DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed on 7/15/2026, with respect to the previous claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous claim objection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-8, filed on 7/15/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the previous non-final OA, the Examiner equates Zhang’s piezoelectric actuators with the “one or more stabilizing actuators” as recited in claim 1. The Applicant argues that Zhang’s piezoelectric actuators do not stabilize movement of the handpiece itself, but rather are used to reduce tremor-induced motion at the tip of the needle. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Zhang teaches a system comprising a handpiece (“a manipulator”) and an end effector (“needle”) mounted to the handpiece (Fig. 2A). Zhang also teaches the system comprises one or more stabilizing actuators (“piezoelectric actuators”) that stabilize movement of the handpiece in response to movement of the hand of the surgeon by calculating the output displacement for the piezoelectric actuators based on the kinematics of the end effector (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, lines 60-65).
Furthermore, Zhang teaches that the hand motion is a combination of desired motion and tremor motion (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, lines 38-41). Zhang then teaches that compensation motion, which is generated by the piezoelectric actuators, is generated to compensate the handpiece dynamics, thus cancelling tremor motion and stabilizing the manipulator (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, lines 41-44). Therefore, it is still understood that Zhang discloses “one or more stabilizing actuators configured to stabilize movement of the handpiece in response to movement of the hand of the surgeon”. Thus, the previous 102 and 103 rejections are not withdrawn.
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, 6-7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hand-Held Instrument with Integrated Parallel Mechanism for Active Tremor Compensation During Microsurgery, 2019 (herein referred to as Zhang).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a system (System Architecture, line 1) for
performing ophthalmic treatments (Introduction, line 6), the system comprising: a
handpiece (Fig. 1A-1B, System Architecture, line 1) configured to be held by a hand of a
surgeon (Fig. 1B, System Architecture, lines 13-14); an end effector (Mechanical
Performance Evaluation, line 28, needle) mounted to the handpiece (Fig. 2A) and configured to manipulate tissue (Phantom Experiment, lines 1-6) of a patient (Introduction, line 10); a motion sensor (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, line 14) configured to sense movement of the handpiece (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, lines 16-19); one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 2A, Integrated Parallel Mechanism Design, line 8) configured to stabilize movement of the handpiece in response to movement of the hand of the surgeon (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, lines 60-65); and a controller (Fig. 4B, Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, line 44) coupled to the motion sensor and the one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 4B and 5A), the controller configured to instruct the one or more stabilizing actuators to compensate for motion detected by the motion sensor (Tremor Compensation Performance in 1-DOF, lines 32-36).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the system (System Architecture, line 1) of claim 1, wherein the one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 2A, Integrated Parallel Mechanism Design, line 8) are mounted to (Fig. 2A) the handpiece (Fig. 1A-1B, System Architecture, line 1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches the system (System Architecture, line 1) of claim 2, wherein the one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 2A, Integrated Parallel Mechanism Design, line 8) are mounted to the handpiece (Fig. 1A-1B, System Architecture, line 1) between the end effector and the handpiece (Fig. 1B and 2A).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches the system (System Architecture, line 1) of claim 2, wherein the one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 2A, Integrated Parallel Mechanism Design, line 8) comprise a plurality of translating stages (Fig. 2A-2B, Integrated Parallel Mechanism Design, lines 3-4 and 22-24), each stage configured to translate along one axis of a plurality of mutually orthogonal axis (Fig. 2A-2B).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches the system (System Architecture, line 1) of claim 2, wherein the one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 2A, Integrated Parallel Mechanism Design, line 8) comprise a plurality of cable actuators mounted to the handpiece by a plurality of cables (see wires in Fig. 2B and 5A).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches the system (System Architecture, line 1) of claim 1, wherein the motion sensor (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, line 14) includes at least one of a three-axis accelerometer (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, lines 20-21) or a three-axis gyroscope (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, line 21).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches the system (System Architecture, line 1) of claim 1, wherein the controller (Fig. 4B, Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, line 44) comprises a high-pass filter (Introduction, line 38), the controller configured to: process outputs of the motion sensor using the high-pass filter to obtain filtered outputs (Introduction, lines 38-41); and instruct the one or more stabilizing actuators to compensate for movement indicated in the filtered outputs (Introduction, lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches the system (System Architecture, line 1) of claim 10, wherein the controller (Fig. 4B, Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, line 44) is further configured to: receive an input (Phantom Experiment, lines 1-6); and in response to the input, adjust one or more parameters (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, lines 56-57) of the high-pass filter (Introduction, line 38).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang teaches the system (System Architecture, line 1) of claim 11, wherein the input is a treatment plan (Phantom Experiment, lines 1-6) for an ophthalmic treatment (Phantom Experiment, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang teaches the system (System Architecture, line 1) of claim 11, wherein the one or more parameters (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, lines 56-57) include one or more of: a cutoff frequency (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, lines 30-31); a roll-off slope; and an order (Tremor Compensation Performance in 1-DOF, line 38).
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hand-Held Instrument with Integrated Parallel Mechanism for Active Tremor Compensation During Microsurgery, 2019 (herein referred to as Zhang) in view of Boyden et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2014/0303660).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches the system (System Architecture, line 1) of
claim 2 that includes the one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 2A, Integrated Parallel Mechanism Design, line 8). Zhang does not teach that the one or more stabilizing actuators are configured to be interposed between fingers of the hand of the surgeon and the handpiece.
Boyden, however, teaches a handheld surgical instrument that provides active tremor control for a user (Fig. 1). Boyden teaches that the handheld surgical instrument (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0034, lines 1-2) includes an elongated member (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0034, line 2) and a handle portion (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0034, line 3) that can be gripped by the hand of the surgeon (Paragraph 0034, lines 3-4). Furthermore, Boyden teaches that the surgical instrument includes one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0035, line 1) that are located on the exterior of the elongated member (Fig. 2). It would be well understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the stabilizing actuators can be interposed between fingers of the hand of the surgeon and the handle portion, based on Figures 1 and 2 of Boyden.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Boyden to include that the stabilizing actuators are interposed between fingers of the hand of the surgeon and the handpiece. Doing so would allow bending of the surgical instrument in the x-z plane and y-z plane in order to counteract the movements caused by hand tremors of the user (Paragraph 0035), as recognized by Boyden.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hand-Held Instrument with Integrated Parallel Mechanism for Active Tremor Compensation During Microsurgery, 2019 (herein referred to as Zhang) in view of Design of a Novel Tremor Suppression Device Using a Linear Delta Manipulator for Micromanipulation, 2013 (herein referred to as Chang).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches the system (System Architecture, line 1) of claim 2 that includes the one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 2A, Integrated Parallel Mechanism Design, line 8). Zhang does not teach that the one or more stabilizing actuators comprise a plurality of motors, each motor of the plurality of motors configured to spin about an axis of a plurality of mutually orthogonal axes.
Chang, however, teaches a tremor suppression device (Abstract, lines 1-2) that comprises a handpiece (Fig. 3D, Design of the Tremor Suppression System, line 28), an end effector (Linear Delta Parallel Mechanism, line 4), and one or more stabilizing actuators (Linear Delta Parallel Mechanism, lines 3-4). Chang further teaches that the one or more actuators comprise a plurality of motors (Abstract, lines 8-9), wherein each motor is configured to spin about an axis (Fig. 2, Design of Tremor Suppression System, lines 3-6) of a plurality of mutually orthogonal axes (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Chang to include that the one or more stabilizing actuators comprise a plurality of motors that are configured to spin about an axis of a plurality of mutually orthogonal axes. Doing so would allow the system to generate three translational motions (Design of Tremor Suppression System), as recognized by Chang.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hand-Held Instrument with Integrated Parallel Mechanism for Active Tremor Compensation During Microsurgery, 2019 (herein referred to as Zhang) in view of Ong et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2023/0023019).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches the system (System Architecture, line 1) of
claim 1 that includes the one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 2A, Integrated Parallel Mechanism Design, line 8). Zhang does not teach that the one or more stabilizing actuators are configured to mount to the hand of the surgeon.
Ong, however, teaches a gyroscope device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0074, lines 1-2) for hand tremor stabilization that comprises a housing (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0074, line 2). Ong teaches that the housing and gyroscope device mount to the hand of the surgeon (Fig. 1-2, Paragraph 0068, lines 1-4). In one embodiment, the gyroscope device includes an actuator (Fig. 10, Paragraph 0113, lines 8-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Ong to include that the one or more stabilizing actuators are configured to mount to the hand of the surgeon. Doing so would directly stabilize the hand of the surgeon so they can perform specific tasks (Paragraph 0069), as recognized by Ong.
Claims 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hand-Held Instrument with Integrated Parallel Mechanism for Active Tremor Compensation During Microsurgery, 2019 (herein referred to as Zhang) in view of Gonenc et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,369,045).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang teaches a system (System Architecture, line 1) for
performing ophthalmic treatments (Introduction, line 6), the system comprising: a handpiece (Fig. 1A-1B, System Architecture, line 1) configured to be held by a hand of a surgeon (Fig. 1B, System Architecture, lines 13-14); an end effector (Mechanical Performance Evaluation, line 28, needle) mounted to the handpiece (Fig. 2A) and configured to manipulate tissue (Phantom Experiment, lines 1-6) of a patient (Introduction, line 10); a motion sensor (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, line 14) configured to sense movement of the handpiece induced by the hand of the surgeon (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, lines 16-19); one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 2A, Integrated Parallel Mechanism Design, line 8) configured to stabilize movement of the handpiece in response to movement of the hand of the surgeon (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, lines 60-65); and a controller (Fig. 4B, Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, line 44) coupled to the motion sensor and the one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 4B and 5A), the controller configured to instruct the one or more stabilizing actuators to reduce an amount of the movement transferred to the tissue of the patient through the end effector (Tremor Compensation Performance in 1-DOF, lines 32-36) by stabilizing movement of the handpiece via the one or more stabilizing actuators (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, lines 60-65).
Zhang does not explicitly teach the method of using said system. Gonenc, however, teaches a micromanipulation method (Col. 8, lines 41-50) by using a micromanipulation system (Fig. 1, Col. 7, line 57) that comprises a micromanipulator (Fig. 1, Col. 7, line 59), a handpiece (Fig. 1, Col. 7, line 60), an end effector (Fig. 1, Col. 7, line 61), and one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 1, Col. 7, line 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Gonenc to include a method of operating said manipulator system. Doing so would ensure steps are provided to compensate the movement of the micromanipulation tool due to hand movement of the surgeon (Col. 8), as recognized by Gonenc.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang in view of Gonenc discloses the claimed invention of claim 14. Zhang further discloses the system (System Architecture, line 1) of claim 14, wherein the one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 2A, Integrated Parallel Mechanism Design, line 8) are mounted to (Fig. 2A) the handpiece (Fig. 1A-1B, System Architecture, line 1).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang in view of Gonenc discloses the claimed invention of claim 14. Zhang further discloses the system (System Architecture, line 1) of claim 14,
wherein the one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 2A, Integrated Parallel Mechanism
Design, line 8) are mounted to the handpiece (Fig. 1A-1B, System Architecture, line 1) between the end effector and the handpiece (Fig. 1B and 2A).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang in view of Gonenc discloses the claimed invention of claim 14. Zhang further discloses the system (System Architecture, line 1) of claim 14, wherein the controller (Fig. 4B, Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, line 44) comprises a high-pass filter (Introduction, line 38), the controller configured to: process outputs of the motion sensor using the high-pass filter to obtain filtered outputs (Introduction, lines 38-41); and instruct the one or more stabilizing actuators to compensate for movement indicated in the filtered outputs (Introduction, lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang in view of Gonenc discloses the claimed invention of claim 14. Zhang further discloses the system (System Architecture, line 1) of claim 14, wherein the motion sensor (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, line 14) includes at least one of a three-axis accelerometer (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, lines 20-21) or a three-axis gyroscope (Kinematics, Motion Sensing and Control, line 21).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hand-Held Instrument with Integrated Parallel Mechanism for Active Tremor Compensation During Microsurgery, 2019 (herein referred to as Zhang) in view of Gonenc et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,369,045) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Boyden et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2014/0303660).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang teaches the system (System Architecture, line 1) of
claim 14 that includes the one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 2A, Integrated Parallel
Mechanism Design, line 8). Zhang does not teach that the one or more stabilizing actuators are configured to be interposed between fingers of the hand of the surgeon and the handpiece.
Boyden, however, teaches a handheld surgical instrument that provides active tremor control for a user (Fig. 1). Boyden teaches that the handheld surgical instrument (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0034, lines 1-2) includes an elongated member (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0034, line 2) and a handle portion (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0034, line 3) that can be gripped by the hand of the surgeon (Paragraph 0034, lines 3-4). Furthermore, Boyden teaches that the surgical instrument includes one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0035, line 1) that are located on the exterior of the elongated member (Fig. 2). It would be well understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the stabilizing actuators can be interposed between fingers of the hand of the surgeon and the handle portion, based on Figures 1 and 2 of Boyden.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Boyden to include that the stabilizing actuators are interposed between fingers of the hand of the surgeon and the handpiece. Doing so would allow bending of the surgical instrument in the x-z plane and y-z plane in order to counteract the movements caused by hand tremors of the user (Paragraph 0035), as recognized by Boyden.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hand-Held Instrument with Integrated Parallel Mechanism for Active Tremor Compensation During Microsurgery, 2019 (herein referred to as Zhang) in view of Gonenc et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,369,045) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ong et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2023/0023019).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang teaches the system (System Architecture, line 1) of
claim 14 that includes the one or more stabilizing actuators (Fig. 2A, Integrated Parallel
Mechanism Design, line 8). Zhang does not teach that the one or more stabilizing actuators are configured to mount to the hand of the surgeon.
Ong, however, teaches a gyroscope device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0074, lines 1-2) for hand tremor stabilization that comprises a housing (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0074, line 2). Ong teaches that the housing and gyroscope device mount to the hand of the surgeon (Fig. 1-2, Paragraph 0068, lines 1-4). In one embodiment, the gyroscope device includes an actuator (Fig. 10, Paragraph 0113, lines 8-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Ong to include that the one or more stabilizing actuators are configured to mount to the hand of the surgeon. Doing so would directly stabilize the hand of the surgeon so they can perform specific tasks (Paragraph 0069), as recognized by Ong.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Heidi Hilsmier whose telephone number is (571)272-2984. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Fridays from 7:30 AM - 3:30 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, 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.
/H.A.H./Patent Examiner , Art Unit 3796
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights