DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to preliminary amendment filed on 06/28/2024. As directed by the amendment, claim 1 was canceled, no claims were amended, and claims 2-22 were newly added. Thus, claims 2-22 are presently pending in this application.
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 6-10, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6 line 2-3, the term “a body” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “a deformable body” of claim 2 line 12.
Regarding claims 7 line 1, claim 8 line 3, claim 9 line 2, and claim 10 line 1, the term “the body” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “a deformable body” of claim 2 line 12.
Regarding claim 7 line 2, the term “a subject” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “a subject” of claim 6 line 2-3.
Regarding claim 10 line 1, the term “the body” is unclear as to which body is being referred back to from “a body” in claim 6 line 2 or “a deformable body” in claim 2 line 12.
Regarding claim 12 line 2, the term “next goals” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis. In line 3, the term “both sequences of goals” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis and is unclear as to if and/or which sequences of goals, the “a sequence of goals” of claim 2 line 6 and/or the “a second sequence of goals”, are being referred to.
Regarding claim 13 line 2 and claim 14 line 2, the term “both sequences” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 16 line 2 and claim 18 line 2, the term “goals” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 2-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Einav et al. (US 2007/0282228; hereinafter “Einav”).
Regarding claim 2, Einav discloses a robotic system (device 100), comprising:
a robotic arm (articulated arm 102);
an end effector associated with the robotic arm (tip 108);
an input device (user input device 118); and
a controller (controller 114) configured to:
continuously generate a sequence of goals for the robotic arm in accordance with a trajectory ([0358] arm 102 is controlled by controller 114; and [0362] tip 108 moves along a trajectory associated with a type of rehabilitation);
receive a command from the input device ([0569] programming control where the tip 108 moves according to commands for device 100); and
selectively modify a next goal based at least in part on the command ([0455] device 100 responds by increasing force, changing trajectory, etc.; [0474] device 100 processes feedback to modify and/or decide on current or future activities and their parameters; [0479] “modify future parameters, impose a rest and/or repeat an activity if a desired result was not achieved”), wherein selectively modifying the next goal comprises constraining an allowed amount of offset of the next goal ([0474,0479] above regarding modifying future parameters, by [0455] device 100 responds by modifying goal to prevent patient from going past a safety limit, meaning the device would not exceed a safety value that is an “allowed” offset value);
wherein the end effector interacts with a deformable body based at least in part on the modifying of the next goal (tip 108 contacts the body to apply trajectory; [0014] “the trajectories and/or forces are defined for one or more points on the body, on same and/or different limb or body part”; and [0474, 0479]).
Regarding claim 3, Einav discloses the controller is further configured to determine whether the next goal is eligible for modification ([0474] device 100 processes feedback to determine whether or not to modify future activities and/or parameters).
Regarding claim 4, Einav discloses the controller is further configured to determine a permissible boundary of modification for the next goal ([0474] if the device 100 processes a certain force as a maximum force, later activities will not pass that force).
Regarding claim 5, Einav discloses the command comprises a planar user- specified adjustment ([0365] tip 108 covers a volume in either one or two dimensions (i.e. in a plane or along a line)).
Regarding claim 6, Einav discloses the controller is further configured to selectively modify the next goal based at least in part on information associated with a body of a subject ([0402] physiological sensor measures patient readiness for activity; [0481] sensor patches analysis patient and/or device; [0574-0575] sensors on device 100 and/or tip 108 such as position sensors, measure state of device relative to subject; [0584] position, orientation, velocity, and/or physiological sensors may be imparted the device 100/subject to influence treatment).
Regarding claim 7, Einav discloses the information associated with the body of a subject comprises one or more representations of the body of the subject (physiological sensors [0402, 0481, 0584]).
Regarding claim 8, Einav discloses the controller is configured to selectively modify the next goal at least in part by converting between at least some of the one or more representations of the body of the subject ([0408] device 100 step where a decision is made to repeat/select a new activity is decided in part based on patient progress and/or fatigue; and example given [0593] “if motion of the patient is detected during a session, for example motion from one posture to another, the exercises are adapted to reflect the new position”).
Regarding claim 9, Einav discloses the controller is configured to selectively modify the next goal at least in part by querying a representation of the body of the subject ([0407] patient fatigue determined by sensed physiological parameters; followed step [0408]).
Regarding claim 10, Einav discloses the information associated with the body comprises resistance encountered at least in part by the end effector ([0362] tip 108 may encounter resistance or no resistance), and wherein the controller is configured to selectively modify the next goal based at least in part on the encountered resistance ([0362] resistance, with [0474] device 100 processes feedback to modify and/or decide on current or future activities and their parameters).
Regarding claim 11, Einav discloses a second robotic arm ([0370] device 100 may have multiple tips 108 with individual arms 102, making two arms; and embodiments Fig. 7-8 show two handle devices 700, 800), wherein the controller is further configured to generate a second sequence of goals for the second robotic arm in accordance with the trajectory ([0650] device 700 is two separate devices 702, 704 operating).
Regarding claim 12, Einav discloses based at least in part on the command received from the input device (each having the same input of device 100 above), the controller is configured to selectively modify next goals of both sequences of goals ([0650] “an arm 708 of one mimics the motion of an arm 710 of the other”; functioning with the same controller configuration of device 100).
Regarding claim 13, Einav discloses the controller is configured to modify the next goals of both sequences to follow each other ([0650] “an arm 708 of one mimics the motion of an arm 710 of the other”; or [0651] arms 808, 810 of device 800 move together or reversed).
Regarding claim 14, Einav discloses the controller is configured to mirror modifications to the next goals of both sequences ([0650] “an arm 708 of one mimics the motion of an arm 710 of the other”; [0377,0652] tip 108 can mirror trajectory of motion of a different element).
Regarding claim 15, Einav discloses the controller is configured to limit modification to one of the next goals ([0455] safety limit).
Regarding claim 16, Einav discloses the controller is configured to transition between goals based at least in part on one or more thresholds ([0393] device 100 measures that motion velocity is below threshold in order to provide more assistance; [0480] device 100 feedback indicating a threshold was passed).
Regarding claim 17, Einav discloses the one or more thresholds comprise a maximum permitted velocity ([0393] maximum velocity threshold; [0552] permissions of device 100 including minimum and maximum speed and angles).
Regarding claim 18, Einav discloses the controller is configured to transition between goals at least in part by injecting an interpolated goal (Table 1 includes general commands interpolation).
Regarding claim 19, Einav discloses the next goal is implemented at least in part by issuing a torque command ([0011] tip 108 guided motion applying pushing, assisting, forces).
Regarding claim 20, Einav discloses interaction with the deformable body in a subsequent interaction session is configured based at least in part on the command ([0474] device 100 processes feedback to modify and/or decide on current or future activities and their parameters).
Regarding claim 21, Einav discloses a method, comprising:
continuously generating a sequence of goals for a robotic arm in accordance with a trajectory (device 100; [0358] arm 102 is controlled by controller 114; and [0362] tip 108 moves along a trajectory associated with a type of rehabilitation);
receiving a command from an input device (input device 118; [0569] programming control where the tip 108 moves according to commands for device 100); and
selectively modifying a next goal based at least in part on the command received from the input device ([0455] device 100 responds by increasing force, changing trajectory, etc.; [0474] device 100 processes feedback to modify and/or decide on current or future activities and their parameters; [0479] “modify future parameters, impose a rest and/or repeat an activity if a desired result was not achieved”), wherein selectively modifying the next goal comprises constraining an allowed amount of offset of the next goal ([0474,0479] above regarding modifying future parameters, by [0455] device 100 responds by modifying goal to prevent patient from going past a safety limit, meaning the device would not exceed a safety value that is an “allowed” offset value); wherein
an end effector associated with the robotic arm interacts with a deformable body based at least in part on the modifying of the next goal (tip 108 contacts the body to apply trajectory; [0014] “the trajectories and/or forces are defined for one or more points on the body, on same and/or different limb or body part”; and [0474, 0479]).
Regarding claim 22, Einav discloses a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions (Controller 114; [0358] for example a personal computer or dedicated embedded computer providing instruction) for:
continuously generating a sequence of goals for a robotic arm in accordance with a trajectory (device 100; [0358] arm 102 is controlled by controller 114; and [0362] tip 108 moves along a trajectory associated with a type of rehabilitation);
receiving a command from an input device (input device 118; [0569] programming control where the tip 108 moves according to commands for device 100); and
selectively modifying a next goal based at least in part on the command received from the input device ([0455] device 100 responds by increasing force, changing trajectory, etc.; [0474] device 100 processes feedback to modify and/or decide on current or future activities and their parameters; [0479] “modify future parameters, impose a rest and/or repeat an activity if a desired result was not achieved”), wherein selectively modifying the next goal comprises constraining an allowed amount of offset of the next goal ([0474,0479] above regarding modifying future parameters, by [0455] device 100 responds by modifying goal to prevent patient from going past a safety limit, meaning the device would not exceed a safety value that is an “allowed” offset value); wherein
an end effector associated with the robotic arm interacts with a deformable body based at least in part on the modifying of the next goal (tip 108 contacts the body to apply trajectory; [0014] “the trajectories and/or forces are defined for one or more points on the body, on same and/or different limb or body part”; and [0474, 0479]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,455. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is broader than the patented claim (i.e. the patented claim 1 recites “a first robotic arm associated with a first end effector; a second robotic arm associated with a second end effector” and “wherein selectively modifying the next goal of the first robotic arm comprises preventing collision between the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm at least in part by: determining positions of the first end effector associated with the first robotic arm and the second end effector associated with the second robotic arm”, which is language not found in instant claim 1). Therefore, any infringement over patented claim would result in infringement over instant claims.
Dependent claim 3 is covered by patented claim 2.
Dependent claim 4 is covered by patented claim 3.
Dependent claim 5 is covered by patented claim 4.
Dependent claim 6 is covered by patented claim 7.
Dependent claim 7 is covered by patented claim 8.
Dependent claim 8 is covered by patented claim 9.
Dependent claim 9 is covered by patented claim 10.
Dependent claim 10 is covered by patented claim 11.
Dependent claim 11 is covered by patented claim 12.
Dependent claim 12 is covered by patented claim 13.
Dependent claim 13 is covered by patented claim 14.
Dependent claim 14 is covered by patented claim 15.
Dependent claim 15 is covered by patented claim 16.
Dependent claim 16 is covered by patented claim 17.
Dependent claim 17 is covered by patented claim 18.
Dependent claim 18 is covered by patented claim 19.
Dependent claim 19 is covered by patented claim 20.
Dependent claim 20 is covered by patented claim 21.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,455. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is broader than the patented claim (i.e. the patented claim 20 recites “a first robotic arm”, “a second robotic arm”, “first and second end effectors”, and “preventing collision between the first robotic arm and a second robotic arm at least in part by: determining positions of the first end effector associated with the first robotic arm and a second end effector associated with the second robotic arm”, which is language not found in instant claim 21). Therefore, any infringement over patented claim would result in infringement over instant claims.
Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,455. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is broader than the patented claim (i.e. the patented claim 21 recites “a first robotic arm”, “a second robotic arm”, “first and second end effectors”, and “preventing collision between the first robotic arm and a second robotic arm at least in part by: determining positions of the first end effector associated with the first robotic arm and a second end effector associated with the second robotic arm”, which is language not found in instant claim 22). Therefore, any infringement over patented claim would result in infringement over instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Tian et al. (US 2020/0121556), Mackin (US 2017/0266077), Beckman et al. (US 2021/0394356), and Gu et al. (US 2019/0160684) are cited to show a therapeutic robot with arms able to perform mapped controller based therapy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GWYNNETH L HOWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4742. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 M-F.
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, Tim Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. 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.
/GWYNNETH L HOWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights