Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
2. Claim 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 6/29/23 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Specification
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 2, 3, 11, 12, and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4-5, 13-14, and 18-19 are also objected due to their direct indirect dependency over the claim 3, 12, and 17 respectively.
Remarks
The co-pending application No. 18/270265 allowed on 7/28/25 and has allowable subject matter that differs from current pending case and that they both have the same filing date.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Griffiths (Pub:2017/0112580).
8. Regarding claim 1, Griffiths discloses:
A drive system comprising: (e.g., In some embodiments, the push-out feature or buffering zone may be provided as a control algorithm. Physical and/or virtual springs may be installed or provided at the ends of the joint's range of motion (Par. [0011]) and In some embodiments, the drive system may be a motor coupled with a mechanical constant force spring. " in Para. [0018])
an actuator that is driven by a motor to generate displacement; (e.g., In some embodiments, the drive system may be a motor coupled with a mechanical constant force spring) (Para. [0018])
a driver configured to drive the motor (e.g., The control module is able to adjust the electrical current provided to the motor to provide the desired force from the motor to compensate for the weight of the installed surgical instrument) (Para. [0144])
and a controller configured to give a control instruction to the driver, wherein the controller is configured to (e.g., The control module is able to adjust the electrical current provided to the motor to provide the desired force from the motor to compensate for the weight of the installed surgical instrument) (Para. [0144]):
create a physical model (e.g., Referring now to FIGS. 14 and 15, reconfiguring a simplified planar set-up structure linkage to a desired pose may be modeled as moving the manipulator through its null space (per the description above of FIG. 13, so that Q remains invariant while P is driven to a desired x and y location in space) (Para. [0121]) based on displacement caused by application of an external load to the actuator (e.g., Based on the manual input command by the user (as entered by manual movement of link 170 and as sensed via the manual articulation of the joints supporting that link), commands are calculated to move the set-up structure 183 (Para. [0098]) and "The control module is able to adjust the electrical current provided to the motor to provide the desired force from the motor to compensate for the weight of the installed surgical instrument." (Para. [0144]);
and generate the control instruction such that the actuator generates displacement according to the physical model (e.g., Based on the manual input command by the user (as entered by manual movement of link 170 and as sensed via the manual articulation of the joints supporting that link), commands are calculated to move the set-up structure 183 (Para. [0098]) and "The control module is able to adjust the electrical current provided to the motor to provide the desired force from the motor to compensate for the weight of the installed surgical instrument." (Para. [0144]).
9. Regarding claim 9, Claim 9 recites a control method that implement the drive system of claim 1, with substantially the same limitations, respectively. Therefore the rejection applied to claim 1 also applies to claim 9 respectively.
10. Regarding claim 10, Claim 10 recites a non-transitory storage medium encoded with a computer-readable control program for controlling an actuator that implement the drive system of claim 1, with substantially the same limitations, respectively. Therefore the rejection applied to claim 1 also applies to claim 10 respectively.
Wherein Griffiths further disclose A non-transitory storage medium encoded with a computer-readable control program for controlling an actuator that is driven by a motor to generate displacement (e.g., Processor 58 will typically include a combination of hardware and software, with the software comprising tangible media embodying computer readable code instructions for performing the method steps of the control functionally described herein. The hardware typically includes one or more data processing boards, which may be co-located but will often have components distributed among the robotic structures described herein. The software will often comprise a non-volatile media, and could also comprise a monolithic code but will more typically comprise a number of subroutines, optionally running in any of a wide variety of distributed data processing architectures) (Para. [0073]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claim 6, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths in view of Adachi (Pub: 2020/0130200).
13. Regarding claim 6, Griffiths teaches the drive system according to claim 1 but does not specifically teach wherein the controller is configured to create the physical model when a predetermined load is applied to the actuator from an outside.
Adachi teaches wherein controller is configured to create the physical model when a predetermined load is applied to the actuator from an outside (e.g., " A control mode of a compliance control unit is changed between normal position control and the compliance control based on a signal from a mode changeover switch. At direct teaching of the robot, the compliance control unit is in a direct teaching state in which the spring coefficient is zero and the robot is freely movable or a state of the position control in which the respective axes are locked." in Para. [0004] and “Condition C: A time in which the magnitude of the first detection force Fd1 is larger than the first force threshold value Fth1 and smaller than a second force threshold value Fth2 continued for a duration longer than a third time threshold value Tth3.” In Para. [0043] and “Condition C at step S130 is a judgment condition substantially for judgment as to “an external force by the teacher is applied to the end effector EE for substantially moving the end effector EE toward the target position”. At step S130 in FIG. 2, when Condition C is satisfied, the processing moves to step S140.” In Para. [0050]) .
Because Adachi is also directed to a motors are controlled by an action control apparatus and rotate output shafts (Adachi: Para. [0023]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Griffiths and Adachi before him/her, to modify the drive control system teachings of Griffiths to include the predetermined load applied to the actuator from an outside teaching of Adachi in order to avoid sensor noise from influencing the teaching while also reducing the amount of effort the teacher has to apply to direct teaching the robot (Para. [0068]).
14. Regarding claim 15 and 20, as to claim 15 and 20, applicant is directed to the citation for claim 6 above.
15. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths in view of Lee (Pub: 2021/0013773).
16. Regarding claim 7, Griffiths teaches the drive system according to claim 1 but does not specifically teach wherein the controller is configured to output a position instruction for designating target position of the motor as the control instruction.
Lee teaches wherein the controller is configured to output a position instruction for designating s target position of the motor as the control instruction (e.g., he controller may perform the position control to control the driving motor so that the load 1000 is rotated as much as the reference angle (θ.sub.r) by performing PWM control) (Para. [0108]).
Because Lee is also directed to a actuator control (Lee: Para. [0001]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Griffiths and Lee before him/her, to modify the drive control system teachings of Griffiths to include the target position of the motor as the control instruction teaching of Lee in order to control the driving motor using various known position control methods (Para. [0110]).
17. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths in view of Kuroda (Pub: 2015/0094964).
18. Regarding claim 8, Griffiths teaches the drive system according to claim 1 but does not specifically teach further comprising an encoder mechanically connected to the motor, and configured to detect the displacement of the actuator.
Kuroda teaches further comprising an encoder mechanically connected to the motor (e.g., The motor 30 applies rotation oscillation to the cone 21, and an encoder (hereafter referred to as "encoder 22, 23") as the displacement sensor 22 and the displacement detector 23 detects the displacement of the cone 21) (Para. [0198]), and configured to detect the displacement of the actuator (e.g., The use of the voice coil motor as the actuator 6 enables contactless application of the force Fv to the oscillator 1. An electrostatic capacitance displacement meter (corresponding to the displacement sensor 2 and the displacement detector 3) detects the displacement x of the oscillator 1, and supplies the detected displacement signal (the displacement x) to the oscillation velocity computing unit 4 connected to the electrostatic capacitance displacement meter) (Para. [0119]).
Because Kuroda is also directed to a actuator control based on feedback control signal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Griffiths and Lee before him/her, to modify the drive control system teachings of Griffiths to include the an actuator, and a displacement sensor teaching of Kuroda in order to detects the displacement of the oscillator (Para. [0034]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manabe (Pub: 2018/0267486) disclose a technique for improving control performance of a control system that uses a servo driver (Para. [0002]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116