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 arguments filed on January 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument states that Spector does not cure the deficiencies of Sampedro and Sinyavskiy, since the applicant states that Spector applies “a continual, dynamic, and iterative approach relying strictly on potentialities rather than known values,” as opposed to predetermined values for states of two robotic arms set by the user, ultimately rendering the system of Spector inoperable. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated in the abstract and col. 3, lines 1-21 (emphasis on the following statement: “The path planner functions to plan in advance a series of movements of each of the mobile objects, to provide a relatively coarse scale plan for the movements. The path planner determines paths in a configuration space defined by n orthogonal axes corresponding to the n configuration settings that define the position of each object in three-dimensional space. The path execution module is operable to move the objects in accordance with the relatively coarse scale plan provided by the path planner, and includes a fine-scale artificial force field collision avoidance subsystem, to provide control signals to the movable objects such that they are moved along paths determined in part by the path planner and in part by the collision avoidance subsystem. Accordingly, the objects are moved from starting points to desired endpoints without collisions with each other or with any stationary obstacles.”),
the path planning system of Spector does implement a predetermined and/or preset state of two robotic arms in the 3D space (as was previously explained and will be reiterated in the office action below), prior to execution of movements in the 3D space of the two robotic arms, since the path planner functions to plan in advance a series a movements prior to implementing the primary control signal (see col. 3, lines 7-10: “The path planner functions to plan in advance a series of movements of each of the mobile objects, to provide a relatively coarse scale plan for the movements.”). Furthermore, because the C-space stores and implements these values prior to implementing the primary control signals (see fig. 3, 54), the values stored in the c-space/configuration space are commonly known values corresponding to the location of the robotic arms in the 3D space, which are ultimately updated during operation (through the use of interpolation of the course path parameters to derive additional control signals and the artificial force field model for collision avoidance) of the two robotic arms working in a common workspace.
Moreover, applicant further argues that Sampedro, Sinyavskiy, nor Spector do not determine permissive vs. non-permissive states for path planning and collision avoidance ahead of a robotic arm moving to the third state as claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated previously in the final rejection dated November 3, 2025 in col. 5, lines 1-3, col. 3, lines 7-21 (stated above), and in the abstract, Spector does teach a set of permissive (locations in the c-space cells corresponding to open locations where no collision occurs) and non-permissive (collision path according in the c-space cell(s)) when each step/state implemented during movement of two robotic arms working together in a common workspace.
Lastly, Applicant argues that Sampedro, Sinyavskiy, nor Spector teach path planning and collision avoidance for two robotic arms in a surgical procedure. With respect to applicant’s statement regarding the lack of the robotic collision avoidance system being implemented in a surgical procedure, they 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 that argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-5, 8-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,131,053 B1 to Sampedro et al. (hereinafter “Sampedro”) in view of US 2018/0281191 A1 to Sinyavskiy et al. (hereinafter “Sinyavskiy”), US 6,004,016 to Spector, and US 2022/0015846 A1 to Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Sampedro teaches a system (col. 2, lines 30-31) , comprising:
a processor (col. 1, lines 60-65);
and a memory storing data thereon (col. 10, lines 9-17) that, when processed by the processor, cause the processor to:
move a first robotic arm from a first state/current motion state trajectory to a second state/ target motion state or trajectory (col. 18, lines 8-27 and lines 54-60),
update and store, based on the moving of the first robotic arm from the first state to the second state, a first status identifier/condition(s) and instructions associated with the first robotic arm in the computer readable media and/or collision avoidance trajectory planning engine (fig. 5, 520, col. 2, lines 29-52, col. 16, lines 12-29 and col. 17, lines 29-33), wherein the instructions located on the computer readable media are associated with the first robotic arm and a second robotic arm/robotic arms (fig. 1, col. 2, lines 29-52, col. 7, lines 59-67, and col. 8, lines 6-9);
determine, based on the first status identifier/condition(s) and the data stored in the computer readable media, a set of permissive states/allowable trajectories and a set of non-permissive states/ non-allowable trajectories for the second robotic arm/a robot arm (col. 2, lines 29-52 and col. 18, lines 8-27),
and prevent the second robotic arm/ a robotic arm in a third state (due to containing more than one state) from performing one or more actions that interfere with the first robotic arm/another robotic arm being in the second state (col. 21, 40-67 and col. 22, lines 1-7 and lines 40-55). The collision detection/avoidance operations employed in the robotic system will prevent a second robotic arm (such as arm 180B) in a third state/different state from colliding with and interfering with the first robotic arm (such as arm 180A) that has been moved in a second state due to the robot control instructions.
Although Sampedro discloses updating and storing a first status identifier/condition(s) associated with the first robotic arm in a computer readable media, and wherein the condition(s) and information on the computer readable media are associated with the first robotic arm and a second robotic arm/ the robotic arms, they do not disclose updating/storing a first status identifier being associated with the first robotic arm in a combination state table/matrix.
However, Sinyavskiy discloses systems and methods for robotic path planning (abstract, lines 1-2). The robot(s) (fig. 2, 200 and para 0091) contains a system configured to determine the cost and/or benefit of travelling various paths prior to the selection of a particular path (para 0006). In order to determine this, the system (figs. 2 and 3) contain a method (fig. 10) that first generates a cost map associated with the surrounding environment of the robot. The cost map (fig. 10, 1002) comprises a plurality of cost map pixels associated with each location in the surrounding environment, while the cost map pixels has an associated cost (para 0168). Furthermore, the method (fig. 10) of the robot also comprises generating a plurality of masks (aka path trajectories) for the robot to travel within the environment, while each masks comprises a plurality of masks pixels associated with a location in the environment (para 0168, lines 7-12). In order to determine which path the robot should take, the robot determines if a recovery condition (comparable to a status identifier) applies for the robot relative to one or more obstacles in the environment, and if a condition applies, the costs within the cost map and the one or more masks/trajectories are modified/updated. Lastly, based on the updated/modified cost map, a mask costs associated with the cost map and each mask/ robot trajectory is determined, and based on the mask costs, a first mask/trajectory and actuator commands are determined and executed for the robot (para 0168 and para 0169).
Sinyavskiy does not explicitly disclose wherein the first robot arm and second robot arm are capable of operating together in a shared working environment comprising a three- dimensional (3D) space, and does not explicitly disclose wherein
the set of permissive states define known values associated with locations in the 3D space that the second robotic arm is allowed to occupy given the first robotic arm in the second state in the 3D space,
and
the set of non-permissive states describing a location define known values associated with locations in the 3D space that the second robotic arm is not allowed to occupy given the first robotic arm in the second state in the 3D space,
and
wherein the second robot arm in a third state from performing one or more actions that would place the second robotic arm in a non-permissive state of the set of non-permissive states to thereby prevent the second robotic arm from interfering with the first robotic arm being in the second state.
However, Spector teaches an apparatus and method for path planning and execution of movements of multiple mobile objects, such as one or more robotic manipulators in a shared/common workspace (see abstract, lines 1-3). The apparatus/system (figs. 1 and 4) contain a first and second robot arm/first and second manipulators (see annotated fig. 4 below) designed to operate together in a shared working environment comprising a 3D space (col. 1, lines 6-22, col. 2-3, lines 65-67 and lines 1-21, col. 10, lines 8-15, and col. 13-14 (claim 1), lines 59-67 and lines 1-14).
PNG
media_image1.png
605
1259
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Spector teaches wherein the set of permissive states (open spaces where no collision will occur) define known values associated with locations in the 3D space that the second robotic arm is allowed to occupy given the first robotic arm in the second state in the 3D space,
and
the set of non-permissive states (spaces in which a collision will occur) describing a location define known values associated with locations in the 3D space that the second robotic arm is not allowed to occupy given the first robotic arm in the second state in the 3D space (see abstract, col. 2, lines 65-67, col. 3, lines 1-21, col. 4, lines 1-67, and col. 5, lines 1-3) – as previously stated, because the C-space stores and implements these values prior to implementing the primary control signals (see fig. 3, 54), the values stored in the cells of the c-space/configuration space database are commonly known values corresponding to the location of the robotic arms in the 3D space, which are ultimately updated during each stage of operation (through the use of interpolation of the course path parameters to derive additional control signals and the artificial force field model for collision avoidance) of both robotic arms when working in a common workspace to avoid a collision as they move from one state to another.
Moreover, Spector states preventing wherein the second robot arm in a third state/one state (position or path) from performing one or more actions that would place the second robotic arm in a non-permissive state (collision path) of the set of non-permissive states (of the collision and/or blocked paths due to a present object or manipulator) to thereby prevent the second robotic arm from interfering with the first robotic arm being in the second state (prevent the second robot arm from colliding with the first robot arm in a second state/another position or path) (see figs. 5-6, cols. 9-10, lines 55-67 and lines 1-26, and claims 1-2, and claim 8).
However Sampedro, Sinyavskiy, nor Spector explicitly disclose moving the first robot arm with respect to the second robot arm in a surgical procedure.
However, Li teaches a system and method for preventing a collision between mechanical arms (see abstract, lines 1-2). The system (fig. 2) teaches collision avoidance between mechanical arms for a surgical robot during a surgical procedure (see abstract and fig. 2, para 0098: “FIG. 2 is a schematic structure diagram of a patient side in a teleoperation medical robot according to an optional embodiment. As shown in FIGS. 1-2, the teleoperation medical robot…. A first mechanical arm body 40, a second mechanical arm body 41, and a third mechanical arm body 42 are provided on the platform 02; and a medical instrument such as a surgical instrument or a detection instrument can be mounted on each mechanical arm body. ”)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sampedro with that of Sinyavskiy, Spector, and Li to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by allowing the surgical robot to properly assess, store, and identify each subsequent path during an operation to prevent collisions of the robotic arms/manipulators during the surgical procedure, ultimately preserving the safety of the patient during the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 2, Sampedro as modified teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the combination state table comprises a matrix of binary values representative of a plurality of states, wherein the plurality of states comprises the first state, the second state, and the third state, wherein the combination state table represents a permissive state as a first known value, and wherein the combination state table represents a non-permissive state as a second known value.
However, Sinyavskiy teaches a combination state/trajectory table comprising a matrix of binary values (abstract and para 0099) wherein the table represents a permissive state (desirable path for the robot to travel) as one value/ a first known value (para 0099, lines 6-10), and a non-permissive state (undesirable path for the robot to travel) as another/second known value (para 0099, lines 6-10). Furthermore, the system (figs. 2 and 10) utilizing a 3D matrix comprising a plurality of states comprising a first state, a second state, and a third state (N states/different trajectories or robot paths that can comprise a first state, a second state, and a third state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Sampedro with the teachings of Sinyavskiy to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would improve the system by allowing the robot arms to properly assess the permissive and non-permissive states/trajectories in order to prevent collision of the robotic arms during the surgical procedure, ultimately preserving the functionality of the system and the safety of the patient.
Regarding claim 3, Sampedro as modified teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the set of non-permissive states/non-allowable trajectories or positions includes the second state/different state or state transition within the plurality of states (col. 21, lines 40-67 and col. 22, lines 1-31), and wherein the one or more actions includes the second robotic arm moving into the second state. The second robot arm (such as 180B) can move into a second state (which can be contained in the plurality of states/state transitions) (col. 21, lines 40-67 and col. 22, lines 1-66).
Regarding claim 4, Sampedro as modified teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the set of permissive states/allowable trajectories or positions includes a fourth state/position (due to there being a plurality of available states/state transitions that are either permissible or non-permissible) (col. 21, lines 40-67)) , and wherein the data/instructions (col. 10, lines 9-17) further cause the processor to:
move the second robotic arm from the third state (within the plurality of states/state transitions) into a fourth state/different trajectory or position (col. 21, lines 40-67 and col. 22, lines 1-7), but does not disclose updating, based on the moving of the second robotic arm from the third state/different trajectory or position to the fourth state, a second status identifier associated with the second robotic arm in the combination state table, and determine, based on the second status identifier and the information stored in the computer readable media, a permissive move and a non-permissive move for the first robotic arm.
However, in an alternative embodiment of the invention, Sampedro discloses wherein based on the moving of the second robotic arm from the third state (within the plurality of states) to the fourth state/different state, updating a second status identifier/more than one condition associated with the second robotic arm/a robotic arm in a computer readable media ( fig. 5, 520, col. 2, lines 29-52, col. 16, lines 12-29 and col. 17, lines 29-33), and determining, based on the second status identifier/condition(s) and the information stored in the computer readable media, a permissive move/allowable trajectory or position and a non-permissive move/non-allowable trajectory or position for the first robotic arm/a robotic arm (col. 2, lines 29-52 and col. 18, lines 8-27). Sampedro does not disclose storing the second status identifier/condition(s) in a combination state table/ matrix.
However, Sinyavskiy discloses systems and methods for robotic path planning (abstract, lines 1-2). The robot(s) (fig. 2, 200 and para 0091) contains a system configured to determine the cost and/or benefit of travelling various paths prior to the selection of a particular path (para 0006). In order to determine this, the system (figs. 2 and 3) contain a method (fig. 10) that first generates a cost map associated with the surrounding environment of the robot. The cost map (fig. 10, 1002) comprises a plurality of cost map pixels associated with each location in the surrounding environment, while the cost map pixels has an associated cost (para 0168). Furthermore, the method (fig. 10) of the robot also comprises generating a plurality of masks (aka path trajectories) for the robot to travel within the environment, while each masks comprises a plurality of masks pixels associated with a location in the environment (para 0168, lines 7-12). In order to determine which path the robot should take, the robot determines if a recovery condition (comparable to a status identifier) applies for the robot relative to one or more obstacles in the environment, and if a condition applies, the costs within the cost map and the one or more masks/trajectories are modified/updated. Lastly, based on the updated/modified cost map, a mask costs associated with the cost map and each mask/ robot trajectory is determined, and based on the mask costs, a first mask/trajectory and actuator commands are determined and executed for the robot (para 0009, para 0168, and para 0169). Furthermore, in another variant of the invention, the method also comprises generating a second cost map and determining the mast cost based on the second cost map. Moreover, the method can use a recovery condition to update and/or determine a motion restriction for the robot based on the presence of an obstacle, while also using a cost penalty is used to indicate each time a first mask/trajectory or path is selected. If the cost penalty is selected more than once, the cost penalty will be updated to make it less likely for the first mask/trajectory or path to be selected again (para 0010-0012 and claims 5-7).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teachings of Sampedro with that of Sinyavskiy to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by allowing the robot to properly assess and store each subsequent path during an operation and prevents collision of the robotic arms during the surgical procedure, ultimately preserving the safety of the patient during the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 5, Sampedro as modified teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the data/instructions further cause the processor to:
prevent the first robotic arm from performing the non-permissive move/ non-allowable trajectories or position (col. 21, lines 40-67).
Regarding claim 6, Sampedro as modified teaches the system of claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the combination state table/matrix includes a finite number of values.
However, Spector discloses a method and apparatus for path planning and execution of movements of robotic manipulators in a workspace (abstract, lines 1-3). The apparatus (fig. 1) contains a finite c-space database/multi-dimensional c-space containing finite values in a table or matrix (fig. 2-32, fig. 8, 138, col. 10, 1-26, col. 11, lines 33-51, and claim 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified teachings of Sampedro with that of Spector to arrive at the claimed invention. Such combination would improve the system by ensuring only a finite number of movements and functions can be executed by the robotic arms while preventing the chance for a collision occurring between both manipulators, ultimately preserving the safety of the patient and each robotic arm during the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 8, Sampedro teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first robotic arm or the second robotic arm comprises at least two degrees-of-freedom/multiple degrees of freedom (col. 7, lines 59-67).
Regarding claim 9, Sampedro teaches a method (abstract, line 1), comprising:
causing a first robotic arm to move from a first state/current motion state trajectory to a second state/ target motion state or trajectory (col. 18, lines 8-27 and lines 54-60);
updating, based on the moving of the first robotic arm from the first state to the second state, a first status identifier/condition(s) and instructions associated with the first robotic arm in the computer readable media and/or collision avoidance trajectory planning engine (fig. 5, 520, col. 2, lines 29-52, col. 16, lines 12-29 and col. 17, lines 29-33), wherein the instructions located on the computer readable media are associated with the first robotic arm and a second robotic arm/robotic arms (fig. 1, col. 2, lines 29-52, col. 7, lines 59-67, and col. 8, lines 6-9);
determining, based on the first status identifier/condition(s) and the data stored in the computer readable media, at least one non-permissive/non-allowable state for the second robotic arm/a robot arm (col. 2, lines 29-52 and col. 18, lines 8-27);
and preventing the second robotic arm/a robot arm in a third state (within the plurality of states) from moving to the at least one non-permissive/non-allowable state or trajectories while the first robotic arm is in the second state/different state (col. 21, 40-67 and col. 22, lines 1-7). The collision detection/avoidance operations employed in the robotic system will prevent a second robotic arm (such as arm 180B) in a third state/different state from colliding with and interfering with the first robotic arm (such as arm 180A) that has been moved in a second state due to the robot control instructions.
Although Sampedro discloses updating and storing a first status identifier/condition(s) associated with the first robotic arm in a computer readable media, and wherein the condition(s) and information on the computer readable media are associated with the first robotic arm and a second robotic arm/robotic arms, they do not disclose updating/storing a first status identifier being associated with the first robotic arm in a combination state table/matrix.
However, Sinyavskiy discloses systems and methods for robotic path planning (abstract, lines 1-2). The robot(s) (fig. 2, 200 and para 0091) contains a system configured to determine the cost and/or benefit of travelling various paths prior to the selection of a particular path (para 0006). In order to determine this, the system (figs. 2 and 3) contain a method (fig. 10) that first generates a cost map associated with the surrounding environment of the robot. The cost map (fig. 10, 1002) comprises a plurality of cost map pixels associated with each location in the surrounding environment, while the cost map pixels has an associated cost (para 0168). Furthermore, the method (fig. 10) of the robot also comprises generating a plurality of masks (aka path trajectories) for the robot to travel within the environment, while each masks comprises a plurality of masks pixels associated with a location in the environment (para 0168, lines 7-12). In order to determine which path the robot should take, the robot determines if a recovery condition (comparable to a status identifier) applies for the robot relative to one or more obstacles in the environment, and if a condition applies, the costs within the cost map and the one or more masks/trajectories are modified/updated. Lastly, based on the updated/modified cost map, a mask costs associated with the cost map and each mask/ robot trajectory is determined, and based on the mask costs, a first mask/trajectory and actuator commands are determined and executed for the robot (para 0168 and para 0169).
Sinyavskiy does not explicitly disclose wherein the first robot arm and second robot arm are capable of operating together in a shared working environment comprising a three- dimensional (3D) space, and does not explicitly disclose determining
At least one non-permissive state for a second robot arm, wherein the at least one non-permissive state define known values associated with locations in the 3D space that the second robotic arm is not allowed to occupy given the first robotic arm in the second state in the 3D space,
and
preventing the second robot arm in a third state from performing one or more actions that would place the second robotic arm in a non-permissive state of the set of non-permissive states to thereby prevent the second robotic arm from interfering with the first robotic arm being in the second state.
However, Spector teaches an apparatus and method for path planning and execution of movements of multiple mobile objects, such as one or more robotic manipulators in a shared/common workspace (see abstract, lines 1-3). The apparatus/system (figs. 1 and 4) contain a first and second robot arm/first and second manipulators (see annotated fig. 4 below) designed to operate together in a shared working environment comprising a 3D space (col. 1, lines 6-22, col. 2-3, lines 65-67 and lines 1-21, col. 10, lines 8-15, and col. 13-14 (claim 1), lines 59-67 and lines 1-14).
PNG
media_image1.png
605
1259
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Spector teaches wherein the set of permissive states (open spaces where no collision will occur) define known values associated with locations in the 3D space that the second robotic arm is allowed to occupy given the first robotic arm in the second state in the 3D space,
and
at least one non-permissive state/ a set of non-permissive states (spaces in which a collision will occur) describing a location define known values associated with locations in the 3D space that the second robotic arm is not allowed to occupy given the first robotic arm in the second state in the 3D space (see abstract, col. 2, lines 65-67, col. 3, lines 1-21, col. 4, lines 1-67, and col. 5, lines 1-3) – as previously stated, because the C-space stores and implements these values prior to implementing the primary control signals (see fig. 3, 54), the values stored in the cells of the c-space/configuration space database are commonly known values corresponding to the location of the robotic arms in the 3D space, which are ultimately updated during each stage of operation (through the use of interpolation of the course path parameters to derive additional control signals and the artificial force field model for collision avoidance) of both robotic arms when working in a common workspace to avoid a collision as they move from one state to another.
Moreover, Spector states preventing wherein the second robot arm in a third state/one state (position or path) from performing one or more actions that would place the second robotic arm in a non-permissive state (collision path) of the set of non-permissive states (of the collision and/or blocked paths due to a present object or manipulator) to thereby prevent the second robotic arm from interfering with the first robotic arm being in the second state (prevent the second robot arm from colliding with the first robot arm in a second state/another position or path) (see figs. 5-6, cols. 9-10, lines 55-67 and lines 1-26, and claims 1-2, and claim 8).
However Sampedro, Sinyavskiy, nor Spector explicitly disclose moving the first robot arm with respect to the second robot arm in a surgical procedure.
However, Li teaches a system and method for preventing a collision between mechanical arms (see abstract, lines 1-2). The system (fig. 2) teaches collision avoidance between mechanical arms for a surgical robot during a surgical procedure (see abstract and fig. 2, para 0098: “FIG. 2 is a schematic structure diagram of a patient side in a teleoperation medical robot according to an optional embodiment. As shown in FIGS. 1-2, the teleoperation medical robot…. A first mechanical arm body 40, a second mechanical arm body 41, and a third mechanical arm body 42 are provided on the platform 02; and a medical instrument such as a surgical instrument or a detection instrument can be mounted on each mechanical arm body. ”)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sampedro with that of Sinyavskiy, Spector, and Li to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by allowing the surgical robot to properly assess, store, and identify each subsequent path during an operation to prevent collisions of the robotic arms/manipulators during the surgical procedure, ultimately preserving the safety of the patient during the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 10, Sampedro as modified teaches the method of claim 9, but does not disclose wherein the combination state table comprises a matrix of binary values representing a plurality of states, wherein the plurality of states comprise the first state, the second state, and the third state, wherein the combination state table represents a permissive state with a first known value, and wherein the combination state table represents a non-permissive state with a second known value.
However, Sinyavskiy teaches a combination state/trajectory table comprising a matrix of binary values (abstract and para 0099) wherein the table represents a permissive state (desirable path for the robot to travel) as one value/ a first known value (para 0099, lines 6-10), and a non-permissive state (undesirable path for the robot to travel) as another/second known value (para 0099, lines 6-10). Furthermore, the system (figs. 2 and 10) utilizing a 3D matrix comprising a plurality of states comprising a first state, a second state, and a third state (N states/different trajectories or robot paths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Sampedro with the teachings of Sinyavskiy to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would improve the system by allowing the robot arms to properly assess the permissive/allowable and non-permissive states/ non-allowable trajectories in order to prevent collision of the robotic arms during the surgical procedure, ultimately preserving the functionality of the system and the safety of the patient.
Regarding claim 11, Sampedro as modified teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the at least one non-permissive/non-allowable state or trajectory includes the second state (within the plurality of states) (col. 21, lines 15-67 and col. 22, lines 40-55).
Regarding claim 12, Sampedro as modified teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising:
causing the second robotic arm to move from the third state to a fourth state (since the robot arm(s) can move from one state to another depending on the robot instructions) (col. 21, lines 40-67 and col. 22, lines 1-7), but does not disclose updating, based on the moving of the second robotic arm from the third state to the fourth state, a second status identifier associated with the second robotic arm in the combination state table;
determining, based on the second status identifier and the combination state table, a permissive move and a non-permissive move for the first robotic arm;
and preventing the first robotic arm from performing the non-permissive move.
However, in an alternative embodiment of the invention, Sampedro discloses wherein based on the moving of the second robotic arm from the third state or position to the fourth state (since the robotic arms can move to and from a plurality of states according to the robot instructions), updating a second status identifier/more than one condition associated with the second robotic arm/a robotic arm in a computer readable media ( fig. 5, 520, col. 2, lines 29-52, col. 16, lines 12-29 and col. 17, lines 29-33), and determining, based on the second status identifier/condition(s) and the information stored in the computer readable media, a permissive move/ allowable trajectory or position and a non-permissive move/non-allowable trajectory or position for the first robotic arm/ a robotic arm (col. 2, lines 29-52 and col. 18, lines 8-27). Sampedro does not disclose storing the second status identifier/condition(s) in a combination state table/ matrix.
However, Sinyavskiy discloses systems and methods for robotic path planning (abstract, lines 1-2). The robot(s) (fig. 2, 200 and para 0091) contains a system configured to determine the cost and/or benefit of travelling various paths prior to the selection of a particular path (para 0006). In order to determine this, the system (figs. 2 and 3) contain a method (fig. 10) that first generates a cost map associated with the surrounding environment of the robot. The cost map (fig. 10, 1002) comprises a plurality of cost map pixels associated with each location in the surrounding environment, while the cost map pixels has an associated cost (para 0168). Furthermore, the method (fig. 10) of the robot also comprises generating a plurality of masks (aka path trajectories) for the robot to travel within the environment, while each masks comprises a plurality of masks pixels associated with a location in the environment (para 0168, lines 7-12). In order to determine which path the robot should take, the robot determines if a recovery condition (comparable to a status identifier) applies for the robot relative to one or more obstacles in the environment, and if a condition applies, the costs within the cost map and the one or more masks/trajectories are modified/updated. Lastly, based on the updated/modified cost map, a mask costs associated with the cost map and each mask/ robot trajectory is determined, and based on the mask costs, a first mask/trajectory and actuator commands are determined and executed for the robot (para 0009, para 0168, and para 0169). Furthermore, in another variant of the invention, the method also comprises generating a second cost map and determining the mast cost based on the second cost map. Moreover, the method can use a recovery condition to update and/or determine a motion restriction for the robot based on the presence of an obstacle, while also using a cost penalty is used to indicate each time a first mask/trajectory or path is selected. If the first mask/trajectory is selected more than once, the cost penalty will be updated to make it less likely for the first mask/trajectory or path to be selected again (para 0010-0012 and claims 5-7).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teachings of Sampedro with that of Sinyavskiy to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by allowing the robot to properly assess and store each subsequent path during an operation by preventing collision of the robotic arms during the surgical procedure, ultimately preserving the safety of the patient and the robotic arms during the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 13, Sampedro as modified teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the second robotic arm begins moving from the third state/different state to the fourth state/new state along a first navigation path/trajectory or state transition (col. 21, lines 40-61) and ,
and wherein preventing the second robotic arm from moving to the at least one non-permissive/non-allowable state includes:
updating, based on the at least one non-permissive/non-allowable state, the first navigation path/first trajectory to a second navigation path/new trajectory, wherein the first navigation path/first trajectory intersects the second state/previous state, and wherein the second navigation path/new or updated trajectory avoids intersecting the second state (the new or second navigation path/trajectory avoids collision with the robot(s) controlled in the first navigation path/trajectory through the use of a collision avoidance trajectory (col. 21, lines 62-67 and col 22, lines 1-7 and lines 32-65)).
Regarding claim 14, Sampedro as modified teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising:
permitting, upon the first robotic arm exiting the second state, the second robotic arm to move along the first navigation path/first trajectory (a permissive state/allowable trajectory) (co. 21, lines 40-67 and col. 22, lines 40-55). After the robot arms receives control instructions, the first robot arm may block the first navigation path, but in a subsequent iteration, the first robot arm may move/exit the second state, ultimately allowing the second robotic arm to move along the first navigation path in a second/different control cycle.
Regarding claim 16, Sampedro as modified teaches the method of claim 9, wherein at least one of the first robotic arm or the second robotic arm comprises at least two degrees-of-freedom (col. 7, lines 59-67).
Regarding claim 17, Sampedro teaches an apparatus (abstract, line 1), comprising:
a first robotic arm disposed in a first state/current state of a plurality of states/trajectories (col. 18, lines 8-27);
a second robotic arm (fig. 1, 180B) disposed in a second state of the plurality of states (the second state can be contained in the plurality of states) (col. 21, lines 40-67 and col. 22, lines 1-7);
a processor (col. 1, lines 60-65);
and a memory storing data thereon (col. 10, lines 9-17) that, when processed by the processor, cause the processor to:
move, at a first time (during the first control cycle), the first robotic arm from the first state/initial state to a third state/different state of the plurality of states (col. 21, lines 40-67), and prevent, at a second time later (during another control cycle) than the first time (first control cycle), the second robotic arm from entering a non-permissive/non-allowable state/trajectory of the set of non-permissive states /non-allowable trajectories (col. 22, lines 32-35),
but does not disclose
updating, based on the moving of the first robotic arm from the first state/position to the third state/position or trajectory, a first status identifier associated with the first robotic arm in a combination state table, the combination state table being associated with both the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm and,
determine, based on the first status identifier and the combination state table, a set of non-permissive/non-allowable states for the second robotic arm.
However, Sinyavskiy discloses systems and methods for robotic path planning (abstract, lines 1-2). The robot(s) (fig. 2, 200 and para 0091) contains a system configured to determine the cost and/or benefit of travelling various paths prior to the selection of a particular path (para 0006). In order to determine this, the system (figs. 2 and 3) contain a method (fig. 10) that first generates a cost map associated with the surrounding environment of the robot. The cost map (fig. 10, 1002) comprises a plurality of cost map pixels associated with each location in the surrounding environment, while the cost map pixels has an associated cost (para 0168). Furthermore, the method (fig. 10) of the robot also comprises generating a plurality of masks (aka path trajectories) for the robot to travel within the environment, while each masks comprises a plurality of masks pixels associated with a location in the environment (para 0168, lines 7-12). In order to determine which path the robot should take, the robot determines if a recovery condition (comparable to a status identifier) applies for the robot relative to one or more obstacles in the environment, and if a condition applies, the costs within the cost map and the one or more masks/trajectories are modified/updated. Lastly, based on the updated/modified cost map, a mask costs associated with the cost map and each mask/ robot trajectory is determined, and based on the mask costs, a first mask/trajectory and actuator commands are determined and executed for the robot (para 0168 and para 0169).
Sinyavskiy does not explicitly disclose wherein the first robot arm and second robot arm are capable of operating together in a shared working environment comprising a three- dimensional (3D) space, and does not explicitly disclose wherein
determining the set of non-permissive states describing a location define known values associated with locations in the 3D space that the second robotic arm is not allowed to occupy given the first robotic arm in the second state in the 3D space,
and prevent, at a second time later than the first time, the second robotic arm from entering a non-permissive state (collision path) of the set of non-permissive states (set of collision paths) to thereby prevent the second robotic arm from interfering with the first robotic arm being in the second state.
However, Spector teaches an apparatus and method for path planning and execution of movements of multiple mobile objects, such as one or more robotic manipulator in a shared/common workspace (see abstract, lines 1-3). The apparatus/system (figs. 1 and 4) contain a first and second robot arm/first and second manipulators (see annotated fig. 4 below) designed to operate together in a shared working environment comprising a 3D space (col. 1, lines 6-22, col. 2-3, lines 65-67 and lines 1-21, col. 10, lines 8-15, and col. 13-14 (claim 1), lines 59-67 and lines 1-14).
PNG
media_image1.png
605
1259
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Spector teaches wherein determining the set of non-permissive states (spaces in which a collision will occur) describing a location define known values associated with locations in the 3D space that the second robotic arm is not allowed to occupy given the first robotic arm in the second state in the 3D space (see abstract, col. 2, lines 65-67, col. 3, lines 1-21, col. 4, lines 1-67, and col. 5, lines 1-3) – as previously stated, because the C-space stores and implements these values prior to implementing the primary control signals (see fig. 3, 54), the values stored in the cells of the c-space/configuration space database are commonly known values corresponding to the location of the robotic arms in the 3D space, which are ultimately updated during each stage of operation (through the use of interpolation of the course path parameters to derive additional control signals and the artificial force field model for collision avoidance) of both robotic arms when working in a common workspace to avoid a collision as they move from one state to another,
and preventing, at a second time later than the first time (causing the manipulators to operate at specific times to prevent a collision among the manipulators) (col. 6, lines 49-62), the second robot arm in one state (position or path) from performing one or more actions that would place the second robotic arm in a non-permissive state (collision path) of the set of non-permissive states (of the collision and/or blocked paths due to a present object or manipulator) to thereby prevent the second robotic arm from interfering with the first robotic arm being in the second state (prevent the second robot arm from colliding with the first robot arm in a second state/another position or path) (see figs. 5-6, cols. 9-10, lines 55-67 and lines 1-26, and claims 1-2, and claim 8).
However Sampedro, Sinyavskiy, nor Spector explicitly disclose moving the first robot arm with respect to the second robot arm in a surgical procedure.
However, Li teaches a system and method for preventing a collision between mechanical arms (see abstract, lines 1-2). The system (fig. 2) teaches collision avoidance between mechanical arms for a surgical robot during a surgical procedure (see abstract and fig. 2, para 0098: “FIG. 2 is a schematic structure diagram of a patient side in a teleoperation medical robot according to an optional embodiment. As shown in FIGS. 1-2, the teleoperation medical robot…. A first mechanical arm body 40, a second mechanical arm body 41, and a third mechanical arm body 42 are provided on the platform 02; and a medical instrument such as a surgical instrument or a detection instrument can be mounted on each mechanical arm body. ”)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sampedro with that of Sinyavskiy, Spector, and Li to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by allowing the robot to properly assess and store each subsequent path during an operation and prevents collision of the robotic arms during the surgical procedure, ultimately preserving the safety of the patient.
Regarding claim 18, Sampedro teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein preventing the second robotic arm from entering a non-permissive/non-allowable state includes:
diverting the second robotic arm from a first navigation path/trajectory to a second navigation path (diverting from the path causing a collision) (col. 21, lines 40-67 and col. 22,
lines 1-7),
wherein the first navigation path/trajectory intersects with the third state (associated with the second robot arm), and wherein the second navigation path/trajectory avoids intersecting the third state (position of the second robot arm to avoid collision) (col. 21, lines 40-67 and col. 22, lines 40-67).
Regarding claim 19, Sampedro teaches the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the data further cause the processor to:
move, at a third time later (during a different/subsequent control cycle) than the second time (during different control cycles), the first robotic arm from the third state (contained in the plurality of states) to a fourth state/new state (col. 21, lines 40-67 and col. 22, lines 32-55), and permit the second robotic arm/another robot arm to traverse the first navigation path/trajectory (col. 21, lines 40-67 and col. 22, lines 40-55). The second robot arm will transverse the first navigation path/first trajectory in a different control cycle.
but does not disclose
updating, based on the move of the first robotic arm from the third state to the fourth state, the first status identifier associated with the first robotic arm in the combination state table.
However, Sinyavskiy discloses systems and methods for robotic path planning (abstract, lines 1-2). The robot(s) (fig. 2, 200 and para 0091) contains a system configured to determine the cost and/or benefit of travelling various paths prior to the selection of a particular path (para 0006). In order to determine this, the system (figs. 2 and 3) contain a method (fig. 10) that first generates a cost map associated with the surrounding environment of the robot. The cost map (fig. 10, 1002) comprises a plurality of cost map pixels associated with each location in the surrounding environment, while the cost map pixels has an associated cost (para 0168). Furthermore, the method (fig. 10) of the robot also comprises generating a plurality of masks (aka path trajectories) for the robot to travel within the environment, while each masks comprises a plurality of masks pixels associated with a location in the environment (para 0168, lines 7-12). In order to determine which path the robot should take, the robot determines if a recovery condition (comparable to a status identifier) applies for the robot relative to one or more obstacles in the environment, and if a condition applies, the costs within the cost map and the one or more masks/trajectories are modified/updated. Lastly, based on the updated/modified cost map, a mask costs associated with the cost map and each mask/ robot trajectory is determined, and based on the mask costs, a first mask/trajectory and actuator commands are determined and executed for the robot (para 0168 and para 0169).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teachings of Sampedro with that of Sinyavskiy to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by allowing the robot to properly assess and store each subsequent path during an operation and prevents collision of the robotic arms during the surgical procedure, ultimately preserving the safety of the patient during the surgical procedure.
Claims 7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampedro, Sinyavskiy, Spector, and Li and further in view of US 2006/0142657 A1 to Quaid et al. (hereinafter “Quaid”), US 2010/0331855 A1 to Zhao et al. (hereinafter “Zhao”) and US 2015/0190204 A1 to Popovi.
Regarding claim 7, Sampedro as modified teaches the system of claim 6, but does not disclose wherein the plurality of states comprises a home state, a tool cabinet state, a scanning state, an action state, and an implant state.
However, Quaid discloses a surgical apparatus that includes a surgical device containing a moving surgical arm (abstract and para 0093). The apparatus (fig. 1) contains different operational modes/states, which include a hold mode/home state or stationary state, an approach mode/action state, and an implant state/haptic mode (para 0124, para 0182, para 0214, last 4 sentences, and para 0229, first sentence). Quaid does not disclose wherein the plurality of states includes a tool cabinet state and a scanning state.
However, Zhao discloses robotic devices and systems for the use of telesurgical therapies and procedures (abstract, lines 1-2). The device (fig. 1) contains a plurality of robot manipulators/arms and a tool state (para 0067 and claim 29). Zhao does not disclose a scanning state.
Yet, Popovi discloses wherein an image acquisition system that includes a first imaging modality device (abstract, lines 1-2). The system (fig. 1) contains a scan mode/ scanning state (para 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified teachings of Sampedro with that of Quaid, Zhao, and Popovi to arrive at the claimed invention. Such combination would improve the system by ensuring each robotic arm can enter different states needed during the surgical procedure, ultimately increasing the functionality and efficiency of the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 15, Sampedro as modified teaches the method of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the plurality of states comprises a home state, a tool cabinet state, a scanning state, an action state, and an implant state.
However, Quaid discloses a surgical apparatus that includes a surgical device containing a moving surgical arm (abstract and para 0093). The apparatus (fig. 1) contains different operational modes/states, which include a hold mode/home state or stationary state, an approach mode/action state, and an implant state/haptic mode (para 0124, para 0182, para 0214, last 4 sentences, and para 0229, first sentence). Quaid does not disclose wherein the plurality of states includes a tool cabinet state and a scanning state.
However, Zhao discloses robotic devices and systems for the use of tele surgical therapies and procedures (abstract, lines 1-2). The device (fig. 1) contains a plurality of robot manipulators/arms and a tool state (para 0067 and claim 29). Zhao does not disclose a scanning state.
Yet, Popovi discloses wherein an image acquisition system that includes a first imaging modality device (abstract, lines 1-2). The system (fig. 1) contains a scan mode/ scanning state (para 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified teachings of Sampedro with that of Quaid, Zhao, and Popovi to arrive at the claimed invention. Such combination would improve the system by ensuring each robotic arm can enter different states needed during the surgical procedure, ultimately increasing the functionality and efficiency of the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 20, Sampedro as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 19, but does not disclose wherein the plurality of states include a home state, a tool cabinet state, a scanning state, an action state, and an implant state.
However, Quaid discloses a surgical apparatus that includes a surgical device containing a moving surgical arm (abstract and para 0093). The apparatus (fig. 1) contains different operational modes/states, which include a hold mode/home state or stationary state, an approach mode/action state, and an implant state/haptic mode (para 0124, para 0182, para 0214, last 4 sentences, and para 0229, first sentence). Quaid does not disclose wherein the plurality of states includes a tool cabinet state and a scanning state.
However, Zhao discloses robotic devices and systems for the use of telesurgical therapies and procedures (abstract, lines 1-2). The device (fig. 1) contains a plurality of robot manipulators/arms and a tool state (para 0067 and claim 29). Zhao does not disclose a scanning state.
Yet, Popovi discloses wherein an image acquisition system that includes a first imaging modality device (abstract, lines 1-2). The system (fig. 1) contains a scan mode/ scanning state (para 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified teachings of Sampedro with that of Quaid, Zhao, and Popovi to arrive at the claimed invention. Such combination would improve the system by ensuring each robotic arm can enter different states needed during the surgical procedure, ultimately increasing the functionality and efficiency of the surgical procedure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 9,323, 250 B2) teaches a telepresence robot including a control system, an imaging system and a mapping module for time-dependent navigation of telepresence robots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARMEL J WEBSTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5960. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/JOHN R DOWNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights