figs. 1- )(abstract) comprising: a robotic system (drive unit 8, insert 16, 18) including a flexible robotic instrument (insert 16) having a proximal end and a distal end (see annotated Fig. 1 below), the distal end configured for insertion into a patient (Paragraphs 0049, 0141, 0142, and 0144), wherein the robotic system further includes a mechanized system (drive unit 8) to control movement of the robotic instrument and to operate a tool (18)(Paragraphs 0139- 0140). Brock further teaches the system further comprising human interface controls (input devices 3) which convert human manual input to movement of a component of the robotic system via the mechanized system (Paragraph 0066 and 0137).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the surgical system as taught by West to further comprise human interface controls as taught by Brock, since Brock teaches that the controls enables a surgeon to remotely operate the system (Paragraph 0137), reduces the amount of space occupied by the device and reduces the complexity of the device (Paragraphs 0397, 0406, and 0410).
Regarding claim 9, West and Brock make obvious the robotic surgical system as discussed above.
West further teaches wherein the tissue fastening tool (endoscopic suturing device 20) has a longitudinal axis, and the first tissue fastener holder arm (needle holder arm 48) is rotated in a plane about an axis oriented transverse to the longitudinal axis (see annotated Figs. 27 and 28 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
766
608
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, West and Brock make obvious the robotic surgical system as discussed above.
West further teaches wherein the first tissue fastener holder arm (needle holder arm 48) is rotated in a plane (see annotated Figs. 27 and 28 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
766
608
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, West and Brock make obvious the robotic surgical system as discussed above.
The combination does not teach a processor comprising robotic system software configured to facilitate operation of the surgical system to perform a surgical procedure.
Brock (Brock et al.) teaches a robotic surgical system (10)(Figs. 1- )(abstract) comprising: a robotic system (drive unit 8, insert 16, 18) including a flexible robotic instrument (insert 16) having a proximal end and a distal end (see annotated Fig. 1 below), the distal end configured for insertion into a patient (Paragraphs 0049, 0141, 0142, and 0144), wherein the robotic system further includes a mechanized system (drive unit 8) to control movement of the robotic instrument and to operate a tool (18)(Paragraphs 0139- 0140). Brock further teaches the system further comprising a processor comprising robotic system software configured to facilitate operation of the surgical system to perform a surgical procedure (Paragraphs 0079- 0080, and 0163).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the surgical system as taught by West to further comprise a processor as taught by Brock, since Brock teaches that the processor connects the movement of a user to the drive unit for operating the system and determines the location of the distal end of a tool when the instrument is inserted into the body therefore allowing the physician to know where the tool is located (Paragraphs 0079- 0080, 0163).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al. (US 20120271327) in view of Brock et al. (US 2007/0088340), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Seibold et al. (CA 2837372).
Regarding claim 5, West and Brock make obvious the robotic surgical system as discussed above.
West further teaches wherein the actuator (transmission assembly 32, connecting member 54, mounting brackets 58, inner mounting brackets 62, and link member 64) includes a flexible transmission member (transmission assembly 32)(Paragraph 0195) which is driven by being pulled into tension (In Paragraph 0196, West teaches that the push rod of the transmission assembly is retracted, therefore the pushrod driven by being pulled and in tension.).
West does not teach wherein the system further comprises a spring adapted to provide a counter force to the flexible transmission member.
Seibold (Seibold et al.) teaches a similar robotic surgical system (1)(Figs. 1- 4) for use on a patient (abstract, Page 1, Lines 8-16), comprising: an instrument (first robot element 10, second robot element 14, force transmitting device 20, pull/push rod 24/34), and a tool (grasping or cutting element 16, support element 22), the tool having a first arm (grasping or cutting element 16); wherein the instrument includes an actuator (force transmitting device 20, pull/push rod 24/34) operably coupled to the first arm to move the first arm (Page 8, Lines 18- 20), wherein the actuator includes a flexible transmission member (pull/push rod 24/34) which is driven by being pulled into tension (Page 11, Lines 6- 8, as the transmission member is taught to be a pull cable, to drive the transmission member, the cable is pulled into tension.), and a spring adapted to provide a counter force to the flexible transmission member (As Seibold teaches on Page 7, Lines 1- 10 and Page 11, Lines 6- 8 that the pull/push rod can be a spring-biased pull cable, there is a spring that provides the bias to the pull/push rod and therefore act as a counter force to the flexible transmission member. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system as taught by West to have a spring adapted to provide a counter force as taught by Seibold, since Seibold teaches that the spring allows for the grasping and/or cutting elements of the instrument to return to the open position under the spring bias during use (Page 7, Lines 3- 10) therefore allowing for the device to return to a neutral position after use.
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s arguments filed March 16th, 2026 with respect to the 102 rejection of claims 1-4, 9 and 11 over West et al. (US 2012/0271327) and the 103 rejection of claim 5 over West et al. (US 2012/0271327) in view of Seibold et al. (CA 2837372) have been fully considered but are moot since, as discussed above, the previous prior art rejections have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. However, it is noted that West and Seibold are still relied upon for limitations not argued.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7- 8, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of “flexible transmission member” has been fully considered but is not persuasive. This limitation is being considered under 112(f) due to the language of “transmission member”, which invokes functional language of transmitting as an actuator. As “member” is a generic placeholder, 112(f) is invoked.
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 LINDSEY R. RIVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday.
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.
/L.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /TAN-UYEN T HO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights