DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/15/2023, 06/26/2023 and 01/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2, 9-10, 12-15 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/30/2026.
Claims 3, 4, 11, 16, 18 and 22 were previously cancelled. Thus, claims 1, 5-8, 19-21 and 23-25 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is drawn to a computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program, where the computer-readable storage medium can be transitory, i.e., is not explicitly limited as disclosed as only being non-transitory computer readable media. A transitory recording medium can be a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se, which are non-statutory as noted, infra. A claim directed to a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se, is non-statutory because it is not: A process, or A machine, or A manufacture, or A composition of matter.
Therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention. Applicant should note that adding "non-transitory" to the claim to limit a claimed computer readable medium to being statutory would be acceptable.
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) 1, 7-8, 21 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inoue (US 2018/0193102 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 21 and 23, discloses a computer-readable storage medium (e.g. [0036]) stores a computer program, which is configured for being loaded and executed by a processer to implement the steps of a control method of a surgical robot, a surgical robot (e.g. Fig. 1), and a control method (e.g. Abstract) of a surgical robot (e.g. Fig. 1),
the surgical robot comprising an actuating arm (e.g. Figs. 1-2: 2) and a motion input device (e.g. Figs. 1-3 & [0060-0065]: input 20) for manipulating changes in pose of a distal end of a first portion of the actuating arm, the distal end of the first portion comprising an end effector (e.g. Fig. 2: 101a, 4-6), the end effector comprising a controlled end effector currently configured to be manipulated by the motion input device (e.g. [0060-0065]), wherein the control method comprises steps of:
obtaining a position-limit of the controlled end effector (e.g. Figs. 7-11: distance d, d2, d’);
determining whether a current position of the controlled end effector reaches the position-limit (e.g. [0072-0098, 0110]: setting target position and maintain the end effector at the target position by adjusting the position of the end effector based on detected position deviation); and
controlling the controlled end effector to maintain the current position, and controlling an orientation of the controlled end effector to change by following an orientation instruction inputted by the motion input device, in case where the current position of the controlled end effector reaches the position-limit (e.g. [0072-0098, 0110]: lock-on mode); otherwise, controlling the position and the orientation of the controlled end effector to change by following an position instruction and an orientation instruction inputted by the motion input device (e.g. [0106-0108]: manual mode).
Regarding claim 7, Inoue discloses the controlled end effector is an image end effector (e.g. Fig. 2 & [0040]: imager 5).
Regarding claim 8, Inoue discloses the controlled end effector is an operation end effector (e.g. Fig. 2 & [0141]: 101a).
Regarding claim 24, Inoue discloses the actuating arm comprises a mechanical arm and an operating arm, the operating arm is mounted to a distal end of the mechanical arm, the end effector is mounted to a distal end of the operating arm; and the first portion is the operating arm, or, the first portion is the mechanical arm and the operating arm (e.g. Fig. 16: plurality of arms and end effector).
Regarding claim 25, Inoue discloses, the actuating arm comprises a mechanical arm, an adjusting arm, a manipulator and an operating arm, a proximal end of the adjusting arm is mounted to a distal end of the mechanical arm, a proximal end of the manipulator is mounted to a distal end of the adjusting arm, a proximal end of the operating arm is mounted to a distal end of the manipulator, and the end effector is mounted to a distal end of the operating arm; the first portion is the operating arm, or, the first portion is the manipulator and the operating arm, or, the first portion is the mechanical arm, the adjusting arm, the manipulator and the operating arm (e.g. Fig. 16: plurality of arms and end effector).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 2018/0193102 A1) in view of Wang (CN 110464472 A) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided equivalent English machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Inoue fails to disclose, but Wang teaches:
the changes in pose of the controlled end effector are determined according to movements of respective joint assemblies in the first portion, the position-limit is a position-limit of each assembly in the first portion in a joint space, the step of determining whether the current position of the controlled end effector reaches the position-limit comprises: obtaining joint variables of each joint assembly in the first portion in real time; and determining whether the controlled end effector reaches the position-limit by determining whether the joint variables corresponding to each joint assembly reach the position-limit (e.g. Fig. 11 & p. 11-12 & p. 11-12: analysis each joint state, i.e. joint variables, including boundary value for motion with corresponding joint component threshold value to determine whether end effector reaches position limit).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Inoue with the teachings of Wang to determine end effector position state based on combination of motion states of all the joints for controlling the end effector so as to allow task degrees of freedom for joints with relatively fixed position for the end effector.
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the position-limit is a position limit of each joint assembly in the first portion that affects the change in position of the controlled end effector (e.g. Fig. 11 & p. 11-12: analysis each joint state including boundary value for motion with corresponding joint component threshold value).
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches obtaining description information of configuration of the actuating arm; and generating a configuration interface for configuring the first portion based on the description information of configuration, the configuration interface comprising a control which is associated with structure of each part of the actuating arm (e.g. Figs. 14-15 & p. 15-17: configuration information).
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches the configuration interface comprises a model image generated based on the description information of configuration and associated with the actuating arm, and the model image comprises a control corresponding to each part of the actuating arm or a control corresponding to each joint assembly of each part of the actuating arm (e.g. Figs. 14-15, 18, 20 & 23: model image of configuration of an actuating arm with plurality of joints).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at (571) 272-2060. 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.
/KAWING CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights