DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is taken in response to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on 10/03/2025 regarding Application No. 18/233,260 originally filed on 08/11/2023. Claims 21-23 and 25-41 are pending for consideration:
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
The applicant argues the cancellation of claim 24 “is believed to render moot the objection to claims 23 and 24 as being the same claim.” The examiner agrees only as to the duplicate-claim objection, because claim 24 has been canceled. However, applicant’s remarks do not address the remaining outstanding claim objections for claims 21, 26, 29, 35, and 37 (i.e., “communications interface,” “attribute comprises an attribute,” “to position one or both of first manipulator robot,” and “the method comprising”). As noted in the prior Office action, appropriate correction is still required.
The applicant argues “It is believed that the Terminal Disclaimer filed herewith is sufficient to overcome the double patenting rejection.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. A terminal disclaimer is not of record in the file wrapper as of the date of this Office action. Accordingly, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is maintained.
The applicant argues the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 and/or §103 “are respectfully traversed,” and that claims 21, 33, and 35 have been amended to clarify that the degrees of freedom are “robotically controlled” and that, in the first mode, the positioning robot is controlled “independently of the manipulator robot.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Diolaiti discloses robotically controlled manipulators and robotically controlled joints for controlling robotic devices. (as per “a guide tube manipulator 2116 includes illustrative active roll joint 2116a and active yaw joint 2116b” in ¶97, as per “Each instrument 1740a, 1740b is a 6 DOF instrument…” in ¶107, as per “Each of the devices 2231, 2241, 2251, 2261, 2271 is manipulated by its own manipulator” in ¶135). Further, Diolaiti discloses controlling devices in different control modes in which specific slave manipulators are directly controlled while other devices are held/controlled by their respective controllers (i.e., independently controlled relative to the directly controlled device). (as per “Direct control modes… user has direct control over a specific slave manipulator. All other slave manipulators… are soft-locked… held in place by their respective controllers.” in ¶152, as per “the Surgeon is directly controlling movement of an associated slave manipulator… while indirectly controlling movement of one or more non-associated slave manipulators… to achieve a secondary objective.” in ¶155). Thus, Diolaiti’s disclosure meets the amended recitations of robotically controlled degrees of freedom and independent control in the first mode.
The applicant argues Diolaiti includes “manually positioned passive elements” and that “manually operated positioning hardware… does not comprise a set of ‘robotically controlled’ degrees of freedom,” and therefore Diolaiti does not teach the claimed “positioning robot.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 21 does not exclude the presence of passive/setup structure, nor does it require that all positioning degrees of freedom be robotically controlled at all times; rather, it recites a positioning robot “having m robotically controlled degrees of freedom.” Diolaiti expressly discloses a positioning/guide tube manipulator with active joints (robotically controlled DOFs). (as per “guide tube manipulator 2116 includes… active roll joint… active yaw joint” in ¶97). Therefore, the fact that Diolaiti also discloses passive setup joints does not negate the disclosure of robotically controlled DOFs for positioning.
The applicant argues Diolaiti’s “multiple manipulators… controlled in parallel” is not the same as “controlling… a positioning robot and… a manipulator robot coupled sequentially” as recited for the second mode. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Diolaiti discloses a serially coupled arrangement in which a guide tube manipulator/positioning structure supports and positions other robotic devices/manipulators, consistent with the claimed mechanical coupling of a base end to a free end of another structure. (as per “a guide tube… held by a platform 2118” in ¶97, as per “Platform 2170 supports multiple manipulators 2176…” in ¶98). Further, Diolaiti’s coupled control mode expressly coordinates movement of multiple degrees of freedom under a single control framework to achieve secondary objectives (including driving non-associated devices to desired poses and minimizing collisions). (as per “In a coupled control mode… indirectly controlling movement of one or more non-associated slave manipulators… to achieve a secondary objective” in ¶155, as per “motion coordinator 2202 determines how to take advantage of the overall system kinematics… to achieve the secondary objectives” in ¶162). Thus, Diolaiti teaches controlling subsets of degrees of freedom together by a single controller in a coupled mode, as claimed.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 26, 29, 35, and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“communications interface” in Claim 21 should read “communication interface”
“attribute comprises an attribute” in Claim 26 and Claim 37 should read “attribute data comprises an attribute”
“to position one or both of first manipulator robot” in Claim 29 should read “to position one or both of the first manipulator robot”
“the method comprising” in Claim 35 should read “further comprising” (i.e. claim is not a method claim)
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-22, 28-35, 38-41 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/239,600 (reference application). As shown in the table below, the instant claims differ from those of the reference application in that they expressly recite a separate communication interface and a processor coupled to that interface for controlling, via communications sent over the interface, both a multi‑DOF positioning robot and a multi‑DOF manipulator robot in independently selectable and jointly coordinated modes, whereas the reference claims recite only a robot capable of two modes of operation without any explicit communication interface or dedicated processor-based control module. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the two‑mode robot of the reference application by adding a communication interface and a processor to manage the same mode transitions via networked control.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application 18/233,260
Reference Application 18/239,600
21. A robotic system, comprising: a communication interface; and
a processor coupled to the communication interface and configured to control, via communication sent via the communications interface, a robot comprising a positioning robot having m robotically controlled degrees of freedom, a first base end, and a first free moving end and a manipulator robot having n robotically controlled degrees of freedom, the manipulator robot having a second base end coupled mechanically to the first free moving end of the positioning robot and a second free end configured to have a robotic end effector mounted thereon;
wherein the processor is configured to control the robot in a first mode of operation, in which the positioning robot is controlled independently of the manipulator robot to move the manipulator robot into a position to perform a task and the manipulator robot is controlled independently of the positioning robot to perform the task; and in a second mode of operation, in which at least a subset of the m degrees of freedom of the positioning robot and at least a subset of the n degrees of freedom of the manipulator robot are controlled together, by a single controller, to perform the task.
1. A robot, comprising: a positioning robot having m degrees of freedom, a first base end, and a first free moving end; and a manipulator robot having n degrees of freedom, the manipulator robot having a second base end coupled mechanically to the first free moving end of the positioning robot and a second free end configured to have a robotic end effector mounted thereon; wherein the robot is configured to be operated in a first mode of operation, in which the positioning robot is controlled to position move the manipulator robot into a position to perform a task and the manipulator robot is controlled independently of the positioning robot to perform the task; and in a second mode of operation, in which at least a subset of the m degrees of freedom of the positioning robot and at least a subset of the n degrees of freedom of the manipulator robot are controlled together, by a single controller, to perform the task.
22. The robotic system of claim 21, wherein the processor is configured to select the first mode of operation or the second mode of operation to perform the task.
1. A robot, comprising: a positioning robot having m degrees of freedom, a first base end, and a first free moving end; and a manipulator robot having n degrees of freedom, the manipulator robot having a second base end coupled mechanically to the first free moving end of the positioning robot and a second free end configured to have a robotic end effector mounted thereon; wherein the robot is configured to be operated in a first mode of operation, in which the positioning robot is controlled to position move the manipulator robot into a position to perform a task and the manipulator robot is controlled independently of the positioning robot to perform the task; and in a second mode of operation, in which at least a subset of the m degrees of freedom of the positioning robot and at least a subset of the n degrees of freedom of the manipulator robot are controlled together, by a single controller, to perform the task.
28. The robotic system of claim 21, wherein the manipulator robot comprises a first manipulator robot and the robot further includes a second manipulator robot coupled to the positioning robot and wherein the processor is configured to determine to use the first manipulator robot, the second manipulator robot, or both the first manipulator robot and the second manipulator robot to perform the task.
11. The robot of claim 1, wherein the manipulator robot comprises a first manipulator robot and the robot further comprises a second manipulator robot having a third base end and a third free moving end, and wherein the third base end of the second manipulator robot is couple to the first free moving end of the positioning robot.
29. The robotic system of claim 28, wherein the processor is further configured to control the positioning robot to position one or both of first manipulator robot and the second manipulator robot to perform the task.
14. The robot of claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to use the first manipulator robot and the second manipulator robot cooperatively to perform a task.
30. The robotic system of claim 21, wherein the processor is configured to use one or more joints comprising the positioning robot to hold the manipulator robot in place, in a desired pose of the manipulator robot, including while the manipulator robot has an item in its grasp.
1. A robot, comprising: a positioning robot having m degrees of freedom, a first base end, and a first free moving end; and a manipulator robot having n degrees of freedom, the manipulator robot having a second base end coupled mechanically to the first free moving end of the positioning robot and a second free end configured to have a robotic end effector mounted thereon; wherein the robot is configured to be operated in a first mode of operation, in which the positioning robot is controlled to position move the manipulator robot into a position to perform a task and the manipulator robot is controlled independently of the positioning robot to perform the task; and in a second mode of operation, in which at least a subset of the m degrees of freedom of the positioning robot and at least a subset of the n degrees of freedom of the manipulator robot are controlled together, by a single controller, to perform the task.
31. The robotic system of claim 21, wherein the processor is configured to apply torque to one or more joints comprising the positioning robot to slow movement and counteract momentum of the manipulator robot as the second base end of the using
1. A robot, comprising: a positioning robot having m degrees of freedom, a first base end, and a first free moving end; and a manipulator robot having n degrees of freedom, the manipulator robot having a second base end coupled mechanically to the first free moving end of the positioning robot and a second free end configured to have a robotic end effector mounted thereon; wherein the robot is configured to be operated in a first mode of operation, in which the positioning robot is controlled to position move the manipulator robot into a position to perform a task and the manipulator robot is controlled independently of the positioning robot to perform the task; and in a second mode of operation, in which at least a subset of the m degrees of freedom of the positioning robot and at least a subset of the n degrees of freedom of the manipulator robot are controlled together, by a single controller, to perform the task.
32. The robotic system of claim 21, wherein the processor is configured to begin to operate the manipulator robot as required to perform the task while the positioning robot is still being used to move the manipulator robot into position to perform the task.
1. A robot, comprising: a positioning robot having m degrees of freedom, a first base end, and a first free moving end; and a manipulator robot having n degrees of freedom, the manipulator robot having a second base end coupled mechanically to the first free moving end of the positioning robot and a second free end configured to have a robotic end effector mounted thereon; wherein the robot is configured to be operated in a first mode of operation, in which the positioning robot is controlled to position move the manipulator robot into a position to perform a task and the manipulator robot is controlled independently of the positioning robot to perform the task; and in a second mode of operation, in which at least a subset of the m degrees of freedom of the positioning robot and at least a subset of the n degrees of freedom of the manipulator robot are controlled together, by a single controller, to perform the task.
33. A method of controlling a robot comprising a positioning robot having m robotically controlled degrees of freedom, a first base end, and a first free moving end and a manipulator robot having n robotically controlled degrees of freedom, the manipulator robot having a second base end coupled mechanically to the first free moving end of the positioning robot and a second free end configured to have a robotic end effector mounted thereon, the method comprising: controlling the robot in a first mode of operation, in which the positioning robot is controlled independently of the manipulator robot to move the manipulator robot into a position to perform a task and the manipulator robot is controlled independently of the positioning robot to perform the task; and
controlling the robot in a second mode of operation, in which at least a subset of the m degrees of freedom of the positioning robot and at least a subset of the n degrees of freedom of the manipulator robot are controlled together, by a single controller, to perform the task.
1. A robot, comprising: a positioning robot having m degrees of freedom, a first base end, and a first free moving end; and a manipulator robot having n degrees of freedom, the manipulator robot having a second base end coupled mechanically to the first free moving end of the positioning robot and a second free end configured to have a robotic end effector mounted thereon; wherein the robot is configured to be operated in a first mode of operation, in which the positioning robot is controlled to position move the manipulator robot into a position to perform a task and the manipulator robot is controlled independently of the positioning robot to perform the task; and in a second mode of operation, in which at least a subset of the m degrees of freedom of the positioning robot and at least a subset of the n degrees of freedom of the manipulator robot are controlled together, by a single controller, to perform the task.
34. The method of claim 33, further comprising determining for a given task whether to control the robot in the first mode of operation or the second mode of operation.
1. A robot, comprising: a positioning robot having m degrees of freedom, a first base end, and a first free moving end; and a manipulator robot having n degrees of freedom, the manipulator robot having a second base end coupled mechanically to the first free moving end of the positioning robot and a second free end configured to have a robotic end effector mounted thereon; wherein the robot is configured to be operated in a first mode of operation, in which the positioning robot is controlled to position move the manipulator robot into a position to perform a task and the manipulator robot is controlled independently of the positioning robot to perform the task; and in a second mode of operation, in which at least a subset of the m degrees of freedom of the positioning robot and at least a subset of the n degrees of freedom of the manipulator robot are controlled together, by a single controller, to perform the task.
35. A computer program product to control a robot comprising a positioning robot having m robotically controlled degrees of freedom, a first base end, and a first free moving end and a manipulator robot having n robotically controlled degrees of freedom, the manipulator robot having a second base end coupled mechanically to the first free moving end of the positioning robot and a second free end configured to have a robotic end effector mounted thereon, the method comprising, the computer program product being embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for: controlling the robot in a first mode of operation, in which the positioning robot is controlled independently of the manipulator robot to move the manipulator robot into a position to perform a task and the manipulator robot is controlled independently of the positioning robot to perform the task; and
controlling the robot in a second mode of operation, in which at least a subset of the m degrees of freedom of the positioning robot and at least a subset of the n degrees of freedom of the manipulator robot are controlled together, by a single controller, to perform the task.
1. A robot, comprising: a positioning robot having m degrees of freedom, a first base end, and a first free moving end; and a manipulator robot having n degrees of freedom, the manipulator robot having a second base end coupled mechanically to the first free moving end of the positioning robot and a second free end configured to have a robotic end effector mounted thereon; wherein the robot is configured to be operated in a first mode of operation, in which the positioning robot is controlled to position move the manipulator robot into a position to perform a task and the manipulator robot is controlled independently of the positioning robot to perform the task; and in a second mode of operation, in which at least a subset of the m degrees of freedom of the positioning robot and at least a subset of the n degrees of freedom of the manipulator robot are controlled together, by a single controller, to perform the task.
38. The method of claim 33, wherein the manipulator robot comprises a first manipulator robot and the robot further includes a second manipulator robot coupled to the positioning robot and further comprising determining to use the first manipulator robot, the second manipulator robot, or both the first manipulator robot and the second manipulator robot to perform the task.
11. The robot of claim 1, wherein the manipulator robot comprises a first manipulator robot and the robot further comprises a second manipulator robot having a third base end and a third free moving end, and wherein the third base end of the second manipulator robot is couple to the first free moving end of the positioning robot.
39. The method of claim 33, further comprising beginning to operate the manipulator robot as required to perform the task while the positioning robot is still being used to move the manipulator robot into position to perform the task.
1. A robot, comprising: a positioning robot having m degrees of freedom, a first base end, and a first free moving end; and a manipulator robot having n degrees of freedom, the manipulator robot having a second base end coupled mechanically to the first free moving end of the positioning robot and a second free end configured to have a robotic end effector mounted thereon; wherein the robot is configured to be operated in a first mode of operation, in which the positioning robot is controlled to position move the manipulator robot into a position to perform a task and the manipulator robot is controlled independently of the positioning robot to perform the task; and in a second mode of operation, in which at least a subset of the m degrees of freedom of the positioning robot and at least a subset of the n degrees of freedom of the manipulator robot are controlled together, by a single controller, to perform the task.
40. The method of claim 33, further comprising applying torque to one or more joints comprising the positioning robot to slow movement and counteract momentum of the manipulator robot as the second base end of the manipulator robot approaches a target location in three-dimensional space.
1. A robot, comprising: a positioning robot having m degrees of freedom, a first base end, and a first free moving end; and a manipulator robot having n degrees of freedom, the manipulator robot having a second base end coupled mechanically to the first free moving end of the positioning robot and a second free end configured to have a robotic end effector mounted thereon; wherein the robot is configured to be operated in a first mode of operation, in which the positioning robot is controlled to position move the manipulator robot into a position to perform a task and the manipulator robot is controlled independently of the positioning robot to perform the task; and in a second mode of operation, in which at least a subset of the m degrees of freedom of the positioning robot and at least a subset of the n degrees of freedom of the manipulator robot are controlled together, by a single controller, to perform the task.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 30-33, 35, and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Diolaiti (US Pub. No. 20140222021).
As per Claim 21, Diolaiti discloses of a robotic system with coupled control modes (as per Abstract), comprising:
a processor (as per ¶96) coupled to the communication interface and configured to control, via communication sent via the communications interface, (as per “are a surgeon's console 2102, a patient side support system 2104, and a video system 2106, all interconnected 2108 by wired or wireless connections as shown.” In ¶95) a robot comprising
a positioning robot having m robotically controlled degrees of freedom, (as per “a guide tube manipulator 2116 includes illustrative active roll joint 2116 a and active yaw joint 2116 b. Joints 2116 c and 2116 d act as a parallel mechanism so that a guide tube (of a surgical instrument assembly) held by a platform 2118 moves around remote center 2120 at an entry port, such as patient 1222's umbilicus” in ¶97, as per “It should be understood that manipulator arms may include various combinations of links, passive, and active joints (redundant DOFs may be provided) to achieve a necessary range of poses for surgery” in ¶99)
a first base end, and a first free moving end (as per “the patient side support system 2104 includes a floor-mounted structure 2110, or alternately a ceiling mounted structure 2112 as shown by the alternate lines. The structure 2110 may be movable or fixed (e.g., to the floor, ceiling, or other equipment such as an operating table). In one embodiment a set-up arm assembly 2114 is a modified da Vinci® Surgical System arm assembly. The arm assembly 2114 includes two illustrative passive rotational setup joints 2114 a,2114 b, which allow manual positioning of the coupled links when their brakes are released. A passive prismatic setup joint (not shown) between the arm assembly and the structure 2110 may be used to allow for large vertical adjustments. In addition, a guide tube manipulator 2116 includes illustrative active roll joint 2116 a and active yaw joint 2116 b. Joints 2116 c and 2116 d act as a parallel mechanism so that a guide tube (of a surgical instrument assembly) held by a platform 2118 moves around remote center 2120 at an entry port,” in ¶97) and
a manipulator robot having n robotically controlled degrees of freedom, (as per “Each instrument 1740 a,1740 b is a 6 DOF instrument, as described above, and includes a parallel motion mechanism 1744 a,1744 b, as described above, with wrists 1746 a,1746 b and end effectors 1748 a,1748 b attached. In addition, an independently teleoperated endoscopic imaging system 1750 runs through and emerges at the distal end of guide tube 1742” in ¶107, as per “Each of the devices 2231,2241,2251,2261,2271 is manipulated by its own manipulator” in ¶135, as per “Each instrument 1740 a,1740 b is a 6 DOF instrument, as described above, and includes a parallel motion mechanism 1744 a,1744 b, as described above, with wrists 1746 a,1746 b and end effectors 1748 a,1748 b attached” in ¶107)
the manipulator robot having a second base end coupled mechanically to the first free moving end of the positioning robot and a second free end configured to have a robotic end effector mounted thereon; (as per “Platform 2170 supports multiple manipulators 2176 for surgical instruments and an imaging system, as described below.” In ¶98, as per “Each instrument 1740 a,1740 b is a 6 DOF instrument, as described above, and includes a parallel motion mechanism 1744 a,1744 b, as described above, with wrists 1746 a,1746 b and end effectors 1748 a,1748 b attached.” In ¶107, as per “Many end effectors have a single DOF (e.g., graspers that open and close). The end effector may be coupled to the surgical instrument body with a mechanism that provides one or more additional DOFs, such as “wrist” type mechanisms” in ¶87, as per Fig. 8)
wherein the processor is configured to control the robot in a first mode of operation, in which the positioning robot is controlled independently of the manipulator robot to move the manipulator robot into a position to perform a task (as per “a base manipulator (such as a patient side cart) with a large reachable workspace may be used to deliver the instrument and imaging system slave manipulators near the entry apertures (e.g., minimally invasive incisions or natural orifices) in the patient body” in ¶36, as per “f the Surgeon desires to control movement of the surgical tool 2251 using one of the input devices 203,204, then the Surgeon may do so by simply disassociating the input device from its currently associated device and associating it instead to the tool 2251. Likewise, if the Surgeon desires to control movement of either the imaging system 2261 or guide tube 2271 using one or both of the input devices 203,204, then the Surgeon may do so by simply disassociating the input device from its currently associated device and associating it instead to the imaging system 2261 or guide tube 2271” in ¶137, as per “the Surgeon is directly controlling movement of an associated slave manipulator (e.g., one of the manipulators 2232,2242,2252,2262,2272) while indirectly controlling movement of one or more non-associated slave manipulators, in response to commanded motion of the directly controlled slave manipulator, to achieve a secondary objective” in ¶155)
the manipulator robot is controlled independently of the positioning robot to perform the task; and (as per “Direct control modes are control modes in which the user has direct control over a specific slave manipulator.” In ¶152, as per “three direct control modes are defined as a direct “tool following” mode in which the two hand-operable input devices are associated with two tool slave manipulators and their respective tools, a direct “imaging system” mode in which one or both of the hand-operable input devices are associated with the imaging system, and a direct “guide tube” mode in which one or both hand-operable input devices are associated with the guide tube. For examples, FIGS. 24-25 illustrate a direct “tool following” mode in which the left and right master input devices 204,203 are respectively associated with the first and second tools while a third tool, the imaging system and the guide tube are held in place by their respective controllers” in ¶152, as per “The surgeon manipulates one or more master manual input mechanisms having, e.g., 6 DOFs to control the slave instrument assembly and instrument.” In ¶94)
in a second mode of operation,
in which at least a subset of the m degrees of freedom of the positioning robot and at least a subset of the n degrees of freedom of the manipulator robot are controlled together, by a single controller, to perform the task. (as per “means for commanding the plurality of slave manipulators to move their respective devices in a common degree-of-freedom direction in response to movement of the master input device.” in ¶47, as per “In a coupled control mode, the Surgeon is directly controlling movement of an associated slave manipulator (e.g., one of the manipulators 2232,2242,2252,2262,2272) while indirectly controlling movement of one or more non-associated slave manipulators, in response to commanded motion of the directly controlled slave manipulator, to achieve a secondary objective. Examples of secondary objective include optimizing device workspaces (i.e., maximizing their ranges of motion), optimizing the imaging system's view of other devices and/or the work site, minimizing the chance of collisions between devices and/or the patient's anatomy, and driving non-associated devices to desired poses. By automatically performing secondary tasks through coupled control modes, the system's usability is enhanced by reducing the Surgeon's need to switch to another direct mode to manually achieve the desired secondary objective.” in ¶155)
As per Claim 30, Diolaiti further discloses wherein the processor is configured to use one or more joints comprising the positioning robot to hold the manipulator robot in place, in a desired pose of the manipulator robot, (as per “Direct control modes are control modes in which the user has direct control over a specific slave manipulator. All other slave manipulators (i.e., the ones that are not connected to a master device) are soft-locked (i.e., all their joints are held in place by their respective controllers).” in ¶152) including while the manipulator robot has an item in its grasp.(as per “Hold position blocks 251,252,253,271,272 in FIGS. 25, 27, 29 indicate state commands (each indicating a constant position and orientation for its respective device) that are stored in one or more memory devices and respectively provided to the slave side PSM3* Controller 258, GT* Controller 288, PSM4* Controller 268, PSM1* Controller 248, and PSM2* Controller 247, while following data generated in these controllers are ignored (or otherwise discarded) as indicated by downward point arrows from these controllers, so that their respective manipulators and devices are held at the commanded states.” in ¶154)
As per Claim 31, Diolaiti further discloses wherein the processor is configured to apply torque to one or more joints comprising the positioning robot to slow movement and counteract momentum of the manipulator robot as the second base end of the manipulator robot approaches a target location in three-dimensional space. (as per “Mechanical components (e.g., gears, levers, gimbals, cables, etc.) inside transmission mechanism 2404 transmit roll torques on disks 2410 to e.g., body tube 2406 (for roll) and to components coupled to distal end mechanisms.” In ¶116, as per “A joint control unit 320 receives the slave joint positions from the slave input processing unit 309 and the simulated joint position commands provided from the simulated slave processing unit 308, and generates slave torque command signals for the slave joint motors and master torque feedback command signals for the master joint motors.” In ¶146, as per “A slave output processing unit 310 receives the slave torque command signals from the joint control unit 320, converts them into appropriate electrical currents, and supplies the electrical currents to the joint motors of the slave manipulator so as to drive the motors accordingly.” In ¶147)
As per Claim 32, Diolaiti further discloses wherein the processor is configured to begin to operate the manipulator robot as required to perform the task while the positioning robot is still being used to move the manipulator robot into position to perform the task. (as per “a base that the first instrument is coupled to so that the first instrument moves when the base moves; a base controller means for causing the base to be moved so as to optimize a workspace of the first instrument as the first instrument moves; and a first instrument controller for moving the first instrument according to commanded movement while compensating for movement of the base.” In ¶45, as per “controlling movement of one or more instruments coupled to a base so that the instruments move as the base moves, the method comprising: commanding manipulation of the base so as to optimize an operable workspace of a first instrument; and commanding manipulation of the first instrument according to commanded movement while compensating for movement of the base.” In ¶46)
As per Claim 33, Diolaiti discloses of a robotic system with coupled control modes (as per Abstract), comprising:
a robot comprising a positioning robot having m robotically controlled degrees of freedom, (as per “a guide tube manipulator 2116 includes illustrative active roll joint 2116 a and active yaw joint 2116 b. Joints 2116 c and 2116 d act as a parallel mechanism so that a guide tube (of a surgical instrument assembly) held by a platform 2118 moves around remote center 2120 at an entry port, such as patient 1222's umbilicus” in ¶97, as per “It should be understood that manipulator arms may include various combinations of links, passive, and active joints (redundant DOFs may be provided) to achieve a necessary range of poses for surgery” in ¶99)
a first base end, and a first free moving end (as per “the patient side support system 2104 includes a floor-mounted structure 2110, or alternately a ceiling mounted structure 2112 as shown by the alternate lines. The structure 2110 may be movable or fixed (e.g., to the floor, ceiling, or other equipment such as an operating table). In one embodiment a set-up arm assembly 2114 is a modified da Vinci® Surgical System arm assembly. The arm assembly 2114 includes two illustrative passive rotational setup joints 2114 a,2114 b, which allow manual positioning of the coupled links when their brakes are released. A passive prismatic setup joint (not shown) between the arm assembly and the structure 2110 may be used to allow for large vertical adjustments. In addition, a guide tube manipulator 2116 includes illustrative active roll joint 2116 a and active yaw joint 2116 b. Joints 2116 c and 2116 d act as a parallel mechanism so that a guide tube (of a surgical instrument assembly) held by a platform 2118 moves around remote center 2120 at an entry port,” in ¶97) and
a manipulator robot having n robotically controlled degrees of freedom, (as per “Each instrument 1740 a,1740 b is a 6 DOF instrument, as described above, and includes a parallel motion mechanism 1744 a,1744 b, as described above, with wrists 1746 a,1746 b and end effectors 1748 a,1748 b attached. In addition, an independently teleoperated endoscopic imaging system 1750 runs through and emerges at the distal end of guide tube 1742” in ¶107, as per “Each of the devices 2231,2241,2251,2261,2271 is manipulated by its own manipulator” in ¶135, as per “Each instrument 1740 a,1740 b is a 6 DOF instrument, as described above, and includes a parallel motion mechanism 1744 a,1744 b, as described above, with wrists 1746 a,1746 b and end effectors 1748 a,1748 b attached” in ¶107)
the manipulator robot having a second base end coupled mechanically to the first free moving end of the positioning robot and a second free end configured to have a robotic end effector mounted thereon (as per “Platform 2170 supports multiple manipulators 2176 for surgical instruments and an imaging system, as described below.” In ¶98, as per “Each instrument 1740 a,1740 b is a 6 DOF instrument, as described above, and includes a parallel motion mechanism 1744 a,1744 b, as described above, with wrists 1746 a,1746 b and end effectors 1748 a,1748 b attached.” In ¶107, as per “Many end effectors have a single DOF (e.g., graspers that open and close). The end effector may be coupled to the surgical instrument body with a mechanism that provides one or more additional DOFs, such as “wrist” type mechanisms” in ¶87, as per Fig. 8)
controlling the robot in a first mode of operation,
in which the positioning robot is controlled independently of the manipulator robot (as per “a base manipulator (such as a patient side cart) with a large reachable workspace may be used to deliver the instrument and imaging system slave manipulators near the entry apertures (e.g., minimally invasive incisions or natural orifices) in the patient body” in ¶36, as per “f the Surgeon desires to control movement of the surgical tool 2251 using one of the input devices 203,204, then the Surgeon may do so by simply disassociating the input device from its currently associated device and associating it instead to the tool 2251. Likewise, if the Surgeon desires to control movement of either the imaging system 2261 or guide tube 2271 using one or both of the input devices 203,204, then the Surgeon may do so by simply disassociating the input device from its currently associated device and associating it instead to the imaging system 2261 or guide tube 2271” in ¶137, as per “the Surgeon is directly controlling movement of an associated slave manipulator (e.g., one of the manipulators 2232,2242,2252,2262,2272) while indirectly controlling movement of one or more non-associated slave manipulators, in response to commanded motion of the directly controlled slave manipulator, to achieve a secondary objective” in ¶155)
to move the manipulator robot into a position to perform a task (as per “a base manipulator (such as a patient side cart) with a large reachable workspace may be used to deliver the instrument and imaging system slave manipulators near the entry apertures (e.g., minimally invasive incisions or natural orifices) in the patient body.” In ¶36, as per “Joints 2116 c and 2116 d act as a parallel mechanism so that a guide tube (of a surgical instrument assembly) held by a platform 2118 moves around remote center 2120 at an entry port, such as patient 1222's umbilicus.” In ¶97) and the manipulator robot is controlled independently of the positioning robot to perform the task; (as per “Direct control modes are control modes in which the user has direct control over a specific slave manipulator.” In ¶152, as per “three direct control modes are defined as a direct “tool following” mode in which the two hand-operable input devices are associated with two tool slave manipulators and their respective tools, a direct “imaging system” mode in which one or both of the hand-operable input devices are associated with the imaging system, and a direct “guide tube” mode in which one or both hand-operable input devices are associated with the guide tube. For examples, FIGS. 24-25 illustrate a direct “tool following” mode in which the left and right master input devices 204,203 are respectively associated with the first and second tools while a third tool, the imaging system and the guide tube are held in place by their respective controllers” in ¶152, as per “The surgeon manipulates one or more master manual input mechanisms having, e.g., 6 DOFs to control the slave instrument assembly and instrument.” In ¶94)
controlling the robot in a second mode of operation,
in which at least a subset of the m degrees of freedom of the positioning robot and at least a subset of the n degrees of freedom of the manipulator robot are controlled together, by a single controller, to perform the task. (as per “means for commanding the plurality of slave manipulators to move their respective devices in a common degree-of-freedom direction in response to movement of the master input device.” in ¶47, as per “In a coupled control mode, the Surgeon is directly controlling movement of an associated slave manipulator (e.g., one of the manipulators 2232,2242,2252,2262,2272) while indirectly controlling movement of one or more non-associated slave manipulators, in response to commanded motion of the directly controlled slave manipulator, to achieve a secondary objective. Examples of secondary objective include optimizing device workspaces (i.e., maximizing their ranges of motion), optimizing the imaging system's view of other devices and/or the work site, minimizing the chance of collisions between devices and/or the patient's anatomy, and driving non-associated devices to desired poses. By automatically performing secondary tasks through coupled control modes, the system's usability is enhanced by reducing the Surgeon's need to switch to another direct mode to manually achieve the desired secondary objective.” in ¶155)
As per Claim 35, Diolaiti discloses of a robotic system with coupled control modes (as per Abstract), comprising:
computer program product (as per “are a surgeon's console 2102, a patient side support system 2104, and a video system 2106, all interconnected 2108 by wired or wireless connections as shown.” In ¶95) to control a robot comprising a positioning robot having m robotically controlled degrees of freedom, (as per “a guide tube manipulator 2116 includes illustrative active roll joint 2116 a and active yaw joint 2116 b. Joints 2116 c and 2116 d act as a parallel mechanism so that a guide tube (of a surgical instrument assembly) held by a platform 2118 moves around remote center 2120 at an entry port, such as patient 1222's umbilicus” in ¶97, as per “It should be understood that manipulator arms may include various combinations of links, passive, and active joints (redundant DOFs may be provided) to achieve a necessary range of poses for surgery” in ¶99)
a first base end, and a first free moving end (as per “the patient side support system 2104 includes a floor-mounted structure 2110, or alternately a ceiling mounted structure 2112 as shown by the alternate lines. The structure 2110 may be movable or fixed (e.g., to the floor, ceiling, or other equipment such as an operating table). In one embodiment a set-up arm assembly 2114 is a modified da Vinci® Surgical System arm assembly. The arm assembly 2114 includes two illustrative passive rotational setup joints 2114 a,2114 b, which allow manual positioning of the coupled links when their brakes are released. A passive prismatic setup joint (not shown) between the arm assembly and the structure 2110 may be used to allow for large vertical adjustments. In addition, a guide tube manipulator 2116 includes illustrative active roll joint 2116 a and active yaw joint 2116 b. Joints 2116 c and 2116 d act as a parallel mechanism so that a guide tube (of a surgical instrument assembly) held by a platform 2118 moves around remote center 2120 at an entry port,” in ¶97) and
a manipulator robot having n robotically controlled degrees of freedom, (as per “Each instrument 1740 a,1740 b is a 6 DOF instrument, as described above, and includes a parallel motion mechanism 1744 a,1744 b, as described above, with wrists 1746 a,1746 b and end effectors 1748 a,1748 b attached. In addition, an independently teleoperated endoscopic imaging system 1750 runs through and emerges at the distal end of guide tube 1742” in ¶107, as per “Each of the devices 2231,2241,2251,2261,2271 is manipulated by its own manipulator” in ¶135, as per “Each instrument 1740 a,1740 b is a 6 DOF instrument, as described above, and includes a parallel motion mechanism 1744 a,1744 b, as described above, with wrists 1746 a,1746 b and end effectors 1748 a,1748 b attached” in ¶107)
the manipulator robot having a second base end coupled mechanically to the first free moving end of the positioning robot and a second free end configured to have a robotic end effector mounted thereon, (as per “Platform 2170 supports multiple manipulators 2176 for surgical instruments and an imaging system, as described below.” In ¶98, as per “Each instrument 1740 a,1740 b is a 6 DOF instrument, as described above, and includes a parallel motion mechanism 1744 a,1744 b, as described above, with wrists 1746 a,1746 b and end effectors 1748 a,1748 b attached.” In ¶107, as per “Many end effectors have a single DOF (e.g., graspers that open and close). The end effector may be coupled to the surgical instrument body with a mechanism that provides one or more additional DOFs, such as “wrist” type mechanisms” in ¶87, as per Fig. 8)
the computer program product being embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium (as per ¶75) and comprising computer instructions for:
controlling the robot in a first mode of operation,
in which the positioning robot is controlled independently of the manipulator robot (as per “a base manipulator (such as a patient side cart) with a large reachable workspace may be used to deliver the instrument and imaging system slave manipulators near the entry apertures (e.g., minimally invasive incisions or natural orifices) in the patient body” in ¶36, as per “f the Surgeon desires to control movement of the surgical tool 2251 using one of the input devices 203,204, then the Surgeon may do so by simply disassociating the input device from its currently associated device and associating it instead to the tool 2251. Likewise, if the Surgeon desires to control movement of either the imaging system 2261 or guide tube 2271 using one or both of the input devices 203,204, then the Surgeon may do so by simply disassociating the input device from its currently associated device and associating it instead to the imaging system 2261 or guide tube 2271” in ¶137, as per “the Surgeon is directly controlling movement of an associated slave manipulator (e.g., one of the manipulators 2232,2242,2252,2262,2272) while indirectly controlling movement of one or more non-associated slave manipulators, in response to commanded motion of the directly controlled slave manipulator, to achieve a secondary objective” in ¶155)
to move the manipulator robot into a position to perform a task (as per “a base manipulator (such as a patient side cart) with a large reachable workspace may be used to deliver the instrument and imaging system slave manipulators near the entry apertures (e.g., minimally invasive incisions or natural orifices) in the patient body.” In ¶36, as per “Joints 2116 c and 2116 d act as a parallel mechanism so that a guide tube (of a surgical instrument assembly) held by a platform 2118 moves around remote center 2120 at an entry port, such as patient 1222's umbilicus.” In ¶97) and
the manipulator robot is controlled independently of the positioning robot to perform the task; (as per “Direct control modes are control modes in which the user has direct control over a specific slave manipulator.” In ¶152, as per “three direct control modes are defined as a direct “tool following” mode in which the two hand-operable input devices are associated with two tool slave manipulators and their respective tools, a direct “imaging system” mode in which one or both of the hand-operable input devices are associated with the imaging system, and a direct “guide tube” mode in which one or both hand-operable input devices are associated with the guide tube. For examples, FIGS. 24-25 illustrate a direct “tool following” mode in which the left and right master input devices 204,203 are respectively associated with the first and second tools while a third tool, the imaging system and the guide tube are held in place by their respective controllers” in ¶152, as per “The surgeon manipulates one or more master manual input mechanisms having, e.g., 6 DOFs to control the slave instrument assembly and instrument.” In ¶94)
controlling the robot in a second mode of operation,
in which at least a subset of the m degrees of freedom of the positioning robot and at least a subset of the n degrees of freedom of the manipulator robot are controlled together, by a single controller, to perform the task. (as per “means for commanding the plurality of slave manipulators to move their respective devices in a common degree-of-freedom direction in response to movement of the master input device.” in ¶47, as per “In a coupled control mode, the Surgeon is directly controlling movement of an associated slave manipulator (e.g., one of the manipulators 2232,2242,2252,2262,2272) while indirectly controlling movement of one or more non-associated slave manipulators, in response to commanded motion of the directly controlled slave manipulator, to achieve a secondary objective. Examples of secondary objective include optimizing device workspaces (i.e., maximizing their ranges of motion), optimizing the imaging system's view of other devices and/or the work site, minimizing the chance of collisions between devices and/or the patient's anatomy, and driving non-associated devices to desired poses. By automatically performing secondary tasks through coupled control modes, the system's usability is enhanced by reducing the Surgeon's need to switch to another direct mode to manually achieve the desired secondary objective.” in ¶155)
As per Claim 39, Diolaiti further discloses further comprising beginning to operate the manipulator robot as required to perform the task while the positioning robot is still being used to move the manipulator robot into position to perform the task. (as per “The motion coordinator 2202 determines how to take advantage of the overall system kinematics (i.e., the total degrees of freedom of the system) to achieve the secondary objectives indicated by the optimization inputs 2208.” in ¶162, as per “By automatically performing secondary tasks through coupled control modes, the system's usability is enhanced by reducing the Surgeon's need to switch to another direct mode to manually achieve the desired secondary objective.” in ¶155)
As per Claim 40, Diolaiti further discloses further comprising applying torque to one or more joints comprising the positioning robot to slow movement and counteract momentum of the manipulator robot as the second base end of the manipulator robot approaches a target location in three-dimensional space. (as per “Mechanical components (e.g., gears, levers, gimbals, cables, etc.) inside transmission mechanism 2404 transmit roll torques on disks 2410 to e.g., body tube 2406 (for roll) and to components coupled to distal end mechanisms.” In ¶116, as per “A joint control unit 320 receives the slave joint positions from the slave input processing unit 309 and the simulated joint position commands provided from the simulated slave processing unit 308, and generates slave torque command signals for the slave joint motors and master torque feedback command signals for the master joint motors.” In ¶146, as per “A slave output processing unit 310 receives the slave torque command signals from the joint control unit 320, converts them into appropriate electrical currents, and supplies the electrical currents to the joint motors of the slave manipulator so as to drive the motors accordingly.” In ¶147)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 22-23, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diolaiti (US Pub. No. 20140222021) in view of Finkemeyer (US Pub. No. 20120239190).
As per Claim 22, Diolaiti fails to expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to select the first mode of operation or the second mode of operation to perform the task.
Finkemeyer discloses of operating a robot (as per Abstract), wherein the processor is configured to select the first mode of operation or the second mode of operation to perform the task. (as per “the automatic movement of the robot arm is carried out on the basis of a hierarchically structured regulating and control strategy, wherein an automatic switchover into a higher-prioritized regulating and control functionality occurs as soon as the higher-prioritized regulating and control functionality allows a stable movement of the robot arm… robot is able to switch over automatically into the higher-prioritized regulating and control functionality… in addition the switchover into the higher-prioritized regulating and control functionality occurs only if the execution condition independent of the higher-prioritized regulating and control functionality is fulfilled… switching over to a lower-prioritized regulating and control functionality as soon as the execution condition independent of the higher-prioritized regulating and control functionality is no longer fulfilled.” in ¶9-¶11, as per “regulating and control functionalities prioritized independently of each other for at least two degrees of freedom provided for the movement of the robot arm. It is then possible for a switchover among the different regulating and control functionalities to occur per degree of freedom and independently of each other.” in ¶13)
In this way, Finkemeyer operates automatically switchover to a higher-prioritized regulating and control functionality to allow a stable movement of the robot arm. (¶9, ¶11) Like Diolaiti, Finkemeyer is concerned with robotics.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the coupled control robot of Diolaiti with the robot as taught by Finkemeyer to enable another standard means of switching over automatically into the higher-prioritized regulating mode. Such modification also allows the system to switchover from the low-priority to high-priority regulating modes for each degree of freedom. (¶59)
As per Claim 23, the combination of Diolaiti and Finkemeyer teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 22. Diolaiti fails to expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to use one or more of a machine learning model, a rule, a heuristic, and a selection criterion to select the first mode of operation or the second mode of operation to perform the task.
See Claim 22 for teachings of Finkemeyer. Finkemeyer further discloses wherein the processor is configured to use one or more of a machine learning model, a rule, a heuristic, and a selection criterion to select the first mode of operation or the second mode of operation to perform the task. (as per “The execution condition can also be assigned to a safety condition of the robot. This may be realized for example by a collision monitoring system, so that for example a certain regulating and control functionality is carried out only if the collision monitoring does not detect any collision of the object moved by means of the robot arm” in ¶16, as per “This is ensured for example with the execution condition “force>100N.” If this is not fulfilled, a speed controller can assume the control of the movement of the robot arm. However, this occurs only under the boundary condition (execution condition), that for example a collision avoidance module reports no danger of a collision” in ¶24)
In this way, Finkemeyer operates automatically switchover to a higher-prioritized regulating and control functionality to allow a stable movement of the robot arm. (¶9, ¶11) Like Diolaiti, Finkemeyer is concerned with robotics.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the coupled control robot of Diolaiti with the robot as taught by Finkemeyer to enable another standard means of switching over automatically into the higher-prioritized regulating mode. Such modification also allows the system to switchover from the low-priority to high-priority regulating modes for each degree of freedom. (¶59)
As per Claim 34, Diolaiti fails to expressly disclose further comprising determining for a given task whether to control the robot in the first mode of operation or the second mode of operation.
Finkemeyer discloses of operating a robot (as per Abstract), further comprising determining for a given task whether to control the robot in the first mode of operation or the second mode of operation. (as per “the automatic movement of the robot arm is carried out on the basis of a hierarchically structured regulating and control strategy, wherein an automatic switchover into a higher-prioritized regulating and control functionality occurs as soon as the higher-prioritized regulating and control functionality allows a stable movement of the robot arm… robot is able to switch over automatically into the higher-prioritized regulating and control functionality… in addition the switchover into the higher-prioritized regulating and control functionality occurs only if the execution condition independent of the higher-prioritized regulating and control functionality is fulfilled… switching over to a lower-prioritized regulating and control functionality as soon as the execution condition independent of the higher-prioritized regulating and control functionality is no longer fulfilled.” in ¶9-¶11, as per “regulating and control functionalities prioritized independently of each other for at least two degrees of freedom provided for the movement of the robot arm. It is then possible for a switchover among the different regulating and control functionalities to occur per degree of freedom and independently of each other.” in ¶13)
In this way, Finkemeyer operates automatically switchover to a higher-prioritized regulating and control functionality to allow a stable movement of the robot arm. (¶9, ¶11) Like Diolaiti, Finkemeyer is concerned with robotics.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the coupled control robot of Diolaiti with the robot as taught by Finkemeyer to enable another standard means of switching over automatically into the higher-prioritized regulating mode. Such modification also allows the system to switchover from the low-priority to high-priority regulating modes for each degree of freedom. (¶59)
Claim(s) 25-27 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diolaiti (US Pub. No. 20140222021) in view of Finkemeyer (US Pub. No. 20120239190) in further view of Wicks (US Pub. No. 20220080584).
As per Claim 25, the combination of Diolaiti and Finkemeyer teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 22. Diolaiti and Finkemeyer fail to expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to use an attribute data associated with the task to select the first mode of operation or the second mode of operation to perform the task.
Wicks disclose of machine learning based decision making for robotic item handling (as per Abstract), wherein the processor is configured to use an attribute data associated with the task to select the first mode of operation or the second mode of operation to perform the task. (as per “the method can include outputting, by the machine learning model, a decision classification indicative of a first probability associated with a first operating mode and a second probability associated with a second operating mode.. operating the robotic item handler according to the first operating mode, in response to, the first probability being higher than the second probability and operating the robotic item handler according to the second operating mode, in response to, the second probability being higher than the first probability.” in ¶3, as per “evaluating a selection of the operating mode of the robotic item handler based on the decision classification outputted by the machine learning model and a pre-defined heuristic associated with past operations of the robotic item handler” in ¶7, as per “the first operating mode can be associated with picking an item by grasping the item using an end effector of a robotic arm of the robotic item handler. Further, the second operating mode can be associated with sweeping a pile of items from an item docking station with a platform of the robotic item handler” in ¶6)
In this way, Wicks operates to improve loading/unloading systems that can load/unload bulk quantities. (¶2) Like Diolaiti and Finkemeyer, Wicks is concerned with robotics.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the coupled control robot of Diolaiti and the robot by Finkemeyer with the robot item handling of Wicks to enable another standard means of determining an operating mode based on a decision classification indicative of a probability associated with an operating mode of the robotic item handler. (¶16)
As per Claim 26, the combination of Diolaiti, Finkemeyer, and Wicks teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 25. Diolaiti and Finkemeyer fail to expressly disclose wherein the attribute comprises an attribute of an item to be manipulated to perform the task.
See Claim 25 for teachings of Wicks. Wicks further discloses wherein the attribute comprises an attribute of an item to be manipulated to perform the task. (as per “identify a scenario from the input data, and can provide a probability classification output as pile 430 and wall 432. The classification outputted by the CNN can be in terms of probability distribution which can be derived from every iteration of image accumulation and indicates a type of stacking of items identified from the image data. Illustratively, as an example, the output pile 430 by the CNN can be indicative of a pile type stacking of items and the output wall 432 by the CNN can be indicative of a wall type stacking of items” in ¶91, as per “the output of the machine learning model can be evaluated along with several other factors to decide the operating mode of the robotic item handler 101, details of which are described in the description with reference to FIGS. 2 and 8” in ¶92, as per “As an example, if the decision classification indicates the first probability associated with the output pile 430 is higher than the second probability associated with the output wall 432, the robotic item handler 101 can be operated based on the first operating mode. Alternatively, if the decision classification indicates the first probability associated with the output pile 430 is lesser than the second probability associated with the output wall 432, the robotic item handler 101 can be operated based on the second operating mode” in ¶91)
In this way, Wicks operates to improve loading/unloading systems that can load/unload bulk quantities. (¶2) Like Diolaiti and Finkemeyer, Wicks is concerned with robotics.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the coupled control robot of Diolaiti and the robot by Finkemeyer with the robot item handling of Wicks to enable another standard means of determining an operating mode based on a decision classification indicative of a probability associated with an operating mode of the robotic item handler. (¶16)
As per Claim 27, the combination of Diolaiti, Finkemeyer, and Wicks teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 25. Diolaiti and Finkemeyer fail to expressly disclose wherein the attribute is determined based at least in part on sensor data received via the communication interface.
See Claim 25 for teachings of Wicks. Wicks further discloses wherein the attribute is determined based at least in part on sensor data received via the communication interface. (as per “include obtaining first point cloud data related to a first three-dimensional image captured by a first sensor device of the robotic item handler. Further, the method can include obtaining second point cloud data related to a second three-dimensional image captured by a second sensor device of the robotic item handler.” in ¶3, as per Steps 602-608 of Fig. 6)
In this way, Wicks operates to improve loading/unloading systems that can load/unload bulk quantities. (¶2) Like Diolaiti and Finkemeyer, Wicks is concerned with robotics.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the coupled control robot of Diolaiti and the robot by Finkemeyer with the robot item handling of Wicks to enable another standard means of determining an operating mode based on a decision classification indicative of a probability associated with an operating mode of the robotic item handler. (¶16)
As per Claim 36, the combination of Diolaiti and Finkemeyer teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 34. Diolaiti and Finkemeyer fail to expressly disclose further comprising using an attribute data associated with the task to select the first mode of operation or the second mode of operation to perform the task.
Wicks disclose of machine learning based decision making for robotic item handling (as per Abstract), further comprising using an attribute data associated with the task to select the first mode of operation or the second mode of operation to perform the task. (as per “the method can include outputting, by the machine learning model, a decision classification indicative of a first probability associated with a first operating mode and a second probability associated with a second operating mode.. operating the robotic item handler according to the first operating mode, in response to, the first probability being higher than the second probability and operating the robotic item handler according to the second operating mode, in response to, the second probability being higher than the first probability.” in ¶3, as per “evaluating a selection of the operating mode of the robotic item handler based on the decision classification outputted by the machine learning model and a pre-defined heuristic associated with past operations of the robotic item handler” in ¶7, as per “the first operating mode can be associated with picking an item by grasping the item using an end effector of a robotic arm of the robotic item handler. Further, the second operating mode can be associated with sweeping a pile of items from an item docking station with a platform of the robotic item handler” in ¶6)
In this way, Wicks operates to improve loading/unloading systems that can load/unload bulk quantities. (¶2) Like Diolaiti and Finkemeyer, Wicks is concerned with robotics.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the coupled control robot of Diolaiti and the robot by Finkemeyer with the robot item handling of Wicks to enable another standard means of determining an operating mode based on a decision classification indicative of a probability associated with an operating mode of the robotic item handler. (¶16)
As per Claim 37, the combination of Diolaiti, Finkemeyer, and Wicks teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 36. Diolaiti and Finkemeyer fail to expressly disclose wherein the attribute comprises an attribute of an item to be manipulated to perform the task.
See Claim 36 for teachings of Wicks. Wicks further discloses wherein the attribute comprises an attribute of an item to be manipulated to perform the task. (as per “identify a scenario from the input data, and can provide a probability classification output as pile 430 and wall 432. The classification outputted by the CNN can be in terms of probability distribution which can be derived from every iteration of image accumulation and indicates a type of stacking of items identified from the image data. Illustratively, as an example, the output pile 430 by the CNN can be indicative of a pile type stacking of items and the output wall 432 by the CNN can be indicative of a wall type stacking of items” in ¶91, as per “the output of the machine learning model can be evaluated along with several other factors to decide the operating mode of the robotic item handler 101, details of which are described in the description with reference to FIGS. 2 and 8” in ¶92, as per “As an example, if the decision classification indicates the first probability associated with the output pile 430 is higher than the second probability associated with the output wall 432, the robotic item handler 101 can be operated based on the first operating mode. Alternatively, if the decision classification indicates the first probability associated with the output pile 430 is lesser than the second probability associated with the output wall 432, the robotic item handler 101 can be operated based on the second operating mode” in ¶91)
In this way, Wicks operates to improve loading/unloading systems that can load/unload bulk quantities. (¶2) Like Diolaiti and Finkemeyer, Wicks is concerned with robotics.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the coupled control robot of Diolaiti and the robot by Finkemeyer with the robot item handling of Wicks to enable another standard means of determining an operating mode based on a decision classification indicative of a probability associated with an operating mode of the robotic item handler. (¶16)
Claim(s) 28-29 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diolaiti (US Pub. No. 20140222021) in view of Lambrecht (US Pub. No. 20230290495).
As per Claim 28, Diolaiti further discloses wherein the manipulator robot comprises a first manipulator robot and the robot further includes a second manipulator robot coupled to the positioning robot. (as per “Platform 2170 supports multiple manipulators 2176 for surgical instruments and an imaging system, as described below.” In ¶98, as per “Each instrument 1740 a,1740 b is a 6 DOF instrument, as described above, and includes a parallel motion mechanism 1744 a,1744 b, as described above, with wrists 1746 a,1746 b and end effectors 1748 a,1748 b attached.” In ¶107, as per “Many end effectors have a single DOF (e.g., graspers that open and close). The end effector may be coupled to the surgical instrument body with a mechanism that provides one or more additional DOFs, such as “wrist” type mechanisms” in ¶87, as per Fig. 8)
Diolaiti fails to expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to determine to use the first manipulator robot, the second manipulator robot, or both the first manipulator robot and the second manipulator robot to perform the task.
Lambrecht discloses selecting assignments for manipulator assemblies (as per Abstract), wherein the processor is configured to determine to use the first manipulator robot, the second manipulator robot, or both the first manipulator robot and the second manipulator robot to perform the task. (as per “The method 400 can include obtaining information about a medical procedure to be performed (block 404) and designating (e.g., based on the historical data and the information about the medical procedure) one or more manipulator arms of the plurality of manipulator arms to be used in the medical procedure (block 406).” In ¶79, as per “A manipulator arm can be selected for the second assignment (block 462) based on, for example, an evaluation of historical data (e.g., usage data) of a plurality of drive elements. The historical data includes the same or similar data to that described above with respect to block 452.” In ¶85, as per “The first and second assignments can be assigned to first and second manipulator arms, respectively, such that the less used of the two manipulator arms is paired with a more demanding of the first and second assignments.” In ¶86)
In this way, Lambrecht operates to select assignments for components of one or more manipulator arms. (¶2-¶3) Like Diolaiti, Lambrecht is concerned with robotics.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the coupled control robot of Diolaiti with the assignment selector for manipulator assemblies of Lambrecht to enable another standard means of determining assignments for a plurality of manipulator arms to complete a task. (¶79) Such modification also allows the system to have one or more specific instruments coupled to the one or more specific manipulator assemblies, in which the recorded data reflecting pairings between instruments and manipulator assemblies and/or pairings between specific drive elements and specific input elements) can be usage data comprising a part of the overall historical data. (¶66-¶67)
As per Claim 29, the combination of Diolaiti and Lambrecht teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 28. Diolaiti further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to control the positioning robot to position one or both of first manipulator robot and the second manipulator robot to perform the task. (as per “The motion coordinator 2202 determines how to take advantage of the overall system kinematics (i.e., the total degrees of freedom of the system) to achieve the secondary objectives indicated by the optimization inputs 2208.” in ¶162, as per “By automatically performing secondary tasks through coupled control modes, the system's usability is enhanced by reducing the Surgeon's need to switch to another direct mode to manually achieve the desired secondary objective.” in ¶155)
As per Claim 38, Diolaiti further discloses wherein the manipulator robot comprises a first manipulator robot and the robot further includes a second manipulator robot coupled to the positioning robot. (as per “Platform 2170 supports multiple manipulators 2176 for surgical instruments and an imaging system, as described below.” In ¶98, as per “Each instrument 1740 a,1740 b is a 6 DOF instrument, as described above, and includes a parallel motion mechanism 1744 a,1744 b, as described above, with wrists 1746 a,1746 b and end effectors 1748 a,1748 b attached.” In ¶107, as per “Many end effectors have a single DOF (e.g., graspers that open and close). The end effector may be coupled to the surgical instrument body with a mechanism that provides one or more additional DOFs, such as “wrist” type mechanisms” in ¶87, as per Fig. 8)
Diolaiti fails to expressly disclose determining to use the first manipulator robot, the second manipulator robot, or both the first manipulator robot and the second manipulator robot to perform the task.
Lambrecht discloses selecting assignments for manipulator assemblies (as per Abstract), further comprising determining to use the first manipulator robot, the second manipulator robot, or both the first manipulator robot and the second manipulator robot to perform the task. (as per “The method 400 can include obtaining information about a medical procedure to be performed (block 404) and designating (e.g., based on the historical data and the information about the medical procedure) one or more manipulator arms of the plurality of manipulator arms to be used in the medical procedure (block 406).” In ¶79, as per “A manipulator arm can be selected for the second assignment (block 462) based on, for example, an evaluation of historical data (e.g., usage data) of a plurality of drive elements. The historical data includes the same or similar data to that described above with respect to block 452.” In ¶85, as per “The first and second assignments can be assigned to first and second manipulator arms, respectively, such that the less used of the two manipulator arms is paired with a more demanding of the first and second assignments.” In ¶86)
In this way, Lambrecht operates to select assignments for components of one or more manipulator arms. (¶2-¶3) Like Diolaiti, Lambrecht is concerned with robotics.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the coupled control robot of Diolaiti with the assignment selector for manipulator assemblies of Lambrecht to enable another standard means of determining assignments for a plurality of manipulator arms to complete a task. (¶79) Such modification also allows the system to have one or more specific instruments coupled to the one or more specific manipulator assemblies, in which the recorded data reflecting pairings between instruments and manipulator assemblies and/or pairings between specific drive elements and specific input elements) can be usage data comprising a part of the overall historical data. (¶66-¶67)
Claim(s) 41is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diolaiti (US Pub. No. 20140222021) in view of Watts (US Pub. No. 20180056512).
As per Claim 41, Diolaiti fails to expressly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether to perform a given task in the first mode of operation or the second mode of operation at least in part by generating a first set of plans to perform the task operating in the first mode of operation and as second set of plans to perform the task operating in the second mode of operation, evaluating the respective plans to quantify a relative merit of each plan, and determine a plan and associated mode of operation to perform the task based on the evaluation of the respective plans.
Watts discloses of trajectory planning, comprising wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether to perform a given task in the first mode of operation or the second mode of operation (as per “the robotic system making a determination of whether or not to move the object along the candidate trajectory” in ¶6, as per “the robotic system may select between the first and second candidates trajectories and may then move the object along the selected trajectory” in Abstract) at least in part by generating a first set of plans to perform the task operating in the first mode of operation and as second set of plans to perform the task operating in the second mode of operation (as per “the robotic system may determine at least first and second candidate trajectories for moving the object” in Abstract, as per “At block 202, method 200 involves a robotic system determining at least first and second candidate trajectories for moving an object in an environment from a first location to a second location” in ¶37), evaluating the respective plans to quantify a relative merit of each plan, and determine a plan and associated mode of operation to perform the task based on the evaluation of the respective plans. (as per “the robotic system may determine various predicted costs for various candidate trajectories and may then select one of those candidate trajectories based on evaluation of those various determined predicted costs” in ¶3, as per “According to these implementations, a robotic system may determine one or more candidate trajectories for moving the object and may evaluate each such candidate trajectory by considering consequences of dropping the object along that candidate trajectory and/or likelihood of dropping the object along that candidate trajectory. In practice, these consequences may specifically relate to safety of the object itself and/or to safety of entities in the environment, among other possibilities” in ¶23)
In this way, Watts operates to plan and select a trajectory for movement of an object by generating multiple candidate trajectories and evaluating them using predicted costs (and optionally probabilities) related to safety consequences of dropping the object. (¶3, ¶23-¶25) Like Diolaiti, Watts is concerned with robotics and control of robotic movement.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the coupled-control robotic system of Diolaiti with the trajectory planning and cost-based candidate evaluation of Watts to enable another standard means of automatically generating and evaluating multiple candidate plans and selecting a plan to execute based on quantified relative merit (predicted cost). Such modification also allows the system to select between alternatives for executing a task based on safety-related cost metrics (e.g., consequences of dropping an object) rather than relying solely on user-driven mode switching, thereby improving safety and robustness during task execution. (¶3-¶6, ¶87-¶90)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
King (US Pub. No. 20200211394) discloses a collision avoidance system.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER R ROBARGE whose telephone number is (703)756-5872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/T.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/TRUC M DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658