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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular references in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action. Please see MPEP 2004, which in part provides guidance as follows:
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by DE 202016003232 U1 to Kuka (hereinafter “Kuka”)(copy, including machine translation, attached).
Regarding Claims 1-2, Kuka teaches a surgical robotic mobile cart (1) comprising:
a base (10) having a plurality of supports (14);
a robotic arm (20) coupled to the base (see e.g. FIG. 1 reproduced below) and configured to support at least one of a camera or an instrument (24); and
a flywheel energy storage device (30) coupled to the base (see e.g. FIG. 1), the flywheel energy storage device configured to stabilize the base (see e.g. the abstract: “a flywheel (30), which is arranged so as to be set in rotation, in order to increase stability against tilting of the mobile platform”) and to provide electrical energy (see, from the machine translation: “advantageously, the kinetic energy of the rotating flywheel be used in order to serve as an energy storage device”), the flywheel energy storage device operable in a first mode during which the flywheel energy storage device is configured to convert electrical energy into kinetic energy, and in a second mode during which the flywheel energy storage device is configured to convert stored kinetic energy into electrical energy (see, e.g., the following portion in the translation: “Preferably, the flywheel is driven by means of an electric motor and the electric motor is further preferably, kinetic energy of the flywheel converted into electrical energy. Such systems are known from the automobile construction and is, for example, a variable amplifier - system is known (kinetic energy recovery system). During the subsequent return movement of the flywheel is the increase in the tilting stability of the mobile platform. In a secondary aspect can, however, advantageously, the kinetic energy of the rotating flywheel be used in order to serve as an energy storage device. This may be, for example, as a support - or notpuffer be used, in order to disturbances of the manipulator system, for example, to be able to carry out diagnoses or maintenance. In the case of a power failure of the main power supply of the manipulator can be approximately the from of the kinetic energy of the flywheel electrical energy obtained in this manner are used to input the manipulator in a safe state”).
PNG
media_image1.png
770
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
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 3-7 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuka as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of CN 111435807 A to Liu (hereinafter “Liu”)(copy, including machine translation, attached).
Regarding Claim 3-5 and 13-14, Kuka teaches a flywheel energy storage device as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, and further including an axle defining a first rotation axis (44) and a flywheel rotor coupled to the axle (see e.g. FIG. 3 of Kuka), but fails to specifically teach at least one induction device including a plurality of axial magnets and a plurality of radial magnets, wherein the flywheel energy storage device is configured to operate in a charging mode during which the radial magnets are energized to rotate the axle and the flywheel rotor, and in a generating mode during which the plurality of the radial magnets output to electrical energy in response to rotation of the plurality of axial magnets. Another reference, Liu, teaches a flywheel energy storage device having these features (see e.g. the abstract in the machine translation of Liu: “a flywheel energy storage device and a radial magnetic bearing; the radial magnetic bearing comprises a rotor and a stator matched with each other; The stator comprises a first group of magnets formed by overlapping a plurality of first magnets in the axial direction, the rotor comprises a second group of magnets stacked by a plurality of second magnets in the axial direction; wherein, in the radial direction, the second group of magnets and the first group of magnets are aligned inside and outside, correspondingly set in pairs, forming a Halbach array. the rotor is located at the outer side, which is good for improving the energy storage density of the flywheel energy storage device”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Kuka to include pluralities of magnets for both the rotor and stator, as seen in Liu, because this would involve merely adapting a known flywheel configuration from a similar flywheel energy storage device known in the art, and/or it would involve a merely simple substitution of one known type of flywheel for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claims 6-7 and 15-16, Kuka further teaches a pair of diametrically opposing rotational joints coupled to the flywheel energy storage device, the pair of diametrically opposing rotational joints defining a second rotation axis (see joints along second rotation axis 46 in FIG. 3) perpendicular to the first rotation axis (44), wherein the pair of diametrically opposing rotational joints are passive (see e.g. the following portion in the translation of Kuka: “Preferably, the flywheel, or the flywheels, in addition to its or their axis of rotation about a second axis, which is rotatably supported. This can be carried out particularly preferably take place via a cardanic suspension. Thus, for example, the flywheel is mounted in such a way that it is in an axis perpendicular to its axis of rotation (i.e, to the axis of rotation of the flywheel) is freely rotatable.”).
Claims 8-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuka in view of Liu as applied to claims 6 and 15 (respectively) above, and further in view of US 8973450 B2 to Suda et al. (hereinafter “Suda”).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Kuka as modified teaches passive rotational joints for the second rotational axis as discussed above, but fails to teach an actuator for those joints. Another reference, Suda, teaches that this is a known alternative configuration for a flywheel (see e.g. claim 1: “an actuator for moving the flywheel about said second axis”; also see e.g. FIG. 4A and Col. 7 lines 56-60: “The device of the present invention includes actuating means that actively causes the flywheel to rotate about the y-axis. The actuating means is a so-called actuator, with a motor being shown as an example of the actuator.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to further modify Kuka to provide actuators for the rotational joints because it would predictably increase the level of control over those joints and allow for more activate stabilization of the cart.
Regarding Claims 9-10 and 18, Kuka further teaches a tilt sensor configured to determine imbalance of the base (see e.g. the following portion from the translation of Kuka: “the manipulator system includes means, such as, in particular, of inclination α of the - or movement sensors, with which the tilting stability of the manipulator system can be detected. The information for the tilting stability, e.g. of inclination α of the - or movement sensors can also be obtained, then is preferably used for the control of the flywheel. If, for example, an inclination sensor a (incipient) tilting movement of the manipulator system is detected, the flywheel control is set up, in order to increase the speed of rotation of the flywheel. As an alternative or in addition, it is also conceivable to correspondingly control the manipulator to move it, for example, so that the center of gravity of the manipulator back in the direction of the base of the manipulator moves.”). Taking this into consideration in combination with the modification with Suda above (i.e. to add actuators to the rotational joints), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to further modify Kuka to also control the rotational joints based on the tilt sensor because it would advantageously provide even more stabilization.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuka in view of Liu as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 10286558 B1 to Asada et al. (hereinafter “Asada”).
Regarding Claim 19, Kuka as modified teaches a cart with supports (wheels) as noted above, but fails to teach “a force sensor disposed in each support of the plurality of supports.” Another reference, Asada, teaches this limitation in a robotic cart/vehicle (see e.g. Col. 9 lines 17-21: “In some other embodiments, wheeled, robotic vehicle 101 includes force sensors (not shown in FIG. 2) at each wheel. These force sensors are employed to measure the mass of payload 104 and to estimate the location of the center of mass of the moving mass of service robot 100.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to further modify Kuka to provide force sensors in the wheels because it would advantageously provide a more comprehensive overview of the stability of the cart as the center of mass moves.
Claims 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuka in view of Liu as applied to claims 3 and 13 (respectively) above, and further in view of US 2016/0079826 A1 to Paiz et al. (hereinafter “Paiz”).
Kuka as modified above fails to specifically teach wherein the flywheel energy storage device further includes: a rotational sensor configured to measure a rotational velocity of the axle; and a controller configured to calculate a charge level of the flywheel energy storage device based on the rotational velocity. Paiz teaches this limitation in a similar flywheel storage device (see e.g. Para. 91: “In an operation 530, the energy stored in the system 200 is determined. The energy stored in the system 200 can be determined based on the speed of the flywheel 220 and the system efficiencies.”; also see e.g. Para. 114). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to further modify Kuka to measure the rotational velocity of the flywheel using a sensor and then to calculate the charge level because it would advantageously provide a user with the charge level which would be clearly desirable information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R DOWNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm ET.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at (571)-272-4156. 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.
/JOHN R DOWNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights