DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-33 as originally filed are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: “35” in Fig. 1; “45i” in Fig. 1; “68a” in Fig. 1; and “104” in Fig. 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of the terms like Java and Flash in ¶108, which appear to be trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. Such terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore such terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “generating” as per ¶96 should be inserted between “controller” and “a warning signal” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a” should be inserted before “second mode” in line 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: “are coupled” should be “is coupled”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: “generating” as per ¶96 should be inserted between “controller” and “a warning signal” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 17-33 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.
As per Claim 17, “the end effector support” in line 3, 6, 7, and 11 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required. Claims 18-33 depending from Claim 17 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 18, “the end effector support” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 19, “the end effector support” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required. Claim 20 depending from Claim 19 is therefore rejected.
As per Claim 21, “the end effector support” in line 1-2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required. Claim 22 depending from Claim 21 is therefore rejected.
As per Claim 23, “the end effector support” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 24, “the end effector support” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required. Claim 25 depending from Claim 24 is therefore rejected.
As per Claim 26, “the end effector support” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required. Claims 27-28 depending from Claim 26 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 27, “the end effector support” in line 1-2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 28, “the end effector support” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 29, “the end effector support” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required. Claim 30 depending from Claim 29 is therefore rejected.
As per Claim 31, “the end effector support” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 32, “the end effector support” in line 1-2 and 3 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 33, “the end effector support” in line 1-2, 3, and 6 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sweet (US Pub. No. 2019/0084056).
As per Claim 1, Sweet discloses a variable stiffness (as per “axially and radially compliant” in ¶20; as per “at least partially adjustable” in ¶27) end effector assembly (10) (Fig. 1; ¶20) for a medical robotic guidance system (“for” indicates language describes intended use and is not limiting; see MPEP § 2111.02) comprising:
an end effector support (12) (Figs. 1-2; ¶20-24);
a tool insertion device (18) disposed within and spaced apart from the end effector support (12) (Figs. 1-2; ¶20-24); and
a coupler (28) coupling the tool insertion device (18) within the end effector support (12) (Fig. 2; ¶24-25), said coupler (28) comprising a first mode wherein the tool insertion device (18) is rigidly coupled (as per full compression of bias spring 30 and/or as per adjustment to maximum “preload” force on the bias spring 30 in ¶27) within the end effector support (12) (Figs. 2-3; ¶24-28) and second mode wherein the tool insertion device (18) is compliantly coupled (as per less than full compression of bias spring 30 and/or as per adjustment to minimum of “preload” force on bias spring in ¶27) within the end effector support (12) (Figs. 2-3; ¶24-28).
As per Claim 2, Sweet further discloses wherein the end effector support (12) comprises a first elongated tube (as per Fig. 1; as per “generally cylindrical” in ¶20) and the tool insertion device (18) comprises a second elongated tube (as per Fig 1; as per “central bore 20 in the end tool holder 18” in ¶20), wherein the first elongated tube (as per Fig. 1; as per “generally cylindrical” in ¶20) is coaxial (as per longitudinal axis 22” in ¶20) with the second elongated tube (as per Fig 1; as per “central bore 20 in the end tool holder 18” in ¶20) in the first mode (Figs. 1-3; ¶20-28).
As per Claim 3, Sweet further discloses a compliant device (30) coupling the end effector support (12) to the tool insertion device (18) (Figs. 2-3; ¶24-28).
As per Claim 4, Sweet further discloses wherein the compliant device (30) comprises at least one of {a plurality of springs}, foam (as per “In other embodiment, the bias force may be provided by … other axial force producing mechanism, as known in the art” in ¶25), and {foam rubber}.
As per Claim 5, Sweet further discloses wherein the coupler (28) comprises a rigid coupling mechanism (as per “the cam contact member 26 acts similarly to a cam follower, except that, upon the application of an external deflecting force, the cam contact member 26 displaces the cam block 28, according to the shape of the concave cam surface 44, rather than being driven by it” in ¶30).
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.
Claim 6 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweet (US Pub. No. 2019/0084056) in view of Sato (US Pub. No. 2019/0009391).
As per Claim 6, Sweet discloses all limitations of Claim 5. Sweet does not expressly disclose wherein the coupler comprises a plurality of pins retractably disposed between the end effector support and the tool insertion device.
Sato discloses a compliance unit (1) that includes a first body (2), a second body (3), and a parallel movement mechanism (4) that causes the first body (2) and the second body (3) to move relative to each other (Figs. 1, 3; ¶29). The compliance unit (1) also includes a returning mechanism (5) that causes the first body (2) and the second body (3) having moved relative to each other to return to a home position and to be restrained at the home position (Figs. 1, 3; ¶29). The compliance unit (1) also includes a locking mechanism (6) that locks the returning mechanism (5) at the home position (Figs. 1, 3; ¶29). The locking mechanism (6) includes a retractable locking member (46) adapted for contact with a piston rod (61) and a push rod (56), the piston rod (61) and push rod (56) adapted to unlock and lock, respectively, the locking mechanism (6) (Fig. 4, 7; ¶49-55). Like Sweet, Sato is concerned with compliance mechanisms.
Therefore, from these teachings of Sweet and Sato, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Sato to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by providing locking and unlocking functions. Applying the teachings of Sato to the system of Sweet would result in a system that operates “wherein the coupler comprises a plurality of pins retractably disposed between the end effector support and the tool insertion device” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include locking and unlocking rods as per Sato.
As per Claim 12, Sweet discloses all limitations of Claim 5. Sweet further discloses wherein the rigid coupling mechanism (as per “the cam contact member 26 acts similarly to a cam follower, except that, upon the application of an external deflecting force, the cam contact member 26 displaces the cam block 28, according to the shape of the concave cam surface 44, rather than being driven by it” in ¶30) comprises a fastener (as per “the spring force adjustment cup 32 is threaded” in ¶27) retractably (as per “This adjusts the ‘preload’ force on the bias spring 30 by changing the axial position of the spring force adjustment cup 32 within the housing 12” in ¶27) coupled through the end effector support (12) (Figs. 1-3; ¶20-30). Sweet does not expressly disclose wherein the rigid coupling mechanism comprises a plurality of fasteners, wherein the rigid coupling mechanism is axially retractable relative to the tool insertion device.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Sato.
Therefore, from these teachings of Sweet and Sato, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Sato to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by providing locking and unlocking functions. Applying the teachings of Sato to the system of Sweet would result in a system “wherein the rigid coupling mechanism comprises a plurality of fasteners, wherein the rigid coupling mechanism is axially retractable relative to the tool insertion device” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include locking and unlocking rods as per Sato having a structure corresponding to the adjustable cam block 28 as per Sweet.
As per Claim 13, the combination of Sweet and Sato teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 12. Sweet further discloses wherein the fastener is a screw coupled to a motor (as per “a solenoid” in ¶25). Sweet does not expressly disclose wherein the fastener is a plurality of fasteners.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Sato.
Therefore, from these teachings of Sweet and Sato, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Sato to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by providing locking and unlocking functions. Applying the teachings of Sato to the system of Sweet would result in a system “wherein the fastener is a plurality of fasteners” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include locking and unlocking rods as per Sato having a structure corresponding to the adjustable cam block 28 as per Sweet.
As per Claim 14, Sweet discloses all limitations of Claim 5. Sweet further discloses wherein the rigid coupling mechanism (as per “the cam contact member 26 acts similarly to a cam follower, except that, upon the application of an external deflecting force, the cam contact member 26 displaces the cam block 28, according to the shape of the concave cam surface 44, rather than being driven by it” in ¶30) comprises a pneumatic cylinder (as per “pneumatically or hydraulically driven piston” in ¶25) retractably coupled (as per “the bias spring 30 is compressed” in ¶26) to the end effector support (12), said pneumatic cylinder (as per “pneumatically or hydraulically driven piston” in ¶25) coupled to a pump (as per “pneumatically or hydraulically driven” in ¶25).
Sweet does not expressly disclose wherein the rigid coupling mechanism includes plurality of pneumatic cylinders, wherein the rigid coupling mechanism is axially retractable relative to the tool insertion device.
Therefore, from these teachings of Sweet and Sato, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Sato to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by providing locking and unlocking functions. Applying the teachings of Sato to the system of Sweet would result in a system “wherein the rigid coupling mechanism includes plurality of pneumatic cylinders, wherein the rigid coupling mechanism is axially retractable relative to the tool insertion device” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include locking and unlocking rods as per Sato having a structure corresponding to the adjustable cam block 28 as per Sweet.
Claims 7-11, 17-22, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweet (US Pub. No. 2019/0084056) in view of Rabindran (US Pub. No. 2021/0052340).
As per Claim 7, Sweet discloses all limitations of Claim 5. Sweet further discloses wherein the rigid coupling mechanism comprises a plurality of cams retractably coupled between the end effector support and the tool insertion device.
Rabindran discloses a manipulator system (120) that includes an instrument holder (122) and instrument (200) (Fig. 1B; ¶66). An operator console (40) includes left and right input devices (41, 42) that the user may grasp to manipulate the instrument (200) held by the manipulator system (120) (Fig. 2; ¶62-63). The instrument (200, 600) is selectively coupled to a compatible instrument drive system (122, 700) (Fig. 19; ¶135-136). The instrument drive system (122, 700, 2130) includes multiple actuators (2172, 2152, 2162) that releasably couple via engagement members (2178, 2158, 2168) with engagement members (2180, 2144, 2148) of the instrument (200, 600, 2120) (Figs. 15-19, 21; ¶112, 123-124, 135-139, 146-149). In this way, the system is adapted for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom (Figs. 20-21; ¶140-146). Like Sweet, Rabindran is concerned with robotic tool systems.
Therefore, from the teachings of Sweet and Rabindran, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom. Applying the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet would result in a system that operates “wherein the rigid coupling mechanism comprises a plurality of cams retractably coupled between the end effector support and the tool insertion device” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include multiple cam blocks (28) corresponding to multiple degrees of freedom as per Rabindran.
As per Claim 8, the combination of Sweet and Rabindran teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 7. Sweet does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of cams is coupled to a motor.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Rabindran. In one embodiment, the actuators (2172, 2152, 2162) are motors (¶149).
Therefore, from the teachings of Sweet and Rabindran, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom. Applying the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet would result in a system that operates “wherein the plurality of cams is coupled to a motor” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include multiple motorized cam blocks (28) corresponding to multiple degrees of freedom as per Rabindran.
As per Claim 9, Sweet discloses all limitations of Claim 5. Sweet does not expressly disclose wherein the rigid coupling mechanism comprises a first plurality of stops coupled to the end effector support and a second plurality of stops coupled to the tool insertion device, wherein in the first mode the first plurality of stops are aligned with the second plurality of stops, and in the second mode the first plurality of stops align with the first plurality of stops.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Rabindran. Rabindran further discloses: a configuration in which engagement members (2158, 2168) of the instrument drive system (122, 700, 2130) do not contact engagement members (2144, 2148) of the instrument (200, 600, 2120) (Fig. 21) and a configuration in which engagement members (2158, 2168) of the instrument drive system (122, 700, 2130) contact engagement members (2144, 2148) of the instrument (200, 600, 2120) (Fig. 23).
Therefore, from the teachings of Sweet and Rabindran, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom. Applying the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet would result in a system that operates “wherein the rigid coupling mechanism comprises a first plurality of stops coupled to the end effector support and a second plurality of stops coupled to the tool insertion device, wherein in the first mode the first plurality of stops are aligned with the second plurality of stops, and in the second mode the first plurality of stops align with the first plurality of stops” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include multiple cam blocks (28) that are selectively engaged as per Rabindran.
As per Claim 10, the combination of Sweet and Rabindran teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Sweet does not expressly disclose wherein the first plurality of stops extends axially from the end effector support and the second plurality of stops extend axially from the tool insertion device.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Rabindran. Rabindran further discloses wherein engagement members (2158, 2168) of the instrument drive system (122, 700, 2130) have a surface that extends radially to engage a surface that extends radially of the engagement members (2144, 2148) of the instrument (200, 600, 2120) (Figs. 21, 23).
Therefore, from the teachings of Sweet and Rabindran, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom. Applying the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet would result in a system that operates “wherein the first plurality of stops extends axially from the end effector support and the second plurality of stops extend axially from the tool insertion device” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include multiple cam blocks (28) that are selectively engaged as per Rabindran.
As per Claim 11, the combination of Sweet and Rabindran teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Sweet further discloses wherein the end effector support (12) is rotated (as per DEFLECTION in Fig. 4) relative to the tool insertion device (18) (Fig. 4).
As per Claim 17, Sweet discloses a system (10, as per “robotic arm” in ¶19) (Fig. 1; ¶19-20), comprising:
a robotic arm (as per “robotic arm” in ¶19) having a variable stiffness (as per “axially and radially compliant” in ¶20; as per “at least partially adjustable” in ¶27) end effector assembly (10) (Fig. 1; ¶20) comprising a tool insertion (18) device disposed within the end effector support (12) and coupled thereto with a coupler (28) (Figs. 1-3; ¶20-28);
said coupler (28) comprising a first mode wherein the tool insertion device (18) is rigidly coupled (as per full compression of bias spring 30 and/or as per adjustment to maximum “preload” force on the bias spring 30 in ¶27) within the end effector support (12) (Figs. 2-3; ¶24-28) and second mode wherein the tool insertion device (18) is compliantly coupled (as per less than full compression of bias spring 30 and/or as per adjustment to minimum of “preload” force on bias spring in ¶27) within the end effector support (12) (Figs. 2-3; ¶24-28).
Sweet does not expressly disclose:
a robotic control system configured to control movement of the end effector assembly;
an input system configured to receive input from a user and send a signal to the robotic control system to move the end effector support relative to a subject.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Rabindran.
Therefore, from the teachings of Sweet and Rabindran, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom. Applying the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet would result in a system that operates with:
“a robotic control system configured to control movement of the end effector assembly” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to operate with a robot having an operator console as per Rabindran; and
“an input system configured to receive input from a user and send a signal to the robotic control system to move the end effector support relative to a subject” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to operate with a robot having an operator console for specified manipulation as per Rabindran.
As per Claim 18, Sweet discloses all limitations of Claim 17. Sweet further discloses wherein the end effector support (12) and the tool insertion device (18) are elongated (as per Fig. 1; as per “generally cylindrical” in ¶20; as per Fig 1; as per “central bore 20 in the end tool holder 18” in ¶20) (Figs. 1-3; ¶20-28).
As per Claim 19, Sweet discloses all limitations of Claim 17. Sweet further discloses wherein the end effector support (12) comprises a first elongated tube (as per Fig. 1; as per “generally cylindrical” in ¶20) and the tool insertion device (18) comprises a second elongated tube (as per Fig 1; as per “central bore 20 in the end tool holder 18” in ¶20).
As per Claim 20, the combination of Sweet and Rabindran teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 19. Sweet further discloses wherein the first elongated tube (as per Fig. 1; as per “generally cylindrical” in ¶20) is coaxial (as per longitudinal axis 22” in ¶20) with the second elongated tube (as per Fig 1; as per “central bore 20 in the end tool holder 18” in ¶20) in the first mode (Figs. 1-3; ¶20-28).
As per Claim 21, the combination of Sweet and Rabindran teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 19. Sweet further discloses a compliant device (30) coupling the end effector support (12) to the tool insertion device (18) (Figs. 2-3; ¶24-28).
As per Claim 22, the combination of Sweet and Rabindran teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 21. Sweet does not expressly disclose wherein the compliant device comprises a plurality of springs.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Rabindran. Rabindran discloses an embodiment in which engagement members (2158, 2168) of the instrument drive include biasing components in the form of springs (Fig. 22; ¶155).
Therefore, from the teachings of Sweet and Rabindran, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom. Applying the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet would result in a system that operates “wherein the compliant device comprises a plurality of springs” in that in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include multiple cam blocks (28) corresponding to multiple degrees of freedom as per Rabindran.
As per Claim 24, the combination of Sweet and Rabindran teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 17. Sweet does not expressly disclose wherein the coupler comprises a plurality of cams retractably coupled between the end effector support and the tool insertion device.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Rabindran.
Therefore, from the teachings of Sweet and Rabindran, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom. Applying the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet would result in a system that operates “wherein the coupler comprises a plurality of cams retractably coupled between the end effector support and the tool insertion device” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include multiple cam blocks (28) corresponding to multiple degrees of freedom as per Rabindran.
As per Claim 25, the combination of Sweet and Rabindran teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 24. Sweet does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of cams are coupled to a motor.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Rabindran. In one embodiment, the actuators (2172, 2152, 2162) are motors (¶149).
Therefore, from the teachings of Sweet and Rabindran, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom. Applying the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet would result in a system that operates “wherein the plurality of cams are coupled to a motor” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include multiple motorized cam blocks (28) corresponding to multiple degrees of freedom as per Rabindran.
As per Claim 26, the combination of Sweet and Rabindran teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 17. Sweet does not expressly disclose wherein the coupler comprises a first plurality of stops coupled to the end effector support and a second plurality of stops coupled to the tool insertion device, wherein in the first mode the first plurality of stops are aligned with the second plurality of stops, and in the second mode the first plurality of stops align with the second plurality of stops.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Rabindran. Rabindran further discloses: a configuration in which engagement members (2158, 2168) of the instrument drive system (122, 700, 2130) do not contact engagement members (2144, 2148) of the instrument (200, 600, 2120) (Fig. 21) and a configuration in which engagement members (2158, 2168) of the instrument drive system (122, 700, 2130) contact engagement members (2144, 2148) of the instrument (200, 600, 2120) (Fig. 23).
Therefore, from the teachings of Sweet and Rabindran, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom. Applying the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet would result in a system that operates “wherein the coupler comprises a first plurality of stops coupled to the end effector support and a second plurality of stops coupled to the tool insertion device, wherein in the first mode the first plurality of stops are aligned with the second plurality of stops, and in the second mode the first plurality of stops align with the second plurality of stops” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include multiple cam blocks (28) that are selectively engaged as per Rabindran.
As per Claim 27, the combination of Sweet and Rabindran teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 26. Sweet does not expressly disclose wherein the first plurality of stops extends axially from the end effector support and the second plurality of stops extend axially from the tool insertion device.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Rabindran. Rabindran further discloses wherein engagement members (2158, 2168) of the instrument drive system (122, 700, 2130) have a surface that extends radially to engage a surface that extends radially of the engagement members (2144, 2148) of the instrument (200, 600, 2120) (Figs. 21, 23).
Therefore, from the teachings of Sweet and Rabindran, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom. Applying the teachings of Rabindran to the system of Sweet would result in a system that operates “wherein the first plurality of stops extends axially from the end effector support and the second plurality of stops extend axially from the tool insertion device” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include multiple cam blocks (28) that are selectively engaged as per Rabindran.
As per Claim 28, the combination of Sweet and Rabindran teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 26. Sweet further discloses wherein the end effector support (12) is rotated (as per DEFLECTION in Fig. 4) relative to the tool insertion device (18) (Fig. 4).
Claims 15-16 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweet (US Pub. No. 2019/0084056) in view of Rabindran (US Pub. No. 2021/0052340), further in view of Stoianovici (US Pub. No. 2002/0111634).
As per Claim 15, Sweet discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Sweet does not expressly disclose a vibration sensor coupled to the end effector support, the tool insertion device or a robotic arm, said vibration sensor generating a vibration signal corresponding to a vibration of the end effector support, the tool insertion device or the robotic arm, and a controller coupled to the vibration sensor, said controller automatically switching the coupler from the first mode to the second mode in response to the vibration signal.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Rabindran.
Stoianovici discloses a tool driver (100) for driving a tool (50) (Fig. 1; ¶29-31). The tool driver (100) includes motors (162, 182) and solenoids (196) under the control of a controller (200) (Figs. 1, 6; ¶57-58). Inputs are provided to the controller (200) from sensors including a tool vibration sensor for sensing the presence of an anomalous condition (¶58). In one embodiment, the controller (200) stops operation of the motors (162, 182) in response to detection of an anomalous condition by the tool vibration sensor (¶58). In one embodiment, the controller (200) activates a display/warning device (206) to generate an appropriate auditory or visual queue in response to detection of an anomalous condition by the tool vibration sensor in order to draw an operator’s attention to the condition (¶58-59). In this way, the system provides an appropriate response to a detected anomalous condition (¶58-59). Like Sweet, Stoianovici is concerned with robotic tool systems.
Therefore, from the teachings of Sweet, Rabindran, and Stoianovici one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Rabindran and Stoianovici to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom; and providing an appropriate to a detected anomalous condition. Applying the teachings of Rabindran and Stoianovici to the system of Sweet would result in a system that operates with “a vibration sensor coupled to the end effector support, the tool insertion device or a robotic arm, said vibration sensor generating a vibration signal corresponding to a vibration of the end effector support, the tool insertion device or the robotic arm, and a controller coupled to the vibration sensor, said controller automatically switching the coupler from the first mode to the second mode in response to the vibration signal” in that in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include multiple motorized cam blocks (28) corresponding to multiple degrees of freedom as per Rabindran and responsive to anomalies as per Stoianovici.
As per Claim 16, Sweet discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Sweet does not expressly disclose a vibration sensor coupled to the end effector support, the tool insertion device or a robotic arm, said vibration sensor generating a vibration signal corresponding to a vibration of the end effector support, the tool insertion device or the robotic arm, and a controller coupled to the vibration sensor, said controller a warning signal in response to the vibration signal, said coupler manually decouples the end effector support from the tool insertion device.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Rabindran.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Stoianovici.
Therefore, from the teachings of Sweet, Rabindran, and Stoianovici one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Rabindran and Stoianovici to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom; and providing an appropriate to a detected anomalous condition. Applying the teachings of Rabindran and Stoianovici to the system of Sweet would result in a system that operates with “a vibration sensor coupled to the end effector support, the tool insertion device or a robotic arm, said vibration sensor generating a vibration signal corresponding to a vibration of the end effector support, the tool insertion device or the robotic arm, and a controller coupled to the vibration sensor, said controller a warning signal in response to the vibration signal, said coupler manually decouples the end effector support from the tool insertion device” in that in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include multiple motorized cam blocks (28) corresponding to multiple degrees of freedom as per Rabindran and responsive to anomalies as per Stoianovici.
As per Claim 32, the combination of Sweet and Rabindran teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 17. Sweet does not expressly disclose a vibration sensor coupled to the end effector support, the tool insertion device or a robotic arm, said vibration sensor generating a vibration signal corresponding to a vibration of the end effector support, the tool insertion device or the robotic arm, and a controller coupled to the vibration sensor, said controller automatically switching the coupler from the first mode to the second mode in response to the vibration signal.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Rabindran.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Stoianovici.
Therefore, from the teachings of Sweet, Rabindran, and Stoianovici one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Rabindran and Stoianovici to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom; and providing an appropriate to a detected anomalous condition. Applying the teachings of Rabindran and Stoianovici to the system of Sweet would result in a system that operates with “a vibration sensor coupled to the end effector support, the tool insertion device or a robotic arm, said vibration sensor generating a vibration signal corresponding to a vibration of the end effector support, the tool insertion device or the robotic arm, and a controller coupled to the vibration sensor, said controller automatically switching the coupler from the first mode to the second mode in response to the vibration signal” in that in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include multiple motorized cam blocks (28) corresponding to multiple degrees of freedom as per Rabindran and responsive to anomalies as per Stoianovici.
As per Claim 33, the combination of Sweet and Rabindran teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 17. Sweet does not expressly disclose a vibration sensor coupled to the end effector support, the tool insertion device or a robotic arm, said vibration sensor generating a vibration signal corresponding to a vibration of the end effector support, the tool insertion device or the robotic arm, and a controller coupled to the vibration sensor, said controller a warning signal in response to the vibration signal, said coupler manually decouples the end effector support from the tool insertion device.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Rabindran.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Stoianovici.
Therefore, from the teachings of Sweet, Rabindran, and Stoianovici one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Rabindran and Stoianovici to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom; and providing an appropriate to a detected anomalous condition. Applying the teachings of Rabindran and Stoianovici to the system of Sweet would result in a system that operates with “a vibration sensor coupled to the end effector support, the tool insertion device or a robotic arm, said vibration sensor generating a vibration signal corresponding to a vibration of the end effector support, the tool insertion device or the robotic arm, and a controller coupled to the vibration sensor, said controller a warning signal in response to the vibration signal, said coupler manually decouples the end effector support from the tool insertion device” in that in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include multiple motorized cam blocks (28) corresponding to multiple degrees of freedom as per Rabindran and responsive to anomalies as per Stoianovici.
Claims 23 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweet (US Pub. No. 2019/0084056) in view of Rabindran (US Pub. No. 2021/0052340), further in view of Sato (US Pub. No. 2019/0009391).
As per Claim 23, the combination of Sweet and Rabindran teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 21. Sweet does not expressly disclose wherein the coupler comprises a plurality of pins retractably disposed between the end effector support and the tool insertion device.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Rabindran.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Sato.
Therefore, from these teachings of Sweet, Rabindran, and Sato, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Sato and Rabindran to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom; and providing locking and unlocking functions. Applying the teachings of Rabindran and Sato to the system of Sweet would result in a system “wherein the coupler comprises a plurality of pins retractably disposed between the end effector support and the tool insertion device” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include locking and unlocking rods as per Sato having a structure corresponding to the adjustable cam block (28) as per Sweet and adapted to include multiple cam blocks (28) corresponding to multiple degrees of freedom as per Rabindran.
As per Claim 29, the combination of Sweet and Rabindran teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 17. Sweet further discloses wherein the coupler (28) comprises a fastener (as per “the spring force adjustment cup 32 is threaded” in ¶27) retractably (as per “This adjusts the ‘preload’ force on the bias spring 30 by changing the axial position of the spring force adjustment cup 32 within the housing 12” in ¶27) coupled through the end effector support (12) (Figs. 1-3; ¶20-30). Sweet does not expressly disclose wherein the coupler comprises a plurality of fasteners, wherein the rigid coupling mechanism is axially retractable relative to the tool insertion device.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Rabindran.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Sato.
Therefore, from these teachings of Sweet, Rabindran, and Sato, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Sato and Rabindran to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom; and providing locking and unlocking functions. Applying the teachings of Rabindran and Sato to the system of Sweet would result in a system “wherein the coupler comprises a plurality of fasteners, wherein the rigid coupling mechanism is axially retractable relative to the tool insertion device” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include locking and unlocking rods as per Sato having a structure corresponding to the adjustable cam block (28) as per Sweet and adapted to include multiple cam blocks (28) corresponding to multiple degrees of freedom as per Rabindran.
As per Claim 30, the combination of Sweet, Rabindran, and Sato teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 29. Sweet further discloses wherein the fastener is a screw coupled to a motor (as per “a solenoid” in ¶25). Sweet does not expressly disclose wherein the fastener is a plurality of fasteners.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Rabindran.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Sato.
Therefore, from these teachings of Sweet, Rabindran, and Sato, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Sato and Rabindran to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom; and providing locking and unlocking functions. Applying the teachings of Rabindran and Sato to the system of Sweet would result in a system “wherein the fastener is a plurality of fasteners” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include locking and unlocking rods as per Sato having a structure corresponding to the adjustable cam block (28) as per Sweet and adapted to include multiple cam blocks (28) corresponding to multiple degrees of freedom as per Rabindran.
As per Claim 31, the combination of Sweet and Rabindran teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 17. Sweet further discloses wherein the coupler (28) comprises a pneumatic cylinder (as per “pneumatically or hydraulically driven piston” in ¶25) retractably coupled (as per “the bias spring 30 is compressed” in ¶26) to the end effector support (12), said pneumatic cylinder (as per “pneumatically or hydraulically driven piston” in ¶25) coupled to a pump (as per “pneumatically or hydraulically driven” in ¶25). Sweet does not expressly disclose wherein the coupler includes plurality of pneumatic cylinders, wherein the rigid coupling mechanism is axially retractable relative to the tool insertion device.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Rabindran.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Sato.
Therefore, from these teachings of Sweet, Rabindran, and Sato, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Sato and Rabindran to the system of Sweet since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for control responsive to operator input in specified degrees of freedom; and providing locking and unlocking functions. Applying the teachings of Rabindran and Sato to the system of Sweet would result in a system “wherein the coupler includes plurality of pneumatic cylinders, wherein the rigid coupling mechanism is axially retractable relative to the tool insertion device” in that the system of Sweet would be adapted to include locking and unlocking rods as per Sato having a structure corresponding to the adjustable cam block (28) as per Sweet and adapted to include multiple cam blocks (28) corresponding to multiple degrees of freedom as per Rabindran.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chun (US Patent No. 5,125,759) discloses an adjustable compliant robotic wrist using an electro-rheological fluid. Prisco (US Pub. No. 2009/0062813) discloses a medical robotic system with dynamically adjustable slave manipulator characteristics. Patoglu (US Pub. No. 2012/0330198) discloses an exoskeleton. Sen (US Pub. No. 2022/0061934) discloses control of a surgical instrument having backlash, friction, and compliance under external load in a surgical robotic system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656