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 .
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 7 July 2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-20 are currently pending and being examined.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7 July 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
693
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-3 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Green (US 2007/0276423).
Green teaches:
Claim 1: An end tool (170-fig.11) and shaft assembly (150L1-fig.10) comprising:
an extension shaft (150L1-fig.10) defining a first longitudinal axis (annotated fig.11); and
the end tool (170-fig.11) connected to one end portion of the extension shaft (see fig.10 showing 170 connected via 150L2 and 172; ¶[0049]-[0050]) and configured to perform a joint motion about a first rotational axis (172A-fig.1) perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis (164M-fig.11; ¶[0050]),
an internal shaft (150L2-fig.10) disposed inside the extension shaft (150L1-fig.10) and connected to the end tool (¶[0049]-[0050]),
wherein the internal shaft is configured to roll rotate about the first longitudinal axis and is configured to be roll-rotatable independently of the extension shaft (¶[0049]-[0050]),
wherein the end tool (170-fig.11) defines a second longitudinal axis based on an extension direction of the end tool (annotate fig.11), and is configured to perform a second roll rotational motion (166M-fig.11) using the second longitudinal axis as a rotational axis (¶[0050]) and a first roll rotational motion (158M-fig.11) using the first longitudinal axis as a rotational axis (¶[0050]), and
wherein the end tool is configured to be yaw-rotatable about the first rotational axis (164M-fig.11, ¶[0050]-[0051]) as the internal shaft moves forward or backward along the first longitudinal axis (156M-fig.11; ¶[0050]).
Claim 2: The end tool and shaft assembly of claim 1, wherein the second longitudinal axis (annotated fig.11) is configured to be movable relative to the first longitudinal axis (annotated fig.11) as the end tool performs the joint motion about the first rotational axis (172A-fig.1; ¶[0050]-[0051]).
Claim 3: The end tool and shaft assembly of claim 1, wherein the first roll rotational motion and the second roll rotational motion are performed independently of each other (¶[0050]).
PNG
media_image2.png
473
353
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Green teaches:
Claim 16: An end tool (170-fig.11) and shaft assembly (150L1-fig.10) comprising:
an extension shaft (150L1-fig.10) defining a first longitudinal axis (annotated fig.11);
an end tool (170-fig.11) connected to one end portion of the extension shaft (see fig.10 showing 170 connected via 150L2 and 172; ¶[0049]-[0050]); and
an internal shaft (150L2-fig.10) disposed inside the extension shaft (150L1-fig.10) and connected to the end tool (¶[0049]-[0050]),
wherein the end tool and shaft assembly has a first roll degree of freedom defined by the first longitudinal axis (158M-fig.11), a joint motion degree of freedom of the end tool rotating about a first rotational axis (172A-fig.11) different from the first longitudinal axis (164M-fig.11; ¶[0050]), and a second roll degree of freedom (166M-fig.11) defined by a second longitudinal axis based on an extension direction of the end tool (annotated fig.1 )), and
wherein the first roll degree of freedom, the joint motion degree of freedom, and the second roll degree of freedom are each individually drivable (¶[0050]),
wherein the internal shaft (156M-fig.11; ¶[0050]) is configured to roll rotate about the first longitudinal axis and is configured to be roll-rotatable indep0e12ndently of the extension shaft (¶[0049]-[0050]), and
wherein the end tool is configured to be yaw-rotatable about the first rotational axis (164M-fig.11; ¶[0050]-[0051]) as the internal shaft moves forward or backward along the first longitudinal axis (156M-fig.11; ¶[0050]).
PNG
media_image2.png
473
353
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Green teaches:
Claim 17: A surgical instrument (fig.11) comprising:
an extension shaft (150L1-fig.10) defining a first longitudinal axis (annotated fig.11);
an end tool (170-fig.11) connected to one end portion of the extension shaft (see fig.10 showing 170 connected via 150L2 and 172; ¶[0049]-[0050]) and configured to perform a joint motion about a first rotational axis (172A-fig.1) perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis (164M-fig.11; ¶[0050]);
an internal shaft (150L2-fig.10) disposed inside the extension shaft (150L1-fig.10) and connected to the end tool (¶[0049]-[0050]); and
a manipulation part (142-fig.11) connected to another end portion of the extension shaft and configured to manipulate an operation of the end tool (¶[0048]),
wherein the end tool defines a second longitudinal axis based on an extension direction of the end tool (annotated fig.11), and is configured to perform a second roll rotational motion (166M-fig.1) using the second longitudinal axis as a rotational axis and a first roll rotational motion using the first longitudinal axis as a rotational axis (¶[0049]-[0050]), and
wherein the end tool is configured to be yaw-rotatable about the first rotational axis (164M-fig.11; ¶[0050]-[0051]) as the internal shaft moves forward or backward along the first longitudinal axis (156M-fig.11; ¶[0050]).
Claim 18: The surgical instrument of claim 17,
wherein the surgical instrument has a first roll degree of freedom defined by the first longitudinal axis (158M-fig.11), a joint motion degree of freedom (164M-fig.11) of the end tool rotating about the first rotational axis different from the first longitudinal axis (¶[0050]), and a second roll degree of freedom defined by a second longitudinal axis based on the extension direction of the end tool (166M-fig.11), wherein
the manipulation part includes a first driving part configured to drive the first roll degree of freedom (¶[0049]-[0050]), a second driving part configured to drive the joint motion degree of freedom of the end tool (¶[0049]-[0051]), and a third driving part configured to drive the second roll degree of freedom (¶[0049]-[0050]),
and the first roll degree of freedom, the joint motion degree of freedom, and the second roll degree of freedom are each individually driven (¶[0050]).
Claim 19: The surgical instrument of claim 18, wherein the first driving part includes a mechanism configured to roll-rotate an entirety of the second driving part and the third driving part (¶[0049]-[0051]; figs.10-11).
Claim 20: The surgical instrument of claim 17, wherein when the end tool roll-rotates about the second longitudinal axis, a positional relationship between the second longitudinal axis and the manipulation part remains unchanged (¶[0050]).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US 2007/0276423) in view of Yates (US 2022/0387031).
Green teaches:
Claim 5: The end tool and shaft assembly of claim 4.
Green does not expressly teach wherein the end tool includes: a first hub connected to the extension shaft configured to be rotatable about the first rotational axis; and a link member at least partially disposed inside the first hub and configured to connect the internal shaft to the end tool.
However, Yates teaches an end tool (6012-fig.181) includes:
a first hub (6042-fig.181, at least 6125,6127-fig.182) connected to the extension shaft (6040-fig.181) configured to be rotatable about the first rotational axis (TA2-fig.182; ¶[0408]-[0409]); and
a link member (6120-fig.182) at least partially disposed inside the first hub (see fig.182 showing 6120 disposed between/inside of 6125) and configured to connect the shaft to the end tool (see fig.182; ¶[0403]-[0406]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Green, by the articulation joint, as taught by Yates, to enable the end effector to have almost 360° of movement while the tool in inserted endoscopically, to allow the surgeon to make adjustments easily while operating preventing possible further injury to the patient.
Green as modified by Yates further teaches:
Claim 6: The end tool and shaft assembly of claim 5, wherein the link member (Yates: 6120-fig.182) is configured to transmit a translational motion or a rotational motion of the internal shaft to the end tool (Yates: ¶[0403]-[0406]).
Claim 8: The end tool and shaft assembly of claim 6, wherein the link member (Yates: 6120-fig.182) is configured to transmit the translational motion or the rotational motion of the internal shaft to the end tool even when the end tool is in a yaw-rotated state (Yates: ¶[0403]-[0406]; Green: ¶[0050]-[0051]).
Claim 9: The end tool and shaft assembly of claim 5, wherein the end tool further includes:
a yaw pulley (Yates: 6127,6125-fig.182]) rotatable about the first rotational axis (Yates: ¶[0411]); and
a yaw wire (Yates: 6144,6146-fig.182) connected to the yaw pulley and configured to transmit a power to the yaw pulley (Yates: ¶[0410]-[0412]).
Claim 10: The end tool and shaft assembly of claim 9,
wherein the yaw pulley (Yates: 6127,6125-fig.182]) is coupled to the first hub (Yates: 6042-fig.181, at least 6127,6125-fig.182), and
wherein the end tool is configured to yaw rotatable in accordance with a rotation of the yaw pulley (Yates: ¶[0411]).
Claim 11: The end tool and shaft assembly of claim 10, wherein the internal shaft (Green: 156M-fig. 11; ¶[0050]) is configured to move forward or backward along the first longitudinal axis as an end tool yaw-rotates (Yates: TA2-fig.182, ¶[0408]-[0409]; Green: 164M-fig.11, ¶[0050]-[0051]).
Claim 12: The end tool and shaft assembly of claim 5,
wherein the end tool further includes a jaw assembly (Green: 170-fig.11, ¶[0050]; Yates: 6012-fig.181, ¶[0403]-[0404]) coupled to a distal end of the end tool and including one or more jaws (Green: 170-fig.11, ¶[0050]; Yates: 6012-fig.181, ¶[0403]-[0404]), and
wherein the link member (Yates: 6120-fig.182) connects the internal shaft (Yates: 6120-fig.182) to the jaw assembly (Green: 170-fig.11, ¶[0050]; Yates: 6012-fig.181, ¶[0403]-[0404]) and is configured to transmit a rotational motion of the internal shaft to the jaw assembly (Green: ¶[0050]).
Claim 15: The end tool and shaft assembly of claim 12, wherein the jaw assembly includes:
a first jaw including a staple cartridge (Yates: 2034-fig.83); and
a second jaw including an anvil (Yates: 2024-fig.83).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US 2007/0276423) in view of Yates (US 2022/0387031), further in view of Stroup (US 2013/0267936).
Green as modified by Yates teaches:
Claim 13: The end tool and shaft assembly of claim 12,
PNG
media_image3.png
341
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the end tool further includes a drive wire (Yates: 3880,3882-fig.140) connected to the one or more jaws and configured to rotate the one or more jaws (Yates: ¶[0356]),
wherein the link member (Yates: 6120-fig.182) includes a through hole (Yates: annotated fig.182) defined therein.
Green as modified by Yates does not expressly teach the drive wire extends toward the extension shaft through the through hole.
However, Stroup teaches a drive wire (60-fig.4A) extends toward the extension shaft (64-fig.4A) through the through hole (324-fig.14A-14D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Green and Yates, by having a through hole in the link members, as taught by Stroup, so the drive cables are protected from outside containments and are unable to get snagged during operation by outside elements.
Green as modified by Yates and Stroup further teaches:
Claim 14: The end tool and shaft assembly of claim 13,
wherein the end tool further includes a guide tube (Stroup: 90-fig.4A) configured to accommodate at least a portion of the drive wire (Stroup: at least ¶[0056] therein and configured to be bendable to a predetermined degree (Stroup: at least ¶[0053]), and
wherein the drive wire is connected to the one or more jaws through an inside of the guide tube (Stroup: ¶[0056]-[0058]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
(1) “[T]his is completely removed from a mechanism where an internal shaft, arranged concentrically inside an extension shaft, directly transmits mechanical rotational force. Rather, Green vaguely describes that it merely relies on motor means, not shown to implement such rotation. It only discloses an indirect driving method that relies entirely on a multi-link structure aligned in series axially with a plurality of drive motors (182, 184, 186) separately allocated outside each joint to achieve multi-degree-of-freedom movement.” (Remarks p. 16-17)
(2) “[T]he Examiner mapped the "extension shaft" and "internal shaft" of the claimed invention to the control arm (150L, 150Ll, 150L2) of Green, and the "end tool" to the surgical end effector (170). However, the control arm (150L) is merely a master controller operated by an operator (manipulation part) and is not a single assembly physically coupled to the end effector (170), which is the slave device actually inserted into a patient. (See paragraphs 48- 51 and Figs. 10-11 of Green.)” (Remarks p. 17)
(3) “In Green, the forward and backward movement (156M) of the manipulator's forearm (174) is merely an axial movement for inserting/deploying the entire mechanism. The joint motion (164M) of the wrist (172) is independently controlled by a separate wrist drive motor (184) and linkage. In short, Green completely lacks any mechanical coupling relationship that induces joint bending (Yaw) through the forward and backward movement of an internal shaft.” (Remarks p. 17)
(4) Applicant further argues that Yates and Stroup do not teach the claims limitations. (Remarks p. 18-21)
Examiner’s Responses:
(1) 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., direct transmitting of mechanical rotational 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). Green teaches the claims limitations as written.
(2) Green teaches the claims as written which merely requires an internal shaft within another shaft. It doesn’t matter that Green is merely a master controller. The claim also does not require it to be a single assembly directly physically coupled to the end effector. Green teaches the end tool connected to the extension shaft via 150L2 and 172 as shown in figures 10-11. This is similar to the present invention as shown in Applicant’s figure 6 the extension shaft is not directly connected to the end tool, but rather the internal shaft is directly connected to the end tool.
(3) 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., mechanical coupling relationship that induces joint bending (Yaw) through the forward and backward movement of an internal shaft) 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, the claims only require that the end tool can be moved forward/backward while the end tool is yaw-rotatable, which Green teaches.
(4) Examiner relies on Green to teach the claim limitations, see rejection above.
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 KATIE L GERTH whose telephone number is (303)297-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-4pm (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, 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.
/KATIE L GERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
