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 amendments filed February 27, 2027. Claims 1-8 are amended. Claims 9-11 are new. Claims 1-11 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have overcome the interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). The interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) of claims 1-6 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kincaid does not disclose that the tensile force detector detects tensile forces in a same direction. However, examiner notes that the claim broadly reads that the case requires that, of the plurality of linear members detected by the tensile force detector, the tensile forces are tensile forces in a same direction. Examiner interpreted this to be inherent as an external force other than the navigating force (Kincaid, [0089]) would cause any tensioned members to experience the same direction of tension. See the below figure comprising figures from Kincaid attached to this office action.
PNG
media_image1.png
189
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
253
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure i) Fig.1B of Kincaid, with arrows indicating a plurality of linear members and Fig.2C of Kincaid showing an exemplary bending that would have the plurality of linear members to be experiencing the same bending forces.
The above figure shows a plurality of linear members within the cross section shown. Examiner notes that the claim “comprises” a plurality of linear members, which implies that any non-singular number of linear members is defined by the claim. If the instrument were to be bent to an external force other than the navigating force, such as the exemplary configuration of the bottom figure, then half of the steerable instrument would comprise a plurality of linear members under a tensile force in a same direction. Applicant also indicates that Kincaid does not teach “at least one of the tensile forces exceeds a predetermined value when the second drive source is driven in a direction in which the bendable body is inserted into a target”. However, the claim does not explicitly indicate that the second drive source causes the tension experienced by the plurality of linear members. The claim indicates that there exists a second drive source that is driven in a direction, where being driven can indicate both current action or previous action. Examiner notes that Kincaid does disclose a control system to control a second drive source ([0072]).
Applicant argues that Kincaid fails to disclose that a plurality of linear members detected by the tensile force detector “are tensile forces in a same direction”. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of what the claim “comprises”, the plurality of linear members must be tensile forces in a same direction.
The rest of applicant’s arguments are directed towards a lack of detecting tensile forces in a same direction and control in response to the tensile forces in a same direction. However, examiner states again that the broad definition the plurality of linear members within what the claim comprises and the broad control of the second drive source supports Kincaid as an anticipatory reference to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20200375682A1 (Kincaid).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8, Kincaid discloses a continuum robot system, a method for controlling a continuum robot system, and a non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing of controlling, comprising:
a continuum robot including a bendable body configured to bend via a plurality of linear members,
Kincaid discloses a continuum robot (continuum robot system 1000) that includes a bendable body (steerable instrument 100 comprised of steerable sections 103), broken into plurality of linear members (subsections 1, 2, 3, …, N, comprising control wires 110) that are configured to bend in response to a control system 300 ([0031]).
a first drive source that moves the linear members, and
Kincaid discloses that control system 300 electrically controls each wire 110 by a first drive source (actuator system 310, [0037]).
a tensile force detector that detects tensile forces that have occurred in the linear members;
Kincaid discloses a tensile force detector (force sensor) that detects tensile forces that have occurred in the linear members ([0054]).
a support base including a moving stage on which the continuum robot is disposed, and
See Fig. 6 of Kincaid. A support base (1420) including a moving stage (1430) where the continuum robot is attached to “M1” (1410), where M1 is a motor used to bend the linear members ([0069]).
a second drive source that operates to slide the moving stage, to insert or move the continuum robot in a first direction, to stop the moving stage and the continuum robot, and to remove or retract the continuum robot in a second direction opposite to the first direction; and
Kincaid discloses a second drive source ([0070], controller system 300) that operates to slide the moving stage ([0070], “In a linear ultrasonic piezo motor, a high frequency oscillating voltage waveform is applied to the piezo element 1410 under programmed control from controller system 300. The waveform signal causes modal vibration in the coupling plate 1420, and the contact points 1421 and 1422 (leer) alternately contact with the movable body 1430 at high speed.”, where the movable body 1430 is moved by the oscillating piezo element), to insert or move the continuum robot in a first direction ([0070], “The vertical motion brings one foot at a time in contact with the plate and the horizontal motion pushes the movable body 1430 in one direction (preferably the longitudinal direction of the control wire)”), to stop the moving stage and the continuum robot ([0072], “Depending on the voltage waveform applied to the ultrasonic motor, different motions and behaviors can be achieved. The movable body 1430 is attached to a control wire no so that it can be driven in either direction of linear movement 1402 with a controllable speed. Position feedback is also constantly monitored by a strain sensor 1431 so that at any point in time, the control system can use the information from the strain sensor 1431 for positioning purposes. “), and to remove or retract the continuum robot in a second direction opposite to the first direction (see [0071] and Figs. 6B and 6C).
one or more processors that operate to control,
in a case where the tensile forces of the plurality of linear members detected by the tensile force detector are tensile forces in a same direction and
at least one of the tensile forces exceeds a predetermined value while the second drive source is driven so that the continuum robot is inserted or moved in the first direction,
the second drive source to stop the moving stage and then to slide the moving stage to remove or retract the continuum robot in the second direction.
See Figs. 8-10A of Kincaid. Figs. 8 and 9 are of different exemplary embodiments while Fig. 10A provides further breakdown of steps 1710/1810 of Figs. 8 and 9 respectively. The control means (control system 1500) determines if the plurality of linear members (steerable instrument 100) are tensed in the same direction ([0089], “determines if the steerable instrument has been bent by an external force other than the regular navigating force applied by the actuator”), where at least one of the tensile forces exceeds a predetermined value when the second drive source is driven in a direction in which the bendable body is inserted into a target ([0089], “external force other than the regular navigating force”). In response to the determination, the second drive source is stopped or driven in an opposite direction (Fig. 10A, step 1904), where the moving stage is controlled in response to the sensor response from the strain sensor ([0071], “The resulting effect is that the movable body 1430 undergoes a linear movement of a distance 1450, while the strain sensor 1431 continuously monitors the position of the movable body 1430. In this manner, when at least one segment of the steerable section 103 of the steerable instrument 100 bends, the movable body 1430 can translate (move) linearly from a first position Zo to a second position Z1 (e.g., due to catheter or endoscope bending).” See also Figs. 6B and 6C).
Regarding claim 2, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
the one or more processors control the second drive source to move the continuum robot in the second direction and change a bent shape of the bendable body based on the tensile forces of the linear members detected by the tensile force detector.
See Fig. 10A of Kincaid. Step 1904 discloses two alternatives of reducing the tension experienced by the bendable bodies: actively controlling through reversed driving direction or disengaging control for passive reduction of tension.
Regarding claim 3, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
a storage that stores information indicating an insertion position of the bendable body and/or the continuum robot, and information indicating a bent shape of the bendable body,
[0046] of Kincaid, “The trajectory information is stored in a memory of the system and continuously updated.”
wherein one or more processors operate to control the second drive source such that the second drive source is driven in the second direction so as to control, according to the insertion position of the bendable body and/or the continuum robot, the bent shape of the bendable body to be identical to a bent shape at the same insertion position stored in the storage.
[0046] of Kincaid, “After a short advance in insertion depth, the shape of the steerable shaft-guide is corrected by adjusting (rotating or bending) segments of the instrument in such a way that the new shape closely matches the desired trajectory.”
Regarding claim 4, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
the one or more processors operate to control the second drive source such that the second drive source is driven in the second direction, and stop the second drive source in a case where the tensile force that has exceeded the predetermined value becomes equal to or less than the predetermined value.
Kincaid discloses that the control means (control system 1500) controls the second drive source such that the second drive source is driven in the opposite direction (Fig. 10A, step 1904), and stops the second drive source when the tensile force that has exceeded the predetermined value becomes equal to or less than the predetermined value ([0092], “Once the tension of the external force is reduced to approximately zero (YES at 1906), the active control of tension forces ends.”, where the active control is the “reverse driving direction” of 1904 and the predetermined value is the approximately zero checkpoint of the flowchart).
Regarding claim 5, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
the one or more processors operate to control the second drive source such that the second drive source is driven in the second direction, and stop the second drive source in a case where an amount by which the second drive source is driven reaches a predetermined value.
See the citation in claim 4, where the tensile force experienced by the control wires are proportional to the drive source.
Regarding claims 9-11, with all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7-8, the system further comprises:
wherein the continuum robot is inserted or moved in the first direction into a target.
See at least Figs. 7-8 and [0086], where the figure describes an initial navigation in the first direction that continues unless met by an external force other than the actively driving force.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200375682A1 (Kincaid).
Regarding claim 6, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the system further comprises:
the one or more processors further operate to determine whether or not the tensile forces of the plurality of linear members detected by the tensile force detector for the plurality of linear members extending to a most distal end side of the bendable body are tensile forces in the same direction, and
While Kincaid discloses force sensors that detect the tension or compression based on the force sensors on each wire ([0054]), Kincaid does not explicitly disclose that the control means determines whether or not the tensile forces of the plurality of linear members experience tensile forces in a same direction.
However, as each wire has its own force sensor for detecting tension or compression, where a bending comprises one side being tensioned and the other being compressed, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the control means is configured to determine tensile forces in a same direction.
whether or not at least one of the tensile forces exceeds the predetermined value.
In light of the citation in claim 4, Kincaid discloses the flowchart of Fig. 10A, where the strain/stress is reduced as the tension of the control wire is nonzero.
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 JAEWOOK JUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM..
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, Wade Miles can be reached on (571) 270-7777. 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.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights