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 .
Remarks
The present application is reopened in view of the new rejections below. Any inconvenience this may have caused applicant is regretted.
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.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
According to step 1 claim 1 is a method
According to step 2A, prong 1 the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
That is Claim(s) 11-15 are directed to a method for accounting for a limited degree of freedom of a tool in a surgical robotic system.
Independent claim 1 recites,
--minimizing a difference between a change in joint position of the surgical robotic system and a change in pose of an end effector of the tool;
--weighting the difference in the minimizing with a matrix distinguishing feasible and infeasible poses of the end effector of the tool based on the limited degrees of freedom;
--controlling the surgical robotic system based on the change in the joint position.
These limitations “minimizing a difference between a..”, “weighting the difference in the minimizing with a matrix...”, and “controlling the surgical robotic system…” are directed to methods for organizing human activity including structuring joint positions in relation to a pose of an end effector of a robotic system and using a mathematical algorithm for distinguishing feasible and infeasible poses of an end effector
That is a person can perform the above limitation by hand.
There is no controller to perform the steps in the claims.
According to step 2A, prong 2 the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim has additional elements of a surgical robot with joints and an effector. These elements simply apply the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by generally linking it to a surgical robotic system. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
According to step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because even though the claims recite joints and an end effector these elements are merely used by a huma to describe manipulate the joints relative to the pose of the end effector
Accordingly the claim recite additional elements that do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element generally links the use of the judicial exception to setting a route for vehicles – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Applicant may overcome the 101 rejection by reciting a computer or controller that controls the robot.
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 13, 14 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 13 recites, “….receiving a user input command from a user interface, the change in the pose of the end effector being provided as the user input command, where the user input command is free of the limited degree of freedom of the tool….,”
The limitation does not make sense because the change in the pose of the end effector IS being provided as the user input command, as such the user input command CANNOT BE
free of the limited degree of freedom of the tool AS CLAIMED. Thant is the effector is connected to the tool and movement of the effector is based on the user input, as such the user input command CANNOT BE free of the limited degree of freedom of the tool AS CLAIMED
Claim 14 recites, “……wherein weighting comprises weighting the
difference with a projection operator projecting to the limited degree of freedom, the matrix
being part of the projection operator.”
Applicant’s section 0046 and 0047 each recite, “a projection operator”, but the meaning thereof is not provided.
The claims or specification do not provide a meaning for, “a projection operator projecting to the limited degree of freedom”.
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.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkowitz (US 8600551) in view of VAKANSKI ALEKSANDAR (CA 2928645 C).
Regarding claim 11, Itkowitz discloses a method for accounting for a limited degree of freedom of a tool in a surgical robotic system (see degrees of freedom of robot; col. 11, lines 11-39; col. 27, lines 2-4), the method comprising:
minimizing a difference between a change in joint position of the surgical robotic system
and a change in pose of an end effector of the tool (moving position of a joint to be close to position of an end effector; col. 6, lines 56-63; col. 11, lines 11-39; col. 27, lines 2-4);
weighting the difference in the minimizing with a matrix distinguishing feasible and
infeasible poses of the end effector of the tool based on the limited degrees of freedom; and
controlling the surgical robotic system based on the change in the joint position moving the robotic arm or surgical tool based on a solution from the solving (col. 6, lines 56-63; col. 11, lines 11-39; col. 27, lines 2-4).
Itkowitz did not particularly recite the limitations, "..., weighting the difference in the minimizing with a matrix….,".
However, VAKANSKI ALEKSANDAR teaches of a method for accounting for a limited degree of freedom of a tool in a robotic system (figs. 1, 2, 3, 12; pages 17, 18, 21) the method comprising:
minimizing a difference between a change in joint position of the surgical robotic system and a change in pose of an end effector of the tool (see minimizing a difference between a change in joint position of the surgical robotic system and a change in pose of an end effector of the tool in figs. 1, 2, 3, 12; pages 17, 18, 21);
weighting the difference in the minimizing with a matrix distinguishing feasible and infeasible poses of the end effector of the tool based on the limited degrees of freedom (see matrices and equations 19-23, 33, 34; figs. 1, 2, 3, 12; pages 17, 18, 21); and
controlling the surgical robotic system based on the change in the joint position (page 9, lines 14-25; pages 17, 18, 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Itkowitz to include essential and detail mathematical operations in Itkowitz needed for the teleoperation of surgical robots for the purpose of optimizing design and performance operations surgical robotic tool of Itkowitz.
Regarding claim 13 Vakanski Aleksandar discloses the method of claim 11 further comprising receiving a user input command from a user interface, the change in the pose of the end effector being provided as the user input command (figs. 1, 2, 3, 12; pages 17, 18, 21), where the user input command is free of the limited degree of freedom of the tool and the weighting with the matrix prevents the changes in position for the infeasible poses (figs. 1, 2, 3, 12; pages 17, 18, 21).
Regarding claim 14 Vakanski Aleksandar discloses the method of claim 11 wherein weighting comprises weighting the difference with a projection operator projecting to the limited degree of freedom, the matrix being part of the projection operator (figs. 1, 2, 3, 12; pages 17, 18, 21).
Regarding claim 15 Vakanski Aleksandar discloses the method of claim 11 wherein the limited degree of freedom is a limitation in rotation of the tool, and wherein weighting comprises weighting with the matrix, the matrix having binary weights for rotation with 1 for feasible rotation and 0 for infeasible rotation (figs. 1, 2, 3, 12; pages 17, 18, 21).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkowitz (US 8600551) and Vakanski Aleksandar as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Nowlin (US 20200060777).
Regarding claim 12, Itkowitz/ Vakanski Aleksandar disclose the method of claim 11 including minimizing comprising performing inverse kinematics (fig. 18; col. 27, lines 35-45), but did not recite a least square minimization.
The cited inverse kinematics is also anticipated be Vakanski Aleksandar (see equations 19-23, 33, 34 of Vakanski Aleksandar pages 17, 21).
The prior art, Itkowitz or Vakanski Aleksandar did not particularly recite a least square; however, Nowlin teaches of a method for a surgical robotic system, wherein minimizing comprises performing inverse kinematics as a least square minimization (i.e. minimizing a difference between joint positions; figs. 6, 7, 8A-C; sec 0069 to sec 0073, sec 0097, 0103, 0105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Itkowitz, Vakanski Aleksandar as taught by Nowlin for purpose of improving the Itkowitz and Vakanski Aleksandar device to solve for an inverse Jacobian Matrix shown in Itkowitz which generally does not fully define a joint vector solution (see Nowlin sec 0101, 0103).
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights