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 .
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.
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of a preliminary amendment prior to the first office action. The examiner has reviewed the amendment and determined that no new matter was submitted. As such, the preliminary amendment is being considered.
National Stage Entry / Effective Filing Date
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a 371 national stage entry to PCT/US2023/023797, filed on 30 May 2023, claiming the benefit of domestic provisional application 63/347,304, filed 31 May 2022. The examiner has reviewed the provisional application and has verified that support exists. The effective filing date of the instant application claims is considered to be 31 May 2022 for prior art purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) filed on 03 December 2024 and 17 December 2024 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
The examiner notes that the term "damping" is utilized throughout the claim set; the examiner notes that this term is not otherwise defined and will examine the term in light of the well-understood meaning:
PNG
media_image1.png
394
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, any component (software, hardware, or a combination) that reduces/diminishes the effect/intensity of the input device will be interpreted to read upon the claim language.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 states “in response a determination that an amount…” and appears to be missing a word such as “to” after “response”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-7 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 6 states “wherein the positive monotonic relationship is a strictly monotonic relationship.” and depends upon parent claim 5. Per Webster's Dictionary:
PNG
media_image2.png
280
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As the parent claim 5 describes the relationship as monotonic, and the parent claims are by virtue broader than dependent claims, the examiner is unsure what the applicant intends by specifying a strictly monotonic relationship. The examiner is unsure if this claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the parent claim (as a "strictly" monotonic relationship does not differ from a monotonic relationship by the definition above) or if applicant intends to claim a broader than well-understood meaning of monotonic in parent claim 5. In the case of the latter, claim 5 is rendered indefinite as a non-strictly monotonic relationship may be claimed (which is counter to the definition of the word "monotonic") and claims 6 and 7 depend upon claim 5.
The examiner recommends cancellation of claim 6 or clarification in parent claim 5 that a first portion/particular range of difference is monotonic (indicating the possibility/existence of a second range where it is not). As it stands, by specifying a monotonic relationship, then further a “purely” monotonic relationship, it calls to question what the original monotonic relationship actually is.
Therefore, claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons presented above.
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.
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 1-2, 11-13, 15, 17, 19-20, 22, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verner et al. (US 2019/0015169 A1; published 17 Jan 2019, hereinafter Verner) in view of Sokhanvar et al. (US 2022/0296315 A1; filed 14 Jul 2020, hereinafter Sokhanvar).
Regarding independent claims 1 (system), 22 (method), and 35 (apparatus): Verner discloses A computer-assisted system comprising: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0030] and Figure [3A-3B], Verner discloses a computer system) / A method of controlling a computer-assisted system including (per claim 22) (Paragraph [0017, 0030], Figure [1], and Claim [9], Verner discloses a method for operating a computer system) / At least one [non-transitory computer-readable storage medium] storing programming instructions that, when executed by at least one processor associated with a computer-assisted system, causes the at least one processor to perform operations, wherein the computer-assisted system comprises: (per claim 35) (Paragraph [0030] and Figure [3A], Verner discloses a controller carrying out a process)
a manipulator arm; (per claim 1) / a manipulator arm, (per claim 22) / a manipulator arm; (per claim 35) (Paragraph [0030] and Figure [3A-3B], Verner discloses a manipulator (manipulation structure embodied as a robotic arm/manipulator))
an input device configured to accept user commands to move the manipulator arm; (per claim 1) / an input device configured to accept user commands to move an instrument, and (per claim 22) / an input device configured to accept user commands to move the manipulator arm; and (per claim 35) (Paragraph [0030] and Figure [3A-3B], Verner discloses an input device to control the actions of the instrument via the manipulation structure)
a damping system coupled to the input device; and (per claim 1) / a damping system coupled to the input device, (per claim 22) / a damping system coupled to the input device; (per claim 35) (Paragraph [0030-0031, 0035] and Figure [3A-3B], Verner discloses actuation mechanisms that provide feedback to the input device (thus, a damping system coupled to the input device))
the controller configured to: determine an instrument [power] metric indicative of an amount of [power] of an instrument interaction, the instrument interaction comprising a physical interaction between at least a portion of an instrument and an instrument environment containing the instrument, the instrument supported by the manipulator arm, (per claim 1) / the method comprising: determining an instrument [power] metric indicative of an amount of [power] of an instrument interaction, the instrument interaction comprising a physical interaction between at least a portion of an instrument and an instrument environment containing the instrument, the instrument supported by the manipulator arm; (per claim 22) / wherein the operations comprise: determining an instrument [power] metric indicative of an amount of [power] of an instrument interaction, the instrument interaction comprising a physical interaction between at least a portion of an instrument and an instrument environment containing the instrument, the instrument supported by the manipulator arm; (per claim 35) (Paragraph [0017, 0031-0032], Verner discloses determining forces at the instrument against surfaces such as tissue or structures)
determine an input device [power] metric indicative of an amount of [power] of a feedback provided by the input device in response to the instrument interaction, (per claim 1) / determining an input device [power] metric indicative of an amount of [power] of a feedback provided by the input device in response to the instrument interaction; (per claim 22) / determining an input device [power] metric indicative of an amount of [power] of a feedback provided by the input device in response to the instrument interaction; (per claim 35) (Paragraph [0017, 0025, 0027, 0037], Verner discloses desired feedback force to be applied to the input device)
determine a damping to be applied to the input device based on the instrument [power] metric and the input device [power] metric, and (per claim 1) / determining a damping to be applied to the input device based on the instrument [power] metric and the input device [power] metric; and (per claim 22) / determining a damping to be applied to the input device based on the instrument [power] metric and the input device [power] metric; and (per claim 35) (Paragraph [0017, 0023-0025, 0027, 0037] and Figure [1], Verner discloses a scaled feedback force applied to the input device based on the desired feedback force and the sensed instrument force)
cause the damping system to apply the damping to the input device. (per claim 1) / causing the damping system to apply the damping to the input device. (per claim 22) / causing the damping system to apply the damping to the input device. (per claim 35) (Paragraph [0036-0037] and Figure [1], Verner discloses applying the scaled feedback to the actuators of the input device)
First, Verner does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. However, this is an obvious modification of Verner as Verner discloses the controller comprising any combination of hardware and/or software to carry out the functions described and as a “discrete control hardware (e.g., a standalone processing unit or computing platform” (Paragraph [0030]), and controllers are generally well understood to comprise memory. Therefore this is considered an obvious modification using well-understood, routine, and conventional components. To support this assertion, Sokhanvar, in a similar field of endeavor of surgical robot systems, teaches At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing programming instructions that, when executed by at least one processor associated with a computer-assisted system, causes the at least one processor to perform operations (Paragraph [0151], Sokhanvar teaches the use of a computer readable storage medium (including non-transitory examples) to execute the methods described)
Verner and Sokhanvar are in a similar field of endeavor of surgical robot systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Verner to explicitly utilize a non-transitory memory to execute the method disclosed, as taught by Sokhanvar, as this is implicitly taught. As noted above, Verner discloses the controller comprising any combination of hardware and/or software to carry out the functions described and as a “discrete control hardware (e.g., a standalone processing unit or computing platform” (Paragraph [0030]), and controllers are generally well understood to comprise memory. Sokhanvar is merely relied upon as an explicit reference which shows memory being used in this well-known, routine, and conventional fashion.
Second, Verner differs from the claimed invention of the instant application by specifying force calculations rather than power calculations. However, the use of power versus force is an obvious modification of the disclosure of Verner.
Sokhanvar, in a similar field of endeavor of surgical robot systems, teaches power calculations using force as an input (Paragraph [0092-0093, 0119], Sokhanvar teaches capturing of power parameters as a combination of force and velocity or torque and rotational/angular velocity)
Verner and Sokhanvar are in a similar field of endeavor of surgical robot systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Verner to utilize power rather than force, as this is an obvious modification of using an input variable (power versus force) that has a well-known relationship with the variable disclosed, as taught by Sokhanvar. Sokhanvar is merely relied upon as a reference that utilizes power and force interchangeably to describe conditions in a multi-domain system (rationale, Sokhanvar, Paragraph [0093]). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it an obvious variant of the disclosure of Verner to use power in lieu of force, and would have located the teachings of Sokhanvar to accomplish the obvious modification.
Regarding claim 2: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Verner in view of Sokhanvar. Verner further discloses wherein the portion of the instrument comprises a distal portion of the instrument. (Paragraph [0017, 0031-0032] and Figure [3A], Verner discloses determining forces at the instrument against surfaces such as tissue or structures, wherein the force measured is “an end effector 311 at the end of a shaft 312 of instrument 310 grasping a portion of tissue 390”, reasonably describing the distal end of the instrument)
Regarding claim 11: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Verner in view of Sokhanvar. Verner further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine the damping by: limiting the amount of the damping to a damping limit. (Paragraph [0023-0025, 0036], Verner discloses output limits corresponding to the scaling factor)
Regarding claim 12: Parent claim 11 is unpatentable over Verner in view of Sokhanvar. Verner further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: in response a determination that an amount of the damping is greater than a damping threshold, increasing the damping limit at a first rate. (Paragraph [0023-0025, 0036-0037], Verner discloses that in the event that a commanded feedback/output would exceed the threshold, that a common scaling factor would be applied (increasing the amount of damping to the output))
Regarding claim 13: Parent claim 12 is unpatentable over Verner in view of Sokhanvar. Verner further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: limit the damping limit to no more than a maximum damping limit. (Paragraph [0023-0025, 0036-0037], Verner discloses limiting the output to a maximum output threshold)
Regarding claim 15: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Verner in view of Sokhanvar. Verner further discloses wherein the controller is configured to cause the damping system to apply the damping to the input device by: causing a physical adjustment of an adjustable damper of the damping system; driving an actuator system to apply actively damped force or torque to the input device; or causing a brake system of the damping system to apply braking forces to the input device. (The examiner notes that through recitation of “or” that only one is necessary. Paragraph [0034-0036], Verner discloses physical actuators that are electronically limited (damped))
Regarding claim 17: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Verner in view of Sokhanvar. Verner further discloses wherein: the controller is configured to determine the instrument [power] metric by [determining an accumulation of a power of the instrument interaction over a time period]; and (Paragraph [0017, 0031-0032], Verner discloses determining forces at the instrument against surfaces such as tissue or structures)
the controller is configured to determine the input device [power] metric by [determining an accumulation of a power of the input device interaction over the time period.] (Paragraph [0017, 0025, 0027, 0037], Verner discloses desired feedback force to be applied to the input device)
As discussed in the parent claim, Verner discloses determination of input device and instrument force metrics and relied upon the teachings of Sokhanvar to resolve the difference of power versus force. Verner does not explicitly disclose determining accumulation of power over time. However, Sokhanvar, in a similar field of endeavor of surgical robot systems, teaches determining an accumulation of a power of the [instrument] / [input device] interaction over the time period (Paragraph [0089, 0091-0093], Sokhanvar teaches that the data capture system captures force and power data over time)
Verner and Sokhanvar are in a similar field of endeavor of surgical robot systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Verner to utilize power rather than force over a time period, as this is an obvious modification of using an input variable (power versus force) that has a well-known relationship with the variable disclosed, as taught by Sokhanvar. Sokhanvar is merely relied upon as a reference that utilizes power and force interchangeably to describe conditions in a multi-domain system (rationale, Sokhanvar, Paragraph [0093]). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it an obvious variant of the disclosure of Verner to use power in lieu of force, and would have located the teachings of Sokhanvar to accomplish the obvious modification.
Regarding claim 19: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Verner in view of Sokhanvar. Verner further discloses wherein: the controller is configured to determine the instrument [power] metric by: [determining at least one multiple selected from the group consisting of: a multiple of a translational velocity of the instrument along an instrument translational degree of freedom and a force applied by the instrument to the instrument environment in the instrument translational degree of freedom, and a multiple of a rotational velocity of the instrument along an instrument rotational degree of freedom and a torque applied by the instrument to the instrument environment in the instrument rotational degree of freedom; and] (Paragraph [0017, 0031-0032], Verner discloses determining forces at the instrument against surfaces such as tissue or structures)
the controller is configured to determine the input device [power] metric by: [determining at least one multiple selected from the group consisting of: a multiple of a translational velocity of the input device in an input device translational degree of freedom and a force applied by the input device to the input device environment in the input device translational degree of freedom, and a multiple of a rotational velocity of the input device in an input device rotational degree of freedom and a torque applied by the input device to the input device environment in the input device rotational degree of freedom.] (Paragraph [0017, 0025, 0027, 0037], Verner discloses desired feedback force to be applied to the input device)
As discussed in the parent claim, Verner discloses determination of input device and instrument force metrics and relied upon the teachings of Sokhanvar to resolve the difference of power versus force. Verner does not explicitly disclose determining accumulation of power over time. However, Sokhanvar, in a similar field of endeavor of surgical robot systems, teaches wherein: the controller is configured to determine the [instrument] power metric by: determining at least one multiple selected from the group consisting of: a multiple of a translational velocity of the instrument along an instrument translational degree of freedom and a force applied by the instrument to the instrument environment in the instrument translational degree of freedom, and a multiple of a rotational velocity of the instrument along an instrument rotational degree of freedom and a torque applied by the instrument to the instrument environment in the instrument rotational degree of freedom; and (Paragraph [0092-0093, 0119], Sokhanvar teaches capturing of power parameters as a combination of force and velocity or torque and rotational/angular velocity)
the controller is configured to determine the [input device] power metric by: determining at least one multiple selected from the group consisting of: a multiple of a translational velocity of the input device in an input device translational degree of freedom and a force applied by the input device to the input device environment in the input device translational degree of freedom, and a multiple of a rotational velocity of the input device in an input device rotational degree of freedom and a torque applied by the input device to the input device environment in the input device rotational degree of freedom. (Paragraph [0092-0093, 0119], Sokhanvar teaches capturing of power parameters as a combination of force and velocity or torque and rotational/angular velocity)
Verner and Sokhanvar are in a similar field of endeavor of surgical robot systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Verner to utilize power rather than force, as this is an obvious modification of using an input variable (power versus force) that has a well-known relationship with the variable disclosed, as taught by Sokhanvar. Sokhanvar is merely relied upon as a reference that utilizes power and force interchangeably to describe conditions in a multi-domain system (rationale, Sokhanvar, Paragraph [0093]). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it an obvious variant of the disclosure of Verner to use power in lieu of force, and would have located the teachings of Sokhanvar to accomplish the obvious modification.
Regarding claim 20: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Verner in view of Sokhanvar. Verner further discloses wherein: the computer-assisted system is configured to move the instrument in a plurality of instrument degrees of freedom; the input device is configured to move in a plurality of input device degrees of freedom, each degree of freedom of the plurality of input device degrees of freedom corresponding to a degree of freedom of the plurality of instrument degrees of freedom; (Paragraph [0018, 0024, 0030] and Figure [3A-3B], Verner discloses that the input device corresponding to the movement of the robotic arm has multiple degrees of freedom of movement)
the controller is configured to determine the instrument [power] metric by for each degree of freedom of a plurality of non-parallel instrument degrees of freedom, [calculating an instrument power component based on a multiple of instrument velocity and instrument force in that instrument degree of freedom;] (Paragraph [0017-0018, 0024, 0030-0032] and Figure [3A-3B], Verner discloses that the input device corresponding to the movement of the robotic arm has multiple degrees of freedom of movement and that force calculation directionality is maintained)
the controller is configured to determine the input device [power] metric by for each degree of freedom of a plurality of input device degrees of freedom, [calculating an input device power component based on a multiple of input device velocity and input device force in that input device degree of freedom; and] (Paragraph [0017-0018, 0024-0025, 0027, 0030-0032, 0037] and Figure [3A-3B], Verner discloses that the input device corresponding to the movement of the robotic arm has multiple degrees of freedom of movement and that force calculation directionality is maintained)
the controller is configured to determine the damping by for each degree of freedom of the plurality of input device degrees of freedom, determining a damping amount in that input device degree of freedom based on the input device power component along that input device degree of freedom and the instrument power component along the degree of freedom corresponding to that input device degree of freedom. (Paragraph [0017-0018, 0024-0025, 0027, 0030-0032, 0037] and Figure [3A-3B], Verner discloses that the input device corresponding to the movement of the robotic arm has multiple degrees of freedom of movement and that force calculation directionality is maintained)
As discussed in the parent claim, Verner discloses determination of input device and instrument force metrics and relied upon the teachings of Sokhanvar to resolve the difference of power versus force.
Sokhanvar, in a similar field of endeavor of surgical robot systems, teaches calculating an [instrument] power component based on a multiple of instrument velocity and instrument force in that instrument degree of freedom; and calculating an [input device] power component based on a multiple of input device velocity and input device force in that input device degree of freedom; and (Paragraph [0092-0093, 0119], Sokhanvar teaches capturing of power parameters as a combination of force and velocity or torque and rotational/angular velocity)
Verner and Sokhanvar are in a similar field of endeavor of surgical robot systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Verner to utilize power rather than force, as this is an obvious modification of using an input variable (power versus force) that has a well-known relationship with the variable disclosed, as taught by Sokhanvar. Sokhanvar is merely relied upon as a reference that utilizes power and force interchangeably to describe conditions in a multi-domain system (rationale, Sokhanvar, Paragraph [0093]). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it an obvious variant of the disclosure of Verner to use power in lieu of force, and would have located the teachings of Sokhanvar to accomplish the obvious modification.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verner in view of Sokhanvar in further view of Hegg (US 5,796,927; date of patent 18 Aug 1998, hereinafter Hegg).
Regarding claim 16: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Verner in view of Sokhanvar. Verner does not explicitly disclose a physically separate actuator that is responsible for applying a discrete force in a direction opposing the direction of motion of the input device.
However, Hegg, in a similar field of endeavor of robot control systems, teaches wherein the controller is configured to cause the damping system to apply the damping to the input device by: driving an actuator system to apply actively damped force or torque to the input device in a direction opposite to a direction of motion of the input device. (Column [1] Line [62] through Column [1] Line [9] and Column [3] Lines [19-30], Hegg teaches the use of an actuator that provides force in a direction opposing the motion of the input device)
Verner and Hegg are in a similar field of endeavor of robot control systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Verner to include a discrete damper that resists motion in an opposing direction, as taught by Hegg, in the interest of providing indication to an operator of contact between the instrument and an object (motivation, Hegg, Column [3] Lines [29-30]). Providing a resistive feedback signal using the existing actuators with a reduced output signal (as disclosed by Verner) and providing a resistive feedback signal using discrete actuators achieve the same technical effect and one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose from one of many known options to achieve the effect of providing a resistive feedback using any known means, including the options presented by Verner and Hegg.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verner in view of Sokhanvar in further view of Adelman (US 10,292,777 B1, date of patent 21 May 2019, hereinafter Adelman).
Regarding claim 21: Parent claim 20 is unpatentable over Verner in view of Sokhanvar. Verner does not explicitly disclose a controller and robot with three degrees of freedom.
However, Adelman, in a similar field of endeavor of surgical robot systems, teaches wherein: the plurality of instrument degrees of freedom comprises a first instrument translational degree of freedom, a second instrument translational degree of freedom, and a third instrument translational degree of freedom; and (Col [2] Lines [24-41], Col [7] Lines [4-15], Col [8] Lines [15-21], Col [11] Lines [57-65], Col [24] Lines [22-25, 47-50], Adelman teaches a robotic system with a controller and tool, each with three positional/translational degrees of freedom)
the plurality of input device degrees of freedom comprises a first input device translational degree of freedom associated with the first instrument translational degree of freedom, a second input device translational degree of freedom associated with the second instrument translational degree of freedom, and a third input device translational degree of freedom associated with the third instrument translational degree of freedom. (Col [2] Lines [24-41], Col [7] Lines [4-15], Col [8] Lines [15-21], Col [11] Lines [57-65], Col [24] Lines [22-25, 47-50], Adelman teaches a robotic system with a controller and tool, each with three positional/translational degrees of freedom)
Verner and Adelman are in a similar field of endeavor of surgical robot systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Verner to include the explicit disclosure of a 3 DOF controller and robot arm as taught by Adelman, as Verner at least alludes to translational movement in two degrees of freedom (Paragraph [0018]) but does not particularly disclose the limitations of the robot and controller in this manner. Merely applying the disclosure of Verner to another known type of surgical robot system (the system of Adelman) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to apply the control system of Verner to a well-known robotic system (taught by Adelman) for the benefit of additional movement flexibility and precision (Adelman, Col [24] Lines [29-36]). Merely applying a known technique (Verner) to a known device (a 3+ DOF system of Adelman) to produce predictable results is an obvious modification of Verner.
Prior Art Rejections Not Being Made / Allowable Subject Matter
The examiner notes that claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons provided above. Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons provided above. Claims 3-10, 14, and 18 depend upon rejected claim 1 but are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 for prior art purposes. The examiner performed an extensive search and was unable to locate art which, alone or in reasonable obvious combination, disclosed the invention as claimed in claims 3-10, 14, and 18. Regarding claims 3-10, the claims pertain to a very particular solution of limiting force feedback provided to an operator that depends upon a comparison of input device and instrument power/force (in the case of the primary prior art) metrics in order to provide a more accurate force feedback limit. Regarding claims 14 and 18, the claims pertain to modulating force feedback based upon a time period of decay; the primary prior art does not disclose time-dependent force feedback modulation and the examiner was unable to locate prior art which, alone or in reasonable obvious combination, disclosed this difference. Thus, claims 3-10, 14, and 18 do not have prior art rejections, but claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and claims 3-4, 8-10, 14, and 18 are objected to for depending upon a rejected base claim.
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2015/0066051 A1
SURGICAL ROBOT AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
Kwon et al.
Filed: 16 Jul 2014
Pub: 05 Mar 2015
Discusses a control system for a remotely-operated surgical robot wherein a force compensator is present to compensate for measured force exerted by the operator at the handles in addition to considerations of force/torque at the surgical instrument.
2
US 2024/0130818 A1
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR VARIABLE
DAMPING OF A HAND-CONTROLLED
INPUT DEVICE
TAHERI et al.
Filed: 29 Dec 2023
Pub: 25 Apr 2024
Priority: 30 Jun 2021
Discusses a remote surgical robot system with input device damping provisions in addition to force/haptic feedback.
3
US 2020/0289229 A1
ROBOTIC SURGICAL CONTROLS HAVING
FEEDBACK CAPABILITIES
Denlinger et al.
Filed: 15 Mar 2019
Pub: 17 Sep 2020
Discusses a surgical robot system with force feedback that depends upon interaction between the tool tip and a surgical site.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658