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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed Jul. 9, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 5-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed Apr. 9, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Drawings:
Applicant amended drawings and addressed all previous drawing objections and the objections have been withdrawn.
Specification:
Applicant amended specification and addressed all previous specification objections and the objections have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
On page 13-14 of Applicant’s response, applicant argues that 112(f) is not invoked. Examiner respectfully disagrees that it is not invoked for all of the terms. See MPEP 2181(I)(C). See Unidynamics Corp. v. Automatic Prod. Int’l, 157 F.3d 1311, 1319, 48 USPQ2d 1099, 1104 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding that "spring means" invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). Examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation that uses the term "means" or generic placeholder associated with functional language, unless that term is (1) preceded by a structural modifier, defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art, that denotes the type of structural device (e.g., "filters"). This would have to be an explicit definition of the structure that one of ordinary skill the art would be able to conclude encompasses this or that is a standard dictionary definition. A generic placeholder (e.g., "mechanism," "element," "member") coupled with a function may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) when it is preceded by a non-structural modifier that does not have any generally understood structural meaning in the art (e.g., "colorant selection mechanism," "lever moving element," or "movable link member"). See Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 462 F.3d at 1354, 80 USPQ2d at 1231 (The claim recited use of a colorant selection mechanism, to which the court performed a means-plus-function analysis under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The court held that the term "colorant selection", which modifies the generic term "mechanism", was not defined in the specification, had no dictionary definition, nor any generally understood meaning in the art, the term does not connote sufficient structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art to avoid pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph treatment.); Mas-Hamilton, 156 F.3d at 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d at 1017; see also Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1351, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (determining that "[t]he prefix ‘distributed learning control’ does not impart any structural significance to the term [‘module’]"). To determine whether a word, term, or phrase coupled with a function denotes structure, examiners may check whether: (1) the specification provides a description sufficient to inform one of ordinary skill in the art that the term denotes structure; (2) general and subject matter specific dictionaries provide evidence that the term has achieved recognition as a noun denoting structure; and/or (3) the prior art provides evidence that the term is an art-recognized structure to perform the claimed function. Ex parte Rodriguez, 92 USPQ2d 1395, 1404 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2009) (precedential). As the structure of “rotational suppression”, “cable coupling”, and “tension applying” are not explicitly defined in the specification and on their own do not impart a defined structure, they invoke 112(f). Specifically, in the instant spec, “rotational suppression device” is not limited to a device having a protrusion; “cable coupling unit” is defined as both the rotational suppression device and a different component to the rotational suppression device; and “tension applying portion” is not limited to a spring. Therefore, the claims will continue to be interpreted under 112(f).
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant's arguments filed July 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 15-17 of Applicant’s response, applicant argues that Esguerra does not teach the lines of the pulley having different rotational positions around the longitudinal axis and that the third straight line is not orthogonal to the first straight line. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner agrees that Esguerra does not teach the lines of the pulley having different rotational positions as depicted. However, Ishihara does teach the different rotation positions in order to engage with gears in order to produce the desired movement. Further, both Rockrohr and Esguerra teach the pulley on a side of the longitudinal axis with respect to a third straight line orthogonal to the outermost point of the first straight line, and Esguerra shows where the second straight line is shorter than the first straight line in order to allow the pulley to function and have the 180 degree bend to allow the pulley to function. When the knowledge of all three sources are combined, a rotation of the pulley of Esguerra would maintain the straight line configurations as claimed. Furthermore, a rearrangement of parts does not render a claim unobvious. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “formed in remaining of the one of” should be changed to --formed in the remaining of the one of--. 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:
“rotation suppression device that suppresses rotation of the rod about a longitudinal axis” and “rotational suppression device … configured to suppress rotation of the linear motion transmission device about a longitudinal axis” in claims 7-8, and 10-12;
“cable coupling unit that connects the other end of the cable” in claim 10; and
“tension applying portion that applies an external force to the linear motion transmission device in a direction in which a tension is applied to a cable” in claim 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.
The specification discloses corresponding structures for the “rotation suppression device” in ¶[0065]-[0067]; the “cable coupling unit” in ¶[0068]; and the “tension applying portion” in ¶[0069]-[0070]. These components will be interpreted as they appear in the spec and any 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockrohr (US 20190099227 A1, published April 4, 2019, hereinafter referred to as “Rockrohr”) in view of Esguerra et al. (EP 2471455 A2, published July 4, 2012, hereinafter referred to as “Esguerra”), and in further view of Ishihara et al. (US 20190216557 A1, published July 18, 2019, hereinafter referred to as “Ishihara”).
Regarding claim 1, Rockrohr teaches an end effector unit (Fig. 1 “surgical instrument 100” in ¶[0047]) comprising: a cable (Fig.’s 8-12 “drive member or rod 260” in ¶[0055] and “drive member 260 (e.g., cables, chains, belts, rods, etc. and/or combinations thereof)” in ¶[0061]) having a first end on a tip end side of the cable connected to an end effector (“Each drive member 260 extends from a respective drive nut 240, through a respective groove 278 of drive assembly frame 270, and out bore 211 of housing assembly 210, and is configured to mechanically engage a portion of end effector 310 (Fig. 9)” in ¶[0061]); component configured to fold back the cable extending toward a root side of the cable in a tip end direction (see annotated Fig. 8 “Each drive member 260… includes a proximal end portion 262 secured to a respective drive nut 240” in ¶[0061]); and a linear motion transmission device (Fig. 8 “proximal drive member portion 260b moves in response to movement of respective drive nut 240” in ¶[0069] and “Rotation of drive screw(s) 230 causes longitudinal translation (distal or proximal) of respective drive nut(s) 240” in ¶[0070]) having one degree of freedom in linear traveling in a longitudinal direction (Fig.’s 8 and 12 “rotation of input drive coupler 238 in a first direction (e.g., clockwise) causes drive nut 240 to move in a first longitudinal direction (e.g., proximally) with respect to drive screw 230 , and rotation of input drive coupler 238 in a second direction (e.g., counter-clockwise) causes drive nut 230 to move in a second longitudinal direction (e.g., distally) with respect to drive screw 230” in ¶[0057]) and connected to a second end of the cable folded back (Fig. 8 “Each drive member 260… includes a proximal end portion 262 secured to a respective drive nut 240” in ¶[0061]), the pulley is on a side of the longitudinal axis with respect to a third straight line orthogonal at the outermost point to the first straight line (see annotated Fig. 8 below where the folded back cable falls within the side of the longitudinal axis).
PNG
media_image1.png
774
1142
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rockrohr does not teach wherein the component configured to fold back the cable is a pulley, wherein the pulley is arranged such that a first straight line connecting a longitudinal axis of the end effector unit and an outermost point of the cable folded back by the pulley, the outermost point of the cable being farthest from the longitudinal axis, and a second straight line connecting the longitudinal axis and a center of the linear motion transmission device have different rotation positions about the longitudinal axis, and the second straight line is shorter than the first straight line.
Esguerra’s invention relates to a catheter, in particular, a catheter having location sensors mounted on flexible distal end portion for improved position sensing of the distal end portion. Fig. 12 shows puller member 42 (cable) with a portion is wound around a respective pulley 147 (¶[0094]). The pulleys 147 are arranged such that rotation of the rocker member in one direction about the axis 76 draws back one puller member 42 to deflect the intermediate section 14 in that direction (¶[0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a pulley that folds back the cable as taught by Esguerra in the device of Rockrohr in order to provide a means for changing the length of the cable and actuating the device.
Esguerra also teaches the second straight line is shorter than the first straight line in Fig. 15 annotated below. Each tensile fiber 42b extends proximally from the connector 154 toward the rocker member 78 where each is wound around a respective pulley 147 and turns about 180 degrees to double back toward the distal end of the control handle. Each proximal end of the tensile fiber 42b is anchored by an anchor assembly 90 that includes a pair or racks 92, a slug 94 and a stop 96. The proximal end of each tensile fiber 22b extends between a channel 91 defined by the pair of racks 92, and the proximal end of each tensile fiber is encased within a molded member or slug 94 sized to fit in and translate in the channel 91 (¶[0099]). As can be seen in the annotated figure, the end of the cable indicated by the edge of the second line segment is closer to the centerline in order to produce a near 180 degree rotation while maintaining space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to arrange the pulley and linear motion transmission device such that the center of the linear motion transmission device is closer to the longitudinal axis than the outermost part of the pulley as taught by Esguerra in the device of Rockrohr so that the cable can be doubled back about 180 degrees and operate as a pulley.
PNG
media_image2.png
768
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rockrohr and Esguerra do not disclose wherein the pulley is arranged such that a first straight line connecting a longitudinal axis of the end effector unit and an outermost point of the cable folded back by the pulley, and a second straight line connecting the longitudinal axis and a center of the linear motion transmission device have different rotation positions about the longitudinal axis.
Ishihara’s invention relates to a treatment tool unit including a distal end portion such as grasping forceps used in a surgery, a medical treatment tool including the treatment tool unit, and a surgical system. Referring to FIG. 8, the actuation mechanism 15A includes a plurality of actuation units 101. The actuation unit 101 includes a first gear 61, a second gear 62 engaged with the first rod 13a, a third gear 63 engaged with the second rod 13b (point of cable folded back), and a receiving member which is a part of a transmitting portion 75A for rotating the first gear 61 (¶[0094]). The second gear 62 and the third gear 63 engage with the first gear 61 (¶[0098]). The actuator 51 (linear motion transmission device) rotates the first gear 61A via the transmitting portion 75A in accordance with a control signal transmitted from the patient-side apparatus 1 shown in FIG. 1 (¶[0113]). See annotated Fig. 9 below where elements 61 and 62/63 have different rotational positions about the longitudinal axis which is orthogonal to this figure.
PNG
media_image3.png
355
413
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to orient the component connected to the cable and the linear motion transmission device at different rotational positions about the longitudinal axis as taught by Ishihara in the device of Rockrohr and Esguerra in order to engage with gears for transmission of motion and actuation of the end effector.
MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) states “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to arrange the pulley and linear transmission device in the claimed orientation in order to make an operating pulley system.
Regarding claim 5, Rockrohr does not disclose wherein the linear motion transmission device includes a rod having one degree of freedom in linear traveling in the longitudinal direction.
Esguerra teaches that each proximal end of the tensile fiber 42b is anchored by an anchor assembly 90 that includes a pair or racks 92, a slug 94 (rod) and a stop 96. The proximal end of each tensile fiber 22b extends between a channel 91 defined by the pair of racks 92, and the proximal end of each tensile fiber is encased within a molded member or slug 94 sized to fit in and translate in the channel 91. Proximal the slug are the stops 96 that are adjustably positioned in a selected location along the racks 92, for example, by means of interlocking teeth 98 formed in the racks and the stops to releasably lock in the selected position against movement. The stops 96 are formed so that each respective tensile fiber 42b can slide through or below them while blocking the slugs 94 from moving proximally past them. Accordingly, the stops 96 limit the proximal movement of the slugs 94 and anchor the proximal ends of the tensile fibers 42b to effectuate deflection when each is drawn proximally by the deflection control assembly 74 (¶[0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a rod in the linear motion transmission device as taught by Esguerra in the device of Rockrohr because it is an art recognized method of transmitting energy. Further, rods have high tensile strength which resists pulling forces well.
Rockrohr and Esguerra do not disclose wherein the linear motion transmission device and the pulley are alternately arranged in a circumferential direction around a longitudinal axis.
Ishihara’s invention relates to a treatment tool unit including a distal end portion such as grasping forceps used in a surgery, a medical treatment tool including the treatment tool unit, and a surgical system. Referring to FIG. 8, the actuation mechanism 15A includes a plurality of actuation units 101. The actuation unit 101 includes a first gear 61, a second gear 62 engaged with the first rod 13a, a third gear 63 engaged with the second rod 13b (point of cable folded back), and a receiving member which is a part of a transmitting portion 75A for rotating the first gear 61 (¶[0094]). The second gear 62 and the third gear 63 engage with the first gear 61 (¶[0098]). The actuator 51 (linear motion transmission device) rotates the first gear 61A via the transmitting portion 75A in accordance with a control signal transmitted from the patient-side apparatus 1 shown in FIG. 1 (¶[0113]). See annotated Fig. 9 above where elements 61 and 62/63 are alternately arranged around the longitudinal axis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to orient the component connected to the cable and the linear motion transmission device alternately in a circumferential direction around the longitudinal axis as taught by Ishihara in the device of Rockrohr and Esguerra in order to engage with gears for transmission of motion and actuation of the end effector.
Regarding claim 7, Esguerra teaches the linear motion transmission device including a rod in claim 5, and Rockrohr teaches wherein the linear motion transmission device further includes a rotation suppression device that suppresses rotation of the rod about a longitudinal axis (¶[0058]).
Regarding claim 8, Rockrohr teaches the device further comprising: a base (Fig.’s 5-12 “housing assembly 210” in ¶[0054]) configured to support the linear motion transmission device so as to slide in the longitudinal direction (Fig.’s 8-12 “housing assembly 210 defines a bore 211 which houses a plurality of drive assemblies 220 supported by a drive assembly frame 270” in ¶[0055]); and a rotation suppression device attached to the linear motion transmission device and configured to suppress rotation of the linear motion transmission device about a longitudinal axis (¶[0058]).
Regarding claim 9, Rockrohr teaches wherein a guide groove formed along the longitudinal direction in one of the base (Fig. 10 “longitudinally extending channel 213 formed in bore 211 of housing assembly 210” in ¶[0058]), and a protrusion to be inserted into the guide groove and formed in the other of the rotation suppression device are included (Fig. 10 “First rail 246 of drive nut 240” in ¶[0058]), and the guide groove guides the protrusion to suppress the rotation of the linear motion transmission device about the longitudinal axis (Fig. 10 “First rail 246 of drive nut 240 cooperates with channel 213 of bore 211 of housing assembly 210 to inhibit or prevent drive nut 240 from rotating about longitudinal axis “Z” as drive screw 230 is rotated.” in ¶[0058]).
Regarding claim 10, Rockrohr teaches wherein the rotation suppression device includes a cable coupling unit that connects the other end of the cable (Fig. 8 “Drive nut 240 also includes a second rail 248 extending longitudinally along an outer surface 242b of body 242 which is configured to be slidably disposed in longitudinally extending groove 278 formed in drive assembly frame 270. Second rail 248 is configured to mechanically engage a proximal end portion 262 of drive member 260.” In ¶[0058]).
Regarding claim 13, Rockrohr teaches further comprising: a tension applying portion (Fig. 8 “biasing element 250” in ¶[0060]) that applies an external force to the linear motion transmission device in a direction in which a tension is applied to the cable (Fig. 8 “Biasing element 250 is pre-tensioned to push a respective drive nut 240 in a proximal direction, thereby applying tension to the respective drive member 260 and preventing drive member 260 from going slack” in ¶[0062]).
Regarding claim 14, Rockrohr teaches wherein the tension applying portion includes a spring (Fig. 8 “biasing element 250, e.g., a compression spring” in ¶[0060]) arranged between a base that supports the linear motion transmission device and a rotation suppression device attached to a predetermined position in the longitudinal direction of the linear motion transmission device (see Fig. 8 “a proximal portion 254 of biasing element 250 is configured and dimensioned to engage retention flange 241 of drive nut 230 and a distal portion 256 of biasing element 250 is configured and dimensioned for reception at least partially within a retention pocket 215 formed in bore 211 of housing assembly 210” in ¶[0060]).
Regarding claim 15, Rockrohr teaches wherein the end effector has two bending axes and a degree of freedom in gripping (Fig.’s 13-15 “End effector 310 is a wristed surgical device including a mounting member or wrist assembly 320, a jaw assembly 330, and a clevis 340 connecting the wrist assembly 320 with the jaw assembly 330. Wrist assembly 320 and clevis 340 are connected to jaw assembly 330 which moves (e.g., pivots, articulates, rotates, opens, and/or closes) about/relative to longitudinal axis “X” and/or about/relative to pivot axes, such as axis “A” and “B,” upon movement of drive member(s) 260” in ¶[0065] and “Grasping portions 332a and 334a include respective tissue-engaging surfaces 332b, 334b configured to engage tissue.” in ¶[0067]), and the device operates by a driving force transmitted by four cables (Fig. 8-12 “Each drive member 260 (e.g., cables, chains, belts, rods, etc. and/or combinations thereof) includes a proximal end portion 262 secured to a respective drive nut 240. Each drive member 260 extends from a respective drive nut 240, through a respective groove 278 of drive assembly frame 270, and out bore 211 of housing assembly 210, and is configured to mechanically engage a portion of end effector 310” in ¶[0061] and “instrument drive connectors have been described as including four drive assemblies” ¶[0074]).
Regarding claim 16, Rockrohr teaches wherein the four cables (“instrument drive connectors have been described as including four drive assemblies” ¶[0074]) are respectively folded back in the tip end direction by corresponding pulleys (see claim 1) and then respectively connected to corresponding linear motion transmission devices (Fig. 8-12 “Each drive member 260 … includes a proximal end portion 262 secured to a respective drive nut 240.” in ¶[0061]).
Regarding claim 17, Rockrohr teaches wherein the end effector includes a surgical tool used for surgery (Fig. 2 “End effector 310 is a wristed surgical device” in ¶[0065]).
Regarding claims 18-20, a surgical tool device (Fig. 1 “surgical assembly 10” in ¶[0050]) and an arm device (Fig. 1 “medical work station 1, generally includes a plurality of robot arms 2 and 3” in ¶[0046]) and a master-slave system (Fig. 1 “Operating console 5 includes … manual input devices 7 and 8 by means of which a clinician (not shown), for example a surgeon, is able to telemanipulate robot arms 2 and 3 in a first operating mode” in ¶[0046]) comprising: a slave device including a surgical tool unit (Fig. 1 “surgical instrument 100” in ¶[0047]) including a surgical tool supported at a distal end (“end effector 310 (Fig. 9)” in ¶[0061] and “End effector 310 is a wristed surgical device” in ¶[0065]), a cable (Fig.’s 8-12 “drive member or rod 260” in ¶[0055] and “drive member 260 (e.g., cables, chains, belts, rods, etc. and/or combinations thereof)” in ¶[0061]) having one end on a tip end side connected to the surgical tool (“Each drive member 260 extends from a respective drive nut 240, through a respective groove 278 of drive assembly frame 270, and out bore 211 of housing assembly 210, and is configured to mechanically engage a portion of end effector 310 (Fig. 9)” in ¶[0061]), a component that folds back the cable extending to a root side in a tip end direction (see annotated Fig. 8 from claim 1 rejection “Each drive member 260… includes a proximal end portion 262 secured to a respective drive nut 240” in ¶[0061]), and a linear motion transmission device (Fig. 8 “proximal drive member portion 260b moves in response to movement of respective drive nut 240” in ¶[0069] and “Rotation of drive screw(s) 230 causes longitudinal translation (distal or proximal) of respective drive nut(s) 240” in ¶[0070]) having one degree of freedom in linear traveling in a longitudinal direction (Fig.’s 8 and 12 “rotation of input drive coupler 238 in a first direction (e.g., clockwise) causes drive nut 240 to move in a first longitudinal direction (e.g., proximally) with respect to drive screw 230 , and rotation of input drive coupler 238 in a second direction (e.g., counter-clockwise) causes drive nut 230 to move in a second longitudinal direction (e.g., distally) with respect to drive screw 230” in ¶[0057]) and connected to the other end of the cable folded back (Fig. 8 “Each drive member 260… includes a proximal end portion 262 secured to a respective drive nut 240” in ¶[0061]); and a drive unit to which the surgical tool unit is attached and configured to drive the linear motion transmission device (Fig. 2 “Surgical assembly 10 includes an instrument drive unit 50 coupled to an instrument drive connector 200 of a surgical instrument 100 having an end effector 310 disposed at a distal end thereof.” In ¶[0050]) the pulley is on a side of the longitudinal axis with respect to a third straight line orthogonal at the outermost point to the first straight line (see annotated Fig. 8 below where the folded back cable falls within the side of the longitudinal axis).
Rockrohr also teaches the claim 19 and 20 limitation of an arm of an articulated link structure that supports the surgical tool device (Fig. 1 “Each of the robot arms 2 and 3 includes a plurality of members, which are connected through joints, to which may be attached, for example, a surgical assembly 10... in such a way that robot arms 2 and 3, the attached surgical assembly 10, and thus the surgical instrument 100” In ¶[0047]) and the claim 20 limitation of a master device configured to operate the surgical tool device and the arm (Fig. 1 “manual input devices 7 and 8 by means of which a clinician (not shown), for example a surgeon, is able to telemanipulate robot arms 2 and 3 in a first operating mode” in ¶[0046]).
Rockrohr does not teach wherein the component configured to fold back the cable is a pulley, wherein the pulley is arranged such that a first straight line connecting a longitudinal axis of the end effector unit and an outermost point of the cable folded back by the pulley, the outermost point of the cable being farthest from the longitudinal axis, and a second straight line connecting the longitudinal axis and a center of the linear motion transmission device have different rotation positions about the longitudinal axis, and the second straight line is shorter than the first straight line.
Esguerra’s invention relates to a catheter, in particular, a catheter having location sensors mounted on flexible distal end portion for improved position sensing of the distal end portion. Fig. 12 shows puller member 42 (cable) with a portion is wound around a respective pulley 147 (¶[0094]). The pulleys 147 are arranged such that rotation of the rocker member in one direction about the axis 76 draws back one puller member 42 to deflect the intermediate section 14 in that direction (¶[0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a pulley that folds back the cable as taught by Esguerra in the device of Rockrohr in order to provide a means for changing the length of the cable and actuating the device.
Esguerra also teaches the second straight line is shorter than the first straight line in Fig. 15 annotated below. Each tensile fiber 42b extends proximally from the connector 154 toward the rocker member 78 where each is wound around a respective pulley 147 and turns about 180 degrees to double back toward the distal end of the control handle. Each proximal end of the tensile fiber 42b is anchored by an anchor assembly 90 that includes a pair or racks 92, a slug 94 and a stop 96. The proximal end of each tensile fiber 22b extends between a channel 91 defined by the pair of racks 92, and the proximal end of each tensile fiber is encased within a molded member or slug 94 sized to fit in and translate in the channel 91 (¶[0099]). As can be seen in the annotated figure, the end of the cable indicated by the edge of the second line segment is closer to the centerline in order to produce a near 180 degree rotation while maintaining space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to arrange the pulley and linear motion transmission device such that the center of the linear motion transmission device is closer to the longitudinal axis than the outermost part of the pulley as taught by Esguerra in the device of Rockrohr so that the cable can be doubled back about 180 degrees and operate as a pulley.
PNG
media_image2.png
768
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rockrohr and Esguerra do not disclose wherein the pulley is arranged such that a first straight line connecting a longitudinal axis of the end effector unit and an outermost point of the cable folded back by the pulley, and a second straight line connecting the longitudinal axis and a center of the linear motion transmission device have different rotation positions about the longitudinal axis.
Ishihara’s invention relates to a treatment tool unit including a distal end portion such as grasping forceps used in a surgery, a medical treatment tool including the treatment tool unit, and a surgical system. Referring to FIG. 8, the actuation mechanism 15A includes a plurality of actuation units 101. The actuation unit 101 includes a first gear 61, a second gear 62 engaged with the first rod 13a, a third gear 63 engaged with the second rod 13b (point of cable folded back), and a receiving member which is a part of a transmitting portion 75A for rotating the first gear 61 (¶[0094]). The second gear 62 and the third gear 63 engage with the first gear 61 (¶[0098]). The actuator 51 (linear motion transmission device) rotates the first gear 61A via the transmitting portion 75A in accordance with a control signal transmitted from the patient-side apparatus 1 shown in FIG. 1 (¶[0113]). See annotated Fig. 9 below where elements 61 and 62/63 have different rotational positions about the longitudinal axis which is orthogonal to this figure.
PNG
media_image3.png
355
413
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to orient the component connected to the cable and the linear motion transmission device at different rotational positions about the longitudinal axis as taught by Ishihara in the device of Rockrohr and Esguerra in order to engage with gears for transmission of motion and actuation of the end effector.
MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) states “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to arrange the pulley and linear transmission device in the claimed orientation in order to make an operating pulley system.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockrohr, Esguerra, and Ishihara (hereinafter referred to as “modified Rockrohr”) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Mowry (Toolbox, published Apr. 9, 2020).
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Rockrohr teaches the end effector unit of claim 1.
Modified Rockrohr does not disclose wherein the linear motion transmission device is guided in linear traveling motion by at least two bearings, including a plain bearing, arranged in the longitudinal direction, and the rotation suppression device is attached to the linear motion transmission device at an intermediate position between positions where the rotation suppression device is supported by any two of the bearings.
Mowry discusses considerations to keep in mind when using slide/plain bearings in linear sliding applications. Slide bearings provide many benefits, such as the lack of external lubrication & maintenance, lower-weight, corrosion-resistance, and lower-cost, just to name a few. Further, for new designs, this is usually solved by spacing the bearings out further along the rails and making sure that the guide rail closest to the drive force uses fixed bearings while the other rail uses floating bearings (two or more bearings arranged in a longitudinal direction; see image below).
PNG
media_image4.png
344
394
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to guide the linear transmission device with at least two plain bearings as taught by Mowry in the device of modified Rockrohr because this is a popular method of producing linear motion and provides many benefits, such as the lack of external lubrication & maintenance, lower-weight, corrosion-resistance, and lower-cost.
Mowry does not disclose the rotation suppression device is attached to the linear motion transmission device at an intermediate position between positions where the rotation suppression device is supported by any two of the bearings.
MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) discusses rearrangement of parts: “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice)”. Therefore, this feature would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for rearrangement of parts to put the rotational suppression device between the bearings provided since it does not provide any critical function as per the instant disclosure (¶[0065]). Further, shifting the positions do not change the operation of the device and this arrangement is merely a design choice.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily N Cirulnick whose telephone number is (571)272-9734. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5:30 and every other F 8-4:30ET.
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.
/E.N.C./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights