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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/25/2024 and 5/27/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because it includes reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1- 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prisco et al. (US 20150045814 A1).
Re. claim 1, Prisco discloses a push-pull assembly (see “push/pull instrument design” ¶. [0102] in curved cannula robotic surgical system shown in Figs. 6 and 8) for operably connecting a continuum robot (416 in Fig. 4C) with a controller (204),
the assembly comprising:
a pusher (“push/pull instrument design”) hypotube (“tension elements 804a,804b are 0.032-inch stainless steel hypotubes” ¶. [0103]) with a distal end extending towards the continuum robot (end effector 604), a proximal end extending towards the controller (“transmission mechanism 602 that receives a robotic actuation force” ¶. [0103]), and a hollow extending through at least a part of a longitudinal length thereof (force isolation component 610 is a vacuum arc remelt);
a support sleeve with a proximal end slidably maintained within the hollow of the pusher hypotube (support tubes 806a,806b, ¶. [0113]); and
a driving wire (Two tension elements 802a,802b) with a proximal end affixed to the pusher hypotube and a portion extending through the support sleeve (¶. [0113]).
Re. claim 2, Prisco discloses a hub body configured to maintain a distal end of the pusher hypotube (Fig. 8A); a hub guide hypotube (Fig. 8A); and at least one guide disc configured to support the hub guide hypotube (see disc 836 in Fig. 8C).
Re. claim 3, Prisco discloses wherein the controller includes at least one of an actuator (servo actuators in PSM 204a) and a handle configured to receive user manipulation (Fig. 13 shows “proximal bend 1306 provides clearance for, e.g., PSM 204b (alternatively, in a manual implementation, for the surgical instrument handles and the surgeon's hands” ¶. [0138]).
Re. claim 4, Prisco discloses a clamp rod configured to at least one of removably attach to the controller and/or electrically isolate the pusher hypotube from the controller (clamp rod 1009 that mates with the controller), wherein: the pusher hypotube is configured to affix to the clamp rod, and the clamp rod includes a hollow configured to cover a proximal end of the pusher hypotube (Fig. 10).
Re. claim 5, Prisco discloses a deformable member positioned within at least a portion of the hollow of the pusher hypotube (element 808a,808b), wherein the deformable member surrounds at least a portion of the driving wire (isolation component 610 is a coil tube).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
5. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 11- 14 and 16- 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Prisco et al. (US 20150045814 A1).
Re. claim 11, Prisco discloses a robotic apparatus (“robotic surgical system,” abstract) comprising:
a continuum robot (Fig. 4C) including a driving wire (802a,802b) and a distal section (distal end oriented towards a surgical site). In one embodiment, Prisco teaches “the instrument shaft remains flexible with no effective change in its designed stiffness or bend during pull/pull actuation, and the tension load on tension element 608 is effectively independent of shaft body 606 bending”¶. [0103]; however, in different embodiment, continuum robot is configured to change a posture and/or a pose (Fig. 10) in response to driving of the driving wire by a controller (“in some implementations the curved cannula is made of 304 stainless steel (work hardened), and the curved section 1004b is bent using, e.g., a bending fixture or a computer numerical controlled (CNC) tube bender” ¶. [0132]). Hence, it would have been obvious to change the bent radius of the continuum robot using a controlled tension in order to provide good sliding performance for the instrument shaft.
a hub body (force isolation component 610 is a vacuum arc remelt);
a pusher hypotube (“push/pull instrument design” and “tension elements 804a,804b are 0.032-inch stainless steel hypotubes” ¶. [0103]); and
a support sleeve extending at least partially through or across the hub body (support tubes 806a,806b, ¶. [0113]), wherein,
between the controller and the hub body, the driving wire is surrounded and supported by at least one of the support sleeve and the pusher hypotube (Fig. 8A).
Re. claim 12, Prisco discloses wherein the driving wire extends through a hub guide hypotube configured to maintain contact with the hub body when the controller drives the driving wire (Fig. 8A).
Re. claim 13, Prisco discloses wherein the controller includes at least one of an actuator and a handle configured to receive user manipulation (servo actuators in PSM 204a) and a handle configured to receive user manipulation (Fig. 13 shows “proximal bend 1306 provides clearance for, e.g., PSM 204b (alternatively, in a manual implementation, for the surgical instrument handles and the surgeon's hands” ¶. [0138]).
Re. claim 14, Prisco discloses at least one crimp configured to secure the pusher hypotube to the support sleeve (crimp 1009 that mates with the controller).
Re. claim 16, Prisco discloses wherein the pusher hypotube maintains a minimum overlap distance over the support sleeve when the controller retracts the driving wire (Fig. 8A).
Re. claim 17, Prisco discloses a clamp rod configured to at least one of removably attach to the controller and/or electrically isolate the pusher hypotube from the controller (clamp rod 1009 that mates with the controller), wherein: the pusher hypotube is configured to affix to the clamp rod, and the clamp rod includes a hollow configured to cover a proximal end of the pusher hypotube (Fig. 10)
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 6- 10, 15, and 18- 20 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.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAID BOUZIANE whose telephone number is (571)272-7592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-15:00.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at Colon-Santana. 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.
/SAID BOUZIANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights