DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-12 and 21-25 are pending.
Claims 7-12 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 13-20 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but it is moot in light of a new ground of rejection.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 21-22, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton et al. (US 20190125430 A1, 2019-05-02) (hereinafter “Shelton”) in view of Red et al. (2003). Predictive joint motion limiting in robotic applications. Robotica, 21, 531 – 540 (hereinafter “Red”)..
Regarding claims 1-3, 21, and 23, Shelton teaches a method of homing a drive input of a robotic surgical tool, comprising: recording and storing a home position (e.g., [0242] (disclosing “centered position”)) of the drive input in a memory included in the robotic surgical tool; establishing a slow zone for the drive input encompassing a known angular magnitude away from the home position; storing the slow zone in the memory; rotating the drive input toward the home position; and slowing a rotation speed of the drive input upon reaching the slow zone (e.g., [0242] (“In at least one instance, the control system 1800 slows the articulation of the end effector 7000 when the end effector 7000 is within approximately 5 degrees of center in either direction, for example.”)) (as recited in claim 1); wherein rotating the drive input toward the home position includes: mounting the robotic surgical tool to a tool driver of a robotic manipulator, the tool driver including a driver matable with the drive input (construed as clutch system, e.g., [0273]), and a motor that drives the driver in rotation to thereby rotate the drive inputs; ending an input signal to the motor to operate the driver and thereby rotate the drive input; and measuring rotational motion of the motor with a rotary encoder communicably coupled to the motor and thereby determining an angular position of the drive input (e.g., [0243] (disclosing feedback of motor encoder signals) (as recited in claim 2); further comprising detecting a torque spike (construed as a local maximum in the torque profile over angular range about the center/home position) with one or more torque sensors when the drive input reaches the home position (e.g., [0236] (disclosing spring-loaded dynamic system under feedback control disclosed in, e.g., [0243]-[0243]) (as recited in claim 3); and a method, comprising: storing, in a memory, a home position of a rotatable drive input of a robotic surgical tool, wherein the home position encompasses first angular positions of the drive input; storing, in the memory, a slow zone for the drive input, wherein the slow zone encompasses second angular positions of the drive input different than the first angular positions (e.g., [0242]) (as recited in claim 21); wherein the slow zone surrounds the home position zone (e.g., [0242]) (as recited in claim 23).
Shelton does not expressly teach wherein the slow zone includes a position of the drive input that corresponds to a physical limit of articulation of a joint of the robotic surgical tool.
Red teaches use of a “slow zone” just for control that requires speed/acceleration limiting but also for motion planning with respect to joint physical limits. See, esp. Sect. 4 (“The predictive routines described in this paper only need the current motion state in both Cartesian and joint space, plus several previous motion states to determine the quadratic coefficients for the predictive equations. At each trajectory step the joint motion is examined for proximity to the motion limits. The joint motion is curve fitted into a quadratic equation by using three data points: the current value and two previous values. Using the quadratic equation, a prediction is made as to how much time would elapse before a limit is reached. These predicted times are stored and compared to the time to stop the Cartesian move, given its current motion state. Time is the invariant between the two spaces.”). Note that Red also teaches speed profiles. See, e.g., Figs. 1-3, 7.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Red with the invention of Shelton such that the invention further comprises wherein the slow zone includes a position of the drive input that corresponds to a physical limit of articulation of a joint of the robotic surgical tool (as cited above) (as recited in claim 1); wherein the first angular positions include a first drive input position that corresponds to a non-articulated configuration of a joint of the robotic surgical tool; storing, in the memory, a slow zone for the drive input, wherein the slow zone encompasses second angular positions of the drive input different than the first angular positions, wherein the second angular positions include a second drive input position that corresponds to a physical limit of articulation of the joint of the robotic surgical tool (as cited above) (as recited in claim 21) in order to enhance motion control and planning.
Regarding claims 4-6, 22, and 24-25, Shelton teaches a method of homing a drive input of a robotic surgical tool, as discussed above. Shelton does not explicitly teach calibration. However, Shelton teaches use of Hall effect sensors (e.g., [0235]). Official Notice is given that Hall effect sensors are calibrated. Shelton also teaches varying speeds in approaching the centered position (e.g., [0235]) and rotating drive inputs with gear mechanisms for speed reduction (e.g., [0215]). Furthermore, Official Notice is given that speed profiles are widely used in the art (e.g., Fig. 81, [0453] (disclosing rate limit profile, for instance)). Note that speed profiles can be reasonable construed as various speed zones.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by Shelton such that wherein recording and storing the home position of the drive input in the memory comprises: calibrating the robotic surgical tool during manufacture of the robotic surgical tool and thereby determining an absolute angular position at which the drive input reaches the home position; and storing the absolute angular position in the memory as the home position (as cited above) (as recited in claim 4); wherein the drive input requires rotation of two or more full revolutions prior to reaching the home position, the method further comprising establishing the slow zone for each full revolution of the drive input; and slowing the rotation speed of the drive input upon reaching each slow zone (as cited above) (as recited in claim 5); wherein slowing the rotation speed of the drive input upon reaching the slow zone comprises: rotating the drive input at a first speed when the drive input is not rotationally oriented within the slow zone; and rotating the drive input at second speed slower than the first speed when the drive input is rotationally oriented within each slow zone (as cited above) (as recited in claim 6); further comprising: rotating the drive input at a first speed based on the rotatable drive input being at one of the first angular positions; and rotating the drive input at a second speed less than the first speed based on the rotatable drive input being at one of the second angular positions within the slow zone (as cited above) (as recited in claim 22); wherein the slow zone is a first slow zone and the method further comprises storing, in the memory, a second slow zone for the drive input, wherein the second slow zone encompasses third angular positions of the drive input relative to the housing different than the first and second angular positions (as cited above) (as recited in claim 24); further comprising: rotating the drive input at a first speed based on the rotatable drive input being at one of the first angular positions; rotating the drive input at a second speed less than the first speed based on the rotatable drive input being at one of the second angular positions within the first slow zone; and rotating the drive input at a third speed less than the second speed based on the rotatable drive input being at one of the third angular positions within the second slow zone (as cited above) (as recited in claim 25) in order to improve the accuracy of the invention.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T LUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1860. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, M-F (generally).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Jackson, can be reached on 571-272-4697. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Scott Luan
/SCOTT LUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights