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 .
Objection to Drawings
The drawings are objected to because claimed subject-matter not shown and referenced (see claims 1-10, 20-29) a first range of positions and a second range of positions relative to first operating state and second operating state and related threshold anti-dither angle, first anti-dither angle and second anti-dither angle (See claims 1, 10) is not shown and referenced in applicants figs.1-39 (see closest relative figs.22-23, spec, page 25, para. [0142], pages 27-30, para’s [0155] thru [0166]); upper/lower mechanical limit (see claims 3, 9), maximum allowable speed, maximum allowable torque (see claims 4-5) and third operating state relative to third range of positions, fourth range of positions not shown in applicants (see closest relative figs.22-23).
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Objection to Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
claimed subject-matter not shown and referenced (see claims 1-10, 20-29) a first range of positions and a second range of positions relative to first operating state and second operating state and related threshold anti-dither angle, first anti-dither angle and second anti-dither angle (See claims 1, 10) is not shown and referenced in applicants figs.1-39 (see closest relative figs.22-23, spec, page 25, para. [0142], pages 27-30, para’s [0155] thru [0166]); upper/lower mechanical limit (see claims 3, 9), maximum allowable speed, maximum allowable torque (see claims 4-5) and third operating state relative to third range of positions, fourth range of positions not shown and referenced in applicants (see claims 7-8, 28 and closest relative figs.22-23) for proper understanding of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
5. 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, and 20-29 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.
As to claim 1, the phrase, “the articulation motor is configured to move through a first range of positions and a second range of positions, and wherein the first range of positions and the second range of positions are non- overlapping; implement a first operating state; implement a second operating state when the parameter corresponds to a transition of the articulation motor from the first range of positions to the second range of positions, wherein the second operating state is different than the first operating state; and re-implement the first operating state when the parameter corresponds to a return of the articulation motor from the second range of positions into the first range of positions by a threshold anti-dither angle” is not clear because claimed subject-matter not shown and referenced (see claims 1-10, 20-21 and objection to drawings and specification).
a first range of positions and a second range of positions relative to first operating state and second operating state and related threshold anti-dither angle, first anti-dither angle and second anti-dither angle (See claims 1, 10) is not shown and referenced in applicants figs.1-39 (see closest relative figs.22-23, spec, page 25, para. [0142], pages 27-30, para’s [0155] thru [0166]);
upper/lower mechanical limit (see claims 3, 9), maximum allowable speed, maximum allowable torque (see claims 4-5) and third operating state relative to third range of positions, fourth range of positions not shown and referenced in applicants (see claims 7-8, 28 and closest relative figs.22-23) for proper understanding of the claimed invention.
As to claim 10, the phrase, “transition from the first operating state to a second operating state when the first parameter corresponds to a transition of the first articulation motor from a first range of positions to an upper range of positions, wherein the second operating state is different than the first operating state;
return to the first operating state from the second operating state when the first parameter corresponds to a return of the first articulation motor from the upper range of positions into the first range of positions by a first anti-dither angle;
implement a third operating state when the second parameter corresponds to a transition of the second articulation motor from a second range of positions to a lower range of positions, wherein the third operating state is different than the first operating state; and
return to the first operating state from the third operating state when the second parameter corresponds to a return of the second articulation motor from the lower range of positions into the second range of positions by a second anti-dither angle” is not clear because claimed subject-matter not shown and referenced (see claims 1-10, 20-21 and objection to drawings and specification) for proper understanding of the invention.
As to claim 22, the phrase, “ the articulation motor is configured to move through a first range of positions and a second range of positions, and wherein a threshold angle separates the first range of positions and the second range of positions; implement a first mode; implement a second mode when the angle exceeds the threshold angle, wherein the second mode is different than the first mode; and re-implement the first mode when the angle returns below the threshold angle” is not clear because claimed subject-matter not shown and referenced (see claims 22-29 and objection to drawings and specification) for proper understanding of the invention.
As to claim 24, the phrase, The control circuit of Claim 22, wherein, in the second mode, a speed of the articulation motor is less than a speed of the articulation motor in the first mode when the articulation motor is moving away from the first range of positions” is not clear because the claimed subject-matter is not shown and referenced in applicant’s relative figs 22-23.
As to claim 25, the phrase, “The control circuit of Claim 22, wherein, in the second mode, a speed of the articulation motor is equal to a speed of the articulation motor in the first mode when the articulation motor is moving toward the first range of positions” is not clear because the claimed subject-matter is not shown and referenced in applicant’s relative figs 22-23.
As to claim 26, the phrase, “The control circuit of Claim 22, wherein, in the second mode, a torque of the articulation motor is less than a torque of the articulation motor in the first mode when the articulation motor is moving away from the first range of positions” is not clear because the claimed subject-matter is not shown and referenced in applicant’s relative figs 22-23.
As to claim 27, the phrase, “The control circuit of Claim 22, wherein, in the second mode, a torque of the articulation motor is equal to a torque of the articulation motor in the first mode when the articulation motor is moving toward the first range of positions” is not clear because the claimed subject-matter is not shown and referenced in applicant’s relative figs 22-23.
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)(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) 22, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by HOURTASH, Arjang et al. (Pub.No.: WO 2020/028356 A1 and HOURTASH hereinafter).
As to claim 22, (New) A control circuit for use with a robotic surgical system, the control circuit is configured to:
receive an angle indicative of an angular position of an articulation motor, wherein the articulation motor is configured to drive an articulation joint of a robotic surgical tool, wherein the articulation motor is configured to move through a first range of positions and a second range of positions, and wherein a threshold angle separates the first range of positions and the second range of positions;
implement a first mode;
implement a second mode when the angle exceeds the threshold angle, wherein the second mode is different than the first mode; and
re-implement the first mode when the angle returns below the threshold angle.
(As to claim 22, HOURTASH teaches (figs.1-5B) a control circuit 112 (fig.1) for use with a robotic surgical system 100, 200 (see figs.1-2, para’s [0002], [0003], [0004], [0005], [0006]-[0007]), the control circuit 112 is configured to:
Receive (via sensor system 108, see fig.1, para’s [0063]-[0064], [0104]) an angle indicative of an angular position [joint position] (see figs.3-4D,5A-5B) of an articulation motor (See motors/servos, see para.[0071], [0081])), wherein the articulation motor is configured to drive an articulation joint 244 of a robotic surgical tool 212 (control system 106 (figs.1-2) instruct actuator(s) such as motor(s) to control the joint mechanism 244, see figs.1-2, para. [0013], [0071], [0079], [0081], [0082]-0083), wherein the articulation motor (See motors/servos [para’s [0071], [0081]) is configured to move through a first range of positions [0-418] and a second range of positions [420- limit position 406] (see fig.3), and wherein a threshold angle 416A separates the first range of positions [0-418] and the second range of positions [420-406] (see fig.3, para’s [0083], [0084], [0085] thru [0088];
implement a first mode (positive constant joint velocity 408/negative constant joint velocity 410, 412 control mode relative to [joint position], see fig.3, para’s [0071]-[0072], [0083]);
implement a second mode [decreasing velocity 414 control mode] when the angle [joint position angle] exceeds the threshold angle [position angle 416A] (See fig.3, para. [0086],[0094]), wherein the second mode [decreasing velocity 414 control mode] is different than the first mode [constant velocity 408 control mode] (See fig.3, and para’s [0083] thru [0088]); and
re-implement the first mode [negative constant velocity control mode 410, 412] when the angle [joint position angle] (fig.3) returns below the threshold angle 416A/416B], (see return direction to limit stop 407, fig.3, para’s [0085], [0096]-[0097]).
As to claim 23, (New) The control circuit of Claim 22, wherein the second range of positions comprises at least one of an upper mechanical limit or a lower mechanical limit of the articulation joint.
(As to claim 23, HOURTASH teaches (figs.1-5B) a control circuit 112 (fig.1) wherein the second range of positions [420 thru forward joint positions] (see fig.3) comprises at least one of an upper mechanical limit position 406 or a lower mechanical limit [limit position 416A] of the articulation joint 244 (see figs.2-3, para. [0086],[0094]).
As to claim 24, (New) The control circuit of Claim 22, wherein, in the second mode, a speed of the articulation motor is less than a speed of the articulation motor in the first mode when the articulation motor is moving away from the first range of positions.
(As to claim 24, HOURTASH teaches (figs.1-5B) a control circuit 112 (fig.1) wherein
in the second mode [decreasing velocity control mode 41] (see fig.3), a speed/velocity of the articulation motor (See motors/servos, para. [0071], [0081]) is less 424 than a speed 422 of the articulation motor in the first mode [constant velocity control mode 408] when the articulation motor is moving away from the first range of positions [0-416A], see fig.3).
Allowable Subject-Matter
Claims 25-29 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.
Claims 1-10, 20, 21 and 25-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art of records (closest prior art, HOURTASH et al.) fails to teach
re-implement the first operating state when the parameter corresponds to a return of the articulation motor from the second range of positions into the first range of positions by a threshold anti-dither angle.
As to claim 10, the prior art of records (closest prior art, HOURTASH et al.) fails to teach return to the first operating state from the second operating state when the first parameter corresponds to a return of the first articulation motor from the upper range of positions into the first range of positions by a first anti-dither angle;
implement a third operating state when the second parameter corresponds to a transition of the second articulation motor from a second range of positions to a lower range of positions, wherein the third operating state is different than the first operating state; and
return to the first operating state from the third operating state when the second parameter corresponds to a return of the second articulation motor from the lower range of positions into the second range of positions by a second anti-dither angle.
However, formal requirements are outstanding (Objection to drawings and specification and 35 USC 112 rejection) needs to be corrected and clarified.
Citation of pertinent prior art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Zhang et al. (Pub.No.: US 2022/0105638 A1) teaches (figs.1-14, abstract, para’s [0001]-[0007]) articulation joint hardstop handling for surgical tool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONY M PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1608. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am to 4 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, Mr. Eduardo Colon Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/ANTONY M PAUL/
Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights