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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites: “A multiple virtual coupling system”
Claims 2-10 recite: “A method of haptic rendering”
The dependent claims 2-10, which are each directed to a method, are directed to a different statutory category and fail to further limit the system of parent claim 1. Correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the virtual tool " in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the virtual tool pose" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the collision information" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the haptic feedback" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the collision detection" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the ball" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the collision" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the user" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the softbody sphere" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the softbody model" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the collision energy model" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the tetrahedral vertices" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the current sphere tree node" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the two virtual tools" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the energy constraint" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the virtual tools" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the surface vertex" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the intersection of the of the softbody vertex with the virtual tool position" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the energy consistent softbody and tool haptic feedback interaction scheme" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the energy" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the virtual softbody vertex" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the condition" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the non-penetration constraint" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the projected virtual tool" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the virtual coupling energy" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the virtual coupling force" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the position of the tool" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the pose of the tool" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the moment balance constraint" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the resultant force" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the collision" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the virtual coupling force" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the collision point" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the force" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the total torque" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the optimization goal" in lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the current virtual tool position" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the current virtual tool attitude" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the current virtual tool attitude" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the force balance" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the process of solving the pose update…using the Newton method" in line 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "update (*,*)" in line 45. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the pose change" in line 46. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the number of iterations" in line 47. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the user" in line 48. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the loop" in line 48. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the haptic feedback device" in line 49. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the collision information" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the haptic feedback" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the non-penetration constraint energy" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the penetration" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the constraint solution" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the collision energy" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the softbody vertex" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the gradient" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the gradient direction" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites: “The method of haptic rendering via multiple virtual coupling systems with energy consistency according to claim 1, wherein in step S2”
It is unclear as to what “step S2” refers, as parent claim 1 does not provide antecedent basis for any steps. Correction is required.
Claim 10 recites: “The method of haptic rendering via multiple virtual coupling systems with energy consistency according to claim 9, wherein in step S3”
It is unclear as to what “step S3” refers, as parent claim 9 does not provide antecedent basis for “step S3”. Correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by David Bowling et al., WO 2021067438 A1.
Independent claim 1, Bowling discloses a multiple virtual coupling system, comprising a virtual coupling system of tools and a virtual coupling system of softbodies, the virtual coupling system of tools consists of two parts: virtual tools and physical tools (i.e. virtual simulation of dynamics of a tool – abstract; Para 6; and a physical tool – Fig. 22F “20”), and the virtual coupling system of softbodies consists of two parts: virtual softbodies and physical softbodies (i.e. virtual boundaries fixed to an anatomical model and an anatomical model associated with real patient anatomy – Para 111; Fig. 22F).
Claim 2, Bowling discloses a method of haptic rendering via multiple virtual coupling systems with energy consistency according to claim 1, comprises the following steps:
S1, in a multiple virtual coupling system, constructing an energy consistency constraint (i.e. A constraint solver calculates a constraint force adapted to attract the tool toward the target state or repel the tool away from the target state based on the virtual constraints – abstract; The tuning parameters of the guide constraints may also be adjusted based on other relationships between the current state and the target state, such as x, y, and/or z distances between the current state and the target state, x, y, and/or z angles between the current state and the target state; Look up tables correlate tuning parameters, which are adjustable, to the magnitude of x, y, and/or z distance, and/or x, y, and/or z distance projected onto a certain plane, etc., and/or based on the magnitude of x, y, and/or z angles – Para 167), comprising:
S11, softbody-to-softbody energy consistency constraint (i.e. the guide constraints could also be considered boundary constraints. With a planar virtual boundary, the user could control width and depth of cut to avoid soft tissue, etc. or separate virtual boundaries could be defined to control width and/or depth - Para 171);
S12, tool-to-tool energy consistency constraint (i.e. The lead-in path 72a, which can be generated by the path handler 82, may define an autonomous tool path segment (linear in some cases) to guide the tool 20 the start of the milling path 72; The control system 60 then instructs the manipulator 14 to move the tool 20 so that the TCP of the tool 20 follows along the lead-in path 72a – Para 172; the guided-haptic mode may be employed to guide the user to follow along the restart path 72c until the active restart position SP is reached, by applying guide constraints at increments along the restart path 72c. – Para 180);
S13, tool-to-softbody energy consistency constraint (i.e. The guide constraints can similarly remain active during the cutting process so that the user is continually guided toward the target state. This may work to reduce the likelihood that the user applies forces and torques to the tool 20 that virtually cause the tool 20 to violate the virtual boundary 71. – Para 171);
S2, calculating a total constraint energy on the virtual tool to update the virtual tool pose, calculating and outputting a six-degree-of-freedom feedback force using an updated virtual tool pose (i.e. Various virtual constraints may be fed into the constraint solver 86, including the guide constraints, the path constraints, the boundary constraints, and other constraints; All of the virtual constraints employed in the behavior control 74 may affect movement of the tool 20 – Para 144; For the virtual simulation, the virtual simulator 88 models the tool 20 as the virtual rigid body in the virtual mass coordinate system VM typically with the origin of the virtual mass coordinate system VM being located at the center of mass of the virtual rigid body, and with the coordinate axes being aligned with the principal axes of the virtual rigid body. The virtual rigid body is a dynamic object and a rigid body representation of the tool 20 for purposes of the virtual simulation. The virtual rigid body is free to move according to six degrees of freedom (6-DOF) in Cartesian space according to the virtual simulation.- Para 153); and
S3, constructing a shared storage update strategy around the collision information about the haptic feedback end, wherein the haptic feedback end is a process set related to feedback force calculation in a haptic feedback interaction algorithm with energy consistent of a multiple virtual coupling system (i.e. the control system 60 determines the last known position/point KP on the milling path 72 traversed by the tool 20 before the tool 20 moves off the milling path 72 and stores the last known position/point KP in memory for later retrieval – Para 178; the guided-haptic mode can be activated to guide the user into placing the tool 20 at the restart position SP – Para 179; the user is guided to trace the restart path 72c to avoid collisions of the TCP of the tool 20 with the anatomy – Para 180; The constraint solver 86 then calculates the constraint force F.sub.c that is adapted to attract the tool 20 toward the target orientation from the current orientation based on the one or more guide constraints. The constraint force F.sub.c thus has components of force and/or torque that apply a subtle virtual attraction to guide the user towards restoring the preferred orientation as previously described by providing haptic feedback to the user that guides the user toward placing the tool 20 at the preferred orientation. – Para 184).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTE HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/CHANTE E HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615