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 .
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: “drive device” in claims 1 (disclosed as 200).
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.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “a drive device connected to the medical manipulator and driving the bending wire” where “driving the bending wire” is a method step. The inclusion of a positive step in an apparatus claim is indefinite as it renders the scope of the claim unclear as to what is and what is not within the metes and bounds of the claim. The Examiner assumes the drive device is configured to drive the bending wire. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-12 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 9 includes numerous problems. First, there is no transition phrase separating the preamble from the body of the claim. The claim is basically written as a functional limitation. No structure is claimed to perform the function. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have no way to know what a “control device” is because the claim lacks any structure. The Examiner assumes this is a processor or other computer component. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 10-12 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 9.
Claims 9 and 13 both require “controlling to pull the wire” where it is unclear what it means “controlling to pull the wire”. Does this mean “pull the wire”? Does it mean something in addition to simply pulling the wire? The claim itself is not clear. The Examiner assumes that pulling the wire reads on the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 14-16 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 13.
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.
(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 1-3, 9-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Arai (JP 2000-300511; translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1, Arai discloses:
A medical manipulator system comprising:
a medical manipulator (3) including an insertion portion (distal end of 3) having a bending portion (4) and a wire (8) connected to the bending portion;
a drive device (motor 11 and related components including the control circuit described in Paragraph 0021) connected to the medical manipulator and driving the bending wire to bend the bending portion (see Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0020),
wherein the drive device
pulls the wire at a higher speed when the wire is slack than when the wire is not slack (see Paragraph 0052; motor speed is increased when there is slack to quickly remove the slack), and
determines whether the wire is slack or not based on a comparison between a threshold tension estimated from a shape of the insertion portion and a tension of the wire (Paragraph 0047, the system determines the displacement of the angle wire from a reference position, then determines the tension in the wires, and the motor is controlled based on the difference between the displacement target and the current rotation angle information, see Paragraphs 0049-0053 describing the threshold value and how the position and displacement are used to determine whether or not there is slack).
Regarding Claim 2, Arai further discloses wherein the threshold tension is the tension of the wire when the wire starts to bend the bending portion (see Paragraph 0055, for example, describing the high speed of the motor at the beginning of the movement; Paragraph 0060 describes the reason for this, which is to improve the responsiveness of the endoscope).
Regarding Claim 3, Arai further discloses wherein the driving device determines based on a range in which the wire is slack, estimated from the shape of the insertion portion (see Paragraph 0048 discussing the range within which the correction is applied).
Regarding Claim 9, Arai discloses:
A control device connected to a medical manipulator having an insertion portion with a bending portion and a wire connected to the bending portion, for controlling a drive device that drives the wire to bend the bending portion,
wherein the control device controls to cause the drive device to pull the wire at a higher speed when the wire is slack, compared to when the wire is not slack (see Paragraph 0052; motor speed is increased when there is slack to quickly remove the slack), and
determines whether the wire is slack or not based on a comparison between a threshold tension estimated from a shape of the insertion portion and a tension of the wire (Paragraph 0047, the system determines the displacement of the angle wire from a reference position, then determines the tension in the wires, and the motor is controlled based on the difference between the displacement target and the current rotation angle information, see Paragraphs 0049-0053 describing the threshold value and how the position and displacement are used to determine whether or not there is slack).
Regarding Claim 10, Arai further discloses wherein the threshold tension is a tension of the wire when the wire starts to bend the bending portion (see Paragraph 0055, for example, describing the high speed of the motor at the beginning of the movement; Paragraph 0060 describes the reason for this, which is to improve the responsiveness of the endoscope).
Regarding Claim 11, Arai further discloses which determines whether the wire is slack or not based on a range of slack in the wire estimated from the shape of the insertion portion (see Paragraph 0048 discussing the range within which the correction is applied).
Regarding Claim 13, Arai discloses:
A method for controlling a medical manipulator having an insertion portion with a bending portion and a wire connected to the bending portion,
the method comprising:
controlling to pull the wire at a higher speed when the wire is slack compared to when the wire is not slack (see Paragraph 0052; motor speed is increased when there is slack to quickly remove the slack); and
determining whether the wire is slack or not based on a comparison between a threshold tension estimated from a shape of the insertion portion and a tension of the wire (Paragraph 0047, the system determines the displacement of the angle wire from a reference position, then determines the tension in the wires, and the motor is controlled based on the difference between the displacement target and the current rotation angle information, see Paragraphs 0049-0053 describing the threshold value and how the position and displacement are used to determine whether or not there is slack).
Regarding Claim 14, Arai further discloses wherein the threshold tension is a tension of the wire when the wire starts to bend the bending portion (see Paragraph 0055, for example, describing the high speed of the motor at the beginning of the movement; Paragraph 0060 describes the reason for this, which is to improve the responsiveness of the endoscope).
Regarding Claim 15, Arai further discloses determining whether the wire is slack based on a range of the wire estimated from the shape of the insertion portion (see Paragraph 0048 discussing the range within which the correction is applied).
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (JP 2000-300511) in view of Kawai et al. (US 2004/0138530).
Arai discloses the invention substantially as claimed as stated above.
Regarding Claim 4, Arai further discloses wherein the wire has a first wire and a second wire fixed on both sides of a central axis in the longitudinal direction of the bending portion (see Figs. 1 and 2, for example), but does not explicitly disclose the first wire and the second wire have slack even when the bending portion is in a straight state. The Examiner notes that some slack is likely or the wires would be under significant tension at neutral. Kawai teaches a similar slack reducing system for an endoscope where the system measures the slack and accounts for it in the neutral, unbent position (see Paragraphs 0013 and 0015). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arai’s device to include Kawai’s neutral slack. Such a modification accounts for the wires while in the neutral position where some slack exists before the wires are tensioned intentionally.
Regarding Claim 5, Arai as modified further discloses wherein the driving device estimates the amount of change in slack of the second wire based on the amount of change in slack of the first wire, and estimates the range in which the second wire slackens (Arai and Kawai both disclose estimating the amount of slack; Arai Paragraph 0063, Arai includes target and that there is a range, see Paragraphs 0048—0049; see Kawai Paragraphs 0075 discussing the range for the target value).
Regarding Claim 6, Arai as modified further discloses wherein the driving device adjusts the amount of slack of the first wire and the second wire by pulling or sending out the first wire and the second wire (both Arai and Kawai use a motor to push/pull the wires; see Arai Paragraph 0055 and Kawai Paragraph 0069 and 0072).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 12, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not relate the slack adjustment mechanisms to the length of the wires. For claim 7, the claim requires sending out the first and the second wire the same length as the longer path length. As written the claim does not present an alternative between the first and second wire. The claim requires determining that the insertion portion is bent and a path length of the first wire and the second wire has become longer. The Examiner would assume that normally the path length for one or the other wire would be longer when the insertion portion is bent. If this was Applicant’s intended meaning, then the claim is probably not allowable as the claim is basically just saying to adjust the wire based on the slack. If the wire is “X” longer because of the bend, then send out the wire “X” amount to account for this. The claim, though, is not written in this way. Instead, both wires are sent out the same amount as the elongation of each wire. Applicant can clarify the meaning of the claim language, if necessary, but the claim is not indefinite.
Claims 8, 13, and 16 are all related to estimating an excess length and a total bending angle based on the excess length. The Examiner did not see this in Arai or Kawai and does not consider it obvious.
For at least these reasons, the claims overcome the art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY JAY NEAL whose telephone number is (313)446-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/TIMOTHY J NEAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795