DETAILED ACTION
The following Office Action is in response to the Non-Final Patent Application filed on August 27, 2024. Claims 1-30 are currently pending.
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.
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 1-30 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.
Concerning claim 1, lines 2-3 of the claim recites the limitation of “an end tool jaw pulley, which is coupled to the jaw”. However, the claim recites “one or more jaws”, therein making it indefinite as to whether “the jaw” refers to one of the one or more jaws or each of the one or more jaws.
Concerning claim 8, lines 1-2 of the claim recites the limitation of “the jaw comprises a first and second jaw”. However, the recitation of a jaw comprising multiple jaws is indefinite, given this may mean that there is a singular jaw having two jaws on the singular jaw, or may mean a plurality of jaws defining a first and second jaw.
Lines 3-4 of the claim recites the limitation of “the end tool jaw pulley comprises an end tool first jaw pulley coupled to the first jaw and an end tool second jaw pulley coupled to the second jaw”. However, the recitation of an end tool jaw pulley comprising multiple end jaw pulleys is indefinite, given this may mean that there is a singular end tool jaw pulley including two additional end tool jaw pulleys on the singular end tool jaw pulley, or may mean a plurality of end tool jaw pulleys defining a first and second end tool jaw pulley.
Lines 5-6 of the claim recites the limitation of “the jaw wire comprises a first jaw wire coupled to the end tool first jaw pulley and a second jaw wire coupled to the end tool second jaw pulley”. However, the recitation of a jaw wire having multiple jaw wires is indefinite, given this may mean that the singular jaw wire includes two additional jaw wires on the singular jaw wire, or may mean a plurality of jaw wires defining a first and second jaw wire.
Concerning claim 30, lines 6-7 of the claim recites the limitation of “an end tool jaw pulley, which is coupled to the jaw”. However, the claim recites “one or more jaws”, therein making it indefinite as to whether “the jaw” refers to one of the one or more jaws or each of the one or more jaws.
Claims 1-29 are further rejected for being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Alden reference (US 2019/0314101) teaches a surgical robot including a surgical instrument including a tension regulation mechanism in the driving system; the Waterbury et al. reference (US 2019/0328467) teaches a surgical instrument attachable to a surgical robot including a cable length conserving mechanism in the drive system which includes a driving part jaw rotation shaft rotatable relative to a driving part jaw pulley; the Wakana et al. reference (US 2022/0330965) teaches a surgical instrument attachable to a surgical robot including a drive system including a pulley system which may allow the lengths of the drive cables to change; and the Wang et al. reference (US 2023/0380918) teaches a surgical robot including a surgical instrument which includes a decoupling mechanism within the drive system that has a driving part jaw rotation shaft which may revolve around a driving part jaw pulley.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN TRUYEN TON whose telephone number is (571)270-5122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; EST 10:00 AM - 6:30 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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/MARTIN T TON/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 5/1/2026
Prosecution Insights