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 .
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 18-20, 23-30, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khuu [US 2019/0083747] in view of Stahler [US Pub # 2012/0071895].
Regarding claim 18: Khuu shows a robotic apparatus comprising: a continuum robot (103) including a first bending section having a distal end (106), a proximal end (104), and at least one wire (27, see fig 21) extending from the distal end to a proximal end of the continuum robot; a base stage (112) configured to attach with and one of advance/retract the continuum robot (103); a driver (114) configured to attach to a proximal end of the at least one wire when the robotic apparatus in an attachment/detachment mode (see [0082]);, a bending force (see fig 21) on the proximal end of the at least one wire to bend the first bending section, and driving the base stage to advance or retract the continuum robot,
the controller (112) is configured to maintain attachment between the base stage and the continuum robot while the driver (114) maintains connection with the proximal end of the at least one wire
Khuu does not explicitly disclose that the controller configured to control: transitioning between the attachment/detachment mode, an emergency removal mode, and a safe hold mode, applying, by the driver wherein: in the safe hold mode, and in the emergency removal mode, the driver is disengaged from the proximal end of the at least one wire of the continuum robot while the attachment between the base stage and the continuum robot is maintained. However Stahler shows the controller (2400) configured to control: transitioning between the attachment/detachment mode, an emergency removal mode (see [0452], lines 1-2), and a safe hold mode ([0452], lines 3-4), applying, by the driver wherein: in the safe hold mode, and in the emergency removal mode, the driver is disengaged from the proximal end of the at least one wire of the continuum robot while the attachment between the base stage and the continuum robot (412)is maintained (see [0452]).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have provided the continuum robot taught in Khuu reference with emergency and safe mode features to protect the equipment and the patient in case of malfunction.
Regarding claim 19: Khuu shows a locking collar (116), wherein the locking collar (116) is configured for a user to control engaging or disengaging the driver (114) from the at least one wire.
Regarding claim 20: Khuu shows wherein the locking collar (116) is configured to retain a mechanical connection between at least one wire (27) of the first bending section when the robotic apparatus is in the safe hold mode.
Regarding claim 23: Khuu shows a second bending section, wherein: the first bending section and the second bending section are adjacently provided along a longitudinal length of the continuum robot (103), and the first bending section and the second bending section are configured to bend in response to the driver (114) applying at least one bending force on a proximal end (104) of a respective at least one wire.
Regarding claim 24: Khuu shows wherein the controller (112) is further configured to control an amount of the at least one bending force applied to the proximal end of the respective at least one wire ([0082]).
Regarding claim 27: a continuum robot including a bending section configured to bend in response to a bending force applied to at least one wire (27) extending to a proximal end of the continuum robot; a driver (114) configured to attach to a proximal end (104) of the at least one wire when the robotic apparatus in an attachment/detachment mode; a base stage configured to be affixed to the continuum robot and to advance/retract the continuum robot; a locking collar (116); and a controller (112) in operational communication with the driver (114) and the base stage, and wherein: the locking collar (116) is configured for engaging or disengaging the driver to the at least one wire (27),
the controller (112) is configured to maintain attachment between the base stage and the continuum robot while the driver maintains connection with the proximal end of the at least one wire
Khuu does not explicitly show the controller configured to control: transitioning between the attachment/detachment mode, an emergency removal mode, and a safe hold mode ,applying, by the driver, the bending force on the proximal end of the at least one wire to bend the bending section, and driving the base stage to advance or retract the continuum robot, in the safe hold mode, and in the emergency removal mode, the driver is disengaged from the proximal end of the at least one wire while the attachment between the base stage and the continuum robot is maintained. However Stahler shows the controller (2400) configured to control: transitioning between the attachment/detachment mode, an emergency removal mode ([0452], lines 1-2), and a safe hold mode ([0452], lines 3-4) ,applying, by the driver, the bending force on the proximal end of the at least one wire to bend the bending section, and driving the base stage to advance or retract the continuum robot, in the safe hold mode, , and in the emergency removal mode, the driver is disengaged from the proximal end of the at least one wire while the attachment between the base stage and the continuum robot is maintained.
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have provided the continuum robot taught in Khuu reference with emergency and safe mode features to protect the equipment and the patient in case of malfunction.
Regarding claim 28: Khuu shows wherein the locking collar (116) is configured for a user to control engaging or disengaging the driver (114) from the at least one wire.
Regarding claim 29: Khuu shows:an other bending section adjacently provided along with the bending section along a longitudinal length of the continuum robot (103), wherein the bending section and the other bending section are configured to bend in response to the driver applying at least one bending force on a proximal end (104) of a respective at least one wire.
Regarding claim 30: Khuu shows wherein the controller (112) is further configured to control an amount of the at least one bending force applied to the proximal end of the respective at least one wire ([0082]).
Regarding claim 34: Khuu shows a method for operating a robotic apparatus that includes a continuum robot (103) with a bending section having a distal end (106), a proximal end (104), and at least one wire (27) extending from the distal end (106) to the proximal end (104) for bending the bending section; a base stage configured to attach with and advance/retract the continuum robot; a locking collar (116) configured for a user to control engaging or disengaging the driver from the at least one wire; and a driver (114) configured to attach to a proximal end of the at least one wire (27), the method comprising: applying, by the driver (114), a bending force on the proximal end of the at least one wire to bend the first bending section; driving the base stage to advance or retract the continuum robot; the attachment between the base stage and the continuum robot is maintained while the proximal end (104) of the at least one wire (27) of the continuum robot is disengaged the driver (114).
Khuu does not explicitly disclose in a safe hold mode, maintaining an attachment between the base stage and the continuum robot and maintaining, by the driver, connection with the proximal end of the at least one wire; and in an emergency removal mode, However Stahler shows in a safe hold mode, maintaining an attachment between the base stage and the continuum robot and maintaining, by the driver, connection with the proximal end of the at least one wire; and in an emergency removal mode ([0452]).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have provided the continuum robot taught in Khuu reference with emergency and safe mode features to protect the equipment and the patient in case of malfunction.
Regarding claims 25, 26 32 and 33: Khuu does not explicitly show a linear motor for driving the base stage, wherein, in the safe hold mode, the controller is further configured to stop the linear motor. wherein the controller maintains the safe hold mode until receipt of user input
However Stahler shows a linear motor ([0431], lines 6-7) for driving the base stage, wherein, in the safe hold mode, the controller is further configured to stop the linear motor. wherein the controller maintains the safe hold mode until receipt of user input ([0452]).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have provided the continuum robot taught in Khuu reference with safe mode features to protect the equipment and the patient in case of malfunction. It would have also been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have used linear motor to increase motion accuracy of the continuum robot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 22, 31, 35 and 36 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
631
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. [ US 2020/0196836] shows continuum robot with wires and detachable drivers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA ELAHMADI whose telephone number is (571)270-5324. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZAKARIA ELAHMADI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights