DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 11-12, and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,998. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite all of the limitations of the present claims.
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 8, 9, and 18 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.
The term “close proximity” in claims 8, 9, and 18 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “close proximity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how close a commanded state must be set to an actual state to be considered in “close proximity”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamagishi et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0189125).
Yamagishi teaches:
Re claim 1. A computer-assisted medical system comprising:
a manipulator arm (arm portion 103L, Figs. 1 and 2); and
a controller comprising a computer processor, the controller configured with at least a non-clutch mode (control device 110, Fig. 3; and paragraph [0041]),
wherein when in the non-clutch mode, the controller is configured to servo at least one joint associated with at least one manipulator arm segment of the manipulator arm, the servoing comprising executing a servo loop comprising (paragraph [0045]):
obtaining an actual state of the manipulator arm (paragraph [0047]: “rotational angle detected by the potentiometer 155”),
computing a difference between a commanded state and the actual state, the commanded state used for the servoing the at least one joint (paragraph [0047]: “By comparing the target value of the rotational angle of the motor 150, the target value being input to the servo circuit 151 by the control device 110, with a result of the calculation of the rotational angle detected by the potentiometer 155, it is possible to extract a difference between an ideal value of the rotational angle of the joint portion 130 (for example, a rotational angle considered to be necessary for the robot 10 to perform a predetermined operation) and the actually occurring rotational angle.”; and paragraph [0096]: “the control device 110 extracts a difference between the ideal value of the rotational angle of the joint portion 130 and the actually occurring rotational angle θ by comparing the target value of the rotational angle of the motor 150 which target value is input to the servo circuit 151 and the rotational angle θ detected by the potentiometer 155.”),
determining whether the difference exceeds an error threshold (paragraph [0047]: “In a case where the difference is large, for example, the control device 110 inputs an additional target value for compensating for the difference to the servo circuit 151.”; and paragraph [0096]: “When this difference is large, the control device 110 inputs an additional target value for compensating for the difference to the servo circuit 151.”),
based on determining that the difference does exceed the error threshold:
updating the commanded state using an offset to reduce the difference (paragraph [0047]: “In a case where the difference is large, for example, the control device 110 inputs an additional target value for compensating for the difference to the servo circuit 151.”; and paragraph [0096]: “When this difference is large, the control device 110 inputs an additional target value for compensating for the difference to the servo circuit 151. Such control can appropriately control the operation of the robot 10 by reducing the effect of the backlash occurring in the driving force transmitting mechanism 154”), and
applying the commanded state to control the actual state (paragraph [0047]: “In a case where the difference is large, for example, the control device 110 inputs an additional target value for compensating for the difference to the servo circuit 151.”; and paragraph [0096]: “When this difference is large, the control device 110 inputs an additional target value for compensating for the difference to the servo circuit 151.”), and
based on determining that the difference does not exceed the error threshold:
not updating the commanded state (paragraphs [0047 and 0096], by explicitly stating what happens when the difference is large, Yamagishi implicitly discloses that when the difference is not large, the control device 110 does not input an additional target value for compensating for the difference to the servo circuit 151.), and
applying the commanded state to control the actual state (paragraphs [0047 and 0096]).
Re claim 3. Wherein the commanded state and the actual state each comprises a joint state (paragraph [0045]).
Re claim 7. Wherein the non-clutch mode is a mode used to perform at least one task selected from the group consisting of: a position holding task, a following task, and a positioning task (paragraphs [0043 and 0047]).
Re claim 11. Wherein the commanded state is governed by a desired state obtained from an input control device under the control of an operator, adjusted by the offset (paragraph [0109]).
Re claim 14. A method for operating a medical system, comprising:
in a non-clutch mode, servoing at least one joint associated with at least one manipulator arm segment of a manipulator arm of the medical system, the servoing comprising executing a servo loop comprising (paragraph [0045]):
obtaining an actual state of the manipulator arm (paragraph [0047]: “rotational angle detected by the potentiometer 155”);
computing a difference between a commanded state and the actual state, the commanded state used for servoing the at least one joint (paragraph [0047]: “By comparing the target value of the rotational angle of the motor 150, the target value being input to the servo circuit 151 by the control device 110, with a result of the calculation of the rotational angle detected by the potentiometer 155, it is possible to extract a difference between an ideal value of the rotational angle of the joint portion 130 (for example, a rotational angle considered to be necessary for the robot 10 to perform a predetermined operation) and the actually occurring rotational angle.”; and paragraph [0096]: “the control device 110 extracts a difference between the ideal value of the rotational angle of the joint portion 130 and the actually occurring rotational angle θ by comparing the target value of the rotational angle of the motor 150 which target value is input to the servo circuit 151 and the rotational angle θ detected by the potentiometer 155.”);
determining whether the difference exceeds an error threshold (paragraph [0047]: “In a case where the difference is large, for example, the control device 110 inputs an additional target value for compensating for the difference to the servo circuit 151.”; and paragraph [0096]: “When this difference is large, the control device 110 inputs an additional target value for compensating for the difference to the servo circuit 151.”);
based on determining that the difference does exceed the error threshold:
updating the commanded state using an offset to reduce the difference (paragraph [0047]: “In a case where the difference is large, for example, the control device 110 inputs an additional target value for compensating for the difference to the servo circuit 151.”; and paragraph [0096]: “When this difference is large, the control device 110 inputs an additional target value for compensating for the difference to the servo circuit 151. Such control can appropriately control the operation of the robot 10 by reducing the effect of the backlash occurring in the driving force transmitting mechanism 154”), and
applying the commanded state to control the actual state (paragraph [0047]: “In a case where the difference is large, for example, the control device 110 inputs an additional target value for compensating for the difference to the servo circuit 151.”; and paragraph [0096]: “When this difference is large, the control device 110 inputs an additional target value for compensating for the difference to the servo circuit 151.”); and
based on determining that the difference does not exceed the error threshold:
not updating the commanded state (paragraphs [0047 and 0096], by explicitly stating what happens when the difference is large, Yamagishi implicitly discloses that when the difference is not large, the control device 110 does not input an additional target value for compensating for the difference to the servo circuit 151.), and
applying the commanded state to control the actual state (paragraphs [0047 and 0096]).
Re claim 19. further comprising:
obtaining a desired state from an input device under the control of an operator,
wherein the commanded state is governed by the desired state, adjusted by the offset (paragraph [0109]).
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.
Claims 5-6 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0189125) in view of Examiner’s Official Notice.
The teachings of Yamagishi have been discussed above. Yamagishi further teaches:
Re claim 5. Wherein the at least one joint comprises a first joint and a second joint (paragraph [0045]),
wherein the determining whether the difference exceeds the error threshold is performed separately for the first and the second joints (paragraph [0045]).
Re claim 16. Wherein the at least one joint comprises a first joint and a second joint (paragraph [0045]),
wherein the determining whether the difference exceeds the error threshold is performed separately for the first and second joints (paragraph [0045]).
Yamagishi fails to specifically teach: (re claims 5 and 16) wherein the error threshold comprises a first error threshold for the first joint and a second error threshold for the second joint, and wherein the first error threshold is different from the second error threshold; and (re claims 6 and 17) wherein the error threshold is selected based on at least one characteristic selected from the group consisting of: a type of tool supported by the manipulator arm and a desired characteristic of the at least one manipulator segment.
Yamagishi teaches inputting an additional target value to each servo circuit 151 of each joint portion 130 when a difference between a commanded angle and an actual angle is large at paragraphs [0045 and 0047], but does not specify if the determination of a large difference is different for each joint.
The examiner is taking official notice that the various joints on the humanoid robot of Yamagishi each have different requirement (e.g.; the wrist joints have different requirements than the shoulder or leg joints.) and thus would be subject to different thresholds to determine what qualifies as a large difference for each joint. A uniform standard would not work well for diverse joints.
In view of Examiner’s Official Notice’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Yamagishi, (re claims 5 and 16) wherein the error threshold comprises a first error threshold for the first joint and a second error threshold for the second joint, and wherein the first error threshold is different from the second error threshold; and (re claims 6 and 17) wherein the error threshold is selected based on at least one characteristic selected from the group consisting of: a type of tool supported by the manipulator arm and a desired characteristic of the at least one manipulator segment, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the various joints on the humanoid robot of Yamagishi each have different requirement (e.g.; the wrist joints have different requirements than the shoulder or leg joints.) and thus would be subject to different thresholds to determine what qualifies as a large difference for each joint. A uniform standard would not work well for diverse joints.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0189125) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Chevallereau et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0030716).
The teachings of Yamagishi have been discussed above. Yamagishi fails to specifically teach: (re claim 10) wherein the positioning task is performed using a position time (PT) interpolation or a position velocity time (PVT) interpolation.
Chevallereau teaches, at paragraphs [0031, 0042, and 0043], performing an interpolation for positioning a robot using both position and time. This allows such robots to move smoothly through their environment with respect to time.
In view of Chevallereau’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Yamagishi, (re claim 10) wherein the positioning task is performed using a position time (PT) interpolation or a position velocity time (PVT) interpolation, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Chevallereau teaches performing an interpolation for positioning a robot using both position and time. This allows such robots to move smoothly through their environment with respect to time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 12, 13, 15, and 20 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 SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656