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 amendment filed 07/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted and filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 07/30/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shelton, IV (US 20200405294 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shelton, IV (US 20200405294 A1) in view of Gomez et al. (US 20190201034 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Shelton, IV discloses medical instrument (600), comprising: an elongate shaft (630) rotatable about a first axis (AA); a handle (610 and/or 656/667) coupled to a proximal portion (620/640) of the elongate shaft (630);
an axle (657) rotatably mounted to the handle and configured so that rotation of the axle (657) about a second axis (parallel axis of 657, fig. 19) causes the elongate shaft (630) to rotate about the first axis (figs. 19-21); and
an axle catch (660/662) disposed at least partially within the handle (proximal portion within 610/667, figs. 19-21), the axle catch being actuatable about a third axis (SA) relative to the axle between a locked position, in which the axle catch impedes rotation of the axle, and an unlocked position, in which the axle catch permits rotation of the axle ([0140-0144], figs. 19-21),
wherein mounting the handle on a robotic manipulator causes the axle catch to automatically transition from the locked position to the unlocked position (functional/intended use – capable of having instrument 600 handle pushed against the robotic manipulator so that the handle moves the catch).
In the alternative, if it can be argued that mounting the handle on a robotic manipulator causes the axle catch to automatically transition from the locked position to the unlocked position is a structural feature and requires a “robotic manipulator” –
Gomez et al. teaches mounting a handle (402) on a robotic manipulator (102) causes an axle catch (402) to automatically transition from a locked position to the unlocked position and shows in figs. 4-7 with an actuator 425 that rotates 402 [0120-0127], fig. 4 and shows an operator adjusting 402 with the arm (fig. 7) and Gomez et al. also teaches having electronic actuation module interface 508 to operating actuators to have “actuation module 402 to effect the insertion motion 424 and the end effector actuation” ([0112-0120, 0133], figs. 1-7).
Given the teachings of Shelton, IV to have a articulating shaft via a handle, it 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 to modify the mounting the handle on a robotic manipulator to cause the axle catch to automatically transition from the locked position to the unlocked position and use the manipulator of Gomez et al. to aid in adjusting the handle to have precise adjustment of the tool, provide leverage for moving the handle or automated movement of the handle and more precise action on a workpiece (avoid overshoot/damage to tissue) and/or for automation purposes as taught by Gomez et al.
Regarding claims 2-4, 9, and 12, Shelton, IV discloses the axle catch further comprises a key (669) configured to engage with a mating feature (655) of the axle when in the locked position to restrict rotation of the axle (figs. 19-21), wherein the axle catch is actuatable by linearly translating the axle catch along the third axis the key of the axle catch is configured to enter the mating feature of the axle in an axial direction as the axle catch is linearly translated, wherein the axle catch is linearly translated in a direction parallel to the second axis and wherein the axle (657) further includes a plurality of features (662/663) engageable with a translator (spring 670) that transfers the rotation of the axle to the elongated shaft ([0140-0144], figs. 19-21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-8, 10, and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a medical instrument comprising all the structural and functional limitations and further comprising, amongst other limitations/features, an elongate shaft defining a roll axis; and a handle coupled to the elongate shaft, the handle comprising: a robotic drive input operable to rotate the elongate shaft with respect to the handle about the roll axis; and an axle rotatably mounted to the handle and configured so that rotation of the axle causes the elongate shaft to rotate about an axis of the elongate shaft; and an axle catch disposed at least partially within the handle, the axle catch being actuatable between a locked position, in which the axle catch impedes rotation of the axle, and an unlocked position, in which the axle catch permits rotation of the axle, wherein mounting the handle on a robotic manipulator causes the axle catch to automatically transition from the locked position to the unlocked position wherein the axle catch is configured to be actuated in a direction parallel to an axis of the axle wherein the axle catch includes one or more alignment pin channels that have axes that are parallel with the axis of the axle and are configured to have respective alignment pins disposed at least partially therein, the respective alignment pins guiding linear translation of the axle catch in the direction parallel to the axis of the axle. Though Widenhouse et al. (US 20220361886 A1) teaches a handle with axle catch system to lock the axle Widenhouse et al. fails to disclose the axle catch includes one or more alignment pin channels that have axes that are parallel with the axis of the axle and are configured to have respective alignment pins disposed at least partially therein, the respective alignment pins guiding linear translation of the axle catch in the direction parallel to the axis of the axle and one of ordinary skill would recognize that adding one or more alignment pin channels that have axes that are parallel with the axis of the axle and are configured to have respective alignment pins disposed at least partially therein, the respective alignment pins guiding linear translation of the axle catch in the direction parallel to the axis of the axle would require rearrangement of the axle catch member and handle to have a pin locking system. Having the efficiency and precise limiting of stopper member/axle catch to stop rotation of the axle provides a lockout feature with one or more alignment pin channels that have axes that are parallel with the axis of the axle and are configured to have respective alignment pins disposed at least partially therein, the respective alignment pins guiding linear translation of the axle catch in the direction parallel to the axis of the axle that prevents inadvertent use/activation and a safer driving system for clamping/firing of fasteners in a surgical area.
While various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See references cited, form 892.
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 ROBERT LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, 8-9pm (EST).
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights