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)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate both robot arm members and robot arm segments. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “18” has been used to designate a pressure-sensitive (digital) button, a first button, and a second button. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 4, line 1, “bjectively” should read “objectively
On page 11, line 15, “bjectively” should read “objectively”
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a control unit is adapted to control and actuate…” in claim 1, “the control unit … is adapted to control the robotic arm” in claim 1, “the control unit is adapted to perform … a movement” in claim 5, and “the control unit is adapted to move the robotic arm” in claim 7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the movement" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the position" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "this point" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the steps of" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the axis space" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitations “a control unit is adapted to control and actuate…” in claim 1, “the control unit … is adapted to control the robotic arm” in claim 1, “the control unit is adapted to perform … a movement” in claim 5, and “the control unit is adapted to move the robotic arm” in claim 7 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The structure of “the control unit” is not adequately described or defined in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “computer-readable storage medium” of claim 13 encompasses signals per se. The specification does not provide a special definition of a computer-readable storage medium. As understood in light of the specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 13 encompasses signals which are not within one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(I). It is suggested that claim 13 be amended to recite a “non-transitory” computer-readable storage medium to overcome this rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowlin et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2011/0264111) in view of Gonenc et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,278,361).
Regarding claim 1, Nowlin teaches a medical collaborative robot (Fig. 7A-7C,
paragraph 0072, lines 1-2) for actuating a medical end effector (Paragraph 0072, lines 2-3) during a surgical procedure (Paragraph 0072, lines 8-10), the medical collaborative robot comprising: a robot base (Fig. 7A-7C, paragraph 0072, line 7) as a local connection point (Fig. 7A-7C) of the medical collaborative robot; a robotic arm (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 5) that is movable (Paragraph 0076, lines 4-11) and connected to the robot base (Fig. 8E); an end effector (Fig. 7A-7C, paragraph 0072, line 3) which is connected to the robotic arm (Fig. 7A-7C); a control unit (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0083, line 5) which is adapted to control and actuate at least the robotic arm (Paragraph 0083, lines 5-8); and at least one input and/or detection means (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 4) arranged on a joint and/or bearing of the robotic arm as a connection (Paragraph 0076, lines 4-10), the control unit, when an input respectively an object is detected (Paragraph 0083, lines 2-5), is adapted to control the robotic arm via the control unit in such a way that the end effector maintains its position (Paragraph 0083, lines 7-8) during the movement of the robotic arm (Paragraph 0083, lines 5-6).
Nowlin does not explicitly teach that the control unit, when an input respectively
an object is detected, is adapted to control the movement of the robotic arm. Gonenc, however, teaches a control system that includes a controller (Col. 12, line 23) that is adapted to control the movement (Fig. 4, Col. 12, lines 9-18) of a surgical robot component (Col. 11, line 54) when an object is detected (Col. 12, lines 9-12) near it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nowlin to incorporate the teachings of Gonenc to include that a control unit, when an input respectively an object is detected, is adapted to control the movement of the robotic arm. Doing so would ensure that the movement of the robotic arm is able to be altered and controlled when an object is detected nearby it during a surgical operation, as recognized by Gonenc.
Regarding claim 2, Nowlin in view of Gonenc discloses the claimed invention of
claim 1. Nowlin further discloses a medical collaborative robot (Fig. 7A-7C, paragraph 0072, lines 1-2) according to claim 1 wherein: the robotic arm (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 5) has at least two robotic arm segments (Fig. 6, paragraph 0070, lines 1-4) and the at least one input and/or detection means (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 4) is provided on a joint and/or bearing as a connection between the two robotic arm segments (Fig. 6, paragraph 0070, lines 7-9), and/or the at least one input and/or detection means is provided on a joint and/or bearing as a connection between the robot base and the robotic arm (Fig. 6C, paragraph 0070, lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 3, Nowlin in view of Gonenc discloses the claimed invention of
claim 1. Nowlin further discloses a medical collaborative robot (Fig. 7A-7C, paragraph 0072, lines 1-2) according to claim 1, wherein two (Fig. 8A) input and/or detection means (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 4) facing away from each other (Fig. 8A) are provided on the robotic arm (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 5) on at least one connection (Paragraph 0076, lines 4-10), these controlling a movement of the robotic arm (Paragraph 0083, lines 5-8) in opposite directions (Fig. 8A and 8D, paragraph 0083, lines 12-17) by means of the control unit (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0083, line 5).
Regarding claim 7, Nowlin teaches a medical collaborative robot (Fig. 7A-7C,
paragraph 0072, lines 1-2) according to claim 1, wherein a distance sensor is used as detection means (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 4) and the control unit (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0083, line 5) is adapted to move the robotic arm (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 5) away from an object when the object is detected by the distance sensor when the distance is less than a predetermined limit value.
Nowlin does not teach a medical collaborative robot that includes a distance
sensor that is used as detection means, and a control unit that is adapted to move the robotic arm away from an object when the object is detected by the distance sensor when the distance is less than a predetermined limit value. Gonenc, however, teaches a control system that includes a distance sensor (Fig. 4, Col. 11, lines 47-49) as a detection means, and a controller that moves the robot arm away from an object (Fig. 4, Col. 12, lines 9-18) when the detected distance is less than a predetermined limit value (Fig. 4, Col. 12, lines 62-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nowlin to incorporate the teachings of Gonenc to include a distance sensor that is used as a detection means, and a control unit that is adapted to move the robotic arm away from an object, when the object is detected by the distance sensor, and when the distance is less than a predetermined limit value. Doing so would ensure that both the robotic arm and robotic arm segments maintain a pre-specified distance from a detected object during a surgical operation, as recognized by Gonenc.
Regarding claim 8, Nowlin teaches a medical collaborative robot (Fig. 7A-7C,
paragraph 0072, lines 1-2) according to claim 7, wherein the control unit (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0083, line 5) modulates a speed and/or a distance of a movement of joints of the robotic arm (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 5) based on the detected distance. Nowlin does not teach that the control unit modulates a speed and/or a distance of a movement of joints of the robotic arm based on the detected distance. Gonenc, however, teaches a control system that modulates speed (Col. 12, lines 31-34) and/or distance (Col. 12, lines 40-67) of a movement of joints (Fig. 7, Col. 14, lines 39-43) of the robotic arm based on the detected distance (Col. 12, lines 36-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nowlin to incorporate the teachings of Gonenc to include a control unit that modulates speed and/or distance of a movement of joints of the robotic arm based on a detected distance. Doing so would ensure that the robotic arm moves at a designated speed or for a designated distance so as to maintain a pre-specified distance from a detected object during a surgical operation, as recognized by Gonenc.
Regarding claim 9, Nowlin in view of Gonenc discloses the claimed invention of
claim 1. Nowlin further discloses a medical collaborative robot (Fig. 7A-7C, paragraph 0072, lines 1-2) according to claim 1, wherein the at least one input and/or detection means (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 4) is arranged coaxially to a joint axis of the robotic arm (Fig. 8A-8E).
Regarding claim 10, Nowlin teaches a control method (Paragraph 0048, lines 1-2) for controlling a medical collaborative robot (Fig. 7A-7C, paragraph 0072, lines 1-2) having a robotic arm (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 5) connected to a base (Fig. 7A-7C, paragraph 0072, line 7) and an end effector (Fig. 7A-7C, paragraph 0072, line 3) connected to the robotic arm (Fig. 7A-7C), the control method comprising the steps of: detecting an input or detection of an object (Paragraph 0083, lines 2-5) by at least one input and/or detection means (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 4) arranged on the robotic arm (Paragraph 0076, lines 4-10); and controlling and moving the robotic arm (Paragraph 0083, lines 5-6) in such a way that the end effector maintains its position, in particular pose, in space (Paragraph 0083, lines 7-8).
Nowlin does not explicitly teach that the control method includes the step of
detecting an object near the surgical system, and thus controlling and moving the robotic arm based on the detection of an object. Gonenc, however, teaches a control method that includes a controller (Col. 12, line 23) that is adapted to control the movement (Fig. 4, Col. 12, lines 9-18) of a surgical robot component (Col. 11, line 54) when an object is detected (Col. 12, lines 9-12) near it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nowlin to incorporate the teachings of Gonenc to include control method steps that detect an object near the surgical system. Doing so would ensure that the movement of the robotic arm is able to be altered and controlled when an object is detected nearby during a surgical operation, as recognized by Gonenc.
Regarding claim 12, Nowlin teaches a control method (Paragraph 0048, lines 1-2) according to claim 10, further comprising the steps of: detecting a distance by means of a distance sensor as detection means (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 4); and modulating a speed of a movement of the robotic arm (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 5) based on the detected distance. Nowlin does not teach that the control method includes steps of detecting a distance by means of a distance sensor, and modulating a speed of a movement of the robotic arm based on the detected distance. Gonenc, however, teaches a control method that detects a distance by means of a distance sensor (Fig. 4, Col. 11, lines 47-49). Gonenc also teaches a control method that modulates a speed (Col. 12, lines 31-34) of a movement of the robotic arm (Fig. 7, Col. 14, lines 39-43) based on the detected distance (Col. 12, lines 36-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nowlin to incorporate the teachings of Gonenc to include control method steps that modulate a speed of a movement of the robotic arm based on a detected distance. Doing so would ensure that the robotic arm moves at a designated speed so as to maintain a pre-specified distance from a detected object during a surgical operation, as recognized by Gonenc.
Regarding claim 13, Nowlin in view of Gonenc discloses the claimed invention of claim 10. Nowlin further discloses a computer-readable storage medium (Paragraph 0098, lines 8-13) comprising instructions (Paragraph 0098, line 7) which, when executed by a computer (Paragraph 0098, line 9), cause the computer to execute (Paragraph 0098, line 8) the steps of claim 10.
Regarding claim 14, Nowlin in view of Gonenc discloses the claimed invention of
claim 1. Nowlin further discloses a medical collaborative robot (Fig. 7A-7C, paragraph 0072, lines 1-2) according to claim 1, wherein the movable robotic arm (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 5) has more degrees of freedom in the axis space than degrees of freedom to be manipulated (Paragraph 0051, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 15, Nowlin in view of Gonenc discloses the claimed invention of
claim 1. Nowlin further discloses a medical collaborative robot (Fig. 7A-7C, paragraph 0072, lines 1-2) according to claim 1, wherein the end effector (Fig. 7A-7C, paragraph 0072, line 3) is connected to an end side (Fig. 8A-8E) of the robotic arm (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 5).
Regarding claim 16, Nowlin in view of Gonenc discloses the claimed invention of
claim 1. Nowlin further discloses a medical collaborative robot (Fig. 7A-7C, paragraph 0072, lines 1-2) according to claim 1, wherein the end effector (Fig. 7A-7C, paragraph 0072, line 3) maintains its pose during movement of the robotic arm (Paragraph 0083, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 17, Nowlin teaches a medical collaborative robot (Fig. 7A-7C, paragraph 0072, lines 1-2) according to claim 7, wherein the distance sensor is an ultrasonic sensor or a capacitive sensor. Nowlin does not teach a medical collaborative robot that includes a distance sensor which is either an ultrasonic or capacitive sensor. Gonenc, however, teaches a control system that includes a distance sensor (Fig. 4, Col. 11, lines 47-49) that is a capacitive sensor (Fig. 2, Col. 10, lines 14-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nowlin to incorporate the teachings of Gonenc to include a distance sensor that is a capacitive sensor. Doing so would ensure that the distance to the detected object can be measured properly during a surgical operation, as recognized by Gonenc. Although Gonenc does not explicitly state that the distance sensor can be an ultrasonic sensor, Gonenc does disclose that the distance between the robotic arm and the object can be measured with a proximity sensor (Col. 8, lines 62-65). It would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that ultrasonic sensors are a type of proximity sensor, and therefore it would be obvious to try using an ultrasonic sensor to measure the distance to the detected object before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowlin et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2011/0264111) in view of Gonenc et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,278,361) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hulford et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0253678.
Regarding claim 4, Nowlin teaches a medical collaborative robot (Fig. 7A-7C,
paragraph 0072, lines 1-2) according to claim 1, wherein a button (Paragraph 0076, line 4) with an actuation direction (Paragraph 0083, lines 1-5) and/or a pressure-sensitive control panel is used as input means (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 4). Although Nowlin does not disclose a pressure-sensitive control panel as an input means, Nowlin does disclose that some manipulator assemblies may have the capability of determining forces applied to different parts of the medical collaborative robot (Paragraph 0085, lines 5-7). Hulford, however, discloses a medical device that has force sensors as an input means, such as pressure-sensitive sensors (Paragraph 0168, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nowlin to incorporate the teachings of Hulford to include a medical collaborative robot that has a pressure-sensitive control panel as an input means. Doing so would ensure that the robot can detect the amount of force being applied to it, and from that modulate the movement of the connections on the robotic arm, as recognized by Hulford.
Regarding claim 5, Nowlin in view of Gonenc discloses the claimed invention of
claim 4. Nowlin further discloses a medical collaborative robot (Fig. 7A-7C, paragraph 0072, lines 1-2) according to claim 1 wherein the control unit (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0083, line 5) is adapted to perform, when the button (Paragraph 0076, line 4) is actuated in the actuation direction (Paragraph 0083, lines 1-5) at the position (Fig. 8E) of the button, a movement of the robotic arm perpendicular to the actuation direction (Fig. 8A-8E) in order to move the robotic arm away from this point (Paragraph 0083, lines 8-17).
Regarding claim 6, Nowlin teaches a medical collaborative robot (Fig. 7A-7C, paragraph 0072, lines 1-2) according to claim 4 wherein the button (Paragraph 0076, line 4), which is pressure-sensitive, and/or the pressure-sensitive control panel detects an amount of an input pressure and the control unit (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0083, line 5) modulates a speed and and/or a distance of a movement of connections (Fig. 6, paragraph 0070, lines 7-9) of the robotic arm (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 5) based on the detected input pressure.
Nowlin does not teach that the button is pressure-sensitive, or a pressure-sensitive control panel that detects an amount of input pressure. Nowlin also does not teach that the control unit modulates a speed and/or a distance of a movement of connections of the robotic arm based on the detected input pressure. Hulford, however, teaches a medical device that discloses pressure-sensitive sensors (see claim 4) that detect an amount of input pressure (Paragraph 0168, lines 1-7), and subsequently alters movement of the device based on the input values (Paragraph 0171, lines 4-7). Gonenc teaches a control system that modulates speed (Col. 12, lines 31-34) and/or distance (Col. 12, lines 40-67) of a movement of connections (Fig. 6, paragraph 0070, lines 7-9) of the robotic arm based on the detected distance (Col. 12, lines 36-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nowlin to incorporate the teachings of Hulford to include a button that is pressure-sensitive or a pressure-sensitive control panel that detects an input pressure. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nowlin to incorporate the teachings of Gonenc to include a control unit that modulates speed and/or distance of a movement of connections of the robotic arm based on detected input pressure. Doing so would ensure that the robot can detect the amount of input pressure being applied to it, and from that modulate the movement of the connections on the robotic arm either by altering speed or distance, as recognized by Hulford and Gonenc.
Regarding claim 11, Nowlin teaches a control method (Paragraph 0048, lines 1-2) according to claim 10, comprising the step of: detecting an operating pressure by means of a pressure-sensitive button (Paragraph 0076, line 4) and/or a pressure-sensitive control panel as input means (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 4); and modulating a speed of a movement of the robotic arm (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0076, line 5) based on the basis of the detected operating pressure.
Nowlin does not teach that the button is pressure-sensitive, or a pressure-sensitive control panel that detects an operating pressure. Nowlin also does not teach that the control method comprises a step of modulating a speed of a movement of the robotic arm based on the detected operating pressure. Hulford, however, teaches a medical device that discloses pressure-sensitive sensors (see claim 4) that detect an amount of operating pressure (Paragraph 0168, lines 1-7), and subsequently alters movement of the device based on the input values (Paragraph 0171, lines 4-7). Gonenc teaches a control method that modulates speed (Col. 12, lines 31-34) of a movement of (Fig. 6, paragraph 0070, lines 7-9) of the robotic arm based on the detected distance (Col. 12, lines 36-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nowlin to incorporate the teachings of Hulford to include a button that is pressure-sensitive or a pressure-sensitive control panel that detects an operating pressure. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nowlin to incorporate the teachings of Gonenc to include a control method that modulates speed of a movement of the robotic arm based on detected operating pressure. Doing so would ensure that the robot can detect the amount of operating pressure being applied to it, and from that modulate the movement of the robotic arm either by altering its speed, as recognized by Hulford and Gonenc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: WIPO Pub. No. 2019/023378, U.S. PGPub No. 2017/0274523, German Patent App. No. 2020/019104109, U.S. Patent No. 9,283048, and U.S. Patent No. 11,039,893.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Heidi Hilsmier whose telephone number is (571)272-2984. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Fridays from 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/H.A.H./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796