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 Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 under U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Odermatt et. al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0006267) hereinafter referred to as Odermatt; further in view of Fitzsimons et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0165649) hereinafter referred to as Fitzsimons.
The Fitzsimons reference teaches a graphical user interface and a mechanical arm disposed without physical connection and arranged on two sides of an operating table respectively (Fig. 1 may be remote or in close proximity as representatively depicted ¶[0049]), a first input device is disposed on a graphical user interface side and is operated by a first operator, and a second input device is disposed on a mechanical arm side and is operated by a second operator (Fig. 1, input devices ¶[0053] touch screen for example taking commands/inputs, ¶[0053] computing device configured to receive inputs and commands, ¶¶[0049-0050] multiple operators).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the input command and user operation of the system of Odermatt to include a multi-input environment, as taught by Fitzsimons, because Fitzsimons teaches a system which overcomes drawback including lack of autonomy, lack of configurability, cumbersome registration or bone monitoring workflows, and instead may improve access to and quality of surgical procedures (Fitzsimons, ¶[0026]).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Bowline reference have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odermatt et. al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0006267) hereinafter referred to as Odermatt; further in view of Fitzsimons et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0165649) hereinafter referred to as Fitzsimons.
In regard to claim 1, Odermatt teaches a motion control system for a mechanical arm (20), wherein a terminal end (Fig 1, [0011]) of the mechanical arm is adapted to carry an effector (23), and the method comprises steps of:
receiving a first control command (Fig. 6, 44) from a first input device (25 controller with software) . . . wherein the first control command is configured to control the mechanical arm to move according to a first movement mode (45);
receiving a second control command (Fig. 7, 71) from the first input device or a second input device ([0026] Controlling a robotic arm with a controller, 25, and a handle 26), wherein the second control command is configured to control the mechanical arm to enter a second movement mode (Fig 7, 72);
and receiving a third control command (Fig 7, 72) from the second input device (26), wherein the third control command is configured to control the effector to perform a predetermined movement (Fig 7, 72 “modify bone” requires movement of, i.e. the second movement mode, and surgical actuation, i.e. the third movement mode, of end effector, 23).
wherein the first input device and the second input device are separated from each other or are provided to be separable from each other (Fig. 1 and 3, elements 25 and 26 are schematically diagramed as being separate but coupled to a robotic system 40). Odermatt fails to teach, receiving a first control command from a first input device by a graphical user interface. Bowling teaches, ([0090] 128 touch screen display and user interface 130 controls presentation of information and processes and passes commands entered through display to the controller).
Odermatt does not teach the graphical user interface and the mechanical arm are disposed without physical connection and are arranged on two sides of an operating table respectively, the first input device is disposed on a graphical user interface side and is operated by a first operator, and the second input device is disposed on a mechanical arm side and is operated by a second operator.
Attention is drawn to the Fitzsimons reference, which teaches a graphical user interface and a mechanical arm disposed without physical connection and arranged on two sides of an operating table respectively (Fig. 1 may be remote or in close proximity as representatively depicted ¶[0049]), a first input device is disposed on a graphical user interface side and is operated by a first operator, and a second input device is disposed on a mechanical arm side and is operated by a second operator (Fig. 1, input devices ¶[0053] touch screen for example taking commands/inputs, ¶[0053] computing device configured to receive inputs and commands, ¶¶[0049-0050] multiple operators).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the input command and user operation of the system of Odermatt to include a multi-input environment, as taught by Fitzsimons, because Fitzsimons teaches a system which overcomes drawback including lack of autonomy, lack of configurability, cumbersome registration or bone monitoring workflows, and instead may improve access to and quality of surgical procedures (Fitzsimons, ¶[0026]).
Regarding claim 2, Odermatt as modified teaches claim 1.
Odermatt additionally teaches: inputting a fourth control command through the first input device ([0032] button selection in controller, 25, software) or the second input device (26), wherein the fourth control command is configured to control the mechanical arm to stop moving according to the first movement mode ([0032] hardware switch and button may both be used to activate/deactivate passive or active control).
Regarding claim 3, Odermatt as modified teaches the motion control method according to claim 1.
Odermatt does not teach: the step of receiving the first control command from the first input device by the graphical user interface comprises: receiving a pre-control command by the graphical user interface to provide a first control interface set, wherein the first control interface set is configured to receive the first control command from the first input device.
Attention is drawn to the Fitzsimons reference, which teaches receiving the first control command from the first input device by the graphical user interface comprises: receiving a pre-control command by the graphical user interface to provide a first control interface set, wherein the first control interface set is configured to receive the first control command from the first input device (¶[0051], Fig. 2, ¶[0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the input command and user operation of the system of Odermatt to include a multi-input environment, as taught by Fitzsimons, because Fitzsimons teaches a system which overcomes drawback including lack of autonomy, lack of configurability, cumbersome registration or bone monitoring workflows, and instead may improve access to and quality of surgical procedures (Fitzsimons, ¶[0026]).
Regarding claim 4, Odermatt as modified teaches the motion control method according to claim 1.
Odermatt teaches further comprising a step of: after the execution of the third control command is completed (Fig. 6 after 43), providing . . . by the software, . . . to receive the first control command (Fig. 6 Enter programmed control mode 51, then arrow pointing back to 45, generate course/virtual boundary for tool to follow) from the first input device([0029] and fig. 6 dashed line pathway, The system is switched back to programmed control at step 51, then the controller generates a new course and boundary for the tool to follow).
Odermatt does not teach: the step of receiving the first control command from the first input device by the graphical user interface comprises: receiving a pre-control command by the graphical user interface to provide a first control interface set, wherein the first control interface set is configured to receive the first control command from the first input device.
Attention is drawn to the Fitzsimons reference, which teaches receiving the first control command from the first input device by the graphical user interface comprises: receiving a pre-control command by the graphical user interface to provide a first control interface set, wherein the first control interface set is configured to receive the first control command from the first input device (¶[0051], Fig. 2, ¶[0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the input command and user operation of the system of Odermatt to include a multi-input environment, as taught by Fitzsimons, because Fitzsimons teaches a system which overcomes drawback including lack of autonomy, lack of configurability, cumbersome registration or bone monitoring workflows, and instead may improve access to and quality of surgical procedures (Fitzsimons, ¶[0026]).
Regarding claim 5, Odermatt as modified teaches the motion control method according to claim 1.
Odermatt further teaches, the first movement mode is that the mechanical arm moves from a current position to a target position under a driving of its own power ([0029] in the active (under the arms own power) programmed control mode, at fig. 6 step 45, the controller will generate a course, path, or virtual boundary to follow); and/or, the second movement mode is that the mechanical arm is configured so that its terminal end can be translated in a predetermined plane and rotated about a normal line of the plane ([0027] in the passive, programmed control mode 51, the robot arm cannot move under its own power, but is still, [0029] constrained within a boundary that can also be a plane) under a driving of an external force ([0027] in the passive, programmed control mode the robot arm cannot move autonomously).
Regarding claims 6-10, the claims are directed to a system comprising substantially the same subject matter as claims 1-5 and are rejected under substantially the same sections of Odermatt and Fitzsimons.
Regarding claims 11 and 17, Odermatt as modified teaches the motion control system for a mechanical arm according to claim 6/12.
Odermatt fails to teach, the first input device is a voice input module, a mechanical button, a mechanical rocker or a wireless remote controller.
Attention is brought to the Fitzsimons reference, which teaches a first input device is a voice input module, a mechanical button, a mechanical rocker or a wireless remote controller (¶[0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the input command and user operation of the system of Odermatt to include a multi-input environment, as taught by Fitzsimons, because Fitzsimons teaches a system which overcomes drawback including lack of autonomy, lack of configurability, cumbersome registration or bone monitoring workflows, and instead may improve access to and quality of surgical procedures (Fitzsimons, ¶[0026]).
Regarding claim 12, Odermatt as modified teaches the surgical system according to claim 12.
Odermatt further teaches teaches the surgical system further comprises a mechanical arm (20), a control system (25) and a positioning system ([0031] tracking arrays placed on the patient and software of the controller), the positioning system is configured to locate spatial orientation information of the mechanical arm ([0031] Locations of the patient’s bone as well as the surgical tool 23 are registered with the software of the controller), and the control system is configured to control a movement of the mechanical arm ([0031] After registration at step 67, arm (20) and surgical tool (20) are moved with active, passive, or manual control) based on the spatial orientation information.
Regarding claim 13, Odermatt as modified teaches the surgical system according to claim 12.
Odermatt additionally teaches: the first input device ([0032] button selection in controller, 25, software) and the second input device ([0032] a hardware switch) are further configured to input a fourth control command, and the fourth control command is configured to control the mechanical arm to stop moving according to the first movement mode ([0032] hardware switch and button may both be used to activate/deactivate passive or active control).
Regarding claims 14-16, the claims are directed to a system comprising substantially the same subject matter as claims 3-5 and is rejected under substantially the same sections of Odermatt and Fitzsimons.
Regarding claims 18-19, Odermatt as modified teaches the motion control method according to claim 1.
Odermatt further teaches wherein the first movement mode is that the mechanical arm moves from a current position to a target position under a driving of its own power (¶[0011] partial programmed control mode), and the second movement mode is that the mechanical arm is configured so that its terminal end can be translated in a predetermined plane and rotated about a normal line of the plane under a driving of an external force (¶[0026], ¶¶[0029-0030] subject to predetermined motion limitations).
Odermatt does not teach wherein the predetermined action is that an oscillating saw starts to oscillate according to a predetermined frequency and amplitude.
Attention is brought to the Fitzsimons reference, which teaches a predetermined action is that an oscillating saw starts to oscillate according to a predetermined frequency and amplitude (¶[0082]) and a mechanical arm configured so that its terminal end can be translated in a predetermined plane and rotated about a normal line of the plane under a driving of an external force (¶[0030], ¶[0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the input command and user operation of the system of Odermatt to include a multi-input environment, as taught by Fitzsimons, because Fitzsimons teaches a system which overcomes drawback including lack of autonomy, lack of configurability, cumbersome registration or bone monitoring workflows, and instead may improve access to and quality of surgical procedures (Fitzsimons, ¶[0026]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0323540 to Kang et al. teaches a wireless remote multiple control setup.
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 AMANDA L STEINBERG whose telephone number is (303)297-4783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-4.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights