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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Where applicant argues in page 15 of the remarks section labeled “Peine does not at least disclose or teach the second torque in claim 21 of the present application.”, These arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Where applicant argues, “In Peine, the movement of the robotic arm is actively driven by the robotic control system, whereas in claim 21 of the present application, the second torque is applied to control the first joint assembly after it has moved under the effect of an external force. Although Peine discloses altering a scaling factor to slow down the motion of the robotic arm in the direction of collision, Peine achieves this by applying a controlling force to the robotic arm while the collision state is active. That is to say, in Peine, during a collision, a limiting force is applied through active drive to slow down the movement of the robotic arm in the direction of the collision. Therefore, the movement of the robotic arm in the collision direction in Peine is driven by the robotic control system, not driven by environmental torque (i.e., not driven by any external force other than gravity, friction, or inertia). Consequently, Peine does not disclose or teach applying control to the first joint assembly after it has moved under the effect of an external force.”
Applicants arguments are not persuasive as the prior art of Peine does teach having their system counter act the force of gravity as described below in the rejection and paragraph 0054. Furthermore, it is disclosed by Peine as indicated below to have their system halt the robotic arm, where they state that the control system will “suspend or terminate” in response to detection of the collision the execution of the movement command, see paragraph 0070. The currently presented claim has been constructed where the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) allows for the above interpretation. Applicants claims as currently presented includes an “or” limitation and hence one or the alternative only need to be met for the prior art to be read upon by applicants claims and hence the prior art of Peine does read upon applicants claims as currently presented. Specifically, claim 21 includes, “…wherein the first torque is configured to balance a gravitational torque of a load of a distal end of the first joint assembly, and the second torque is configured to restore a joint position of the first joint assembly or brake the first joint assembly after the first joint assembly moves under an effect of the external force.” Where the first torque has been disclosed by Peine in the cited paragraphs below to have the robot compensate for gravity and the second torque is the stopping or halt of the robotic arm which is taught by Peine in at least paragraph 70. When the robotic device detects a collision and stops the motion of the arm the arm where the interpretation of “moves under an effect of the external force” is that the robotic arm would experience a force when it impacts an object and thus allow the system to detect and halt the robotic arm as described in paragraph 70.
Where applicant argues, “Peine does not disclose or teach restoring the robotic arm to its position prior to being acted upon by an external force. The set position point in Peine is the desired or commanded position, i.e., the position the robotic control system aims to reach by actively driving the robotic arm. Furthermore, if the robotic arm is pushed too far away from this set point position, this set position point may be changed. Therefore, the set point position in Peine is completely different from the "position prior to being acted upon by an external force" in amended claim 21 of the present application. Additionally, Peine explicitly states that it would be undesirable for the robotic arm 40 to suddenly move back to the desired position after the operator removes the force displacing the robotic arm. On one hand, the force displacing the robotic arm, which is removed by the operator, is also an actively driven force from the robotic control system, not environmental torque. On the other hand, Peine explicitly teaches that even after this actively driven force is removed, it is not desirable to restore the robotic arm to its position prior to being acted upon by that actively driven force. Therefore, Peine does not disclose restoring the robotic arm to its position prior to being acted upon by an external force and, in fact, provides contrary teaching regarding restoring the robotic arm to its position prior to being acted upon by an actively driven force.”
Applicants arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons. Where applicant argues, “Peine does not disclose or teach restoring the robotic arm to its position prior to being acted upon by an external force.” This is an optional statement in the currently presented claims and hence where the other claimed limitation was addressed this is not require. If applicant were to amend the claim to remove the “or” and have the claim include “and” then the claim would have to include the feature applicant is arguing. Thus applicants arguments are respectfully traversed. Where applicant argues, “Furthermore, if the robotic arm is pushed too far away from this set point position, this set position point may be changed. Therefore, the set point position in Peine is completely different from the "position prior to being acted upon by an external force" in amended claim 21 of the present application.” Applicants arguments are respectfully traversed as not amendments were presented to claim 21 and hence it is unclear as to what applicant is referring to? Where applicant argues, “Therefore, Peine does not disclose restoring the robotic arm to its position prior to being acted upon by an external force and, in fact, provides contrary teaching regarding restoring the robotic arm to its position prior to being acted upon by an actively driven force.” Applicants arguments are respectfully traversed due to the claims currently presented having optional limitations and hence as indicated above and below in the rejection, both the options have been addressed by the prior art of Peine.
Where applicant argues, “The control schemes for responding to collision in Peine are different from the strategy for responding to external force in claim 21 of the present application. (1) The control schemes for responding to collision in Peine include: limiting the applied force in the direction of the collision; altering (e.g., lowering) the P and/or D gains of the joint axis controller; altering the desired motion of the robotic arm by 'clutching out' the handle controller in the direction of the collision, causing the robotic arm to stop moving in that direction; and altering the scaling factor to slow down the motion of the robotic arm in the direction of the collision. It is evident that all these collision response schemes in Peine are implemented through active drive by the robotic control system. This is entirely different from claim 21 of the present application, which allows the first joint assembly to undergo a passive movement-i.e., a movement compliant with the external force- under the influence of that force. The collision strategies in Peine are all aimed at suppressing or stopping the controlled robotic arm from continuing to advance toward the colliding object. Therefore, the collision response schemes in Peine cannot achieve the effect of buffering the external force through positional changes compliant with the external force. (2) In claim 21 of the present application, after the first joint assembly moves under the effect of an external force, the joint position of the first joint assembly is restored, or the first joint assembly is braked to limit its range of motion. This is entirely not disclosed by the collision response schemes in Peine.”
Applicants arguments are not persuasive and traversed. Applicant arguments above In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the control schemes for responding to collision”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Hence applicants arguments are respectfully traversed.
Where applicant argues on page 17 of the remarks, “Thus, Peine fails to disclose or teach the following features in the amended claim 21..” No amendments have been presented in the currently presented claims (claims set filed 01/13/2026) and hence this argument is moot.
Where applicant argues on page 17 of the remarks, “a) adjusting, in response to an external force received by the first arm, a first torque and a second torque output by the actuating device corresponding to a first joint assembly of the joint assembly of the first arm; b) the second torque is configured to restore a joint position of the first joint assembly or brake the first joint assembly after the first joint assembly moves under an effect of the external force. Thus, Peine fails to solve the above-mentioned technical problem which can be solved by the amended claim 21.” This is moot as the amendments are not in the currently presented claims (claims set filed 01/13/2026) and hence applicants arguments are moot.
Applicants arguments on the rest of pages 17 and 18 are also directed to the amendments to claim 21. It is noted that no actual amendments were filed with the claim set on 01/13/2026 and thus all of the arguments are found to be directed to matters which have not been presented to the office and thus moot. Furthermore, no specific arguments were presented for the dependent claims and thus all the rejections for the dependent claims have been maintained. Therefore, the rejections have been maintained and applicants arguments are not persuasive.
Furthermore, it is noted that applicant arguments are directed to a narrower interpretation of the claims, where as the office has looked at the claims under BRI, as per the MPEP. Applicant also argued amendments to the claims which were not presented in the filed claims and hence those arguments were found to be moot. The office is unsure if applicant wanted to change claim 21 to include amendments to change the scope of claim 21 to better align with there arguments. Where applicant would have changed claim 21 to now have it have both the last limitations be required as compared to the current claims which are conditional via the use of an ”or” operator. The disconnect between what was in the remarks and what the claims showed lead to some confusion and hence the rejection and response to arguments was provided as close as possible to what the office believed applicant was trying to argue. However, if there is some discrepancy then any arguments not specifically addressed have not be acquiesced and all the rejections have been maintained.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24-26, 30-31 & 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peine et al., US PG pub 2022/0233271 A1 (hereafter Peine) in view of Hingwe et al., US PG pub 2014/0052151 A1 (hereafter Hingwe).
Regarding claim 21 where it is disclosed by Peine to have a system for external torque observation and compensation for a surgical robotic arm. Where this is read upon by applicants claim to:
“A surgical robot [see at least paragraphs 23-24, where they describe a “surgical robot system 10” and “robotic arms 40”], comprising: at least one arm [see at least paragraphs 23-24 where it is describe to have “robotic arms 40”], the at least one arm comprising an arm of an operating device or an arm of a slave operating device manipulated by the operating device [see at least paragraphs 25 where they describe “one or more robotic arms 40”], the at least one arm comprising a joint assembly and an actuating device for actuating the joint assembly, the at least one arm comprising a first arm [see at least paragraphs 23-25 where they describe “one or more robotic arms 40”];
and at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is electrically connected to the actuating device [at least paragraphs 4-5, 24-25 & 34 where they describe a controller/processor for controlling the arms], and the at least one processor [at least paragraphs 4-5, 24-25 & 34] is configured for:
adjusting, in response to an external force received by the first arm, a first torque and a second torque output by the actuating device corresponding to a first joint assembly of the joint assembly of the first arm [see at least paragraphs 42, 53-56, 59-61 & 70], wherein the first torque is configured to balance a gravitational torque of a load of a distal end of the first joint assembly [see at least paragraphs 42, 53-56, 59-61 & 70], and the second torque is configured to restore a joint position of the first joint assembly [see at least paragraphs 42, 53-56, 59-61 & 70. Where in specifically paragraph 54 they describe how the robotic arm is adjusted to counter act the force of gravity] or brake the first joint assembly after the first joint assembly moves under an effect of the external force [see at least paragraphs 42, 53-56, 59-61 & 70, where specifically in paragraph 70 they describe the system stops the motion of the robotic arm when a collision is detected which is interpreted as the system is halting the arm via no commands to move to prevent motion].” Where this is disclosed by the prior art of Peine in the following paragraphs:
“[0054] The setup arm controller 41b is also configured for compensating for gravitational forces acting on the setup arm 62, namely, the weight of the robotic arm 40 imparted on the rotatable base 64. The actuator 64a controls the pitch of the robotic arm 40, namely, the angle of the robotic arm 40 relative to the setup arm 62, and by extension the floor, as such since the actuator 64a has to work against gravity. The setup arm controller 41b calculates the torque for the actuator 64a that would statically balance the rotatable base 64 and the robotic arm 40 against the load of gravity by setting velocities and acceleration of the actuator 64a to zero. This provides for a static modelling of the setup arm 62 and the robotic arm 40 disregarding all movement of the robotic arm 40 other than the movement due to gravity. After determining the movement of the setup arm 62 and robotic arm 40 that is solely caused by gravity, the setup arm controller 41b calculates a gravity compensating torque or movement command for actuator 64a that would be sufficient to cancel out the sagging of the robotic arm 40 and compensate for the pitch.”
“[0056] The robotic arm controller 41c and the setup arm controller 41b calculate the torque for the actuators that would statically balance the robotic arm 40 and the setup arm 62 against the load of gravity by setting velocities and acceleration of the joints 44a, 44b, 44c and the actuator 64a to zero. The motor torque command includes a first component which includes motor torque for imparting movement which moves the robotic arm 40 and/or the setup arm 62 to a desired position and a second component which is configured to compensate for the effects of gravity. The second component is calculated by setting the values of the first component, namely, velocity and acceleration to zero. In addition, the second component is also based on the mass, rigidity, dimensions of the links 42a, 42b, 42c, 62a, 62b, 62c and angles therebetween.”
“[0059] With continued reference to FIG. 6, the joint torque sensor 110 measures the torque of a joint (e.g., joint 44a, 44b, 44c, etc.). The measured torque is representative of internal forces 120 and external forces 122. Internal forces 120 include motor torque generated by the motor 104 subtracting for mechanical losses such as gear friction of the harmonic gearbox 106 and motor inertia of the motor 104, which is calculated based on the angular speed of the motor 104. External forces 122 include gravity load, joint friction, and environmental torque. As used herein, the term “environmental torque” refers to any external forces acting on the robotic arm 40 besides gravity, friction, or inertia, such as those due to collision with objects in the operating room.”
“[0070] The environmental torque is then compared to a threshold to determine whether there is a collision. The threshold is used to filter out false readings such that only environmental torque due to collision triggers a positive response. After the collision is detected, the robotic arm controller 41c adjusts the commanded motor torque in a direction of the detected collision. In embodiments, position control, namely, execution of the movement command may be suspended or terminated in response to detection of the collision. In addition, the robotic arm controller 41c also prevents over saturing the torque of the motor 104. After it is determined that the external torque is below the threshold indicative of collision, the robotic arm controller 41c stops the surgical robotic arm 40 by setting input motor torque to zero while continuing to output torque to compensate for gravity and friction in a collision state. This prevents the surgical robotic arm 40 from lurching in the direction of movement prior to the collision once the obstacle has been removed.”
However it is not specifically disclosed by the prior art of Peine to have their system specifically include “and arm of a slave operating device.”
Hingwe is directed to a phantom degree of freedom for manipulating the movement of surgical robots. Hingwe in at least paragraphs 38 & 154 describes their system having a least one slave operating device. Where the slave operating device is interpreted to mean the slave control system that controls the surgical robotic arms.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Peine by the teachings of Hingwe where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of controlling surgical robots. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Peine by Hingwe by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance the modification of Peine, whom does not include the feature of slave robotic controllers to allow the surgical system to be controlled by multiple users as taught by Hingwe. Furthermore, it would be also desired for the following reasons, as mentioned by Hingwe: “[0009] For these and other reasons, it would be advantageous to provide improved devices, systems, and methods for surgery, robotic surgery, and other robotic applications. It would be particularly beneficial if these improved technologies provided the ability to effectively control robotic manipulator arms and/or tools with end effectors having a number of degrees of freedom fewer than the number of degrees of freedom of a master controller manipulated by a surgeon. It would be even more beneficial if these improved technologies allowed the same computation engine to be used for all instruments of the robotic system, thereby reducing controller complexity and costs while increasing flexibility.”
Regarding claim 22 where it is disclosed by Peine to have in at least paragraphs 42, 53-56, 59-61 & 70, to have their system also include, “the first arm further comprises a sensor for detecting a joint position of the joint assembly, the at least one processor is electrically connected to the sensor, and when the second torque comprises a torque for restoring the joint position of the first joint assembly, the at least one processor is configured for: obtaining an initial joint position and a current joint position of the first joint assembly detected by the sensor; calculating a joint position variable of the first joint assembly based on the initial joint position and the current joint position; and determining the second torque outputted by an actuating device corresponding to the first joint assembly based on the joint position variable; wherein the second torque increases as the joint position variable increases.” Where it is described in at least the following cited paragraphs “
“[0054] The setup arm controller 41b is also configured for compensating for gravitational forces acting on the setup arm 62, namely, the weight of the robotic arm 40 imparted on the rotatable base 64. The actuator 64a controls the pitch of the robotic arm 40, namely, the angle of the robotic arm 40 relative to the setup arm 62, and by extension the floor, as such since the actuator 64a has to work against gravity. The setup arm controller 41b calculates the torque for the actuator 64a that would statically balance the rotatable base 64 and the robotic arm 40 against the load of gravity by setting velocities and acceleration of the actuator 64a to zero. This provides for a static modelling of the setup arm 62 and the robotic arm 40 disregarding all movement of the robotic arm 40 other than the movement due to gravity. After determining the movement of the setup arm 62 and robotic arm 40 that is solely caused by gravity, the setup arm controller 41b calculates a gravity compensating torque or movement command for actuator 64a that would be sufficient to cancel out the sagging of the robotic arm 40 and compensate for the pitch.”
“[0056] The robotic arm controller 41c and the setup arm controller 41b calculate the torque for the actuators that would statically balance the robotic arm 40 and the setup arm 62 against the load of gravity by setting velocities and acceleration of the joints 44a, 44b, 44c and the actuator 64a to zero. The motor torque command includes a first component which includes motor torque for imparting movement which moves the robotic arm 40 and/or the setup arm 62 to a desired position and a second component which is configured to compensate for the effects of gravity. The second component is calculated by setting the values of the first component, namely, velocity and acceleration to zero. In addition, the second component is also based on the mass, rigidity, dimensions of the links 42a, 42b, 42c, 62a, 62b, 62c and angles therebetween.”
“[0059] With continued reference to FIG. 6, the joint torque sensor 110 measures the torque of a joint (e.g., joint 44a, 44b, 44c, etc.). The measured torque is representative of internal forces 120 and external forces 122. Internal forces 120 include motor torque generated by the motor 104 subtracting for mechanical losses such as gear friction of the harmonic gearbox 106 and motor inertia of the motor 104, which is calculated based on the angular speed of the motor 104. External forces 122 include gravity load, joint friction, and environmental torque. As used herein, the term “environmental torque” refers to any external forces acting on the robotic arm 40 besides gravity, friction, or inertia, such as those due to collision with objects in the operating room.”
Regarding claim 24 where it is disclosed by Peine in at least paragraphs 42, 53-56, 59-61 & 70, to have their system also include, “the at least one processor is further configured for: determining a joint assembly of the first arm which receives the external force; and determining the first joint assembly based on the joint assembly which receives the external force [please see citation above].”
Regarding claim 25 where it is disclosed by Peine in at least paragraphs 42, 53-56, 59-61 & 70, to have their system also include, “the step of determining the first joint assembly based on the joint assembly which receives the external force comprises: configuring at least one of the joint assembly of the first arm which receives the external force and a joint assembly in proximity to a proximal end of the joint assembly which receives the external force as the first joint assembly [please see citation above.].”
Regarding claim 26 where it is disclose by Peine in at least paragraph 40 to have, “the first arm further comprises a sensor for detecting current signals of the actuating device, the at least one processor is electrically connected to the sensor, and in the step of determining the joint assembly of the first arm which receives the external force, the at least one processor is further configured for: receiving the current signals of the actuating device detected by the sensor; determining the joint assembly of the first arm which receives the external force according to changes of the current signals.” Where paragraph 40 specifically cites,
“[0040] The integrated joint module 100 also includes a sensor suite for monitoring the performance of the integrated joint module 100 to provide for feedback and control thereof. In particular, the integrated joint module 100 includes an encoder 108 coupled to the motor 104. The encoder 108 may be any device that provides a sensor signal indicative of the number of rotations of the motor 104, such as a mechanical encoder or an optical encoder. The motor 104 may also include other sensors, such as a current sensor configured to measure the current draw of the motor 104, a motor torque sensor 105 for measuring motor torque, and the like. The number of rotations may be used to determine the speed and/or position control of individual joints 44a, 44b, 44c. Parameters which are measured and/or determined by the encoder 108 may include speed, distance, revolutions per minute, position, and the like. The integrated joint module 100 further includes a joint torque sensor 110 may be any force or strain sensor including one or more strain gauges configured to convert mechanical forces and/or strain into a sensor signal indicative of the torque imparted by the harmonic gearbox 106. The sensor signals from the encoder 108 and the joint torque sensor 110 are transmitted to the computer 41, which then controls the speed, angle, and/or position of each of the joints 44a, 44b, 44c of the robotic arm 40 based on the sensor signals. In embodiments, additional position sensors may also be used to determine movement and orientation of the robotic arm 40 and the setup arm 62. Suitable sensors include, but are not limited to, potentiometers coupled to movable components and configured to detect travel distances, Hall Effect sensors, accelerometers, and gyroscopes.”
Regarding claim 30 where it is disclosed by Peine in at least paragraphs 70-71 to have, “the first joint assembly comprises a redundant degree of freedom in at least one direction where the external force is applied, to realize multi-level buffering against the external force in the at least one direction of the redundant degree of freedom by using the joint assembly corresponding to the redundant degree of freedom.”
Regarding claim 31 where it is disclosed by Peine in at least paragraphs 40, 42, 53-56, 59-61 & 70-72 to have, “when the second torque is a torque for braking the first joint assembly, the at least one processor is configured for: obtaining an initial joint position and a current joint position of the first joint assembly detected by a sensor; calculating a joint speed of the first joint assembly based on the initial joint position, the current joint position, and a time during which the initial joint position changes to the current joint position; and determining the second torque outputted by the actuating device corresponding to the first joint assembly based on the joint speed.”
Regarding claim 39 which is the corresponding method claim for system claim 21 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 40 which is the corresponding computer program product claim for claim 39, which was rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 21 above. Peine in at least paragraph 27 describes a computer program and associated hardware, please see below:
“ [0027] The computers 21, 31, 41 may include any suitable processor (not shown) operably connected to a memory (not shown), which may include one or more of volatile, non-volatile, magnetic, optical, or electrical media, such as read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), electrically-erasable programmable ROM (EEPROM), non-volatile RAM (NVRAM), or flash memory. The processor may be any suitable processor (e.g., control circuit) adapted to perform the operations, calculations, and/or set of instructions described in the present disclosure including, but not limited to, a hardware processor, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a digital signal processor (DSP), a central processing unit (CPU), a microprocessor, and combinations thereof. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the processor may be substituted for by using any logic processor (e.g., control circuit) adapted to execute algorithms, calculations, and/or set of instructions described herein.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 33-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 33 where applicant claims, “The surgical robot according to claim 21, wherein, the first arm comprises the arm of the slave operating device, and the step of adjusting, in response to external force received by the first arm, the first torque and the second torque output by the actuating device corresponding to the first joint assembly of the joint assembly, comprises: in response to the external force received by the first arm, adjusting the first torque and the second torque output by the actuating device corresponding to the first joint assembly of the joint assembly when at least one of following conditions is met: the first arm not being operated by the operating device; the distal end of the first arm not mounted with a surgical instrument; and the distal end of the first arm mounted with the surgical instrument, and a type information and/or a state information of the distal end of an end effector that satisfies a safety condition.”
The highlighted portions above make the claims indefinite as they are conditional limitations with have other limitations that follow which are also conditional. Applicant also includes the limitation of, “the first arm comprises the arm of the slave operating device”, this was a conditional limitation in claim 21 and hence if this was not selected then this whole limitation is not required and thus the claim has no actual limitations. Where applicant claims “and/or”, the claimed construction of the claim makes it indefinite as it is unclear what the actual scope of the claims are. What is needed and what can be optional and in the currently presented claims everything can be optional and hence nothing is specifically claimed. Furthermore, the amended claim now includes limitations which ae negative limitations which can be used. However, the current claim construction become indefinite as the claims merely state what the invention is not and do not provide any metes and bounds as to what the actual scope of the invention is. For example, the claims includes, “…the first arm not being operated by the operating device; the distal end of the first arm not mounted with a surgical instrument…” The claims cite what the invention is not but do not help in providing specific distinction as to what the scope of the claimed invention is. What is being claimed when applicant states, “the first arm not being operated by the operating device.” What is then operating the arm? When the end of the arm does not include a surgical instrument then what is attached?
Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite, due to this the claims cannot be examined on the merits.
The dependents claims 34-38 which do not help in defining the indefinite portions of claim 33 and thus these claims are also rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 33 above. Hence, these claims also cannot be treated on the merits due to the indefinites associated with the claim they depend from.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 27-29, 32 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.
Claims 35 & 36 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the additional references cited in the form PTO839.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVESH V AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3255. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur, 8-6:30, 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, Abby Lin can be reached at (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 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.
BHAVESH V. AMIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/BHAVESH V AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657