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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 9, 11, and 17 have been amended. Claims 2-21 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of applicant’s response, applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to teach the claimed remotely operated equipment mounted to a distal end of a boom assembly and at least one input device in a separate remote control location. Examiner disagrees with applicant’s arguments. You teaches the remotely operated equipment mounted to a distal end of a boom assembly in Fig. 2. Surgical tool 234 which is operated remotely via computing system 224 is mounted on the distal end of mount 238 that Examiner interprets to be a boom assembly. Therefore, You does teach the claimed remotely operated equipment mounted to a distal end of a boom assembly and at least one input device in a separate remote control location.
Further, on page 9 of applicant’s response, applicant argues that remotely operated equipment mounted to a distal end of a boom assembly would impermissibly change the principle of operation of You. Examiner disagrees with applicant’s arguments. As already mentioned above, You clearly shows the remotely operated equipment mounted to a distal end of a boom assembly in Fig. 2. Surgical tool 234 which is operated remotely via computing system 224 is mounted on the distal end of mount 238 that Examiner interprets to be a boom assembly. Therefore, You directly discloses the remotely operated equipment mounted to a distal end of a boom assembly as part of its normal operation.
For these reasons, the prior art rejections are maintained.
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 2-10, 12-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220134569 A1 (“You”) in view of US 20170055883 A1 (“Lee”).
As per Claim 2, You discloses a method for controlling motion of a remotely operated equipment communicatively coupled to at least one input device of an operator, the remotely
operated equipment mounted to a distal end of a boom assembly (Fig. 2), the method comprising:
automatically determining a control point on at least one tool coupled to the remotely operated equipment (¶ 48—“one point on the surgical tool is tracked”);
identifying a current position of the control point on the at least one tool, the control point within a remote operating environment at the distal end of the boom assembly and that the input device is in a remote control location separate from the remote operating environment (¶ 48—“one point on the surgical tool is tracked”; Fig. 2) . Examiner notes that the location of the computer system 224 can be in Fig. 2 is being interpreted as being separate from the remote operating environment (222, 205, 220).
generating a motion path for the remotely operated equipment to move the control point on the at least one tool to the updated target position based on the current position of the control point (¶¶ 48-49—“ one point on the surgical tool is tracked…the surgical tool is guided to the haptic object(s)”).
Lee teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by You, including namely
a current position of the at least one input device (¶ 95—“measuring position and action of an arm according to the present invention can be very useful as a master device for instructing a two-arm robot in motions in an industrial field or remotely controlling a two-arm robot”);
detecting motion of the at least one input device (¶ 44—“an instructor to wear a two-arm robot and precisely instruct the robot in desired motions from the instructor's arm motions by freely and conveniently moving both arms”);
responsive to detecting motion of the at least one input device, determining an updated target position for the control point on the at least one tool (¶ 44—“an instructor to wear a two-arm robot and precisely instruct the robot in desired motions from the instructor's arm motions by freely and conveniently moving both arms”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of You to include the limitations as taught by Lee to provide a wearable apparatus for measuring position and action of an arm that is worn on a user's arm and enables a robot to intuitionally learn necessary actions by precisely and stably measuring movement of the arm (Lee: ¶ 11).
As per Claim 3, You further discloses:
receiving, from the operator, a manual selection requesting to adjust the control point on the at least one tool (¶ 87—“The robotic arm 232 can be moved into the approach area manually by a user”); and
responsive to the manual selection, updating the control point on the at least one tool to a new position on the at least one tool indicated in the manual selection (¶ 87—“detecting entry of the robotic arm 232 into the approach area includes tracking the end effector array (trackable markers) attached to the distal end of the robotic arm 232 with the tracking system 222 and determining whether the distal end of the robotic arm 232 is in an approach area”).
As per Claim 4, You further discloses:
receiving an indication that the remotely operated equipment has been coupled to an at least one subsequent tool distinct from the at least one tool (¶ 27—“The surgical tool 234 may be any suitable tool, and may be one of multiple tools interchangeably connectable to robotic device”); and
responsive to the remotely operated equipment being coupled to the at least one subsequent tool, automatically updating the control point based on the at least one subsequent tool (¶ 28—“the tracking system 222 determines a position and orientation (i.e., pose) of objects (e.g., surgical tool”); ¶ 48—“two points on the surgical tool are tracked, for example a tool center point (TCP) at a tip/effective end of the surgical tool and a second interaction point (SIP) positioned along a body or handle portion of the surgical tool”).
As per Claim 5, Lee teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by You, including namely wherein the at least one input device comprises a position sensitive controller configured to be held by the operator (¶ 95—“measuring position and action of an arm according to the present invention can be very useful as a master device for instructing a two-arm robot in motions in an industrial field or remotely controlling a two-arm robot”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of You to include the limitations as taught by Lee to provide a wearable apparatus for measuring position and action of an arm that is worn on a user's arm and enables a robot to intuitionally learn necessary actions by precisely and stably measuring movement of the arm (Lee: ¶ 11).
As per Claim 6, You further discloses wherein the at least one tool is a drill tool coupled to an end of a robotic arm of the remotely operated equipment (¶ 27—“The surgical tool may also be a drill”).
As per Claim 7, You further discloses wherein the control point is positioned at a handle portion of the drill tool (¶ 48—“a second interaction point (SIP) positioned along a body or handle portion of the surgical too”).
As per Claim 8, You further discloses wherein the control point is positioned at a drill bit portion of the drill tool (¶ 48—“a tool center point (TCP) at a tip/effective end of the surgical tool”).
As per Claim 9, You discloses a system for controlling motion of a remotely operated equipment, the remotely operated equipment mounted to a distal end of a boom assembly (Fig. 2), the system comprising:
at least one input device (¶ 88—“input device”);
a communications connection coupled to the remotely operated equipment (¶ 25—“robotic device 220 includes a base 230, a robotic arm 232, and a surgical tool 234, and is communicably coupled to the computing system 224 and the tracking system 222”);
at least one processor (¶ 33—“processor”); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor perform a method of controlling motion of the remotely operated equipment, the method comprising:
automatically determining a control point on at least one tool coupled to the remotely operated equipment (¶ 48—“one point on the surgical tool is tracked”);
identifying a current position of the control point on the at least one tool the control point within a remote operating environment at the distal end of the boom assembly and that input device is within a remote control location separate from the remote operating environment; (¶ 48—“one point on the surgical tool is tracked”; Fig. 2). Examiner notes that the location of the computer system 224 can be in Fig. 2 is being interpreted as being separate from the remote operating environment (222, 205, 220).
Lee teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by You, including namely
detecting motion of the at least one input device (¶ 44—“an instructor to wear a two-arm robot and precisely instruct the robot in desired motions from the instructor's arm motions by freely and conveniently moving both arms”);
responsive to detecting motion of the at least one input device, determining an updated target position for the control point on the at least one tool; and transmitting a control signal to the remotely operated equipment via the communications connection, the control signal including information indicative of the updated target position for the control point on the at least one tool (¶ 44—“an instructor to wear a two-arm robot and precisely instruct the robot in desired motions from the instructor's arm motions by freely and conveniently moving both arms”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of You to include the limitations as taught by Lee to provide a wearable apparatus for measuring position and action of an arm that is worn on a user's arm and enables a robot to intuitionally learn necessary actions by precisely and stably measuring movement of the arm (Lee: ¶ 11).
As per Claim 10, Lee teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by You, including namely wherein the at least one input device comprises a position sensitive controller configured to be held by an operator (¶ 95—“measuring position and action of an arm according to the present invention can be very useful as a master device for instructing a two-arm robot in motions in an industrial field or remotely controlling a two-arm robot”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of You to include the limitations as taught by Lee to provide a wearable apparatus for measuring position and action of an arm that is worn on a user's arm and enables a robot to intuitionally learn necessary actions by precisely and stably measuring movement of the arm (Lee: ¶ 11).
As per Claim 12, You further discloses wherein the updated target position comprises a three-dimensional coordinate mapping for the control point on the at least one tool operable to control motion of the remotely operated equipment with six degrees of freedom in a three- dimensional space (¶ 93—“Motorized movement of the robotic arm 232 to the starting pose in step 518 can includes movement in one to six degrees of freedom”).
As per Claim 13, You further discloses wherein the system is configured to receive a signal from a remote capture device associated with the remotely operated equipment, the signal including sensory information captured by the remote capture device (¶ 29—“Detection device 246 may be an optical detector such as a camera or infrared sensor”).
As per Claim 14, You further discloses wherein the control point is positioned at a handle portion of the at least one tool (¶ 48—“a second interaction point (SIP) positioned along a body or handle portion of the surgical too”).
As per Claim 15, You further discloses wherein the control point is identified based at least in part on a tool type of the at least one tool (¶ 27—“the surgical tool may also be a sagittal saw, for example with a blade aligned parallel with a tool axis or perpendicular to the tool axis. The surgical tool may also be a drill”; ¶ 28—“the tracking system 222 determines a position and orientation (i.e., pose) of objects (e.g., surgical tool”); ¶ 48—“two points on the surgical tool are tracked, for example a tool center point (TCP) at a tip/effective end of the surgical tool and a second interaction point (SIP) positioned along a body or handle portion of the surgical tool”).
As per Claim 17, You discloses a method for controlling motion of a remotely operated equipment communicatively coupled to at least one input device of an operator, the remotely operated equipment mounted to a distal end of a boom assembly (Fig. 2), the method comprising:
identifying a tool type associated with a tool coupled to the remotely operated equipment (¶ 27—“The surgical tool 234 may be any suitable tool, and may be one of multiple tools interchangeably connectable to robotic device”);
automatically determining a control point on the tool based at least in part on the tool type (¶ 48—“one point on the surgical tool is tracked”);
identifying a current position of the control point on the tool the control point within a remote operating environment at the distal end of the boom assembly and that the input device is in a remote control location separate from the remote operating environment (¶ 48—“one point on the surgical tool is tracked”; Fig. 2) . Examiner notes that the location of the computer system 224 can be in Fig. 2 is being interpreted as being separate from the remote operating environment (222, 205, 220).
generating a motion path for the remotely operated equipment to move the control point on the tool to the updated target position based on the current position of the control point (¶¶ 48-49—“ one point on the surgical tool is tracked…the surgical tool is guided to the haptic object(s)”).
Lee teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by You, including namely
receiving an input command from the at least one input device, the input command requesting motion of the remotely operated equipment (¶ 44—“an instructor to wear a two-arm robot and precisely instruct the robot in desired motions from the instructor's arm motions by freely and conveniently moving both arms”);
responsive to receiving the input command from the at least one input device, determining an updated target position for the control point on the tool based on the input command (¶ 44—“an instructor to wear a two-arm robot and precisely instruct the robot in desired motions from the instructor's arm motions by freely and conveniently moving both arms”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of You to include the limitations as taught by Lee to provide a wearable apparatus for measuring position and action of an arm that is worn on a user's arm and enables a robot to intuitionally learn necessary actions by precisely and stably measuring movement of the arm (Lee: ¶ 11).
As per Claim 18, You further discloses wherein the tool type is identified from one of a gripping tool type, a hotstick tool type, and a drill tool type, and wherein each tool type is associated with a respective default control point (¶ 27—“The surgical tool 234 may be any suitable tool, and may be one of multiple tools interchangeably connectable to robotic device 220. For example, as shown in FIG. 2 the surgical tool 234 includes a spherical burr 244. In other examples, the surgical tool may also be a sagittal saw, for example with a blade aligned parallel with a tool axis or perpendicular to the tool axis. The surgical tool may also be a drill, for example with a rotary bit aligned parallel with a tool axis or perpendicular to the tool axis. The surgical tool 234 may also be a holding arm or other support configured to hold an implant component (e.g., cup 28a, implant augment, etc.) in position while the implant component is screwed to a bone, adhered (e.g., cemented) to a bone or other implant component, or otherwise installed in a preferred position. In some embodiments, the surgical tool 234 is an impaction tool configured to provide an impaction force to a cup implant to facilitate fixation of the cup implant to a pelvis in a planned location and orientation.”).
As per Claim 19, You further discloses:
responsive to a tool change operation, identifying a subsequent tool type associated with a subsequent tool coupled to the remotely operated equipment (¶ 27—“The surgical tool 234 may be any suitable tool, and may be one of multiple tools interchangeably connectable to robotic device”); and
automatically determining an updated control point on the subsequent tool based at least in part on the subsequent tool type (¶ 28—“the tracking system 222 determines a position and orientation (i.e., pose) of objects (e.g., surgical tool”); ¶ 48—“two points on the surgical tool are tracked, for example a tool center point (TCP) at a tip/effective end of the surgical tool and a second interaction point (SIP) positioned along a body or handle portion of the surgical tool”).
As per Claim 20, You further discloses:
transmitting at least one signal to a control system of the remotely operated equipment, the at least one signal comprising information indicative of the motion path for the remotely operated equipment (¶ 50—“Step 308 can include optimizing a path for the robotic device such that the step 308 ensures successful alignment to the haptic object”).
As per Claim 21, You further discloses:
identifying one or more predetermined parameters associated with the remotely operated equipment, the one or more predetermined parameters comprising one or more dimensions of the remotely operated equipment (¶ 40—“the virtual representation of the sagittal saw may include numerous HIPs”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You in view of Lee as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 20030172598 A1 (“Greer”).
As per Claim 11, Greer teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by You in view of Lee, including namely wherein the communications connection comprises one or more fiber-optic cables disposed across a dielectric gap of the boom assembly supporting the remotely operated equipment (¶ 25—“boom…dielectric gap”; ¶ 26—“fiberoptic cable”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of You in view of Lee to include the limitations as taught by Greer to maintain the work station in a state of electrical isolation relative to the vehicular platform (Greer: ¶ 5).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You in view of Lee as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 20040024311 A1 (“Quaid”).
As per Claim 16, Quaid teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by You in view of Lee, including namely: a head-mounted display coupled to the at least one input device and configured to be worn by an operator during use, the head-mounted display operable to display real-time images of a remote operating environment of the remotely operated equipment during use (¶ 33—“a head-mounted display”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of You in view of Lee to include the limitations of Quaid to not focus his visual attention away from the surgical field (Quaid: ¶ 5).
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 BASIL T JOS whose telephone number is (571)270-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 8:00 PM.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/Basil T. Jos/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights