DETAILED ACTION
This is a final rejection in response to arguments filed 10/29/2025. Claims 1, 6, 10, 13-15, and 19-23 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that neither Au or Hariri teach the entire claim feature of “determining a projection of a control signal for the position displacement of the movable closure jaw to a vector for a null space, wherein the projection represents the torque of the closure jaw”. However, as discussed below, a 103 combination of these are being used as the prior art rejection. Au teaches the determining a projection of a control signal for position displacement of jaw in null space. Hariri teaches the use of a vector in projecting into null space. Au further teaches the use of vectors in describing joint positions. Therefore the combination of the two is teaching the claimed feature.
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 10, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Au (US 20120123441, IDS).
Regarding claim 10, Au teaches an apparatus to provide a control objective using a null space of a redundant degree of freedom of a surgical tool ([0006] discusses the inventive system as control systems having multiple degrees of freedom to control the configuration of a medical instrument), the apparatus comprising:
a tool driver including a plurality of actuators providing a redundant degree of freedom (DoF) ([0034] discusses the medical instrument including mechanism 230 as a transmission system to drive the end effector tool using two actuators with claim 17 further discussing this providing redundant degrees of freedom); and
one or more processors ([0048] discusses the control system of the exemplary system being a general purpose computer executing a program or a circuit wired to generate a drive signal where it is interpreted that this would include one or more processors) configured to:
calculate a position displacement of a movable closure jaw to effect a desired movement in response to an input command ([0062] discusses an operator performing an action (input command) to indicate a desired position of the robotic instrument where the position and velocity vectors are calculated to change the robotic instrument to the desired placement);
calculate a first movement of the two actuators based on the position displacement of the movable closure jaw and a second movement of the two actuators based on a second control objective in a null space corresponding to the redundant DoF ([0043] discusses how two drive motors (actuators) connected to a joint are used to operate the end effector where the actuators are used to achieve the desired position of the end effector as discussed above with operation of actuators to operate an end effector into a desired position being interpreted as the first movement while maintaining a minimum tension in the connective tendon with using the actuators to maintain a minimum tension is being interpreted as the second movement where maintaining minimum tension is the second control objective and where the torque required is found using a null space projection operator as discussed in [0075] and where claim 17 discusses the joint providing a redundant degree of freedom), wherein the second control objective is a null space torque for the movable closure of the jaw ([0070] discusses controlling the torque of the surgical instrument (as described above as jaw members)); and
drive the movable closure jaw according to the first movement and the second movement while accomplishing the second control objective in the null space ([0043] discusses the two motors driving the torque applied to control the movement of the joint to further control movement of the end effector).
Regarding claim 15, Au teaches wherein the null space corresponding to the redundant DoF for the movable closure jaw provides a relationship between the first movement of the two actuators and the second movement of the two actuators ([0075] discusses determining joint torques (controlled using two actuators) that will maintain the tension while preventing the joints from reaching their range limit where it is interpreted that preventing the joints from reaching their range limit shows the relationship between movement of the actuators for position displacement and movement of the actuators for maintaining tension).
Regarding claim 19, Au teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions to cause one or more processors ([0048] discusses the control system of the exemplary system being a general purpose computer executing a program or a circuit wired to generate a drive signal where it is interpreted that this would include one or more processors) to perform:
calculating a position displacement of a tool to set a desired end effector movement in response to an input command ([0062] discusses an operator performing an action (input command) to indicate a desired position of the robotic instrument where the position and velocity vectors are calculated to change the robotic instrument to the desired placement);
calculating a first movement of two actuators based on the position displacement and a second movement of the two actuators based on a second control objective in a null space corresponding to a redundant DoF ([0043] discusses how two drive motors (actuators) connected to a joint are used to operate the end effector where the actuators are used to achieve the desired position of the end effector as discussed above with operation of actuators to operate an end effector into a desired position being interpreted as the first movement while maintaining a minimum tension in the connective tendon with using the actuators to maintain a minimum tension is being interpreted as the second movement where maintaining minimum tension is the second control objective and where the torque required is found using a null space projection operator as discussed in [0075] and where claim 17 discusses the joint providing a redundant degree of freedom) wherein the second control objective is a null space torque for the closure jaw ([0070] discusses controlling the torque of the surgical instrument (as described above as jaw members)); and
driving the tool according to the first movement and the second movement while accomplishing the second control objective in the null space ([0043] discusses the two motors driving the torque applied to control the movement of the joint to further control movement of the end effector).
Regarding claim 20, Au teaches wherein the redundant DoF is a wrist or a jaw ([0004] discusses the joint structure as a flexible wrist).
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Au (US 20120123441, IDS) in view of Hariri (US 10166082).
Regarding claim 1, Au teaches a method ([0006] describes the inventive system as a method of robotic control) comprising:
providing a redundant degree of freedom (DoF) for a tool by driving a movable closure jaw with at least two actuators ([0065] discusses and Fig. 6 shows an exemplary system where two actuators, 640-1 & 640-2, are coupled to one joint for movement of the end effector where claim 17 further states that the joint provides a redundant degree of freedom for the tool with [0074] discussing the surgical tool as a including movable jaw members);
calculating a position displacement of the movable closure jaw to effect a desired movement in response to an input command ([0062] discusses an operator performing an action (input command) to indicate a desired position of the robotic instrument where the position and velocity vectors are calculated to change the robotic instrument to the desired placement);
calculating a first movement of the two actuators based on the position displacement of the movable closure jaw and a second movement of the two actuators based on a second control objective in a null space corresponding to the redundant DoF ([0043] discusses how two drive motors (actuators) connected to a joint are used to operate the end effector where the actuators are used to achieve the desired position of the end effector as discussed above with operation of actuators to operate an end effector into a desired position being interpreted as the first movement while maintaining a minimum tension in the connective tendon with using the actuators to maintain a minimum tension is being interpreted as the second movement where maintaining minimum tension is the second control objective and where the torque required is found using a null space projection operator as discussed in [0075] and where claim 17 discusses the joint providing a redundant degree of freedom), wherein the second control objective is a torque of the closure jaw ([0070] discusses controlling the torque of the surgical instrument (as described above as jaw members));
determining a projection of a control signal for the position displacement of the movable closure jaw to a ([0070] discusses controlling the torque of the surgical instrument (as described above as jaw members) where [0073]-[0075] discuss calculating the torque required for the position displacement of the surgical instrument where the function provided by the solution (position displacement of the joint) is a null space projection operator that selects torques from the null space of the transpose of the joints); and
driving the movable closure jaw according to the first movement and the second movement while accomplishing the second control objective in the null space ([0043] discusses the two motors driving the torque applied to control the movement of the joint to further control movement of the end effector).
Au does not explicitly teach the position displacement as a vector. Hariri teaches the position command being in the null space and the null space being described as a vector (Col. 15 line 60 – Col 16 line 5).
Au teaches projecting position displacement into null space and Hariri teaches the null space being described as a vector as discussed above. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize this vector within null space as utilizing null space projection would allow for multiple conditions to be considered in the movement and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize vectors with the Jacobian matrix to describe the null space.
Regarding claim 6, Au teaches wherein the null space corresponding to the redundant DoF for the movable closure jaw provides a relationship between the first movement of the two actuators and the second movement of the two actuators ([0075] discusses determining joint torques (controlled using two actuators) that will maintain the tension while preventing the joints from reaching their range limit where it is interpreted that preventing the joints from reaching their range limit shows the relationship between movement of the actuators for position displacement and movement of the actuators for maintaining tension).
Regarding claim 13, Au teaches determining a projection of a control signal for the position displacement of the movable closure jaw ([0075] discusses the function provided by the solution (position displacement of the joint) is a null space projection operator that selects torques from the null space of the transpose of the joints).
Au does not explicitly teach the position displacement as a vector. Hariri teaches the position command being in the null space and the null space being described as a vector (Col. 15 line 60 – Col 16 line 5).
Au teaches projecting position displacement into null space and Hariri teaches the null space being described as a vector as discussed above. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize this vector within null space as utilizing null space projection would allow for multiple conditions to be considered in the movement and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize vectors with the Jacobian matrix to describe the null space.
Regarding claim 14, Au teaches wherein the null space corresponding to the redundant DoF for the closure jaw joint is described ([0075] discusses the solution operation occurring in a null space projection using a Jacobian matrix).
Au does not explicitly teach describing the null space as a vector. Hariri teaches the position command being in the null space and the null space being described as a vector (Col. 15 line 60 – Col 16 line 5).
Au teaches projecting position displacement into null space and Hariri teaches the null space being described as a vector as discussed above. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize this vector within null space as utilizing null space projection would allow for multiple conditions to be considered in the movement and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize vectors with the Jacobian matrix to describe the null space.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Au in view of Wells (US 20230320795).
Regarding claim 21, Au teaches using a computed error [0051] but does not explicitly teach calculating an error signal for the second control objective; and applying the error signal when driving the movable closure jaw.
Wells teaches calculating an error signal for the second control objective; and applying the error signal when driving the movable closure jaw ([0129] discusses calculating a compensation value for the difference in torques between the motors and applying the compensation value for the error to each of the motors in the null space).
Au teaches operating a manipulator providing a redundant degree of freedom by using null space. Wells teaches zeroing out the torque in a null space. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Au with the torque of Wells as Wells teaches that this allows the system to “adjust the end effector in a null space, such that the jaw members apply additional pressure without imparting movement on the end effector” [0008] making the system more efficient.
Regarding claim 22, Au teaches using a computed error [0051] but does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to: calculate an error signal for the second control objective; and apply the error signal when driving the movable closure jaw.
Wells teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: calculate an error signal for the second control objective; and apply the error signal when driving the movable closure jaw ([0129] discusses calculating a compensation value for the difference in torques between the motors and applying the compensation value for the error to each of the motors in the null space).
Au teaches operating a manipulator providing a redundant degree of freedom by using null space. Wells teaches zeroing out the torque in a null space. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Au with the torque of Wells as Wells teaches that this allows the system to “adjust the end effector in a null space, such that the jaw members apply additional pressure without imparting movement on the end effector” [0008] making the system more efficient.
Regarding claim 23, Au teaches using a computed error [0051] but does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions cause one or more processors to perform: calculating an error signal for the second control objective; and applying the error signal when driving the movable closure jaw.
Wells teaches wherein the instructions cause one or more processors to perform: calculating an error signal for the second control objective; and applying the error signal when driving the movable closure jaw ([0129] discusses calculating a compensation value for the difference in torques between the motors and applying the compensation value for the error to each of the motors in the null space).
Au teaches operating a manipulator providing a redundant degree of freedom by using null space. Wells teaches zeroing out the torque in a null space. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Au with the torque of Wells as Wells teaches that this allows the system to “adjust the end effector in a null space, such that the jaw members apply additional pressure without imparting movement on the end effector” [0008] making the system more efficient.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANIELLE M JACKSON whose telephone number is (303)297-4364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:30 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.M.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657