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 (IDS) dated 02/21/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the pulley portion of the second link" in line 2 and “the pulley portion” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is interpreting
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the toothed portion of the toothed link" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is interpreting “the toothed portion of the toothed link” to be directed to the “toothed circumferential profile” of the second link in accordance with the instant specification and claimset.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steege et al (US 20160113732 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Steege teaches a surgical instrument comprising an articulated end effector (100) comprising:
a support structure (102),
a first link (106) articulated to the support structure, wherein the first link and the support structure are rotatable about a first rotation axis (see [0109]; jaw base 106 is pivotably connected to the distal center joint element 104 via pins 122, 124 which define a secondary articulation axis; wherein jaw base 106 and distal joint base element 102 can rotate about center joint element 104; distal center joint element 104 is also pivotably connected to the distal joint base element 102 via a pin 120 which defines a primary articulation axis),
a second link (110) articulated to the first link (see [0109]; jaw 110 is pivotably connected to the jaw base 106 by jaw pin 116),
wherein the second link and the first link are rotatable about a second rotation axis jointly defining a degree of freedom of opening/closing of the articulated end effector (see Figs. 13-14, [0111]; jaw driver 108 has a cam feature 108f which engages a cam surface 110a of the jaw 110 wherein the cam surface drives the jaw to an open/closed position),
wherein:
the surgical instrument comprises a yaw actuation tendon (Cables W, X, Y, Z) for moving the first link (106) with respect to the support structure (see Figs. 15-16, [0113]; articulation of the end effector assembly 100 about its primary axis is produced by a WY/XZ motion; Figs. 17-18, [0114]; articulation of the end effector assembly 100 about its secondary axis is produced by a WX/YZ motion),
the first link (106) comprises an attachment root having a winding pulley portion with a radius centered on the first rotation axis (see Fig. 8, [0109]; the jaw base 106 is pivotably connected to the distal center joint element 104 via two pins 122, 124; wherein the attachment roots are pins 122/124 and their corresponding attachment holes, and the winding pulley is center joint element 104),
the yaw actuation tendon for moving the first link is wound around said winding pulley portion of the attachment root of the first link (see [0110]; four control cables W, X, Y, Z enter from the distal joint base element 102, pass around a horizontal or vertical round feature of distal center joint element 104 and enter jaw base 106); and
wherein:
the surgical instrument further comprises a closing actuation tendon (Cables W, X, Y, Z) for moving the second link (110) with respect to the first link (106) in a closing direction of the degree of freedom of opening/closing (see Figs. 13-14, [0112-0114]; opening the jaw 110 requires an XY/WZ motion and closing the jaw requires an WZ/ZY motion),
the second link comprises a circumferential actuation portion (108) having a working radius centered on the second rotation axis (see Fig. 14; wherein the pivot point at which jaw 110 rotates about cam 108f is considered to be the second rotation axis),
the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis are separated and disjoined from each other (see Fig. 13; wherein first rotation axis about joint element 104 and second rotation axis wherein jaw 110 rotates about cam 108s are separated and disjointed);
the working radius of the circumferential actuation portion of the second link is greater than the radius of the winding pulley portion of the attachment root of the first link (see Fig. 8; wherein the working radium of circumferential action portion 108 is greater than the radium of the winding pulley portion 104 of the attachment root of the first link 106).
Regarding claim 2, Steege teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 1, wherein the circumferential actuation portion (108) of the second link (110) is a pulley portion having a circumferential profile with a working radius centered on the second rotation axis (see Figs. 13-14, [0110-0111]; interactions between the jaw driver 108 and the jaw 110 by means of the cable elements controlling these elements; the circumferential actuation portion jaw driver 108 acts as a pulley portion having a working radius centered about the pivot point between cam surface 108f and cam surface 110a), and
wherein the closing actuation tendon for moving the second link is wound around said pulley portion of the second link (see Figs. 9-12, [0110]; cables W, X, Y, Z are fixed about the jaw driver 108 via retention features 108a, 108b, 108c, 108d).
Regarding claim 3, Steege teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 2, wherein the second link (110) comprises a body having a proximal tail (108), extending proximally to the second rotation axis, and
wherein said proximal tail comprises said pulley portion with the circumferential profile centered on the second rotation axis (see annotated Fig. 10 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
347
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Steege teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 3, wherein the proximal tail comprises, flanking the pulley portion, at least one return surface for returning the closing actuation tendon to move the second link (see annotated Fig. 10 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
347
779
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Steege teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 1,
comprising a pair of antagonistic actuation tendons (see [0110]; cables W & X and Y & Z are both considered to be antagonistic pairs because they are actually one continuous cable which work as two separate antagonistic cables),
comprising said closing actuation tendon, for moving the second link with respect to the first link with antagonistic effects (see [0114]; the jaw is opened by an XY/WZ motion and thus can be closed by an WZ/XY motion),
wherein both actuation tendons of the pair are wound around the pulley portion with a circumferential profile of the second link (see Figs. 9-12, [0110]; cables W, X, Y, Z are each wrapped about the jaw driver 108), and
wherein between the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis, the respective paths of the antagonistic actuation tendons for moving the second link forms a cross (see Fig. 12; wherein located between first axis 104 and second axis 108f/110a, antagonistic cables W and X form a cross).
Regarding claim 6, Steege teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 1,
wherein the articulated end effector (100) further comprises a sliding hub (106a) arranged proximally to the second link (see Fig. 12; wherein guiding feature 106a is arranged proximally to the second link), and
wherein the closing actuation tendon for moving the second link is wound around the sliding hub in longitudinal sliding contact (see Fig. 12, [0110]; cable W passes underneath the jaw base central guiding feature 106a and over the top of the jaw driver 108 before being fixed in place by a cable retention feature 108a, cable X passes over the jaw base central guiding feature 106a and under the jaw driver 108 before being fixed in place by a cable retention feature 108d).
Regarding link 7, Steege teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 1, wherein the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis are parallel and spaced apart (see annotated Fig. 10 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
347
779
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Steege teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 1, wherein the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis are parallel and spaced apart by a distance which is constant in every operating configuration of the articulated end effector (see annotated Fig. 10 below). It can be appreciated that the distance between the first and second rotation axis remains constant in every operating configuration because the elements which control the rotation are all affixed to jaw base 106 in a pivotable, but non slidable manner.
PNG
media_image3.png
347
779
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Steege et al (US 20160113732 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Steege teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 1, wherein the working radius of the pulley portion of the second link is greater than a transverse size thereof (see Figs. 9-10; wherein the working radius of the pulley portion 108 of the second link 110 appears to be greater than the transverse size thereof due to the pulley portion 108 spanning the entire diameter of the link housing 106 with its working radius but fitting within the housing with room on both sides in a transverse direction); and/or
wherein the working radius of the pulley portion is greater than a radius of a positioning shaft of the surgical instrument (see Fig. 8; wherein the working radius of the pulley 108 appears to span the diameter of the positioning shaft).
Additionally, in this instance the Examiner notes that a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device disclosed by Steege and pictures in Figs. 9-12. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious over and not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) which states: In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steege et al (US 20160113732 A1) in view of Yoshii (US 20190167368 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Steege teaches the surgical instrument according to claim 1. Steege is silent regarding wherein:
the circumferential actuation portion of the second link comprises a toothed circumferential profile having a working radius centered on the second rotation axis,
the articulated end effector comprises a toothed link mounted on the first rotation axis,
the toothed link comprises a circumferential toothed counter-portion centered on the first rotation axis and coupled to the toothed portion of the toothed link,
the toothed link further comprises a pulley portion with a winding radius centered on the first rotation axis,
the closing actuation tendon is wound around the pulley portion of the toothed link; and
wherein the working radius of the toothed circumferential profile of the second link is greater than the winding radius of the pulley portion of the toothed link.
Yoshii teaches a surgical instrument comprising an articulating end effector (10) comprising:
a support structure (30),
a first link (20) articulated to the support structure, wherein the first link and the support structure are rotatable about a first rotation axis (see Yoshii [0048]; the distal-end connector 31 is attached to a proximal-end side of the proximal-end portion 21B of the main body 21 and has a rotation transmitter 31A provided on a proximal-end side thereof, wherein the rotation transmitter 31A is angularly movable about the axis O30A),
a second link (11B) articulated to the first link,
wherein the second link (11B) and the first link (20) are rotatable about a second rotation axis (O20A) jointly defining a degree of freedom of opening/closing of the articulated end effector (see Yoshii [0038]; the pair of grippers 11 is configured to be opened or closed in the respective Y1 and Y2 directions about axis O20A);
wherein the surgical instrument further comprises a closing actuation tendon (25W/26W) for moving the second link with respect to the first link in a closing direction of the degree of freedom of opening/closing (see Yoshii [0043-0044]; the respective grippers 11A and 11B are opened and closed with respect to one another by operating the operating wire 25W and operating wire 26W),
the second link comprises a circumferential actuation portion having a working radius centered on the second rotation axis (see Yoshii Fig. 3, [0038]; gear 16 extending from second link 11B having a working radius centered about axis O20A);
wherein:
the circumferential actuation portion (16) of the second link (11B) comprises a toothed circumferential profile having a working radius centered on the second rotation axis (see Yoshii Fig. 3, [0038]; toothed gear 16 extending from second link 11B having a working radius centered about axis O20A);
the articulated end effector comprises a toothed link (31C) mounted on the first rotation axis (see Yoshii Figs. 8-9, [0050]; rotation transmitter 31A has a gear 31C including a sectorial region 31Cs about the axis O30A at its center and teeth formed on the arc of the sectorial region 31Cs),
the toothed link comprises a circumferential toothed counter-portion (31C) centered on the first rotation axis (O30A) and coupled to the toothed circumferential profile of the second link (see Yoshii; [0058]; the operating wires 25W and 26W extending from pulleys 25 and 26 are wound in the pulley grooves of pulleys 36A and 36B respectively; wherein the pulleys 36A and 36B are coupled to the toothed link 31C and operating wires 25W and 26W and pulleys 25 and 26 are coupled to the toothed circumferential profile 16, so the toothed link 31C and the toothed circumferential profile 16 are coupled via wires 25W and 26W),
the toothed link further comprises a pulley portion with a winding radius centered on the first rotation axis (see Yoshii Figs. 8-9, [0058]; pulleys 36A and 36B are configured on both sides of the rotation transmitter 31A in the Y1 direction, and have their central axes defined by axis O30A),
the closing actuation tendon (25W/26W) is wound around the pulley portion of the toothed link (see Figs. 8-9, [0058]; operating wire 25W extending from the pulley 25 is wound in the pulley groove of the pulley 36A and operating wire 26W extending from the pulley 25 is wound in the pulley groove of the pulley 36B).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Steege’s surgical instrument with the toothed articulation portions taught by Yoshii. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate articulation of the links about their respective axes using well understood and reliable mechanisms which allow for a medical instrument which is capable of operating with high precision and prevent situations where the instrument is rendered inoperable (Yoshii [0009]).
Yoshii is silent regarding the relative dimensions of the working radius of the toothed circumferential profile of the second link and the winding radius of the pulley portion of the toothed link, wherein the working radius of the toothed circumferential profile of the second link is greater than the winding radius of the pulley portion of the toothed link.
However, in this instance, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device disclosed by Yoshii at least because both devices define a toothed circumferential profile of the second link having a working radius and a pulley portion of the toothed link about the first rotational axis with a winding radius. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious over and not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) which states: In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Felder et al (US 20170252096 A1) which teaches various exemplary systems, devices, and methods for robotic bi-polar instruments.
Robinson et al (US 20180325611 A1) which teaches systems and methods related to reconfigurable end effector architecture.
Jinno (US 20090112230 A1) which teaches a robotic manipulator having an articulatable end effector.
Kapadia (US 20170231653 A1) which teaches systems and methods for robotically controlling mechanical advantage gripping.
Burbank (US 20210106330 A1) which teaches an end effector with redundant closing mechanisms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISHA J SIRCAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9-6:30, Friday 9-5:30 CT.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights