DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority The applicant’s claim to priority of IT102021000003479 on 2/16/21 is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The applicant filed an IDS on 8/11/23, 7/10/25 and 12/12/25 . Each has been annotated and considered. Claim Objections Claims 2-8, 10-19 and 22 objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claims 2-8, 10-19 and 22 , the dependent claims should be written –The method according to—instead of “ A method according to” to show proper dependency on claim 1. Regarding claim 7 , “identity function” and “rotation function” should most likely be rewritten “identity transformation function” and “rotation transformation function” for clarity and consistency in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Clai ms 1 -2 , 8, 10, 1 3 -1 5, 1 7-1 8 and 22- 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Itkowitz (US 20140018960 hereinafter Itkowitz). Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 23) , Itkowitz t eaches a m ethod for controlling a robotic system for medical or surgical teleoperation, wherein said robotic system comprises at least one master device, which is hand-held, mechanically unconstrained and adapted to be moved by an operator, and at least one slave device comprising a surgical instrument adapted to be controlled by the master device, wherein the master device is functionally symmetrical with respect to a predeterminable single, longitudinal axis of the master device, wherein the method comprises (See at least: Figs. 1A-1B, 2A-2C ) : detecting a local reference frame of the master device and the longitudinal axis thereof of the master device, with respect to a main reference frame of a workspace of the master device (See at least: Figs. 6A and 6B via 610, 620 ) ; defining a plurality of local reference frames which are functionally equivalent to the local reference frame detected, said local reference frames being rotated by a respective angle about said longitudinal axis of the master device (See at least: Fig. 6B 620R; [0147] Consequently, in one aspect, a fixed rotational offset is used for mapping wrist orientation motions in the body-centric coordinate frame. Specifically, the sensed orientation data from master tool grip 170A, 170B that is received by the servo control loop within control system 190A (FIG. 7) is rotated by a fixed offset. This is represented in FIG. 6B by coordinate frame 620R A fixed offset in the range -45 degrees to -30 degrees has been shown to work well at mitigating this ergonomic problem while still preserving intuitive control. ) ; mapping a corresponding target reference frame in a workspace of the slave device for each of said local reference frames of the master device of said plurality of local reference frames functionally equivalent to the local reference frame detected (See at least: Fig. 6B ; [0030] FIG. 6B is illustration of one aspect of a body-centric mapping utilized in the system of FIGS. 1A and 1B. ) ; selecting an operating reference frame, among said plurality of local reference frames functionally equivalent to the local reference frame detected, according to criteria for optimization of the a trajectory of the slave device (See at least: Fig. 6B 620R; [0147] Consequently, in one aspect, a fixed rotational offset is used for mapping wrist orientation motions in the body-centric coordinate frame. Specifically, the sensed orientation data from master tool grip 170A, 170B that is received by the servo control loop within control system 190A (FIG. 7) is rotated by a fixed offset. This is represented in FIG. 6B by coordinate frame 620R A fixed offset in the range -45 degrees to -30 degrees has been shown to work well at mitigating this ergonomic problem while still preserving intuitive control.) . Regarding claim 2 , Itkowitz teaches wherein: the detecting step further comprises detecting an orientation (MF) of the longitudinal axis of the master device; the mapping step further comprises mapping a corresponding target orientation , in the workspace of the slave device; the selecting step comprises selecting an operating reference frame such that an associated target pose is optimal, to converge to said corresponding target orientation (See at least: [0046] As explained more completely below, control system 190 maps the sensed spatial motion data and the sensed orientation data to a common reference frame. Control system 190 processes the mapped data and generates commands to appropriately position an end effector, sometimes referred to as a tip, of teleoperated slave surgical instrument 110 based on the movement of master tool grip 170. ) . Regarding claim 3 , Itkowitz teaches wherein the method is performed during a generic step of aligning the master device with the slave device, and/or under a condition in which the surgical instrument of the slave device is not yet aligned with the master device (See at least: [0150] via “ and so the master/slave alignment is continually ratcheted towards a proper intuitive relationship that the surgeon can experience. Execution of ratcheting system module 730 achieves the orientation alignment without autonomous motion of either master tool grip 170, or the slave surgical instrument tip. ” Refer also to claim 1 for rationale. ) . Regarding claim 4 , Itkowitz teaches wherein the method is performed during a step of alignment, with motion or without motion, between the master device and the slave device, under a condition in which the surgical instrument of the slave device is not yet aligned to the master device, and wherein the slave device is enabled to move so as to align the an orientation of the surgical instrument to an orientation of the master device; wherein the method further comprises the steps of: performing one or more alignment checks, based on the orientations of the master and slave devices, as mapped in the workspace of the slave device; expressing the orientation of the master device with respect to said operating reference frame selected; mapping said orientation of the master device, expressed with respect to the operating reference frame selected, in the corresponding target orientation in the workspace of the slave device, i.e., establishing a one-to-one association between said orientation of the master device and the target orientation of the surgical instrument of the slave device; performing the alignment between the slave device and the master device based on said target orientation of the slave device, obtained by mapping the orientation of the master device expressed with respect to the operating reference frame selected (See at least: Fig. 9 steps 905-911; [0161]-[0163] ) . Regarding claim 5 , Itkowitz teaches wherein the rotation angles between the different local reference frames are the same, i.e., where a number N of local reference frames are provided, rotated by an angle of 2x/N to one another (See at least: Fig. 6B 620R; [0147] Consequently, in one aspect, a fixed rotational offset is used for mapping wrist orientation motions in the body-centric coordinate frame. Specifically, the sensed orientation data from master tool grip 170A, 170B that is received by the servo control loop within control system 190A (FIG. 7) is rotated by a fixed offset. This is represented in FIG. 6B by coordinate frame 620R A fixed offset in the range -45 degrees to -30 degrees has been shown to work well at mitigating this ergonomic problem while still preserving intuitive control.) . Regarding claim 8 , Itkowitz teaches wherein the master device has an axial symmetry with respect to said longitudinal axis, and wherein the robotic system does not require alignment with respect to said longitudinal axis, and therefore enables the entry into a teleoperation step and/or operates in the teleoperation step for any rotation of the master device about the longitudinal axis, and/or wherein the master device is geometrically symmetrical with respect to said longitudinal axis (See at least: Fig s . 6A-6B, 8 ) . Regarding claim 1 0 , Itkowitz teaches wherein the slave device, and in particular a control point of the slave device, is movable with respect to an axis of the slave device, said slave device axis being in relation with said longitudinal axis of the master device according to a predetermined correlation (See at least: Fig. 8 ) . Regarding claim 1 1 , Itkowitz teaches wherein the surgical instrument of the slave device is geometrically and/or functionally symmetrical, with respect to said slave device axis (See at least: Fig. 8 ) . Regarding claim 1 3 , Itkowitz teaches wherein said one or more selection criteria comprise: selecting the local reference frame which determines a resulting pose and/or orientation of the master device, mapped in the workspace of the slave device, such as to minimize an axis-angle error with respect to the reference frame associated with the slave device in the workspace of the slave device (Refer at least to claim 1 for reasoning ; Note: Mapping the coordinate frame and orientation of the master device to the slave device for proper positioning and control includes minimizing positional error, including axis-angle errors.). Regarding claim 1 4 , Itkowitz teaches wherein said one or more selection criteria comprise: selecting the local reference frame which determines a resulting pose and/or orientation of the master device, mapped in the workspace of the slave device, to maximize a distance from predetermined limits of the workspace of the slave device (Refer at least to claim 1 for reasoning ; Note: Predetermined limits can be the range in which the slave device operates. ) . Regarding claim 1 5 , Itkowitz teaches wherein said one or more selection criteria comprise: selecting the local reference frame which determines a resulting pose and/or orientation of the master device, mapped in the workspace of the slave device, such that the a trajectory necessary for the slave device to converge towards said resulting pose and/or orientation of the master device is the shortest in terms of angular distance traveled and/or necessary alignment time and/or optimizes criteria related to patient safety (Refer at least to claim 1. Note: Alignment between the master and slave device are necessary so the input from the surgeon is carried out correctly by the slave device to help, not harm, the patient. ) . Regarding claim 1 7 , Itkowitz teaches a method according to any one of the preceding claims claim 1, wherein the alignment step includes a plurality of control cycles, and wherein said step of selecting the local reference frame is carried out at each of said control cycles of the alignment step, or [[it]] said step of selecting the local reference frame is carried out only at the a beginning of the alignment step,and /or wherein the alignment step comprises a sub-step of alignment without motion, in which the surgical instrument of the slave device is not enabled to move, and a sub-step of alignment with motion, in which the surgical instrument of the slave device is enabled to move, and wherein said step of selecting the local reference frame is carried out only during the sub-step of alignment without motion (See at least: Fig. 9 steps 905-911; [0161]-[0163] ) . Regarding claim 18 , Itkowitz teaches wherein the method is used for initiating and/or preparing and/or conducting a teleoperation carried out by the robotic system for medical or surgical teleoperation (See at least: Figs. 6A-6B; refer also to claim 1 ) . Regarding claim 22 , Itkowitz teaches wherein , after the conclusion of the alignment step, the teleoperation step is conducted by expressing the a current orientation of the target device, and thus the enslaved orientation of the slave device, based on the operating reference frame selected during the alignment step,or wherein the last transformation function selected during the alignment step is used utilized during the an entire duration of the a subsequent teleoperation (See at least: Figs. 6A-6B; refer also to claim 1 ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 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. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkowitz in view of Nowlin et al. (US 20070013336 hereinafter Nowlin). Regarding claim 16 , Itkowitz fails to teach the following limitation, but Nowlin teaches wherein said trajectory necessary for the slave device to converge towards the resulting pose and/or orientation of the master device takes into account any obstructions and/or critical areas close to the slave device (See at least: [0105] Examples of additional constraints that may be added include maintaining a pose constraint, and/or avoiding a collision with an object which may be present in the workspace. ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Itkowitz in view of Nowlin to teach wherein said trajectory necessary for the slave device to converge towards the resulting pose and/or orientation of the master device takes into account any obstructions and/or critical areas close to the slave device so that any pose and/or orientation changes while choosing the reference from for the system will not collide with any object or person for safety and to limit damage to the system. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 6-7, 12 and 19 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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. /HARRY Y OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657