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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objection
The previous claim objection of claim 8 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
Some of the previous claim interpretation has been withdrawn in view of the amended structure to the claims. The claim interpretation for a first roller module and a second roller module is maintained, since claim 1 recites “wherein at least one of the first roller module or the second roller module includes.” The claim does not specify that structure is for both the first roller module and the second roller module.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that according to the structure in which the position of the shaft (14) is fixed, as in the claimed subject matter, when replacing the parts after performing a procedure, it is possible to replace only the roller (111) while leaving the shaft (114) behind. Therefore, the number of parts requiring replacement (i.e., parts requiring sterilization) can be reduced, which can improve the usability of the device and save on consumable costs (Remarks, pages 6-7). However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., parts requiring sterilization) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant asserts that the cited references fail to disclose that the roller does not move vertically along the shaft, but both the roller and the shaft move vertically as a whole. Specifically, both the roller and the spline shaft are raised and lowered as a whole by the elevation of the lead screw shaft (Remarks, page 7).
However, the Examiner disagrees. Meng teaches wherein the at least one roller is configured to be rotatable about an axis of the at least one shaft (page 2, ¶1-the main bionic finger rotates clockwise; Fig. 1(a)-9 rotates around an axis running from the top to bottom of 9; MPEP 2114: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
While Meng does not explicitly teach being movable in a vertical direction along the at least one shaft by the driving unit, Wallace teaches being movable in a vertical direction along the at least one shaft by the driving unit (¶142-the spline shaft 1174 may be fixably coupled to a rotary member such as a feed roller 1104 , so that the rotation of the spline nut creates rotation of the feed roller, the leadscrew nut 1186 is driven by the leadscrew gear 1190 which can either be directly motor driven or indirectly motor driven via a series of gears, belts or pulleys (not shown). Rotation of the leadscrew nut 1186 lifts and lowers the leadscrew shaft 1184 and spline shaft 1174 , creating the up and down lift or axial translation of the feed roller; ¶143-to actuate only lift of a feed roller; ¶133-each roller assembly provides rotation and up-down or axial translation to their respective feed rollers 1124, 1104, the left roller assembly 1102 includes the left spline actuator 1106, the right roller assembly 1122 includes a right spline actuator 1126; Figs. 18A-18C; Figs. 20-21; MPEP 2114: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
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 invention of Meng to include being movable in a vertical direction along the at least one shaft by the driving unit of Wallace in order to robotically move the catheter and/or the sheath to treat tissue (Wallace, ¶25).
Applicant asserts that since the shaft that functions as the rotational axis of the roller is moved together with the roller in the vertical direction, the stability of the rotation and vertical movement of the roller will decrease (Remarks, page 8). However, Wallace explicitly teaches to actuate only lift of a feed roller (¶143).
Applicant asserts that in order to change the driving mechanism of the roller and the shaft in Meng and Wallace, many design changes must be required. Therefore, those skilled in the art would not try to change the driving mechanism of Meng and Wallace (Remarks, page 8). However, the Examiner disagrees. Wallace explicitly teaches to actuate only lift of a feed roller (¶143).
Double Patenting Rejection
The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 10-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is encouraged to add “and” between the last two wherein limitations for clarity purposes. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is encouraged to change the limitation of “at least one roller” in line 4 to recite –the at least one roller—to properly refer back to “at least one roller” in claim 1, line 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is encouraged to change the limitation of “at least one shaft” in line 5 to recite –the at least one shaft—to properly refer back to “at least one shaft” in claim 1, line 7. 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:
a first roller module in claims 1-7 and 13; and
a second roller module in claims 1-7 and 13.
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.
For a first roller module in claims 1-7 and 13, while the claim 1 recites “wherein at least one of the first roller module or the second roller module includes: a driving unit including a first driving motor; and a roller unit including at least one roller and at least one shaft independently coupled to the at least one roller and rotated by the driving unit,” this does not explicitly state the structure is for the first roller module, as it could be for just the second roller module. The specification discloses
“Wherein at least one of the first roller module or the second roller module includes a driving unit, and a roller unit” (¶20);
“The driving unit may include a first driving motor” (¶13);
“The driving unit further may include a first driving shaft” (¶14);
“The roller unit includes at least one roller, and at least one shaft independently coupled to the at least one roller” (¶10); and
“The roller unit further may include a screw, a nut meshing with the screw of the roller unit, and a casing disposed on the nut of the roller unit” (¶16).
Therefore, the Examiner is interpreting the first roller module to be a driving unit with is a first driving motor, with an option for further comprising a first driving shaft, a roller unit which is at least one roller and at least one shaft independently coupled to the at least one roller, with an option for further comprising a screw, a nut, and a casing, and equivalents thereof.
For a second roller module in claims 1-7 and 13, while claim 1 recites “wherein at least one of the first roller module or the second roller module includes: a driving unit including a first driving motor; and a roller unit including at least one roller and at least one shaft independently coupled to the at least one roller and rotated by the driving unit,” this does not explicitly state the structure is for the second roller module, as it could be for just the first roller module. The specification discloses
“Wherein at least one of the first roller module or the second roller module includes a driving unit, and a roller unit” (¶20);
“The driving unit may include a first driving motor” (¶13);
“The driving unit further may include a first driving shaft” (¶14);
“The roller unit includes at least one roller, and at least one shaft independently coupled to the at least one roller” (¶10); and
“The roller unit further may include a screw, a nut meshing with the screw of the roller unit, and a casing disposed on the nut of the roller unit” (¶16).
Therefore, the Examiner is interpreting the second roller module to be a driving unit with is a first driving motor, with an option for further comprising a first driving shaft, a roller unit which is at least one roller and at least one shaft independently coupled to the at least one roller, with an option for further comprising a screw, a nut, and a casing, 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 was amended to recite “a base module including a base body and a base driving motor.” ¶23 of the specification discloses:
The base module may include a base body, a first nut disposed on the base body of the base module and coupled to the first roller module, a second nut disposed on the base body of the base module and coupled to the second roller module, a screw meshing with the first nut of the base module and the second nut of the base module, and a first driving motor to rotate the screw of the base module, wherein forward or reverse rotation of the screw of the base module may allow the first nut of the base module and the second nut of the base module to move such that a spacing between the first roller module and the second roller module varies.
However, the originally filed claims, drawings, and specification do not disclose “a base driving motor.”
Therefore, this newly presented base driving motor is new matter. Dependent claims 2-14 are rejected for the same deficiency in claim 1.
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 1-14 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.
In claim 1, line 2, and claim 13, line 10, the limitation of “base driving motor” seems unclear. The specification discloses:
¶23-The base module may include a base body, a first nut disposed on the base body of the base module and coupled to the first roller module, a second nut disposed on the base body of the base module and coupled to the second roller module, a screw meshing with the first nut of the base module and the second nut of the base module, and a first driving motor to rotate the screw of the base module, wherein forward or reverse rotation of the screw of the base module may allow the first nut of the base module and the second nut of the base module to move such that a spacing between the first roller module and the second roller module varies.
¶24-The driving unit of the first roller module may include a first casing, a first driving motor and a first driving shaft disposed inside the first casing of the driving unit of the first roller module to rotate the roller unit of the first roller module, and a second driving motor and a second driving shaft disposed inside the first casing of the driving unit of the first roller module to move the roller unit of the first roller module in the vertical direction, wherein the driving unit of the second roller module may include a second casing, a first driving motor and a first driving shaft disposed inside the second casing of the driving unit of the second roller module to rotate the roller unit of the second roller module, and a second driving motor and a second driving shaft disposed inside the second casing of the driving unit of the second roller module to move the roller unit of the second roller module in the vertical direction, wherein the first casing of the driving unit of the first roller module may be supported by the first nut of the base module, wherein the second casing of the driving unit of the second roller module may be supported by the second nut of the base module.
Since a base driving motor is not disclosed in the specification, it remains unclear if Applicant meant the “base driving motor” to be the first driving motor, the second driving motor, or a combination of the two. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting a base driving motor to be the same as a first driving motor. Dependent claims 2-14 are rejected for the same deficiency in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-7, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng (CN 104644270 published on 5/27/15) in view of Wallace (US 20130035537 filed on 12/2/11 as cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Meng teaches a medical robot comprising: a base module (page 2, ¶9-base 1) including a base body (Meng, page 3, 4th to last ¶-the double-finger push-pull/swiveling component; page 3, 3rd to last ¶-in the two-finger push-pull/twisted component, the components directly contacting the conduit are the primary bionic finger 9 and the secondary bionic finger 10) and a base driving motor (page 3, 4th to last ¶-DC servo motor base 6; page 2, ¶1-the DC servo motor directly drives the main bionic finger); and a first roller module (page 3, 4th to last ¶-main bionic finger 9, -DC servo motor base 6; page 2, ¶1-the DC servo motor directly drives the main bionic finger) and a second roller module (page 3, 4th to last ¶-bionic finger 10; page 2, ¶1-the two-finger push-pull/twisting component is powered by a DC servo motor), wherein a spacing between the first roller module and the second roller module is controlled by the base module (page 4, ¶2-the opening and closing stepping motor 15 is reversed, and the main bionic finger 9 is actuated from the bionic finger 10 to release the catheter 28; page 4, ¶2-the whole double-finger opening and closing component is fixed on the base 1), wherein at least one of the first roller module or the second roller module includes: a driving unit including a first driving motor (page 3, 4th to last ¶-DC servo motor base 6; page 2, ¶1-the DC servo motor directly drives the main bionic finger); and a roller unit including at least one roller and at least one shaft independently coupled to the at least one roller and rotated by the driving unit (page 3, 4th to last ¶-main bionic finger 9; page 3, 4th to last ¶-the double-finger push-pull/swiveling component comprises…bionic finger shaft 8; page 2, ¶1-the two-finger push-pull/twisting component is powered by a DC servo motor when the push-pull catheter is realized, and the DC servo motor directly drives the main bionic finger, eliminating the transmission mechanism and saving space; when the push-pull catheter is required to move forward, the motor rotates forward. The main bionic finger rotates clockwise; Fig. 1(a)), wherein the at least one roller is configured to be rotatable about an axis of the at least one shaft (page 2, ¶1-the main bionic finger rotates clockwise; Fig. 1(a)-9 rotates around an axis running from the top to bottom of 9; MPEP 2114: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
However, Meng does not explicitly teach being movable in a vertical direction along the at least one shaft by the driving unit.
Wallace relates generally to robotically controlled surgical systems, and more particularly to flexible instruments and instrument drivers that are responsive to a master controller for performing surgical procedures to treat tissue, such as tissue in the livers (¶23). Wallace further teaches the invention using the following step:
being movable in a vertical direction along the at least one shaft by the driving unit (¶142-the spline shaft 1174 may be fixably coupled to a rotary member such as a feed roller 1104 , so that the rotation of the spline nut creates rotation of the feed roller, the leadscrew nut 1186 is driven by the leadscrew gear 1190 which can either be directly motor driven or indirectly motor driven via a series of gears, belts or pulleys (not shown). Rotation of the leadscrew nut 1186 lifts and lowers the leadscrew shaft 1184 and spline shaft 1174 , creating the up and down lift or axial translation of the feed roller; ¶143-to actuate only lift of a feed roller; ¶133-each roller assembly provides rotation and up-down or axial translation to their respective feed rollers 1124, 1104, the left roller assembly 1102 includes the left spline actuator 1106, the right roller assembly 1122 includes a right spline actuator 1126; Figs. 18A-18C; Figs. 20-21; MPEP 2114: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Therefore, 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 invention of Meng to include being movable in a vertical direction along the at least one shaft by the driving unit of Wallace in order to robotically move the catheter and/or the sheath to treat tissue (Wallace, ¶25).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Meng and Wallace teaches the medical robot of claim 1, wherein a surgical tool is clamped between the first roller module and the second roller module (Meng, page 4, ¶2-when the catheter 28 needs to be loosened, the opening and closing stepping motor 15 is reversed, and the main bionic finger 9 is actuated from the bionic finger 10 to release the catheter 28; page 3, 5th to last ¶- the two-finger push-pull/rotate member clamps or loosens the conduit 28), wherein a roller unit of the first roller module and a roller unit of the second roller module are configured to be rotated in relatively opposite directions or to move vertically in relatively opposite directions in order to control a movement of the surgical tool (Meng, page 2, ¶1-the main and slave bionic fingers rotate in opposite directions under the action of friction, so that the push catheter moves forward).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Meng and Wallace teaches the medical robot of claim 1, wherein a roller unit of the first roller module and a roller unit of the second roller module are configured to be rotated in relatively opposite directions (Meng, page 2, ¶1-the main and slave bionic fingers rotate in opposite directions under the action of friction, so that the push catheter moves forward) such that a surgical tool clamped between the first roller module and the second roller module travels in a longitudinal direction (Meng, page 3, 5th to last ¶-wherein the two-finger push-pull/rotate member is used to realize the axial movement of the push-pull conduit 28; page 3, 2nd to last ¶-the rotation of the main and the bionic finger is converted into the axial movement of the catheter 28; Fig. 1(b)).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Meng and Wallace teaches the medical robot of claim 1, wherein a roller unit of the first roller module and a roller unit of the second roller module are configured to be moved vertically in relatively opposite directions (Meng, page 2, ¶1-the main and slave bionic fingers rotate in opposite directions under the action of friction, so that the push catheter moves forward) such that a surgical tool clamped between the first roller module and the second roller module rotates (Meng, page 3, 2nd to last ¶-the main and the slave bionic fingers are reversely synchronously rotated by the friction force, and finally the friction transmission is adopted. The rotation of the main and the bionic finger is converted into the axial movement of the catheter 28; page 4, ¶1-rotation of the catheter in the circumferential direction; page 1, 4th to last ¶-enables axial and circumferential rotation of the catheter; Fig. 1(a); Fig. 1(b)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Meng and Wallace teaches the medical robot of claim 1, wherein a roller unit of the first roller module and a roller unit of the second roller module are configured to move relatively closer or farther apart such that a clamping degree of a surgical tool clamped between the first roller module and the second roller module is controlled (Meng, page 1, last ¶-the double-finger opening and closing component mainly controls the opening and closing action of the main and the bionic finger, and the main and the bionic finger are components that directly contact the catheter and realize the convolution and push-pull the catheter, the opening and closing of the two-finger opening and closing component is Opening and closing stepping motor control; Fig. 1(a)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Meng and Wallace teaches the medical robot of claim 1, wherein rotation axes of a roller unit of the first roller module and a roller unit of the second roller module are parallel to each other (Meng, Fig. 1a shows 9 and 10 parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Meng and Wallace teaches the medical robot of claim 1, wherein each of a roller unit of the first roller module and a roller unit of the second roller module is removable in a cartridge form (Wallace, ¶152-roller 1104 can be removeably replaceable where the drape 1070 could be placed over the spline shaft 1174 and the rollers could be installed over the drape in the sterile field, the sterile drape 1070 could provide for a sterile interface for the right feed roller 1124 in the same manner; ¶150-an elongate member manipulator 1100 which are meant to remain sterile may be disposable and/or the complexity of such components may be minimized in order to minimize or reduce overall costs of such disposable components or the elongate member manipulator 1100).
Therefore, 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 invention of Meng to include wherein each of a roller unit of the first roller module and a roller unit of the second roller module is removable in a cartridge form of Wallace in order to remain sterile (Wallace, ¶150).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Meng and Wallace teaches the medical robot of claim 1, wherein the roller unit includes a screw (Meng, page 4, ¶1-reverse screw 5; Fig. 1(a)), and a nut meshing with the screw of the roller unit (Meng, page 2, ¶2-form a reverse screw nut mechanism; page 1, last ¶-the spur gears are respectively meshed with the two gear discs with the main and the bionic fingers, and the two gear discs are opposite to each other with the reverse lead screw as the central axis), wherein the screw of the roller unit is rotated by the driving unit (Meng, page 2, ¶2-the reverse screw rotates; page 3, last ¶-the cyclone stepping motor 17 is activated, and the power is transmitted to the reverse lead screw 5), wherein the nut of the roller unit moves in the vertical direction via rotation of the screw of the roller unit (Meng, page 4, ¶1-reverse lead screw 5 rotates; page 2, ¶2-power is transmitted to the reverse lead screw through the belt drive, and the left-handed and right-handed nuts are respectively fixed in the middle of the two gear discs. The lead screw and the two gear discs form a reverse screw nut mechanism. When the reverse screw rotates, the two gear discs move up and down relative to each other by the two spur gears of the double-finger opening and closing parts, so the main and the slave are bionic. Refers to the relative motion of the up and down synchronization).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Meng and Wallace teaches the medical robot of claim 1, wherein the base module further includes: a first nut disposed on the base body of the base module and coupled to the first roller module (Meng, page 2, ¶2-the left-handed and right-handed nuts are respectively fixed in the middle of the two gear discs; page 4, ¶1-the main bionic finger 9 and the slave bionic finger 10 They are respectively fixed on the first gear plate 4 and the second gear plate 7); a second nut disposed on the base body of the base module and coupled to the second roller module (Meng, page 2, ¶2-the left-handed and right-handed nuts are respectively fixed in the middle of the two gear discs; page 4, ¶1-the main bionic finger 9 and the slave bionic finger 10 They are respectively fixed on the first gear plate 4 and the second gear plate 7); and a screw meshing with the first nut of the base module and the second nut of the base module (Meng, page 2, ¶2-the lead screw and the two gear discs form a reverse screw nut mechanism; page 2, ¶2-the left-handed and right-handed nuts are respectively fixed in the middle of the two gear discs); wherein the base driving motor is configured to rotate the screw of the base module (Meng, page 4, ¶1-reverse lead screw 5 rotates; page 2, ¶2-the double-finger push-pull/twisting component is powered by a cyclone stepping motor when the cyclone is realized, and the power is transmitted to the reverse lead screw through the belt drive), wherein forward or reverse rotation of the screw of the base module allows the first nut of the base module and the second nut of the base module to move such that a spacing between the first roller module and the second roller module varies (Meng, page 2, ¶2-the double-finger push-pull/twisting component is powered by a cyclone stepping motor when the cyclone is realized, and the power is transmitted to the reverse lead screw through the belt drive, and the left-handed and right-handed nuts are respectively fixed in the middle of the two gear discs; page 1, last ¶-the two gear discs are opposite to each other with the reverse lead screw as the central axis. Synchronous reverse rotation, and finally achieve the opening and closing action of the main and slave bionic fingers; page 2, ¶2-when the reverse screw rotates, the two gear discs move up and down relative to each other by the two spur gears of the double-finger opening and closing parts, so the main and the slave are bionic).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Meng and Wallace teaches the medical robot of claim 13, wherein a spiral rotation direction in which the screw of the base module and the first nut of the base module mesh with each other, and a spiral rotation direction in which the screw of the base module and the second nut of the base module mesh with each other are opposite to each other (Meng, page 2, ¶2-the left-handed and right-handed nuts are respectively fixed in the middle of the two gear discs. The lead screw and the two gear discs form a reverse screw nut mechanism. When the reverse screw rotates, the two gear discs move up and down relative to each other by the two spur gears of the double-finger opening and closing parts, so the main and the slave are bionic; page 1, last ¶-the two spur gears rotate in opposite directions, and the spur gears are respectively meshed with the two gear discs with the main and the bionic fingers, and the two gear discs are opposite to each other with the reverse lead screw as the central axis; page 4, ¶1-when the reverse screw 5 rotates, the first gear plate 4 and the second gear plate 7 of the two moving parts approach or separate with the nut, and the main bionic finger 9 and the slave bionic finger 10 They are respectively fixed on the first gear plate 4 and the second gear plate 7, so that the main bionic finger 9 and the synchronous reverse motion from the bionic finger 10 are realized).
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng in view of Wallace as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Maurel (WO 2017118818 filed on 1/5/17 as cited in the IDS, and a copy relied upon is being furnished with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Meng and Wallace teaches the medical robot of claim 1. However, the combination of Meng and Wallace does not explicitly teach wherein at least one roller of the roller unit has at least one hole or groove defined therein in which at least a portion of at least one shaft of the roller unit is independently received.
Maurel teaches wherein at least one roller of the roller unit has at least one hole or groove defined therein in which at least a portion of at least one shaft of the roller unit is independently received (Fig. 8-see driving shaft 29a insert into first driving member 28a; Fig. 7-see groove inside first driving member 28a; page 6, last ¶-page 7, ¶1-the first driving member 28a is fixed to a shaft 33a, having the driving shaft 29a as its axis; page 6, last ¶-page 7, ¶1-the actuation of the motor 34 generates the rotation of the first drive member 28 a around the axis 29 a).
Maurel relates to robotically drive modules for an elongate flexible medical member (page 1, ¶1).
Therefore, 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 invention of Meng to include wherein at least one roller of the roller unit has at least one hole or groove defined therein in which at least a portion of at least one shaft of the roller unit is independently received of Maurel in order to make a connection between the motor 34 and the first drive member 28 a (Maurel, page 7, ¶1) and to drive the catheter in translation (Maurel, page 10, ¶9).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Meng and Wallace teaches the medical robot of claim 11. However, the combination of Meng and Wallace does not explicitly teach wherein the roller unit further includes a casing disposed on the nut of the roller unit, wherein the casing of the roller unit moves in the vertical direction by the nut of the roller unit.
Maurel teaches wherein the roller unit further includes a casing disposed on the nut of the roller unit, wherein the casing of the roller unit moves in the vertical direction by the nut of the roller unit (page 9, ¶8-the disposable part 79 comprises the housing 16 (the cover 32 and the base 31) housing the drive members 28 a and 28 b, and the actuator 44; page 6, ¶5-the first drive member 28 a is mounted so as to be able to rotate relative to the housing 16 about the first axis 29 a(in the present case, vertical); page 5, ¶2-a translation along its longitudinal axis, a rotation about its longitudinal axis; page 8, ¶7-the housing is sealed by the seal 81 integral with the first drive member 28a; page 10, ¶6-the skirt 81 is sufficiently long and deformable to guarantee sterility at the interface between the drive member 28 a and the base 31 along the entire travel of the drive member 28 a along the axis 29 a; Fig. 8).
Therefore, 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 invention of Meng to include wherein the roller unit further includes a casing disposed on the nut of the roller unit, wherein the casing of the roller unit moves in the vertical direction by the nut of the roller unit of Maurel in order for a sterile connection between the first drive member 28a and the base 31, so as to reduce the risk of contamination of the catheter by the mechanism and/or jamming of the mechanism by substances conveyed by the catheter (Maurel, page 9, ¶10).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng in view of Wallace, and further in view of Maurel as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Bencteux (US 20160008076 filed on 3/6/14 as cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Meng, Wallace, and Maurel teaches the medical robot of claim 8. However, the combination of Meng, Wallace, and Maurel does not explicitly teach wherein a rotation axis of the first driving motor of the driving unit and a rotation axis of the at least one shaft of the roller unit are perpendicular to each other.
Bencteux teaches wherein a rotation axis of the first driving motor of the driving unit and a rotation axis of the at least one shaft of the roller unit are perpendicular to each other (¶137-the rotary control members 91, 92, which are in the form of drive rollers or pinions in the embodiment of FIG. 9, a reversible coupling system known to those skilled in the art may thus be provided between the shaft 87 of the first servomotor 85 and the driving pinions 91 and 92; Fig. 9-the rotational axis of roller 91 is perpendicular to the rotational axis of motor 85; ¶198-the driving engagement of rotary members having respective perpendicular axes of rotation).
Bencteux relates to modules for driving a robotic catheterization systems (¶1).
Therefore, 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 invention of Meng to include wherein a rotation axis of the first driving motor of the driving unit and a rotation axis of the at least one shaft of the roller unit are perpendicular to each other of Bencteux in order for moving an elongate flexible medical member inside the patient's body, such as a catheter (Bencteux, ¶74).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Meng, Wallace, Maurel, and Bencteux teaches the medical robot of claim 9, wherein the driving unit further includes a first driving shaft (Meng, page 2, ¶2-the double-finger push-pull/twisting component is powered by a cyclone stepping motor when the cyclone is realized, and the power is transmitted to the reverse lead screw through the belt drive; page 2, ¶3-the reverse lead screw of the invention simultaneously serves as a rotating main shaft), wherein a spur gear of the first driving motor of the driving unit meshes with a spur gear of the first driving shaft of the driving unit (Meng, page 1, last ¶-the two spur gears are fixedly connected, so the two spur gears rotate in opposite directions, and the spur gears are respectively meshed with the two gear discs with the main and the bionic fingers, and the two gear discs are opposite to each other with the reverse lead screw as the central axis; page 1, last ¶-the motor directly drives an active bevel gear to rotate, the active bevel gear and the two symmetrically arranged driven bevel gears mesh with each other; page 4, ¶1-synchronize the upper and lower shafts with the reverse lead screw as the main shaft), wherein at least one bevel gear of the at least one shaft of the roller unit independently meshes with at least one bevel gear of the first driving shaft of the driving unit (Meng, page 1, last ¶-the active bevel gear and the two symmetrically arranged driven bevel gears mesh with each other, so the two driven bevel gears rotate in opposite directions, and the driven bevel gears respectively The two spur gears are fixedly connected, so the two spur gears rotate in opposite directions, and the spur gears are respectively meshed with the two gear discs with the main and the bionic finger; page 2, ¶3-the reverse lead screw of the invention simultaneously serves as a rotating main shaft when the two fingers are opened and closed, and is also used for constructing a reverse screw nut mechanism when the push-pull/warping member realizes the convoluted conduit).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2017136729 filed on 2/3/17, and a copy relied upon is being furnished with this Office Action. This application relates to a steerable intraluminal medical device and, more particularly, to a flexible, narrow medical device (such as a micro-catheter or a guidewire) introduced into and controllably moved through lumens of a body. The medical device may include an electrically-actuatable bendable portion at a distal, leading end that can be selectively manipulated for steering the medical device to a targeted anatomical location within a body (¶3).
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 LAURA HODGE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7101. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 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, UNSU JUNG can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/LAURA HODGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
