Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the application filed 12/12/2025. Claims 1-4 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-3 of the applicant’s remarks, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection and the claim interpretation. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/12/2025, regarding the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US 20200367977 A1 (“Liu”) in view of Peine et al. US 20220233271 A1 (“Peine”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Liu fails to disclose multiple core structural components recited in Claim 1, and that Peine does not remedy these deficiencies. First, applicant argues that Liu does not teach the claimed elements “store the robot’s main body shape including arms as geometric data; include a posture calculator that uses link parameters to compute robot posture or end-effector position for geometric evaluation; define or utilize basic shapes (primitive spheres, cylinders, rectangular solids) that encompass the robot’s body or the end effector; calculate gaps or contacts between virtual shapes; or determine whether a worker’s finger may be caught, independent of any external object.” However, Liu teaches that the sensor at 402 of FIG. 4 can be used to “determine/measure the proximity, location, position, displacement, movement or the like, of object 406 with respect to assembly 402, and surgical robotic arm 404. The controller/processor 414 can, in turn, send a robotic control signal to the surgical robotic arm 404 causing it to, for example, stop moving, so that a collision is avoided” [paragraph 41]. This could not be possible without some form of posture calculation. This disclosure implies that most of the claim elements that were not explicitly taught by Liu are implicitly included in Liu’s disclosure, rendering most of the applicant’s arguments unpersuasive. Further, applicant argues that even when discussing inward-facing sensors “where a hand could be pinched,” Liu still requires the actual hand to intrude into the capacitive sensing field, and that Liu provides no mechanism for evaluating finger-catching possibilities based solely on robot posture or geometry. The disclosure of paragraph 41 and FIG. 4 of Liu disproves this argument.
Applicant further argues that Peine does not teach the missing limitations of the amended Claim 1 and that Peine is directed to an entirely different type of safety architecture, torque-based, post-contact collision detection, rather than geometry-based, pre-contact hazard prediction. Applicant argues that Peine has no storage containing the main body shape and end effector. First, the elements that Peine is relied to teach are not necessarily excluded from Liu’s invention. Liu simply does not explicitly teach the elements that Peine discloses in more detail. Second, Peine teaches an integrated joint module that features motor torque sensors for measuring motor torque, wherein the number of rotations may be used to determine the speed and/or position control of individual joints. Additionally, parameters which are measured and/or determined by the encoder at 108 may include speed, distance, revolutions per minute, position, and the like. There is currently nothing in the amended claims or the specification that describes how the claim language regarding storage containing main body shape and end effector differs from this disclosure of Peine. Applicant further argues that Peine has no posture calculator. As with the storage containing main body shape and end effector, there is currently nothing in the amended claims or the specification that describes how the claim language regarding a posture calculator differs from this disclosure of Peine. Applicant also argues that Peine does not teach a catching determiner. This argument is moot, because Peine is not used to disclose a catching determiner.
Applicant further argues that Liu and Peine in combination still cannot satisfy the structural and functional requirements of amended claim 1. Applicant argues that the Peine’s teaching of measuring the robot’s position and angles for each of the robot’s joints cannot reasonably be combined with the main structure of Liu. However, as previously explained, Liu already implies many of the teachings of Peine, it just doesn’t teach them explicitly. Peine’s method of calculating position and posture would have been obvious in order to implement the teachings of Liu. Applicant’s other arguments regarding the combination have been previously addressed, and the examiner defers the applicant to the previous responses.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025, regarding the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant does not provide specific arguments as to why Liu and Peine do not teach the claimed elements “the catching determination device determines that there is a potential for the to be caught therebetween, the robot controller stops the robot until the operator moves away from a movable range of the robot”, and in light of the previously discussed disclosure of Liu and the teachings of paragraphs 38-39 of Liu, the examiner maintains the previous 103 rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025, regarding the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant does not provide specific arguments as to why Liu and Peine do not teach the claimed elements “the collision detector that detects collision based on a change in axial torque and sensitivity information indicating high sensitivity when the catching determiner indicates a potential for finger entrapment”, and in light of the previously discussed disclosure of Liu and the teachings of paragraphs 5 and 45-46 of Liu, and the disclosure of Peine in paragraphs 4-5, the examiner maintains the previous 103 rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025, regarding the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant does not provide specific arguments as to why Liu and Peine do not teach the claimed elements of claim 4, which depends from claims 1 and 3, and in light of the previously discussed disclosures of Liu and Peine, the examiner maintains the previous 103 rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: claim reads “an operator to be caught between teh arms of the robot” in line 11. Claim should read “an operator to be caught between the arms of the robot” instead. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US 20200367977 A1 (“Liu”) in view of Peine et al. US 20220233271 A1 (“Peine”).
Regarding Claim 1. Liu teaches a collaborative robot system comprising:
a robot having a plurality of arms including a first arm and a second arm and an end effector attached to a distal end of one of the arms (FIG. 2 shows a surgical robotic arm, which may include a housing of tool drive at 228 shown at the distal end of the robot arm [paragraph 40]. The arm is also shown to have multiple links with different motors and control, which reads on the claim language “arms” as the examiner understands the term in light of the specification and drawings); and
a robot controller, associated with operation of the robot, which has a storage, a posture calculator (implied, Liu teaches that the sensor at 402 of FIG. 4 can be used to “determine/measure the proximity, location, position, displacement, movement or the like, of object 406 with respect to assembly 402, and surgical robotic arm 404. The controller/processor 414 can, in turn, send a robotic control signal to the surgical robotic arm 404 causing it to, for example, stop moving, so that a collision is avoided” [paragraph 41]. This could not be possible without some form of posture calculation, although it is not explicit), and a catching determiner (One or more capacitive hover sensors may be mounted on a portion of the surgical robotic arm, for example, on a surface of one or more links or joints of the surgical robotic arm. The sensors may be mounted so that the surgical robotic arm can detect if another surgical robotic arm is closing in and then respond to the potential collision by stopping its own movement and/or trigger an alarm. For example, the capacitive hover sensors may be mounted on one or more links (e.g., adjacent links) making up the surgical robotic arm at locations which can detect when a user's finger or hand is between two links which are closing in towards each other. The surgical robotic system can, in turn, engage in collision prevention or avoidance operations to prevent pinching of the hand or finger between the links. For example, the surgical robotic system may cause the surgical robotic arm to stop movement, manipulate one or more of the links to avoid pinching or trigger an alarm so the user moves their hand or finger out of the way [paragraph 5]),
wherein the storage stores link parameters, a main body shape of the robot including the plurality of arms, and a shape of the end effector (The position and/or trajectory of the movement of the surgical robotic arm within the surgical arena is known by the controller at 414 of FIG. 4 [paragraph 43]. A collision avoidance range included in the system in FIG. 4 also features detection parameters for determining when the desired spacing between an object and surgical robotic component to avoid a collision is met [paragraph 42]. These parameters, as well as the position known by the controller, must be stored in a memory of some sort. The system 100 can incorporate any number of devices, tools, or accessories used to perform surgery on a patient 106. For example, the system 100 may include one or more surgical tools 107 used to perform surgery. A surgical tool 107 may be an end effector that is attached to a distal end of a surgical arm 104, for executing a surgical procedure [paragraph 22]. As shown in FIG. 1, in at least one embodiment, the surgical robot is capable of being operated remotely by an operator, which shows the end effector and its shape on a screen, also requiring some form of memory storage),
wherein the catching determiner is provided with information representing a potential for a finger of an operator to be caught between [the] arms of the robot or between the arm and the end effector, the information being derived from the posture of the robot, and the position of the end effector (Each of capacitive members 604A-604C may be made of a conductive material, which as previously discussed, can form an electrostatic field at each of the capacitive members 604A-604C upon application of a voltage. When object 606 is brought in close proximity to the capacitive members 604A-604C, it changes the local electric field, and in turn, the capacitance at each of members 604A-604C. This change in capacitance at each of the capacitive members 604A-604C can be used to determine a linear movement 308 and/or an angular motion 610 of object 606, without object 606 physically touching the component. For example, a hovering of object 606 over capacitive members 604A, 604C may initially be detected, followed by a hovering of object 606 over capacitive members 604A, 604B. This may occur, for example, where initially the user's palm is positioned over capacitive member 604A and the fingers are positioned over capacitive member 604C, and the user then rotates their hand to the right as shown by arrow 610 (in the x-y plane) so that while the palm remains over capacitive member 604A, the fingers are now over capacitive member 604B and not member 604C. Capacitive hover sensing assembly 600 may detect such a movement as, for example, an initial change in capacitance at members 604A, 604C, followed by a change in capacitance at member 604B, and member 604C returning to its initial state. A corresponding signal(s) may be output by capacitive hover sensing assembly 600 to the surgical robotic system controller/processor for determining whether object 606 is too close and collision avoidance operations are necessary [paragraph 48]).
Additionally, and in the alternative, Peine teaches:
a robot controller, associated with operation of the robot, which has a storage, a posture calculator (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 [paragraph 40]. 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).
Liu does not teach:
wherein the posture calculator is provided with posture information of the robot and a position of the end effector, the information being derived from the link parameters,
a definition of basic shapes encompassing the main body shape or the shape of the end effector and calculation of gaps or contacts between the basic shapes based on the basic shapes (these elements are implicit, but not explicitly taught by Liu).
However, Peine teaches:
wherein the posture calculator is provided with posture information of the robot and a position of the end effector, the information being derived from the link parameters (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 [paragraph 40]. 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),
a definition of basic shapes encompassing the main body shape or the shape of the end effector and calculation of gaps or contacts between the basic shapes based on the basic shapes (The surgical robotic arm includes a controller, which is configured to process the movement command and to generate a torque command for activating one or more actuators of the robotic arm, which would, in turn, move the robotic arm in response to the movement command. The controller is further configured to measure total joint torque and to determine estimated joint torque, which includes internal and external forces. The estimated torque is calculated using torque generated by the actuator, which is measured by the actuator's torque sensor, gear and joint friction as calculated using a friction model, effects of gravity on the robotic arm and/or the setup arm as calculated using a gravity model, and actuator and joint inertia calculated using mass and actuator speed. The controller is further configured to compare the measured total joint torque to the estimated torque to determine if environmental torque, e.g., that due to collision, is responsible for the difference between the measured torque and estimated torque. Thus, in situations where there is no collision or other external forces aside from gravity acting on the robotic arm, the environmental torque is about zero, as such the estimated torque and the measured torque, which includes gravity, friction, inertia, and the environmental torque, are about the same [paragraph 22]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Liu with wherein the posture calculator is provided with posture information of the robot and a position of the end effector, the information being derived from the link parameters, a definition of basic shapes encompassing the main body shape or the shape of the end effector and calculation of gaps or contacts between the basic shapes based on the basic shapes as taught by Peine so as to allow the controller of the robot to select a target shape/position of the robot arm for the robot to move to in order to perform surgical operations. This is also common in the art regarding robotic arms, as a controller selecting a target position is a common method of moving a robotic arm to the position needed.
Regarding Claim 2. Liu in combination with Peine teaches the collaborative robot system according to claim 1.
Liu also teaches:
wherein the catching determiner is associated with information indicating a potential for the finger of the operator to be caught between the arms or between the end effector and the arm attached to the end effector, and wherein the robot controller has stop command information for the robot (In the event that the robot detects a user’s hand or the like for a potential collision, the system can output a signal to stop the current movement until the user’s hand is no longer detected [paragraphs 38-39])., the stop command information being associated with a condition that is within a movable range of the robot and maintaining the robot in a stopped state until the operator moves away from the movable range (paragraph 39).
Regarding Claim 3. Liu in combination with Peine teaches the collaborative robot system according to claim 1.
Liu also teaches:
wherein the catching determiner is provided with information indicating a potential for the finger of the operator to be caught between the arms or between the end effector and the arm attached to the end effector, and if the catching determination device determines that there is a potential for the finger to be caught therebetween, a detection sensitivity of the collision detection device is set to a high sensitivity (The sensors may be mounted so that the surgical robotic arm can detect if another surgical robotic arm is closing in and then respond to the potential collision by stopping its own movement and/or trigger an alarm [paragraph 5]. Further, a collision with the patient may be considered more dangerous, as creating more risk and/or more necessary to prevent, than a collision with the surgical table or another object that can be moved out of the way (e.g., another surgical robotic arm). System 500 may therefore also be configured to determine the type of object and be more sensitive to a collision with an object determined to be at higher safety risk than one determined to be a lower safety risk. The type of object can be determined based on its capacitive value, as detected by capacitive hover sensing assembly 502 [paragraph 45]. FIG. 5 illustrates a sensitivity of system 500 tuned according to three different types of objects 506, 508 and 510. Representatively, system 500 is shown as being least sensitive to collision with object 506 (e.g., least collision risk), more sensitive to collision with object 508 (e.g., more collision risk) and most sensitive to collision with object 510 (e.g., most collision risk) [paragraph 46])
wherein the collision detector is provided with sensitivity information indicating a high sensitivity when the potential of collision is present (paragraph 46).
Liu does not teach:
wherein the robot controller further comprises a collision detector provided with a collision information between any of the arms detection device that detects a collision between the arm or the end effector and the operator, the collision information being derived from a change in an axial torque of the arm (specifically, Liu does not teach that the collision information is derived from a change in an axial torque, and is primarily focused on preventing a collision, rather than detecting a collision after it happens).
However, Peine teaches:
wherein the robot controller further comprises a collision detector provided with a collision information between any of the arms detection device that detects a collision between the arm or the end effector and the operator, the collision information being derived from a change in an axial torque of the arm (According to one aspect of the above embodiment, the controller is further configured to adjust the input motor torque command in response detection of the collision [paragraph 4]. The surgical robotic arm further includes a controller configured to: calculate an input motor torque command in response to a movement command, the input motor torque command configured to activate the first actuator to move at least one of the first link or the second link according to the movement command; determine an estimated joint torque value; determine an environmental torque value based on a comparison of the estimated joint torque value and the measured torque value; and detect a collision based on the environmental torque value being above a threshold [paragraph 5]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Liu with wherein the robot controller further comprises a collision detector provided with a collision information between any of the arms detection device that detects a collision between the arm or the end effector and the operator, the collision information being derived from a change in an axial torque of the arm as taught by Peine so that the robot can detect when a collision has occurred, in addition to predicting when a collision might occur.
Regarding Claim 4. Liu in combination with Peine teaches the collaborative robot system according to claim 3.
Liu also teaches:
wherein the catching determiner is provided with information indicating a potential for the finger of the operator to be caught between the arms or between the end effector and the arm attached to the end effector (The sensors may be mounted so that the surgical robotic arm can detect if another surgical robotic arm is closing in and then respond to the potential collision by stopping its own movement and/or trigger an alarm [paragraph 5]. Further, a collision with the patient may be considered more dangerous, as creating more risk and/or more necessary to prevent, than a collision with the surgical table or another object that can be moved out of the way (e.g., another surgical robotic arm). System 500 may therefore also be configured to determine the type of object and be more sensitive to a collision with an object determined to be at higher safety risk than one determined to be a lower safety risk. The type of object can be determined based on its capacitive value, as detected by capacitive hover sensing assembly 502 [paragraph 45]. FIG. 5 illustrates a sensitivity of system 500 tuned according to three different types of objects 506, 508 and 510. Representatively, system 500 is shown as being least sensitive to collision with object 506 (e.g., least collision risk), more sensitive to collision with object 508 (e.g., more collision risk) and most sensitive to collision with object 510 (e.g., most collision risk) [paragraph 46]), and wherein the robot controller is provided with operational speed information associated with the potential of the collision (the robot has a measured robot movement speed [paragraph 42], which is also used in determining when a collision is imminent).
Liu does not teach:
the operational speed information indicating a reduced operational speed of the robot (this is implied if not inherent, but not explicitly taught).
However, Peine teaches:
the operational speed information indicating a reduced operational speed of the robot (Once the external torque is calculated, the robotic arm controller 41c determines whether the environmental forces exceed a predetermined threshold which is indicative of collisions with external objects and takes precautionary action, such as terminating movement in the direction in which collision was detected, slowing down, and/or reversing movement (e.g., moving in an opposite direction) for a predetermined distance [paragraph 38]. The system is then aware through the encoders at 108 of FIG. 5 that the operational speed has been reduced).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Liu with the operational speed information indicating a reduced operational speed of the robot as taught by Peine so that the robot system can be made aware when the robot’s speed has been reduced.
Conclusion
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 AARON G CAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 7:30am - 4:30pm EST to Friday 7:30pm - 4:30am.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/AARON G CAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656