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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamikawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0328480) hereinafter referred to as Kamikawa.
Regarding claim 1, Kamikawa teaches a surgical robot (¶[0015]), comprising:
an end effector driven by a plurality of joints located along a robotic arm of the surgical robot (¶[0015] medical tool Fig. 1); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the robotic arm (¶[0086] processor in control apparatus), the processor configured to:
apply a first torque limit to at least one of the plurality of joints when the robotic arm is actively moving (¶[0076] current velocity is determined, ¶[0174] upper limit on torque in each joint section as a constraint condition, which is a task based set of constraints ¶¶[0165-0166]); and
apply a second torque limit to at least one of the plurality of joints when the robotic arm is in a stationary state, wherein the second torque limit is different from the first torque limit (¶[0076] current velocity is determined, ¶[0174] upper limit on torque in each joint section as a constraint condition, which is a task based set of constraints that differ per task ¶¶[0165-0166]).
Regarding claim 2, Kamikawa teaches the surgical robot of claim 1.
Kamikawa further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the first torque limit (¶[0174] upper limit on torque in each joint section as a constraint condition, which is a task based set of constraints ¶¶[0165-0166] using a dynamic model of the robotic arm (Fig. 3, Fig. 6, ¶[0102], ¶[0212]).
Regarding claim 3, Kamikawa teaches the surgical robot of claim 1.
Kamikawa further teaches wherein the processor is configured to estimate an expected torque producible by the plurality of joints to satisfy a control input applied to the robotic arm (¶[0087]), wherein the expected torque is based on a predefined dynamic model of the robotic arm (Fig. 3, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Kamikawa teaches the surgical robot of claim 3.
Kamikawa further teaches wherein the expected torque comprises a sum of a plurality of torques required to overcome gravitational loads applied to the robotic arm (¶[0087]), frictional loads applied to one or more of the plurality of joints (¶[0106] friction weighting applied as a constraint), and dynamic loads resulting from movement of one or more joints of the robotic arm (¶[0143] inertia).
Regarding claim 5, Kamikawa teaches the surgical robot of claim 3.
Kamikawa further teaches wherein the expected torque includes an estimate of an error of the predefined dynamic model upon which the expected torque is based (¶[0141]).
Regarding claim 7, Kamikawa teaches the surgical robot of claim 3.
Kamikawa further teaches wherein the expected torque comprises an initial expected torque and the processor is configured to determine a final expected torque range (¶¶[0141-0142] reference torque is corrected by disturbance value) that is bounded between an upper bound and a lower bound that is less than the upper bound (¶[0172] constraints include upper and lower limits).
Regarding claim 9, Kamikawa teaches the surgical robot of claim 1.
Kamikawa further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine when the robotic arm is actively moving, and to determine when the robotic arm is in the stationary state (¶[0076] current velocity is determined).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kasai (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0365489) hereinafter referred to as Kasai.
Regarding claim 6, Kamikawa teaches the surgical robot of claim 5.
Kamikawa does not teach wherein the expected torque comprises an estimated expected tissue load applied to the robotic arm during performance of a clinical task.
Attention is drawn to the Kasai reference, which wherein an expected torque comprising an estimated expected tissue load applied to the robotic arm during performance of a clinical task (¶[0269]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the expected torque modeled by Kamikawa to include tissue load, as taught by Kasai, because Kasai teaches that “a technology capable of realizing estimation of forces of various types of disturbance acting on a robot arm in a surgical environment is desirable,” (Kamikawa, Abstract).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crawford et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0345718) hereinafter referred to as Crawford.
Regarding claim 8, Kamikawa teaches the surgical robot of claim 1.
Kamikawa does not teach wherein the first torque limit corresponds to a maximum permissible force that the robotic arm is able to apply to an object external to the robotic arm.
Attention is drawn to the Crawford reference, which teaches a torque limit corresponding to a maximum permissible force that the robotic arm is able to apply to an object external to the robotic arm (¶[0152]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the torque limits of Kamikawa to include a maximum permissible force that the robotic arm is able to apply to an external object, as taught by Crawford, to avoid any damage to the patient associated with collision by the robot and/or end-effector (Crawford, ¶[0152]).
Claim(s) 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0328480) hereinafter referred to as Kamikawa; in view of Post et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0255701) hereinafter referred to as Post.
Regarding claims 10, Kamikawa teaches the surgical robot of claim 1.
Kamikawa does not teach wherein the second torque limit is greater than the first torque limit.
Attention is brought to the Post reference, which teaches that constraints in robotics control are results effective and configurable (¶[0167], ¶[0177], ¶[0257]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the second torque limit of Kamikawa to be higher than a first torque limit, because “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007)
Regarding claim 11, Kamikawa teaches a surgical robot (¶[0015]), comprising:
an end effector driven by a plurality of joints located along a robotic arm of the surgical robot (¶[0015] medical tool Fig. 1); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the robotic arm (¶[0086] processor in control apparatus), the processor configured to:
estimate an expected torque producible by the plurality of joints to satisfy a control input applied to the robotic arm (¶¶[0087], wherein the expected torque is based on a predefined dynamic model of the robotic arm (Fig. 3, Fig. 6); and
apply a torque limit to at least one of the plurality of joints that is based on and greater than the expected torque (¶[0076] current velocity is determined, ¶[0174] upper limit on torque in each joint section as a constraint condition, which is a task based set of constraints ¶¶[0165-0166]).
Kamikawa does not teach that the torque limit is greater than the expected torque.
The examiner notes that the estimated torque of Kamikawa is corrected to overcome/compensate for loading due to disturbances including friction and inertia, which add additional torque to the expected torque in the control scheme. Therefore, it is logical that the torque limit is higher than the expected torque. However, this is not explicitly stated and for the purposes of compact prosecution, attention is brought to the Post reference, which teaches that constraints in robotics control are results effective and configurable (¶[0167], ¶[0177], ¶[0257]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the torque limit of Kamikawa to be higher than the expected torque, because “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007)
Regarding claim 12, Kamikawa as modified teaches the surgical robot of claim 11.
Kamikawa further teaches wherein the expected torque comprises a sum of a plurality of torques required to overcome gravitational loads applied to the robotic arm (¶[0087]), frictional loads applied to one or more of the plurality of joints (¶[0106] friction weighting applied as a constraint), and dynamic loads resulting from movement of one or more joints of the robotic arm (¶[0143] inertia).
Regarding claim 13, Kamikawa as modified teaches the surgical robot of claim 11.
Kamikawa further teaches wherein the expected torque includes an estimate of an error of the predefined dynamic model upon which the expected torque is based (¶[0141]).
Regarding claim 14, Kamikawa as modified teaches the surgical robot of claim 11.
Kamikawa further teaches wherein the expected torque includes an external interference parameter corresponding to an estimated drag applied to the robotic arm by objects external to the robotic arm (¶[0191] external force]).
Regarding claim 15, Kamikawa as modified teaches the surgical robot of claim 11.
Kamikawa further teaches wherein the expected torque comprises an initial expected torque and the processor is configured to determine a final expected torque range (¶¶[0141-0142] reference torque is corrected by disturbance value) that is bounded between an upper bound and a lower bound that is less than the upper bound (¶[0172] constraints include upper and lower limits).
Regarding claim 16, Kamikawa as modified teaches the surgical robot of claim 15.
Kamikawa further teaches wherein: the upper bound comprises a sum of the initial expected torque and an external interference parameter corresponding to an estimated drag applied to the robotic arm by objects external to the robotic arm (¶[0139], ¶[0146], ¶[0191] external force); and the lower bound comprises a difference between the initial expected torque and the external interference parameter (¶¶[0141-0142], ¶[0144]).
Regarding claim 17, Kamikawa as modified teaches the surgical robot of claim 15.
Kamikawa further teaches wherein: the upper bound comprises a sum of the initial expected torque, an external interference parameter corresponding to an estimated drag applied to the robotic arm by objects external to the robotic arm (¶[0191] external force), and an estimate of a model error caused by the predefined dynamic model upon which the expected torque is based (¶[0139], ¶[0146]); and the lower bound comprises a difference between the initial expected torque and the sum of the external interference parameter and the model error (¶¶[0141-0142], ¶[0144]).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0328480) hereinafter referred to as Kamikawa; in view of Huang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0298850) hereinafter referred to as Huang.
Regarding claim 18, Kamikawa teaches a surgical robot (¶[0015]), comprising:
an end effector driven by a plurality of joints located along a robotic arm of the surgical robot (¶[0015] medical tool Fig. 1); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the robotic arm (¶[0086] processor in control apparatus), the processor configured to:
apply a first torque limit to at least one of the plurality of joints when the robotic arm is actively moving (¶[0076] current velocity is determined, ¶[0174] upper limit on torque in each joint section as a constraint condition, which is a task based set of constraints ¶¶[0165-0166]); and
apply a second torque limit to at least one of the plurality of joints when the robotic arm is in a stationary state, wherein the second torque limit is different from the first torque limit (¶[0076] current velocity is determined, ¶[0174] upper limit on torque in each joint section as a constraint condition, which is a task based set of constraints that differ per task ¶¶[0165-0166]).
Kamikawa does not teach a second end effector driven by a plurality of second joints of a second robotic arm of the surgical robot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the robotic arm system of Kamikawa to include a second end effector and second robotic arm, as taught by Huang, for performing different types of medical procedures, facilitating control, and switching to smoothly align with medical procedure workflow needs (Huang ¶[0140]).
Regarding claim 19, Kamikawa as modified teaches the surgical robot of claim 18.
Kamikawa further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the first torque limit (¶[0174] upper limit on torque in each joint section as a constraint condition, which is a task based set of constraints ¶¶[0165-0166] using a dynamic model of one or more of the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm (Fig. 3, Fig. 6, ¶[0102], ¶[0212]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikawa and Huang as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Post et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0255701) hereinafter referred to as Post.
Regarding claim 20, Kamikawa as modified teaches the surgical robot of claim 18.
Kamikawa as modified does not teach wherein the second torque limit is greater than the first torque limit.
Attention is brought to the Post reference, which teaches that constraints in robotics control are results effective and configurable (¶[0167], ¶[0177], ¶[0257]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the second torque limit of Kamikawa to be higher than a first torque limit, because “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0015175 to Tamura et al. teaches torque control of a robotic arm including compensation for internal loading.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L STEINBERG whose telephone number is (303)297-4783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-4.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights