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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-20, filed 03/29/2024, are currently pending and are under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/28/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. A legible copy of WO 2020/130559 has not been provided.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5, 7, and 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 1, “processor if configured” should read “processor is configured”.
Claim 3-5, 7, and 12-14, line 2, “comprises determine” should read “comprises determining”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-13 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a user interface configured to generate a desired jaw angle between the jaws”. It is unclear how a user interface can generate a desired jaw angle. For examination purposes, Examiner will understand this to mean a processor generating the desired jaw angle.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 11.
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, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hariri et al. (US Patent 10,166,082 – APPLICANT CITED ON 04/26/2024 IDS), hereinafter Hariri.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 16, Hariri discloses an apparatus, system, and non-transitory machine readable medium, comprising:
a gripper tool that comprises jaws (e.g. Abstract);
a sensor configured to measure grip force of the jaws (e.g. Col. 9, line 65 – Col. 10, line16; Col. 10, line 50 – Col. 11, line 14);
at least one processor (e.g. Col. 9, line 65 – Col. 10, line16) configured to:
determine that the measured grip force of the jaws while closing exceeds a grip force threshold (e.g. Col. 13, line 62 – Col. 14, line 14); and
generate a grip force error as a difference between the measured grip force and the grip force threshold (e.g. Col. 19, line 66 – Col. 20, line 7); and
an actuator drive unit configured to drive the jaws based on the grip force error to limit the measured grip force to the grip force threshold (e.g. Col. 20, lines 8-10; Fig. 9).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 17, Hariri further discloses generating a desired jaw angle between the jaws, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine that the jaws are closing in a position mode based on the desired jaw angle between the jaws (e.g. Col. 12, lines 32-53).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 18, Hariri further discloses determining that the desired jaw angle is greater than or equal to a threshold jaw angle for more than a minimum time period (e.g. Col. 2, lines 8-22), wherein the threshold jaw angle comprises a jaw angle when the jaws simultaneously contact an object held between the jaws or when the jaws begin to touch each other without an object being held (e.g. Col. 14, lines 15-32).
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 19, Hariri further discloses determining that the desired jaw angle is decreasing in the position mode for a minimum time period (e.g. Col. 10, lines 31-49).
Regarding claim 5, Hariri further discloses determining that the measured grip force exceeds the grip force threshold as long as the measured grip force exceeds the threshold minus a margin anywhere within a time window (e.g. Col. 13, line 62 – Col. 14, line 14).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Hariri further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: generate a position command for positioning the jaws based on the grip force error, and provide the position command to the actuator drive unit to cause the actuator drive unit to drive the jaws (e.g. Col. 20, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 9, Hariri further discloses wherein the at least one processor configured to generate the position command comprises: determine an initial position command to position the jaws at a desired jaw angle between the jaws, generate a compensating position command from the grip force error, and combine the compensating position command and the initial position command to generate the position commands to limit the measured grip force to the threshold (e.g. Fig. 9; Col. 18 line 46 – Col. 20, line 10: describing Fig. 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariri et al. (US Patent 10,166,082 – APPLICANT CITED ON 04/26/2024 IDS), hereinafter Hariri, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schulte et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0296908), hereinafter Schulte.
Regarding claim 6, Hariri fails to specifically disclose wherein a length of the time window is measured by a grip force counter, wherein the grip force counter is configured to: increment by one when the measured grip force is less than the grip force threshold minus the margin every time the measured grip force is estimated by the sensor; and reset the grip force counter when the measured grip force is larger than the grip force threshold. Schulte, in the field of surgical instruments, discloses using a counter configured to increment by one when the measured data is less than the threshold, and resetting the counter with the measured data is greater than the threshold (e.g. Par. [0421]: incrementing based on whether a condition is met and resetting when necessary).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hariri to include the counter as taught by Schulte to efficiently operate the surgical instrument.
Regarding claim 7, Hariri further discloses determining that the measured grip force exceeds the grip force threshold for an entirety of the length of the time window equaling to the grip force counter when the measured grip force exceeds the grip force threshold minus the margin anywhere within the window (e.g. Col. 13, line 62 – Col. 14, line 14).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Hariri fails to specifically disclose determining that the measured grip force exceeds the grip force threshold minus a margin using a debouncing algorithm. Schulte, in the field of surgical instruments, discloses using a debounce algorithm to determine if a threshold is met (e.g. Pars. [0420]-[0423]: using debounce algorithm to determine if condition is met, a margin can be 0 so this meets the claimed limitation; Pars. [0433]-[0435]: determining if the condition is met, a margin can be 0 so this meets the claimed limitation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hariri to include using a debounce algorithm to determine if a threshold is met as taught by Schulte in order to determine if a threshold is met or exceeded.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA P ANJARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/SHREYA ANJARIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/PAMELA M. BAYS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796