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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/06/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 7-13, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Post US 20170128136 A1 (“Post”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Post US 20170128136 A1 (“Post”) in combination with Staunton et al. US 20180168750 A1 (“Staunton”). Similarly, all dependent claims are now also rejected in view of Post in combination with Staunton.
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) 1-2, 4-12, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Post US 20170128136 A1 (“Post”) in combination with Staunton et al. US 20180168750 A1 (“Staunton”).
Regarding Claim 1. Post teaches a control system of a surgical robot arm, the surgical robot arm comprising a series of joints by which the configuration of that surgical robot arm can be altered and one or more torque sensors (FIG. 3 shows a robotic surgical system, with a method of operating the surgical system [paragraph 8]. The method includes determining with the controller an expected joint torque for the at least one joint. The controller compares the expected joint torque to an actual joint torque of the at least one joint to determine a joint torque difference), each torque sensor configured to sense a torque at a joint of the series of joints (A position sensor, such as an encoder in FIG. 5 at 26, measures the joint angle of each respective joint [paragraph 33]. In some embodiments, two encoders, one for the joint motor and one for the link at 20 being moved can be used to determine the joint angle), the control system being configured to control the configuration of the surgical robot arm to be altered in response to an externally applied force or torque by:
receiving sensory data from the one or more torque sensors indicative of a sensed torque state of the surgical robot arm resulting from the externally applied force or torque (paragraph 33);
selecting a torque state of a set of candidate torque states by mapping the sensed torque state to the selected torque state of the set of candidate torque states (Force control in robotics is conventionally implemented using either impedance control or admittance control. One example of an impedance control feedback loop is illustrated in FIG. 1. With impedance control, positions of the joints of the robot are inputted into the controller and joint torques for controlling movement of the robot are outputted and applied. In other words, the impedance controller determines position and applies (or commands) force/torque. In FIG. 1, the impedance controller applies specific joint torques to the joints [paragraph 3]. In one embodiment, and as shown in FIG. 6, the controller 40 is configured to determine the appropriate joint angles to command for the joints 22 based on the output of the virtual simulation 42. That is, the controller 40 computes the commanded joint angle for each of the joints 22 in response to the input force [paragraph 51]. From here, the controller 40 regulates the joint angle of each joint 22 and continually adjusts the torque that each joint motor 24 outputs to, as closely as possible, ensure that the joint motor 24 drives the associated joint 22 to the commanded joint angle [paragraph 52]); and
sending a command signal to the surgical robot arm to drive the robot arm such that the configuration of the robot arm is altered so as to comply with the selected torque state (The controller maps, in a Jacobian matrix, the joint angle difference for each of the joints and the motion difference for each of the joints in multi-DOF (degrees of freedom) or 6FOG to obtain the acceleration of the virtual mass in multi-DOF or 6DOF [paragraph 77]. The system 10 and method mimic passive behavior by actively driving the joints 22 and thereby commanding control of the manipulator 14 in response to determined forces applied to the manipulator 14 [paragraph 32]).
Post does not expressly teach:
The selected torque state is a single torque state, and the set of candidate torque states being a plurality of predetermined permissible torque states for the robot arm.
However, this element would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, as it would have been obvious to try. Instead of having a processor constantly adjusting joint torques, thereby producing infinite torque states, the current invention has a number of preset torque states to set for the robot. This would have been obvious to try, because having a finite, predictable number of torque states versus an infinite number of torque states is a simple selection between one of two possible solutions to the present problem. This is simply choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, making it obvious to try.
Post also does not teach:
processing the received sensory data so as to reduce the amount of noise the received sensory data contains.
However, Staunton teaches:
processing the received sensory data so as to reduce the amount of noise the received sensory data contains (Filtering by the first filter 86 is performed on the raw data for two primary purposes, i.e., reducing noise and increasing system stability. If it were possible, using the raw data alone to control the system 10 is would be preferred since doing so would give the fastest and most accurate response. However, filtering is needed because of practical limitations on the system 10. Such practical limitations include noise reduction and stability improvements by removal of positive feedback [paragraph 72]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Post with processing the received sensory data so as to reduce the amount of noise the received sensory data contains as taught by Staunton so as to allow the system to reduce unnecessary noise and errors and prevent jerky movements, something already brought up by Post.
Regarding Claim 2. Post in combination with Staunton teaches the control system as claimed in claim 1.
Post also teaches:
the control system being further configured to iteratively perform a control loop comprising the receiving, selecting and sending steps (FIG. 10 illustrates a computational flowchart showing inputs and outputs of the backdriving method [paragraph 67]. At step 60, the joint torque difference is computed for each individual joint separately. The mapping step is described in paragraphs 74-76, taking place across steps 64-68 in FIG. 10. Then the command step applying an output force is applied in step 72 [paragraph 79]).
Regarding Claim 4. Post in combination with Staunton teaches the control system as claimed in claim 1.
Post also teaches:
wherein the control system is configured to:
determining one or more forces corresponding to the selected torque state, each force indicative of a force acting at a point of the robot arm as a result of the externally applied force or torque, the force being defined with respect to a direction defined with respect to the point (The system 10 and method mimic passive behavior by actively driving the joints 22 and thereby commanding control of the manipulator 14 in response to determined forces applied to the manipulator 14 [paragraph 32]. The expected joint torque is the torque that the joint motors 24 should output if external forces and torques are not present [paragraph 52], and forces applied to the manipulator are determined and defined based on their direction applied to points on the manipulator [paragraph 57]).
Regarding Claim 5. Post in combination with Staunton teaches the control system as claimed in claim 4.
Post also teaches:
wherein the control system is configured to, for each determined force:
determine a position of the point of the surgical robot arm, whereby the force acting at the point would be compensated for by moving the point to the determined position; and send a command signal to the surgical robot arm to drive the point of the surgical robot arm to the determined position (Paragraphs 87-88, FIG. 13 illustrates a side view of the manipulator in the first pose using solid lines, and the external force shown applied to link 20D, wherein the controller commands the joints to move to a second pose in the direction of the applied pose. The robotic system 10 and method described in this section improve on the techniques described above by providing backdriving techniques resulting in predictable joint movement by decomposing the applied external force in joint space to fully capture the location of the external force relative to the manipulator 14 [paragraph 66]).
Regarding Claim 6. Post in combination with Staunton teaches the control system as claimed in claim 4.
Post also teaches:
wherein the control system is configured to determine:
a force acting at a single point of the robot arm; and/or at least one force acting at each of n points of the robot arm, where n>1 (FIG. 13 may only show one force, but the system and method is designed to command the manipulator in response to determined forces applied to the manipulator [paragraph 32]. In one embodiment, the force-torque sensor 34 is a 6DOF sensor such that the force-torque sensor 34 is configured to outputs signals representative of three mutually orthogonal forces and three torques about the axes of the orthogonal forces that are applied to the tool 30. Additionally or alternatively, the input force applied to the tool 26 may be determined using joint torques [paragraph 39]. Combined with the language of paragraph 57, it is implicit that multiple forces can be applied to the robot at different points and the system will compensate for each force. When the robot experiences such external force, the location (e.g., the joint) to which the external force is applied is determined using the joint torques [paragraph 10]).
Regarding Claim 7. Post in combination with Staunton teaches the control system as claimed in claim 6.
Post also teaches:
wherein each torque state in the set of candidate torque states corresponds with a respective one or more forces, and wherein each torque state is a product of its respective one or more forces and a Jacobian matrix (The controller 40 converts the joint torque difference for each joint 22 (if present) into a 6DOF force/torque vector applied to the virtual mass [paragraph 61]. By definition, this force/torque vector is a torque state that corresponds with one or more forces, the forces resulting in the second pose are applied to a Jacobian calculator, which calculates Jacobian matrices relating motion within Cartesian space to motion within joint space [paragraph 50]. Also see equation 4, in paragraph 71, which is the Jacobian transpose mapping changes in virtual mass motion to changes in joint angles [paragraph 72]).
Regarding Claim 8. Post in combination with Staunton teaches the control system as claimed in claim 7.
Post also teaches:
wherein each torque state in the set of candidate torque states is an element of an image of the Jacobian matrix (The controller 40 converts the joint torque difference for each joint 22 (if present) into a 6DOF force/torque vector applied to the virtual mass [paragraph 61]. By definition, this force/torque vector is a torque state that corresponds with one or more forces, the forces resulting in the second pose are applied to a Jacobian calculator, which calculates Jacobian matrices relating motion within Cartesian space to motion within joint space [paragraph 50]. Also see equation 4, in paragraph 71, which is the Jacobian transpose mapping changes in virtual mass motion to changes in joint angles [paragraph 72]).
Regarding Claim 9. Post in combination with Staunton teaches the control system as claimed in claim 7.
Post also teaches:
wherein:
when the control system is configured to determine a force acting at a single point, the Jacobian matrix is a Jacobian matrix that represents how a change in joint angle of one or more joints of the series of joints will change the position of the single point of the robot arm (In equation 4, the Jacobian transpose mapping changes in virtual mass motion to changes in joint angles, where the mass of the virtual rigid body as defined by the mass/inertia matrix and the Jacobian mapping changes in joint angles to changes in virtual mass motion are both factors, and the Jacobian mapping changes in joint angles to changes in virtual mass motion to changes in joint angles [paragraph 72], which reads on a matrix that represents how a change in joint angle of one or more joints of the series of joints will change the position of the point of the arm).
Post is silent as to the order in which matrices are generated, but this is a matter of design choice, and it would have been an obvious design choice to make the first Jacobian matrix represent how a change in joint angle of one or more joints of the series of joints will change the position of the single point of the robot arm.
Regarding Claim 10. Post in combination with Staunton teaches the control system as claimed in claim 9.
Post also teaches:
wherein:
when the control system is configured to determine at least one force acting at each of n points, the Jacobian matrix is a Jacobian matrix that represents how a change in joint angle of one or more joints of the series of joints will change the position of each of the n points (FIG. 13 may only show one force, but the system and method is designed to command the manipulator in response to determined forces applied to the manipulator [paragraph 32]. In one embodiment, the force-torque sensor 34 is a 6DOF sensor such that the force-torque sensor 34 is configured to outputs signals representative of three mutually orthogonal forces and three torques about the axes of the orthogonal forces that are applied to the tool 30. Additionally or alternatively, the input force applied to the tool 26 may be determined using joint torques [paragraph 39]. Combined with the language of paragraph 57, it is implicit that multiple forces can be applied to the robot at different points and the system will compensate for each force. When the robot experiences such external force, the location (e.g., the joint) to which the external force is applied is determined using the joint torques [paragraph 10]).
Post is silent as to the order in which matrices are generated, but this is a matter of design choice, and it would have been an obvious design choice to make the second Jacobian matrix represent how a change in joint angle of one or more joints of the series of joints will change the position of each of the n points.
Regarding Claim 11. Post in combination with Staunton teaches the control system as claimed in claim 10.
Post also teaches:
wherein the second Jacobian matrix represents how a change in joint angle of each joint of a subset of joints of the series of joints will change the position of a first point of the n points and how a change in joint angle of each joint of a different subset of joints of the series of joints will change the position of a second point of the n points (FIG. 13 may only show one force, but the system and method is designed to command the manipulator in response to determined forces applied to the manipulator [paragraph 32]. In one embodiment, the force-torque sensor 34 is a 6DOF sensor such that the force-torque sensor 34 is configured to outputs signals representative of three mutually orthogonal forces and three torques about the axes of the orthogonal forces that are applied to the tool 30. Additionally or alternatively, the input force applied to the tool 26 may be determined using joint torques [paragraph 39]. Combined with the language of paragraph 57, it is implicit that multiple forces can be applied to the robot at different points and the system will compensate for each force. When the robot experiences such external force, the location (e.g., the joint) to which the external force is applied is determined using the joint torques [paragraph 10]).
Regarding Claim 12. Post in combination with Staunton teaches the control system as claimed in claim 6.
Post also teaches:
wherein the control system is configured to:
determine, in dependence on a current operating mode of the robot arm, whether to control the configuration of the surgical robot arm to be altered in response to an externally applied force or torque in accordance with:
(i) a force acting at a single point of the robot arm; or
(ii) at least one force acting at each of the n points of the robot arm (There are two operating modes of the surgical robot manipulator. One is a manual mode, and the other is an autonomous mode [paragraphs 83-84]. In the manual mode, the operator manually directs, and the manipulator controls, movement of the tool. The manipulator 14 monitors the forces and torques placed on the tool 30 using the force-torque sensor 34. The operator may backdrive any given joint while the controller 40 controls the manipulator 14 in response to the forces and torques detected by the force-torque sensor 34. In the autonomous mode, the manipulator moves the tool free of operator assistance. This means that the control applied to the surgical arm is determined based on an operating mode regarding the externally applied force or torque applied to one or more points of the robot arm, wherein the force applied is from the operator physically manipulating the tool).
Regarding Claim 15. Post in combination with Staunton teaches the control system as claimed in claim 7.
Post does not expressly teach:
wherein the selected torque state is the torque state of the set of candidate torque states having the lowest Euclidian distance to the sensed torque state, or wherein the selected torque state is the torque state of the set of candidate torque states having the lowest least squares distance to the sensed torque state.
However, this is implied by the fact that the robot is moving to a pose meant to counteract the external force. If the robot is merely moving from point A to point B, as shown in FIG. 11 of Post, there is only one distance that the robot can follow, and by definition that is the shortest distance, making this element obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 16. Post in combination with Staunton teaches the control system as claimed in claim 1.
Post also teaches:
the control system being further configured to weight the sensory data received from each torque sensor of the one or more torque sensors in dependence on a determined level of noise interference associated with each torque sensor, such that a greater weight is applied to sensory data received from a torque sensor determined to be associated with a lower-level of noise interference (FIG. 8 shows the joint torque applied to J2, but also to J3 and J5 as a result of the impact on J2 [paragraph 64]. FIG. 12, relating to movement of the manipulator 14 in FIG. 11, is a graph illustrating joint movement where external force is determined using the steps described in this section (as compared with FIG. 8 illustrating joint movement where external force is determined based on joint torque difference alone). In FIG. 11, the joint torque difference of −1.5 Nm is applied to J2. For comparative purposes, this is the same joint torque difference applied to J2 in FIG. 8. In response, only joint J2 moves (as also shown in FIG. 11). Unlike the joints in FIG. 8, no other joints move unexpectedly. In other words, other joints (e.g., J3 and J5) do not move because J2 is the only joint experiencing the change in torque from the external force. Referring back to FIG. 11, movement of the manipulator 14 is consistent with the results of FIG. 12 wherein only joint J2 moves in response to the external force [paragraph 87]. This means the control system is isolating the torque from the force applied to joint J2 from the unexpected (noise) movements that occur in J3 and J5, and applies a greater weight to the torque on J2 as a result).
Regarding Claim 19. Post in combination with Staunton teaches the control system as claimed in claim 1.
Post also teaches:
wherein the surgical robot arm further comprises a set of one or more motors, each motor of the set being configured to drive a joint of the series of joints in response to the command signal sent by the control system (FIG. 5, the joint motor at 24, each joint motor attached to a structural frame of the manipulator and each joint is driven by one or more motors [paragraphs 31-32]).
Regarding Claim 20. Post teaches a method of controlling a surgical robot arm, the surgical robot arm comprising a series of joints by which the configuration of that surgical robot arm can be altered and one or more torque sensors (FIG. 3 shows a robotic surgical system, with a method of operating the surgical system [paragraph 8]. The method includes determining with the controller an expected joint torque for the at least one joint. The controller compares the expected joint torque to an actual joint torque of the at least one joint to determine a joint torque difference), each torque sensor configured to sense a torque at a joint of the series of joints (A position sensor, such as an encoder in FIG. 5 at 26, measures the joint angle of each respective joint [paragraph 33]. In some embodiments, two encoders, one for the joint motor and one for the link at 20 being moved can be used to determine the joint angle), the method comprising controlling the configuration of the surgical robot arm to be altered in response to an externally applied force or torque by:
receiving sensory data from the one or more torque sensors indicative of a sensed torque state of the surgical robot arm resulting from the externally applied force or torque (paragraph 33);
selecting a torque state of a set of candidate torque states by mapping the sensed torque state to the selected torque state of the set of candidate torque states (Force control in robotics is conventionally implemented using either impedance control or admittance control. One example of an impedance control feedback loop is illustrated in FIG. 1. With impedance control, positions of the joints of the robot are inputted into the controller and joint torques for controlling movement of the robot are outputted and applied. In other words, the impedance controller determines position and applies (or commands) force/torque. In FIG. 1, the impedance controller applies specific joint torques to the joints [paragraph 3]. In one embodiment, and as shown in FIG. 6, the controller 40 is configured to determine the appropriate joint angles to command for the joints 22 based on the output of the virtual simulation 42. That is, the controller 40 computes the commanded joint angle for each of the joints 22 in response to the input force [paragraph 51]. From here, the controller 40 regulates the joint angle of each joint 22 and continually adjusts the torque that each joint motor 24 outputs to, as closely as possible, ensure that the joint motor 24 drives the associated joint 22 to the commanded joint angle [paragraph 52]); and
sending a command signal to the surgical robot arm to drive the robot arm such that the configuration of the robot arm is altered so as to comply with the selected torque state (The controller maps, in a Jacobian matrix, the joint angle difference for each of the joints and the motion difference for each of the joints in multi-DOF (degrees of freedom) or 6FOG to obtain the acceleration of the virtual mass in multi-DOF or 6DOF [paragraph 77]. The system 10 and method mimic passive behavior by actively driving the joints 22 and thereby commanding control of the manipulator 14 in response to determined forces applied to the manipulator 14 [paragraph 32]).
Post does not expressly teach:
The selected torque state is a single torque state, and the set of candidate torque states being a plurality of predetermined permissible torque states for the robot arm.
However, this element would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, as it would have been obvious to try. Instead of having a processor constantly adjusting joint torques, thereby producing infinite torque states, the current invention has a number of preset torque states to set for the robot. This would have been obvious to try, because having a finite, predictable number of torque states versus an infinite number of torque states is a simple selection between one of two possible solutions to the present problem. This is simply choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, making it obvious to try.
Post also does not teach:
processing the received sensory data so as to reduce the amount of noise the received sensory data contains.
However, Staunton teaches:
processing the received sensory data so as to reduce the amount of noise the received sensory data contains (Filtering by the first filter 86 is performed on the raw data for two primary purposes, i.e., reducing noise and increasing system stability. If it were possible, using the raw data alone to control the system 10 is would be preferred since doing so would give the fastest and most accurate response. However, filtering is needed because of practical limitations on the system 10. Such practical limitations include noise reduction and stability improvements by removal of positive feedback [paragraph 72]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Post with processing the received sensory data so as to reduce the amount of noise the received sensory data contains as taught by Staunton so as to allow the system to reduce unnecessary noise and errors and prevent jerky movements, something already brought up by Post.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Post US 20170128136 A1 (“Post”) in combination with Staunton et al. US 20180168750 A1 (“Staunton”) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ueberle US 9724827 B2 (“Ueberle”).
Regarding Claim 13. Post in combination with Staunton teaches the control system as claimed in claim 10.
Post also teaches:
wherein the control system is configured to:
calculate a determinant of the second Jacobian matrix so as to estimate a current configuration of the surgical robot arm (Forces resulting in the second pose are applied to a Jacobian calculator, which calculates Jacobian matrices relating motion within Cartesian space to motion within joint space [paragraph 50]);
interpolate between a force acting at a single point of the robot arm determined using the first Jacobian matrix and a force acting at the same point of the n points of the robot arm determined using the second Jacobian matrix as the single point of the robot arm determined using the first Jacobian matrix (FIG. 7 shows the controller modeling the tool as a virtual rigid body being a dynamic object [paragraph 45]. In one example, the virtual rigid body 44 corresponds to a center of mass of the tool 30. Here “center of mass” is understood to be the point around which the tool 30 would rotate if a force is applied to another point of the tool 30 and the tool 30 were otherwise unconstrained, i.e., not constrained by the manipulator 14. The center of mass of the virtual rigid body 44 may be close to, but need not be the same as, the actual center of mass of the tool 30. The center of mass of the virtual rigid body 44 can be determined empirically [paragraph 46]);
control the configuration of the surgical robot arm to be altered in response to an externally applied force or torque in accordance with the interpolated force (The controller maps, in a Jacobian matrix, the joint angle difference for each of the joints and the motion difference for each of the joints in multi-DOF (degrees of freedom) or 6FOG to obtain the acceleration of the virtual mass in multi-DOF or 6DOF [paragraph 77]. The system 10 and method mimic passive behavior by actively driving the joints 22 and thereby commanding control of the manipulator 14 in response to determined forces applied to the manipulator 14 [paragraph 32]).
Post does not teach:
wherein said forces are weighted in dependence on the calculated determinant of the second Jacobian matrix.
However, Ueberle teaches:
wherein said forces are weighted in dependence on the calculated determinant of the second Jacobian matrix (Column 2, lines 37-67, Column 3, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Post with wherein said forces are weighted in dependence on the calculated determinant of the second Jacobian matrix as taught by Ueberle so that the forces can be applied in accordance with the significance of their impact on the surgical robot arm.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Post US 20170128136 A1 (“Post”) in combination with Staunton et al. US 20180168750 A1 (“Staunton”) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ecke et al. US 20190053862 A1 (“Ecke”).
Regarding Claim 14. Post in combination with Staunton teaches the control system as claimed in claim 7.
Post also teaches:
the control system being further configured to:
use an inverse of the Jacobian matrix to map the sensed torque state to the selected torque state and determine the one or more forces corresponding to the selected torque state (order to identify backdrive torques, the controller 40 determines an expected joint torque for each joint using an inverse dynamics module [paragraph 52]).
Post does not teach:
the inverse is a Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse.
However, Ecke teaches:
the inverse is a Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse (Paragraph 68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Post with the inverse is a Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse as taught by Ecke because there is a finite number of ways to generate an inverse of a Jacobian matrix, and a Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse is a known solution with a high predictable chance of success.
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Post US 20170128136 A1 (“Post”) in combination with Staunton et al. US 20180168750 A1 (“Staunton”) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Gomez et al. US 20110040305 A1 (“Gomez”).
Regarding Claim 17. Post in combination with Staunton teaches the control system as claimed in claim 7.
Post also teaches:
the surgical robot arm further comprising an attachment for a surgical instrument at a distal end of the robot arm FIG. 3, a surgical tool at 30 [paragraph 35], and wherein the control system is configured to cause the robot arm to operate in:
a surgical mode in which a surgical instrument attached to the attachment is moved in response to the externally applied force or torque (The tool 30 includes an energy applicator 32 designed to contact the tissue of the patient at the surgical site. The energy applicator 32 may be a drill, a burr, a sagittal saw blade, an ultrasonic vibrating tip, a probe, a stylus, or the like [paragraph 35], wherein the tool’s movement is controlled by torque applied to different joints of the manipulator [paragraph 9]).
Post does not teach:
the surgical mode is one in which a surgical instrument attached to the attachment is inside a patient's body; and an instrument retract mode in which the surgical instrument is retractable from a patient's body.
However, Gomez teaches:
the surgical mode is one in which a surgical instrument attached to the attachment is inside a patient's body; and an instrument retract mode in which the surgical instrument is retractable from a patient's body (Paragraphs 4-5 describe a tool inserted and extracted from the patient’s body).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Post with the surgical mode is one in which a surgical instrument attached to the attachment is inside a patient's body; and an instrument retract mode in which the surgical instrument is retractable from a patient's body as taught by Gomez so that the system can be applied to surgical tools that must be inserted into and out of the patient’s body.
Regarding Claim 18. Post in combination with Staunton and Gomez teaches the control system as claimed in claim 17.
Post does not expressly teach:
wherein, in the instrument retract mode, the control system is configured to multiply the Jacobian matrix by a column vector representing the direction of an axis parallel with the longitudinal axis of the surgical instrument such that the one or more forces consists of forces acting along the axis parallel with the longitudinal axis of the surgical instrument.
However, multiplying a Jacobian matrix by a column vector representing a different direction as described in the claim language is an inherent property of navigating and controlling a robot’s movement by Jacobian matrices. This property is inherent to the process of controlling a robot with Jacobian matrices, and so Gomez includes this element in paragraphs 4-5, which describe extracting the tool from the patient’s body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Post with wherein, in the instrument retract mode, the control system is configured to multiply the Jacobian matrix by a column vector representing the direction of an axis parallel with the longitudinal axis of the surgical instrument such that the one or more forces consists of forces acting along the axis parallel with the longitudinal axis of the surgical instrument as taught by Gomez so that the system can withdraw the tool out of the patient’s body.
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 AARON G CAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 7:30am - 4:30pm EST to Friday 7:30pm - 4:30am.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/AARON G CAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights