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 .
Response to Amendment
The cancellation of claims 2-3, and the amendments to claims 1, 5, 12, 13 in the response filed on 06/29/2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 4-13 remain pending in the application
Claims 2-3 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-13 are examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, regarding claim 1 Applicant argues that “Yoshie does not disclose a first parameter related to elastic”.
This is not persuasive at least because Yoshie is not used to teach that limitation (see current 103 rejection below).
On page 7, regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Yoshie does not disclose identifying at least one parameter based on data on a shape or movement of the scope”.
This is not persuasive at least in view of paragraphs 88,89, and 166 and Figs 10- 11. Fs is the identified parameter, seen in the paragraphs below.
[0088]- “the value of the force Fs … changes depending on the curved state of the treatment instrument channel of the endoscope 9, that is, including the curved state of the insertion section 10.”
[0089] –“the value of the force Fs is calculated by utilizing the information on the attitude, such as the curving of the insertion section 10 of the endoscope 9”.
[0166]- the force Fs acting on the active mechanism 5 at the distal end of the treatment instrument main body inserted in the treatment instrument channel is changed according to the attitude of the insertion section 10.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the shape or movement data must be an input, state that the parameter cannot be obtained under a no-load state) 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). Therefore, Yoshie does teach this limitation.
On page 8, regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the controlling step of claim 1 is not disclosed in Yoshie because Yoshie is a force-sensing apparatus that estimates an already-occurring external force and feeds it back to the operator.
This is not persuasive at least in view of paragraphs 71, and 91-92. The claim only broadly states “providing a force, calculated based on the force model, to the scope”. The force “Fo” of Yoshie is a force that is calculated using the force model “Fs”. The force “Fo” acts upon the scope, as [0071] of Yoshie states that “the force corresponding to the net external force acting on the distal end cup piece or the joint piece 11 of the active mechanism 5 is set as Fo”. This can be also seen in the paragraphs below:
[0091]- Further, in order to effect the rotation around joint shafts 11i' of the master section 2 in correspondence with the external force Fo, the CPU 26 respectively provides motor drivers 16i' with, for example, current instruction values corresponding to the external force Fo, so as to rotate the motors 14i'. The forces corresponding to the external force Fo are outputted by the rotation of the motors 14i' to the joint pieces 11i' of the master section 2, which correspond to the joint pieces 11i of the active mechanism 5.
[0092]- Then, the operator can sense the magnitude and direction of the external force Fo by the hand (finger) operating the master section 2, on the basis of the forces fed back to act on (drive) the distal end cup pieces or the joint pieces 11i', which correspond to the distal end cup pieces or the joint pieces 11i of the active mechanism 5.
The force Fo is provided scope and the active mechanism 5 through master section 2. The Merriam-Webster definition of “provide” is “to supply or make available” and Yoshie meet this definition. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., how the force must be provided, and the direction of the force) 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). Therefore, Yoshie does teach this limitation.
On page 8, Applicant argues similar arguments for claims 12 and 13. See examiner’s arguments above.
On page 8, Applicant argues Hane does not teach claims 4-7 because Hane’s bending stiffens serves a different function than Applicant’s invention.
This is not persuasive. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. Furthermore the “at least one parameter” of Hane is the value described in paragraphs [0136]-[0139] which is used in the calculation of the force. Clearly, the bending stiffness and mechanical characteristics are related to elasticity. Meriiam-Webster defines the term “related” as “connected by reason”. In addition, an estimation is a calculation. Furthermore, Applicant has not provided any specific arguments as to how Hane’s “estimation” is not a “calculation”. This is further explained in the paragraphs below which shows that the parameter of Hane is a component of the force model from which the force to be provided to the scope is calculated.
[0136] Such mechanical characteristics or the bending stiffness may be replaced with other quantitative expressions as long as the processing to be described later can be finally performed to obtain the force information.
[0137] In addition, it is not necessary to exactly store the mechanical characteristics or the bending stiffness of each segment, depending on the detection accuracy of the force. It may be represented by one value, or a number smaller than the number of segments may be stored. In addition, it may be an array or a function of values corresponding to the distance from the distal end or the proximal end of the endoscope insertion portion 12′ instead of each segment.
[0139]- For the mechanical characteristic or the bending stiffness of each segment, a value can be set for each individual of the endoscope insertion portion 12′. In addition, since the value of the mechanical characteristic or the bending stiffness can be changed, the latest value corresponding to the temporal change of the endoscope insertion portion 12′ can be used in the force calculation circuits 48 and 48A.
In addition, the claim does not recite how the parameter is “related to elasticity”. The claim does not recite what function the parameter must serve. The claim only broadly states that the scope is controlled based on a force “calculated based on the force model”, and does not provide and specifics as to how the calculation is performed.
On page 9, the Applicant argues claim 8, Nakao’s teachings are non-analogous and that there is no motivation to combine.
This is not persuasive. Nakao’s teachings are related to measuring the force applied to an elastic body in the medical field just as Yoshio and Hane. The examiner notes that a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention) (see MEPEP 2141.01(a)). Therefore, Nakao’s teachings are analogous to the other references. In regards to the motivation, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Yoshie and Hane, that teach measuring force, with the teachings of Nako, that teaches estimating a more accurate force. Furthermore, Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.
On page 10, applicant argues the “assembly state” limitation of claim 9 is mischaractierized.
This is not persuasive at least because Applicant has provided no specific arguments as to how Bowling fails to teach the claim language beyond merely asserting it does not. The term “assembly state” is a broad term, and the claim does not recite what an “assembly state” is. Therefore, Hane does teach this limitation.
On page 10, Applicant argues that Yoshie does not teach the backlash limitation.
This is not persuasive. The claim does not recite how “backlash” is used to determined the fourth parameter. It is unclear what degree of backlash the fourth parameter must have/not have. It is also unclear how the backlash relates to the angle of the scope to determine the fourth parameter. The specification does not state how much weight is given to the “backlash” when determining the fourth parameter. The examiner interprets “backlash” as being a range from none to a lot of backlash. Therefore, Yoshie does teach this limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 10, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2010/0030023 to Yoshie in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0335981 to Hane.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshie discloses a method of controlling an endoscopic scope, the method being performed by a computing device including at least one processor (7, 26, Fig. 1, [0038], [0060]), the method comprising: modeling a force required to control an endoscopic scope to provide power to the scope ([0059]-[0076]); identifying at least one parameter constituting a force model based on data on a shape or movement of the scope (see equations 1, 2, and 3 in [0059]-[0076]); and controlling the scope by providing a force, calculated based on the force model, to the scope ([0059]-[0076]), wherein the force required to control the scope is related to the shape or movement of the scope ([0059]-[0076]).
Yoshie fails to expressly teach wherein the at least one parameter includes a first parameter related to elasticity of the shape of the scope.
However, Hane teaches of a method (Hane: Fig. 1) wherein the at least one parameter includes a first parameter related to elasticity of the shape of the scope (HaneL [0064], [0082], [0133]-[0142]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yoshie so that the at least one parameter includes a first parameter related to elasticity of the shape of the scope, as taught by Hane. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of calculating the force information about the forces applied to the one or more positions of the endoscope ([0330] of Hane).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshie, in view of Hane, teaches the method of claim 3, and Yoshie further discloses wherein the force required to control the scope includes a frictional force of the scope (17i, Fig. 2, [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshie, in view of Hane, teaches the method of claim 1, and Yoshie further discloses wherein the force required to control the scope includes a frictional force of a motor that provides the power to the scope ([0059], [0068]).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshie, in view of Hane, teaches the method of claim 4, and Yoshie further discloses wherein the at least one parameter includes a second parameter related to friction of a wire within the scope (17i, Fig. 2, [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshie, in view of Hane, teaches the method of claim 5, and Yoshie further discloses wherein the at least one parameter includes a third parameter related to friction between components of the motor (see equations 1, 2, and 3 in [0059]-[0076]).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshie, in view of Hane, teaches the method of claim 1.
Yoshie, in view of Hane, fails to expressly teach wherein the at least one parameter constituting the force model further includes a fourth parameter related to an assembly state of the scope.
However, Hane further teaches of a method (Hane: Fig. 1) wherein the at least one parameter constituting the force model further includes a fourth parameter related to an assembly state of the scope (Hane: [0330]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yoshie, in view of Hane, so that the force model further includes a fourth parameter related to an assembly state of the scope, as taught by Hane. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of calculating the force information about the forces applied to the one or more positions of the endoscope ([0330] of Hane).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshie, in view of Hane teaches the method of claim 9, and Yoshie further discloses wherein the fourth parameter is determined according to an angle of the scope and backlash (Yoshie: [0057]).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshie, in view of Hane teaches the method of claim 1, and Yoshie further discloses wherein the force model is represented by a function of an angle of the scope, a speed of the scope, an acceleration of the scope, and a speed of a motor that provides the power (Yohsie: ([0059]-[0076]).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshie discloses a computer program stored in a computer-readable storage medium, the computer program performing operations for controlling an endoscopic scope when executed on one or more processors (7, 26, Fig. 1, [0038], [0060]), wherein the operations comprise operations of: modeling a force required to control the endoscopic scope to provide power to the scope ([0059]-[0076]); identifying at least one parameter constituting a force model based on data on a shape or movement of the scope (see equations 1, 2, and 3 in [0059]-[0076]); and controlling the scope by providing a force, calculated based on the force model, to the scope ([0059]-[0076], [0141]), wherein the force required to control the scope is related to the shape or movement of the scope ([0059]-[0076]).
Yoshie fails to expressly teach wherein the at least one parameter includes a first parameter related to elasticity of the shape of the scope.
However, Hane teaches of a method (Hane: Fig. 1) wherein the at least one parameter includes a first parameter related to elasticity of the shape of the scope (HaneL [0064], [0082], [0133]-[0142]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yoshie so that the at least one parameter includes a first parameter related to elasticity of the shape of the scope, as taught by Hane. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of calculating the force information about the forces applied to the one or more positions of the endoscope ([0330] of Hane).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshie discloses a computing device for controlling an endoscopic scope, the computing device comprising: a processor including at least one core (7, 26, Fig. 1, [0038], [0060]); and memory including a force model (27, Fig. 2, [0060]-[0076], [0141]), in which at least one parameter has been identified (see equations 1, 2, and 3 in [0059]-[0076]), and program codes executable on the processor (27, Fig. 2, [0060]-[0076], [0141]); wherein the processor controls the endoscopic scope (9, Fig. 1, [0037]) by providing a force ([0060]-[0076], [0141]), calculated based on the force model, to the scope([0060]-[0076], [0141]); wherein the force model includes a force required to control the scope to provide power to the scope([0060]-[0076], [0141]), wherein the force required to control the scope is related to the shape or movement of the scope ([0059]-[0076]).
Yoshie fails to expressly teach wherein the at least one parameter includes a first parameter related to elasticity of the shape of the scope.
However, Hane teaches of a method (Hane: Fig. 1) wherein the at least one parameter includes a first parameter related to elasticity of the shape of the scope (HaneL [0064], [0082], [0133]-[0142]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yoshie so that the at least one parameter includes a first parameter related to elasticity of the shape of the scope, as taught by Hane. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of calculating the force information about the forces applied to the one or more positions of the endoscope ([0330] of Hane).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshie and Hane and further in view of JP 2017000623 A to Nakao et al. (hereinafter “Nakao”).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshie, in view of Hane, teaches the method of claim 1.
Yoshie, in view of Hane, fails to expressly teach wherein identifying the at least one parameter comprises obtaining actual and estimated values of the force model and identifying at least one parameter that minimizes a residual difference between the actual and estimated values.
However, Nakao teaches of an analogous method wherein identifying the at least one parameter comprises obtaining actual and estimated values of the force model and identifying at least one parameter that minimizes a residual difference between the actual and estimated values (Nakao: page 5, 7, 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yoshie, in view of Hane, to utilize a parameter in the manner as taught by Nakao. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of estimating a more accurate external force (page 5 of Nakao).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTEN A. SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 6:00 AM - 2:00 PM, and Friday 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM.
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, Mike Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/C.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights