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 .
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.
Status of the Claims
The current office action is made responsive to claims filed 01/10/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. A complete action on the merits appears below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 7-12, and 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinno (US 20130012959 A1) in view of Yanagihara (US 20160030120 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jinno teaches a manipulation part (Fig. 19-20; manipulator main body 11) of a surgical instrument (Fig. 19; medical manipulator 10), the manipulation part comprising:
a handle (Fig. 19; grip handle 26); and
an actuation manipulation part ([0176]- [0177]) that is disposed on one side of the handle, and controls an actuation motion of an end tool including at least one jaw,
wherein the actuation manipulation part comprises:
a grip lever (Fig. 19; trigger lever 36) that rotates around an actuation rotation shaft (Fig. 19; trigger shaft 39);
a grip gear (Fig. 19-20; drive element 472) that rotates around the actuation rotation shaft in response to rotation of the grip lever ([0177]);
a pulley gear (Fig. 19-20; driven element 474) that is engaged with the grip gear ([0177]).
However, Jinno fails to teach the actuation manipulator part comprising:
a grip pulley that rotates around a grip pulley rotation shaft, in response to rotation of the pulley gear, and has at least one wire connected thereto, and
the grip pulley transmits power to the end tool through the at least one wire connected to the grip pulley by the rotation around the grip pulley rotation shaft.
Jinno instead teaches the medical manipulator as including a rotation detector that detects rotation around a shaft (Fig. 20; shaft 480) which is directly connected to the gear which is driven (Fig. 19-20; driven element 474), in response to the rotation of said gear ([0177]) and is connected to the end tool to control the movement and position of the tip operating unit ([0180]- [0182], [0184]).
Yanagihara teaches a device for insertion into the body of a patient, where the positional movement of the distal portion of the device is controlled by a rotational movement of a drive unit ([0036]- [0041]).
Yanagihara further teaches the control of the movement of the distal end as being based on a pulley which rotates around the drive unit based on the movement of said drive unit and therefore moves a moveable part of the manipulator ([0039]- [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the element, such as the rotation detector, which controls a movement of a distal moveable portion of a medical device, based on the rotational movement of a controlled proximal element, as is taught by Jinno with the pulley which utilizes rotational movement to control the distal moveable portion of a medical device as is taught by Yanagihara, to produce the predictable result of using a drive unit to manipulate a distal portion, as is taught by Yanagihara, as it has been held that the substitution of one known element for another according to known methods to yield predictable results is an obvious modification. MPEP 2141(III).
Regarding claim 2, Jinno teaches the manipulation part of claim 1, wherein the actuation rotation shaft (Fig. 20; trigger shaft 39) is parallel to the grip pulley rotation shaft (Fig. 20; shaft 480).
Regarding claim 3, Jinno teaches the manipulation part of claim 1, wherein the grip lever comprises:
a rotating part (Fig. 2; ring portion 36c) to which the actuation rotation shaft is coupled (It should be understood within a broadest reasonable interpretation that all elements of an apparatus are “coupled to” all other elements, either directly, indirectly, electrically, etc. and therefore is taught as broadly as is currently claimed.) and which is formed in a disk shape having a certain diameter based on the actuation rotation shaft ([0065]); and
a grip part (Fig. 2; engageable protrusion 36d) that is a part extending from the rotating part and gripped by a user to transmit force to the grip lever ([0065]).
Regarding claim 4, Jinno teaches the manipulation part of claim 3, wherein the grip gear is formed along a circumference of the rotating part ( teaches this limitation as broadly as is currently claimed).
Regarding claim 5, Jinno teaches the manipulation part of claim 1, wherein the pulley gear is coupled to one side surface of the grip pulley to rotate integrally with the grip pulley ([0177]).
Regarding claim 7, Jinno teaches the manipulation part of claim 1, wherein when the grip lever rotates in a first direction, the grip gear rotates in the first direction, and the pulley gear and the grip pulley rotate in a second direction opposite to the first direction ([0176]- [0178], [0187]).
Regarding claim 8, Jinno teaches the manipulation part of claim 1, wherein when the grip lever rotates, a rotating force transmitted to the grip pulley and a rotation angle displacement of the grip pulley vary depending on a ratio of a diameter of the pulley gear to a diameter of the grip gear (In accordance with MPEP 2114 this currently taught structure of the drive element, the trigger lever, and the driven element, would have the properties which perform the function of this claim limitation, as this limitation is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention, and as this prior art structure is capable of performing this intended use based on the recited characteristics of this element, currently reads on the provided claim limitation, unless otherwise shown that the prior art does not possess these characteristics).
Regarding claim 9, Jinno teaches a surgical instrument (Fig. 19; medical manipulator 10) comprising:
an end tool (Fig. 19; tip operating unit 12) that comprises a first jaw and a second jaw each formed to be rotatable (Fig. 19; end effector 300), and is rotatable in at least two directions ([0064]);
a manipulation part (Fig. 19-20; manipulator main body 11) that controls rotation of the end tool in the at least two directions;
a power transmission part that comprises a first jaw wire connected to the manipulation part to transmit rotation of the manipulation part to the first jaw, and a second jaw wire connected to the manipulation part to transmit the rotation of the manipulation part to the second jaw ([0067]); and
a connection part (Fig. 19; shaft 18) that has one end portion coupled to the end tool and another end portion coupled to the manipulation part, such that the manipulation part and the end tool are connected to each other ([0057]),
wherein the manipulation part (Fig. 19; operating unit 14) comprises:
a handle (Fig. 19; grip handle 26); and
an actuation manipulation part ([0176]- [0177]) that is disposed on one side of the handle, and controls an actuation motion of the end tool comprising the first jaw and the second jaw,
the actuation manipulation part comprises:
a grip lever (Fig. 19; trigger lever 36) that rotates around an actuation rotation shaft (Fig. 19; trigger shaft 39);
a grip gear (Fig. 19-20; drive element 472) that rotates around the actuation rotation shaft in response to rotation of the grip lever ([0177]);
a pulley gear (Fig. 19-20; driven element 474) that is engaged with the grip gear ([0177]).
However, Jinno fails to teach the actuation manipulation part comprising:
a grip pulley that rotates around a grip pulley rotation shaft, in response to rotation of the pulley gear, and has at least one wire connected thereto, and
the grip pulley transmits power to the end tool through the at least one wire connected to the grip pulley by the rotation around the grip pulley rotation shaft.
Jinno instead teaches the medical manipulator as including a rotation detector that detects rotation around a shaft (Fig. 20; shaft 480) which is directly connected to the gear which is driven (Fig. 19-20; driven element 474), in response to the rotation of said gear ([0177]) and is connected to the end tool to control the movement and position of the tip operating unit ([0180]- [0182], [0184]).
Yanagihara teaches a device for insertion into the body of a patient, where the positional movement of the distal portion of the device is controlled by a rotational movement of a drive unit ([0036]- [0041]).
Yanagihara further teaches the control of the movement of the distal end as being based on a pulley which rotates around the drive unit based on the movement of said drive unit and therefore moves a moveable part of the manipulator ([0039]- [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the element, such as the rotation detector, which controls a movement of a distal moveable portion of a medical device, based on the rotational movement of a controlled proximal element, as is taught by Jinno with the pulley which utilizes rotational movement to control the distal moveable portion of a medical device as is taught by Yanagihara, to produce the predictable result of using a drive unit to manipulate a distal portion, as is taught by Yanagihara, as it has been held that the substitution of one known element for another according to known methods to yield predictable results is an obvious modification. MPEP 2141(III).
Regarding claim 10, Jinno teaches the surgical instrument of claim 9, wherein the actuation rotation shaft (Fig. 20; trigger shaft 39) is parallel to the grip pulley rotation shaft (Fig. 20; shaft 480).
Regarding claim 11, Jinno teaches the surgical instrument of claim 9, wherein the grip lever comprises:
a rotating part (Fig. 2; ring portion 36c) to which the actuation rotation shaft is coupled (It should be understood within a broadest reasonable interpretation that all elements of an apparatus are “coupled to” all other elements, either directly, indirectly, electrically, etc. and therefore is taught as broadly as is currently claimed.) and which is formed in a disk shape having a certain diameter based on the actuation rotation shaft ([0065]); and
a grip part (Fig. 2; engageable protrusion 36d) that is a part extending from the rotating part and gripped by a user to transmit force to the grip lever ([0065]).
Regarding claim 12, Jinno teaches the surgical instrument of claim 9, wherein the pulley gear is coupled to one side surface of the grip pulley to rotate integrally with the grip pulley ([0177]).
Regarding claim 15, Jinno teaches the surgical instrument of claim 9, wherein the grip pulley is rotated by the grip lever in any one direction to enable an opening or closing motion of the first jaw and the second jaw ([0176], [0187]).
Regarding claim 16, Jinno teaches the surgical instrument of claim 15, wherein at least a portion of the first jaw wire and at least a portion of the second jaw wire are fixedly wound around a pulley ([0075]).
In accordance with the above rejection of claim 9, Yanagihara teaches the pulley being the grip pulley ([0040]- [0041]).
Regarding claim 17, In accordance with the above rejection of claim 9, Yanagihara teaches the wire for the distal tip as comprising a pair of wires, the pair of wires being wound around the grip pulley in a first direction while another one is wound around the grip pulley in a second direction opposite to the first direction ([0040]- [0041]).
Further, in accordance with the above rejection of claim 9, Jinno teaches the distal portion as being the first jaw or the second jaw ([0092]).
Regarding claim 18, Jinno teaches the surgical instrument of claim 17, wherein when the grip lever rotates in the first direction, the grip gear rotates in the first direction, and the pulley gear and the grip pulley rotate in the second direction opposite to the first direction ([0177]).
In accordance with the above rejection of claim 9, Yanagihara teaches the wire wound in the second direction is wound around the grip pulley and the wire wound in the first direction is unwound from the grip pulley, in response to the rotation of the grip pulley, so as to cause a rotational motion of the distal portion ([0040]- [0041]).
Further, in accordance with the above rejection of claim 9, Jinno teaches the distal portion as being first jaw or the second jaw ([0092]).
Regarding claim 19, Jinno teaches the surgical instrument of claim 16, wherein the first jaw wire comprises a first strand ([0073]- [0075]),
the second jaw wire comprises a third strand ([0073]- [0075]).
While Jinno does not explicitly teach the wire as comprising multiple strands as a pair of wires, such as first and second or third and fourth strands there is no evidence that more than one strand makes a meaningful difference to the function of the device compared to the currently taught strand and it has been held that a duplication of parts is an obvious modification, as the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
In accordance with the above rejection of claim 9, in view of this currently provided modification Yanagihara teaches the first strand is wound around the grip pulley in a first direction, and the second strand is wound in a second direction opposite to the first direction ([0040]- [0041] teach the two sections of the wire as being provided on opposing sides and therefore being wound in opposite directions as broadly as is currently claimed), and
the third strand is wound around the grip pulley in the first direction, and the fourth strand is wound in the second direction opposite to the first direction ([0040]- [0041] teach the two sections of the wire as being provided on opposing sides and therefore being wound in opposite directions as broadly as is currently claimed).
Regarding claim 20, Jinno teaches the surgical instrument of claim 9, wherein when the grip lever rotates, a rotating force transmitted to the grip pulley and a rotation angle displacement of the grip pulley vary depending on a ratio of a diameter of the pulley gear to a diameter of the grip gear (In accordance with MPEP 2114 this currently taught structure of the drive element, the trigger lever, and the driven element, would have the properties which perform the function of this claim limitation, as this limitation is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention, and as this prior art structure is capable of performing this intended use based on the recited characteristics of this element, currently reads on the provided claim limitation, unless otherwise shown that the prior art does not possess these characteristics).
Claims 6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinno (US 20130012959 A1) in view of Yanagihara (US 20160030120 A1) further in view of Grewe (US 20090099638 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Jinno as modified teaches the manipulation part of claim 1.
However, Jinno as modified fails to teach the manipulation part wherein the grip pulley comprises:
a first grip pulley coupled to one side with respect to the pulley gear, and a second grip pulley coupled to another side with respect to the pulley gear; and
the first grip pulley, the pulley gear, and the second grip pulley are integrally coupled together, so as to rotate around a same rotation shaft.
Jinno as modified instead only teaches a first grip pulley as being provided on one side of the pulley gear ([0179]).
Grewe teaches a device having a gear situated next to a pulley, where the gear uses rotation motion to control the linear motion of the pulley ([0029]).
Grewe further teaches that the pulley may be a single pulley, two pulleys, or more than two pulleys as may be desirable for the situation where the gear may be situated between two pulleys ([0029]- [0030]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the pulley situated next to the gear as being two pulleys which the gear is situated between, as is taught by Grewe, into the gear being situated next to the pulley as is taught by Jinno as currently modified, to produce the predictable result of using any number of pulleys as is desirable for the linear motion which is needed, as is taught by Grewe, as it has been held that the incorporation and/or combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is an obvious modification. MPEP 2141(III).
Further, while Jinno does not explicitly teach the grip pulley as being plural first and second grip pulleys, there is no evidence that more than one grip pulley makes a meaningful difference to the function of the device compared to the currently taught single grip pulley as is taught by Jinno as modified and it has been held that a duplication of parts is an obvious modification, as the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 13, Jinno as modified teaches the surgical instrument of claim 9.
However, Jinno as modified fails to teach the surgical instrument wherein the grip pulley comprises
a first grip pulley coupled to one side with respect to the pulley gear, and a second grip pulley coupled to another side with respect to the pulley gear, and
the first grip pulley, the pulley gear, and the second grip pulley are integrally coupled together, so as to rotate around a same rotation shaft.
Jinno as modified instead only teaches a first grip pulley as being provided on one side of the pulley gear ([0179]).
Grewe teaches a device having a gear situated next to a pulley, where the gear uses rotation motion to control the linear motion of the pulley ([0029]).
Grewe further teaches that the pulley may be a single pulley, two pulleys, or more than two pulleys as may be desirable for the situation where the gear may be situated between two pulleys ([0029]- [0030]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the pulley situated next to the gear as being two pulleys which the gear is situated between, as is taught by Grewe, into the gear being situated next to the pulley as is taught by Jinno as currently modified, to produce the predictable result of using any number of pulleys as is desirable for the linear motion which is needed, as is taught by Grewe, as it has been held that the incorporation and/or combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is an obvious modification. MPEP 2141(III).
Further, while Jinno does not explicitly teach the grip pulley as being plural first and second grip pulleys, there is no evidence that more than one grip pulley makes a meaningful difference to the function of the device compared to the currently taught single grip pulley as is taught by Jinno as modified and it has been held that a duplication of parts is an obvious modification, as the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 14, Jinno teaches the surgical instrument of claim 13, wherein the first jaw wire comprises a first strand ([0073]- [0075]),
the second jaw wire comprises a third strand ([0073]- [0075]).
While Jinno does not explicitly teach the wire as comprising multiple strands as a pair of wires, such as first and second or third and fourth strands there is no evidence that more than one strand makes a meaningful difference to the function of the device compared to the currently taught strand and it has been held that a duplication of parts is an obvious modification, as the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
In accordance with this modification, Jinno teaches the first strand of the first jaw wire and the fourth strand of the second jaw wire are connected to any one of the first grip pulley or the second grip pulley (It should be understood within a broadest reasonable interpretation that all elements of an apparatus are “connected to” all other elements, either directly, indirectly, electrically, etc. and therefore is taught as broadly as is currently claimed), and
the second strand of the first jaw wire and the third strand of the second jaw wire are connected to another one of the first grip pulley or the second grip pulley (It should be understood within a broadest reasonable interpretation that all elements of an apparatus are “connected to” all other elements, either directly, indirectly, electrically, etc. and therefore is taught as broadly as is currently claimed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY REGAN LANCASTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-4 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached on 571-272-1213. 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.
/L.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
