ROBOT-MEDIATED PHYSICAL HUMAN-HUMAN INTERACTION

Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/341,318 and the amendments filed on 5/11/2026. 3. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Information Disclosure Statement 4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/28/2023 and 10/30/2023 have been fully considered by the Examiner. Response to Arguments 5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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. Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner agrees that the combination of US 11376743 B2 to Tuovinen, US 20190358817 A1 to Ghazaei, and US 20180297204 A1 to Krasny fails to teach all of the amended limitations of the claim. However, in light of the amendments and the Applicant’s remarks, an updated search was conducted, and a new ground of rejection concerning claim 1 has been determined, in which will be described later. Regarding independent claims 11 and 20, as these claims contain similar limitations to claim 1, are still rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 is, in which will be described later. Regarding dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, as all of these claims depend from either claims 1 or 11, are still rejected, in which will be described later. Claim Objections 6. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding Claim 10, the term “a second constraint associated with the first robot portion” recited in lines 3-4 should read “the second constraint associated with the first robot portion” as this term has already been introduced in claim 1. Regarding Claim 10, the term “the constraint” recited in lines 6 and 8 should be corrected to “the first constraint” as this term has changed due to the amendments to claim 1, upon which claim 10 depends from. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 11-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuovinen et al. (US 11376743 B2 hereinafter Tuovinen) in view of Ghazaei Ardakani et al. (US 20190358817 A1 hereinafter Ghazaei) and Eckert et al. (US 20180049792 A1 hereinafter Eckert). Regarding Claim 1, Tuovinen teaches a system for bilateral robot-mediated physical human-human interaction (Col. 12 lines 53-58, where “Referring to FIG. 2, the system 200 for providing remote touch includes a first device 202, which is a haptic terminal, may be associated with the first person. The system 200 further includes a haptic terminal 204, which may be associated with the second person. The haptic terminal 204 is communicably coupled to the first device 202 by a communication network 206.”), (Note: See Figure 2 of Tuovinen as well, wherein interaction is bilateral.), comprising: a memory storing one or more instructions (Col. 9 lines 44-45, where “The memory element may be a local data storage element, such as a memory chip.”); a processor executing one or more of the instructions stored on the memory (Col. 10 lines 9-12, where “… the processing unit of the haptic terminal is operable to retrieve the stored first touch pattern and control the movement of the touch replicator based on the stored first touch pattern.”) to perform: receiving an end-effector pose signal indicative of a pose associated with the second robot portion (Col. 7 lines 61-63, where “Optionally, the touch replicator comprises at least one actuator configured to move the arm in respect to a pivot point, the pivot point arranged on the second end of the arm.”), (Col. 8 lines 44-49, where “Optionally, movement of the touch replicator follows a trajectory of the pointer along the first touch sensor with a determined relative speed. It will be appreciated that touch replicator replicates (or mirrors) a movement of the pointer along the first touch sensor for providing and replacing the remote touch.”), (Col. 10 lines 51-61, where “Accordingly, the haptic terminal associated with the second person receives the captured data, processes the received captured data to form a control signal, and replicates the remote touch (to be provided by the first person to the second person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the second person). It will be appreciated that the haptic terminal, associated with the first person, is also operable to provide a remote touch (of the second person to the first person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the first person).”) acting as an operator that leads the first robot portion in the first scenario (Col. 4 lines 43-45, where “Additionally, in an embodiment, the second person may provide touch to the first person, or the first person and the second person may provide touch to each other.”) and wherein the first robot portion acts as an operator that leads the second robot portion in the second scenario (Col. 4 lines 38-43, where “As mentioned herein above, the present disclosure provides the system for providing remote touch of the first person to the second person. The first person may be a person that wants to provide his or her touch, and the second person may be person who receives the touch from the first person.”). Tuovinen is silent on receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows the first robot portion in a second scenario; generating a constraint signal indicative of a first constraint and a second constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion, wherein the first constraint and the second constraint of the constraint signal are each assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion; and implementing the first constraint and the second constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion based on the priority assigned to each of the first constraint and the second constraint. However, Ghazaei teaches receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force ([0078] via “Alternatively, the master external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 20 (FIG. 2) … from the master robot arm. … Alternatively, the slave external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 30 (FIG. 2) … from the slave robot arm.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the force/torque signals of Ghazaei as the wrench signals, as the wrench signal is described within paragraph [0042] of the specification of the instant application.) associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows the first robot portion in a second scenario ([0033] via “According to some embodiments, the control unit is configured to accomplish a bidirectional transfer of force and torque between the master robot arm and the slave robot arm such that haptic feedback is complied with according to any restricted and singular configuration of the slave robot arm and/or master robot arm. Bidirectional here means a practically simultaneous transfer of control signals such that the force interplay agrees with the models that may be non-causal ….”). Further, Eckert teaches generating a constraint signal indicative of a first constraint ([0035] via “In such a situation, it can be desirable to have a predetermined distance threshold representing the closest distance that the heated end effector can get to surrounding tissue without causing damage.”) and a second constraint ([0036] via “The temperatures T.sub.1, T.sub.2, T.sub.3 can represent the temperature T.sub.b of the ultrasonic blade 1507 directly or can represent the compared temperatures between the temperature T.sub.b of the ultrasonic blade and the temperature T.sub.t of the tissue.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the temperature of the ultrasonic blade of Eckert as the second constraint.) associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated ([0032] via “FIG. 1 is a perspective view of one embodiment of a surgical robotic system 300 that includes … a user-side portion 311 that is located a distance from the patient, either in the same room and/or in a remote location.”), ([0038] via “For example, the end effector 1504 can be advanced toward the tissue 1506 while temperature is monitored. If the sensed temperature of the end effector 1504 is at or in excess of a predetermined threshold temperature, for example temperature T.sub.1, the controller can act to stop the advancement of the end effector 1504 so that the end effector 1504 does not move closer toward the tissue 1506 than a predetermined threshold distance from a tissue 1506, for example the distance threshold 1514.”) with the second robot portion ([0033] via “In some embodiments, the control system 315 can also include … a powered and gravity-compensated manipulator, or the like. These input devices can control teleoperated motors which, in turn, control the movement of the surgical system, including the robotic arms 320 and tool assemblies 330.”), wherein the first constraint and the second constraint of the constraint signal are each assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion ([0036] via “For example, distance threshold 1514 can represent the closest position an end effector 1504 having a temperature T.sub.1 can be positioned with respect to the tissue 1506 of the patient; ….”), ([0042] via “If the operator wishes to reinstate motion and effectively ignore the threshold, the system can be configured to receive an input from the operator causing the robotic surgical system to move the end effector 1504 closer toward the tissue 1506 of the patient than a threshold distance would normally allow. Line 1718 of graph 1702 is an exemplary illustration of the velocity of the end effector 1504 after manual override by the operator of the robotic surgical system.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets Eckert to disclose that the distance of the blade to the tissue has priority over the temperature of the blade in the scenario of paragraph [0036] of Eckert, and the temperature of the blade has priority over the distance of the blade in the scenario of paragraph [0042] of Eckert.); and implementing the first constraint and the second constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion based on the priority assigned to each of the first constraint and the second constraint ([0042] via “For example, the robotic surgical system can stop the end effector 1504 at a particular distance threshold if the blade of the end effector 1504 exceeds a desired temperature. The system can cause a signal or notice to the operator, such as vibration of controls, visual and/or tactile and/or auditory feedback, etc., indicating that the system has stopped all movement because a distance threshold has been reached.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ghazaei wherein to perform: receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows the first robot portion in a second scenario. Doing so appropriately transfers the interaction forces/torques between the first and second robot portions in a manner that is safe for the users, as stated by Ghazaei ([0045] via “According to some embodiments, the calculating comprising accomplishing a bidirectional transfer of force and torque between the master robot arm and the slave robot arm such that haptic feedback is complied with, or adjusted, according to any restricted and/or singular configuration of the slave robot arm and/or master robot arm.”). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Eckert wherein to perform: generating a constraint signal indicative of a first constraint and a second constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion, wherein the first constraint and the second constraint of the constraint signal are each assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion; and implementing the first constraint and the second constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion based on the priority assigned to each of the first constraint and the second constraint. Doing so reprioritizes the constraints if an emergency situation arises wherein the first prioritized constraint must be suspended, as stated by Eckert ([0042] via “If the operator wishes to reinstate motion and effectively ignore the threshold, the system can be configured to receive an input from the operator causing the robotic surgical system to move the end effector 1504 closer toward the tissue 1506 of the patient than a threshold distance would normally allow. Line 1718 of graph 1702 is an exemplary illustration of the velocity of the end effector 1504 after manual override by the operator of the robotic surgical system. This situation may be desirable for a variety of reasons, such as cauterizing cut tissue or an emergency surgical situation.”). Regarding Claim 2, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the wrench force of the interaction wrench signal is indicative of an interaction between a first human and the first robot portion. However, Ghazaei teaches wherein the wrench force of the interaction wrench signal is indicative of an interaction between a first human and the first robot portion ([0078] via “The control unit 5 is further configured to determine master external force data indicating a force interplay 2A (FIG. 2) between the operator 6 and the master robot arm. The force interplay here indicates a bidirectional force interaction between the master robot arm and the operator. … Alternatively, the master external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 20 (FIG. 2) … from the master robot arm.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ghazaei wherein the wrench force of the interaction wrench signal is indicative of an interaction between a first human and the first robot portion. Doing so measures the wrench signal input by a human operator, as stated above by Ghazaei. Regarding Claim 3, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 1, wherein the end-effector pose signal is provided by a second human interacting with the second robot portion (Col. 7 lines 61-63, where “Optionally, the touch replicator comprises at least one actuator configured to move the arm in respect to a pivot point, the pivot point arranged on the second end of the arm.”), (Col. 8 lines 44-49, where “Optionally, movement of the touch replicator follows a trajectory of the pointer along the first touch sensor with a determined relative speed. It will be appreciated that touch replicator replicates (or mirrors) a movement of the pointer along the first touch sensor for providing and replacing the remote touch.”), (Col. 10 lines 51-61, where “Accordingly, the haptic terminal associated with the second person receives the captured data, processes the received captured data to form a control signal, and replicates the remote touch (to be provided by the first person to the second person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the second person). It will be appreciated that the haptic terminal, associated with the first person, is also operable to provide a remote touch (of the second person to the first person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the first person).”). Regarding Claim 4, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 1, wherein the end-effector pose signal provided by a second human interacting with the second robot portion is indicative of a desired pose for the first robot portion (Col. 7 lines 61-63, where “Optionally, the touch replicator comprises at least one actuator configured to move the arm in respect to a pivot point, the pivot point arranged on the second end of the arm.”), (Col. 8 lines 44-49, where “Optionally, movement of the touch replicator follows a trajectory of the pointer along the first touch sensor with a determined relative speed. It will be appreciated that touch replicator replicates (or mirrors) a movement of the pointer along the first touch sensor for providing and replacing the remote touch.”), (Col. 10 lines 51-61, where “Accordingly, the haptic terminal associated with the second person receives the captured data, processes the received captured data to form a control signal, and replicates the remote touch (to be provided by the first person to the second person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the second person). It will be appreciated that the haptic terminal, associated with the first person, is also operable to provide a remote touch (of the second person to the first person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the first person).”). Regarding Claim 5, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a joint torque limitation, a joint velocity limitation, a joint acceleration limitation, or a joint position limitation for the second robot portion. However, Eckert teaches wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a joint torque limitation, a joint velocity limitation, a joint acceleration limitation, or a joint position limitation for the second robot portion ([0035] via “In such a situation, it can be desirable to have a predetermined distance threshold representing the closest distance that the heated end effector can get to surrounding tissue without causing damage.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Eckert wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a joint torque limitation, a joint velocity limitation, a joint acceleration limitation, or a joint position limitation for the second robot portion. Doing so prevents the second robot portion from damaging objects by getting too close to them, as stated above by Eckert. Regarding Claim 6, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a space limitation for the second robot portion. However, Eckert teaches wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a space limitation for the second robot portion ([0035] via “In such a situation, it can be desirable to have a predetermined distance threshold representing the closest distance that the heated end effector can get to surrounding tissue without causing damage.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Eckert wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a space limitation for the second robot portion. Doing so prevents the second robot portion from damaging objects by getting too close to them, as stated above by Eckert. Regarding Claim 8, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 1, wherein: the processor receives an end-effector pose signal indicative of a pose associated with the first robot portion (Col. 7 lines 61-63, where “Optionally, the touch replicator comprises at least one actuator configured to move the arm in respect to a pivot point, the pivot point arranged on the second end of the arm.”), (Col. 8 lines 44-49, where “Optionally, movement of the touch replicator follows a trajectory of the pointer along the first touch sensor with a determined relative speed. It will be appreciated that touch replicator replicates (or mirrors) a movement of the pointer along the first touch sensor for providing and replacing the remote touch.”), (Col. 10 lines 51-61, where “Accordingly, the haptic terminal associated with the second person receives the captured data, processes the received captured data to form a control signal, and replicates the remote touch (to be provided by the first person to the second person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the second person). It will be appreciated that the haptic terminal, associated with the first person, is also operable to provide a remote touch (of the second person to the first person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the first person).”). Tuovinen is silent on wherein: the processor receives an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with the second robot portion. However, Ghazaei teaches wherein: the processor receives an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with the second robot portion ([0078] via “The control unit 5 is further configured to determine slave external force data indicating a force interplay 3A (FIG. 2) between the slave robot arm and the workpiece 4. The force interplay here indicates a bidirectional force interaction between the slave robot arm and the workpiece. … Alternatively, the slave external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 30 (FIG. 2) … from the slave robot arm.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ghazaei wherein: the processor receives an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with the second robot portion. Doing so measures the wrench signal experienced by interacting with a workpiece, as stated above by Ghazaei. Regarding Claim 11, Tuovinen teaches a computer-implemented method (Col. 6 lines 41-45, where “The haptic terminal comprises a processing unit configured to use the received captured data to form a control signal. The term “processing unit” as used herein, relates to a computational element that is operable to respond to and process instructions.”) for bilateral robot-mediated physical human-human interaction (Col. 12 lines 53-58, where “Referring to FIG. 2, the system 200 for providing remote touch includes a first device 202, which is a haptic terminal, may be associated with the first person. The system 200 further includes a haptic terminal 204, which may be associated with the second person. The haptic terminal 204 is communicably coupled to the first device 202 by a communication network 206.”), (Note: See Figure 2 of Tuovinen as well, wherein interaction is bilateral.), comprising: receiving an end-effector pose signal indicative of a pose associated with the second robot portion (Col. 7 lines 61-63, where “Optionally, the touch replicator comprises at least one actuator configured to move the arm in respect to a pivot point, the pivot point arranged on the second end of the arm.”), (Col. 8 lines 44-49, where “Optionally, movement of the touch replicator follows a trajectory of the pointer along the first touch sensor with a determined relative speed. It will be appreciated that touch replicator replicates (or mirrors) a movement of the pointer along the first touch sensor for providing and replacing the remote touch.”), (Col. 10 lines 51-61, where “Accordingly, the haptic terminal associated with the second person receives the captured data, processes the received captured data to form a control signal, and replicates the remote touch (to be provided by the first person to the second person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the second person). It will be appreciated that the haptic terminal, associated with the first person, is also operable to provide a remote touch (of the second person to the first person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the first person).”) acting as an operator that leads the first robot portion in the first scenario (Col. 4 lines 43-45, where “Additionally, in an embodiment, the second person may provide touch to the first person, or the first person and the second person may provide touch to each other.”) and wherein the first robot portion acts as an operator that leads the second robot portion in the second scenario (Col. 4 lines 38-43, where “As mentioned herein above, the present disclosure provides the system for providing remote touch of the first person to the second person. The first person may be a person that wants to provide his or her touch, and the second person may be person who receives the touch from the first person.”). Tuovinen is silent on receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows a first robot portion in a second scenario; generating a constraint signal indicative of a first constraint and a second constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion, wherein the first constraint and the second constraint of the constraint signal are each assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion; and implementing the first constraint and the second constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion based on the priority assigned to each of the first constraint and the second constraint. However, Ghazaei teaches receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force ([0078] via “Alternatively, the master external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 20 (FIG. 2) … from the master robot arm. … Alternatively, the slave external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 30 (FIG. 2) … from the slave robot arm.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the force/torque signals of Ghazaei as the wrench signals, as the wrench signal is described within paragraph [0042] of the specification of the instant application.) associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows a first robot portion in a second scenario ([0033] via “According to some embodiments, the control unit is configured to accomplish a bidirectional transfer of force and torque between the master robot arm and the slave robot arm such that haptic feedback is complied with according to any restricted and singular configuration of the slave robot arm and/or master robot arm. Bidirectional here means a practically simultaneous transfer of control signals such that the force interplay agrees with the models that may be non-causal ….”). Further, Eckert teaches generating a constraint signal indicative of a first constraint ([0035] via “In such a situation, it can be desirable to have a predetermined distance threshold representing the closest distance that the heated end effector can get to surrounding tissue without causing damage.”) and a second constraint ([0036] via “The temperatures T.sub.1, T.sub.2, T.sub.3 can represent the temperature T.sub.b of the ultrasonic blade 1507 directly or can represent the compared temperatures between the temperature T.sub.b of the ultrasonic blade and the temperature T.sub.t of the tissue.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the temperature of the ultrasonic blade of Eckert as the second constraint.) associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated ([0032] via “FIG. 1 is a perspective view of one embodiment of a surgical robotic system 300 that includes … a user-side portion 311 that is located a distance from the patient, either in the same room and/or in a remote location.”), ([0038] via “For example, the end effector 1504 can be advanced toward the tissue 1506 while temperature is monitored. If the sensed temperature of the end effector 1504 is at or in excess of a predetermined threshold temperature, for example temperature T.sub.1, the controller can act to stop the advancement of the end effector 1504 so that the end effector 1504 does not move closer toward the tissue 1506 than a predetermined threshold distance from a tissue 1506, for example the distance threshold 1514.”) with the second robot portion ([0033] via “In some embodiments, the control system 315 can also include … a powered and gravity-compensated manipulator, or the like. These input devices can control teleoperated motors which, in turn, control the movement of the surgical system, including the robotic arms 320 and tool assemblies 330.”), wherein the first constraint and the second constraint of the constraint signal are each assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion ([0036] via “For example, distance threshold 1514 can represent the closest position an end effector 1504 having a temperature T.sub.1 can be positioned with respect to the tissue 1506 of the patient; ….”), ([0042] via “If the operator wishes to reinstate motion and effectively ignore the threshold, the system can be configured to receive an input from the operator causing the robotic surgical system to move the end effector 1504 closer toward the tissue 1506 of the patient than a threshold distance would normally allow. Line 1718 of graph 1702 is an exemplary illustration of the velocity of the end effector 1504 after manual override by the operator of the robotic surgical system.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets Eckert to disclose that the distance of the blade to the tissue has priority over the temperature of the blade in the scenario of paragraph [0036] of Eckert, and the temperature of the blade has priority over the distance of the blade in the scenario of paragraph [0042] of Eckert.); and implementing the first constraint and the second constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion based on the priority assigned to each of the first constraint and the second constraint ([0042] via “For example, the robotic surgical system can stop the end effector 1504 at a particular distance threshold if the blade of the end effector 1504 exceeds a desired temperature. The system can cause a signal or notice to the operator, such as vibration of controls, visual and/or tactile and/or auditory feedback, etc., indicating that the system has stopped all movement because a distance threshold has been reached.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ghazaei wherein the method comprises: receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows a first robot portion in a second scenario. Doing so appropriately transfers the interaction forces/torques between the first and second robot portions in a manner that is safe for the users, as stated by Ghazaei ([0045] via “According to some embodiments, the calculating comprising accomplishing a bidirectional transfer of force and torque between the master robot arm and the slave robot arm such that haptic feedback is complied with, or adjusted, according to any restricted and/or singular configuration of the slave robot arm and/or master robot arm.”). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Eckert wherein the method comprises: generating a constraint signal indicative of a first constraint and a second constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion, wherein the first constraint and the second constraint of the constraint signal are each assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion; and implementing the first constraint and the second constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion based on the priority assigned to each of the first constraint and the second constraint. Doing so reprioritizes the constraints if an emergency situation arises wherein the first prioritized constraint must be suspended, as stated by Eckert ([0042] via “If the operator wishes to reinstate motion and effectively ignore the threshold, the system can be configured to receive an input from the operator causing the robotic surgical system to move the end effector 1504 closer toward the tissue 1506 of the patient than a threshold distance would normally allow. Line 1718 of graph 1702 is an exemplary illustration of the velocity of the end effector 1504 after manual override by the operator of the robotic surgical system. This situation may be desirable for a variety of reasons, such as cauterizing cut tissue or an emergency surgical situation.”). Regarding Claim 12, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the computer-implemented method for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 11, but is silent on wherein the wrench force of the interaction wrench signal is indicative of an interaction between a first human and the first robot portion. However, Ghazaei teaches wherein the wrench force of the interaction wrench signal is indicative of an interaction between a first human and the first robot portion ([0078] via “The control unit 5 is further configured to determine master external force data indicating a force interplay 2A (FIG. 2) between the operator 6 and the master robot arm. The force interplay here indicates a bidirectional force interaction between the master robot arm and the operator. … Alternatively, the master external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 20 (FIG. 2) … from the master robot arm.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ghazaei wherein the wrench force of the interaction wrench signal is indicative of an interaction between a first human and the first robot portion. Doing so measures the wrench signal input by a human operator, as stated above by Ghazaei. Regarding Claim 13, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the computer-implemented method for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 11, wherein the end-effector pose signal is provided by a second human interacting with the second robot portion (Col. 7 lines 61-63, where “Optionally, the touch replicator comprises at least one actuator configured to move the arm in respect to a pivot point, the pivot point arranged on the second end of the arm.”), (Col. 8 lines 44-49, where “Optionally, movement of the touch replicator follows a trajectory of the pointer along the first touch sensor with a determined relative speed. It will be appreciated that touch replicator replicates (or mirrors) a movement of the pointer along the first touch sensor for providing and replacing the remote touch.”), (Col. 10 lines 51-61, where “Accordingly, the haptic terminal associated with the second person receives the captured data, processes the received captured data to form a control signal, and replicates the remote touch (to be provided by the first person to the second person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the second person). It will be appreciated that the haptic terminal, associated with the first person, is also operable to provide a remote touch (of the second person to the first person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the first person).”). Regarding Claim 14, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the computer-implemented method for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 11, wherein the end-effector pose signal provided by a second human interacting with the second robot portion is indicative of a desired pose for the first robot portion (Col. 7 lines 61-63, where “Optionally, the touch replicator comprises at least one actuator configured to move the arm in respect to a pivot point, the pivot point arranged on the second end of the arm.”), (Col. 8 lines 44-49, where “Optionally, movement of the touch replicator follows a trajectory of the pointer along the first touch sensor with a determined relative speed. It will be appreciated that touch replicator replicates (or mirrors) a movement of the pointer along the first touch sensor for providing and replacing the remote touch.”), (Col. 10 lines 51-61, where “Accordingly, the haptic terminal associated with the second person receives the captured data, processes the received captured data to form a control signal, and replicates the remote touch (to be provided by the first person to the second person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the second person). It will be appreciated that the haptic terminal, associated with the first person, is also operable to provide a remote touch (of the second person to the first person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the first person).”). Regarding Claim 15, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the computer-implemented method for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 11, but is silent on wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a joint torque limitation, a joint velocity limitation, a joint acceleration limitation, or a joint position limitation for the second robot portion. However, Eckert teaches wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a joint torque limitation, a joint velocity limitation, a joint acceleration limitation, or a joint position limitation for the second robot portion ([0035] via “In such a situation, it can be desirable to have a predetermined distance threshold representing the closest distance that the heated end effector can get to surrounding tissue without causing damage.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Eckert wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a joint torque limitation, a joint velocity limitation, a joint acceleration limitation, or a joint position limitation for the second robot portion. Doing so prevents the second robot portion from damaging objects by getting too close to them, as stated above by Eckert. Regarding Claim 16, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the computer-implemented method for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 11, but is silent on wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a space limitation for the second robot portion. However, Eckert teaches wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a space limitation for the second robot portion ([0035] via “In such a situation, it can be desirable to have a predetermined distance threshold representing the closest distance that the heated end effector can get to surrounding tissue without causing damage.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Eckert wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a space limitation for the second robot portion. Doing so prevents the second robot portion from damaging objects by getting too close to them, as stated above by Eckert. Regarding Claim 18, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the computer-implemented method for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 11, comprising: receiving an end-effector pose signal indicative of a pose associated with the first robot portion (Col. 7 lines 61-63, where “Optionally, the touch replicator comprises at least one actuator configured to move the arm in respect to a pivot point, the pivot point arranged on the second end of the arm.”), (Col. 8 lines 44-49, where “Optionally, movement of the touch replicator follows a trajectory of the pointer along the first touch sensor with a determined relative speed. It will be appreciated that touch replicator replicates (or mirrors) a movement of the pointer along the first touch sensor for providing and replacing the remote touch.”), (Col. 10 lines 51-61, where “Accordingly, the haptic terminal associated with the second person receives the captured data, processes the received captured data to form a control signal, and replicates the remote touch (to be provided by the first person to the second person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the second person). It will be appreciated that the haptic terminal, associated with the first person, is also operable to provide a remote touch (of the second person to the first person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the first person).”). Tuovinen is silent on receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with the second robot portion. However, Ghazaei teaches receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with the second robot portion ([0078] via “The control unit 5 is further configured to determine slave external force data indicating a force interplay 3A (FIG. 2) between the slave robot arm and the workpiece 4. The force interplay here indicates a bidirectional force interaction between the slave robot arm and the workpiece. … Alternatively, the slave external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 30 (FIG. 2) … from the slave robot arm.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ghazaei wherein the method comprises: receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with the second robot portion. Doing so measures the wrench signal experienced by interacting with a workpiece, as stated above by Ghazaei. Regarding Claim 20, Tuovinen teaches a system for bilateral robot-mediated physical human-human interaction (Col. 12 lines 53-58, where “Referring to FIG. 2, the system 200 for providing remote touch includes a first device 202, which is a haptic terminal, may be associated with the first person. The system 200 further includes a haptic terminal 204, which may be associated with the second person. The haptic terminal 204 is communicably coupled to the first device 202 by a communication network 206.”), (Note: See Figure 2 of Tuovinen as well, wherein interaction is bilateral.), comprising: a memory storing one or more instructions (Col. 9 lines 44-45, where “The memory element may be a local data storage element, such as a memory chip.”); a processor executing one or more of the instructions stored on the memory (Col. 10 lines 9-12, where “… the processing unit of the haptic terminal is operable to retrieve the stored first touch pattern and control the movement of the touch replicator based on the stored first touch pattern.”) to perform: generating and transmitting an end-effector pose signal indicative of a pose associated with the second robot portion (Col. 7 lines 61-63, where “Optionally, the touch replicator comprises at least one actuator configured to move the arm in respect to a pivot point, the pivot point arranged on the second end of the arm.”), (Col. 8 lines 44-49, where “Optionally, movement of the touch replicator follows a trajectory of the pointer along the first touch sensor with a determined relative speed. It will be appreciated that touch replicator replicates (or mirrors) a movement of the pointer along the first touch sensor for providing and replacing the remote touch.”), (Col. 10 lines 51-61, where “Accordingly, the haptic terminal associated with the second person receives the captured data, processes the received captured data to form a control signal, and replicates the remote touch (to be provided by the first person to the second person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the second person). It will be appreciated that the haptic terminal, associated with the first person, is also operable to provide a remote touch (of the second person to the first person) by the touch replicator of the haptic terminal (associated with the first person).”) acting as an operator that leads the first robot portion in the first scenario (Col. 4 lines 43-45, where “Additionally, in an embodiment, the second person may provide touch to the first person, or the first person and the second person may provide touch to each other.”) and wherein the first robot portion acts as an operator that leads the second robot portion in the second scenario (Col. 4 lines 38-43, where “As mentioned herein above, the present disclosure provides the system for providing remote touch of the first person to the second person. The first person may be a person that wants to provide his or her touch, and the second person may be person who receives the touch from the first person.”). Tuovinen is silent on receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows a first robot portion in a second scenario; receiving a constraint signal indicative of a first constraint and a second constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion, wherein the first constraint and the second constraint of constraint signal are each assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion; and implementing the first constraint and the second constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion based on the priority assigned to each of the first constraint and the second constraint. However, Ghazaei teaches receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force ([0078] via “Alternatively, the master external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 20 (FIG. 2) … from the master robot arm. … Alternatively, the slave external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 30 (FIG. 2) … from the slave robot arm.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the force/torque signals of Ghazaei as the wrench signals, as the wrench signal is described within paragraph [0042] of the specification of the instant application.) associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows a first robot portion in a second scenario ([0033] via “According to some embodiments, the control unit is configured to accomplish a bidirectional transfer of force and torque between the master robot arm and the slave robot arm such that haptic feedback is complied with according to any restricted and singular configuration of the slave robot arm and/or master robot arm. Bidirectional here means a practically simultaneous transfer of control signals such that the force interplay agrees with the models that may be non-causal ….”). Further, Eckert teaches receiving a constraint signal indicative of a first constraint ([0035] via “In such a situation, it can be desirable to have a predetermined distance threshold representing the closest distance that the heated end effector can get to surrounding tissue without causing damage.”) and a second constraint ([0036] via “The temperatures T.sub.1, T.sub.2, T.sub.3 can represent the temperature T.sub.b of the ultrasonic blade 1507 directly or can represent the compared temperatures between the temperature T.sub.b of the ultrasonic blade and the temperature T.sub.t of the tissue.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the temperature of the ultrasonic blade of Eckert as the second constraint.) associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated ([0032] via “FIG. 1 is a perspective view of one embodiment of a surgical robotic system 300 that includes … a user-side portion 311 that is located a distance from the patient, either in the same room and/or in a remote location.”), ([0038] via “For example, the end effector 1504 can be advanced toward the tissue 1506 while temperature is monitored. If the sensed temperature of the end effector 1504 is at or in excess of a predetermined threshold temperature, for example temperature T.sub.1, the controller can act to stop the advancement of the end effector 1504 so that the end effector 1504 does not move closer toward the tissue 1506 than a predetermined threshold distance from a tissue 1506, for example the distance threshold 1514.”) with the second robot portion ([0033] via “In some embodiments, the control system 315 can also include … a powered and gravity-compensated manipulator, or the like. These input devices can control teleoperated motors which, in turn, control the movement of the surgical system, including the robotic arms 320 and tool assemblies 330.”), wherein the first constraint and the second constraint of constraint signal are each assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion ([0036] via “For example, distance threshold 1514 can represent the closest position an end effector 1504 having a temperature T.sub.1 can be positioned with respect to the tissue 1506 of the patient; ….”), ([0042] via “If the operator wishes to reinstate motion and effectively ignore the threshold, the system can be configured to receive an input from the operator causing the robotic surgical system to move the end effector 1504 closer toward the tissue 1506 of the patient than a threshold distance would normally allow. Line 1718 of graph 1702 is an exemplary illustration of the velocity of the end effector 1504 after manual override by the operator of the robotic surgical system.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets Eckert to disclose that the distance of the blade to the tissue has priority over the temperature of the blade in the scenario of paragraph [0036] of Eckert, and the temperature of the blade has priority over the distance of the blade in the scenario of paragraph [0042] of Eckert.); and implementing the first constraint and the second constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion based on the priority assigned to each of the first constraint and the second constraint ([0042] via “For example, the robotic surgical system can stop the end effector 1504 at a particular distance threshold if the blade of the end effector 1504 exceeds a desired temperature. The system can cause a signal or notice to the operator, such as vibration of controls, visual and/or tactile and/or auditory feedback, etc., indicating that the system has stopped all movement because a distance threshold has been reached.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ghazaei wherein to perform: receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows a first robot portion in a second scenario. Doing so appropriately transfers the interaction forces/torques between the first and second robot portions in a manner that is safe for the users, as stated by Ghazaei ([0045] via “According to some embodiments, the calculating comprising accomplishing a bidirectional transfer of force and torque between the master robot arm and the slave robot arm such that haptic feedback is complied with, or adjusted, according to any restricted and/or singular configuration of the slave robot arm and/or master robot arm.”). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Eckert wherein to perform: receiving a constraint signal indicative of a first constraint and a second constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion, wherein the first constraint and the second constraint of constraint signal are each assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion; and implementing the first constraint and the second constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion based on the priority assigned to each of the first constraint and the second constraint. Doing so reprioritizes the constraints if an emergency situation arises wherein the first prioritized constraint must be suspended, as stated by Eckert ([0042] via “If the operator wishes to reinstate motion and effectively ignore the threshold, the system can be configured to receive an input from the operator causing the robotic surgical system to move the end effector 1504 closer toward the tissue 1506 of the patient than a threshold distance would normally allow. Line 1718 of graph 1702 is an exemplary illustration of the velocity of the end effector 1504 after manual override by the operator of the robotic surgical system. This situation may be desirable for a variety of reasons, such as cauterizing cut tissue or an emergency surgical situation.”). 10. Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuovinen et al. (US 11376743 B2 hereinafter Tuovinen) in view of Ghazaei Ardakani et al. (US 20190358817 A1 hereinafter Ghazaei) and Eckert et al. (US 20180049792 A1 hereinafter Eckert), and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20160229050 A1 hereinafter Wang). Regarding Claim 7, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the constraint signal is indicative of an interaction force limitation for the second robot portion. However, Wang teaches wherein the constraint signal is indicative of an interaction force limitation for the second robot portion ([0036] via “At block 51 of the flowchart, the magnitude of the measured force Fm is calculated. The next step as shown in block 52 is determining when the force limiting control function should be active. An exemplary criterion in for that determination is: if force limiting is not active, and Fm is greater than 80% of F.sub.lim, then force limiting is set to activated; if force limiting is active, but Fm is smaller than 20% of F.sub.lim, then force limiting is set to not active; otherwise no changes to the force limiting state.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang wherein the constraint signal is indicative of an interaction force limitation for the second robot portion. Doing so prevents damage to the robot and/or the environment from using excessive forces, as stated by Wang ([0031] via “Some controlling devices have very limited force/torque output that a human can easily overcome. A human operator 14d can continue pushing a fully loaded controlling device 14a to the level that causes a large contact force to occur at the remote site between the robot 12a and its environment. Without a force safe guard, may cause damage to the robot 12a, the tooling 12d, the work piece 12e or other items in the robot environment.”). Regarding Claim 17, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the computer-implemented method for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 11, but is silent on wherein the constraint signal is indicative of an interaction force limitation for the second robot portion. However, Wang teaches wherein the constraint signal is indicative of an interaction force limitation for the second robot portion ([0036] via “At block 51 of the flowchart, the magnitude of the measured force Fm is calculated. The next step as shown in block 52 is determining when the force limiting control function should be active. An exemplary criterion in for that determination is: if force limiting is not active, and Fm is greater than 80% of F.sub.lim, then force limiting is set to activated; if force limiting is active, but Fm is smaller than 20% of F.sub.lim, then force limiting is set to not active; otherwise no changes to the force limiting state.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang wherein the constraint signal is indicative of an interaction force limitation for the second robot portion. Doing so prevents damage to the robot and/or the environment from using excessive forces, as stated by Wang ([0031] via “Some controlling devices have very limited force/torque output that a human can easily overcome. A human operator 14d can continue pushing a fully loaded controlling device 14a to the level that causes a large contact force to occur at the remote site between the robot 12a and its environment. Without a force safe guard, may cause damage to the robot 12a, the tooling 12d, the work piece 12e or other items in the robot environment.”). 11. Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuovinen et al. (US 11376743 B2 hereinafter Tuovinen) in view of Ghazaei Ardakani et al. (US 20190358817 A1 hereinafter Ghazaei) and Eckert et al. (US 20180049792 A1 hereinafter Eckert), and further in view of Dozeman et al. (US 20210298846 A1 hereinafter Dozeman). Regarding Claim 9, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 8, but is silent on wherein: the processor generates a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the second robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the first robot portion; and the processor implements the constraint associated with the second robot portion as feedback on the first robot portion. However, Dozeman teaches wherein: the processor generates a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the second robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the first robot portion ([0099] via “The user interface UI of the tool 20 and the remote control RC may each include one or more user input devices (e.g., … joysticks, foot pedals, etc.) that are coupled to the tool controller 21, manipulator controller 26, and/or navigation controller 36, to control operation of the manipulator 14.”), ([0106] via “If a collision is detected, then the manual mode or the semi-autonomous mode (depending on which input was actuated), remains disabled and the control system 60 acts to provide guidance to the user on the situation and how the tool 20 could be moved to place the tool 20 back in compliance with the virtual boundary 71.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the constraint associated with the second robot portion as the disabled and guided user input device when the virtual boundary 71 of Dozeman is violated.); and the processor implements the constraint associated with the second robot portion as feedback on the first robot portion ([0106] via “The guidance to the user may be in the form of user feedback, such as … and/or haptic feedback (e.g., by haptically guiding the user to place the tool 20 into a desired relationship with the virtual boundary 71). The collision check can be periodically or continually repeated, and if the tool 20 is returned to being in compliance with the virtual boundary 71, the manual or semi-autonomous modes can be enabled and the user feedback will cease.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the feedback on the first robot portion as the tool 20 being guided back into a desired relationship with the virtual boundary 71 of Dozeman.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dozeman wherein: the processor generates a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the second robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the first robot portion; and the processor implements the constraint associated with the second robot portion as feedback on the first robot portion. Doing so controls the first and second robot portions to move back to desired positions when the positions of the robot portions violate boundaries of the environment, as stated above by Dozeman in paragraph [0106]. Regarding Claim 19, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the computer-implemented method for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 18, but is silent on the method comprising: generating a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the second robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the first robot portion; and implementing the constraint associated with the second robot portion as feedback on the first robot portion. However, Dozeman teaches generating a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the second robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the first robot portion ([0099] via “The user interface UI of the tool 20 and the remote control RC may each include one or more user input devices (e.g., … joysticks, foot pedals, etc.) that are coupled to the tool controller 21, manipulator controller 26, and/or navigation controller 36, to control operation of the manipulator 14.”), ([0106] via “If a collision is detected, then the manual mode or the semi-autonomous mode (depending on which input was actuated), remains disabled and the control system 60 acts to provide guidance to the user on the situation and how the tool 20 could be moved to place the tool 20 back in compliance with the virtual boundary 71.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the constraint associated with the second robot portion as the disabled and guided user input device when the virtual boundary 71 of Dozeman is violated.); and implementing the constraint associated with the second robot portion as feedback on the first robot portion ([0106] via “The guidance to the user may be in the form of user feedback, such as … and/or haptic feedback (e.g., by haptically guiding the user to place the tool 20 into a desired relationship with the virtual boundary 71). The collision check can be periodically or continually repeated, and if the tool 20 is returned to being in compliance with the virtual boundary 71, the manual or semi-autonomous modes can be enabled and the user feedback will cease.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the feedback on the first robot portion as the tool 20 being guided back into a desired relationship with the virtual boundary 71 of Dozeman.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dozeman wherein the method comprises: generating a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the second robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the first robot portion; and implementing the constraint associated with the second robot portion as feedback on the first robot portion. Doing so controls the first and second robot portions to move back to desired positions when the positions of the robot portions violate boundaries of the environment, as stated above by Dozeman in paragraph [0106]. 12. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuovinen et al. (US 11376743 B2 hereinafter Tuovinen) in view of Ghazaei Ardakani et al. (US 20190358817 A1 hereinafter Ghazaei) and Eckert et al. (US 20180049792 A1 hereinafter Eckert), and further in view of Hane (US 20250367822 A1 hereinafter Hane). Regarding Claim 10, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 1, but is silent on wherein: the processor generates the constraint signal to be indicative of a second constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion; the processor prioritizes the constraint and the second constraint based on whether the first robot portion is acting as the operator or the partner; and implementing the constraint and the second constraint. However, Eckert teaches wherein: the processor generates the constraint signal to be indicative of a second constraint ([0036] via “The temperatures T.sub.1, T.sub.2, T.sub.3 can represent the temperature T.sub.b of the ultrasonic blade 1507 directly or can represent the compared temperatures between the temperature T.sub.b of the ultrasonic blade and the temperature T.sub.t of the tissue.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the temperature of the ultrasonic blade of Eckert as the second constraint.) associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated ([0032] via “FIG. 1 is a perspective view of one embodiment of a surgical robotic system 300 that includes … a user-side portion 311 that is located a distance from the patient, either in the same room and/or in a remote location.”), ([0038] via “For example, the end effector 1504 can be advanced toward the tissue 1506 while temperature is monitored. If the sensed temperature of the end effector 1504 is at or in excess of a predetermined threshold temperature, for example temperature T.sub.1, the controller can act to stop the advancement of the end effector 1504 so that the end effector 1504 does not move closer toward the tissue 1506 than a predetermined threshold distance from a tissue 1506, for example the distance threshold 1514.”) with the second robot portion ([0033] via “In some embodiments, the control system 315 can also include … a powered and gravity-compensated manipulator, or the like. These input devices can control teleoperated motors which, in turn, control the movement of the surgical system, including the robotic arms 320 and tool assemblies 330.”); and implementing the constraint and the second constraint ([0038] via “For example, the sensed temperature of the end effector 1504 may be at or above T.sub.2 or T.sub.3, and the controller may be configured to stop the advancement of the end effector 1504 so that the end effector 1504 does not move closer to the tissue 1506 than the distance thresholds 1516 or 1518, respectively.”). Further, Hane teaches wherein: the processor prioritizes the constraint and the second constraint based on whether the first robot portion is acting as the operator or the partner ([0071] via “For example, the robot control device 1 can calculate an index value with the degree of influence of the cycle time made large. Accordingly, the robot control device 1 can present the operation speed with the highest calculated index value, i.e., the operation speed of the setting history record that prioritizes the cycle time, as the recommended operation speed to the user who considers the cycle time important. Similarly, the robot control device 1 can calculate an index value with the degree of influence of the torque value made large. Accordingly, the robot control device 1 can present the operation speed with the highest calculated index value, i.e., the operation speed of the setting history record that prioritizes the torque value, as the recommended operation speed to the user who considers the careful operation important.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets that the operator or the partner may each prioritize different constraints, as taught above by Hane between prioritizing cycle time vs careful operation, as reading on this limitation.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Eckert wherein: the processor generates the constraint signal to be indicative of a second constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion; and implementing the constraint and the second constraint. Doing so incorporates additional constraints that aid in preventing damage to the environment of the first and second robot portions, as stated by Eckert ([0035] via “If, for instance, an end effector is heated to an excess degree through use, the heat emanated by the end effector can cause damage to surrounding tissue if the heated end effector contacts or is kept in the vicinity of tissue for too long a period of time. In such a situation, it can be desirable to have a predetermined distance threshold representing the closest distance that the heated end effector can get to surrounding tissue without causing damage.”). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hane wherein: the processor prioritizes the constraint and the second constraint based on whether the first robot portion is acting as the operator or the partner. Doing so customizes the constraints of the first and second robot portions according to the desired outputs of the users, as stated above by Hane. Examiner’s Note 13. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123. Conclusion 14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYRON X KASPER whose telephone number is (571)272-3895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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. /BYRON XAVIER KASPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657