DETAILED ACTION
This final office action is in response to amendments filed on 6/18/26.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duchemin et al., “Medically Safe and Sound” [Duchemin]1, in view of Stoianovici et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2010/0240989 [Stoianovici].
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16, Duchemin discloses a system for providing robotic control comprising:
a hardware watchdog configured to provide control over a robot manipulator [dedicated watchdog boards implemented in hardware control power provided to the robot manipulator based on presence of a binary pulse signal generated by software and hardware thresholds are built into F/T sensors to limit force applied by a robot to a patient, pages 48, 49, 51 and 53]; and
a software watchdog configured to run on a processing device and programmed to provide thread-safe architecture control over real-time and non-real-time processes of the hardware watchdog and the robot manipulator [real-time and non-real-time software processes are executed on a controller to control and detect errors in operation of robot hardware components and the software processes are checked by a dedicated watchdog process, pages 50, 51 and 53].
Duchemin does not specifically disclose that the hardware watchdog comprises a timer circuit, wherein the timer circuit comprises a relay, and wherein the relay is closed as long as it is supplied with a train of pulses, wherein a period of the train of pulses is shorter than a predetermined time interval for the robot manipulator to run unsupervised and that each pulse of the train of pulses is supplied to the hardware watchdog by the software watchdog in response to one or more checks on the robot manipulator being performed by the software watchdog. Like Duchemin, Stoianovici discloses a robotic system that includes a hardware and software watchdog system. Specifically, Stoianovici discloses a hardware watchdog that comprises a timer circuit, wherein the timer circuit comprises a relay, and wherein the relay is closed as long as it is supplied with a train of pulses, wherein a period of the train of pulses is shorter than a predetermined time interval for the robot manipulator to run unsupervised and that each pulse of the train of pulses is supplied to the hardware watchdog by the software watchdog in response to one or more checks on the robot manipulator being performed by the software watchdog [a robot watchdog program monitors the state of power voltages and currents. Every 100ms the watchdog program updates a register of a hardware watchdog countdown timer, wherein if the register is not updated the countdown timer sets its IO pin low which turns off power to the robot, Figure 2 and paragraph 0070]. Since it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for robotic systems to include hardware watchdog timers that receive reset pulses from software watchdogs that monitor robotic parameters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the known hardware watchdog and software watchdog configuration disclosed by Stoianovici in the Duchemin robotic system to implement the hardware and software watchdog functionality of the Duchemin robotic system.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 5, 11, 12 and 20, Duchemin further discloses a system of emergency switches that are placed at locations throughout the robot manipulator and are configured to facilitate immediate operator access for safety [emergency buttons are provided at accessible locations such as a control desk and a controller front panel of the robot, pages 49 and 53].
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Duchemin, as described above, discloses a system of emergency switches, but does not disclose that the emergency switches are momentary single pole switches. Examiner takes official notice that momentary single pole switches were conventionally used to implement emergency switches before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use momentary single pole switches as the emergency switches in Duchemin and Stoianovici.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 17, Duchemin further discloses a redundancy system configured to prevent safety failures [redundant sensors and watchdog board circuits, pages 49 and 53].
Regarding claims 7, 8, 14, 15, 18 and 19, Duchemin further discloses electronics configured to facilitate latch, relay and visual status [Latching and Relay Circuit and HMI, Figure 3 on page 50]. Duchemin further discloses performing a fail-down check on a pulse train received from software [Input Signal Stuck at a Low Level, Figure 3 on page 50]. Examiner takes official notice that detecting pulse train errors was conventionally performed by both fail-up and fail-down checks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to accurately detect pulse train errors to account for errors caused by the pulse signal being stuck at either a logic high level or errors caused by the pulse signal being stuck at a logic low level. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform both conventional fail-up and conventional fail-down checks on the pulse signal train received from software in Duchemin and Stoianovici in order to more accurately detect pulse signal train errors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 PAUL B YANCHUS III whose telephone number is (571)272-3678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 September 11, 2026
1 Duchemin was cited in the 4/12/23 IDS.
Prosecution Insights