DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment after non-final filed 20 June 2026. Claims 1, 2, and 4-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the combination of references to Clark et al. (US Publication no. 2023/0035508) and Ohm et al. (US Patent no. 5,784,542) to rejection the subject matter of claims 1 and 3 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments improperly consider Ohm et al. in isolation rather than the combined teachings of Clark et al. and Ohm et al. Clark et al. teach the claimed user-activation relationship. Specifically, Clark et al. teaches continuous activation buttons 414 and 424 that provide an affirmative indication that robotic motion is intended, wherein actuation of the operative controls does not result in an instruction to robotic drive 24 unless the continuous activation button is simultaneously activated. Clark et al. further teach that signals from the input module are received by an intermediate computing system, which issues corresponding instructions to robotic drive 24 (para 86). Thus, Clark et al. teach a user-actuated control whose continued activation is required to authorize an action of the robot.
Ohm et al. is relied on for the known implementation of such as safety/control signal as a heartbeat signal having a predetermined frequency. Ohm et al. teach a 10 Hz PMAC heartbeat signal provided to the control electronics and continuously monitored by the control logic. If the heartbeat signal is not received, a fault is recognized and, when the system is operating, the system stops and brakes. Thus, Ohm et al. teach that continued receipt of heartbeat signal is required for continued robotic operation and that loss of the heartbeat results in cessation of the operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement continuous activation safety control of Clark et al. with the heartbeat signaling technique of Ohm et al., such that continued actuation of the activation control of Clark et al. causes the control unit to provide the heartbeat signal and robotic operation is permitted only while that heartbeat signal continues to be received. Such a modification would predictably provide a fail-safe mechanism whereby interruption or loss of the control/authorization signal is detected and robotic operation automatically ceases, consistent with the express concern of Clark et al. to prevent unintended or accidental movement that may cause harm to the patient,
Applicant’s contention that Ohm et al. does not itself disclose generating the heartbeat in response to pressing an activation button is therefore not persuasive. Clark et al. supplies the user-actuated continuous activation mechanism, while Ohm et al. supplies the pre-determined heartbeat implementation and loss-of-heartbeat shutdown functionality. The rejection is based on these combined teachings; Ohm et al. does not need to independently disclose the activation button arrangement already taught by Clark et al.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 35 USC 102(a) rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Clark et al. (US Publication no. 2023/0035508) and the rejection of claims 8-12 and 17 as being obvious over Clark et al. (US Publication no. 2023/0035508) in view of Takaoki (US Publication no. 2019/0039250 – disclosed by Applicant). Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Clark et al. (US Publication no. 2023/0035508) in view of Ohm et al. (US Patent no. 5,784,542) and Clark et al. (US Publication no. 2023/0035508) in view of Ohm et al. (US Patent no. 5,784,542), further in view of Takaoki (US Publication no. 2019/0039250 – disclosed by Applicant).
The inadvertently omitted rejection of claim 18, as pointed out by Applicant, is acknowledged and a rejection formulated under Clark et al. (US Publication no. 2023/0035508) in view of Ohm et al. (US Patent no. 5,784,542) and Takaoki (US Publication no. 2019/0039250 – disclosed by Applicant), further in view of Wang (US Publication no. 2022/0111535). The rejected is presented below and is acknowledged as a new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 13-16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US Publication no. 2023/0035508) in view of Ohm et al. (US Patent no. 5,784,542).
In regard to claim 1, Clark et al. disclose a medical robot system 20 for a surgical procedure on a patient, the medical robot system comprising:
a robot 20 with a robot arm 22 connected to a robot base and a robot head connected at an end to the robot arm (para 39);
a robot control 26 device adapted to execute an action of the robot (para 41); and
at least one touch display 30 with a control unit 26 adapted to visually display an activation button 414 on the at least one touch display (para 48, the display may be a touch screen display comprising one or more icons and provide use input capabilities of the system; para 80, an activation button 414 424 may be part of a capacitive touch panel)
the activation button 414 being pressable by a user as an input to send a control signal to the robot control device via a signal connection in order to activate an action of the robot (para 13, 80, 86, when button 414 is depressed, an instruction is issued to the robot, wherein the instruction is considered to comprise the control signal).
Clark et al. describe the invention as claimed, except the control unit is adapted to send a heartbeat signal with a predetermined frequency as a control signal to the robot control device upon an input by the user, and the robot control device is adapted to activate the action of the robot only upon receipt of the heartbeat signal with the predetermined frequency and to deactivate the action otherwise. Ohm et al. teach that for a teleoperated robotic system, a PMAC heartbeat signal of about 10 Hz is sent by the PMAC boards to the control electronics 275 in order to activate the system, and when a PMAB heartbeat signal is not received, a fault is recognized and will cause the system to stop and brake. Therefore it is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a heart beat signal as a control signal for detecting interruption or loss of the control/authorization signal and automatically stopping robotic operation. Moreover, the additional features of measuring first and second frequencies is considered to comprise an obvious modification to confirm presence of a user.
In regard to claim 2, in Clark et al. the control unit 26 is configured to: detect when the activation button 414 is pressed via the at least one touch display 30, detect when the activation button is not pressed, send the control signal to the robot control device to activate the action only when the activation button is pressed, and deactivate the action when no control signal is present (para 86, while button 414 is not actuated results in no signal being output from input module 400 to the one or more computing systems and therefore no instruction being issued to robotic drive 24).
In regard to claims 4-6, Clark et al. describe the invention as claimed, except the control unit is adapted to send a heartbeat signal with a predetermined frequency as a control signal to the robot control device upon an input by the user, and the robot control device is adapted to activate the action of the robot only upon receipt of the heartbeat signal with the predetermined frequency and to deactivate the action otherwise. Ohm et al. teach that for a teleoperated robotic system, a PMAC heartbeat signal of about 10 Hz is sent by the PMAC boards to the control electronics 275 in order to activate the system, and when a PMAB heartbeat signal is not received, a fault is recognized and will cause the system to stop and brake. Therefore it is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a heart beat signal as a control signal as this is expressly taught by Ohm et al. so that the device ceases operation in the event an operator fails to be at the controls thereby preventing harm to the patient. Moreover, the additional features of measuring first and second frequencies is considered to comprise an obvious modification to confirm presence of a user.
In regard to claim 7, Clark et al. describe the invention as claimed, except in addition to the heartbeat signal, when the visual activation button is released by the user or when a visually displayed stop button is pressed as input by the user, the control unit is adapted to send a stop signal to the robot control device, which directly deactivates the action without waiting for an end of the heartbeat signal. Ohm et al. teaches that in addition to the PMAC heartbeat signal, a PANIC STOP switch is the operator kill button to freeze motion of the slave robot 8' if an error is observed. It would be obvious to modify Clark et al. to include a visually display STOP button on display 30 of control in order to allow an operator to swiftly halt operation in the event an error is observed thereby preventing harm to the patient.
In regard to claim 9, in Clark et al. at least one touch display 10 comprises a touch screen that detects the amplitude of pressure based on a resistance or a capacitive infrared detection or a surface acoustic wave or a pcap or an optical recording or an acoustic pulse detection (para 49, 80, display 30 may comprise a capacitive touch panel).
In regard to claims 13 and 14, Clark et al. teach that the control signal also transmits a further parameter for the activation, and the robot control device processes and activates the further parameter and controls an action based on the parameter, wherein the further parameter comprises a target point for the robot, a direction of movement, or a unique signal identifier (para 67, 80, and 125, wherein the activation signal can caused continuous or discrete motion, and linear and rotational motion which are considered to comprise a direction of movement).
In regard to claim 15, Clark et al. further comprises a further input unit to carry out an activation of the action of the robot (para 80, activation button 424).
In regard to claim 16, in Clark et al. the further input unit comprises a foot pedal or a physical switch (para 50, activation button 424 may be a physical button).
In regard to claim 19, Clark et al. describe an activation method for a medical robot system according to claim 1, the activation method comprising the steps of: displaying the activation button on the at least one touch display of the medical robot system (para 48, the display may be a touch screen display comprising one or more icons and provide use input capabilities of the system; para 80, an activation button 414 424 may be part of a capacitive touch panel); detecting when the activation button is pressed by a user as the input (para 13, 80, 86, when button 414 is depressed, an instruction is issued to the robot, wherein the instruction is considered to comprise the control signal); sending the control signal from the control unit to the robot control device upon detecting when the activation button is pressed; receiving the control signal by the robot control device; and activating the action of the robot by the robot control device when the robot control device receives the control signal (para 86, while button 414 is not actuated results in no signal being output from input module 400 to the one or more computing systems and therefore no instruction being issued to robotic drive 24).
In regard to claim 20, Clark et al. describe a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the activation method of claim 19 (para 132).
Claim(s) 8-12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US Publication no. 2023/0035508) in view of Ohm et al. (US Patent no. 5,784,542), further in view of Takaoki (US Publication no. 2019/0039250 – disclosed by Applicant).
In regard to claims 8, 9, and 11, Clark et al. in view of Ohm et al. describe the invention as claimed, however do not teach that at least one touch display has a pressure sensor for detecting an amplitude of pressure when pressed by the user, wherein the at least one touch display comprises a touch screen that detects the amplitude of pressure based on a resistance or a capacitive infrared detection or a surface acoustic wave or a pcap or an optical recording or an acoustic pulse detection. Takaoki describes a robot controller comprising a touch sensor. The controller of the robot 10 has a sensor 26 comprised on pressure sensitive sensor elements 30 that is configured to be deformed by the pressure of a finger (para 14-15). The pressure applied by a user’s finger to the pressure sensor enables a switch to activate the robot to move (para 22 and 27). The sensor is also described as being pressure sensitive, and therefor is considered to require a minimum amount of pressure to be applied in order to activate the switch. Therefore, it is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Clark et al. to include a pressure sensor with the touch screen display in order to prevent accidental activation by providing better discrimination between intentional and accidental activation.
In regard to claim 10, Clark et al. in view of Ohm et al. describe the invention as claimed, however do not teach further comprising a touch-sensitive surface arranged in front of or behind the touch screen, wherein a distance sensor detects a distance between the touch screen and the touch-sensitive surface and sends the control signal for activation to the control unit when the distance falls below a predetermined distance. Takaoki describes a robot controller comprising a touch sensor. When article 28 such as a finger of the operator comes into contact with electrode layer 34, electrode layer 34 is deformed corresponding to the pressure applied to sensor 26 by finger 28, and then the distance between electrode layer 34 and each sensor element 30 is changed (concretely, the distance becomes shorter than “d” when the finger does not contact the sensor). By detecting the change in the distance by using an electrical resistance or an electrostatic capacitance, sensor 26 can measure the three-dimensional position of finger 28 (para 16). When finger 28 reaches the reference position as described above, mode change section 22 switches the motion mode of robot 10 to the following mode (para 16-18). Therefore, it is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Clark et al. to include a distance sensor with the touch screen display in order determine that the sensor has been sufficiently depressed in order to prevent accidental activation by providing better discrimination between intentional and accidental activation.
In regard to claim 12, Clark et al. further comprises a redundant configuration of a data connection between the control unit and the robot control device, wherein the control signal is a two-channel control signal (para 86, actuation of any of controls 411, 412, 413a and 413b does not cause issuance of an instruction to robotic drive 24 unless continuous activation button 414 is actuated (e.g., depressed) simultaneously with such actuation. In this regard, embodiments include many possible implementations for issuing an instruction to robotic drive 24 due to activation of an input module control).
In regard to claim 17, Clark et al. in view of Ohm et al. describe the invention as claimed, however does not teach at least one touch display is movably guided in a housing and, when the activation button is pressed, the at least one touch display is physically displaceable translationally in the housing, so that the at least one touch display represents a physical switch. The sensor of Takaoki includes electrode layer 34 and sensor element 30. When article 28 such as a finger of the operator comes into contact with electrode layer 34, electrode layer 34 is deformed corresponding to the pressure applied to sensor 26 by finger 28, and then the distance between electrode layer 34 and each sensor element 30 is changed (concretely, the distance becomes shorter than “d” when the finger does not contact the sensor). By detecting the change in the distance by using an electrical resistance or an electrostatic capacitance, sensor 26 can measure the three-dimensional position of finger 28 (para 16-18). The displacement between layers is considered to comprise the physically displaceable feature of the claim that permits the touch display to represent a physical switch. It is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the touch screen of Clark et al. in this manner in order to provide tactile feedback to a user that the desired button has been properly depressed.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US Publication no. 2023/0035508) in view of Takaoki (US Publication no. 2019/0039250 – disclosed by Applicant), further in view of Wang (US Publication no. 2022/0111535).
In regard to claim 18, Clark et al. disclose a medical robot system 20 for a surgical procedure on a patient, the medical robot system comprising:
a robot 20 with a robot arm 22 connected to a robot base and a robot head connected at an end to the robot arm (para 39);
a robot control 26 device adapted to execute an action of the robot (para 41); and
at least one touch display 30 with a control unit 26 adapted to visually display an activation button 414 on the at least one touch display (para 48, the display may be a touch screen display comprising one or more icons and provide use input capabilities of the system; para 80, an activation button 414 424 may be part of a capacitive touch panel)
the activation button 414 being pressable by a user as an input to send a control signal to the robot control device via a signal connection in order to activate an action of the robot (para 13, 80, 86, when button 414 is depressed, an instruction is issued to the robot, wherein the instruction is considered to comprise the control signal).
Clark et al. describe the invention as claimed, except at least one touch display is movably guided in a housing and, when the activation button is pressed, the at least one touch display is physically displaceable translationally in the housing, so that the at least one touch display represents a physical switch, nor that the control unit is configured to only transmit the control signal in an intermediate position between a minimum depression and a maximum depression in order to implement a three-position switch.
The sensor of Takaoki includes electrode layer 34 and sensor element 30. When article 28 such as a finger of the operator comes into contact with electrode layer 34, electrode layer 34 is deformed corresponding to the pressure applied to sensor 26 by finger 28, and then the distance between electrode layer 34 and each sensor element 30 is changed (concretely, the distance becomes shorter than “d” when the finger does not contact the sensor). By detecting the change in the distance by using an electrical resistance or an electrostatic capacitance, sensor 26 can measure the three-dimensional position of finger 28 (para 16-18). The displacement between layers is considered to comprise the physically displaceable feature of the claim that permits the touch display to represent a physical switch. It is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the touch screen of Clark et al. in this manner in order to provide tactile feedback to a user that the desired button has been properly depressed.
Wang describes a robot with a hand guiding system. Wang teaches that is enabling device is a three-position enabling switch having a released, middle, and pressed position. The middle position enables the robot, while released and fully pressed (i.e., the minimum depression and maximum depression) are OFF states. It is in the intermediate middle position that the switch is in the ON state that enables operation of the robot (para 4, 5, and 19). Thus, Wang teaches transmitting an enabling control condition only when the switch is maintained at an intermediate depression between its released and fully depressed positions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the activation control button of Clark et al. to be a three position switch only permitting activation when held in an intermediate position since Wang teaches the use of such arrangement improves safety by only permitting intentional activation thereby reducing harm when an operator inadvertently or reflexively depresses the switch.
Conclusion
In view of the new grounds of rejection, this action is made NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T GEDEON whose telephone number is (571)272-3447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 5:30 PM 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, David E. Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/BRIAN T GEDEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796 26 August 2026
